1. UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. Sign-up HERE!

Featured Lyft and Uber Drivers Will Suffer When ObamaCare is Repealed.

Discussion in 'News' started by AllenChicago, Dec 28, 2016.

  1. AllenChicago

    AllenChicago Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Chicago (NW Suburbs)
    Driving:
    Lyft
    According to this article, Lyft/Uber drivers, and others in the "gig" workforce will suffer when President Trump begins dismantling (repealing) the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), starting in late January.

    Article: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rollback-affect-growing-gig-economy/95894506/

    How many of you have self-purchased health insurance, at an affordable price, thanks to "ObamaCare"?

    Who would like to see ObamaCare bite the dust, because the premiums and/or deductibles are too high?

    Personally, I'm not willing to pay +$600 a month for a Major Medical ObamaCare policy. So I just use the Veterans Administration for my minor medical needs. Hopefully they stay "minor". But, if I had expensive medical needs, I'd probably find a way to pay for the best plan available.

    -Allen in Chicagoland
     
  2. Nalnip

    Nalnip Member

    Location:
    Ames / Des Moines
    I have personal insurance, and it goes up every single year. Honestly I am conflicted on what needs to be done. Having some basic national plan would be great. Basically, every year everyone gets a free physical. Which that could help stem off some of the big expensive stuff or at least lessen the impact a little.

    So who knows.
     
  3. tohunt4me

    tohunt4me Well-Known Member

    Location:
    new orleans , la.
    The medical system rapes the govt. Which we pay for. Medicare,Medicaid,some institutions will run $48,000.00 worth of tests on a comatose corpse for profit.
    Corruption must be brought under control before bills or insurance will ever become reasonable.
     
  4. tohunt4me

    tohunt4me Well-Known Member

    Location:
    new orleans , la.
    I personally know some people who will run up a $5,000.00 ambulance bill for the govt. Because they do not have transportation to a Dr. Or Hospital.
    Some will call an ambulance just so as not to have to wait in the waiting room before being seen.
     
  5. Another Uber Driver

    Another Uber Driver Moderator Moderator

    Location:
    See avatar
    Driving:
    UberTAXI

    "Obamacare" is a misnomer. Recall that when he was campaigning for his party's nomination, Obama came out against certain provisions of it, especially the personal mandate. He called it "fining people for being poor". I wonder why the flip-flop, although I have a pretty good idea why. In reality, it should be called Reid/Pelosi/Clinton Care, but I expect that it would be too long and stilted to say that.

    In answer to your first quoted question, I purchased a policy when it went into effect, but it was not at an "affordable price", even though the authors of this legislation told me that the price was affordable. It has not been "affordable" at any time that I have had it.

    I do not have a direct answer to your second quoted question. I would like to see it reformed and made truly "affordable". I can not afford the fines. I can not afford the premiums. The deductibles are so ridiculously high, and have gone up every year, that I can not afford to use this "insurance" that never pays out anything. What this has given me is the dubious privilege of being my own primary insurer and the opportunity to pay for this "privilege".


    What has happened is that the Government has told me that I can afford something that I can not afford, has compelled me to purchase it with money that I do not have and once purchased, I can not afford to use it.
     

  6. AllenChicago

    AllenChicago Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Chicago (NW Suburbs)
    Driving:
    Lyft
    Another Uber DriverAnother Uber Driver, your experience and feelings are the same as everyone who makes too much money for the hefty ObamaCare subsidies, but not so much money that $700-$1000 a month is "chump change". In other words, you are in the income range for those who are getting shafted mightily by ObamaScrew.

    Most people in the country don't have any idea how bad the Affordable Care Act is, because it doesn't affect them. Only 8% of Americans are paying for an ObamaCare health insurance plan. If it were 20 or 30%, the ACA would have been repealed a long time ago. Thanks for relating your experience!
     
  7. phillipzx3

    phillipzx3 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Fortunately our local VA hospital is pretty good. I've had the same primary care doc for the last 10 years.

    On the downside..it's too bad the policies are such there isn't much oversight on waste and abuse.
     
