Open Enrollment Nears for Affordable ...

Open Enrollment Nears for Affordable Care Act

There are 63 comments on the WCAV story from Sep 18, 2013, titled Open Enrollment Nears for Affordable Care Act. In it, WCAV reports that:

It has been three years since the Affordable Care Act was passed, and now, there are just days left until a key component of the legislation goes into effect.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WCAV.

“Don't Drink The Obama Kool-Aid”

Since: Aug 09

You don't need to know, Va.

#43 Sep 26, 2013
huck wrote:
you can opt out of buying insurance next year and pay $95 on your taxes
So all one has to do is pay $95 a year and then when you have a major illness or injury,buy the insurance.(can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions)
I just love the stupidity in this law!
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#44 Sep 26, 2013
Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
<quoted text>So all one has to do is pay $95 a year and then when you have a major illness or injury,buy the insurance.(can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions)
I just love the stupidity in this law!
Or be one of the 45 million presently with no insurance because it is too expensive or they have a pre-existing condition. Thanks to the ACA and the party of yes, they now have options. The other poster was complaining it was compulsary to buy insurance, so there is a choice for those who have an irrational issue w/ big gv't forcing their agenda down their throats, along with trying to take away their guns.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#45 Sep 26, 2013
If you get sick and don't have insurance then you aren't covered, and will have to wait until the next enrollment period Oct15-Dec15 for insurance to take effect the following year.
Penalty is $95 or 1% of income whichever is greater, and goes up to 2.5% by 2016.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/your-money/...
The Dude

United States

#47 Sep 26, 2013
RandomThoughts wrote:
Defund this disaster.
The usual crowd will be lined up for their free commiecare as the working folk get the wagon loaded down to carry the dead weight.
Just hit *1 on your Obamaphone for more free stuff.
What does communism have to do with PPACA? Clearly you either don't understand what communism is or you don't understand PPACA. Considering you don't understand basic political philosophy, I'm not sure which it is.
The Dude

United States

#48 Sep 26, 2013
RandomThoughts wrote:
Just hit *1 on your Obamaphone for more free stuff.
BTW, the life link program was started by Reagan and expanded to cell phones by G.W. Bush. What you're doing is spreading standard mendacious propaganda that is believed and repeated by stupid people.
The Dude

United States

#49 Sep 26, 2013
heh wrote:
ACA is a fallacy. There's nothing "affordable" about it, unless you're a leech on society.
Middle class families such as my own have seen coverage go down and premiums go up since the passing of the ACA, and some of our employers have dropped, or threaten to drop benefits because it would be cheaper to pay the fine.
Please tell me again how this is good for all Americans when the poor get free coverage, the rich can cover whatever they need to and the middle class is stuck with the biggest financial burden? All this from a political party that's supposed to be FOR the middle class?
Additionally, if the ACA is so great, then why are certain people allowed to be exempted from participation (politicians, unions, etc.) while the rest of us have no choice?
Actually, Medicare isn't going away. So it has little impact on the poor or the cost of treating what you would call a leech on society. What we will see is an increase in Premiums have been going up astronomically since Nixon's HMO Act of 1973, and it got worse with Reagan's EMTALA, which makes it illegal for a healthcare professional or facility to deny healthcare to ANYONE. My rates have been going up for thirty years, and my level of care has not declined. I will say, this years increase is the smallest that I can remember, maybe since I've been purchasing insurance.
.
The biggest tax increase will be an increase in medicare tax that comes to those who earn greater $200,000 a year, at a 0.9% increase, a 3.8% tax increase on investment income (which affects less than 0.1% of US Americans, and is taxed at 8% to 14% less than other income).
.
Okay, no federal employees are exempt, none... quit listening to rafael cruz, he's a liar. All federal employees are required to carry an FEHB plan, which is a choice of providers that the government carries, no different than an employer carrying Blue Cross/ Blue Shield (which FEHB carries, btw), or they must purchase insurance from an exchange, or they have the option to pay the "tax." The only real exemptions are those who are too poor to pay the tax (medicare recipients, at >200% the federal guidelines for poverty) and certain religious groups, mainly Amish and Mennonites.
.
While the "original heh" now known as "huck" knows that I am opposed to "Obamacare" better known to adults as PPACA, but not on the basis that I'm opposed to making free riders pay for insurance. I am more opposed to EMTALA, which literally makes it illegal for doctors and hospitals to refuse medical care to those in need who can't afford it, which is one of the largest costs to the insurance industry, and health care industry. I say keep medicare, and repeal the HMO Act of 1973, EMTALA, and PPACA. If a 27 year old gets cancer, too bad, so sad. If a pizza shop's owner's 2 year old daughter gets lymphoma and he can't afford to have it taken care of, not my problem. But since the republicans insist on forcing business to give full time employees insurance, and then force medical professionals to take care of people who gamble on their own health, then I say...if that the route we have to go, so be it, the moocher class are those who can afford it, but gamble on it until it is too late.
.
The reason I'm against it, as the original "heh" or "huck" knows is because it is government coercion (no different the EMTALA and the HMO act of 1973). It forces US citizens to buy private insurance or pay a fine which Justice Roberts interprets it as a "tax" There is nothing "socialist" about it, it is literally coercion to purchase something.
The Dude

