A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Another new deadline??

Posted: Dec 25, 2013

Do you suppose there is a problem?

;

I think at this point... - ZvilleMT

[ In Reply To ..]
they can no longer be called "deadlines." Perhaps "suggestions" would be better? :)

If you're referring to - NK

[ In Reply To ..]
the extension for people who have made a good faith effort to sign up, I have no problem with it. As opposed, of course, to the people who have spent negative energy on hoping the ACA will fail and delighting in the expected glitches of a massive new program.

Excellent post!! Couldn't agree more. (NM) - Libby

[ In Reply To ..]

Do you think a Boehner review committee - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
will be called for the Target debacle, or the Fed-Ex and UPS dysfunction? They are all *established* businesses and are having problems. . . not a start-up.

And I'd bet that each of the companies you (sm) - Libby

[ In Reply To ..]
mentioned had some sort of delays and dysfunction of their own when they were just starting out.

As far as Boehner, I'm not sure if I'd trust anything he reviews. At least, it's too early to tell if he was sincere in his admonition of the Tea Party. If he truly IS starting to stand up to them, then he may be trustworthy.

As I've stated previously on this board, I would expect there to be even MORE delays in a program of this magnitude.

I remember when Obama wanted a single payer program. The republicans objected to that, and Obama compromised with the republicans. I personally would have liked to see a single payer program, as well.

(For all the times that people posted on here that Obama refused to cooperate with the republicans, I just gave you an example above of a time that he DID compromise.)

By the way, do you think that Boehner will have a review committee look into the United States Post Office debacle? That's been going on even longer, and Congress is really treating the USPS badly!

So many of you seem to think there were no problems before the ACA - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
Many insurance plans would not cover basic services that subscribers were unaware of because they never used them and would not find out until they needed them. People like their plans if premiums are low but not when they find out, usually too late, that they have very high deductibles and no coverage for certain services they may need some time after buying the policy. At least the ACA is trying to correct these practices. The status quo was terrible for millions of Americans so it's not like it was taking a silk purse and turning it into a sow's ear.

My deductible is 5 x what it was over last year. - This helps me how?

[ In Reply To ..]
Agree it was bad before; now it is horrendous. They made it much worse, IMHO. It was not well thought out, planned or executed. The math just does not add up.

Who is charging you that? That's who you should blame. - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

LOL - the whole thing is a problem. - Repeal!!

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

And what is your plan - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
for 50 million uninsured Americans?

Who is going to pay for it? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

My tax dollars - NK

[ In Reply To ..]
I paid $9000+ in federal taxes last year, and I would be delighted if every cent I pay in taxes would go towards helping uninsured Americans get insured.

Thank you! You're what I call a TRUE American! (NM) - Libby

[ In Reply To ..]

The problem is that's not where your tax dollars go - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I'd love for my taxes to help elderly, and pay off the debt, or end world hunger. Unfortunately that's not where our tax dollars go. Or better yet forget our money helping other people get insurance, I'd rather have my tax money help other people get jobs. Especially the ones who have been out of work for awhile or can't get a job cos they are over 45 years old. People need jobs more than they do health care. Having health care is not going to pay the rent or electric or buy your child a new pair of shoes. Wish the govt was more focused on getting work for people than imprisoning us in socialized health care. Especially when many of us were happy with our health care until they meddled in it and now put us out of health care that we used to have and was working fine.

Health care is huge field, where many people find employment ,,,, - me

[ In Reply To ..]
...including ourselves (at least some of us.) I think expanded health care will provide a great number of new jobs. It's what we call a win-win.

I like the idea of my tax dollars going to something other than futile wars.

Health care does not employ everyone - also...sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I know a lot of people throughout the country and also from news stories too. None of them are qualified to get a job in the health industry. Having health insurance does not mean that everyone is going to be employed in the health industry. That just doesn't make sense. You wrote "at least some of us". What do you mean by that? It's not a win-win. Who is "we"? You? That also doesn't make sense. The truck drivers, janitors, factory workers, school teachers, computer programers, secretaries, welders, etc etc etc cannot get jobs in health care. How do you figure its a win for them?

I never said anything about tax dollars going to war. Are you accusing me of wanting tax dollars to go for futile wars? If so that also does not make sense, since I said I would like to see my tax money going to provide jobs to people all over the country (teachers, factor workers, truck drivers, etc). But guess what? You think paying more money in taxes is going to actually go to health care for others? If so all I can say is I wish I was that naive.

Perhaps you missed the "if" in my post - NK

[ In Reply To ..]
Of course, no one knows where their tax dollars are going, thus the reason for my saying "I would be delighted if . . ."

While health care (and I assume you mean in the context of having coverage for health care) doesn't pay the rent, having coverage certainly helps if you have an accident or are diagnosed with a major illness.

BTW, I've been imprisoned in "socialized health care" for 7 years. It's a wonderful thing.

No, I didn't miss it. I just gave you my opinion - and - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
It does not matter whether or not you said "if". I was giving you my opinion.

No, having health coverage does not pay the rent, utiliites, etc. But we don't have an accident or are ill once a month for the rest of our lives, now do we.

Glad you like being imprisoned. Just because you like socialized health care doesn't mean it's good for everyone. Most Americans do not want it. Out of curiosity, what health system are you under that you think is such a wonderful thing.

If we're fortunate, - NK

[ In Reply To ..]
no, "we don't have an accident or are ill once a month." However, a catastrophic accident or illness can happen to anyone, and that's the reason medical bills are the highest cause of bankruptcy in this country. A friend's husband is receiving chemotherapy, and $20,000 an infusion is a lot of rent, utilities, and kids' shoes. What do you think he would have done if he didn't have really good insurance coverage through his employer (a plan negotiated by a union incidentally)? The ACA is intended to give everyone that opportunity.

I have Medicare, known by the right wing crowd as socialized medicine. As I said before, it's a wonderful thing.

We're paying for it anyway - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
The whole point of getting people insured is that we are already paying with tax dollars and higher premiums for those who are insured. We pay much more when all the uninsured let their health issues go until they have to go to an ER. ER care is much more expensive than preventive medicine.

There have been many suggestions/plans. The problem is - if they are proposed by a Republican

[ In Reply To ..]
They don't even stand a chance of being heard by democrats. There have been so many good alternatives than to throw everyone out of insurance who had insurance, not get the bugs worked out of the system before the launch, laugh about being now being out of insurance, tell them they have til a certain date to sign up "or else", then not have the system work so they can get insurance. Then turn around and tell them they have 24 hours, still without a system that allows them to sign up. Told you can keep your catastrophic plan, then told you can't keep it. Told people with pre-existing conditions won't pay any more, then find out that depending on your pre-existing condition you do pay more. Every time you are told one thing within 24 hours it changes. But when a republican has a good suggestions, forget it, the communists/progressives will not listen to it. They'd rather screw the people than do something positive for them all because it was proposed by a republican.

The problems is they made something into a worse problem. There are now more people uninsured than there were before this began (including people who had insurance).

I gave an example above where Obama (sm) - Libby

[ In Reply To ..]
compromised with the republicans when Obama wanted a single payer plan or public option, but the republicans whined and insisted on this type of coverage instead.

So Obama compromised and gave the TP/R their way, to the detriment of the Act, IMHO.

Why must you call progressives communists? It's simply not true, but I guess some people just don't know how to communicate unless they are rude and call others names.

It's sad, really, and I feel sorry for this type of individual.

Can you name one of these many - suggestions/plans?

[ In Reply To ..]
That would actually work? Why do I think it will be: selling insurance across state lines and tort reform?

Both of those are not realistic in that they would help only a small percentage of people and it would not be the people you are talking about in your post. Also, the Republicans had 8 years to effect these great suggestions, why did they not? I think we all know what Republicans think about the health system, that it was just fine the way it was.

Personally, I question the ones squealing about this. People who have to pay a little more on their premiums, but who can actually afford it, seem to be really upset! I think they like the idea that the health system was for them, the well off, not for us, the commoners.

It has been a travesty for years that with a high paying job you not only got free health insurance for the most part, but gold-plated health insurance. How in the world is that fair when, if you are an MT, you know now many of us are working two jobs, killing our bodies, just trying to make ends meet. So Ted Cruz with his wife's $40,000 (paid) Goldman Sachs health care is worth more than us? Ironic that the people who can afford to pay more are so affronted now they actually have to.

They could care less about all of us who have been unable to get coverage and the coverage we are (still) offered is overpriced and truly disaster only. I hope the day comes when health care (or if you must, health insurance) is completely detached from employment and we are all able to take part in the exchanges, because I would much rather have that than my MTSOs grandfathered very bad high deductible insurance plan.

If I were eligible to take part in the exchanges, my entire family could get insured with a much better policy for about $100/month with subsidies.

From my viewpoint the only problem with Obamacare is that those of us who are eligible through our employer must accept our company's overpriced disaster insurance. I truly hope more of them decide to opt out because I would love to be told I need to go through the exchanges.

You hit the nail on the head!! (SM) - Libby

[ In Reply To ..]
It IS the "commoners" versus the "privileged" -- back to that old 47%statement -- that this is all about!

I became very, very ill back in 2006, and I had one of those practically worthless MTSO insurance policies. If I made a certain number of lines, my employer would pay half of the premium.

I spent a great deal of time in the hospital, so, naturally, I couldn't run around that hamster wheel and produce enough lines for employer participation.

Oh, did I forget to mention that the premium way back then was $700.00 a MONTH, with a $2,500 deductible??? I obviously didn't have $2,500 so this policy was basically worthless, and I got outta Dodge VERY soon and canceled that policy. My employer very emphatically and strongly urged me to NOT cancel the policy, and I couldn't make her understand that I just couldn't afford it.

I guess one person's $700 is another person's $100. It's all relative.

Just last week, my doc ordered me to be on oxygen 24/7 at 3L and wants me to have a portable concentrator. The supply company I had been using told his office flat out that Medicare will NOT pay one penny of this.

His nurse did a little investigating and found a company who knows that Medicare indeed covers 80% of it, and if that 20% represents a hardship, they find a way to work with the patient (which I think is great, even though I think I'll be able to handle the co-pay).

(Sorry I went off the beaten track there; I just now got the news and am really happy that I can continue breathing for now.)

I'm hoping that Obamacare will someday become a single payer program or even Medicare since we all already pay into that system.

And for the record, I, too, question the ones who are constantly squealing about this.

The United States thinks it's such a superpower, yet it's the only one of ten developed countries that does NOT have universal healthcare, as is pointed out in the link below. We are so woefully behind in that area, yet we run around with our chests all puffed out ready to attack any country that looks at us cross-eyed.

I really like your post. Thanks for letting me vent!

EDIT: Here's another link of a map of the world showing how behind we really are!

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

Your last statement - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
is simply not true and you would have to tell me where you got that figure. Also, the ACA is comparable to the plan that Mitt Romney (remember him), a Republican, started in Mass. Instead of trying make the plan work, current Republican pols are just trying to torpedo the whole thing. I agree the plan as a multitude of problems and does not do enough to address the costs of health care but at least it's trying.

Do you mean my statement about how it would - cost my family $100/mo?

[ In Reply To ..]
Well, if that's what you mean, it is just an estimate from the site www.ehealthinsurance.com. I clicked on the Family Health Insurance link and at the bottom you can "check if you are eligible for a govt subsidy" and based on our income we were - $1129/month. Then the insurance options premiums were between $875 and $1600 and so perhaps assuming we could get the insurance for $100/month is not a guarantee, however, certainly we are eligible for a subsidy that would make the premium very reasonable, if not negligible.

I have put the link for individuals below, or if you want to do the family one try that. First check the subsidy though because it is based on income, and then when you see the premium cost it is not so scary.

I see if you click on the link the subsidy - eligibility box is not there

[ In Reply To ..]
Tricky, aren't they?

I suggest you do a Google Search for:

ehealthinsurance

and from the search page click on Family or Individual insurance, and then that link is there at the bottom to check for subsidy eligibility.

Wow, you might think these insurance companies didn't want people to know they were eligible for subsidies. Otherwise they might make it a bit easier to figure out the true cost.

Insurance companies are only interested (sm) - Libby

[ In Reply To ..]
in subsidies if THEY'RE on the receiving end, like oil companies, etc.

Isn't that dishonest... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
...to take gov't health insurance and subsidy when it is available through an employer (MTSO)?

I would not call it dishonest - - it's impossible!

[ In Reply To ..]
If you are offered insurance by your employer you simply cannot qualify for ACA.

I was just trying to point out that were I allowed to, I would take ACA in a flash over the garbage the MTSO have offered, but because they offer it we have to take it.

O...ty! - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

No, I meant your statement - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
about there being more uninsured now than before.

Yeah, sorry, but a happy misunderstanding means - I have told everyone how

[ In Reply To ..]
To check ehealthinsurance to see what their subsidy is!

You must search ehealthcare, then click on the link that pertains to you ON THE SEARCH PAGE, i.e. Individual Plans, then at the bottom of the page there is a link that says "see if you are eligible for a subsidy" and plug the details in, THEN go on to check the insurance.

I have tried this subsidy calculator on the page many ways, my family, my son alone, myself alone, myself even making better money, and I always receive a generous subsidy.

The thing is if you just click the calculator to find you insurance the premiums seem rather steep, but of course the subsidies are the important thing so it pays to find that out first so you can automatically subtract it.

I would be very surprised indeed if anyone in our job ends up worse off with Obamacare, and if they do they have other income or are married to it.

hmm .... and who pays the subsidies? we all do ... - math still does not add up .. no message.

[ In Reply To ..]
c

And now I realize you were meaning the - other poster's statement

[ In Reply To ..]
Sorry about that, but hey, anyone wanting to find their subsidy and insurance, go for it.

Took me a while to put all that down and figure out how to make sure they don't hide the subsidy from you, so please, everyone who is an MT, have a go at the Ehealthcare (subsidy first) and tell me you wouldn't be better off than with the current MTSO insurance.

Amen to THAT!! (NM) - Libby

[ In Reply To ..]

Similar Messages:

Mar 13, 2014
Another red line in the sand that will disappear on Monday and please don't ask me what he should have done. I just know he needs to keep his mouth shut ...

May 31, 2013
link ...

Nov 22, 2013
to November 15. Gee, isn't that just past election day? He just keeps getting away with this crap. It's amazing our country has come to this. Go ahead and defend him, Democrats. Then get offended when someone posts "mindless following". Right. ...

Nov 22, 2013
He keeps getting away with this crap, and then people get offended when someone posts about "mindless following." Go ahead. Defend this action by your president. Dems change the rules midstream to suit them. It's disgusting our country has come to this. ...

Sep 10, 2012
Guess Obama too busy with his campaign to be bothered with the pesky little details of actually doing the Obama. White House Misses Deadline Outlining Defense Cuts By Jake Tapper | ABC OTUS News – Fri, Sep 7, 2012 White House officials today acknowledged that they had not met the deadline to outline how the president would make the defense cuts required by law to be made because of the failure of ...