    Kembolicous likes this.
  8. phillipzx3

    phillipzx3 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Let's not forget to give proper credit to the main culprit, Mr. Romney. :)
     
  9. phillipzx3

    phillipzx3 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon

    Yup! As long as the PRIVATE SECTOR is allowed to act criminal by overcharging/padding government programs, prices will never come down. The private sectors game plan (when it comes to billing the government) is how much can they make, not how much they can save.
     
  10. DollarStoreChauffeur

    DollarStoreChauffeur Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Wide awake.
    Obamacare was the biggest scam, especially for people like rideshare drivers who are living on a tight budget. So you're barely able to pay your bills with this scummy gig, but now you're faced with either being forced to pay for insurance premiums each month or a penalty at the end of the year?
     
    Kembolicous and Adieu like this.
  11. Do tell

    Do tell Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Home
    Is it so bad that we just can't have an open market.Just let the health care providers charge whatever they want like restaurants.Let the market determine who succeeds and who doesn't.Don't force me to pay a fine or health care that's unaffordable.

    Thank God Donald Trump is going to change all this.Doesn't mean it'll be better,but at least it's something.

    Socialism is a disease that must be treated.LOL
     
    Kembolicous and supernaut like this.
  12. Another Uber Driver

    Another Uber Driver Moderator Moderator

    Location:
    See avatar
    Driving:
    UberTAXI

    ..............yes, as the Originator of this "Bright Idea"................................

    Many people blame the Democrats for this Nanny State policy as well as for another Nanny State policy: seat belt laws.

    While it was Pell (D-Rhode Island) who invented the idea of Federal Arm Twisting over the drinking age, it was on Elizabeth Hanford Dole's (R) watch as Secretary of Transportation that the Feds began to twist the states' collective arm over Nanny-ER-uh-SEAT Belt Laws.

    While many do call Democrats "nanny staters", they do forget that two of the worst nanny state horrors that have befallen this country had Republican backgrounds.
     
    Goobering101 likes this.
  13. Do tell

    Do tell Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Home
    It's crazy about the seatbelt law.Here in Connecticut,I can ride my motorcycle without a helmet,but I have to wear my seatbelt.How's that for backwards thinking.
     
  14. Another Uber Driver

    Another Uber Driver Moderator Moderator

    Location:
    See avatar
    Driving:
    UberTAXI
    I was not aware of that. Is Connecticut a primary or secondary state?
     
  15. Do tell

    Do tell Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Home
    I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.Is this what you mean?
    CONNECTICUT COURT ORDERS MAJOR OVERHAUL OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION POLICIES
    By John Munich



    On September 7, 2016, a Connecticut trial court in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, ordered the state to implement major reforms to its education policies. More than a decade ago, a coalition of cities, local school boards, parents and children filed a lawsuit alleging that Connecticut was violating the state constitution by underfunding the public schools. Although the court rejected the argument that the schools were constitutionally underfunded, it found that policies regarding distribution of education funds, graduation standards, evaluation and compensation of education professionals and special education were constitutionally infirm. The court ordered the state to create a plan to remediate the numerous issues it identified within 180 days.

    Prior Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling

    In 2010, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued an opinion in the Rell litigation, holding that Article 8, § 1 of the Connecticut constitution entitles public school students to a minimally adequate education, including minimally adequate

    (1) Physical facilities

    (2) Instruments (such as desks, chairs, pencils, and textbooks)

    (3) Teaching of basic curricula (with sufficient personnel trained in the subject areas)

    Justice Palmer, who formed the necessary fourth vote for the Court’s decision, agreed with this holding. But he determined that it was the duty of the executive and legislative branches to determine, within reasonable limits, what level of resources or measures are necessary to meet the standard. For that reason, Justice Palmer stated that the plaintiffs would not be able to succeed on their claims unless they could prove that the state’s actions were "so lacking as to be unreasonable by any fair or objective standard."

    Trial Court Ruling

    Six years after the Supreme Court’s opinion, the lower court held a five-month trial on plaintiffs’ claims. The court issued its opinion a month later.

    The court first addressed the core issue of whether Connecticut constitutionally underfunded its schools, finding that there was no violation. According to the court, "Connecticut schools ( . . . ) go far beyond the ( . . . ) minimum" required by the Connecticut Supreme Court’s opinion. Although the court pointed to some anecdotal evidence of deficiencies, it determined that plaintiffs had not proved that there was a statewide failure to provide adequate facilities, instruments or teaching.

