Obamacare vs. The Affordable Care Act

[Elizabeth Renee]

Yes, you read my title correctly. It made me laugh...and shake my head. Worth the watch just to see the mayhem for yourself!

[happynurse49, BSN]

I saw this earlier. Really made me laugh. Get a clue people:) Lol.

[FransBevy]

I remember a picture of some guy standing at a Tea Party rally holding a sign that read "GOV'T HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE"!

Pure genius that one!

[dblpn]

Wow!! i had no idea people were this clueless

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

They need to watch this: The Simplest Explanation Of Obamacare. Ever.ts like the "for dummies series" that I had to read for statistics

I watched it and thought it a GREAT explanation! I particularly liked the popups that asked if you wanted to try the premium calculator, look into this or that. You could pause the video, click into the information, and then back to the video again.

Well done!

[vintagemother, BSN, CNA, LVN, RN]

I couldn't even laugh. People never cease to amaze me. Thanks for sharing the video!

[BriRN]

ahahaha, it seems everyone prefers the affordable care act over obamacare! (It actually is interesting, the number of people that preferred the program with the word affordable in it to the alternative)

[Conqueror+, BSN, RN]

There is nothing like making fun of peoples ignorance to make one feel superior and well informed.

[MatrixRn]

Frankly I think it is frightening how little some people know about a law that will impact so many lives.

[lhflanurseNP, APRN]

There are still so many things wrong with this program. My brother-in-law is getting dropped from the insurance he has carried for nearly five years. He will now have to obtain insurance at nearly twice of what he was paying. Another big issue with me, is the varying cost of the programs. My county has one of the highest premium rates in the state and if I were forced to change, I would be paying double for less coverage! Not to mention all the "add-ins" like paying additional taxes when you sell your home and make over so much, or having rental property and do not personally maintain them at some point throughout the year. Then if you look at the non-discriminatory ruling there are ways to get around that. In my opinion the whole thing should be scrapped and redone to health ONLY...leave out all the other stuff and definitely no fines if someone opts not to obtain coverage. Finally, take it away from the IRS...they can't even manage the taxes correctly!

[MunoRN, RN]

There are still so many things wrong with this program. My brother-in-law is getting dropped from the insurance he has carried for nearly five years. He will now have to obtain insurance at nearly twice of what he was paying.

With the closing of loopholes that allowed insurers to avoid paying claims and to drop customers when they get sick the costs of those plans that weren't likely to actually cover someone are going up. That does seem to suck if you thought your plan was actually covering you and you now have to carry insurance that doesn't just transfer your costs to someone else.

Another big issue with me, is the varying cost of the programs. My county has one of the highest premium rates in the state and if I were forced to change, I would be paying double for less coverage!

The insurance market remains market driven, which means costs will vary depending on the agreements made between insurers and providers in each area. There is a way to have a relatively set cost from one area to another; single payer.

Not to mention all the "add-ins" like paying additional taxes when you sell your home and make over so much, or having rental property and do not personally maintain them at some point throughout the year.

As healthcare gets progressively more expensive, we need to figure out additional funding sources for medicare. The"high earner" property investment tax applies to well under 1% of all property transactions. For instance, a couple would have to profit more than $500,000 on a property transaction, and even then on a $550,000 profit, they would pay less than $2,000 in tax. There are other options, we could increase the taxes of people who make less, or cut the costs of medicare by cutting out ineffective services.

Then if you look at the non-discriminatory ruling there are ways to get around that.

?

In my opinion the whole thing should be scrapped and redone to health ONLY...leave out all the other stuff and definitely no fines if someone opts not to obtain coverage.

With the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions and close loopholes (which have more than 80% support), we really can't allow to buy insurance just whenever they want. That would be like allowing people to buy car insurance after they wreck their car and have it cover getting a new car.

Finally, take it away from the IRS...they can't even manage the taxes correctly!

The IRS doesn't manage Obamacare, Health and Human Services does.

[Overland1, RN]

Whether it is called "Obamacare" (He likes that name but must be careful to not use it yet) or the "Affordable Care Act" (the latter being a misnomer in the first 2/3 of its name; granted, it is an Act), when things worsen, it may well be blamed on Bush, and people will believe it. Many already believe the problems with it are caused by some or all of the following:

1.) The Republicans

2.) Fox News

3.) Rush Limbaugh

4.) Assault Weapons

and to a (possibly) lesser extent:

5.) Cheney

6.) Halliburton

7.) SUV's

8.) Enron

9.) Big _______ (fill in the blank)

10.) the "wealthy"

Yes, the media has done its job rather well.

