I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Bill Peckham on October 25, 2013, 06:34:30 AM
-
Signing up for health insurance through the federal health insurance exchange (healthcare.gov (https://www.healthcare.gov/)) was nearly impossible at first and now nearly four weeks in has gotten better very slowly. I don't think anyone is happy with how the launch has gone. No one knows if the signup process will be robust enough to meet demand as the coverage deadlines start getting closer or if the problems with signing up will significantly change the mix of people signing up. However, I think this video offers some important perspective on the process.
http://youtu.be/ql9RVy6FWkg (http://youtu.be/ql9RVy6FWkg)
The relevant comparison to getting insurance through Obamacare is not how easy it is to buy a book on Amazon, rather what it is like to apply for health insurance pre Affordable care Act. Has anyone tried to get insured through the federal insurance exchange or one of the state exchanges?
-
Great video Bill. Keeps things in perspective.
-
Bill, it is all in the details. First, let's talk about this in July of 2014 after the law is in effect and see how accurate the projections are. Secondly, there could be a very logical reason why it may or may not have an impact on part time care. Simply Obama will count the effective hours instead of actual hours even in companies with seasonal employees for only 121 days as a full time year. If they are over for 121 days, it applies to the company for the whole year. The attention is in the details.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/05/Uh-Oh-Small-Businesses-Can-t-Avoid-ObamaCare-By-Switch-To-Part-Time-Workers
So with Obama a full time work week is 30 hours and a full year is 121 days. Go figure. Is there confusion on this issue for employers??? You betcha, just like the ObamaCare website disaster. Funny, no one on IHD is talking about that train wreck already in town right now. How is that ObamaCare working for you already???
-
Bill, it is all in the details. First, let's talk about this in July of 2014 after the law is in effect and see how accurate the projections are. Secondly, there could be a very logical reason why it may or may not have an impact on part time care. Simply Obama will count the effective hours instead of actual hours even in companies with seasonal employees for only 121 days as a full time year. If they are over for 121 days, it applies to the company for the whole year. The attention is in the details.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/05/Uh-Oh-Small-Businesses-Can-t-Avoid-ObamaCare-By-Switch-To-Part-Time-Workers (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/05/Uh-Oh-Small-Businesses-Can-t-Avoid-ObamaCare-By-Switch-To-Part-Time-Workers)
So with Obama a full time work week is 30 hours and a full year is 121 days. Go figure. Is there confusion on this issue for employers??? You betcha, just like the ObamaCare website disaster. Funny, no one on IHD is talking about that train wreck already in town right now. How is that ObamaCare working for you already???
Did you mean to post this to this thread?? What train wreck isn't being discussed? The federal sign up process is what the republicans in Congress (and no too few democrats) are calling a train wreck but that can't be what you mean ... considering this is a thread I started about the federal website/signup process problems. We'll know how the signup process went by December 15 when those who will have coverage on January 1 will have signed up. The key question is what the mix of people this will be - only old and/or sickest or the young healthy too.
-
All I have to say is, thank goodness there was not computers when Medicare started up Would of been the same thing !!! Glitch after glitch !!! I worked in healthcare for 30 years, went through all paper charts to computerized charting, labs, patient contact, etc. When ever we started a new computer program ,it was the exact same thing . Glitch after glitch. In spite of all the extra training, it was always difficult with lots of problems !!! It does't matter how much time there is to prepare, it was always the same. I can't blame anyone, the President, the Secretary of Human Services, the Progamers, I believe it's just the way it is with computers. You really don't find the glitches untill it is rolled out. Just my opinion, from my experience.
-
^
-
I sincerely hope that no one is fined because they could not get online in time to get insurance. That would really be kind of rubbing their noses in it, wouldn't you think???
-
Here is an interesting explanation (in 3 PDFs) by The NY Times about the issue of individual policies affected by the ACA.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/30/us/why-some-people-cant-keep-their-insurance-plans.html
8)
-
Medicare is my primary so I don't think I have to do anything and my secondary is Federal BlueXblue shield and the rates came out and it only went up $12. Funny that years ago if it went up $12 we would have had a kaniption but now I'm happy. So I'll pay $198 a month for secondary insurance. plus Medicare... hmmmm well it beats $60K that DaVita would charge me a month!