    Next, the court held that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim also failed. The court explained that an equal protection claim based on spending disparities can only succeed if the claimant can show that the disparities jeopardize the fundamental right to education. Because Connecticut provided more money to impoverished districts than to wealthy ones, the court found that state did not engage in an equal protection violation.

    Court Ordered Overhaul

    Despite these findings, the court ordered a major overhaul of Connecticut’s education policies. Looking to Justice Palmer’s concurring opinion, the court determined that four different areas of Connecticut education policy were constitutionally deficient because they were not "rationally, substantially, or verifiably connected to creating educational opportunities for children."

    The first policy the court took on was Connecticut’s distribution of education funds. Connecticut, like most states, has a statutory formula for distributing state dollars to schools. The court noted that since as recently as 2014, however, the legislature had not followed the funding formula, and instead adopted set dollar amounts to be given to each district. According to the court, this resulted in cuts to some poor school districts, and protections for spending in some wealthier school districts. The court also took exception to the fact that the state spent $1 billion on school construction every year while spending $2 billion on other educational needs. Ultimately, the court determined that Connecticut lacked a "rational, substantial, and verifiable plan to distribute money for education" and therefore ordered the state to draft a mandatory spending formula.

    The second policy the court addressed was graduation standards. The court recognized that a Connecticut statute sets the credit requirements for graduation from high school. But according to the court, this requirement is illusory because large numbers of impoverished schools are graduating students that do not have basic skills. The court also found that elementary schools in impoverished districts were passing students who did not have grade-appropriate skills. Therefore, the court ordered the state to create an objective, mandatory, statewide graduation standard for both primary and secondary schools.

    Next, the court addressed teacher and administrator evaluations and compensation. The court determined that the current teacher evaluation system was insufficiently connected to student learning, meaning that bad teachers could not be rehabilitated or removed. It also highlighted the "political chaos that often overwhelms the business of paying and reviewing superintendents." The court thus ordered the state to submit new plans for hiring, evaluating, promoting, terminating and compensating all education professionals.

    Finally, the court addressed Connecticut’s expenditures on special education. The court recognized that spending on special education is largely dictated by federal law, specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Nonetheless, the court determined that special-education spending resulted in a constitutional violation due to the state’s lack of standards to (1) identify disabled children who would benefit from education and (2) identify specific disabilities and methods for dealing with them. Accordingly, the court ordered the state to create such standards.

    The state was given only 180 days to present the court with plans to address each of the four issues it identified. In addition, the court noted that in many of these areas, the relationship between the state and local entities—towns, school districts, and school boards—could be contributing to the constitutional violations the court found. It therefore ordered the state to include recommendations for changing the relationship between state and local government in the plans it submits to the court.
     
  16. AllenChicago

    AllenChicago Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Chicago (NW Suburbs)
    Driving:
    Lyft
    CENTENE corp. and United Healthcare broke all records for revenue and profit in 2016, thanks to the MEDICAID expansion of ObamaCare. People who earn less than $17,000 a year in Illinois were made eligible for ObamaCare Medicaid in 2013. Over 2 million new enrollees as a result.

    Centene and UHC administer the program and charge the government BILLIONS of dollars for simply taking the money from Uncle Sam...and transferring it to Doctors, Hospitals, Drug Makers, etc...
     
    Kembolicous likes this.
  17. Trump Economics

    Trump Economics Active Member

    Location:
    US
    Driving:
    Lyft
    Uber and Lyft drivers are already suffering -- let's be real.
     
    Kembolicous, ABC123DEF and JTR like this.
  18. jonnyplastic

    jonnyplastic Well-Known Member

    Location:
    nj
    Obamacare is Wack! I guess I'll suffer with or without it.
     
  19. Oscar Levant

    Oscar Levant Well-Known Member

    Driving:
    UberSUV

    When I signed up for the ACA, I first selected bronze plans, which were cheap, but had horrific deductibles. I switched to Silver plan ( health net ) which was $130 per month, with $500 deductible. Also, I had several doctor visits, and over 2 years, not once did they charge me the deductible, and my copays were like $10 or so. ACA worked beautifully for me, and now that i'm over 65, Im' on medicare, it's even better. I got an $9000 operation, my contribution was only $300.

