ACA success stories

[Mr Spinkles]

Just out of curiosity does your current coverage meet the minimum standards put forth in Obamacare. Let us know if Obamacare will be less expensive, overall, than your current coverage. Of course if this is a employer based coverage and it does not meet the minimum requirements you may have to go to the exchanges. For you economic stability I'm sure we all agree that we wish you the best of luck.

Yes, my current coverage meets the minimum standards. FYI, the same is true for the other ~85% of insured Americans who already had group-based (employer- or government-based) coverage. They started meeting the standards 2-3 years ago, thanks to that I started getting free preventive care.

Just so you are aware, Obamacare IS my current coverage, and yours, and everyone's. HealthCare.gov is just the form Obamacare takes for NON-GROUP coverage, which is a special case (something like 10% of the insurance market). This may surprise you given all the media coverage about HealthCare.gov, but it's the truth.

 

[metis]

Just so you are aware, Obamacare IS my current coverage, and yours, and everyone's. HealthCare.gov is just the form Obamacare takes for NON-GROUP coverage, which is a special case (something like 10% of the insurance market). This may surprise you given all the media coverage about HealthCare.gov, but it's the truth.

And this is something that probably most people aren't aware of. Even though I didn't sign up for Medicare Plan D, I'n on it nevertheless because of the ACA. And already we're seeing people benefit from this, and at the personal level in my case as I know two people who had pre-existing conditions that are now covered, and for one of them, her life has been saved because she has been able to get cancer treatment and medication that she previously could not afford.

BTW, it was estimated that somewhere between 70-80% of all personal bankruptcies were mostly caused because of medical costs the family couldn't afford, and a lot of people were not aware of the fact that most policies had caps on them. When you're healthy, you don't think of these things, but when you're at my "vintage" and see what damage was being caused, it really hits home and makes you worry.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And already we're seeing people benefit from this, and at the personal level in my case as I know two people who had pre-existing conditions that are now covered, and for one of them, her life has been saved because she has been able to get cancer treatment and medication that she previously could not afford.

What's astonishing is that the Right -- or at least, a loud faction of the Right -- will wring their hands about the cost to society of saving your friend's life, rather than celebrate the saving of a life. This is the same "pro-life" faction that yesterday wrung their hands about government-run death panels which will not cover grandma, or Sarah Palin's son Trig, or other drags on society. Such cognitive dissonance bordering on schizophrenia tells us something about the true basis of the opposition -- it's unprincipled class warfare, rationalized post-hoc by whatever "principles" happen to be close at hand ("you can't put a price tag on life" one day, "we can't afford to save lives" the next day).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here's my experience after signing up and shopping around for plans on HealthCare.gov:

As I expected, these non-group plans would be significantly more expensive for me. Non-group plans (when they actually cover something) have always been way more expensive than group plans, typically unaffordable. And since I already have decent employer-based coverage and I'm not poor, I don't qualify for federal subsidies. As it should be, no surprises there.

Still, I have to say that aside from a few wonky aspects of the sign-up process, once you're signed up, HealthCare.gov does make it very easy to compare plans and make smart choices. And I appreciate the security of knowing that if I lost my employer-based coverage, I would at least have the opportunity to get affordable coverage at HealthCare.gov, which would have been impossible for me before the Affordable Care Act (due to pre-existing conditions and income constraints).

I call that a success.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you like your doc, you can keep him/her/it.
Obamacare Architect: If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Pay More | The Weekly Standard

 

[esmith]

If you like your doc, you can keep him/her/it.
Obamacare Architect: If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Pay More | The Weekly Standard

Zeke is one of the most obnoxious personalities that I have had the unfortunate experience listening to (mute button works though). It is surprising that the White House handlers would allow him to speak.

 

[Revoltingest]

Zeke is one of the most obnoxious personalities that I have had the unfortunate experience listening to (mute button works though). It is surprising that the White House handlers would allow him to speak.

I didn't listen to the video.
But I favor the idea that one can pay extra to upgrade from basic service.

 

[esmith]

I didn't listen to the video.
But I favor the idea that one can pay extra to upgrade from basic service.

