Obamacare sign up ... Where are the Latino's? - Page 5

Love the on topic nature of your last post.

It actually addresses yours and Hund's concerns -where Bee's question eminated from to begin with. This, is why people can't afford what they need and why Obamacare is not the answer.

Since you know that Obamacare isn't the answer, what is the answer in your opinion?

I still say you can't continue to allow people to suffer while we fix all our problems. Companies aren't likely to give up cheap labor and profit to fix the ills of society.

Oh gee,,,I hate political type threads. but for all of the "political" topics that have zero interest to me, the topic of health insurance, ( welfare. and the like ) has some interest. Forgive my ignorance as I don't have anything particular intellectual or earth shattering to share, but I do have a few thoughts
Let me say that as a health care worker I see first hand the abuse of our health care resources. I am not going into that here. But it will suffice to say that it is utterly ridiculous IMO,,,SMH!!
I come from a very hard working, middle / upper middle class family. We believe in hard work (12/5) 12 hrs / 5 d.wk..,We pay a lot for health insurance, and those of us who are self employed with pre-existing conditions pay an arm and a leg literally!!,,
I have such a bone to pick with LAZY people who expect someone else to pick up their tab. I think everyone should reap what they sow,,If you earn a lot wonderful; you earned it.;enjoy it... If you earn a little, be content or do something to earn more,
NO one deserves anything! I hate the word "deserves". It should be cast into outer darkness,,,
Most without insurance choose that-->>,,This is my opinion.  
There are fewer from no fault of their own, that just cant get it, and for this group it breaks my heart.,,This is going to sound mean, but I do not believe that ALL people deserve the same health care. It cant work that way. It always goes back to thinking people are innocent and deserving,,,We need to stop looking at things in terms of what people "deserve" ,,,,We deserve nothing, owed nothing,,,,And look at things from a more gracious angle. ----> Let a person earn their > fill in the blank <  and be content with it,,,,,,
I want to do what I want, with what I earn, and have the freedom to make whatever choices I want with regard to it,,If we lived this way I think it would motivate more people to get off the couch and work !!,,And that would free us to focus on, and help, those that really and truly need help ( the sick and elderly, ) ,,,
If I am off topic !! sorry..

 

Ruger,

What about those that are so sick they can't work 12/5. They can't hold a job because they can't keep from getting sick or already have a pre-existing that keeps them from working 8 hours much less 12. These people aren't lazy, they are sick.

See I came from the opposite of a middle upper class and my parents worked extremely hard and weren't lazy but they were never able to get ahead in life.

The working poor are at such a disadvantage it is not even funny. Most lack the resources to improve their lives. And the ones who do owe so much in school loans that they really never get ahead themselves. They don't have family who can help when a new car is needed or clothes or a place to live to get that degree. Case in point my brother who went to college and earned a degree. He figures he will be out of debt on school loans in 30 years. Just about in enough time to retire. He worked hard went to school full time and worked full time but he will not be in a much better place financially than a lot of people.

What about those that are so sick they can't work 12/5. They can't hold a job because they can't keep from getting sick or already have a pre-existing that keeps them from working 8 hours much less 12. These people aren't lazy, they are sick.~ as I said in my post above the sick and the elderly should be cared for,  but not necessarily to the same standard as someone who works for their health care, and happens to have unlimited funds. That's the way it should be . --> just my opinion,,,
See I came from the opposite of a middle upper class and my parents worked extremely hard and weren't lazy but they were never able to get ahead in life.~~ same here my parents worked very hard, and neither they, or myself had someone to buy them a new car or give them a place to live. We worked and got it on our own. Btw very few of my family are educate in the traditional sense. Few have more then a high school diploma. Heck, some don't even have that. But their work ethic is work and work. Sick or not ( if you're too sick to get up on your own, family will come, drag you to work, prop you up, and give you something to do ) and no one owes you a thing! You reap what you sow. Period. 

 

Deanna  You reap what you sow,work hard all your life.
But according to you some are destined to hell no matter what they do.
Not trying to hijack this thread,but mayby now is a good time to reactivate the predestination thread.

