Do you have a cite that this is a major problem?
So you’re opposed to health insurance, then?
That’s not really how that works. People who are healthy are subsidizing people who are sick, but if they’re getting medications, they’re not that healthy and not necessarily subsidizing anybody.
dumps bottle of ink into a glass of water “Why is this water so cloudy? What is Obama trying to hide?”
Classy of you to have used “cloudy” instead of “black” in your joke : )
I, however, am not. What would that device be called, Kobal?
“I have good insurance at work; ACA doesn’t affect me at all.”
That’s what I thought at first. We are on a great employer-sponsored plan and our jobs are reasonably stable. ACA helps others get health insurance so I’m for it, but I thought it didn’t benefit me.
A few days ago, I realized that’s not true. We’re in the top 5% of income, and have enough saved at age 40 to last 10-15 years at current expenses. But I am a worrier by nature, and I often wondered what would happen if me or spouse gets cancer (or other serious diseases or accident) and lose our jobs. Before ACA, there is a prospect of us losing everything and being unable to get life-saving treatments, since if we lose our jobs, after COBRA runs out, there is no way we can get health insurance with such pre-existing conditions.
But with ACA, our health care expenses are essentially capped at the premium+maximum out of pocket that is available at the exchanges, which I price out to be around $15k for our family of 3. This is something we can handle for a good number of years.
This brings me enormous peace of mind.
In effect, this is a safety net for everyone, regardless of their current health care situation.
I think it’s huge.
Yup, no more denials for pre-existing conditions, no more lifetime caps - for ANY health insurance plan regardless of where and how you get it. Huge for me too, with Type II Diabetes.
I guess I am a newbie I don’t understand all the fuss about a cite or having to have one or having to have one that everyone agrees with, but I will take the time to read up on it in the rules section.
The fear is a concern of mine not one from the major news channels or the internet. The cite will have to wait ill spring of 2014 to see if the problem becomes a real one.
But I did find this fear about medicare and how easy the fear will transfer to ACA is anyone’s guess.
http://www.svherald.com/content/guest-columnists/2013/10/12/360989
Where there is money, there is fraud. Contrary to some on the far right who don’t understand reality, we cannot forgo taking care of people because a very small number of people take advantage of it. If we did that, we’d have to shut down every charity including the Christian ones, because there’s fraud there too.
The idea is that people want to know that what you’re saying is true.
OK. It’s a real problem, but the only thing to do about it is enforce the rules as well as possible. It’s not like people don’t rip off insurance companies, too.
If you’re opposed to people getting drugs they don’t need or young people getting medications, are you opposed to health insurance?
So we’re now down to a mere $80 billion a year?
Man, Obamacare keeps getting less and less expensive every time you quote a number at us.
As Marley23 explained, the basic principle is simple: if you make some assertion of fact, such as “Eleven thousand people suddenly developed automotive transmission malfunctions as soon as they signed up for Obamacare”, and some other poster finds that assertion implausible or suspect, then the other poster asks you for a cite.
And if you provide a convincing reliable source for your assertion, then the debate proceeds with that assertion generally accepted as fact. If you don’t or can’t, then the debate proceeds with that assertion generally discarded as untrue or unsupported.
The purpose of this is to keep discussions in the Great Debates forum anchored in a common basis of evidence-supported factual knowledge, so they don’t degenerate into a pointless cacophony of contradictory assertions with no rational way to choose between them.
That’s the amount spent on Medicare fraud. But yes, it does look like he overstated the cost of the ACA by a factor of 20 the first time.
Let me add the part of that quote you left out
These criminals are not patients trying to get drugs, but dishonest health care providers. I doubt any supporter of ACA would object to more money for enforcement. That would get more money to the people who need it.
Well obviously the solution is to shut down all health care providers and outlaw the entire industry. Duh!
Just like a liberal. The obvious solution is to do away with the regulations - if there are no rules, then these companies won’t be breaking them!