He has appeared on various news type programs on TV.

 

[metis]

What's astonishing is that the Right -- or at least, a loud faction of the Right -- will wring their hands about the cost to society of saving your friend's life, rather than celebrate the saving of a life. This is the same "pro-life" faction that yesterday wrung their hands about government-run death panels which will not cover grandma, or Sarah Palin's son Trig, or other drags on society. Such cognitive dissonance bordering on schizophrenia tells us something about the true basis of the opposition -- it's unprincipled class warfare, rationalized post-hoc by whatever "principles" happen to be close at hand ("you can't put a price tag on life" one day, "we can't afford to save lives" the next day).

Yes, and that approach that we've seen over and over again just makes me sick in terms of how did we get to the point whereas so many in our society elevate money over lives? And the further irony is that they disguise it under the labels of "conservative" and/or "libertarian", and yet when this same element gets power, they try to ramrod their programs through at the national level. And they all too often create this fairy tale about just how "conservative" Reagan was, which is actually a far cry from what he ended up doing as president.

 

[esmith]

Seems that around 20%, or 1 in 5 Americans are classified as the "new rich". These "new rich" are considerably more fiscally conservative than most Americans. Full story:
Rising riches: 1 in 5 in US reaches affluence | CNS News

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Seems that around 20%, or 1 in 5 Americans are classified as the "new rich". These "new rich" are considerably more fiscally conservative than most Americans. Full story:
Rising riches: 1 in 5 in US reaches affluence | CNS News

I don't think you fully understand what this article really says (nor does the writer it seems) or else you wouldn't post this as a good thing for conservative ideology.

 

[esmith]

I don't think you fully understand what this article really says (nor does the writer it seems) or else you wouldn't post this as a good thing for conservative ideology.

Depends on which issue of conservatism you are addressing. Social matters they, "the new rich" are somewhat liberal in their belies. However, when it comes to economics they are very conservative. As long as the Republicans stay away from certain social issues; for example same sex marriage. and abortion, they should do alright. Notice I said "if" to the point of the likes of Tod Akin and others like him keep their stupid mouth shut.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Depends on which issue of conservatism you are addressing. Social matters they, "the new rich" are somewhat liberal in their belies. However, when it comes to economics they are very conservative. As long as the Republicans stay away from certain social issues; for example same sex marriage. and abortion, they should do alright. Notice I said "if" to the point of the likes of Tod Akin and others like him keep their stupid mouth shut.

Not exactly. The "new rich" which I still haven't found the supporting articles or where they got this number (seriously 1 out of 5 people are now "rich"? doubtful). Even if it is true then that means that the other 80% of Americans are dropping more than they are gaining. This also means a huge income inequality gap increase.

None of which are "good" or even desirable. However its also noted that money comes and goes. People rise and fall in income. The fact we have new people coming into money isn't a surprise at all (thought 20% is a huge shocker if it turns out to be true).

Obviously they will support a more fiscally conservative policy. Why? Because it overwhelmingly supports them. I would like to think that if I were "rich" I wouldn't support fiscal conservative policies (or at least the current ones peddled by the republicans) out of the sheer moral implications and the fact that it will eventually collapse back in on itself again. But I think I would be far more tempted.

Okay I'm now making a few million a year....do I want to pay 8% in taxes or 28% in taxes...hmm. They don't support the policy because they have some kind of superior know how and intellectual ability to know what is better. Its simple example of incentives. Its one of the best pieces of evidence (if its correct) that I've seen to support the idea that fiscal conservative policies and trickle down overwhelmingly support the wealthy and they know it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There must be at least 10 threads in which you can bash the ACA ad nauseam. Can't the ACA-bashers give it a rest and allow one thread to be about ACA success stories?

I wouldn't even object to you disputing/discussing the stories posted in this thread ... but to just post ANYTHING you find on your conservative blogs that bashes the ACA is derailing the thread.

 

[esmith]

There must be at least 10 threads in which you can bash the ACA ad nauseam. Can't the ACA-bashers give it a rest and allow one thread to be about ACA success stories?

