More Obamacare fuckups

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

What's the difference between MediCal and an "ACA approved Health Plan through a private company"?
Isn't MediCal just the one that California picked that fits the latter's description?

MediCal existed long before the ACA. And you could sign up for it before the ACA. The fact that the ACA website refers people to MediCal when they have low to zero income is a silly number to give to the ACA. And what's funny that is if you are below $10k annual income, You have no choice. You get MediCal through the ACA. You can't sign up for anything else. I know. They forced my 4 month old Daughter into MediCal because she has no income. There are no options to even add her to the other plans because she can't find work at her age.

[Jarvan]

The answer to both of these is one and the same, and you should already know the answer. Our system is government is set up to allow our executive branch to handle the implementation of law, and affords them A) certain levels of discretion, and B) their own interpretation of the law (one of the functions of the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel, the same group that essentially authorized the torture program under George W. Bush despite the US having signed treaties expressly banning torture).

There are remedies built in to the system for the executive branch overreaching their bounds--the other two branches of government, and the ability of people to elect new leaders. If you're going to rail against Obama for his implementation of the ACA, I presume that you likewise railed against the use of signing statements by presidents of any political persuasion, and especially against willful attempts to circumvent the law, like Reagan's Iran-Contra fiasco.

In any case, if the discretion and interpretation of law wasn't needed, we wouldn't have an executive or judicial branch to begin with--everyone would just blindly enact Congress' bills to the letter of the law. We've decided as a society that the other branches serve a purpose, and that's one of them.

What Cat Boy is saying is... Bush's "torture" program was legal.

[Whirlin]

MediCal existed long before the ACA. And you could sign up for it before the ACA. The fact that the ACA website refers people to MediCal when they have low to zero income is a silly number to give to the ACA. And what's funny that is if you are below $10k annual income, You have no choice. You get MediCal through the ACA. You can't sign up for anything else. I know. They forced my 4 month old Daughter into MediCal because she has no income. There are no options to even add her to the other plans because she can't find work at her age.

Sounds like MediCal would be the same bucket as MassHealth.

If they're new enrollments in MediCal, I can see how that could be a result of the ACA marketing for individuals to obtain health insurance, and utilizing the national website (when it's up) to get to the MediCal website. But, I agree that it's shady and definitely a stretch as far as statistics go, and should be in it's own separate reporting caveat.

ACA allows children to be kept on their parents' insurance up to age 28. Depends if you claim them as a dependent on your tax return. I assume at age 4, they're still your dependent, and don't really need their own work. But, if you're not claiming them as a dependent, I guess they would qualify for MediCal.

[Jarvan]

More good news on the health insurance front.

As the law's initial enrollment period closes, at least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage. Some have done so through marketplaces created by the law, some through other private insurance and others through Medicaid, which has expanded under the law in about half the states.

This is such a lie it isn't even funny.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Sounds like MediCal would be the same bucket as MassHealth.

If they're new enrollments in MediCal, I can see how that could be a result of the ACA marketing for individuals to obtain health insurance, and utilizing the national website (when it's up) to get to the MediCal website. But, I agree that it's shady and definitely a stretch as far as statistics go, and should be in it's own separate reporting caveat.

ACA allows children to be kept on their parents' insurance up to age 28. Depends if you claim them as a dependent on your tax return. I assume at age 4, they're still your dependent, and don't really need their own work. But, if you're not claiming them as a dependent, I guess they would qualify for MediCal.

That's just my point though, I wasn't allowed to add her to the Covered CA plan at all. Because she had no income. She was registered as my dependent but because she had zero income, they pushed her off the Sharp plan and into MediCal. I went to a broker to see if I was doing something wrong, and apparently, this is a thing. An unstoppable thing.

[Atlanteax]

In CA, super low and zero income people are put on MediCal. They're aren't allowed to sign up for a subsidized ACA approved health plan through a private insurance company. I find this hilarious because those numbers are counted for Obamacare but they could have signed up for MediCal anyway.

The wonders of "fuzzy math" !

[Jarvan]

That is quite possibly the stupidest goal of any goal ever created in the history of mankind and the history of any intelligent or even semi intelligent life form in the entire universe. I'm not even resorting to hyperbole!

Seriously. "Hey let's pass a healthcare law to get these uninsured people insured!"

"Brilliant! But hey let's make a goal to just get ANYONE enrolled in healthcare under this new law, even people who already had health insurance or people who lost their insurance due to this law then were forced to use our website to get health insurance!"

"YES! YES! DO IT! DO IT!"

And the sheeple tout around this goal like good little lambs. Or sheep. Lamb sheep.

I know it wasn't a goal.... but....

"Jobs Created... OR ...saved"

[cwolff]

You said it's good to get poor covered if the costs are "defrayed over tens of millions of people." Is it really good to get the "poor" covered if it means making life worse for other poor people? That makes no sense. You were making more sense when it seemed like you were thinking costs would only go up for rich people.

I think you're just arguing for the sake of it.

[Whirlin]

That's just my point though, I wasn't allowed to add her to the Covered CA plan at all. Because she had no income. She was registered as my dependent but because she had zero income, they pushed her off the Sharp plan and into MediCal. I went to a broker to see if I was doing something wrong, and apparently, this is a thing. An unstoppable thing.

Maybe MediCal covers children, regardless of income? I'd point to more website failures, but if a broker confirmed, I'm as stumped as you are.

Sounds like a blessing to me, free childrens' health insurance? I say take it and never look back! Probably just saved you a couple hundred in premiums! Just save those communications in case the state comes back or something to cover your ass.

[Tgo01]

I think you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I think you're not making sense for the sake of defending Obamacare at all costs.

Let's look at the merits of your arguments one at a time.

Getting poor people covered. -- This is a good thing.
Increasing healthcare costs for poor people (which you have admitted will most likely happen.) -- This is a bad thing.

They canceled each other out. Case closed. Obamacare sucks. Let's move on.