    Thing is I hear of all these nightmares over the deductibles, but what I don't understand is, aren't they looking at the silver plans? I mean, no one is mentioning this. Another thing, if your state opted out, then I understand that the federal exchange is not as robust as, say, the California exchange, and they also opted in for medicare expansion. A lot depends, I think, on if your stated opt ed in or out. It's not Obama's fault if your state opted out, it's your governor's fault.

    Also, they plan on "delaying" the effect of a repeal, until they have a replacement, but they never will have a replacement, unless the bill satisfies Democrats in Senate ( replacement bill requires 60 votes ). Dems have repubs over a barrel on ACA repeal and replace.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2017
  20. Oscar Levant

    Oscar Levant Well-Known Member

    Driving:
    UberSUV
    IF you are an Uber driver, your tax bracket should be low enough to make ACA affordable. For me, its $132 per month. I recieve a $600 per month subsidy.
    But, I'm in California, which has a robust state exchange, and CA opted in for medicare expansion.

    for people who earn more, the cost goes up, but this could be fixed with a tax on the super-rich, but no republican will go along with that idea.

    At the beginning of the ACA, Obama needed a fund to help insurers, who would feel a pinch during the first couple of years of the aCA, when it would experience a disproportional number of elderly and sick and not enough young and healthy people signing up, thus making it not profitable for insurers. But, as time passes, due to the fines for not signing up, more and more young and health will be signing up, and they have and ACA will pay for itself. Okay, to get this "fund" Obama got it from pharma, the paid some $80 billion to this fund, but Obama and to strike a devil's bargain to get it, which was that pharma demanded that there be a provision in the ACA which disallows goverment to bargain for drug prices. Guess what happened? Rubio got the ACA law changed to disallow insurers to take advantage of this fund, and the result was higher prices for insurance.
    why did he do this? He did this because he did not want ACA to succeed, because if ACA succeeds, he is not as likely, nor any republican be as likely, to be reelected. If insurers cannot take advantage of this fund, then the provision which disallows government to negotiate for drug prices sould be reversed, but, of course, republicans are trying to sabatoge the ACA, and will not do anything to improve it, and much can be done to improve it. The supreme irony of this is that subsidized care employing a mandate was a republican idea in the first place, but, because Obama created it, they don't want it to succeed.

    But, now they are in control, it is they who have to govern. But, they are lousy at it, so the joke is on them. They will have to find a replacement for ACA that is better than the ACA without throwing 30 million peole off health care, and, although it takes only 51 votes to repeal ACA, it will take 60 votes to replace it (requiring therefore democrats to be on board) and there are only two ways to keep 30 million from losing their health care. 1. A mandate with subsidies for poor people (which is the ACA, in essence ). 2. Universal Health Care ( single payer, which is medicare for everyone, Sander's solution. In other words, without a replacement bill that will keep dems happy, no replacement bill was pass ). How is this true ( that there are only 2 ways ) ? Because free market solutions leave millions of poor people out in the cold as they cannot afford it. Voucher's will be a terrible idea. When you are old, you dont want a frickin' voucher, you want a network, a well thought out and robust system, and an insurance card, that you can use wherever it is needed. I gaurantee these "vouchers" will be cheap skate, they won't work for referrals and all sorts of complicated ramifications that republicans are not able to foresee ( the whole reason the ACA was 2000 pages deep ) such that only ghetto located clinics will be the only ones who take them, etc. because they wont be robust, many will find themselves going to emergency rooms, so we are back to health care as it existed before ACA, insurance being denied for pre-existing conditions, insurance claims denied because someone forgot to fill out the form wrong, years ago, when they signed up, etc.

    Moreover, not once, since this nation began, have republicans offered any real type of health care ( okay, I think Nixon did, but Nixon, by today's standards, was a liberal --- he subscribed to keynesian economic theory, which no conservative today does ) so what makes me think they will any time soon? Repubs wouldn't even be talking about health care solutions were it not for Obamacare, they never, in their entire history, believed health care was a right, only a privilege, and therein lies the essence of the problem.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2017

Share This Page