The Unaffordable Care Act

Oh good, guess I should tell my wife to tell carefirst to cally you asap as they cant get a straight answer from anyone in the govt. Shoot me your no., Ill passit on. Or maybe I should tell my wife to not worry about it,Some guy on the internet told me so.

Serioulsly forkie,why do you think you know so much more than a clinic director or an insurance rep that works for anational ins. co. ,its only their profession that theyve been doing for years?

My doctor because of the obamacare paperwork joined a group practice. So now when I am sick and I call to see him the the appontment clerk gives an appointment for next week or I can go to their "urgent care" center & see an incompetent nurse practioner who misdiagnoses me.

It used to be if I was sick my doctor's asst would squeeze me in that day.

Isn't the obamacare application 27 pages?

By the way obama's approval rating in the RCP average is now just over 43%

No.
The "original" draft application, sent out for comments, was 21 pages.

The revised 3-page form - OMB No. 0938-1191 - can be found at www.cms.gov.

The good news is that Health and Human Services Secretary, anyone in the Secretary’s chain of command, and health professionals covered by Obamacare are barred from engaging in the collection of gun data through the ordinary course of the services they provide.
i.e. The Government cannot gather any data related to lawful possession of firearms or ammunition

__QUOTE__

SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS.

(c) Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights.--

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.--A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to--
_(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
_(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.--None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to--
_(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
_(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
_(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.--None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.--A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon--
_(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
_(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.--No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to--
_(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or
_(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

__ENDQUOTE__

Ref: H.R.3590

I suspect they were just pandering to someone with a bad attitude. Obamacare will have zero effect on the claims process under your private plan. But once you realize that, you won't stop complaining, will you?

I highly doubt "changing doctors" is going to be the primary metric by which the new law is judged. I've had 4 different doctors in 10 years under the previous system thanks to changing jobs and changing HMO's chosen by my employer (not by me). Yet, somehow I've survived and managed to receive medical care when I needed it.

Ultimately the law will be judged by evaluating statisitics of very basic metrics.
- Is the quality of care better, worse, or the same as before?
- Is the quantity of people treated more or less than before?
- Is the cost of care more, less, or the same as before?
- Is the medical consumer empowered more or less than before?

I do not expect the rhetoric from the usual sources to soften anytime soon...but it is interesting to note how GOP governors are secretly soliciting funds from the new law while screaming into their megaphones about how awful it is. Rick Perry(TX) And Rick Scott(FL) are doing that very thing as we speak.

Like I said before, if it is such a great plan why is congress and the unions trying to get out of it?

Now hoops2 thinks Obamacare is a health insurance plan.

Obamacare critics won't get anywhere until they get a clue about what Obamacare is (not to mention the helpfulness of the word "are" to the English language).

I suspect they were just pandering to someone with a bad attitude. Obamacare will have zero effect on the claims process under your private plan. But once you realize that, you won't stop complaining,will you?

Really, thats your answer? So in other words you dont but you sure try to make it sound like you do. I cant say for cetain if both the clinic die tor and wifes rep were the same person, but somehow I think theres been more thanthe two asking questions and theyve talked to many differnt people in many different occasions. People havebeen trying to figure it out since its inception.

HA! "They were pandeing to someone with abad attitude" that so lame and really reaching forjie, even for you.

PJ has it about right tho, it will come down to those basic questions and its not looking imprssive at all. A hugenumber of people whos hours being cut to part time, some companys already figuring out the fine will be less than the ins cost, droping spouses, Im afraid the list goes on and willgrow.

Didnt really think Id ever say this,but right now I think Id be in favor of a single payer system than this train that I beleie is about to happen.IMHO of course.

Congress

Congress would like to retain their eligibility for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan including the significant portion paid for by the Government, for themselves and their staffers.
Unfortunately within the Obamacare legislation there is a specific requirement that Congress purchase health insurance under the new Law. Since Government subsidies are based upon one's income, under Obamacare the Congresspeople would end up paying their own insurance premiums for less insurance. And so this is what the Office of Personnel Management said.

In short, Congresspeople did not want to start paying more for inferior insurance.

But, neverfear.
"Under behind-the-scenes pressure from members of Congress in both parties, President Obama used the quiet of the August [Congressional] recess to personally order the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises federal employment issues, to interpret the law so as to retain the generous congressional benefits."
Ref: National Review
n.b. The provision to subsidize the Congressional Obamacare premiums is nowhere in the Law; it is just something i. the President wants and ii. Congress wants without the unpleasant scene of having to vote themselves such a benefit. So the King, . . . err, President order it.

Unions

At the recent AFL-CIO national conference union officials expressed concern that
i. affordability of health insurance under Obamacare
ii. accessibility of health insurance under Obamacare
iii. possible cut-backs in workers' hours "as an unintended consequence of the Law"
iv. the fact that under the Law the "multi-employer plans" common in large unions are considered "employer-based health plans" and therefore, by Law not entitled to Government subsidies.

Example: "In May, major unions in Chicago revolted against a plan by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former Obama adviser, who announced his intention to cut health care services for public-sector employees and dump them into Obamacare exchanges."

In short, the Unions and Union members did not want to start paying more for inferior insurance.

In summary, it's all about the money. DUH!