Affordable Care Act Taking Effect
Starting today some provisions Affordable Care Act (ACA) that are directly related to woman care will takes effect. Insurance companies and employer will be required to provide free contraception to female employees along with a number of other issues. Some of these rules are controversial to some people however. Some of the disagreements range from the constructional authority, government over reach in policies, cost of providing these services and religion. Recent decisions by the courts just recently confirm its constitutionality, there won’t be any additional cost to anyone and religious organizations have an out. So I ask who among us disagrees with these provisions.
"Women will no longer have to reach into their pockets to pay for wellness checkups." 47 million women will be impacted by this. All insurance policies will be required to cover new vital care that women need to stay healthy and they'll have to cover the care without charging women anything out of pocket.
These benefits include;
1 Contraceptives
2 Breast-feeding supplies
3 Screenings for sexually transmitted infections and counseling for domestic violence.
4 Routine check-ups for breast and pelvic exams
5 Pap tests and prenatal care.
6 Mammograms to screen for breast cancer in women over 40
7 well-woman visits
8 counseling and screening for human-immune deficiency virus
9 domestic violence counseling
10 Give women access to annual physicals and pap smears, which can detect abnormal cells before they become cancer.
Before the law, many health insurance companies did not cover these services or charged co-pays that discouraged women from getting preventive care or preventing unwanted pregnancies,
Common sense policy, it’s about time.
Where did you get that from? Somehow an oil dividend escaped me. And sir, can I ask you how many of those quote "civilized nations" are as broke as we are or even more so?
John,
I couldn't agree with you more! As I read some of these posts about how we need to get things going and get everybody healthcare "equally" it just makes me furious! These people who want equality for the things they support and suddenly forget their equality whine when they don't support it has run it's course and I for one am so tired of hearing it and seeing them change the course of our nation for the worse that I cannot stay quiet any longer.
America was not founded on equality of healthcare. America is founded on everyone having the opportunity to pursue liberty and freedom (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ring a bell?), to EARN (that means you WORK FOR IT!!!) a living, earn a fortune, buy a home, buy property, worship however and whoever you want but America was absolutely NOT founded on equality in healthcare! GEEEEZZZZ!!!
And for the undereducated, healthcare came onto the scene through employers who wanted to add incentives to draw higher quality employees to the workforce. They offered it as a bonus to their wage. THAT is how healthcare became tied to employers.
Now, with the new TAX that Obama passed that he calls "affordable healthcare" what we are going to see is the 80% of workers who have healthcare supplied by their employer will begin losing their coverage or having their coverages reduced, chipped away at until ultimately, no one has employer provided healthcare. Then, we can all see how good, rationed, government run healthcare really ISN'T! It is a socialist ideology that motivates these people and they have no interest in earning anything. Everyone behind this plan wants the freebies and doesn't want to work for their benefits. That's the sad, plain truth. We couldn't address the 20% who don't have (preventative) healthcare and leave the 80% who do have it alone. And I say preventative because anybody who goes to any emergency room WILL get treated for free and the supporters of this bad law/giant tax know it! We HAD to destroy the system in order to cause the population to become dependent on the government for their healthcare. That way we all vote for the candidate who promises to continue our healthcare benefits and free food coupons. We get to eat, they get to stay in power! Next, they'll tell us where we must work and live and how many children we can have. Sound familiar?
And if you want to get on the topic of wars... Anyone interested in talking about Obama's latest (unapproved by Congress) ventures into Syria? I didn't think so... Only Bush is a liar. Right? Ridiculous!!!
Get the federal government out of our healthcare, out of our gun rights, out of our school lunch rooms and out of our bedrooms and out of our churches!
I don't support Romney's religion but I do support his right to worship as he see's fit. And I do support HIM to fix the mess Obama has made!
ROMNEY 2012
Craig a former leader believed as you do that the Governments role should be to coordinate or subordinate all independent institutions to the authority of the governement. It was called Gleischschaltung and it was phase one of how to build his dictatorship. The man was Adolf Hitler.
