WhiteHouse Posts Obamacare Costs State-by-State

That's a whole lot worse than what we have now, and using that link's figures, $1,200 per year more expensive.

We have a $500 per family member annual deductible. We pay $30 for office visit co-pays. What's this out-of-network nonsense? [/sarcasm] Everyone within 500 air miles of where I'm siting right now gladly accepts our plan carrier.

But, we pay between 0%-10% of the cost of care after the deductible up to a yearly stop loss of $2,000 total out-of-pocket. Non-Generic Prescriptions are $15-$50. Generic Prescriptions are $1-$5.

Thankfully, we got a letter with big bold print at the top of the page saying that our Employer subsidized health insurance will not be changing.

^ Which is the whole point of the health care act. Either do at the level of, or better than, the exchange rate the PPACA offers, while still offering the more competitive rate. That's why Vermont said "fuck it, we'll do better" and is going with single payer.

Hey. I hope it works out because sitting on a pile of ashes saying, "I told you so" isn't a lot of fun. But, the actual healthcare providers are being laid off across the nation.

My mom's hospital terminated 60 nurses just this week because of Obamacare with more to follow.

^ Except that the hospitals laying people off have been doing so for some time, before the ACA was even put into effect. It's mostly companies doing chicken little stuff, thinking the end is nigh. From that very article it says, "Some hospitals said they were making cuts to be proactive because they expected Medicare reimbursements to continue to lag due to ObamaCare reforms."

They're taking precautions against an unknown, and while that's understandable, that doesn't mean the PPACA is at fault merely for existing. As for "40%" of hospitals closing within 10 years due to the ACA? That's absurdity. If anything is bringing hospitals to their knees, it's the insane rise in medical costs that those same hospitals have to eat because people too poor to afford healthcare use them only when their ailments have progressed to the point of immediate need, and then can't pay. Employers can't keep shouldering the burden, hospitals can't keep eating it up, and as the baby boomers in this country age, we're all in "I've got a rusty scalpel and a witch doctor" territory unless something is done. The PPACA is a decent, but incomplete, step to getting that done. If I had my druthers, we'd have single payer, but I didn't, and we don't.

As an aside, here's a Myth Debunker from PolitiFact that runs through the lies and truths of the whole issue: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

I like keeping it on hand because I have family members who are staunchly conservative, and by that, I mean most of them are Tea Party members who think Obama's the Antichrist (I'm not kidding).

Anyhoo, I've said it before, the PPACA isn't perfect; it has significant issues, but those issues can be smoothed over. Nothing works perfectly out of the gate. Of course, if the government won't quit fucking around, and if they'll actually get to work, we could see improvement quickly, but as it is, the whole lot of them are being as productive as a bunch of fat kids on treadmills trying to power a large city.

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=91661&sitesection=cotr&VID=25201358

The hospital CFO I know said it's because while Congress didn't bother to read it, the hospital's legal department did and they know what's coming. He attended a meeting of hospital CFO's in Washington DC recently and they were claiming that 60% of not-for-profit hospitals and 40% of all hospitals in the United States will be closed ten years after Obamacare has taken full effect with the way the law is written today.

I can tell you for a fact that if it wasn't for their endowment and charitable foundation, one of the five largest hospitals in the State of Alabama would not be able to keep it's doors open due to Obamacare's changes to Medicaid.

Yeah. I can't prove it with links, but I know the people in charge. You'll just have to choose whether or not I'm credible.

That's up to the state. Each state has the say in whether it will or will not expand Medicaid, and open the exchange rates. Alabama is one of those states. Talk to Governor Bentley on that one.

You can read more about the PPACA and hospital closure here: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...fs-is-obamacare-to-blame-for-hospital-layoffs

The PPACA isn't solely a federal program, so much as it is a state based program. While some laws will be enforced whether the state likes it or not, one of the concessions is that Medicaid and exchange rates are up to the individual states, and if your state won't expand Medicaid or open the exchange to people living in that state, then people in those states won't get the full benefit of the PPACA. Talk to your state.

I actually support that decision. Alabama can't support an exchange without tax increases. Our Constitution requires a balanced budget. A tax increase just isn't going to happen. The last time it was put to the state as a whole, I want to say 77% voted against the tax increase.

The other side of the coin is that Washington will cover 100% of the expansion...through 2016. That's when Federal funds start reducing, slowly, and the States will be left holding the bag.

But, that's not what I'm talking about, John. What I'm talking about is that Obamacare does change a lot of the reimbursement rates for Medicare/Medicaid. Expanding, or not expanding, Medicaid wouldn't cause a hospital to close. But, changing reimbursement will.

Source: Forbes

When the money starts running out, this is what happens:

That's money coming out of Texas' general fund, not from Uncle Sam.

I'm not sure what can be done about it. Quite honestly, our healthcare system has needed reform for a long time. PPACA may be too little too late; it may be a band-aid on a gushing wound. Then again, it may work out and solve many problems, leading the way to a more tenable system. It's still way too early, though I do believe it will work out, and I do feel that some people are jumping the gun before things have even rolled into place. That's all I can really say on the whole matter.

That's the whole point right there. For anybody with subsidized insurance, these rates won't look good. For people who pay full price, these rates are quite attractive.

So we can assume Ramen's another one of those moochers who's been getting a free ride to this point, and his real issue is that, for him, the free ride is over.

Meanwhile, annoying as some WFers find them, there are facts, not least of which is that full implementation doesn't start until January 2014:

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aar...eform/2013-08/aca-factsheet-timeline-8713.pdf

As much as you would like to make it personal, garamet, I'm merely offering information about Obamacare. I'm not sure why you're so upset.

That information is in the original link I posted. The exchanges themselves are set to go online in October - which is also from the original link.

You do know that link goes to whitehouse.gov, right?

So you acknowledge that you're complaining about something that won't happen until January, right?

Besides, the information I'll be posting hereafter isn't for you, but for anyone who isn't snowed by your bullshit.

Complaining? I'm the one who posted the WhiteHouse.gov link saying as much. Also, I haven't posted anything in regards to dates save the exchanges due to go online in October.

Perhaps you'd like to use the following link to let the Obama Administration that the information from their own website is bullcrap?

Link

Nah, I'd rather just keep posting these:

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/healthcare_reform/2013-07/aca-infographic-aarp.pdf

Thanks garamet. Don't you think you should send that link to WhiteHouse.gov? That way the Obama Administration can fix any incorrect information that you have discovered.

Probably the lamest defence I've seen for Obamacare was that "reform was needed". I'm sure plenty of people would agree to that point, but that's because that isn't the point that's in contention, which is that Obamacare was the wrong reform, because not only does it not help, it actually makes things worse. Oh, but something had to be done.

More of the information Ramen doesn't want you to look at too closely.

You're like that Iraqi information minister claiming that the Americans aren't in Baghdad. Wow, you're just a true believer, aren't you?

In facts, yeah.

Haven't seen you counter with anything other than

More of the information Ramen doesn't want you to look at too closely and Captain X can't refute.

Okay, describe the right kind of reform.

NO! I FORBID YOU ALL TO LOOK AT THIS!

FORBIDDEN!!!!

More

From the very first link:

So, you're just going to post the exact same information I post, but from a different source (AARP) and then claim I'm trying to hide the same information?

I suppose Moriarty needs his Sherlock Holmes.

Hide, no. Misrepresent, yes. Either you don't understand it, you're playing devil's advocate, or you really are Moriarty.

(Wouldn't be a bad username, though, if you decided to change it.)

Please explain where I've misrepresented anything.

Your tune has always been "Obamacare Bad!"

If it's changed, you've yet to indicate it.