  John

More on: Why the Middle Class can't afford Obamacare:

The MIT professors brought up many points affecting the profound, rapid changes in US economy and technology trends, that are pressuring the middle class to even survive it all. I wouldn't want to veer off too far on particulars, at this time, but others should take time to read the lengthy article.

Since other anecdotal experiences are being explored at the moment, I could throw in one of those, of my own. It would be pertaining to manufacturing and computer technology advances, (including robotics) from my husband's turbine blade manufacturing experience, spanning decades, and how it has made some positions obsolete, and how staying on as one of the survivors still in manufacturing, does require new skillsets and product diversity knowledge.

I do agree that the parity in job pay and benefits of the middle class of yesterday and today, can not compare to what it takes to make life comfortable in the current moment. It is much harder today. Earnings and benefits drops that are seen, could be a blip that will settle out over time. Or, has that point been met, where it could be too late to stop the destruction of jobs that is happening? I have to still wonder about that. People are responsible for creating jobs for people, it is stated, and I do agree with that. And as to the thought of robots doing all the work in manufacturing, well, I agree too, that "all" will never be the reality. I agree with those who said using robots, is as a side-by-side tool and not a replacement for human workers.

Two things did also occur to me about this perceived middle class plight and why it matters so much. Firstly, it is the largest group. That can not be ignored. When things go well for the middle class, the poverty class does improve with the generosity available by the more affluent one's. I dare not say trickle down, but then, where does relief from charitable causes come from and how big is that pie piece, in the scheme of all things, when it comes to taking care of the immediate, sick and destitute?

Any way, anecdotes are helpful for identifying problems, not solving things so much. If the economics of opportunity equality supports the workers who want to work, with the ability to pay for the top care they are wanting to use, the smaller poverty group would have something to aspire to for themselves, as far as improving their own opportunities. No one really cares about the richer classes, except to which portions and percentages their taxation rate can be accessed for acquiring funds.

It also occured to me that, is it any wonder that service jobs and minimum wage pay can not ever duplicate the prosperity the experts have graphed out, after WWII, that show correlating parallel tracks in productivity and employment? Taking in the differences, makes me suspect it is not just the overpaid CEO's pay scale that needs a reworking to provide a solution. It is a top to bottom type thing. I don't put much faith in a panel of experts forming a consensus to hammer that pay scale out to everyone's satisfaction, either. 

That's enough from me on this, for now!



 

Obamacare supporters are taking a bit of a victory lap today after yesterday’s administration announcement that six million people have signed up for private plans under the law, equaling the revised projection put out by the Congressional Budget Office after the botched launch of the exchanges last October.

It’s a weak cause for celebration, given that success, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, was originally "at least" seven million people getting covered under the law by the end of March. And as an Obamacare factoid, the six million sign-ups figure just doesn’t tell us all that much about whether and how the law is working. There are still a lot of major unanswered questions about the law and its future.

1. How many people have actually enrolled? This is the big one. I’ve written about it a lot for a reason: The headline sign-up numbers are often described as enrollment numbers. They’re not. A significant portion of people who sign up for coverage aren’t paying their first month’s premium, and are therefore never enrolled. In California, it’s about 15 percent of sign-ups. In Wisconsin and Georgia, it’s closer to 20 percent. In Nevada and Vermont, it’s more than 30 percent. Until we know how many people have paid, we won’t know how many people got covered.

2. What percentage of those who are enrolled are between the ages of 18 and 34? After the launch of the exchanges last October, the White House repeatedly emphasized that they were less focused on the total number of enrollments and more concerned with the demographic mix—specifically, the number of young adults signing up. Young adults tend to be less expensive to insure, so their premiums are needed to balance out the costs of the older, more expensive enrollees. Early on the administration had been clear that it was aiming for 40 percent of enrollees to be in the youngest cohort. But so far, the administration’s reports have indicated that only about 25 percent of sign-ups are young adults.

3. Are the young people who are enrolling actually healthy? This one will be hard to answer, but it’s important. In the population as a whole, young adults tend to be healthier, and therefore less inclined to use lots of health care services, than their elders. But the characteristics of the 6 million or so folks who end up in the exchange population may not mirror the population as a whole. It’s entirely possible that the young adults who do end up signing up will be sicker, on average, than their peers. If so, that will complicate premium pricing down the road.

4. What are the sign-up totals, demographic breakdowns, and overall health of the individual state markets? The headline national numbers only tell part of the story. By the middle of this month, 13 states had exceeded initial enrollment projections, according to a count by Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner. But another 12 states were at less than half their projected sign-ups, and 24 were at less than two-thirds of sign-up expectations. What this means is that Obamacare is going to look very different depending on what state you live in. Some states will meet or beat enrollment expectations and presumably end up with viable insurance markets in the process. But others will have low enrollment totals and bad demographic mixes, and are likely to face higher premiums and fewer plan choices as a result.

5. How many of the people enrolled under the law were previously uninsured? And how many of them were previously among the long-term uninsured? Even once we find out how many of the people who have signed up for coverage have actually enrolled, we still won’t know the answer to another big question: How many of the enrollees were previously uninsured? Surveys and word from insurance industry insiders suggest that anywhere from a quarter to half of enrollments were previously uninsured—meaning it’s possible that the majority of enrollments are for people who were already covered before the law’s insurance expansion took effect. Moreover, when trying to figure this out, it’s worth thinking about who counts as previously uninsured: Many counts of the nation’s uninsured population count people who went without insurance for a few months, often while transitioning between jobs. But it’s the long-term uninsured—those who have gone years without coverage—we should be focusing on.

6. What will premiums look like next year? This matters both for the politics of the law and for its success as a policy mechanism. President Obama initially sold the health care overhaul as a way to reduce premiums, but recently the administration has trimmed back its promises, saying instead that premiums will still rise, just not as fast as prior to the law. But there are early rumbles from insurers suggesting that, when they set rates for next year, premiums could jump dramatically, with some warning that rates could double, or more. Because of the state-by-state nature of Obamacare’s insurance markets, those effects won’t be felt evenly. But if big hikes do appear in many markets, then you have to wonder: How many people will want to stay with their current plans? And what will this do to the already weak political support for the law?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/28/6-unanswered-questions-about-obamacare
 

I think the naysayers just don't see the real significance of ACA.  

The way we get health insurance in this country is just dumb not to mention unfair.  And ACA will change it.  the way we get health insurance in the not to distant future will be greatly different from the way we currently get insurance.

Most of us get insurance through our employers.  The rate we pay is determined by the overall cost of the premium and the % covered by the employer.  Larger companies get better deals than smaller companies - meaning that you might be paying more than your next door neighbor for the exact same coverage simply because of the size of the company that employs you.  The rate of increase in the premium is determined by the relative health of your coworkers.  Companies with older employees will have a higher premium than companies with younger workers.  A serious illness to an employee or an employee's family member can cause your premium to rise sharply.

Then you have the issue of health insurance not being taxed.  Its basically income so it should be taxed like income.  But because it isn't, the person earning $200K per year is actually paying less for insurance than a person making $25K.

And then we run into the lack of choice.  i have 2 choices for health insurance both with the same carrier.  It's not bad insurance but it's not the best insurance around.  And currently, the only way I can get the insurance with the best carrier is to change jobs.

With ACA, all this will change.  Eventually, we will al be going to the exchanges for insurance.  Eventually, the money paid by our employers for health insurance will be given to us in the form of an allowance to buy insurance.  Eventually, we will buy health insurance like we do car insurance.  We will be able to chose from many different policies from many different carriers.  In other words, true competition.

I'm sorry that some will be forced to be responsible and get insurance they dont want.  Actualy, Im not sorry because I'm tired of paying for people who dont have insurance.  And I realize we will have to become more savvy about health insurance instead of relying on our employer to make those choices for us.

In all honesty, I really dont understand why so many people hate ACA.  It seems to stem from ignorance and hysteria.  ACA doesn't force me to get health insurance because I would get it without ACA.  So the main point of complaint seems not to impact the vast majority of people.