I wouldn't even object to you disputing/discussing the stories posted in this thread ... but to just post ANYTHING you find on your conservative blogs that bashes the ACA is derailing the thread.

Nope, there is blood in the water and the sharks are gathering for the feast.:drool:

Oh, by the way CNS News is a "Cyber Newspaper" not a blog. It reports the news, not opinion as a blogger would do. Yes they are conservative based but so what, I do not here you complaining about the left-wing magazine Mother Jones.

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Please stay on the topic of the thread specified in the OP. Off topic posts constitute a violation of the rules, as mentioned in section 5 of rule 4:

4. Spam and Advertising/Off Topic Posts
Usually described as unsolicited or undesired electronic messages. There are many types of electronic spam:
1)Posting advertisements, unsolicited e-mail or private messaging, promoting other sites or items for sale. These will be deleted on sight and the poster may be banned.
2)Advertising of sites and forums that might appear to be in competition to RF requires the permission of an administrator.
3)Signatures are allowed to contain links, but not to commercial sites unless there is administrator approval. This applies to home page links as well.
4)Posting your own material copied from other forums or anywhere else on the web may also be considered a form of spam if not done in an engaging manner that is aimed at generating discussion or debate. Length of copied material should be limited, but a bit more allowance of length is given to the original posts of threads compared to response posts.
5)Posts that are judged to deviate significantly from the thread topic, or that do not conform to the tone or intent of the thread, may be edited or deleted.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There must be at least 10 threads in which you can bash the ACA ad nauseam. Can't the ACA-bashers give it a rest and allow one thread to be about ACA success stories?

I agree.....:yes:


Six Ways the Affordable Care Act is Helping Cancer patients

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 1) More cancer survivors can now get care - High-risk pools have been established in every state to provide coverage for the uninsured. The program launched on July 1st and is providing immediate access to coverage for people in every state who have been uninsured for six months or more and have cancer or another pre-existing condition. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2) No more “doughnut holes” - The Affordable Care Act is finally closing the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole”. Immediately after enactment, the law provided a $250 rebate to seniors who hit the coverage gap in Medicare’s prescription drug program. In addition, Medicare beneficiaries will receive discounts on brand-name drugs next year, and the coverage gap will be closed completely by 2020. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3) “The kids are all right” – Mantra from the old song by The Who can be applied here. Health plans will be prohibited from denying coverage to children up to age 19 with pre-existing conditions such as cancer. So if you have a child who is a survivor you will no long have to worry about their insurance if you change jobs. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4) The well won't run dry - Health plans will be banned from setting lifetime dollar limits on coverage, ensuring that people with cancer have access to needed care throughout their lifetimes. Annual dollar limits on coverage will be tightly restricted for most plans and will be eliminated altogether in 2014. Patients will no longer have to put off treatments waiting for the new plan year to start.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5) In sickness and in health – Just like marriage, your health plan now takes a vow to you when they take your business. As of this week, health insurers will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. In other words, you can’t lose your insurance for developing cancer. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
6) Prevention, prevention prevention – Also new this week, coverage will be guaranteed and out-of-pocket costs will be eliminated in new insurance plans for proven preventive services, giving people access to lifesaving screenings for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. [/FONT]

 

[metis]

I just talked with my rabbi about two hours ago because he just switched through the ACA, and he is now going to receive slightly better benefits at half the cost through the same insurance company.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltling (#1 son) is fully signed up now (after about 2 months of trying).
(But I don't know of any other 20somethings who have signed on. Many are
just paying the low 2014 penalty.)

Interesting quirk in Michigan:
A friend gets free health insurance for his 3 kids because one was born with
heart trouble, & needed about $400,000 of surgery. We marveled at how he
came out far ahead due to this malady in one kid benefiting them all.
He also successfully signed up for Obamacare for himself & the Mrs (also a
couple month long process).

 

[Revoltingest]

It changed again. #1 son is not covered after all.
He signed up (enrolled) & paid, but the Obamacare folk are
now saying he's not covered, & giving him the run around.
Since he cancelled his old policy, he has no insurance at all.