[Overland1, RN]

And more information emerges:

[h=2]Obamacare Leaves Doctors On the Hook for Deadbeats[/h] Tori Richards|Nov. 9, 2013 @ 3:00 pm

Tucked inside nearly 11,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act is a little-known provision that doles out three months of free health care to individuals who choose to default on their premiums.

People who receive the federal subsidy to be part of Obamacare will be allowed to incur a three-month “grace period” if they can’t pay their premiums and then simply cancel their policies, stiffing the doctors and hospitals.

Their only repercussion is that they have to wait until the following year’s open enrollment if they want coverage on the exchange.

“It will help break the system,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, one of a core group of Republicans who oppose Obamacare. “This is a huge piece of evidence to show this can’t work, you will break the system and bankrupt people involved.

“The hospitals, doctors and insurance companies will be left holding the bag. There will be disagreements over who will pay for what. Lawyers will get involved because we are talking about a lot of money,” he said.

Under Section 156.270 of the Affordable Care Act, the insured needs to pay a premium for just one month before qualifying for the three-month grace period. The insurance company must pay the claims during the first month of the grace period; during the second and third month doctors and hospitals are left to collect unpaid bills.

This loophole wasn’t lost on some unnamed individuals who queried the Department of Health and Human Services during an open comment period for the new law in 2011.

While officials at HHS did not respond to requests for comment on this story, they did offer a glimpse into their thinking in a March 27, 2012, report contained in the Federal Register.

“HHS will continue to explore options for incentivizing appropriate use of the grace period,” the register said. “HHS will monitor this issue moving forward and will continue to work on the development of policies to prevent misuse of the grace period.”

Experts say the federal government has given people the green light to commit fraud.

“In a sense, it legalizes fraud,” said Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute of Human Exceptionalism and a frequent critic of the Affordable Care Act. “It legalizes putting your burdens on the insurance companies’ shoulders and never paying your premiums. The government wants people to be irresponsible and apparently they want the whole system to descend into chaos.”

In Massachusetts, where a variation of Obamacare already exists, the problem already has emerged, said Devon Herrick, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

“People are signing up and getting care and bailing out,” Herrick said. “I was talking to an insurance agent a few years ago (in Massachusetts). She said once a week she would get a call from a college girl who discovers she’s pregnant and wants health insurance. That’s an example of a condition that you can schedule.”

Some medical professionals are bracing themselves for the worst.

The Texas Medical Association is educating its members about the loophole and receiving feedback from worried doctors. Many in that state operate on a shoestring budget, sometimes taking out loans to stay in business.

“It’s pretty scary,” said Dr. Stephen Brotherton, president of the Texas Medical Association, and in private practice in Fort Worth. “I fix your torn ACL, you don’t pay for your insurance and three months later you’re off the rolls for non-payment.”

And any doctor who is paid by the insurance company during the last two months of the grace period will have to return that money, he said.

“Our overhead is about 50 percent; I get $100 and it costs me $50 to stay in business,” Brotherton said. “The most obvious solution is anything through the exchange, we’re not taking it.”

The California Medical Association has taken the step of notifying the American Bar Association about the situation.

“The more nefarious insureds may take advantage of HHS-acknowledged opportunities to game the grace period and get 12 months of coverage for the price of nine before simply enrolling in a new plan under (Obamacare’s) guaranteed issue requirements,” wrote Association associate director C. Brett Johnson.

He chronicled a potentially nightmarish situation for a doctor: “For instance, an oncology practice generally purchases the drugs to be used in a course of chemotherapy up front — which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars — and is then reimbursed by the payor as part of the medical service. Costs such as these are on top of the costs of displacing other patients with coverage.”

So what can be done about this now? Not much, says Gohmert. Changing the law would require a signature by Obama, and Gohmert holds out no hope for that scenario.

“You have a president who says doctors are greedy — they do surgery just so they get the money,” Gohmert said. “That’s what the president said. That same president will certainly be willing to say, ‘Greedy doctors are demanding more money – we just need to have Washington take over all health care.’”

This article originally appeared at Watchdog.org.