United States

#50 Sep 26, 2013
heh wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? That's funny, especially considering that my company and insurance provider sent me letters regarding the changes in premiums and coverage because of the ACA. Of course, there's the nagging little fact that (since I keep my records) I did comparison of my coverage, payments, expenses, et. al. since the time my dependents were born and the biggest spike in premiums and dip in coverage was upon re-enrollment after the ACA was passed.
As far as exceptions, it's also funny that the same people that pushed for ACA are the same ones that have exemptions from it. Doesn't that seem just a little fishy to you? The whole "... we must pass this law to see what's in it..." then "Oops, don't like what's in it, so I want to be exempt from it." is BS, yet they expect the rest of us to be bound by it.
Sorry, I'm not buying your argument for financial or moral reasons for supporting the ACA, actions speak louder than words. Financially, my situation shows the opposite of your claim. Morally, those who pushed for the ACA not being willing to "take their own medicine", so to speak doesn't either. I refuse to be content in letting a government of blundering and incompetent politicians, Repuglican or Democrap be involved in my healthcare NOR force me to purchase or adopt a product against my will.
They all know that the ACA is garbage, including those who passed it, and just want to enforce it in order to make a point. The idea behind it is good, but its current implementation needs to be severely revisited and revised.
BTW, this is the umpteenth time that you've assumed I'm "huck" (and I'm curious to know why). I assure you that I'm not, but don't assume that there aren't other people that think similarly.
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they're facing fairer market competition from state exchanges, could it?

The reason that he assumes you're "huck", is because "I'm your huckleberry" got so ruined by the original "heh" that "I'm your huckleberry" started posting under "heh" and following him around for weeks, it was quite pathetic. It's one of the worst internet meltdowns that I've seen, and I post on sports boards. "I'm your huckleberry" really is the original "heh's biaaatch, it's comical.
The Dude

United States

#51 Sep 26, 2013
heh wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks!
I about laughed out loud at the "google" search comment. After all, if it's on the internet it HAS to be unbiased and fact... right? I found all of the facts I needed for my own perspective just by looking at my own records.
Granted, not everyone is going to have the same results based on their own situations. Based on my own data points for a middle class single income household with a family of four, I've seen the changes mentioned in my earlier post.
Interesting, my costs have actually increased less than they did every year since I've been carrying insurance. I must have a great employer. I know I have great insurance, we've had to fight two serious health issues over the last 4 years that could have bankrupted me hundreds of times over.
The Dude