In building his National Socialist Party he believed that in order to control the people you must make them dependent on government. Other parts of his theory were ... promote loss of state power, suppress free enterprise, control corporations, use economic strife to control the public, control the banks, use unions , and vilify a certain class of people to unite the people. A later phase also involved control of the churches.
Any of this sounding familiar ?????
I didn't hear Wall Street, the banks or the auto industry complaining when government dollars (actually taxpayer dollars) bailed them out. Just saying......
...and fear mongering.
Creating a more equitable and accessible healthcare/health insurance system is simply a matter of national priority. Besides national defense, what is most important to most people? No, it isn't jobs or education. If you aren't healthy or if you are worried about health problems you aren't productive.
Ask anyone who has health problems and can't afford insurance what is most important in their lives. It is their health and what the cost of healthcare will do to their financial security.
Ask anyone who has health problems and CAN afford insurance what is most important in their lives. It probably still is their health, especially if their condition is debilitating or life threatening.
You can't have a good life and the liberty to pursue your dreams or your happiness if you aren't healthy.
Everyone understands how we got employer-provided health insurance, but is it the most efficient, cost effective way? Ask any small business who feels the obligation to provide, or at least subsidize, healthcare for their employees what their biggest non-productive expense is. Ask any large business the same question. It is the cost of providing and administering healthcare. And we are all paying for it in higher cost of goods, and that non-productive overhead costs jobs, too.
What other product (yes, health insurance is a "product") is so inequitably priced? Why do healthy people who are self employed pay dramatically higher premiums for less coverage? If group health insurance is so cost effective, why aren't we all in the group?
There are so many hidden costs to all of us in the current system, and so many unjust inequities that we, as a nation, should be willing to take another look and say "Can't we do better than this?" I think we can and we should.
The cost and pricing of healthcare is a complex issue. I don't know what is the best way to pay for equitable healthcare. First we have to decide if it is a priority. Just like buying a new car or new house you don't think you can afford...if you want it badly enough you'll find a way.
This discussion can and will go on and on...and on. My only point, really, is that some form of equitable healthcare for all citizens should become a national priority. It makes good, moral, common (and maybe even economic) sense.
PS -- I clearly remember a spokesman for the government (might have been Ari Fleischer) trying to justify the increasing cost of the war in Iraq by saying that once Saddam was gone and the government was stabilized that we would be repaid, at least in part, by an "oil dividend." I don't know if they believed it or not, but it hasn't been mentioned even though Iraq is now pumping a lot of oil.
Steven,
In response to your very eloquent statements I would simply ask: What is your basis for your opposition to the following services for women:
1 Contraceptives
2 Breast-feeding supplies
3 Screenings for sexually transmitted infections and counseling for domestic violence.
4 Routine check-ups for breast and pelvic exams
5 Pap tests and prenatal care.
6 Mammograms to screen for breast cancer in women over 40
7 Well-woman visits
8 Counseling and screening for human-immune deficiency virus
9 Domestic violence counseling
10 Give women access to annual physicals and pap smears, which can detect abnormal cells before they become cancer.
It seems to me that some of us are blinded by our eternal anger against those who are not us that our discussions become illogical and pointless. I can see your passion through your statements but it locks directions. I was talking about sensible healthcare laws for my grandmother, mother, sister and daughter how you were able to include, guns, church, and religion in that discussion mystifies me. I understand you are hoping that something will stick by tossing things against the wall but that is a false analogy.
I have a great suggestion. For those of you who feel you want to pay more in taxes for the government to give to others, write a check! That's the bottom line in this entire debate. And by the way, there are not enough rich people to do what the liberals (dems) in this country want to do. So all you Obama lovers, I tell you again, write a check!! I personally have paid much of my dues already. I've been paying 15.3 percent of my adjusted income for over 30 years into Social Security and am pretty sure I won't see a dime. How many of you dems have been paying 15.3 percent of you gross adjusted income into SS?
Sorry but the last three and a half years have hurt for me. If it has worked out for you, GREAT!!! Most people I know haven't been so lucky.
