- 11,075
- 1,529
- 113
I wasn't aware that Congress had delayed that aspect of it. I know the President tried to do it, but legally he doesn't have the authority to materially modify a law that has been passed and gone into effect.
CA: affected by obamacare?
- Thread starter FoleyArtist
- Start date
I wasn't aware that Congress had delayed that aspect of it. I know the President tried to do it, but legally he doesn't have the authority to materially modify a law that has been passed and gone into effect.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
...and this is one of the problems. There's no inherent reason why health insurance should be through an employer.
The other big issue is that health insurance covers everything. Imagine how expensive car insurance would be if it covered new tires and oil changes?
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Do you support EMTALA? After all, if you support mandating emergency room staff from taking care of people without regard to their ability to pay (and lets be honest, by the time badness has been ruled out it's easy enough to throw out a prescription), then you should be responsible, in part, for ensuring that the ED staff is compensated for their work and supplies.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ions-for-the-private-health-insurance-market/
The vote to delay Obamacare was 231-192, with two Republicans voting against the bill, while two Democrats supported it. The Republicans opposed to the bill were New York Reps. Chris Gibson and Richard Hanna, and the Democrats who supported the measure were North Carolina Rep. Mike McInytre and Utah Rep. Jim Matheson.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-government-shutdown-97496.html#ixzz2h5NsPUIP
Last edited by a moderator:
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Ok... what criteria should we use? Tooth to tattoo ratio? All drug overdoses just get kicked to the curb? What does "poor life choices" means? Furthermore, what about people who were just raised poorly and don't know better?
Uclabruin103
Forum Lieutenant
- 200
- 40
- 28
If you want to talk about EMTALA, then we're just talking about actual medical emergencies. So let's see, in the month of September in the city I work, I would of had one legit patient who could be considered to be in a medical emergency that warranted a visit to the ER.
Being raised poorly is not an excuse for behavior. I had a hard life growing up and you don't see me living off the government or welfare's dime. We as a nation need to stop making excuses for why able bodied people need help and assistance. We're breeding a county of soft people who aren't willing to work hard.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Give me a chief complaint, I can generally come up with an emergent condition? Back pain? Cauda Equina Syndrome.
Testicular pain? Testicular torsion?
Leg pain? Rhabdo.
Chest pain/SOB/any signs of infection are just too easy to list out emergent problems.
Until I do an exam, I can't rule out an emergency. That exam is mandated by EMTALA. This isn't to say that the vast majority of patients aren't emergent, but I don't get to make that decision based off of just eyeballing them at the door.
Last edited by a moderator:
EMT2B
Forum Lieutenant
- 162
- 4
- 18
They must have been using the "cash aid" portion of EBT, because the SNAP benefits don't cover pre-made food (as I found out the hard way when I tried to use mine to get a deli sub at Safeway last year)
- 11,075
- 1,529
- 113
But it still doesn't change the law until the Senate approves it and the President signs it. Last time I checked, the Senate wasn't even going to consider this, and the President has threatened to veto it.
Legally, the employer mandate is still the law of the land.
From the Forbes article you linked to:
Last edited by a moderator:
President delayed implementation of it. Yes he can legally do it and he did it. Company's are not required to provide health care to worker that work over 30 hours until 2015.
- 11,075
- 1,529
- 113
Did you not read the part I quoted in my previous post? Yes, I know he claims to have the ability to do it, but that is not how our government and Constitution works (at least when they're open). The President does not have the authority to arbitrarily change a law that has been passed.
The President, as the chief executive of the government, can choose not to enforce a law. However, it is still the law of the land, and he can be forced to enforce it via court order.
Please point me to how many times during the history that court order executive branch to enforce the law?
- 11,075
- 1,529
- 113
I said it could happen...not that it would. And that still doesn't change the fact that the employer mandate is still the law of the land.
IRS will not enforce the penalty, you can make any law, the law of the land but if it's announced that it will not be enforced and no penalty will be as result of company ignoring it, it might as well not exist.