United States

#52 Sep 26, 2013
Anti-Politician wrote:
<quoted text>
sez you, I'm not going to bother with the links you posted because the links are from known biased sources. Why do you keep doing that?
Yes, the ones wanting to kill Obamacare can take the exemption too, and yes, I believe that they will take that exemption. I believe that they're fighting so that we can have the same privilege and aren't willing to be "bought" by being able to take it or not. I believe that if this ACA is so great, and pushed down the throats of the unwilling, that they all, regardless of party should not have an exemption.
Pass it and tweak it is unacceptable, especially for something so significant. It's the Pelosi approach. Delaying or defunding I believe can force a review and rewrite. Yes all legislation is flawed, but not as much as I believe the ACA is. Crap with a sugar coating. Bottom line, dress it up all you want, it's still a lemon.
No, the ones that want to kill it cannot take the exemption... It's just not true. There are small religious groups that get exemption, that is it.

"If you tell a lie big enough and often enough it becomes the truth."
~Adolf Hitler

Quit listening to Rafael Cruz, he is a liar.
The Dude

United States

#53 Sep 26, 2013
huck wrote:
you can opt out of buying insurance next year and pay $95 on your taxes
Depending on how much you earn, that is $95 if it is less than or equal to 1% of your annual income,($9,500/Yr) otherwise you pay the greater amount (IE an income of $10,000/Yr will pay $100); and that's only next year. The fee or "tax" increases every year.

In 2014 the fee for uninsured children is $47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay in 2014 is $285.

It's important to remember that someone who pays the fee won't get any health insurance coverage. They still will be responsible for 100% of the cost of their medical care.
The Dude

United States

#54 Sep 26, 2013
Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
<quoted text>So all one has to do is pay $95 a year and then when you have a major illness or injury,buy the insurance.(can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions)
I just love the stupidity in this law!
Like I posted above, that $95 or 1% of you income is only for one year, it increases every year. You are right, you can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions, but you better get those decisions during the open enrollment period. Someone who pays the fee won't get any health insurance coverage. They still will be responsible for 100% of the cost of their medical care.
The Dude

United States

#55 Sep 26, 2013
heh wrote:
<quoted text>
$77/mo MORE for a family of four may not sound like much to someone above the middle class, and for those below the middle class who want it for free... but if you're middle class (especially lower middle class) and on a budget,$77/mo is significant. Add to that less coverage and more out of pocket expenses (such as my wife's unforeseen ER bill that I received at over $1.2k last month due to my insurance covering less... and the nurse actually telling me that I would have been better off financially if I didn't speak English or had insurance in the first place), it adds up pretty quickly.
The common straw man tactic of implying that opposition to the ACA equals discrimination against low income is just just that, a straw man fallacy. You'll be hard pressed to find someone opposed to the ACA simply because they are against people of low income. We'd like to see healthcare provided to those TRULY in need of support (not the moochers), but the ACA, as it currently stands is a severely flawed vehicle in which to pursue it.
BTW, you still haven't answered my question as to why those so fervent on getting the ACA passed are the same ones able to be exempt from it. Take your blinders off, open your mind and seriously think about that for a little while, then revisit your support for an authoritarian and flawed legislation of compassion that even those that passed it/supported it don't want to be part of outside of finalization.
BTW, Hi "sez you".
Depending on your income and coverage it may be less than $77/Mo, or you may qualify for the subsidy.

BTW, the reason you would be better off if you "spoke another language" is because of Reagan's EMTALA where it is illegal to refuse healthcare to ANYONE. Guess who picks up the cost for that? They are also ineligible for insurance subsidies and medicaid.

Again, there are no exemptions for federal employees, not even congressional members. The only exemptions are those who qualify under religious exemptions (mainly Mennonite and Amish who don't go to doctors anyhow), citizen's that pay the penalty, illegal immigrants (who are also excluded from medicare), and citizens who are eligible to enroll in medicare but don't.
The Dude

United States

#56 Sep 26, 2013
huck wrote:
If you get sick and don't have insurance then you aren't covered, and will have to wait until the next enrollment period Oct15-Dec15 for insurance to take effect the following year.
Penalty is $95 or 1% of income whichever is greater, and goes up to 2.5% by 2016.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/your-money/...
I should read through threads before replying... exactly.

