What The Affordable Care Act Means For Consumers
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-02/what-affordable-care-act-means-consumers
What the Affordable Care Act means for you. We take your questions on how implementation of the law could affect consumers.
Guests
Julie Rovner
health policy correspondent for NPR, author of "Health Care Policy and Politics A-Z," and contributing editor for National Journal Daily.
Susan Dentzer
editor-in-chief of Health Affairs, and an on-air analyst on health issues for The PBS NewsHour
Mary Agnes Carey
senior correspondent,Kaiser Health News.
Ceci Connolly
managing director and leader of PwC's Health Research Institute; co-author of "Landmark: The Inside Story of America's New Health Care Law and What It Means for Us All."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
How will families experience the income-based subsidy? Will it be a discount on monthly premiums, to make payments lower up-front? Or will it be some kind of tax rebate, that we'll have to struggle all year before we see?
Thank you.
I really don`t care if the mechanism that saves lives is called a tax,a fine,a penalty, or broccoli.What I care about,what we should ALL care about,as a so called Christian Nation,is the compassion we have for our fellow American,and not the hatred and contempt the T-Party sells.
I had heard part of Obamacare included the opening of 1000`s of medical clinics across the country. I hope they become a reality,and are not blocked by T-Party ideologues.
i am amazed at the transparency of the anti anything obama tea party and their associates. first the problem was that obama care was unconstitutional. now that the court has spoken the problem is that it comes with a tax. how insane is that? most people have insurance. the only people who are affected are those with sufficient incomes to buy insurance and do not. if it were up to me the penalties would be much higher. well if it were really up to me i would cover everyone in the country under medicare including the military. in turn every person and every business that includes illegal aliens would pay something toward their health care expenses. at 18%of a 9$ trillion economy there is more than enough money in the health care pot to take care of everyone in the country we just have to get that money away from insurance companies and their executives. once we have that single payer we can expand medical schools to dramatically increase the number of family doctors and force the cost of care and drugs down.
I won`t soon forget the Republican Debates,where the T-Party activists where 'whoopin and a hollerin' when the candidates said,LET THEM DIE ! That`s the attitude you get from a Party of the 1%ers.Just this past weekend Sen. McConnell said,WE DON`T WANNA TALK ABOUT THE 30 MILLION AMERICANS IN NEED. Will these diabolical T-Party monsters block health care clinics from operating?
"Two-tier health care is a term used to describe a situation that arises when there is a basic health care system financed by government providing medically necessary but perhaps quite basic health care services, and a secondary tier of care for those with access to more funds who can purchase additional health care not covered by the publicly financed system or which permits better quality or faster access."
What were going to get is a poor quality rationed care system for the masses, long waiting times including packed doctors offices and months of wait time to see a doctor. Government decisions on who qualifies for what treatment, IE death panels. Poor quality doctors or doctors trapped in a system they hate, forced to perform services in a time allotted way like an assembly line. The common patient will end up spending a lot more money paying for those that are already culturally dependent on the federal government or do not need government paid for health insurance. Obviously the best doctors will opt for the private care system, fee for service. The well off will have access to the best care delivered in the most convenient way by the best doctors. If this is allowed to go through this November be prepared for much higher middle class taxes and I don't mean the "mandate" this will be paid for and put on the back of the middle class period!
ozkar wrote: 'i am amazed at the transparency of the anti anything obama tea party and their associates. first the problem was that obama care was unconstitutional. now that the court has spoken the problem is that it comes with a tax. how insane is that"
I don't think you know what your talking about.
Obama claimed the mandate was not a tax and presented it that way to the supreme court. They said it was not a tax to try and fool the people who by and large reject new taxes. The mandate was deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS so in it's infinite wisdom SCOTUS said "it is a tax", justice Roberts all by himself changed the intent of Obama-care from an unconstitutional mandate to a (in his opinion) tax.
If anyone thinks this SCOTUS decision is good law they are deluding themselves, this is an "Activist Court" decision and is exactly what the court is not supposed to do.
I have a question concerning precedent. If the issuing of a penalty fee/tax/etc to a citizen for failure to purchase a specific service from an approved provider has been upheld as constitutionally valid, should we be concerned at the prospect of other future uses of this power?
I'm imagining big auto corporations lobbying for a tax penalty on Americans who do not drive American-made cars (to help "keep jobs in the country"), or the national association of realtors lobbying to fight the housing collapse by having a penalty fee levied against people who do not own their own home (to bring home prices back up by "encouraging people who can afford to own to stop renting")
Both fees could be waived at the lowest income levels to protect the poor, or subsidies could even be provided (at taxpayer expense) to help them afford American cars/homes, but the primary function of such changes would really be to drive more money into the pockets of the organizations doing the lobbying. Is there anything that would set this ruling aside as unique and prevent other industries from pushing self-serving laws following the same model? Or are we just going to have to keep on our toes as voters in the future?
