Does Obama care to explain the fear of ACA?

[jasg]

@Mr_Quatro

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

The FBI estimates $80 billion a year is fraudulently obtained by these criminals. As an example, last month over just a couple of days, DOJ issued these press releases: Two individuals indicted in $13 million Medicare fraud scheme; two Miami-area residents indicted for alleged roles in $190 million Medicare fraud scheme; medical clinic owners and patient recruiters charged in Miami for role in $8 million health care fraud scheme; Miami home health company recruiter pleads guilty in $48 million health care fraud scheme

One difference that I think is very important between Medicare Fraud and ACA fraud is that the former cheats the government and the latter, a private insurance company.

I would bet that a health provider who cheats an insurance company would quickly be ejected from that companies network of providers, perhaps from other networks and soon find themselves with cash-only patients.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

Would it be feasable to modify the sytem to where if someones income qualified them for discounts or free healthcare they would be taken out of the insurance loop and assigned hospitals or things like Kaser Permanetnte. Naturally emergencies would have to be handled by the closest hospital or if specialists were not vailable in the assigned system they could go out. The shortfalls would simply be added to our tax burden. Citizens with good incomes who opt to go with the goverment program will simply pay the going rate based on the effectiveness of the goverment system. They either can compete or they can’t

[Mr_Quatro]

@Merejane

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.

Your request for a cite has uncovered another myth:http://progressiveandproud.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/if-acaobamacare-is-implemented-the-government-will-spy-on-me-and-have-access-to-my-bank-account/

It is true, people take things out of context, change a word here or there or even summarize things insinuating they mean something other than the purpose of the statement. This has been especially true in terms of the information published about ACA/Obamacare.

I have written a series of blogs about the myths associated with ACA/Obamacare. Things have been taken out of context and frankly outright lies have been told about this program which will allow millions of Americans to obtain health insurance at a reasonable cost. One of the most frightening lies being told is that if people sign up for the health exchanges and buy insurance through them, the government will be given free access to a person’s financial information and bank account. Some politicians and Tea Party members even suggest that the IRS will be policing every American’s financial data. Privacy laws will be ignored. The government will be able to remove money from anyone’s bank account according to these fear mongers Guess what? It isn’t true. The government will not have access to your bank account. The IRS will not be able to go into your bank account and take your money without permission.

I’m starting to distrust the tea party partyline now that I have to do research.

Thank you keep up the good work. I sure believed they could, because they said so.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Wesley_Clark

Their big fear is that people will like it and/or find it non-offensive enough to not want to repeal it. People like social democracy and social programs that benefit them. Even medicaid, a program most people will never use, is fairly popular. The majority of tea partiers do not support cuts to medicare and medicaid.

Poll: 70% Of Tea Partiers Oppose Cuts To Medicare, Medicaid - TPM – Talking Points Memo

The conservatives are concerned that Obamcare will result in a permanent expansion of government. Their nightmare scenario is universal medicare. This is why they fought the federal option so hard. It is clear that if something like medicare was one of the options available on the exchange, it would be the best value most cost efficient option (assuming it could negotiate for drug prices). This would lead to a virtual single payer system.

Obamacare as it is doesn’t really bend the cost curve or address any of the cost concerns associated with health care. But once you add a few federal options (bronze, gold and platinum), then pretty much everyone takes one of those options and you end up with a virtual single payer system and a permanent expansion of government.

@Sitnam

How does the GOP figure The ACA will cost jobs?

They figure that the employer side mandate will force some businesses to reduce hours for some of their employees to avoid the mandate.

@Darth_Panda

That was almost 20 years ago. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but Republicans have gotten considerably more insane since then. A lot of them are sincere (and ignorant at best), and the rest are being held hostage.

It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone)

@doorhinge

I blame the people who created ACA/Obamacare and who have failed to provide adequate explaination of the who, what, why, and wherefores of this very complicated system for the failure of people to understand what they are being asked to support.

The confusion results from one side consistently lying about Obamacare. The information is out there and it has been succinctly and concisely explained in several places in several ways but then you get people talking about death panels and shit like that and people get confused.

[adaher]

Republicans lied? Democrats and the administration told no lies to sell this thing?

Here’s an interesting column on the latest attempt to hide from the public what this thing actually costs. Originally, the plan was to let customers browse prices without having to go through the whole process. That changed. Now you can’t see the prices until you are shown what subsidies you are eligible for. This kind of dishonesty is far more significant than “death panels”.

Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How...

[Smapti]

Well, clearly it’s better to just deny healthcare to 45 million people than to require them to fill out a form on the web.

[adaher]

Not the point. you’re more likely to get people to sign up if they can view the prices up front. And “a form”? Do you have any idea what people have to do to get that far in the process?

People should just go to ehealthinsurance.com and take care of their insurance needs in minutes. If time is money, then it’s worth it to pay the penalty.

[BrightSunshine]

@adaher

Here’s an interesting column on the latest attempt to hide from the public what this thing actually costs. Originally, the plan was to let customers browse prices without having to go through the whole process. That changed. Now you can’t see the prices until you are shown what subsidies you are eligible for. This kind of dishonesty is far more significant than “death panels”.

That’s not true. I’ve been able to view options and prices without setting up an account or filling out any application here: Health insurance plans & prices | HealthCare.gov.

Understandably Forbes caters to the interests of people of means, some of whom will be hit with the new 3.8% tax on unearned income and are likely to be unhappy about it.

[Smapti]

@adaher

Not the point. you’re more likely to get people to sign up if they can view the prices up front. And “a form”? Do you have any idea what people have to do to get that far in the process?

People should just go to ehealthinsurance.com and take care of their insurance needs in minutes. If time is money, then it’s worth it to pay the penalty.

So what you’re telling me is that the Republicans were wrong to insist on additional income verification requirements, then.

[BrightSunshine]

According to Wikipedia Avik Roy, the author of the Forbes article, is an advisor on health care to Mitt Romney. Given that Romneycare is essentially Obamacare, you have to wonder about his hyperbolic rants, spins and distortions.

He said that “I helped conduct found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system.” which is probably not surprising because the cheapest plans pre-ACA probably have low lifetime limits, exclude pre-existing conditions, and cover next to nothing. Somehow he spins this results into “Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women”. Technically it’s not a lie because the “average” refers to the average over states of minimum cost plan in each state, but it’s stretching the truth very thin.

If there are no safety regulations on cars the cheapest car would be cheaper too. If there are no requirements to get car insurance people will spend less on car insurance on average. None of these are desirable outcomes or cost society less, given that human life and health has value too.

[BrightSunshine]

I just realized that “people can’t see prices without applying” is another prime example of the lies told by Republicans to mislead the public on the ACA. The fact Forbes will host something that is so blatantly false and so easily debunked is a bit intriguing.

[adaher]

@BrightSunshine

That’s not true. I’ve been able to view options and prices without setting up an account or filling out any application here: Health insurance plans & prices | HealthCare.gov.

Understandably Forbes caters to the interests of people of means, some of whom will be hit with the new 3.8% tax on unearned income and are likely to be unhappy about it.

The cite is welcome. How do you get to that from the main page, though?

When I tried to find it on the main page, I got directed to Kaiser:

Low Cost Marketplace Health Care, Qualifying Income Levels

Under “Learn” and “All topics”, it’s not there. In fact, it says that “until the marketplace opens…” which is kind of an oopsie on their part(although I guess they have bigger problems).

[adaher]

@BrightSunshine

I just realized that “people can’t see prices without applying” is another prime example of the lies told by Republicans to mislead the public on the ACA. The fact Forbes will host something that is so blatantly false and so easily debunked is a bit intriguing.

Maybe. It could also be that the cite was retrieved from a debunking site, rather than browsing healthcare.gov. It would be more than forgiveable if it’s hard to find the premium estimates. Most people are going through the main page to get health insurance, so the fact that the section exists would not be very useful if it couldn’t be directly accessed from the main page.

[running_coach]

@adaher

The cite is welcome. How do you get to that from the main page, though?

When I tried to find it on the main page, I got directed to Kaiser:

Front page, middle column titled "Top Content. “Preview plans and prices”.