It's still government coercion to buy a product from a private company.

What could go wrong with that? Health care costs have been ballooning since the HMO Act. I'd rather have single payer with an option for private supplemental.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#57 Sep 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason I'm against it, as the original "heh" or "huck" knows is because it is government coercion (no different the EMTALA and the HMO act of 1973). It forces US citizens to buy private insurance or pay a fine which Justice Roberts interprets it as a "tax" There is nothing "socialist" about it, it is literally coercion to purchase something.
Just as compulsary taxes purchases medicare for all, this coercive funding serves the same purpose.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#58 Sep 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, there are no exemptions for federal employees, not even congressional members.
"Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges" is their 'exemption'.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/14/...
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#59 Sep 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text> They are also ineligible for insurance subsidies and medicaid.
so don't treat them?
.
obamacare is the first step (on a cow pie) towards medicare for all

“Don't Drink The Obama Kool-Aid”

Since: Aug 09

You don't need to know, Va.

#60 Sep 27, 2013
And now the rest of the story.

Republican Sen. David Vitter is slamming his fellow lawmakers for “lying” and telling their constituents that there is no such thing as an Obamacare exemption for members of Congress and their staff members.

“Some are lying, trying to mislead the public about the Obamacare exemption for Congress,” Republican Sen. David Vitter said in a statement Thursday.“President Obama recently issued a special rule for Congress and congressional staff to get a special subsidy to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare Exchange unavailable to every other American at similar income levels. That’s an exemption, plain and simple.”

Vitter has been leading the Republican fight in the Senate with an amendment that kills federal Obamacare subsidies for lawmakers and their staff. It would require that all members of Congress, the president, vice president, and Obama administration appointees to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare exchange without taxpayer-funded subsidies.

To show that lawmakers are “denying” the existence of the exemption, Vitter’s office on Thursday released to the media a letter that fellow Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, sent to a constituent. She said the notion they are getting special treatment “could not be further from the truth.”

“Once again, let me assure you that there is no exemption for Members of Congress and their staff in the [Affordable Care Act], nor will I ever support an ‘exemption’ for myself of my staff,” Landrieu wrote.

Vitter’s office provided a copy of the letter he sent to the same constituent:“Senator Landrieu is trying to mislead you, to put it kindly. Others might say she is lying.”

“As you have no doubt read, President Obama recently issued a special rule for Congress only. Under it, Congress and congressional staff get a special subsidy to purchase health insurance on the Obamacare Exchange unavailable to every other American at similar income levels,” he said.“That special subsidy is worth approximately $11,000 per family.”

Vitter’s office also released a graphic that he says proves his point:



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/19/republican-...
The Dude

United States

#61 Sep 27, 2013
huck wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges" is their 'exemption'.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/14/...
tTat's not really an exemption, because every one can simply pay the fine or "tax"
The Dude

United States

#62 Sep 27, 2013
huck wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as compulsary taxes purchases medicare for all, this coercive funding serves the same purpose.
Medicare is not available to all, and this doesn't provide healthcare to all. If one opts out and pays the fine or "tax " they are still responsible for their own healthcare cost.
The Dude

United States

#63 Sep 27, 2013
*That's

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Insurance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Americans are more overweight than ever, CDC su... Wed TimeforHonesty 10
News Federal tax hike on cigarettes is criticized by... (Mar '09) Wed Share tax 6
News Al Franken: Health reform has made a difference... (Sep '10) May 17 Not Low Income Se... 241
News Obamacare premiums in California may rise 8% ne... May 15 Go Blue Forever 30
News Clinton Dumbfounded byRising Cost of Obamacare May 10 Three Days 1
News Sorry, Bernie fans. His health care plan is sho... May 9 Time again 2
News CA: Give Obamacare to Illegal ImmigrantsBy , Ka... May 6 Memo From Turner 6
More from around the web