LONGECITY

yeah but wouldn't I be paying more if I am not under an employer's plan? Let's say I quit now but signed up for obamacare, after 3 months I find a job and get on board with the employer's plan. Those 3 months I am not employed, I'd be paying more then?

If you've been quoted $200 for obamacare, then yes, more than likely you would. So I guess you can go without and keep your fingers crossed. I don't know if you would have to pay a penalty for being uninsured for those months.

Your employer plan might not kick in right away, so it might be longer than 3 months.

Ban anyone from living over 70! (kidding)

To me, this is a classic positive vs. negative rights conflict.
Edited by robosapiens, 26 March 2014 - 09:26 PM.

ok so I missed the deadline to enroll (not that I was excited to do so). I just went to the website which I think is healthcare.gov and read that there is still time to enroll until the 18th of April. Considering only about 7 million people signed up, I'm still hesitating. I'm still curious what are the roles of those big health insurance companies these days (BlueCross, Cigna, Humana, Aetna, etc). Did they have to comply with the ACA rules? So let's say a person with BlueCross was paying $400 a month, would that be lower or higher when ACA came into existence?

While I don't necessarily think you can rely on what anyone tells you about Obamacare, you might try redirecting your queries to the health insurance companies in your area. Where I live our Bluecross provider has some info on their website. You can calculate how much of a subsidy you would supposedly be eligible for under Obamacare, or it will tell you if you qualify for medicaid. Be aware that just because you have Medicaid, or Obamacare, doesn't mean that doctors will take it. Read my earlier posts on stuff like that.

I would be wary of going to the Obamacare website because some think it collects all your data and gives to the NSA. It is highly insecure as well. If you do go there, use a public computer and use all false information. Don't sign up through there. Also, there are people who signed up there but the insurance companies never got their data so they weren't insured even though they thought they were. I understand you can sign up directly through the insurance companies, or Medicaid. You might try going to a navigator in person. See if they can help you without you giving them any personally identifiable information, just advise you in general terms, because you are concerned with the security of the Obamacare website and will be going directly to the insurance companies to sign up.

There's no guarantee that anything about Obamacare will work, but that is what you might do to look into it further.
Edited by Luminosity, 01 April 2014 - 06:39 AM.

I would be wary of going to the Obamacare website because some think it collects all your data and gives to the NSA.

If the NSA wants health insurance information, I'm sure they can get it.

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."
-Scott McNealy, CEO Sun Microsystems, 1999

(not my attitude toward the loss of privacy, just an acknowledgement of the status quo since the late '90's)
Edited by lemonhead, 01 April 2014 - 03:02 PM.

Luminosity, if I really want the insurance I would have to provide all my info. wouldn't I?

I was sent a jury duty notice and was wondering how they got a hold of me. It was because I am licensed in the state I am in plus I registered to vote even though I don't vote. I should have said no! Jury duty in my city and state I think is annually. Next time I move to a new state when I register for the new state driver's license I'll make sure to opt out of becoming a voter.

I think you should vote. In my state it is easy to get out of jury duty but I can't speak to your situation, could be completely different.

I already said you could go directly to the insurance company you choose to buy it. You should anyway for reasons I already explained.

eon, is there something impairing your concentration? I was thinking that. If you take anything mind-altering, I think you should quit, and get help with that. Then maybe you would direct your queries to a more appropriate forum.
Edited by Luminosity, 02 April 2014 - 05:58 AM.

No, because most of the people are already covered by employer-based plans, medicare, or medicaid.

Do all employers have to provide mandatory insurance to employees then? Is this the law?

Edited by eon, 20 April 2014 - 04:21 AM.

Prior to the ACA (Obamacare), no. Now it is, for employers with more than 50 employees.

 

from the Wikipedia article 'Health Insurance in the United States':

Effective by January 1, 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will impose a $2000 per employee tax penalty on employers with over 50 employees who do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers. (In 2008, over 95% of employers with at least 50 employees offered health insurance.^[60])[61

 

The article also provides an interesting history of how employer-provided insurance came to be the norm in the U.S.

Edited by lemonhead, 20 April 2014 - 03:22 PM.

https://www.youtube....h?v=0PWGfnxT7Gs

 

Not much to add.

Curious what the "best" bloodwork I could get to check for anything unusual? I'm looking into those affordable walk in clinics to do the bloodwork for me. Is there such a thing as all-in-one, meaning a check of the blood could check for anything unusual? I guess for general screening. I have no insurance right now. Last time I went for an STD screening was at a health department, which is always free (donations welcomed). I always give a $10 donation, LOL. Any idea what 1 test I should get done considering I have no insurance and will pay out of pocket. 

getting back to getting insured, isn't the next deadline coming in November or starting in November?

 

I still haven't looked at the info. on why some employers only allow certain hours per week of work. I think it's 29 hours max? Is this their way of avoiding to pay for insurance right? So any company that gives more than 29 hours is responsible to pay for employee health coverage?

 

I may be moving to work for a company that gives 70 plus hours weekly so would that mean they are required to provide full coverage health insurance?

 

getting back to getting insured, isn't the next deadline coming in November or starting in November?

 

It's not a deadline.  The next round of "open enrollment" starts in November.  If you have any questions about how to get the insurance make sure you talk with one of the authorized navigators in your state to help you.

 

 

I still haven't looked at the info. on why some employers only allow certain hours per week of work. I think it's 29 hours max? Is this their way of avoiding to pay for insurance right? So any company that gives more than 29 hours is responsible to pay for employee health coverage?

There are a few ways employers are trying to get around the mandates.  One is reducing hours, usually it is to less than 26 per week, these are also known as "Limited Term Employment (LTE)" options and another is to bring small "subs" in to take on specific tasks.  Sub-contractors can operate below the minimum number of staff rule and even though they appear to be working for the larger corporation in many cases they are paid separately  The contractor is paid directly and then pays their staff in turn.  

 

More and more these types of sub-contracts are being applied to factory and warehouse cleaning, security, and other service companies that can keep larger staffs of LTE workers and avoid paying any benefits.

 

 

I may be moving to work for a company that gives 70 plus hours weekly so would that mean they are required to provide full coverage health insurance?

 

It is also based on the number of employees in the company.  That minimum varies state to state but I believe (as I'm not positive about this) that the minimum number is 15 employees.  If they have 15 or more they are required to provide the employees with healthcare

 

70 hours plus?  When do you sleep?

 

That is almost a 15 hour day based on a 5 day week.

It is an oilfield company they usually give 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off schedules, or something like that.

 

Regarding hours, there seem to be mixed info. going on. someone at my work place said they can go UP TO 29 or 31, which is why my max hours per week is only about 27.

 

Regarding companies getting around the mandates, there was recent news about FEDEX getting a class action suit due to employees being called a "contractor" yet why FEDEX is paying them? I forgot the whole story, but it's a way for FEDEX to avoid being responsible for giving their employees more perks than they should. From what I understand being called a contractor means you are responsible for everything (health insurance, truck insurance, etc.) yet the paycheck comes from FEDEX so that means what?

been trying to get some bloodwork done without an insurance. I'm not sure who does this service, is it a clinic or what? I've inquired before but I was told my physician (if I had one) would send me to get my bloodwork done. Since I don't have one, what now? I guess they don't want people to be in control of their health and be self reliant? I clearly don't know what's going on with my blood if I need to supplement more or less of whatever it is that I supplement with. Or if I should add something to my daily supplements, or perhaps cut down. This requires bloodwork for me to find out.

 

Anyway, I read the news regarding Walgreens opening up some type of walk in clinic or perhaps a product (called Theranos?) that gets your blood from fingerpricking, not from needles and tubes. The result is said to be faster than the traditional 2 or more weeks results. Here's that news:

 

http://finance.yahoo...-143400959.html

 

 

 

 

No wonder America's politicians excluded themselves from it.
 

I checked your link - I don't understand how the link supports your case.

The fact checker gave the link

Three Pinocchios


Hint- Republicans thought it was a good idea - and the idea was incorporated into Obamacare 2012
Boehner has already signed up.

 

The link was merely meant to be illustrative. If indeed, the link supporting a side point (that Obama and other politicians, on both sides, are excluded from Obamacare) is false, who cares?

 

I care. I thought it was very interesting that you used a link that didn't support your position.

I agree with you - Obamacare stinks. It is a republican idea, originated by the Heritage Foundation. So it is no surprise that it is inefficient. Don't be encouraged by democrats that hate Obamacare. Obamacare is better than nothing, so until something better comes along, it will do.

 

http://usatoday30.us...tage/52951140/1

been trying to get some bloodwork done without an insurance. I'm not sure who does this service, is it a clinic or what? I've inquired before but I was told my physician (if I had one) would send me to get my bloodwork done. Since I don't have one, what now? I guess they don't want people to be in control of their health and be self reliant? I clearly don't know what's going on with my blood if I need to supplement more or less of whatever it is that I supplement with. Or if I should add something to my daily supplements, or perhaps cut down. This requires bloodwork for me to find out.

 

Anyway, I read the news regarding Walgreens opening up some type of walk in clinic or perhaps a product (called Theranos?) that gets your blood from fingerpricking, not from needles and tubes. The result is said to be faster than the traditional 2 or more weeks results. Here's that news:

 

http://finance.yahoo...-143400959.html

http://www.privatemd...ts.php?view=all

Edited by mindpatch, 13 November 2014 - 02:56 PM.

Mindpatch, I think you are upset about Heritage.   I don't blame you.  Yeah, in 2012, Heritage has to say mandatory is a bad thing, because it is a way Republicans can make it a "freedom" issue.  But if it is a bad thing, why did Heritage and Romney make it a feature of Romney care?     Isn't what is good for the goose, good for the gander?

 

 

Mindpatch, I think you are upset about Heritage.   I don't blame you.  Yeah, in 2012, Heritage has to say mandatory is a bad thing, because it is a way Republicans can make it a "freedom" issue.  But if it is a bad thing, why did Heritage and Romney make it a feature of Romney care?     Isn't what is good for the goose, good for the gander?

Upset? No.  But I do think a national policy decision as it effects health care and coverage for all Americans and the laws designed to implement such a policy should be based on transparency, honesty and facts....and ultimately efficacy.  The very antithesis of transparency is deception.  Based on the recent "off the cuff" (i.e. "honest") comments by the chief architect of the ACA, it is plainly apparent that the law itself was conceived and written in such as a way as to be deliberately opaque with the objective to deliberately deceive.  In a so-called representative democracy, I see no scenario where that type of behavior by an elected administration is in any way defensible.  Now we have the most socially comprehensive legislation in the last forty five years passed based on lies; very fundamental lies; lies written into the very wording of the bill, without which the bill most likely would not have been passed.

 

Additionally, to gather evidence to gain a better understanding of proposed legislation to therefore render an informed opinion on it, as every responsible voter should, requires an accurate background rather than a reliance on talking points.  When I read your original comment about the Heritage Foundation origin of the mandate, It didn't smell right and, sure enough, a cursory thirty second Google search yielded the definitive debunking of that myth..one would think.  Nevertheless, without a moment's pause, you continue to parrot the same spin and false information. One would think that actually reading the response from the actual head of health care policy research at the aforementioned Heritage Foundation would have been enough to gain the necessary clarification to alter your view, but when you are an incurious and willing cipher for ideological talking points, even stark black and white evidence tends to pass harmlessly above your oblivious head.   Good luck with that. 

Edited by mindpatch, 13 November 2014 - 06:25 PM.

 

Mindpatch, I think you are upset about Heritage.   I don't blame you.  Yeah, in 2012, Heritage has to say mandatory is a bad thing, because it is a way Republicans can make it a "freedom" issue.  But if it is a bad thing, why did Heritage and Romney make it a feature of Romney care?     Isn't what is good for the goose, good for the gander?

Upset? No.  But I do think a national policy decision as it effects health care and coverage for all Americans and the laws designed to implement such a policy should be based on transparency, honesty and facts....and ultimately efficacy.  The very antithesis of transparency is deception.  Based on the recent "off the cuff" (i.e. "honest") comments by the chief architect of the ACA, it is plainly apparent that the law itself was conceived and written in such as a way as to be deliberately opaque with the objective to deliberately deceive.  In a so-called representative democracy, I see no scenario where that type of behavior by an elected administration is in any way defensible.  Now we have the most socially comprehensive legislation in the last forty five years passed based on lies; very fundamental lies; lies written into the very wording of the bill, without which the bill most likely would not have been passed.

 

Additionally, to gather evidence to gain a better understanding of proposed legislation to therefore render an informed opinion on it, as every responsible voter should, requires an accurate background rather than a reliance on talking points.  When I read your original comment about the Heritage Foundation origin of the mandate, It didn't smell right and, sure enough, a cursory thirty second Google search yielded the definitive debunking of that myth..one would think.  Nevertheless, without a moment's pause, you continue to parrot the same spin and false information. One would think that actually reading the response from the actual head of health care policy research at the aforementioned Heritage Foundation would have been enough to gain the necessary clarification to alter your view, but when you are an incurious and willing cipher for ideological talking points, even stark black and white evidence tends to pass harmlessly above your oblivious head.   Good luck with that. 

 

 

I read what the guy said and compared it with what Heritage and Romney did. I have to think the guy is lying.

. . . It didn't smell right and, sure enough, a cursory thirty second Google search yielded the definitive debunking of that myth..one would think.  Nevertheless, without a moment's pause, you continue to parrot the same spin and false information. One would think that actually reading the response from the actual head of health care policy research at the aforementioned Heritage Foundation would have been enough to gain the necessary clarification to alter your view, but when you are an incurious and willing cipher for ideological talking points, even stark black and white evidence tends to pass harmlessly above your oblivious head.   Good luck with that.

I think your cursory search was a mistake. Next time, don't read Republican sources. They are propaganda and rarely right. Almost everybody but you knows that Romneycare featured mandatory participation. The point in time when mandatory participation became evil was when Obamacare became law. A swift pivot and "mandatory" is evil - a loss of freedom. I love the fact that the loss of freedom is really the freedom to die from lack of medical care. Republicans have a very weak sense of irony.

Next time you do research, use Wikipedia first. Despite its problems there are always more facts than Republican press conference releases.

To make it easy for you, from the Romneycare health site - an explanation of why the plan was mandatory. Here's the link - http://mittromneycen...s/romneycare/#3

" 3 – Why the individual mandate?

These days many conservatives dislike the use of a healthcare mandate to expand insurance coverage. But it wasn’t always this way.

In fact, the very idea of an individual healthcare mandate originated from the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation. But don’t take my word for it, read about it here.

Moreover, many prominent conservatives have supported the use of the individual healthcare mandate. Some noteworthy conservatives who have supported individual healthcare mandates are:

-President George H. W. Bush (source 1 and source 2)
-Speaker Newt Gingrich R-GA (source)
-Senator Orrin Hatch R-UT (source)
-Senator Charles Grassley R-Iowa (source)
-Senator Bob Bennett R-UT (source)
-Senator Christopher Bond R-Missouri (source)
-Senator John Chafee R-RI (source)
-Rep. Bill Thomas R-CA (source)
-And at least 16 other GOP Senators who have since retired from the Senate "

If I am an "incurious and willing cipher for ideological talking points". What are you? Are you willing to seek the truth?

According to my employer there is a way to get health insurance and to not get penalized for not getting on Obamacare. I'm not sure what the name or information of this so called insurace according to my employer. I believe the cost is $14 per paycheck (every 2 weeks) or it could have been $14 per week. I'd have to ask again. Does anyone here know much about this? I'm not sure if this is some type of loophole to the Obamacare.

According to my employer there is a way to get health insurance and to not get penalized for not getting on Obamacare. I'm not sure what the name or information of this so called insurace according to my employer. I believe the cost is $14 per paycheck (every 2 weeks) or it could have been $14 per week. I'd have to ask again. Does anyone here know much about this? I'm not sure if this is some type of loophole to the Obamacare.

Here's a link to understand what Minimum Essential Care is.([url=http://obamacarefact...ntial-coverage/ ) this page also has links to Obamacare proper.

While you are on the net, apply for Obamacare to find out how much it costs. With subsidies, you might get full coverage for less than the Minimum Essential Care costs.
Edited by david ellis, 05 December 2014 - 11:06 PM.

http://www.nlm.nih.g...ory_149920.html

More young adults are using certain types of preventive care since the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called "Obamacare," went into effect in the United States, according to a new study.

Significant increases were seen in the numbers of 19- to 25-year-olds getting preventive care, including routine checkups, blood pressure measurement and dental care between 2009 and 2011-12, the study found.

"Although our study is an early evaluation, there are benefits to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extended-benefits provision," said lead author Xuesong Han, director of surveillance and health services research at the American Cancer Society.

Since 2010, the health-reform law has allowed grown children to stay on their parent's health insurance plan until they turn 26.

After the law went into effect, the percentage of young adults getting dental checkups increased almost 6 percent, according to Han. The number of young people having their blood pressure checked went up almost 4 percent and routine checkups increased by nearly 5 percent, compared with young adults before the provision went into effect, she said.

There was, however, not much change in the number of young adults who got flu shots or women who got Pap tests for cervical cancer, Han's team found.

Although the law doesn't require insurers to cover dental checkups through a parent's plan until a child is 26, many dental insurance companies have opted to do so, according to Han. Between 2009 and the 2011-12 period, the number of young adults with private dental insurance rose from 37 percent to 42 percent, according to the study.

The report was published as a letter in the Dec. 11 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Cheryl Fish-Parcham, the private insurance program director at the consumer health care advocacy group Families USA, said, "This study points out one of the strengths of the ACA. This has improved people's access to care."

Fish-Parcham expects this provision of the law will become even more important in the future. The ability to stay on a parent's plan will help young people transition to their own plans, she said.

"People have the ability to shop in the marketplace and get premium credits," Fish-Parcham said. "Many people in this age group would qualify for premium tax credits."

The ACA, she said, gives young people the opportunity to maintain their health insurance coverage and access to care that will help them stay healthy.

Continuity of care is important even for young adults who may think that they don't need coverage because they are healthy, Fish-Parcham said.

"If you are one of those people who gets sick or has an accident, the ACA provides you with access to care and protects you from medical bankruptcy," she said.

For the study, Han and colleagues compared the change in the use of medical services among more than 3,300 people who were 19 to 25 years old in 2009, before the health-reform law went into effect, with more than 6,800 young adults who were the same age in 2011 and 2012.

The researchers also looked at how the law affected adults between 26 and 30 years old, as this group wasn't eligible to remain on their parents' plans. The study included 2,200 people in this age group in 2009 and about 4,800 in 2011-12. The older age group saw no increase in dental checkups or blood pressure measurement. They had a slight increase in routine health checkups, and a slight decline in flu shots and Pap tests, according to the study.

SOURCES: Xuesong Han, Ph.D., director, surveillance and health services research, American Cancer Society; Cheryl Fish-Parcham, private insurance program director, Families USA; Dec. 11, 2014, New England Journal of Medicine

does the obamacare loophole of giving employees only up to 30 hours mean anything over 30 hours you worked it becomes overtime? Sometimes people do call out of work and one ends up staying in to cover for that person even though the 30 hour max is getting close. So once the clock hits over 30, that becomes over time? I currently just get max 30 hours or less (which means I have to have another job lol). I think this is the max a company is willing to give if they do not provide insurance, which means we all need a second job if we want to do more than 30 hours per week.

Edited by eon, 12 December 2014 - 07:06 PM.

does the obamacare loophole of giving employees only up to 30 hours mean anything over 30 hours you worked it becomes overtime? Sometimes people do call out of work and one ends up staying in to cover for that person even though the 30 hour max is getting close. So once the clock hits over 30, that becomes over time? I currently just get max 30 hours or less (which means I have to have another job lol). I think this is the max a company is willing to give if they do not provide insurance, which means we all need a second job if we want to do more than 30 hours per week.

I think you are thinking apples and oranges are the same thing. It sounds to me like you think that if you have less than 30 hours, you will not need to pay the penalty. IF that is what you are thinking, you are mistaken. What you will owe for 2014 and the coming year is not dependent on how many hours you worked. It is dependent on how much income you earned.

The penalty you will owe for 2014 is a tiny bite. The penalty you will owe for 2015 is a much bigger bite, so you must consider options carefully.

From the Obamacare advice link in my last post here is the scoop on 2015 fines.
"The way the ObamaCare mandate works is that any non-exempt American without minimum essential coverage will owe a per-month fee. The fee is $325 per adult and $162.50 per child (up to $975 for a family) or 2% of your taxable income a year, the monthly fee being 1/12 of this."

So if you are a family of one with income of $15,000, you will owe $300 per year. That is $25 a month to cover the penalty.

This is a simple example, and I am not an Obamacare expert. But, if your circumstances are similar to the fellow earning $15,000, there is possibly very good news. If you live in Montana, medical insurance could cost you net, after subsidies, $23 per month. So, I think the smart thing for you to do is apply for Obamacare right now. Once you have applied, you will have the facts you need to make a decision.

Link to Obamacare at $23/mo in Montana.
http://missoulian.co...1a4bcf887a.html

Eon, you can also apply for an Exemption -
http://obamacarefact...mption-penalty/

https://marketplace....p-exemption.pdf


if you qualify.

After I closed my business I started doing freelance. I charged people by they're income. If you made $7/hr that is what I charged to build and teach the use of computers for about 5 years. Poor people loved it. Only one wealthy person ever hired me. He was sick of watching techs redo things. That was fun. Guy walked me around his huge garage full of vintage cars. I think he wanted to offer me one but I needed the dough