Will Obamacare Make Your Healthcare Easier or More Difficult?
Newsmax
2013/01/25 21:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
277 votes
|
|
27% | |||
|
742 votes
|
|
73% | |||
Sales of “ObamaCare Survival Guide” have exceeded 100,000 copies and the book now ranks No. 4 on Barnes & Noble’s list of best-sellers. “ObamaCare Survival Guide: The Affordable Care Act and What It Means for You and Your Healthcare” is the first comprehensive but easy-to-understand road map of the 2,700-page law officially called the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The guide also ranks No. 4 on Amazon.com’s list of the best-selling books in the Politics & Government category, and No. 1 in the Health Policy category.
“Since the Supreme Court has ruled that ObamaCare’s the law of the land, we felt it was important to let people know what’s in this law,” author Nick Tate tells Newsmax. “Many provisions have already rolled out and there are many more to come so it’s not an overstatement to say that this law will affect everyone in this country."
The ObamaCare law "fundamentally changes the way healthcare is delivered, restructures it,” he adds. “The way you will interact with your doctor, your insurer, your hospital will fundamentally change, so this book attempts to give you the road map to get the best bang for your healthcare dollar.”
“ObamaCare Survival Guide” is of vital interest in particular to the insured, the employed, the uninsured, seniors and Medicare users, young adults, business owners, prescription drug users, medical professionals, Medicaid recipients, doctors, and union members.
The guide also ranks No. 4 on Amazon.com’s list of the best-selling books in the Politics & Government category, and No. 1 in the Health Policy category.
The ObamaCare law "fundamentally changes the way healthcare is delivered, restructures it,” he adds. “The way you will interact with your doctor, your insurer, your hospital will fundamentally change, so this book attempts to give you the road map to get the best bang for your healthcare dollar.”
“ObamaCare Survival Guide” is of vital interest in particular to the insured, the employed, the uninsured, seniors and Medicare users, young adults, business owners, prescription drug users, medical professionals, Medicaid recipients, doctors, and union members.
Read More: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-surviva...
Top Opinion
-
CAPISCE 2013/01/25 22:31:24
It is yet to be seen what will occur after all provisions are in place beginning in 2014. There are prognosticators lined up on either side of the aisle. the one thing that we can know for sure is that after Obama's reelection and the SCOTUS's ruling last summer ACA is here to stay. There will be no repeal and there will be no defunding. Whatever the consequences, good or bad, they will be ours. I pray for good.
While Medicare is not the self financing program that is Social Security it is greatly supported through payroll tax so the old are not leaning that hard on the young. In fact, if the changes proposed by Simpson/Bowles is approved the program will be a break-even where paid in = paid out. Once all the blustering is over and a deal is made there will be changes in the way Medicare is financed.
Medicare needs more tweaking but the salary cap increase and extending the eligibility age will make a big difference.
Now by elderly you must be talking about those under 65. Is that the case?
Insurance companies are anxious for 2014 and the influx of new customers. they are currently lobbying States to get the few straggles on board with State exchanges. The result will be lower premiums for many and available HC insurance for many who can not otherwise find it at affordable rates (my 25 year old diabetic sone is one). So, if your 56 and looking for a health care policy today you are SOL unless you are in a group. This time next year the same 56 year old has coverage available through an exchange (another name for a large group). That has nothing to do with medicare.
SS is not a retirement plan and never was intended to be one. It is a supplemental safety net. While it needs tweaking it has been self supporting. The trust fund is dwindling and without making some changes like I suggested earlier or would disappear. That will not happen. You are in a very small minority that would see SS go away. That will n...
Insurance companies are anxious for 2014 and the influx of new customers. they are currently lobbying States to get the few straggles on board with State exchanges. The result will be lower premiums for many and available HC insurance for many who can not otherwise find it at affordable rates (my 25 year old diabetic sone is one). So, if your 56 and looking for a health care policy today you are SOL unless you are in a group. This time next year the same 56 year old has coverage available through an exchange (another name for a large group). That has nothing to do with medicare.
SS is not a retirement plan and never was intended to be one. It is a supplemental safety net. While it needs tweaking it has been self supporting. The trust fund is dwindling and without making some changes like I suggested earlier or would disappear. That will not happen. You are in a very small minority that would see SS go away. That will not occur. Nor should it.
I'm sure you are providing for yourself adequately. In our society we have an opportunity to succeed. However, that's just an opportunity. Many, through no fault of their own, fail. As we've seen in the recent past, millions lost their jobs. Many were face with no option but to raid their retirement accounts. A person 55 with 16+ years left in the workforce who must start over saving for retirement will have a supplemental SS check available to avoid destitution at 66 or 70.
SS is not a burden on the young it is a promise that they can take to chances our society provides and be assured that there is a fail save available. Working hard is no guarantee of a bright future. But, it does improve your chances.
Social Security is a burden on the youth and the supreme court ruled that no person is entitled to any benefits from it, because it is a tax. So the younger people paying into it are not guaranteed ANY benefits though they've been paying into it, far from a "promise" of any kind. It will not disappear, sadly, but the only way to fix it would be to raise the social security tax and allow it to take money from the federal income tax pool, where it can benefit from those tax hikes. This is, of course, a bad solution and will further damage the economy.
You misuse the term "many"; relatively few fail to the point of needing assistance. And if you fail and receive assistance you have little motivation to try again. Many abuse the system, few need it. And the few that need it could seek help at many different charitable organizations. Places that provide a place to stay, clothes to wear, food to eat. But they also require yo...
Social Security is a burden on the youth and the supreme court ruled that no person is entitled to any benefits from it, because it is a tax. So the younger people paying into it are not guaranteed ANY benefits though they've been paying into it, far from a "promise" of any kind. It will not disappear, sadly, but the only way to fix it would be to raise the social security tax and allow it to take money from the federal income tax pool, where it can benefit from those tax hikes. This is, of course, a bad solution and will further damage the economy.