- 11,075
- 1,529
- 113
Right up until the point he changes his mind and decides to enforce it.
Aidey
Community Leader Emeritus
- 4,800
- 11
- 38
Guys....can we please keep this to the discussion of how the ACA is currently affecting employers and NOT a general debate of the ACA and its implementation?
- 11,075
- 1,529
- 113
The thing is , it's not having any impact on employers directly as law will not be enforced for a year. Those company that wanted to get rid of their health care are doing it and those that want to are keeping. That is the advice insurance agents are currently giving to their clients.
"This is response that I was not going to post, but decided it is an extremely important one for the original poster to read. The MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do is read the ACA for yourself. It is not that scary and many unbiased websites have made it simpler to read. Do not take your fellow EMT's word on it. Many are disillusioned about ACA because they have heard so called myths, many are just following party lines and hate it for that reason, many love it for the same reason. Be a leader and educate yourself on ACA. The information you get from this website will be mostly opinionated and not factual, having said that this is a good source for peoples own accounts if that's what you are looking for. You are not though, your healthcare is your healthcare. You do not work with a majority of these people and they have no idea how your company is doing business. Good luck"
My husband's insurance is getting raised due to increased costs. So next open enrollment the cost is going to $900. This is with a $1500 individual deductible for a family and $3000 per family. We are a family--so we pay $3000 before the insurance company pays anything. The notice indicated the increased costs are due to covering pre-existing conditions, expanded coverage and preventative care. Maybe I am wrong in assigning blame to Obamacare but it sounds like the newly implemented coverage. I previously paid $410 per month. Doable, but $900 is not for me. Not with out anything I can do. I am not being disillusioned or following party lines (I am Neither of the major parties) I agree with the above poster that you should read it yourself. But MY reality is that the changes have raised my cost of living. (or will in 1 and a half months) So I am just saying what myself and a few others I know have experienced. Those who's companies pay most of their insurance and did not pass of the costs will still have the same costs and those who are in the lower income levels and will get either a subsidy (they still have to pay a share of cost) or if they get it cost free, then good fro them but as for me and mine, we are pushed to a wall. So please do not (above poster) cast me as a disillusioned EMT or siding on party lines. I actually feel the act did not go the right direction and should have gone further but not allowing private companies (insurance companies) to benefit and we (the citizens to loose out --some of us that is). I believe in health care for all!!! I just need it to actually be AFFORDABLE.
My husband's insurance is getting raised due to increased costs. So next open enrollment the cost is going to $900. This is with a $1500 individual deductible for a family and $3000 per family. We are a family--so we pay $3000 before the insurance company pays anything. The notice indicated the increased costs are due to covering pre-existing conditions, expanded coverage and preventative care. Maybe I am wrong in assigning blame to Obamacare but it sounds like the newly implemented coverage. I previously paid $410 per month. Doable, but $900 is not for me. Not with out anything I can do. I am not being disillusioned or following party lines (I am Neither of the major parties) I agree with the above poster that you should read it yourself. But MY reality is that the changes have raised my cost of living. (or will in 1 and a half months) So I am just saying what myself and a few others I know have experienced. Those who's companies pay most of their insurance and did not pass of the costs will still have the same costs and those who are in the lower income levels and will get either a subsidy (they still have to pay a share of cost) or if they get it cost free, then good fro them but as for me and mine, we are pushed to a wall. So please do not (above poster) cast me as a disillusioned EMT or siding on party lines. I actually feel the act did not go the right direction and should have gone further but not allowing private companies (insurance companies) to benefit and we (the citizens to loose out --some of us that is). I believe in health care for all!!! I just need it to actually be AFFORDABLE.
Also,, I do not think anyone (except the employers) cares about how it affects the employers. We care how the employers affect US. So, if an employer feels he needs to spread the increased costs to the employee then we as employees will care. If an employer decides the increase in cost is more than they want to handle and they cut the coverage, then we as employees care. My husband's employer decided to pass the increase on to the employees rather than covering the increased costs. That affects my bottom line.