Nohoplophobe,
IF you are so certain about what we are going to get, how do you reconcile the quality you describe with that given to the Armed Forces and all federal employees including Congress? Are the soldiers, sailors, and airmen getting poor quality care?
I personally have known many service physicians and dentists including my own uncle who were considered top of the line and truly dedicated........those are your "despised" government caregivers. Since CEOs of insurance companies make millions and the top medics in the private care system make only a fraction of that, can you not see who the real culprits are? Since clerks at private insurance companies make ALL care decisions, not physicians, why blame the Pres or anybody who tries to help the uninsured?
As a vet and many-year worker in the health insurance and health care industry, I can safely say the Fed is the least of your worries. Be afraid of PRIVATE insurers who routinely "ration" care......they decide who and what is covered and how long you can stay in a hospital and what procedures can be used, NOT your physician. I have literally hundreds of private insurer "war stories" to counter the bogus conservative gripes about single payer insurance.
The devil (and the Truth) is in the details.
I know very few on this comment board want their parade rained on but know you will be paying a lot more for less. Obama-care or if you prefer the psychologically arm twisting "Affordable Care Act" is going to raise your taxes substantially. Medicare today is not fully funded by 3 to 1, were borrowing money everyday to pay for it. If you think the taxes outlined in the link below are not going to be expanded to lower income levels you truly are a fool.
20 Hidden Tax Hikes in Obamacare
http://www.newsmax.com/GroverNorquist/Obamacare-20-hidden-taxes/2012/06/...
Diane,
Please discuss the benefits of HSAs - Health Savings Accounts. It seems that this would allow the consumers much more freedom of choice, and let them be prudent shoppers by keeping costs in mind. It encourages taking responsibility for ones health and life, unlike what happens in socialized medicine.
The biggest problem with the proposed Affordable Care Act is that consumers have no incentive to care about the costs -- which would therefore drive up cost and invite fraud and abuse.
I fear government bureaucrats -- or even insurance company bureaucrats!! -- making all the decisions, rather than me! HSAs, it seems, might help eliminate this.
Patsy,
Your sentiments about our so-called JudeoChristian country hit home.
Conservative christians are fond of saying, "What would Jesus do?" and then ignore what He did daily.........He served people without respect to social station or personal get-up-and-go. At the Last Supper He demonstrated what He wanted all to do by serving His disciples, even washing their feet, and instructing them to follow His example by being a servant/slave to mankind. Leaders would be true leaders by doing likewise. Nobody ever heard Christ say, "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or turn anyone away. When He told Peter the horrors He would soon endure, He chastised Peter for even suggesting that such sacrifices were avoidable. The Lord's prayer has a line "....on earth as it is in heaven"; surely that means that people could/should live as if they meant life to be as the Almighty wants it, not the way the greedy want it.
Instead of predicting socialistic or communistic doom, we should all be helping each other reach the heights. We should celebrate that all citizens can start being healthy instead of just the wealthy or the lucky. That "tax" is surely a small down payment from those who shift their own medical costs to those who already have insurance.
Stats from Massachussetts under Romneycare show only 1% will ever pay that "tax".
nohoplophobe wrote:
...in it's infinite wisdom SCOTUS said "it is a tax", justice Roberts all by himself changed the intent of Obama-care from an unconstitutional mandate to a (in his opinion) tax.
SCOTUS did not say "it is a tax". Justice Roberts, in his opinion, said it was a tax; the eight other justices, in their opinions, said it was not a tax. The Supreme Court was not asked to rule on whether or not the individual mandate was a tax, but you can see how they would have ruled.
Bo jones,
HSAs are a great tool......among many. But HSAs have a couple of drawbacks: a. You have to have sufficient funds up front to pre-load the account; most of us folks don't have several K laying around idle. b. The potential for a catastrophic loss must be insured e.g. Long term cancer, any condition which is very costly either once or over a long period; this just brings back the insurers again.
And my experience with bureaucrats in private vs government is that both are equally uncaring and inept. But the government clerks are truly not in it for high profits. Nobody should make big profits on death and illness and misfortune.......in my humble opinion.
Richard Hoenes wrote: "SCOTUS did not say "it is a tax". Justice Roberts, in his opinion, said it was a tax; the eight other justices, in their opinions, said it was not a tax"
Your splitting hairs and you only repeated what I said. The bottom line it passed as a TAX, so if were going to be forced to live with it we will also be forced to live with the reason why it was passed IT IS A TAX!
Patsy Nomore wrote:
I had heard part of Obamacare included the opening of 1000`s of medical clinics across the country. I hope they become a reality,and are not blocked by T-Party ideologues.
==============
How do you propose that we pay for these clinics? Who do you propose to staff these clinics? The supply of physicians in this country has remained static to declining (depending upon the specialty). With the demand now scheduled to be dramatically increased, how do you propose that we service these needs?
I wish I could ask you Ms. Rehm What specifically do Republicans have agains this Bill? They mention a lot of generalities but what specifically do they have against it?
As for government healthcare, you just need to look at the Veterans Administration to see where we are headed. Good intentions, very poor execution.
"Turn down free money" Diane where can you find free money?
I know this show is just liberal propaganda for the Obama campaign, but can we keep this conversation on the planet.
It is a COMPLETE fairytale to think that all the GOOD stuff that the guest talks about will not cost ALL us a lot more money. This will become the largest single tax increase in the history of our country. This is socilazed medicine with NO cost controls on the health industry. This is shameless pandoring to the American voter, no more no less. This bill was passed by the Democrats with one, now retired Republican Senator. Important issues like this need a super majority of the Senate- a true bipartisan law.
nohoplophobe wrote:
Your splitting hairs and you only repeated what I said. The bottom line it passed as a TAX, so if were going to be forced to live with it we will also be forced to live with the reason why it was passed IT IS A TAX!
Still incorrect. The individual mandate passed as constitutional. Period. One justice said it was a tax, four justices disagreed with this and said it was under the commerce clause, four justices disagree with this and said it was neither. Justice Roberts opinion carries no more weight than any of the other opinions when it comes to judicial justification.
Excuse me, there is no such thing as free money from the Federal Government. That is tax money from others. It is taking from individuals and giving it to others.
For those interested in non-partisan analysis, see the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities http://www.cbpp.org/
Sadly, Republicans, the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party types have made it clear that non-partisan analysis should be attacked with all possible force and generalities. If Republicans had any interest in addressing health care and Medicare problems in America, they would have done so when either Bush was president, but it never was a priority for them. Now all they was to do is attack. Sad, but obvious.
Is there a time frame For govenors to sign up? And if a state gets a new govenor can the new govenor sign up for the program if the previous govenor did not?
Will alternative medicine be covered? There is more money in curing than preventing - so will drug free alternatives be covered?
I've read that many Americans are unhappy with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, so much so that they are unwilling to support it. That said, what aspects of the law make people so unhappy? I work and have health insurance paid for by me and my employer. Overall, I like the new law. What don't people like about this law?
Actually, Jeff, my health care is through the V.A.
I'm rather happy with it, and I spent years with Private Insurance.
I was on Wifes insurance, Wife retired, market crashed, Wife's retirement dropped me from the insurance plan so I HAD TO go to the V.A.
By golly, the V.A. changed since Sugar and I parted ways in the early 80's.
And the care is better than what I got while active.
I do not think Americans realize that taxpayers are already paying for uninsured people and subsidizing a large number of employers who do not provide health insurance. Anytime an uninsured person shows up at an ER or any federally supported health care center we have just written a very large check to corporations who employ minimum and low wage Americans.
Govenors who refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion are just forcing their citizens to continue to subsidize profits for a variety of corporations.
Carla Pohl,
Tulsa
I have two comments. I have always wondered why our health insurance, for the most part, is tied to our employers. I have seen any number of people who continue to work through serious illnesses because they can't lose coverage throughout their extended treatments.
"Costly beyond reason" is, I think, our biggest problem contributing to the health care crisis. I have 2 questions I now ask my health provider. "How much above what my insurance company will pay will you charge me?"
And "Where do YOUR children go to school?" The wealthiest members of any community are the physicians. Their children often attend private schools. Indeed, their offices now have decorative fountains in, designer-waiting rooms, a suite of rooms, massive offices and desks. A nice home, a luxury car is fine for this class of people since they have sacrificed much to achieve their place in our society but the excesses are too much.
Your comments about Medicare and Medicare Advantage are not providing accurate information. Medicare Advantage is a PRIVATE MANGAGED CARE, i.e. private insurace companies are given our tax money to "nmanage" care. Managed care increases cost to the individual by denying care, therby maximizing pivate profit.
Public financing of traditional Medicare is a far better plan for the elderly, and I have instructed my family not to change to privatized Medicare. My reading of ACA is that it does nothing to traditional Medicare.
Please respond.
If the plan requires businesses to cover the cost of the insurance so that the employee pays no more than 9.5% of a family's wages - how is the business supposed to know what a families wages are? Is the business required to provide individual coverage only for their employee or for their whole family? If it is to cover the family - it would be significantly cheaper for a business to pay the penalty than provide family coverage. If it is coverage for the employee only, how does the ACA ensure coverage for the dependents?