obamacare and vaping?

[dave8944]

Is this some errant study or internet poll?

It's not "preventative care" at issue, but the annual comprehensive exam in the adult population. See the article I posted.

 

[Chas F.]

...Under Obamacare I have $75 more per pay period to go into my retirement account. THAT ROCKS!

You're welcome

 

[djezewski]

IDK. I suppose it's hard to find doctors that take medicaid. Or if not, I'd still take the job option if I were them over welfare. I honestly think most would. However all can't. Besides, you have to basically be broke to be on it so that's not a situation anyone would want.

Who knows. Maybe ACA will get modified to have the "check this box for additional dental at ____ dollars and this box for additional vision for ____ dollars".

Besides, I don't think medicaid coverage is what you think it is. They pay for tooth extraction, not crowns. IDK about fillings. Or some such. That's why there's so many poor people on it with missing teeth. Not to be cliche or judgmental. Just a fact. (I think).

Maybe basic glasses and a glaucoma check every few years.

I do know- my son as I said works for the county and is a Social Services worker. He handles intake of new "clients"(yes, they call them clients now)They have changed how medicaid works. They now Have Blue Cross or other HMO plans at least here in NYS. They do cover dental fillings, etc.

 

[AttyPops]

You're welcome

And "you're welcome" too if a disaster hits you. That's what insurance is...spreading the risk.

 

[p51mustang23]

This law so reminds me of other laws that require compliance. Let's take mandatory auto insurance. Laws are past mandating coverage yet, depending on State, 4.5-28% remain uninsured. No problem, they charge those that are insured an additional premium to protect them against those that are breaking the law. In the case of PA, the courts have even ruled that the uninsured driver can sue for economic and sometime non-economic damages.

Mandated insurance, fine collected by the government and the rest of us pick up the tab for those that use the system.

Although this is a bad thing either way, the state's actually have the constitutional power to do this. The Federal gov't does not, regardless of what the supreme court claims.

 

[AttyPops]

Although this is a bad thing either way, the state's actually have the constitutional power to do this. The Federal gov't does not, regardless of what the supreme court claims.

Yeah, because car insurance is such a bad idea. Maybe they should tax uninsured people that own cars with a penalty. Problem is...some don't pay taxes and others don't drive (but own a car on blocks). But if it was a "pay either way" they'd get insurance. Also, driving is optional. Health is not...it's what happens to living beings.

Or maybe the Supreme Court is wrong, but you know more.

Besides, it's a tax penalty if you don't sign up since you choose to be a burden/risk. Your choice, just pay the penalty.

It's not like you get put in jail for not having insurance.

 

[djezewski]

Unless it is your child it is against the law for anyone to make get treated for anything. There are many elderly who choose lets say cancer treatment when they have 6 mo or less to live, others will not. Same for hip replacements, etc. Heart transplants for 90 yo's, etc.
I am not sure what it is but a younger person usually will not go to the Dr. unless absolutely necessary. Is it the mind set they will get better without medical care, the cost of Dr's, they think they are invincible or all of the above. We can blame Dr's too for some of the healthcare costs. How many times does a Dr what you to come in for a follow up if say your shingles are better..your bronchitis cleared up, etc. Do we really need to got have an office visit to discuss our tests results...what's wrong with the phone and a copy of our test results mailed to us? Just think, the usual visit 15 minutes at $100-$200 hr @ 8 hrs- 32 patents 3200-6400 a day even if they only get 1/2 lets say from medicare, insurance on the low scale $1600 a day.....

 

[ClippinWings]

You completely pulled those #'s out of your posterior. The CDN costs alone, and hosting, and backup, and cloud services for a national system like that is huge. Not as big as, say, google. But huge.

And you're assuming full specs. Don't forget the design phase and the creation of the specs. And reviews. And scope changes later as congress makes changes. And 50 state severs. And coordination/grants for 50 state I.T. departments. And support for the states as they implement stuff. And the costs of the local "helpers" in each city, and their training on the system. And any IT training that happens (ACA specific info, not computer languages or whatnot). Testing. Commercials and public service announcements about the site. Printing of manuals (yes, probably some paper). Coordination and support with all the insurance companies involved.

Bet there's a lot of costs we're not considering here. It's always easy to say "I could name that tune in ____ notes." But composing it is tougher. And I admit those are just examples of things you're probably not considering. I made them up.

That's not to say I consider the 700 mil reasonable. Only that we have no idea what's included in that #

Translation: "It's a government job, lots of needless spending and waste... so it costs a lot more than it should."

Which was exactly what I was saying... and yes, there was a lot of guesstimated cost on my part, in the end the truth remains... no website costs $700m, unless the majority of what's included in that number is a lot of needless spending, pocket stuffing and waste...

 

[Fulgurant]

Translation: "It's a government job, lots of needless spending and waste... so it costs a lot more than it should."

Which was exactly what I was saying... and yes, there was a lot of guesstimated cost on my part, in the end the truth remains... no website costs $700m, unless the majority of what's included in that number is a lot of needless spending, pocket stuffing and waste...

FWIW, I think you're both right. Clearly, the website wasn't the only legitimate expense if the initial budget was $100 million. Even if we stipulate a standard government-math fudge factor of +100%, we're still talking about a project that a (presumably) sensible person would estimate at $50 million. As you've pointed out, no website costs that much.

The website is just the front end.

That said, the project apparently went about 600% over its initial budget. That's epic failure, either in the planning stage, or in the execution stage. And even with all of the ridiculous money that went into it, the website still wasn't ready for prime time at launch.

I was gonna insert one of those fancy facepalm pictures here, but I'm suddenly too depressed to go find one.

 

[sherid]

As I said, some vapers become evangelists against smoking. I see both smoking and vaping as choices some people make in order to pursue what is pleasurable. That's all I see. I am not out to convince anyone to either smoke or vape. My passion is simply to let each person make those choices without prodding from others.

 

[Luisa]

Yeah, because car insurance is such a bad idea. Maybe they should tax uninsured people that own cars with a penalty. Problem is...some don't pay taxes and others don't drive (but own a car on blocks). But if it was a "pay either way" they'd get insurance. Also, driving is optional. Health is not...it's what happens to living beings.

Or maybe the Supreme Court is wrong, but you know more.

Besides, it's a tax penalty if you don't sign up since you choose to be a burden/risk. Your choice, just pay the penalty.

It's not like you get put in jail for not having insurance.

Just give it time----

 

[Luisa]

They HAVE that option in ACA now if you're under 30. It's catastrophic coverage. At some point though, they have to dump you into the preventative maintenance cycle...regular BP checks and blood tests and disease cures and condition cure or management if not curable, and ...blah blah.

Kind of dumb to take that option though, IMHO. Particularly if you have a family.

I am not familiar with the catastrophic option for under 30.

 

[djezewski]

The only forcing they can do with preventative care coverage is make you take medicare when you collect Social Security and they take it out of your check. However at this point in time they can't make you get health checks to collect your Social Security..of course I am sure that hasn't crossed the "thought police's" minds yet.

 

[AttyPops]

I am not familiar with the catastrophic option for under 30.

lol. Neither am I.

However, it was in some article that said that qualifies as "having insurance". Maybe Kaiser foundation?
Health Reform | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

 

[AttyPops]

Found it. Here's a link and vid:
https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-buy-a-catastrophic-plan/

 

[DaveP]

I've only looked at the Kaiser link since the HC.gov site crashed. From reading the Q and A section it looks like they want you to go to Kasier for an estimate and they tell you that the price might be less if you qualify for subsidies as a result of household income being less than 4x the poverty level.

I've also seen at least 4 estimates of what 4 x poverty level actually is. The .GOV sites show poverty table amounts based on family size, so I guess that's why side articles quote different amounts.

I don't see much savings from my company plan offer if I have to buy dental and vision on the open market. I don't use my Express Scripts/Medco pharmacy plan anymore because most of the time I can purchase generics without paying the shipping costs.

I do think that eventually the healthcare.gov site is going to have to create more options to allow comparative pricing. Time will meld the plan into something workable that equals what people want. Right now, it's probably good for allowing subsidized choice of basic health care and that's what the law intended.

I would expect to see adjustments for the cost of the plans as more people enter the marketplace. When you think about it, group size can lower the cost. If you work for a company that employs 51 people, you will probably pay more than if you work for a company that employs 200,000. Using that logic, Healthcare.gov should be able to eventually work out deals with vendors for much better savings than company plans just by working the numbers and actuarial costs against the providers.

I hope to see healthcare costs go down as group size increases in the open market. I want to see the promised $2400 savings. I'm paying that much more this year than last year. Subsidies are the kicker in the lower cost promise. If your employer subsidizes your plan, you may not qualify for equal subsidies under Obamacare.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-beat-employers-insurance-100000965.html

If you already have health insurance through your job, you're probably wondering whether Obamacare will give you some new options. Will you be able to comparison-shop for a plan on the new online exchanges that might be better than your employer health insurance? The answer is a big, resounding "maybe."

Like almost everything else having to do with health care reform, there are plenty of nuances and caveats. Trying to decipher them and choose the best health insurance plan for your situation "makes homeowners insurance seem really simple," says Brian Haile, senior vice president for health policy at the tax services company Jackson Hewitt.

<snip>

Here's the big hiccup: Unless your employer's coverage for an individual is considered unaffordable under the law (that is, if your share of the premiums costs more than 9.5 percent of your household income) or inadequate (picking up less than 60 percent of the cost of covered benefits), you aren't eligible for a government subsidy to help pay for your insurance. Subsidies are one of the things that can make plans on the new state exchanges appealing.

Subsidies in the form of tax credits are available even if you earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, currently about $46,000 for an individual and $94,000 for a family of four. The subsidies vary based on income and the size of your family.

Trade in your employer plan?

And that brings us back to the central question: If you have employer health insurance, should you check out the Obamacare exchanges anyway? There are differing opinions.

"It would generally not benefit an employee to leave their employer-sponsored plan," Smith concludes, adding that your employer would be under no obligation to help pay for an exchange plan.

Haile says you may not be able to do better than your work-based coverage. "Look at how robust your employer plan is" and the benefits it provides, such as whether it includes dental and vision care, which are not part of the essential health benefits that must be offered with plans sold in the Obamacare exchanges, he says.

Still, if your employer-sponsored health insurance seems to eat up a big chunk of your budget, you might want to explore your options on the state exchange, Haile says.

 

[DaveP]

Here's another little seldom talked about glitch in the opt out plan under Obamacare. Some younger people say they will just pay the $95 and forget health insurance. The penalty is $95 or 1% of your annual income, whichever is greater. If you have a $30,000 a year job, you will pay a $300 penalty for not having insurance. Most young people can probably buy a Bronze or better policy for that amount.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/obamacare-questions_n_4060345.html

Doing this would subject them to a yearly individual mandate penalty that starts at $95 or 1 percent of their annual incomes, whichever is higher. In return they'd get no insurance, meaning they'd have to pay through the nose for any medical care they end up needing. The absence of young people's premiums, as well as their resulting unpaid medical bills and debt, would all make it significantly harder for Obama to succeed, which is exactly what Republicans want.

 

[2coils]

Here's another little seldom talked about glitch in the opt out plan under Obamacare. Some younger people say they will just pay the $95 and forget health insurance. The penalty is $95 or 1% of your annual income, whichever is greater. If you have a $30,000 a year job, you will pay a $300 penalty for not having insurance. Most young people can probably buy a Bronze or better policy for that amount.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/obamacare-questions_n_4060345.html

You are correct, and I'm sure they had this in mind when this masterpiece was designed. And the penalties get stiffer for those who elect not to have coverage in year two and three.

 

[AttyPops]

The penalties increase, like 2coils said.

It's an "adjustment period"...gradual roll out of fines. My understanding at least. I don't think it's sabotage as much as being nice while the country adjusts to the new law.

 

[djezewski]

Why on earth should people pay a penalty when the site isn't even functioning?
Now for my beef.
Many young adults have to live home until you die because all they can get now are 20 hr per week jobs and have to drive with 50 miles to get a job. They can't afford to rent an apartment or if they can get subsidized housing it is full of crack heads and other unsavory people. Parents have to pay for the insurance for their kids because all there money if sucked up in gas and car repairs even if they live at home. I see too much of this around especially if you live in a rural area there are no jobs. Lets not even get into student loans....
I thought when my children were small that they would have opportunity when they grew up, not oppression.