You misuse the term "many"; relatively few fail to the point of needing assistance. And if you fail and receive assistance you have little motivation to try again. Many abuse the system, few need it. And the few that need it could seek help at many different charitable organizations. Places that provide a place to stay, clothes to wear, food to eat. But they also require you to be home every night at a certain time and actively seek out jobs, not as easily abused.
Working hard is no longer a guarantee of a bright future, but that's because of government interference. If we eliminate that, the future can once again be bright. The government as it is, bloated and spending out of control, cannot sustain itself. As is evidenced by what we've seen in the past, and what's happening right now in Europe.
Everyone in America gets health care. However, those who, either by choice or financial inability, that do not have a health care plan get treatment at the most expensive source, the emergency room. And, if they can't pay it's you and me that does. That is precisely why those choosing not to get coverage after 1/1/2014 will pay a penalty. They do not get t gamble with everyone else's money any longer.
As I've pointed out earlier, it not necessary to raise the SS tax to insure it's longevity. Instead, we need to increase the cap from $113K to $250K. Also, doing what Reagan and Tip O'Neill agreed to in the 80s, a gentle rise in the eligibility age.
Yes, the healthy people who do not have health care take a risk in order to save money, or live a lifestyle with more luxuries than they would otherwise. The majority of these people do not end up needing medical care, so again, it is not okay to make policies based on atypical scenarios. As for the people who can't afford it and us ending up footing the bill when they go to the ER, how is this different than us footing the bill with a tax? The difference would be because they incur debt, they will be less likely to go to the ER, while with insurance they will be more likely to go to a doctor for every little ailment they otherwise would not.
Those would be helpful changes to social security, but allowing the younger people to keep the money and invest it themselves would be better and more efficient, for them. If they choose not to, that's their choice, and they will deal with the consequences.
Polls are fun but hardly conclusive. Well, except for one that takes place on the 1st Tuesday in November. Now that poll was conclusive.
Our exercise here is merely for our entertainment. It has no chance of changing Obamacare. The ACA was solidified in the results of the election.
There is another more important question, why does health care cost so much? The following link takes you to an article that, with great acuity, answers that question. And that is something we can actually make better.
I'm am interested to know your take on it.
http://healthland.time.com/20...
An easier fix would be to t...
An easier fix would be to tax health insurance. Less people would have it as a result. Hospitals could not remain in business if no one could go, their prices would have to drop. Doctors would advertise their rates and compete with one another, instead of the current: is he on our insurance network?
I never argued that health care here was perfect, just that the ACA would make it worse. I argued that the medical care here was expensive because of the luxuries we are afforded, and that is why health care expenditures for the U.S. are so high.
Also, the example in that story would again be an atypical example. I wouldn't think that the majority of Americans are people who just opened a small business and develop cancer, tragic? yes, common? no.
I should also point out, nothing in the ACA would have made a difference there.
You are headed down the right road but you have some misconceptions that this great piece will clear up.
http://healthland.time.com/20...
Yes, premiums will go up. You will recall that one of the issues leading up to the recent financial crisis was the exponential increase in health insurance costs.
You do have some things right, we can agree.
However, for a clear look at what experts are looking at the following link to the Kaiser Foundation report can help:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/...
Basically, we have only conjecture today. There are experts lined up on either side predicting everything from Shangri-La to doomsday for the next decade. Something we do know for certain is that health care costs and health insurance have risen but at a slower pace since enactment of ACA then they did the decade before.
Either way, since Obama was reelected ACA will not be repealed or defunded. Whatever happens, good - bad - or nothing, it will happen with ACA in place during my lifetime.
When everyone is forced to have health insurance, the people who did not have it before will go to the doctor more often, increasing demand, which will increase the cost. This increased cost will again increase the cost of business for the insurance companies, who will again, raise their premiums. Costing people more money. So instead of the people who did not carry insurance going into debt, everyone pays more. And this is fair to you?
The Times reports that health insurers have successfully raised rates by at least 20 percent in Ohio and Florida; and in California, three insurers have requested increases of more than 20 percent for individuals who do not receive employer-sponsored insurance and small businesses, since the ACA was passed.
Aetna’s CEO warned that small and individual group markets were likely to increase by an average of 25 to 50 percent, and suggested that some policyholders might see their rates double.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news...
Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, a recent survey of insurance companies finds that “if the law’s insurance rules were in force, the premium for a relatively bare-bones policy for a 27-year-old male nonsmoker on the individual market would be nearly 190 percent higher.”
Wisconsin predicts an average premium increase of 41 percent.
Ohio’s Department of Insurance says “the individual health insurance market premiums are estimated to increase by 55 percent to 85 percent above current market average rates.”
The prime reason the majority of Americans supported the ACA is because we lagged so far behind the rest of the developed world in quality of health care.
Of the 191 members of the World Health care Organization the US ranked 1st in cost and 37th in quality in 2008. Let's pray the ACA can improve our performance.
In Canada, where we have had Universal Health Care for 46 years, survival rates are higher in Canada than in the United States for four types of disease conditions - Colorectal cancer, childhood leukemia, kidney transplants and liver transplants
Also 57 % of U.S. patients have REPROCESSED DIALYZERS used on them compared to 0 % of Canadian patients.
Average in - Hospital treatment costs are nearly twice as high in the U.S., ( $ 20,673 compared to $ 10,373 for Canadian patients.
Oh we have many uninsured American and even MEXICANS coming up here for medical treatment in our Emergency wards of our Hospitals because they know it is illegal in Canada to turn any ill or injured patient away.
One of those American patients was a little girl named Sarah Palin.