.

Covered California Health Care Coming Soon

Americans will be required to obtain insurance, or face a penalty, beginning in 2014.

The Sacramento Bee reported that California has received conditional approval from the Obama administration Thursday to begin subsidized health care. The state plans to commence subscriptions in October.

"Covered California" hopes to service the large population of state residents who are eligible for federal subsidies for health coverage next year. Americans will be required to obtain insurance beginning in 2014.

California has qualified for $237 million in federal grants to date to build the infrastructure of its marketplace, according to the Bee.

The grants pays for an IT system, which enrolls subscribers statewide, and marketing efforts and staff to operate the program.

Federal officials see California as a key state in the program. With the highest population, the state has unique language and cultural barriers among its uninsured population.

Currently, the federal government has approved "health exchanges" in 19 states and Washington, D.C.

Carl Petersen III January 06, 2013 at 06:01 PM
June 9:22 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "No Carl I probably would have sold my house." . . You could afford a house, but not health insurance?
allthatca January 06, 2013 at 06:03 PM
If Carl and Shane actually had JOBS then they wouldn't be so quick to want to DONATE half of their paycheck to people who sit on their asses all day with their palms outstretched. Of course I believe in helping those who are down on their luck TEMPORARILY....not supporting each generation they bring in to the system so they can educate them on how to ABUSE IT....
Roberto January 06, 2013 at 06:04 PM
If I lived in near Chicago, I too would have voted for Nobama. LOL!
Carl Petersen III January 06, 2013 at 06:06 PM
June 9:22 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "If that did help I would have called St.Judes or something. I do not play govt games." . . I am sure that St. Judes does not receive any government grants nor would they have required you to apply for any available government programs.
Carl Petersen III January 06, 2013 at 06:13 PM
allthatca 10:03 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "If Carl and Shane actually had JOBS" . . Carl Petersen III 9:57 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "I have worked continuously since I left home and moved 3,000 miles away to a new life."
7863856394688354829 January 06, 2013 at 06:16 PM
What's up with this Shane guy?
Theotis January 06, 2013 at 06:58 PM
Carl PeterEater IIII and Shane have full time jobs doing each other. They love their line of work
One Voice January 06, 2013 at 08:31 PM
Shane, you are the poster child for "hate, prejudice and discrimination" I have never seen anyone as one sided as you are.
Carl Petersen III January 06, 2013 at 08:39 PM
One Voice 12:32 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "Shane, you are the poster child for "hate, prejudice and discrimination" I have never seen anyone as one sided as you are." . . It is interesting that you continue to single Shane out but seem to turn a blind eye towards other posters on this site who share the same ideology as you.
One Voice January 06, 2013 at 08:42 PM
Gee Carl & Shane no copy and paste with comment for Annies postings, do you think that whey she says just might be a reality???
Carl Petersen III January 06, 2013 at 08:53 PM
One Voice 12:42 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "do you think that whey she says just might be a reality???" . . I managed to post the lyrics for an entire song in response. Wasn't that enough?
One Voice January 06, 2013 at 09:03 PM
Who works from 1997-2009 and retires with bonus and pension at age 56 LOL???? Sounds more like disability, oh wait do you get disability for being mentally challenged?
One Voice January 06, 2013 at 09:07 PM
In- Shane you're a moron to post your phoney resume, do you really think anyone cares, it would of been more entertaining to have you post your criminal record LOL
Roberto January 06, 2013 at 09:13 PM
Ishane's behaviour is getting more bizzare by the day. Ho do I say this nicely...whack job!
One Voice January 06, 2013 at 09:32 PM
One Voice 12:32 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "Shane, you are the poster child for "hate, prejudice and discrimination" I have never seen anyone as one sided as you are." Carl says, he says:. It is interesting that you continue to single Shane out but seem to turn a blind eye towards other posters on this site who share the same ideology as you. Soooooooo what's your point?????
Bret D. Rijke January 06, 2013 at 11:24 PM
@ Carl Peterson You asked, "Do you have statistics to back that up?" Yes. I will attach a link to CDC which highlights that only 12.7% of all ER visits result in an admission. At the end of the link are further links, namely to JAMA and AHA. A good percentage of the 12.7% also reflects admission based upon liability. Example is a patient presenting with chest pain. Many MD's will admit for 24 hours regardless of test results to avoid any possibility of being sued later. As for the link... certainly even you will agree that CDC is a viable link? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/ervisits.htm
Bret D. Rijke January 06, 2013 at 11:30 PM
@ Carl Peterson; You wrote, "If the law currently mandates a specific level of care, then healthcare does appear to be a right." Wrong. First off, you are confusing when a government states you have to "purchase" an item, such as in this case insurance, being subsequently a "Right". A "Right" cannot exist if it forces the giving of labor. There is a "Right" to SEEK healthcare, not to HAVE it. With your logic, because we in America have a "Right" to a firearm, then everyone is forced to own a firearm. Secondly, if 51% of a populace vote for a law, it does not make it a moral act.
Bret D. Rijke January 06, 2013 at 11:47 PM
@ Carl Peterson; You wrote, "I would argue that none of our rights are given to us by a (G)od." And therein lies the danger with your thinking. For if these "Rights" do not flow from our Creator, then from where do they come? The answer of course is from government. And this is where you and I will never agree. I do not acknowledge nor accept that my Constitutional Rights are from government. For if they are, they can be stripped away. That was the whole point of how the Framers coined various phrasing. That these "Rights" would never be in danger of legislative usurpation. Understand this does not give credence to any specific denomination or religious preference. It is only important that a Divine Creator is acknowledged. If we cannot agree upon this precept, then we can never agree as to continue debate. And this yet another reason for a "going our own ways" politically and nationally. If America was a marriage between the Conservative and Progressive, all would be pleading for a divorce.
