Quantcast

How much do you know about the Affordable Care Act? Take this quiz to find out?

Diane 2012/07/03 22:15:06
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Click the link to take the ten question quiz.


http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

Read More: http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • J.W. Howler 2012/07/09 14:06:21 (edited)
    I failed the quiz, but I learned a lot.
    J.W. Howler
    +15
    ONLY 10 questions to get educated on a TWO THOUSAND PLUS page set of statutes, provisions, limitations, new taxes, and such?

    Ooooookay.

    Actually, I did not fail it, but I DID LEARN something...This is what I learned -

    At LEAST TWO MSM journalists/political commentators/anchors from ABC News are on the Board of TRUSTEES for The Kaiser Family Foundation, and both VERY pro-Obama and pro-Obamacare.

    I suppose the Kaiser "family" of "trustees" wouldn't want anything questioned that might put the ACA in any negative light...lol

    Those two are Charlie Gibson and Cokie Roberts....



    Another is David Satcher, former Surgeon General appointed by Bill Clinton in his 2nd term, Democrat, and active advocate for a SINGLE-PAYER health system, all the while knowing that Obamacare is a lead-in to such -


    To be fair, I must mention that former Republican RINO Senator, Bill Frist is (or was) on the Trustee Board...However, Frist is not a big supporter of Obamacare's entirety, but IS a supporter of the bill in part


    And here is another Kaiser family "trustee" - former Governor of Wisconsin, Obama supporter, and left-wing Progressive, Jim Doyle -
    ONLY 10 questions to get educated on a TWO THOUSAND PLUS page set of statutes, provisions, limitations, new taxes, and such?

    Ooooookay.

    Actually, I did not fail it, but I DID LEARN something...This is what I learned -

    At LEAST TWO MSM journalists/political commentators/anchors from ABC News are on the Board of TRUSTEES for The Kaiser Family Foundation, and both VERY pro-Obama and pro-Obamacare.

    I suppose the Kaiser "family" of "trustees" wouldn't want anything questioned that might put the ACA in any negative light...lol

    Those two are Charlie Gibson and Cokie Roberts....

    cokie roberts barack obama cokie roberts barack obama charles gibson barack obama charles gibson barack obama charles gibson barack obama

    Another is David Satcher, former Surgeon General appointed by Bill Clinton in his 2nd term, Democrat, and active advocate for a SINGLE-PAYER health system, all the while knowing that Obamacare is a lead-in to such -
    clinton 2nd term democrat active advocate single-payer health obamacare lead-in

    To be fair, I must mention that former Republican RINO Senator, Bill Frist is (or was) on the Trustee Board...However, Frist is not a big supporter of Obamacare's entirety, but IS a supporter of the bill in part
    mention senator frist trustee board frist supporter obamacares entirety supporter

    And here is another Kaiser family "trustee" - former Governor of Wisconsin, Obama supporter, and left-wing Progressive, Jim Doyle -
    family trustee governor wisconsin obama supporter left-wing progressive jim doyle
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Diane Dave Sa... 2012/07/10 04:32:45
    Diane
    The privatized Medicare plans would have to provide the same benefits as traditional Medicare. The privatized plans cost the taxpayer 13 percent more than traditional Medicare.
  • Chuck 2012/07/05 11:23:38
    I did pretty well. I answered __ correctly. (How many?)
    Chuck
    +1
    I answered 6 out of 10, but should have been 7 out of ten simply because I hit the wrong answer too quickly.
  • Diane Chuck 2012/07/05 14:31:35
    Diane
    +1
    Which ones did you miss?
  • Chuck Diane 2012/07/06 02:06:13
    Chuck
    +1
    Hell, I don't know. Didn't keep up with it or write it down.
  • Starman 2012/07/05 03:58:27
    I answered all the questions correctly.
    Starman
    +5
    You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans.
  • GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT 2012/07/05 03:27:43
    I answered all the questions correctly.
    GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT
    +5
    1. Will the health reform law require nearly all Americans to have health insurance starting in 2014 or else pay a fine? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly. Yes. Starting in 2014, most U.S. citizens and legal residents will be required to obtain health coverage, or pay a penalty. Some exemptions will be granted, for example, for those with religious objections or where insurance would cost more than 8% of their income. Learn More » 64%

