US Thanks, Obamacare

[Digger]

I think I already posted this elsewhere, but our esteemed (Republican) governor did away with general assistance for single folks so he could divert money to provide tax incentives for fracking in our state. The fact that I oppose both makes it doubly troublesome.

 

[Wolfie]

You weren't eligible to collect unemployment?

Funny thing about unemployment. I always thought it was based on the wage you were earning, period. It turns out with that, too, you get a higher percentage of your wage if you have kids. It's not nearly enough to pay the bills, and I don't live in an lavish house or have all kinds of extras.

I got lucky. I only had to deal with minimum wage a short while before finding my current job. (The company we were outsourced to agreed to hire us, we found out later so we could train overseas workers to do our jobs eventually. It wasn't long at all before we couldn't even get 40 hours' worth of work, this after they promised us when coming aboard there was always PLENTY of work. There are maybe 4 former coworkers still there, out of 100+ of us.) So while things were tight I managed to keep my house and didn't have to camp out under a bridge with my dogs. But I spent several sleepless weeks wondering what I was going to do. All while my childed coworkers were elligible for food stamps, grants for school so they could go on for a real job that can't be outsourced, free health insurance for their kids, and government-funded housing should it come to the point they'd have to move. Not that I deny them those things. It's too bad they were denied to those of us without kids or with grown kids though.

I did have some fun with the on-line assistance calculators. It's funny how much more you can earn if you have kids, and still get federal assistance. If you can call that fun. Eye opening for sure.

 

[Wolfie]

The fact that adults who don't have children are left out of what social safety net we have is almost always overlooked by those who insist we are already doing right by people. I think the answer is to make things more equitable for everyone, not to get rid of benefits.

Getting rid of benefits isn't the answer. A massive overhaul and more restrictions would go a long way to cover more people, however. That is one thing I like about WIC. You can only buy certain items and most of them are healthy.

 

[beancounter]

Funny thing about unemployment. I always thought it was based on the wage you were earning, period. It turns out with that, too, you get a higher percentage of your wage if you have kids. It's not nearly enough to pay the bills, and I don't live in an lavish house or have all kinds of extras.

That must be specific to your state, because it's solely based on your prior income in New Hampshire.

 

[Wolfie]

That must be specific to your state, because it's solely based on your prior income in New Hampshire.

Probably. My state is big on throwing money at those with kids and to hell with everyone else.

 

[yakherder]

US Army takes care of me on one side of the border, Canada on the other

 

[das_nut]

If that's part of the answer, it's an extremely small part. If that were true, someone who paid immediately would get some significant *cash discount*, and one certainly does not.

In my experience, it's a small discount for cash. Like 5% or so.

Which makes me wonder if the overhead for health insurance billing is really as high as they claim...

 

[das_nut]

Might as well. We outsource everything else.

Exactly! A permanent healthcare solution will only occur by reaching across the aisle, and what's more appealing to Republicans than outsourcing American jobs to reduce costs?

 

[Digger]

My state is big on throwing money at those with kids and to hell with everyone else.

Many people don't realize that even for federally funded programs, each state is permitted to set their own rules as to who qualifies. It's virtually impossible for single folks to qualify for assistance in my state.

 

[ledboots]

This is from September.
WASHINGTON — Nearly 6 million Americans – significantly more than first estimated_ will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016."

Story continues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/19/obamacare-cbo-report_n_1898370.html

 

[Calliegirl]

Many people don't realize that even for federally funded programs, each state is permitted to set their own rules as to who qualifies. It's virtually impossible for single folks to qualify for assistance in my state.

Yep. My brother moved to Hawaii to be a beach bum and so far it's paying off for him. He's single with no kids and gets money from the state, food stamps and free health care. You definitely can't get that in California.

Funny thing about unemployment. I always thought it was based on the wage you were earning, period. It turns out with that, too, you get a higher percentage of your wage if you have kids. It's not nearly enough to pay the bills, and I don't live in an lavish house or have all kinds of extras.

Here, it's based solely on your past wages.

And why would the uninsured patient be billed more than the insured patient?

I worked for an insurance company in their pharmacy division and they paid some pretty low reimbursement rates. The chain pharmacies could buy drugs in bulk so it didn't affect them too much, but the smaller independent ones sometimes lost money because of it. They would charge cash patients more to make up for some of the loss.