Carl Petersen III January 07, 2013 at 02:16 AM
Bret D. Rijke 3:24 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "I will attach a link to CDC which highlights that only 12.7% of all ER visits result in an admission." . . I guess it is a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't classify 12.7% as "very far and few between." The percentage actually increases to 14.6% if you include visits resulting in transfer to a different (psychiatric or other) hospital.
Carl Petersen III January 07, 2013 at 02:23 AM
Bret D. Rijke 3:30 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "You wrote, "If the law currently mandates a specific level of care, then healthcare does appear to be a right." Wrong. First off, you are confusing when a government states you have to "purchase" an item, such as in this case insurance, being subsequently a "Right". A "Right" cannot exist if it forces the giving of labor. There is a "Right" to SEEK healthcare, not to HAVE it. " . . I am guessing that you are referring to the mandate portion of Obamacare. My reference was to access to health care. Even before Obamacare, federal law did guarantee access to certain forms of healthcare.
Carl Petersen III January 07, 2013 at 02:24 AM
Bret D. Rijke 3:30 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "With your logic, because we in America have a "Right" to a firearm, then everyone is forced to own a firearm." . . At one point there was a law that did require just that.
Carl Petersen III January 07, 2013 at 02:25 AM
Bret D. Rijke 3:30 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "Secondly, if 51% of a populace vote for a law, it does not make it a moral act." . . Didn't know that I had said such a thing. The Jim Crow laws and slavery are examples of how you are absolutely correct.
Carl Petersen III January 07, 2013 at 03:22 AM
Bret D. Rijke 3:47 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "And therein lies the danger with your thinking. For if these "Rights" do not flow from our Creator, then from where do they come? The answer of course is from government. And this is where you and I will never agree." . . But we do agree that they do not come from the government. I just don't believe they flow from a supernatural being.
Carl Petersen III January 07, 2013 at 03:24 AM
Bret D. Rijke 3:47 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "I do not acknowledge nor accept that my Constitutional Rights are from government." . . When you specify Constitutional Rights you are specifying the government rights. Our particular constitution recognizes a higher level of rights.
Carl Petersen III January 07, 2013 at 03:28 AM
Bret D. Rijke 3:47 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "It is only important that a Divine Creator is acknowledged." . . And that is where we have a problem. I do not believe that we need to accept a supernatural being to explain the mysteries of the universe. If fact, when it comes to the guarantee the rights, I would argue that religion has been just as much a hindrance as government in many instances through history.
Carl Petersen III January 07, 2013 at 03:29 AM
Bret D. Rijke 3:47 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013 "If America was a marriage between the Conservative and Progressive, all would be pleading for a divorce." . . America has always been a marriage between Conservatives and Progressives. I am not ready to declare irreconcilable differences.
Brenda January 07, 2013 at 04:03 AM
Also they will NOT be approving a good majority of treatments, medications that you would get under a private plan. Or you have to wait forever for the approvals, or the hearings to try to fight it and you will be dead by then. Go and read the facts that someone posted up at the top. The links. Its not pretty and if small business's even larger business's had not been pushed right out of being able to contribute larger amts to insurance, or the whole plan we would not be in this situation. OR that certain size companies are made to provide a certain percentage of insurance to their employees. There are many like Sear, Kmart, who have been lessening and lessening the amount they pay for their employees coverage for a few years now. This year, I believe in June, they cut it back again. I call bull on that as Sear is growing in leaps and bounds and could easily maintain the same amount of insurance contribution, same as Walmart and hundreds of thousands of other companies. But this is just another sign of how our country has been run into the ground.
Brenda January 07, 2013 at 04:07 AM
Doesnt anyone READ what they vote on? Voters agreed to Obamaland Healthcare, just like you voted him back in. Why not just provide low cost medical insurance? But instead we do this? Statement taken from the above article. That is double dipping right? Idiotic and has been from the beginning. All we need is a Cobra type plan provided by each State, or Federal Gov. that provides a different range of coverage for each family, what they need. Thats it, signed sealed and delivered and not costing us 278 million in California because we have AID workers by the millions who already are here to service our ILLEGALS, with language difficulties. Blah blah.; "California has qualified for $237 million in federal grants to date to build the infrastructure of its marketplace, according to the Bee. The grants pays for an IT system, which enrolls subscribers statewide, and marketing efforts and staff to operate the program. Federal officials see California as a key state in the program. With the highest population, the state has unique language and cultural barriers among its uninsured population." 237million? Provides jobs, for people that need insurance, including all the illegals who dont have it thru our aid programs. Where does this make sense? We use tax payer money twice? To run the program, then charge the people for the insurance?
TVOR January 08, 2013 at 04:42 PM
@ carl It is not specifically citizenship status that is so important, it is the ability or the intent to pay. If a person is a citizen and can't afford to pay then the government has a process by which the hospital can recoup some of the cost of services provided. If the non paying person is an illegal alien then the hospital likely will receive no reimbursement and that is why our healthcare costs have skyrocketed. Take illegal aliens out of the picture and the cost of healthcare (at least emergency healthcare) could drop significantly.
Brenda January 08, 2013 at 06:36 PM
Agree with you across the board here TVOR ;) This is the simplest thing if you are in your 50s or so to know what has brought this country to its knees financially and politically. ***cough*** I dont vote anymore, last two terms because instead of getting the illegals out of here they use them to get more hispanic votes and I think that is as close to treason and illegal in itself I could throw up.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something