    2. Will the health reform law allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly. No. No such panels exist. While early versions of the law did contain provisions that would allow Medicare to reimburse physicians for voluntary discussions with patients about end-of-life planning, these provisions were dropped from the final legislation. 45%

    3. Will the health reform law cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly. No. The law reduces payments to the privately administered Medicare Advantage plans, but they will still be required to provide all benefits that are covered by traditional Medicare. Learn More » 40%

    4. Will the health reform ...











    1. Will the health reform law require nearly all Americans to have health insurance starting in 2014 or else pay a fine? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly. Yes. Starting in 2014, most U.S. citizens and legal residents will be required to obtain health coverage, or pay a penalty. Some exemptions will be granted, for example, for those with religious objections or where insurance would cost more than 8% of their income. Learn More » 64%

    2. Will the health reform law allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly. No. No such panels exist. While early versions of the law did contain provisions that would allow Medicare to reimburse physicians for voluntary discussions with patients about end-of-life planning, these provisions were dropped from the final legislation. 45%

    3. Will the health reform law cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly. No. The law reduces payments to the privately administered Medicare Advantage plans, but they will still be required to provide all benefits that are covered by traditional Medicare. Learn More » 40%

    4. Will the health reform law expand the existing Medicaid program to cover low-income, uninsured adults regardless of whether they have children? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly. Yes. Medicaid will be expanded to cover nearly all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level ($14,400 for an individual or $29,300 for a family of four in 2010). Learn More » 62%

    5. Will the health reform law provide financial help to low and moderate income Americans who don't get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly. Yes. Individuals without access to affordable coverage who purchase coverage through the new insurance Exchanges and have incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for premium tax credits based on their income. Learn More » 72%

    6. Will the health reform law prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history or health condition? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly. Yes. Starting in 2014, all health insurers will be required to sell coverage to everyone who applies, regardless of their medical history or health status. Learn More » 67%

    7. Will the health reform law require all businesses, even the smallest ones, to provide health insurance for their employees? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly. No. The law does not require employers to provide health benefits. However, it does impose penalties, in some cases, on larger employers (those with 50 or more workers) that do not provide insurance to their workers or that provide coverage that is unaffordable. Learn More » 25%

    8. Will the health reform law provide tax credits to small businesses that offer coverage to their employees? Yes, the law will do this. You answered this correctly. Yes. Beginning in 2010, business with fewer than 25 full time equivalent employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 that pay at least half of the cost of health insurance for their employees are eligible for a tax credit. Learn More » 65%

    9. Will the health reform law create a new government run insurance plan to be offered along with private plans? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly. No. The law does not create a new government-run health insurance plan. The existing Medicaid program will be expanded to cover more low-income people, government regulation of the health insurance industry will be increased, and tax credits will be provided to make private health insurance more affordable for people. 27%

    10. Will the health reform law allow undocumented immigrants to receive financial help from the government to buy health insurance? No, the law will not do this. You answered this correctly. No. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive financial help from the government to buy health insurance, nor are they eligible for Medicaid or to purchase insurance with their own money in the new Exchanges. 42%
    (more)
  • VICTORIA 2012/07/05 03:16:14
    I did pretty well. I answered __ correctly. (How many?)
    VICTORIA
    +3
    9. I missed this one-
    Will the health reform law create a new government run insurance plan to be offered along with private plans?

    I answered Yes to that one.
  • GuruA2J... VICTORIA 2012/07/05 03:30:26
    GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT
    +3
    Many of us wanted that "public option" but didn't get it.
  • VICTORIA GuruA2J... 2012/07/05 03:38:48
    VICTORIA
    +2
    There's always 2013. And 2014. And......:)
  • GuruA2J... VICTORIA 2012/07/05 03:56:28
  • VICTORIA GuruA2J... 2012/07/05 04:01:55
    VICTORIA
    +4
    Look at the screaming over the compromise.
    Why bother trying to compromise?
    They think it's a dirty word.
    Maybe we should too.
  • Diane GuruA2J... 2012/07/05 05:33:00
    Diane
    +2
    The reason for that is complicated. What happened was this:

    The House, which in 2009 was more liberal than the Senate, passed a bill in early November of 2009 that included a public option. The Senate passed a bill December 24, 2009 without a public option. Then, after the holiday break, the House and Senate were to begin talks to reconcile the differences between the two bills.