Many would agree that Obama has a very Europian socialist model as to how America should be reformed. His Marxist involvement in his teachings and advisors, and his praise for people like Sal Alinski demonstrate this. For many of us the disatisfaction with government run healthcare doesnt stem from wanting to see any American go without healthcare, but from the belief that Obamas quest for government controlled health care was for just that reason...control. In my view there was no need to affect and change everyones healthcare to provide care for those who presently cant afford it. And change it will.
You list all the benefits that women will receive from the bill. What about those who had good healthcare and will now be reduced to mass socialized government medicine. Do you really believe that these women will receive improved or better healthcare than what they receive now? As employers realize its less costly to pay a penalty and stop insuring their employees, those employees will end up on the equivelent of medicare. Fewer doctors will be available for care and those pap smears and breast exams will be limited or refused to curb costs. And the cost of the program will fall upon the middle class thru increased insurance premiums, taxes on their home sales (3.5%?) and penalties if they do not comply.
You spoke of costs not being increased. Just how does one add tens of millions of people to the healthcare roles (most of whom will not pay anything for it) and not either reduce services or increase cost??? Has the government ever ran a program, especially of this magnitude, and done it well? Social security, under funded and running out of money. Medicare, going broke. Heck they cant even run a railroad or a post office. Maybe they can put the GSA in charge of it. Without added costs, how will the US system be any better than the European government models? Name me one government run healthcare system that is better than our private American system. Should all Americans, for the sake of providing basic care for a few, have their healthcare reduced to a basic system of rationed care? Again this wasnt about social justice for the under insured. This was about instituting a program of the greatest magnitude that will control a very large chunk of the US economy and control its people.
You mentioned that church was brought into this. You said that churches were exempt however since most church hospitals are self insured and they as employers will have to provide insurance that includes contraceptives. (I believe they held this provision to go into affect after the election). Private employers will also have to provide insurance benefits that violates their religious beliefs.
John you miss the point. These services will be at no additional cost. The insurance companies have already agreed to it. What is your bother?
I simply don't believe it will be at no additional cost, with all the extra product, effort, time and costs someone is going to pay for it along the line.
I personally have no issue with this piece but I just don't see how it won't increase costs somewhere. Reminds me of purchasing something online, the product is free (won't cost anything extra) but the shipping and handling are 5x's the costs of the product
Thx
Todd
Let's recall how we got to employers paying for health care. It was a result of WW-2 and wage freezes that were in place so "benefits" were given instead and the result was employer paid health which also morphed into dental et al. It is a "tax free" benefit enjoyed by those fortunate enough to have it, and the tax free aspect may change soon under tax reform.
Having lived and traveled around the world, I would not place envy on other nation’s health services. Most pay for this via "Value Added Tax" on all goods and services, and some are as high as 20%, in addition to 40% average income tax rates (above $30K incomes). Many also require you to pay for all primary care out of pocket and only hospital/specialist care gets covered by the government. I distinctly remember paying $17 for a "Big Mac meal" in Oslo. Most US folks would choke on prices, especially in Europe. AND today they are going broke as they can't afford the benefits as their outrageous taxes can’t cover it and they don’t even have defense costs.
It is interesting to see that some folks believe it is fair and just for females to not pay more than males for medial insurance while requiring "for free" additional services. Who pays for them if not all of us? Providers and insurance companies don't eat costs, they merely pass them on. If it is fair for males and females to have the same insurance costs, then by similar logic, it is fair for an owner of a Ferrari to pay the same collision insurance cost as a VW owner. Our DC politicians just can't quit pandering to the ill informed voter... there is NO free lunch.
Dennis,
John isn't missing the point. You are...
As Todd says, nothing is free. There are NO insurance carriers who are willing to cut into their profits to give new additional services for free. That is fact! With that fact comes reality - someone will pay for those new services. That someone is the taxpayer! The taxpayer who already has healthcare through their employer and is NOW paying for someone elses healthcare. That is the point!
With that truth comes other negative effects. IF now, all these alleged millions who weren't getting this care are now going to get this care, the medical staffs, doctors and facilities will have increased patient volume. This will result in shorter appointments, fewer available openings, overworked staff, crowded waiting rooms, crowded parking lots and a decrease in the quality of care. And it will grow into the predicted delima of rationed care for ALL.
I believe all Americans who are paying attention to this topic would like to see every American who WANTS healthcare be able to access it. But I also believe that the large majority of American's against this are against it because it harms their own healthcare while benefiting another American. Also, because it's clearly going to result in a large TAX to the people who already have healthcare. Those two factors are what make it such a hot topic. It's just a bad deal for America! And at an economic time like this... it's suicidal. And the ultimate purpose the government passed it? Because it WILL force all American's to be far more dependent on the government for their essentials keeping them in power! It undermines America's foundation!
Like a previous post stated... If the supporters have such a strong desire to pay for others' benefits, get the check book out and write a check! But not one of those supporters ever do!!!
Dennis where do you get that there wont be any added cost? How can added services costing many millions of dollars not affect someones bottom line? Its true that the law requires insurance companies to include these extra healthcare services as a part of the package they sell to people without charging extra for it but do you really think this wont affect overall rates? Its estimated that rates will rise at 5.7 for the next ten years, an increase of over 50 per cent. Approx 1 to 3 percent of that is attributed directly to Obama care and those increases are already showing up on family premiums. The entire bill was designed as a give them something now and send the payment bill later approach to make it more palitable.
The Supreme court ruled that states cannot be forced to expand their medicare and something like 23 states have already said they wont. This is expected to create a subset of people who earn too much to qualify for medicare but not enough to receive any tax credit for the insurance they are forced to buy. These are mid to lower income families. Families that do not comply with the law and buy insurance face a fine of up to 2085 per family after the law is in full effect.
Also states will be required to pick up the extra medicare expenses and by 2020 and 90% of those costs will be born by the states. How will the states get that cash? Insurance companies have to fill in the medicare donut hole in regards to prescriptions. Who do you think will pay for that?
To say this will not be an added expense to tax paying citizens is like saying providing food stamps doesnt create any added expense to tax payers. The only ones that wont feel some financial impact from this bill are those citizens who dont earn enough to pay any taxes and get it paid for by the rest of us.
The long term purpose of this bill wasnt to make sure everyone had medical insurance. It was to create a scenario where private health insurance would cease to exist and the federal government would become the the single payer in charge of regulating, funding, servicing and providing all healthcare to Americans. Socialized medicine. The "look what we get free" was just a way to get us to swallow the kool aid.
Steven, in response to your question as to the source of my information. I say access the information and read it. Because you believe it and say it does not make it so.
Here is a like that might be helpful to you.
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/health-disparities.html
Dennis, do you believe everything you read on a government website? You can't be serious. I for one find it hard to believe anything on a government website.....that's just me.
Dennis: As a small business owner I've provided medical coverage for my employees since I opened the business 20 years ago. During that time I've spent thousand and thousands of dollars to provide this benifit and I did so not because the government said I had to. I can tell you this Obama plan is going to be devistating for small business operators. Between what is happening to our tax rates and the cost of the new medical requirements it might be better financially if I just liquidated the business and put our twenty some employees out of work. It's time you liberials woke up and realized small businss provides 75% of the jobs in this country and we're tired of paying for those who want to live on government dole.
Myrna don't give me any garbage about social security being government dole. I'll have to live another 17 years just to get back what I've paid into that mess since I was 16 years old. I have never been a receipant of government monies at any time in my life. Last year I paid a combined total of over $75,000 in taxes to the federal government and that doesn't include what I paid as my employees share of social security.
What's next? You want free movies at the local theater paid for by the government? Just wait I'm sure it's on its way.
Finally, something is being done to assist Women! This is what I know our health insurance co-pays have increased, our deductibles have increased and we are having to stay on top of the billing process because errors are made and it takes forever to correct a wrong - from the medical side!
I also know that there are thousands and thousands of people with no health coverage at all. When a situation arises, they go to emergency - they cannot pay - so guess who does? We Do!
