A few weeks ago we saw how even the best intentions for health care reform may sometimes just not be enough.
I’m referring to the Administration’s ruling on health care subsidies and the employer-sponsored health insurance market. Under ACA, if your employer offers you “affordable” coverage (“affordable” being defined as premiums costing less than 9.5% of income), you are not eligible for financial help - the idea being, since your employer is paying part of your health care costs, you’re already receiving help. Sounds logical. However, according to the recently announced regulation, the 9.5% maximum pay out applies to the cost of individual coverage for the employee. The additional cost to insure dependents would not be considered in the formula. So if your employer’s-offered policy charges a lot more in premiums when dependents are added, the real cost of insurance for the entire family could exceed the 9.5% maximum yet the family will not be eligible for a subsidy. The result is some low-income families will be left with the same options they had before the reform that being either pay the high premiums or go without insurance.
Although I’ve not seen anything written so far to back this up, there may be another option available to these dependents. That is, they could go to their state exchange and buy health insurance in the individual market where they may be eligible for assistance if the family income does not exceed 400 % above the Federal poverty level. I don’t know if this scenario will work but it seems a possibility.
In any event, “relative to the tens of millions of Americans” Obamacare will help the group of people affected by this ruling is small in comparison. Even so, covering everyone is the reform’s goal and efforts to avert this problem were considered. As was stated in Jonathan Cohn’s article, “Not-So-Universal Health Care Slipping through the Cracks of Obamacare,” the Government Accounting Office recommendation to the Administration was to consider making dependents eligible for subsidies but critics protested with legal and policy objections. Cost was also an issue, as one analysis suggested it would cost the government tens of billions of dollars each year. Later this figure was seen as an exaggeration. Nonetheless finding even a few more billion to allocate would have been difficult so trying was not pursued. However, if the previously mentioned option for dependents buying insurance in their state exchange is valid, the government may in fact wind up paying out more than they have anticipated anyway. We’ll see.
So what does all this say? Something supporters of the health care reform have known all along – that more work needs to be done in the design of the reform. I think Senator Tom Harkin, the retiring Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said it most aptly when he compared the reform to a “starter home”—with a solid foundation, a sturdy roof, and room for expansion. The recent regulation is a good reminder to us all that Obamacare is not the final but the first step toward building a health care system that works for everyone.
The sequester kicks in after tomorrow. And instead of working out a compromise, Obama is out campaigning to tell the american people the republcians are at fault. This is an AUTOMATIC plan--if you want to stop it from being put in place, its obama who needs to realize he got his tax hikes 2 months ago--and the American people dont have that short of a memory.
After taking his time to do the research rather than simply reacting in a politically expedient way that put party before the people of his state, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has concluded that accepting the expanded Medicaid portion of the Affordable Care Act for New Jersey is, in the Governor’s words, “the smart thing to do for our fiscal and public health.” Christie becomes the latest Republican governor, following on the heels of Florida GOP Governor Rick Scott, to set aside the Republican anti-Obamacare agenda, no matter who gets hurt, and do what is in the best interest of his state.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced, an opponent of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, said Tuesday that his state will participate in Medicaid expansion that is a centerpiece of the law's attempt to give health insurance to the uninsured. Christie's is the eighth Republican Republican governor to buy into the Medicaid expansion, which was made optional by the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. "While we already have one of the most expansive and generous Medicaid programs in the nation, including the second-highest eligibility rate for children, we have an opportunity to ensure an even greater number of New Jerseyans who are at or near the poverty line have access to critical health services beginning in January 2014," Christie said at the State House today during an address on the New Jersey budget. Half the states have agreed to participate in Medicaid expansion, according to health consulting firm the Advisory Board.
It's all party time for these folks.
Lesson learned!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/12/Senate-Democrats-Urge-Undoing-of-ObamaCare
"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "
“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups...were saying ‘it’s about abortion,’ which it never was. ‘It’s about ‘death panels,’’ which it never was. ‘It’s about a job-killer,’ which it creates four million. ‘It’s about increasing the deficit’; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on. “They were still trying to woo the Republicans,” Pelosi said of the Senate leadership and the White House, trying to “get that 60th vote that never was coming. That’s why [there was a] reconciliation [vote]” that required only a simple majority. “So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It’s not going to be any of these things.” She recognized that her comment was “a good statement to take out of context.” But the minority leader added, “But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying....”
Covers abortion- uh if you live in a state that allows it. http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/24/karen-handel/karen-handel-lays-out-case-against-obama-others-ne/ Death panel- funny how words matter to the Left so much. Death panel is too scary to describe a panel of un-elected bureaucrats deciding whether you NEED a procedure based on cost. Pro-life vs Pro-death?
Bottom line buddy- IT WILL DESTROY THE QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE AND BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY!!
I'm not defending Pelosi, i'm calling you out on editing quotes to try to prove your point. If you have to edit quotes to prove you point, maybe your point isn't that strong.