    But in January, Republican Scott Brown won the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, who had died. Brown promised to vote against the health care bill. And because, with his election, Democrats lost the super majority in the Senate, his "no" vote would have killed health care reform altogether. The House had to pass the Senate bill without changes, because, if they changed the Senate bill it would have gone back to the Senate for a vote, where it would have died.
  • GuruA2J... Diane 2012/07/05 05:43:46
    GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT
    +4
    I remember Diane. I watched it all unfold on TV between CNN, MSNBC & C-span. That's why I rail against Republicans who swear the Dems had a super majority in the Senate. We had it for a few months after it was determined Al Franken had indeed won Minnesota's election, up until Scott Brown was sworn in after winning Ted Kennedy's seat.
  • Diane GuruA2J... 2012/07/05 05:48:15
    Diane
    +3
    And Republicans claim Obama intentionally abandoned the public option. That's not true. He, and the House, had no other choice.
  • GuruA2J... Diane 2012/07/05 06:17:49
    GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT
    +2
    I remember, them blue dog Democrats with Max Bauccus as the head nay-sayer killed that hope. Republicans pulled a lot of weight in his committee also & played hardball big time.
  • Haightbear GuruA2J... 2012/07/06 18:18:31
    Haightbear
    +2
    And Byrd was rarely on the floor due to illness.
  • GuruA2J... Haightbear 2012/07/06 21:02:04
    GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT
    +1
    That's for sure.
  • COMALite J GuruA2J... 2012/07/06 22:26:13 (edited)
    COMALite J
    +2
    “That’s why I rail against Republicans who swear the Dems had a super majority in the Senate. We had it for a few months after it was determined Al Franken had indeed won Minnesota’s election, up until Scott Brown was sworn in after winning Ted Kennedy’s seat.”

    Actually, not even that long. The Democrats do not vote in lock-step like the modern GOP usually does. The Blue Dogs often vote with the GOP. Obama never had a reliable filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

    When a GOP Congressman reaches across the aisle or otherwise fails to vote in lock-step with the party, s/he’s condemned as a RINO, or even a traitor.

    When a Democrat does it, s/he’s hailed as being a Moderate, and bi-partisan.
  • GuruA2J... COMALite J 2012/07/06 23:12:55
    GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT
    +1
    What you said is very true. The blue dogs are almost an after-thought until I remember how much a pain in the keister they are. Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Ms. Landreau & the guy from Michigan whose name escapes me right now drove me bonkers.
  • Diane COMALite J 2012/07/07 02:46:33
    Diane
    +1
    Good observation!
  • COMALite J Diane 2012/07/08 21:34:56
    COMALite J
    +1
    Thanks!
  • Politic... COMALite J 2012/07/09 15:59:45
    PoliticallyIncorrect
    The blue dog Democrat here was "given permission" to vote with the GOP because his district is almost split between the two parties. Every time a vote comes up he's one of the first given that permission to vote against party, just to keep him in the House. If it's happening here with this guy, I'm sure it's that way around the country.

    It goes both ways.
  • COMALite J Politic... 2012/07/09 18:05:03
    COMALite J
    Are you sure it’s just to keep him in the House? Maybe he just understands what the job of a Representative actually is: to represent what his constituents want.

    If his district really is nearly evenly split between the Big Two Parties, and he votes with the GOP about ½ the time, then he’s doing his job a lot better than any who slavishly vote along party lines.
  • Politic... COMALite J 2012/07/09 19:01:39
    PoliticallyIncorrect
    I would look at it with your rose-colored classes; however, I know someone who works in his office. It's all depending on whether they have enough votes that they can allow someone to vote the other way and not impact their plan. We just lost a Congressman whose district was redrawn and he even said that when he won his first term, he met with the "freshmen" and was pretty well told, "This is the way we do things."