The hospitals and medical professionals want to recoup their expenses - so us middle class foot the bill
What I also don't see, is anyone stepping up to the plate here with any solutions. All I hear are the complaints - some are justified (in my opinion) and some are ludicrous -
But a nation with healthy people means a nation of strength. And it is more then the medical coverage - it is in what we eat - what is being flashed across our tv screens, the garbage that is in so many of the foods that we are enticed to buy.
Good healthy veggies and fruits, good quality organic meat, all of this will assist those being in a healthier state.
Unfortunately, this country is a bit callused. I have family with disabilities and I see how much they are struggling just to pay for a medicaton or to get the help that they need.
I see the many other children of our country that need medical assistance - and yes, I see women, who need this too! Men - as well - so the real issue here is providing something - starting somewhere to provide much needed medical assistance -
I will gladly give up a latte or something else in order to put my dollars towards this venture.
You are right Judy.
There is a lot about the Affordable Health Care Law (Obama Care, if you prefer) that we do not know. But here is some of what we do know: We know that we have the most expensive health care in the world. We know that the cost of health care currently amounts to 15 - 17 per cent of the economy and is increasing at a rate which will bankrupt us. We know that our health outcomes measured by life expectancy are not superior.We know that government provided health care (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) is generally more satisfactory to the recipients than private insurance. We know that the CBO has evaluated the law and declared that its effect will be to reduce deficits. BTW, it is this official declaration which makes the law bullet- proof. As a practical matter, It can not be repealed with less than a 60% vote of the Senate. I think I am right that the GOP has not controlled 60% of the Senate since the Civil War when eleven states attempted to destroy the US by leaving.
We know that the Republican presidential candidate sired a plan which is the prototype of Obamacare and recently went all the way to Israel to praise their system of socialized medicine. And again BTW, a majority of Massachusetts residents find Romney care satisfactory. And we know that when the Clintons offered a plan to address the health care cost crisis, the Republican blew it up.
With all that we know, does it make sense to constantly rave against Obamacare?
I don't think so.
Al, you're right. There' a lot you don't know about the ACA. Did you know that after Jan 1, 2013 you'll be giving the federal government 3.8% when you sell your house, or other real estate? There are many things in the tax bill we haven't become aware of yet. This tax was signed into law without any of the signitaries having read it. How can you defend it? Emotional based voting and defense of this insanity is the PROBLEM. Nobody I've heard has suggested the entire bill is flawed. There are many parts that have merit and should be kept. Pre-existing conditions, adult "kids" on parents plans until 26 years of age etc.... Most of it has to go.
Except for our military, all government run programs are economic failures. All have ended up costing many times their projected costs. All are quickly becoming insolvent. Medicare, Social Security, DMV, US Post Office,,,,the list goes on and on and on. I don't want the government having anything to do with my healthcare. My provider does just fine, even with all the government meddling that keeps our healthcare prices rising.
Since the bill was defined as a TAX, it will only require 50% +1 in the HOUSE to repeal it. Hopefully, come November 6th, there will be a shift in the Senate seats and it'll go down in flames there as well.
As I stated earlier, there are some good parts in the bill that we should keep, and I'm certain Romney and company will address them. Romney has the background and experience and has proven so on the state level and in private business. We needed far more than a community organizer from Chicago, unfortunately, that's all we got. Let's not make that same mistake twice. This nation can not exist as a Euro-America.
Romney 2012!
Oh no, Andy, don't confront them with facts. Especially from government agencies.
Andy, I went to the web site you cited and read this:
"Assuming that H.R. 6079 {repeal of ACA} is enacted, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a NET INCREASE {caps are mine} in federal budget deficits of $109 billion...."
Andy, that says REPEAL would cause an increase in the deficit. Thank you for proving my point.
Steve, you are right. Repeal legislation in the House would require only a majority of those voting. However, we have a bicameral system. For legislation to pass, the Senate must concur. Recent practice is that no controversial legislation passes with out 60% of senators voting in favor. That is the device the Republicans have used to thwart the Democrats who currently enjoy a Senate majority. The reason the CBO's position is so important is that there is a way for the Senate to act on a simple majority basis. It's called budget reconciliation. However, for that device to apply the legislation in question must have the effect of REDUCING the deficit. As you can see in the CBO's letter to Speaker Boehner cited by Andy, that sole arbiter of the question has determined the issue contra to the view of those seeking repeal.