 

[yakherder]

Looking into it a bit further, I've got an interesting situation regarding Obamacare. I live in Canada, and having just recently obtained my residency am now covered under Canada's medical system, but I still receive much of my income from the U.S. Army. I mentioned a few posts ago that I'm also covered by the insurance I get through the Army, but I was thinking about dropping that since I do still pay a small amount unless I'm actually under orders. The problem, however, is that Obamacare requires U.S. residents to be insured in the U.S., and to my understanding uses income to decide whether or not you are considered a U.S. resident. So unless I'm mistaken, as long as I'm earning money from the U.S., despite not living there, I either have to keep that insurance or pay the tax penalty.

Not a big deal either way I guess, just random thoughts. Worst case scenario I keep paying for the remaining year of my enlistment. I could be mistaken, and for all I know when that law comes into effect they'll make provisions for people in situations like me. Or maybe I they'll consider travel insurance to be sufficient

 

[Blues]

I don't understand the health care in the USof A , but its interesting to try and watch the developments up there. Downunder in NZ we have universal coverage for accidents extending to payment up to a certain % of your weekly wage if you are of work because of an accident (ACC) .
It also covers visitor's from overseas , so if they get smashed up bungee jumping or what ever , the state pays for most medical expenses . I have never once heard of a visiting American turn down free medical care because it was socialist . The opposite in fact , only praise from them and for our health system .
The trade of with our system (both employers and workers pay into the fund) is you cant sue .

 

[ledboots]

I don't understand the health care in the USof A , but its interesting to try and watch the developments up there. Downunder in NZ we have universal coverage for accidents extending to payment up to a certain % of your weekly wage if you are of work because of an accident (ACC) .
It also covers visitor's from overseas , so if they get smashed up bungee jumping or what ever , the state pays for most medical expenses . I have never once heard of a visiting American turn down free medical care because it was socialist . The opposite in fact , only praise from them and for our health system .
The trade of with our system (both employers and workers pay into the fund) is you cant sue .

If we could not sue in the US, the cost of health care would plunge.

 

[beancounter]

If we could not sue in the US, the cost of health care would plunge.

Yea, it sounds great, until you're the victim of malpractic. it would be a big mistake to remove the right to sue.

 

[Ansciess]

Yea, it sounds great, until you're the victim of malpractic. it would be a big mistake to remove the right to sue.

Sure, do away with the right to sue. But if you do so, you'd better put in all those other social safety nets so that if someone is the victim of malpractice then the government takes care of them very well.

Part of the reason for needing to sue is that you can't take care of yourself or you're terribly harmed, the government isn't going to take care of you well, and private industry isn't until they get sued for it.

 

[ledboots]

I wasn't suggesting tort reform, or doing away with lawsuits. I was just saying it would be unbelievably easier to keep costs down if a lawsuit wasn't looming over the horizon. It's the US, you can't take away someone's right to sue for injury.

 

[Ansciess]

I wasn't suggesting tort reform, or doing away with lawsuits. I was just saying it would be unbelievably easier to keep costs down if a lawsuit wasn't looming over the horizon.

That does not seem to be correct -

It's common currency in the U.S. that litigation drives medical inflation by forcing doctors and hospitals to resort to "defensive medicine," overtreating patients to avoid lawsuits.

The evidence suggests a much smaller effect. Study after study shows that costs associated with malpractice lawsuits make up 1% to 2% of the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health-care bill and that tort reform would barely make a dent in the total.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm

 

[ledboots]

The actual cost of the lawsuits is tiny compared with the amount of time medical personnel spend on lawsuit prevention. I'm a long time hospital RN, and believe me when I tell you that the medical record of the patient is where the emphasis is placed, more and more over the years. For a floor nurse, charting what she does takes triple the amount of time of the actual procedure. It's all for the lawyers. Doctors order tests to avoid lawsuits every day; the unnecessary expenses are not for the patient's health or safety, but to avoid being sued and losing his license to practice medicine.

Eta : I couldn't access your link on mobile, so i will read that article another time.

 

[Kitties]

The actual cost of the lawsuits is tiny compared with the amount of time medical personnel spend on lawsuit prevention. I'm a long time hospital RN, and believe me when I tell you that the medical record of the patient is where the emphasis is placed, more and more over the years. For a floor nurse, charting what she does takes triple the amount of time of the actual procedure. It's all for the lawyers. Doctors order tests to avoid lawsuits every day; the unnecessary expenses are not for the patient's health or safety, but to avoid being sued and losing his license to practice medicine.

Eta : I couldn't access your link on mobile, so i will read that article another time.

I couldn't agree with your post more. I work in a nursing home and I often think: "the only reason I'm doing this is to protect the facility and company" I was going to write more but I figure I'd better keep my mouth shut.