    I know they all play ball with one another. That's what my last sentence is about.
  • COMALite J Politic... 2012/07/26 01:08:10
    COMALite J
    Sadly, I agree. I was just hoping this guy might be an exception.
  • Politic... COMALite J 2012/07/26 02:08:56
    PoliticallyIncorrect
    He sounded like he might be, but he's even worse that what we had. Not only was it disappointing, it's scarier than I care to think about.
  • VICTORIA Diane 2012/07/06 06:21:10 (edited)
    VICTORIA
    +2
    Yes that super majority was sort of short lived. Remember Arlen Specter?

    I found an interesting post it's some healthy thinking-

    Good arguments
    http://www.healthcare-now.org...
  • Diane VICTORIA 2012/07/07 02:56:09
    Diane
    +1
    But as Bernie Sanders said, Arlen Spector and a number of Democrats in the Senate were blue dog Democrats. Single payer would have put all the insurance companies out of business. That might not have been possible. It would be easier to put the tobacco companies out of business, and that would be very tough.

    But a public option would have been a possibility if not for the election of Scott Brown. Even without Brown, though, it still might have been tough to convince the blue dogs in the Senate.
  • VICTORIA Diane 2012/07/11 02:32:57
    VICTORIA
    Yes, don't let the dream of single payer die.
    Wow your analyses are right on.
  • COMALite J GuruA2J... 2012/07/06 22:22:08 (edited)
    COMALite J
    +2
    The Public Option was in the original bill, but was taken out in the Senate by the GOP and Blue Dog Democrats in the pockets of the insurance agencies. It was replaced by the Mandate.

    Forget Public Option, though. We need to go full Single Payer.
  • GuruA2J... COMALite J 2012/07/06 23:18:16
    GuruA2J~#IOKIYAR~612 BLOCKT
    +1
    I thought it was. Wasn't it Max Bauccus' committee that killed it? I remembered seeing the insurance industry had given him a lot of money. Dylan Ratigan's rant was so on the money. Money in politics is the root of ALL political evil.

    Single payer would be the way to go. I don't think the country is ready to take that fight on right now.
  • COMALite J GuruA2J... 2012/07/06 23:31:56 (edited)
    COMALite J
    +2
    “Single payer would be the way to go. I don't think the country is ready to take that fight on right now.”

    No, it isn’t, and that’s why this is the last generation for America as the #1 superpower.
  • Diane COMALite J 2012/07/07 03:10:08
    Diane
    Single payer would have put all the insurance companies out of business. That might have been too extreme. A public option, combined with the regulations, would have given the insurance companies a lot of competition. The insurance companies wouldn't have been put out of business, but they would have had to do a lot better to compete.
  • Diane VICTORIA 2012/07/05 04:51:07
    Diane
    +3
    I missed number three, even though I knew the answer previously. But there's so much misinformation, I got confused. This is the one I missed.

    3. Will the health reform law cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare? No, the law will not do this. The law reduces payments to the privately administered Medicare Advantage plans, but they will still be required to provide all benefits that are covered by traditional Medicare.
  • Jane Diane 2012/07/05 14:55:18
    Jane
    +1
    me too
  • VICTORIA Diane 2012/07/06 02:48:19
    VICTORIA
    +1
    Really I thank you for posting this, because I'd forgotten some of the elements of the ACA.
    Isn't it great how the language has suddenly changed too? And naturally?
    I never called it the ACA before- and forgot that was even what it's called.
  • Diane VICTORIA 2012/07/06 03:57:48
    Diane
    You're welcome. :)

    Someone on Facebook posted this quiz, and I thought it was a wonderful teaching device.

    I call it the ACA (quicker and easier than typing out Affordable Care Act) but I also sometimes call it Obamacare. Using that name in a supportive sense removes the right's use of it as a tool to denigrate the health care law.
  • Jane VICTORIA 2012/07/05 14:53:47
    Jane
    +1
    Kind of a trick question, since medicare and medicaid are already insurance in place.
  • Diane Jane 2012/07/05 15:04:29
    Diane
    +1
    But it's important to know that the ACA won't cut benefits to those on Medicare. And, if the states allow it, it will expand Medicaid to cover more people.
  • Jane Diane 2012/07/06 11:34:51

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/18 13:31:54

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals