Originally Posted by Bad Dog

MS's ranking in household income, poverty, child poverty, teenage pregnancy, and education have nothing to do with the exchange's insurance premiums. Really.

If I were a physician or dentist selecting a state in which to practice, Mississippi would be one of the least-attractive of states. Unless I were from there and were very sentimental about the state, I'd know that there would be few people paying out of their own resources or out of corporate health insurance through an employer. A health professional would be basically a government employee because he is being paid from Medicare or Medicaid most of the time. Cheap golf? One would have to really love golf.

If I had to look a few places above Mississippi in alphabetical order... Michigan may be treading water economically, but there are still people working in industry and getting corporate medical insurance. Minnesota? On a physician's salary one could easily hire someone to shovel the snow. (Really, Michigan is even snowier in places without mountains). Those two states have real winters but no good slopes for skiing. And at that one may be close to the cultural attractions of Detroit or the Twin Cities.

Mississippi looks largely like a hardship area for physicians, the sort of place where someone must subsidize a physician. Maybe medical staff from elsewhere might go there if they have some radical-left agenda (convincing poor people that their real Messiah is someone named Karl)... but you would want to send your kids to private schools even if you are a Leftist so that they might get into a first-rate university.

Missouri is 35th in median household income, we might still hold the title for #1 in meth (Damn you, Heisenberg!), and we have all the ailments of a red border state. Plus urban maladies, to boot.

Now, MS, or MO?

I feel a poll coming on...

FYI:

Primary physicians do not get paid all that much. While $100,000 to $150,000 may seem like a lot of money, we need to understand the huge student loans, some as high as $400,000 or more, that need to be paid back. Not to mention that expensive malpractice insurance and those 60 hour work weeks.

This is possibly a good guide for those who will be in the process of shopping fro insurance. This is beyond the for it or against it rhetoric. Just an educated piece on how to move forward.

Untangling ACA: Shopping for insurance exchanges

For starters, it’s best to think of buying insurance in the exchanges as a four-step process that includes several key decision points.

STEP 1 The health insurance buying cycle: A good way to think about shopping for exchange coverage, Benjamin suggests, is a cycle with four phases.

Initial enrollment. From October 1 though the end of March 2014, the 24 or so million Americans eligible for exchange coverage can sign up online at HealthCare.gov or with the help of specially trained navigators. That includes people already in the individual market and those who are newcomers. Those who have employer coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Plan are not eligible. People who are sick and have lots of preexisting conditions will be able to get coverage in the exchanges, and that is a pretty big deal for those now shut out of the insurance market. When first enrolling, consumers will need household information, residency status, employment information, and, of course, income details, which will determine eligibility for subsidies to help pay premiums that for many families will not be cheap.


Mid-year enrollment changes. Families change, incomes go up or down, people move, eligibility for subsidies comes and goes. Although the law says there is only one open enrollment period each year, insurance companies and states may allow special enrollment periods for certain qualifying events. Failing to sign up for insurance during open enrollment, later getting sick, and then needing insurance is not one of them. Someone taking this risk is out of luck until the next open enrollment period, which may be months away. Beginning in 2015, open enrollment will start October 1 and end December 31.


Reconciling with Uncle Sam. Just because at sign-up time the computer spits out a number—the subsidy you are entitled to when you present information about your income—doesn’t mean that’s the subsidy you’ll eventually get for the year. If your income goes up during the year, the subsidy you’ve received might be too much, and you’ll have to repay it in your tax bill—in effect, turning the subsidy into a loan. It works the other way, too. If your income decreases, you might find yourself with a welcome tax credit. Of course, this could mean disputes with the IRS. The reason for all this: the infamous clawback provision. Soon after Obamacare became law, the business communitycomplained mightily about some tax reporting requirements intended to raise about $22 million to help finance the subsidies. Congress let businesses off the hook, but needed a way to restore the lost revenue, and they got it from people—you guessed it—who buy in the exchanges.


Subsequent open enrollment periods—or, starting all over again. Insurers usually write coverage for one year. Don’t be surprised, though, if at the time of the next open enrollment you need to change insurers. The one selected this year may no longer be selling in your area a year from now, or some new companies may be sitting it out for this first go-around (many of the big household names in the business are) and will suddenly decide they can make money in this market after all. Or your income could change, meaning your subsidy might be higher or lower. Maybe you’ll want a plan that has a larger selection of docs. Or, maybe your current providers will drop out of the network or be dropped by insurers. In other words, getting and staying covered will hardly be a straightforward affair. There’s nothing seamless about obtaining insurance.

The other three steps here:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/septem...ance-exchanges

Originally Posted by Deb C

FYI:

Primary physicians do not get paid all that much. While $100,000 to $150,000 may seem like a lot of money, we need to understand the huge student loans, some as high as $400,000 or more, that need to be paid back. Not to mention that expensive malpractice insurance and those 60 hour work weeks.

Cousin Susie's were a half million. Plus, more than a decade, stuck in school, residency, etc.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Missouri is 35th in median household income, we might still hold the title for #1 in meth (Damn you, Heisenberg!), and we have all the ailments of a red border state. Plus urban maladies, to boot.

Now, MS, or MO?

I feel a poll coming on...

Best and worst state beginning with the letter M?

Missouri is also Disaster Center. It has floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, heat waves, and earthquakes. Have another quake like the New Madrid Quake of 200 years ago, and hundreds of thousands could die -- not all of them in Missouri. It gets real winters and horrid summers. St. Louis makes Detroit look good by contrast, which is a dubious achievement for any city not in the Third World.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Ability to buy this unaffordable crap has everything to do with it. Where do you expect poor people to get that much money on an already low income?

ACA's Medicaid expansion would have expanded health coverage for everyone in Miss with incomes under 138% of the poverty line (around $16K) and the health exchange would completely cover with subsidies health coverage premiums for everyone making around $26K. These people would get a ton of free preventive care - particularly for women and children - exactly the type of thing that can pull people out of poverty in a generation.

The elites and their t-baggin sheeple in Miss are preventing that. It is for the same reason that dirt poor White people went to fight the Civil War so as to keep the institution of slavery that also repressed them while lining the pockets of the elites. The only thing that has changed is that the sheeple are more dispersed around the country today.

Originally Posted by Deb C

FYI:

Primary physicians do not get paid all that much. While $100,000 to $150,000 may seem like a lot of money, we need to understand the huge student loans, some as high as $400,000 or more, that need to be paid back. Not to mention that expensive malpractice insurance and those 60 hour work weeks.

Anyone who thinks primary physicians making $150k are the primary political force behind providers doesn't have a clue about the profession nor the health industry.

Originally Posted by Deb C

This is possibly a good guide for those who will be in the process of shopping fro insurance. This is beyond the for it or against it rhetoric. Just an educated piece on how to move forward.

Untangling ACA: Shopping for insurance exchanges

For starters, it’s best to think of buying insurance in the exchanges as a four-step process that includes several key decision points.

STEP 1 The health insurance buying cycle: A good way to think about shopping for exchange coverage, Benjamin suggests, is a cycle with four phases.

Initial enrollment. From October 1 though the end of March 2014, the 24 or so million Americans eligible for exchange coverage can sign up online at HealthCare.gov or with the help of specially trained navigators. That includes people already in the individual market and those who are newcomers. Those who have employer coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Plan are not eligible. People who are sick and have lots of preexisting conditions will be able to get coverage in the exchanges, and that is a pretty big deal for those now shut out of the insurance market. When first enrolling, consumers will need household information, residency status, employment information, and, of course, income details, which will determine eligibility for subsidies to help pay premiums that for many families will not be cheap.


Mid-year enrollment changes. Families change, incomes go up or down, people move, eligibility for subsidies comes and goes. Although the law says there is only one open enrollment period each year, insurance companies and states may allow special enrollment periods for certain qualifying events. Failing to sign up for insurance during open enrollment, later getting sick, and then needing insurance is not one of them. Someone taking this risk is out of luck until the next open enrollment period, which may be months away. Beginning in 2015, open enrollment will start October 1 and end December 31.


Reconciling with Uncle Sam. Just because at sign-up time the computer spits out a number—the subsidy you are entitled to when you present information about your income—doesn’t mean that’s the subsidy you’ll eventually get for the year. If your income goes up during the year, the subsidy you’ve received might be too much, and you’ll have to repay it in your tax bill—in effect, turning the subsidy into a loan. It works the other way, too. If your income decreases, you might find yourself with a welcome tax credit. Of course, this could mean disputes with the IRS. The reason for all this: the infamous clawback provision. Soon after Obamacare became law, the business communitycomplained mightily about some tax reporting requirements intended to raise about $22 million to help finance the subsidies. Congress let businesses off the hook, but needed a way to restore the lost revenue, and they got it from people—you guessed it—who buy in the exchanges.


Subsequent open enrollment periods—or, starting all over again. Insurers usually write coverage for one year. Don’t be surprised, though, if at the time of the next open enrollment you need to change insurers. The one selected this year may no longer be selling in your area a year from now, or some new companies may be sitting it out for this first go-around (many of the big household names in the business are) and will suddenly decide they can make money in this market after all. Or your income could change, meaning your subsidy might be higher or lower. Maybe you’ll want a plan that has a larger selection of docs. Or, maybe your current providers will drop out of the network or be dropped by insurers. In other words, getting and staying covered will hardly be a straightforward affair. There’s nothing seamless about obtaining insurance.

The other three steps here:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/septem...ance-exchanges

The vision I get when I read this kind of Deb's stuff is of a little girl, stuck deep down in the bowels of a London subway system during the Battle of Britain. She looks up at mommy and cries that mean old block warden man won't let her go outside and play in the sunshine.

It can be seen as sweet or annoying, but either way, the most applicable single word description is CLUELESS.

Originally Posted by playwrite

ACA's Medicaid expansion would have expanded health coverage for everyone in Miss with incomes under 138% of the poverty line (around $16K) and the health exchange would completely cover with subsidies health coverage premiums for everyone making around $26K. These people would get a ton of free preventive care - particularly for women and children - exactly the type of thing that can pull people out of poverty in a generation.

The elites and their t-baggin sheeple in Miss are preventing that. It is for the same reason that dirt poor White people went to fight the Civil War so as to keep the institution of slavery that also repressed them while lining the pockets of the elites. The only thing that has changed is that the sheeple are more dispersed around the country today.

Now, first and foremost, the Civil War was not over slavery. It was over States' rights.
Keep in mind a great many of those battles were fought here in my state, I grew up with grandparents whose own grandparents were alive and well in that time period or not so long after. Oral history passed down. I know of no one that is going to stand by and let thieves and killers invade their home and steal their food, livestock, provisions to get them through a winter, without fighting back. The very things in that time period that meant the difference between starving to death and living to spring to plant more food. Back before you could go to Kroger for more. You see this happening and even if you aren't planning to don a uniform and go to war for political reasons, you will go to protect what's yours and those you love. Regardless of how poor and meager they may seem in scope to others, it's yours and you worked for it, sweated for it and spent your money on it, and no one has the right or should have the right to take it.

Lincoln was not the generous integration minded President everyone makes him out to be. He had some pretty radical, racist ideas on that subject.

The incomes you cited are great for helping the minimum wage crowd that ALREADY gets lots of government help.

I am referring to the people working in manufacturing that make about $33K a year with 2 kids and because of the low cost of living ( here anyways) of most things now can afford on that for one parent either through need or plain old desire to be a homemaker.

Or the 2 parent family, both working, with a yearly combined income of $43K a year.

They get screwed. Theses are the people I refer to. The people I know who get to choose between groceries, electricity, or this new bill. Or pay the fine, I mean tax.

Now, first and foremost, the Civil War was not over slavery. It was over States' rights.

Come on, now, enough of that self-indulgent bullshit. It was mentioned in the Confederate declaration of Independence, in the their Constitution, it was the issue over which Bleeding Kansas was fought, it was the issue mentioned when Democrats blocked internal improvements. I can dig up a whole host of quotes from Southern politicians from the invention of the Cotton Gin on up through the Civil Rights Movement if it would make you feel better. I believe in States' Rights, but this whole notion that the primary issue of the South, that lay at the root of everything from tariffs to Indian Removal, was anything other than the preservation of white supremacy and black slavery is a load of horseshit, an attempt to preserve the Glorious Cause in the face of a values shift away from racism as acceptable behavior. End of story.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Now, first and foremost, the Civil War was not over slavery. It was over States' rights.
Keep in mind a great many of those battles were fought here in my state, I grew up with grandparents whose own grandparents were alive and well in that time period or not so long after. Oral history passed down. I know of no one that is going to stand by and let thieves and killers invade their home and steal their food, livestock, provisions to get them through a winter, without fighting back. The very things in that time period that meant the difference between starving to death and living to spring to plant more food. Back before you could go to Kroger for more. You see this happening and even if you aren't planning to don a uniform and go to war for political reasons, you will go to protect what's yours and those you love. Regardless of how poor and meager they may seem in scope to others, it's yours and you worked for it, sweated for it and spent your money on it, and no one has the right or should have the right to take it.

Lincoln was not the generous integration minded President everyone makes him out to be. He had some pretty radical, racist ideas on that subject.

.

States rights to do what?

Own slaves. It's in the constitution of nearly every state that seceded. This isn't really debatable. There is no reputable historian, including southern historians, alive today who would argue it.

That the majority of people who did not own slaves ended up having to fight for their homes is also not debatable. I have family who did the same (yes, a whole branch of my family originated from the south). That most white people on both sides believed black people were inferior (or "racist" in our terms) is not debatable. Lincoln tossed around the idea of sending all black people to a colony. The vast majority of Americans during the Civil War and before worked and sweated and labored for what they had. Most of the country--north and south--was rural.



And there were black people and Native Americans who owned slaves. Edward P. Jones, who is black, has a great novel about a black slave-owning family, The Known World." Drew Faust has a great nonfiction book about southern women in the Civil War, This Republic of Suffering.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Come on, now, enough of that self-indulgent bullshit. It was mentioned in the Confederate declaration of Independence, in the their Constitution, it was the issue over which Bleeding Kansas was fought, it was the issue mentioned when Democrats blocked internal improvements. I can dig up a whole host of quotes from Southern politicians from the invention of the Cotton Gin on up through the Civil Rights Movement if it would make you feel better. I believe in States' Rights, but this whole notion that the primary issue of the South, that lay at the root of everything from tariffs to Indian Removal, was anything other than the preservation of white supremacy and black slavery is a load of horseshit, an attempt to preserve the Glorious Cause in the face of a values shift away from racism as acceptable behavior. End of story.

You need to learn that when you have an opinion, you need to state it. None of this shyness.

The next thing you know, we'll be treated to a description of Reconstruction's failure as the fault of the Northern Carpetbaggers.

.

We're within the 24 hour window now for the world coming to an end as we know it.

No, I'm not talking about the govt shutdown - been there, done that before.


No, we're talking about Obamacare!

What we know from the Right is that starting tomorrow: grandma will be up in front of death panels, Blackhawk heli's will be swooping in to collect your Freedom Fries, and cats will start living with dogs!

From the Left, we know that tomorrow, CEO's will for the first time, like for-ever, will become really really rich! And corporations will, for the first time, like for-ever, will really become big! Oh, and dogs will start living with cats!

So, since we have people from all over the nation on this forum, let's all report in tomorrow. As day breaks and the hours roll by across this great Nation, from the relative safety of your bunkers, before the Blackhawks swope in, before the CEOs get really rich, and before your cat starts affectionately licking the dog, REPORT IN!

That is all for now. Good luck and keep your head down! The end is near!

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think this is how most wars are fought. Not for politicians or ideals, but for basic survival. Kill or be killed.
Which makes one wonder about the implications of this:

OMG! Battles! War! Basic survival!!! Kill or be killed!!!!

And it is just the day before!!!

We ain't seen nothing yet, folks! Wait until tomorrow!

OMG! OMG! It's here! The end is near!

OMG! OMG!

Has anyone's cat jumped the gun, and jumped your dog with affectionate licking?!

OMG!

Originally Posted by The Rani

...Then nobody will give two shits about complying with the health insurance mandate.

You've obviously have been in a coma for the last three years.

Actually, you're just ahead of the curve of all the others who have been blasting away at Obamacare for years now; this time next year, they'll be singing the same tune - "oh, I never really believed it was a big deal. You silly people just thought I did."

You're such a trendsetter!

Missouri is spared tidal waves.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

... The incomes you cited are great for helping the minimum wage crowd that ALREADY gets lots of government help.

I am referring to the people working in manufacturing that make about $33K a year with 2 kids and because of the low cost of living ( here anyways) of most things now can afford on that for one parent either through need or plain old desire to be a homemaker.

Or the 2 parent family, both working, with a yearly combined income of $43K a year.

They get screwed. Theses are the people I refer to. The people I know who get to choose between groceries, electricity, or this new bill. Or pay the fine, I mean tax.

You live in a state where the median income is the lowest in the nation, but you see taxation as the problem. Look through this list, with the high tax states at the top and the low tax states at the bottom, and tell me why taxation is the problem.

If it is, its not the way you think.

Originally Posted by The Rani

... Not everyone reading your posts is so prejudiced against Southerners that they are unable to empathize with their personal struggles.

For the record, I'm in the self-inflicted-wounds camp, which seems to be common, world-wide. Not all troubles are self inflicted, but most are. In fact, we're working on some right now.

Holy fucking hell, BCBS just sent me a letter to inform me that my premium will be increasing by 115% this year. Kinda makes all those 20% increases in the last few years look like chump change.

Maybe the government will pay for some of that, maybe not. Either way, we're wasting a ton of cash here while the insurers have their profitability protected by law.

Originally Posted by The Rani

A trendsetting nihilist? Or am I only pretending to be a nihilist. I forget.

I'm sure you have, but don't worry, I can walk you through it again. You've build up a written history that makes it pretty much a cakewalk.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You just love trying to beat up on people and make them miserable, don't you. What a sad existence.

One post, and I make you miserable? Wow, that's pretty cool. I got da power!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Anyway, thanks to Danilynn for sharing her perspective. Not everyone reading your posts is so prejudiced against Southerners that they are unable to empathize with their personal struggles.

So, do you empathize with those that fought back in their day to maintain slavery even though against their own economic interest? Or, do you empathize with those that now want to stop millions from getting health insurance for the first time even though against their own economic interest? Maybe both?

Either way, it sure says a lot about you... and makes me feel good about making you miserable.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Holy fucking hell, BCBS just sent me a letter to inform me that my premium will be increasing by 115% this year. Kinda makes all those 20% increases in the last few years look like chump change.

Maybe the government will pay for some of that, maybe not. Either way, we're wasting a ton of cash here while the insurers have their profitability protected by law.

Was last-year's policy similar to the ones in the Exchange system, or something else entirely? I know that Customer Driven Health Plans (CDHPs) are not considered acceptable ouside an employer sponsored environment. We have a CDHP option that makes a lot of sense if you're both healthy and young. I'm not suere how it plays as you age, but I haven't seen anyone even consider taking it who's over 35. That might be different if this had been supported for he last 5 or 10 years, but this is the first time it's been offered.

You need at least 5 years to accumulate a Health Savings Account (HSA) for the concept to really work ... and provide protection. Youmust have enough income to put aside some real cash, or the deductables will kill you if you need expensive care.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Holy fucking hell, BCBS just sent me a letter to inform me that my premium will be increasing by 115% this year. Kinda makes all those 20% increases in the last few years look like chump change.

Maybe the government will pay for some of that, maybe not. Either way, we're wasting a ton of cash here while the insurers have their profitability protected by law.

This will also be trendsetting. It will predate the trend of those beating up on Obamacare suddenly informing us that they never really truly thought it was a big deal, of course!

It will first be one of the counter-trends of the larger trend of millions giving praise for getting health insurance for the first time at a reasonable cost. The counter- trend will be the reporting of individuals who have been negatively impacted.

Some of the negatively-impacted will, in fact, be true. But on closer examination, it will be found that they are relatively "fat cats" - e.g. Cadillac plans through their union or employer. Others will be found to have done something dumb - typically on purpose.

The vast majority of them, however, will be like this one here. A report of their rates mysteriously going up with no actual reporting of their situation and why their rates went up. Just a couple months ago, we saw that over-reporting on Faux News about the new California Exchange rates where they compared el cheapo catastrophic rates with questionable insurers and cherry picked 26 year old healthy males to the rates of real insurance coverage offered and regulated by the Exchange. Cute, yes?

The thing is, as these fraudulent claims become old news, the “cuteness” will die down - the adults will move on and the crazies will find something else to get their panties tied in knots over. Have you heard that immigration reform is going to turn your grandmother into a slave, you're freedom fries will be taken by Blackhawk helicopters swooping in, and your cat is going to start making romantic advances toward your dog?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Was last-year's policy similar to the ones in the Exchange system, or something else entirely? I know that Customer Driven Health Plans (CDHPs) are not considered acceptable ouside an employer sponsored environment. We have a CDHP option that makes a lot of sense if you're both healthy and young. I'm not suere how it plays as you age, but I haven't seen anyone even consider taking it who's over 35. That might be different if this had been supported for he last 5 or 10 years, but this is the first time it's been offered.

You need at least 5 years to accumulate a Health Savings Account (HSA) for the concept to really work ... and provide protection. Youmust have enough income to put aside some real cash, or the deductables will kill you if you need expensive care.

It's basically the same plan I've had for four years, except this one has a much higher deductible and a slightly lower total out-of-pocket cost. Even if the price were the same, I'd probably pick the old plan because a $5,000 deductible is just absurd.

But yeah, in those four years I've been buying insurance and not using it, the cost of the premium has more than tripled.

The premium price they're quoting is also suspiciously close to my income cut-off for subsidies. Perfect price discrimination in a captive market - it's every crony capitalists' wet-dream.