I wonder why Obama doesn’t care to explain fear of the boogie man…
Or leafed vegetables.
If you outlaw rules, only outlaws will have rules.
Aaah, racekhardos !
This is the best definition of what ‘cite’ means that I have found. I searched the FAQ’s even, I searched the stickies and still no clear explanation. I knew it was to provide some other kind of proof than just saying something out of the clear blue, but not only is it that … it also has to meet other’s expectations of what you are talking about. In other words no quick grabbing anything just to have proof.
This involves lot more reading and thinking and comprehending and researching than I am able to do on dial up, but by reading other threads in SDMB I have been able to find a lot of answers to my questions than CNN or NBC or Sunday morning talk shows **have not **provided. I don’t read Time or Newsweek seen as a waste of time, but I do enjoy the left and the right views of SDMB even though the democrats seem to have an edge in posting their views with the conservatives nipping on their heels so to speak. An international board with a mid America following.
I did find a lot of my answers to the ACA question of fear in this thread on SDMB: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=704977
Trying to understand the basics of health insurance is very informative and is a must read for people too busy to read the gov web page (if you can that is)
Thank you friends of President Obama for explaining my fear of ACA away, although I still think it is a boondoggle … I will try to support it in the future.
Warning: those people that like to cheat are not going to go away anytime soon and that will be a thread for you to contend with next year. You forget how small medicare is compared to ACA … times tens of thousands will misrepresent their income and the excuses they have will be on deaf ears.
My next fear is the government taking money out of my bank account (well not my bank account due to I am not in need of ACA yet) … I mean the people of America’s bank accounts at will to pay for any intended or unintended debts to this government run program. Areyou aware that if you miss an appointment on medicare for example that they will charge you $50 for your missed appointment?
Do I have to cite this claim? I took an elder gentlemen to the doctor and he said he had to get there on time or else medicare would charge him $50. Why would ACA be any different … and if you don’t have $50 in the bank account they will take what you do have and the bank will charge you $33 for overdraft. My bank B of A now requires you to have $400 in your bank account at all times for overdraft.
This is another fear of ACA for you to answer … the government being able to withdraw or in some cases put money in your bank account. People will figure out how to have one bank account for ACA and another one you can’t touch. The problems with the government being in charge are going to multiply, but with a little faith these problems can be addressed by a willing congress to agree on this Presidential ice sculpture that will never be finished.
The ACA is not going away … congratulations Mr Obama on your victory and your legacy for years to come
Fine post, though dial-up or not I encourage you to post, find cites and enjoy the SDMB. We enjoy kicking ideas around and some people might just surprise you (in a good way).
On the topic at hand, congratulating the President on his victory is one thing, but also on his legacy is another.
If I may be a political animal for a bit, I don’t think I’m going on a limb to say that the current version of Obamacare is a transitional event. Over the next 20 years I think we’ll see significant modifications to it trending towards less reliance on insurance companies and toward some form of modified single-payer. Both political and fiscal pressures move in that direction as the need for greater efficiency and lower cost in health care become clearer.
But what is politically feasible in 1994 (nothing) vs 2010 (Obamacare) vs 2030 (who knows what) can be very different things.
I think this is, indeed, something for which a cite would be helpful. As to the charge for missed appointments, you are going on one person’s anecdotal experience. It is very possible that person misunderstood the situation, or did not convey it accurately to you.
In fact, a quick google search shows me that under Medicare, a physician is permitted to charge a patient for a missed appointment, but that the physician cannot submit the charge to Medicare. (The physician’s policy of charging for no-shows must apply to non-Medicare patients as well.) So I believe your friend’s doctor has a policy of charging for missed appointments, and that the only Medicare involvement is that this policy is not prohibited by Medicare. But it is not Medicare that is charging the patient – it is the doctor.
As to the government being able to directly access your bank account – yes, that is also something for which a cite would be helpful.