[adaher]

WEll, that solves that then. That option wasn’t there until Oct. 11.

Prior to that, they had this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20131005083628/https://www.healthcare.gov/health-plan-information/

Also, according to Think Progress, the function was added a week ago.

So while Roy’s article is debunked now, when it was researched it was true. You did have to sign up to see the prices.

Finally, if you go to that page now, the one I linked to, you’ll see that they’ve updated it with the link to “Preview Plans and Prices”.

[Ograbme]

Filling out forms: “just as bad” as death panels.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@doorhinge

I STILL question why the public still seems so confused about what ACA/Obamacare means for their personal healthcare and its costs to them. If you find that a waste of time, so be it. It’s your time.

Well, I can answer that question for one specific case: yours. Specifically, you are confused about what the ACA/Obamacare means for you (or you’re not quite being honest with us) because you refuse to become informed. This is like someone complaining “There should have been a sign warning us about those steps”, and when someone points out that there was a sign, he ignores that person and continues in his outrage. You’ve been offered answers since page 1 and you’ve proceeded to succinctly ignore each and every one of them. I’m tired of it and I wasn’t even among the people who were pointing this shit out to you.

@Mr_Quatro

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 point of a citation is twofold:

1. It helps explain to people where you’re coming from. If someone says out of the blue that, say, Obamacare will increase medical expenditure for the average family by $7,000, without a cite, most people probably won’t know what you’re talking about, or how the data was gathered, or anything of the sort. In some fields, without a cite, the claim being made (for example “warming artic temperatures may lead to a breakdown of the polar vortex”) is utterly incomprehensible, as almost nobody will understand what you’re talking about until you clarify.
2. It helps offer some credentials behind the statement. For example, if you say Obamacare increases medical expenditure for the average family by $7,000, I’m not going to just take your word for it (obviously, you said no such thing, I’m just using this as an example). By providing a citation, you can put the weight of good data behind your statement, or more commonly someone who will likely know what they’re talking about. Then, we can look at the citation and either accept it, reject it on the grounds that it is wrong and explain why, or dispute it. In the case of that claim about $7000, the claim comes from a Chris Conover article which is so completely flawed that any idiot could look at it and its sources and see where he went wrong - not that it stops this myth from propagating through the internet, mind you.

You seem to be getting better, so I just figured I’d write this anyways and leave it at that. Welcome to SDMB, hope your stay is productive.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

I’m confused, and I thikn other people are confused, or in some cases sowing confusion: by “Obamacare” or “ACA,” do we mean the law as a whole, the mandates collectively, the individual mandate, or the exchanges intended to facilitate compliance with the individual mandate?

@adaher

Now you can’t see the prices until you are shown what subsidies you are eligible for. This kind of dishonesty is far more significant than “death panels”.

Um, yes? I’m not sure how showing me a different price from the one I will have to pay is more honest than showing me the price I have to pay. I guess the hotel website I looked at last night was lying to me when it showed me the discounted price rather than the rack rate.

@adaher

People should just go to ehealthinsurance.com and take care of their insurance needs in minutes. If time is money, then it’s worth it to pay the penalty.

What is the penalty for going to ehealthinsurance? Or do you mean the possibility of paying a higher premium? “Penalty” implies deliberate punishment.

[Ludovic]

Is anyone else always misreading the thread title and thinking “Does Obamacare what”?

[zoid]

@Marley23

It’s too late. The Republicans have spent three years insisting it’s Obamacare in every speech and ad, so it’s Obamacare. That won’t be the name for the health care exchanges or individual components, but it’s how the law is going to be remembered. In a decade or two, when everybody agrees the number of people without insurance is still unconscionably high and we need a public option or some other alternative to fill the gap, they can pretend they were against it because it doesn’t cover enough people and demand it be fixed post haste.

Exactly. When it turns out to good for the country some minor legislation will be passed to cover those currently not covered, or to tweak the reimbursements, or adjust the rates, and the GOP will loudly and repeatedly take credit for “fixing” the disaster that was Obamacare :rolleyes: