Does it mean anything to you that health care providers want Obamacare to pass?

I don’t yet know a ton about it but I thought the insurance companies were all for it because it would generate a lot more business? I am for single payer so not delighted about that aspect.

And – “Obamacare” has passed. it is the law of the land.

@janbb is correct, it isn’t going to pass, it already has. Today in fact, it is law. Millions are choosing doctors and insurances. I’m sure insurances are loving it. It’s the same when California passed mandatory auto insurance.

So there is no point for the government shut down as it concerns “Obamacare.” Republicans want us to believe this is bad for America. I believe they are only representing their large corporations who back them. No on in their good mind would want to not pass cheaper health insurance to the majority of people.

Honestly there’s so many factors/situations to Obamacare we could probably dissect this for months!

I don’t care about the politics of this thing, I am only interested in how it affects my fellow Americans and their health care. If Republicans are stonewalling because it wasn’t their idea, then that will have a big affect on my feelings moving forward.

And I know it’s law, that was my faux pas, sorry.

@KNOWITALL It’s pettier than that, because it was their idea. And now they are trying to oppose it simply because the Democrats were in office when it passed. Their opposition is utterly ineffective – it is law, as others have said, despite the Republicans’ insistence on calling it a mere “bill”.

@glacial What about the congressional exception, is that not true?

^ This?.

@tom_g It sounds a little wishy-washy on that site, and I keep hearing they don’t want Obamacare for themselves. If Obama isn’t on it, I’ll be very upset.

@KNOWITALL – What does that mean? What is being “on it” mean, specifically?

As for the congress exception, maybe you could approach it a different way. Find documentation that outlines this supposed exemption.

@KNOWITALL, how about this?

Check out section 18032, d-3-D:

”(D) Members of Congress in the Exchange
(i) Requirement
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are—
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
(ii) Definitions
In this section:
(I) Member of Congress
The term “Member of Congress” means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) Congressional staff
The term “congressional staff” means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.”

I’m not great at translating these legal documents, but it seems pretty clear that there is no exemption for congress, whatever that was even supposed to mean. I don’t know. I could be wrong. It simply means, I believe, that the current plans that congress is on will move on to the new plans (starting in Jan 2014, I believe).

@tom_g I like that, thank you, Tom!!

‘Not wanting it for themselves’ doesn’t mean anything. They have insurance. They were going to be treated like every other full-time employee for a business above 50 people: they must be provided insurance by their employer. They are provided insurance, so, they were fine. Sen. Grassley decided, for no accurately described reason, that he did not like this, and thus managed to get an amendment passed to it that stated that congressional staffers lose their federal insurance and must get it via the exchanges. However, this also meant that the staffers would essentially suffer a pay cut, since they would go from getting insurance provided to having to pay for it, so a ruling was issued by the Office of Personnel Management to get them subsidies to cover the difference, which was welcomed as fine by Sen. Grassley. Sen. Vitter, however,o tried to kill that, again, for no good reason. Vitter himself, and other congresspeople, would still get their insurance, of course. It would only be his staff who suffers. It should tell you something that he was trying to take away insurance from the people working under him.

End result:
1. Congresspeople/staffers were to be treated like other employees under the ACA, this was changed to make them use the exchanges: they were offered healthcare by their employer and were thus fine under the ACA (their plans would be covered by the same requirements of other plans). Sen. Grassley changed this to force them onto the exchanges.
2. In order to not randomly penalize congressional staffers, the money that would have paid their insurance would instead act as a subsidy on the exchanges. There is no end difference in the money except that now, unlike other employees, they must get insurance via the ACA exchanges. This is, in fact, the opposite of an exemption.
3. Sen. Vitter attempted to strip this provision and force his and other staffers (but not himself) to pay explicitly out of pocket for insurance. This failed.

and for the record, I admit this comes across as annoyed, and I want to clarify that this annoyance is not directed at anyone here, and is mostly for the stupid antics in congress that have gotten us to this point.

It’s a positive that most health care providers are for the plan, in my mind. My own doctor would prefer that we’d gone single-payer, but this is a big step in the right direction according to him.

Also, I realize I never actually answered the original question. Sorry. I think it’s a very good sign. The ACA has various provisions about coverage and payments to providers, so if the providers are happy about it then that’s a pretty good sign.

I simply don’t understand why so many people are so unwilling to give the Affordable Health Act a chance—especially those who already have insurance and don’t need it (like members of Congress). I’m hearing so many stories about people who now can get insurance for the first time in years or for the first time in their lives. Doesn’t that count for something? Sure the law has kinks—how could a program this large and complicated not have? But m’ gawd, it’s just starting to kick in. And if its enemies spent their energy and time trying to improve it rather than kill it because they hate Obama and want to get reelected (see this)—and if we allowed a bit of time to pass—I believe people would begin to understand and appreciate the benefits of Obamacare, just as they did Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Of course it’s not going to work for every citizen, but nobody including Mr. Obama himself ever promised that. But it will help millions of Americans who are desperate for coverage, and again I ask, isn’t that worth something?

pssssttttt. Obama care HAS passed and has even been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Also, this was a REPUBLICAN idea that became awful to them once Obama embraced it.

@janbb, if insurance providers are opposed it would not surprise me. One of the provisions of the law says that they must spend 80–85% of the money they charge on actual healthcare, instead of keeping it for profit or “administrative” costs. It is still a net win for them, but I would imagine that part made some executives very angry.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room It is!!!! I’m completely for it IF it’s good for the American people who need help, which I’m reserving judgement on until I see how it works out. This should be a bipartisan issue.

Why should health care providers not support the Affordable Care Act? Sure there are certainly better ways to accomplish this goal but Americans are too timid to adopt a program such as those that have seen successfully implemented in other democratic countries.

Of course they do! They’ve got a golden ticket! Look, it’s a business and they’re about to make a lot of money… Do you think they could care less about you or your needs? They’ll patch you up as cheaply as possible and charge the insurance company as much as they can.

@KNOWITALL so excited and happy! Me in the US: ear infection treated at Zoom clinic:$120, medication: $34. Me in Australia: Dr. visit: 0$. Medication: 6$. Yay for your friend’s mum! I have loved ones there and worry! Yay!