Oh, Steve, when you emphasize that the SC found an element of the ACA to be a TAX, I suspect that you have in mind the rule that revenue bills must ORIGINATE in the House. True enough, but they must still pass the Senate. I don't think anyone believes the Republicans will have 60 seats in the Senate next year. Therefore, Candidate Romney is blowing smoke when he says so firmly "I will repeal Obamacare". No he won't . Let's get on to matters we can do something about.
Projections of the budgetary impact of H.R. 6079 are quite uncertain because they are based, in large part, on projections of the effects of the ACA, which are themselves highly uncertain.
The same government that told us that by 1990 Medicare would only cost 12 billion cost nearly 10 times that. To many in our government the pie is simple to slice but once you set about to destroy the US health care insurance industry you can't turn back. What good will it be to have health care insurance paid for by everyone ( except those with waivers or when it comes down to it the poor) when you can't get in to see a physician of your choice?
Andy,
Please google "Mass. happy with Romney care?" Then ask yourself, why are the residents there are so happy with the plan? Is it because they can't choose their own docs do you think? Why are more employers now offering health insurance than did seven years ago? And isn't it great that the plan has cost no more than projected?
In a rational world, Gov Romney would be touting this signature achiement of his tenure as governor. Instead, he comes up with explanations as to how Romneycare is different. It isn't, and its success in the Bay State is the best proof extant that it can succeed on a broader scale.
Oh, BTW, weren't you willing to cite the CBO's letter to Boehner when you read it to support your case? How did you lose confidence so fast?
Al,
I suggest you try a search of "Massachusetts health care costs". It will return information which is not supported by your post. It appears the state has had to try to pass ligislation to curtail the "unexpected" rising, read sky-rocketing, health care costs. They are fixing it by limiting care. Read on.
Any come-back as to all the ACA waivers granted? If it's so great, why doesn't your congress, or huge blocks of unions and businesses that support dems, have to participate?? An answer is needed. ACA provided healthcare only good enough for us cattle?
Al, you say that without the ACA we will be bankrupted. I submit another opinion. With four more years of Mr. Obama we will be far beyond bankrupt. I'm with Natachia, keep drinking the Kool Aid. I realize you dems will never vote for a Republican but I as many others in America do not want the vision of Mr. Obama. I prefer personal freedom and liberty.
Obama has done nothing except prove that a leader without a clue is extremely dangerous. Four years of executive order scares the h*** out of me and should to you as well. Unless of course you have no offspring.
And once again, if you all want to pay more in taxes write a check....it's your right to do so. I personally pay enough already!
Steve,
I looked and I did find anything to contradict what I said re costs: something like "the plan has not cost more than projected". To be sure Massachusetts still suffers from terrible health cost inflation. I hope their plan to further address it works.
As for waivers, I plead ignorance.
Signing off.
ad
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2011/07/obamacare-waivers-list-is-up-to-1471.html
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Less than 3 months to go until the adults show up to clean up the mess. The House of Rep can already vote to simply not fund the Act. Thats what the Supreme Court decided.
Al,
Not all of your post was contradicted, just the main part. Mass. healch care cost projections not "exceeded"?! They've skyrocketed completely out of control according to every single article on Mass healthcare since Romney enacted it. Here's two. I could provide dozens more in the span a 5 minutes or less.
Right on...Right on!!!
The lack of preventative healthcare in this country is appalling, whether we're talking about women, children, or anyone else.
Two things I don't get:
1. Why is healthcare a profit driven industry? And don't say it is to hold down costs! Education isn't and neither should heathcare.
2. Why does your employer have anything to do with your healthcare? Your employer doesn't provide car insurance or homeowner's insurance. If a healthy workforce is so important (and it is) then why doesn't everyone have it equally?
Let's get with the program like every other civilized country (and even some that aren't so civilized) and insure everybody. If we can spend billions on useless wars (whatever happened to that oil dividend we were supposed to get from Iraq?) we can spend whatever it takes to insure all Americans.
Craig Sheumaker