Still the problem is the high cost of health care and congress has decided to settle and just figure out how to pay the high prices. What we need to do is control the high outrageous prices!
-
Rerun I so agree with you. The pharmacy hot shots and the hospital administrators are just crazy when it comes to charging for things. I have no idea how they get away with this.
-
I am done "debating" on these threads, but reading through this particular discussion about individual plans that are now being cancelled, I just have to ask. Has anyone here ever bought one of these policies or has known anyone who has? And if so, what was your/their experience? Did you/they ever have to make a claim?
When I moved from the UK back to the US, the first thing I did was to buy a private health insurance policy through my family's long time State Farm Insurance agent. The plan I bought was NOT a State Farm product, and for legal reasons, I cannot name the company or the underwriters.
I needed just an annual policy to tide me over until I married and could then be on my husband's insurance.
A few days before the expiration date, I got sick and ended up in the hospital for 5 days. During my hospital stay, my policy expired, and through an insurance broker, I had the policy renewed and paid the premium.
I recovered and then set about going through the claims process. To make a veeeerrrrrryyyyyy long story short, the insurance company denied each and every claim. Over $20,000 worth of claims they denied for made up reasons like "pre-existing condition" (lie!) and other reasons that some drunk underwriter must have pulled out of his nose. I went through the appeals process, and nothing. They wouldn't even speak to me on the phone. Stonewalled. Then they retroactively cancelled my policy (which, remember, had already expired, so they cancelled an expired policy). I finally had to contact the state insurance board which forced the ins co to reinstate my policy, which they did but warned me that that didn't mean they'd pay any of my claims.
Then they actually tried to claim that I had not lived in the US long enough to fulfill their "residency requirement" and demanded to see my green card. They were trying to prove that I had moved to the US specifically and fraudulently to access medical care, so they had assumed I was not a citizen and tried to base their denial of coverage based on that.
Keep in mind that this company had RENEWED my policy...and had cashed my check.
Now, I worked in London as a reinsurance broker, and my husband is an attorney, so we had a pretty clear idea of what the hell was going on. This company had taken a calculated risk that I would not fight them and would be too ignorant to see through their tactics.
In the end I had to sue them, and of course I won. Their own attorney (who had just lost a similar case) couldn't understand why they wouldn't pay my claims. So they had to pay all of my claims PLUS the maximum punitive damages allowed by law. The company in question ended up having to pay out three times as much as they would have had to if they'd only been honest in the first place.
Bottom line is that I have to wonder if these people who are so upset about losing their crap policies have EVER tried to get a claim paid. The individual insurance market is populated by thieves of the most hideous sort. If any of you have ever bought one of these individual policies and have had your claims paid, I'd really like to know.
Thank you. :)
-
My financial adviser called me this morning; he calls me once a month. He told me that he had held a workshop on Medicare and planning for longterm care, and he also hosted a presentation by one of his clients who is an insurance adviser. She spoke about the ACA and how it affects different people in different ways. Several people at the workshop complained about this issue of policy cancellations, but interestingly, none of them had these types of policies. However, one attendee had had one of these individual policies for 20 years and had never had to make a claim. In year 21, he was diagnosed with cancer, and his insurance company promptly cancelled his policy.
So my question remains...have any of you ever had one of these policies, or do any of you know anyone who had. If so, again, have any of these policyholders ever had a claim paid?
-
Looks like the ACA isn't that popular at all:
October 18, 2013
Americans More Likely to Feel Negative Than Positive Toward the Affordable Care Act
Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport shares that 50% of Americans would like to see Congress scaled back or repeal the Affordable Care Act, compared with 38% that would like to see Congress expand or keep the Affordable Care Act as is.
http://www.gallup.com/video/165482/americans-likely-feel-negative-positive-toward-affordable-care-act.aspx
-
One more individual Obamacare nightmare:
Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446
-
One more individual Obamacare nightmare:
Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446)
Should public policy care only about Ms Littlefield or about people with gallbladder cancer generally? How many people die every year of gallbladder cancer because they could not carry insurance? or their insurance dropped them the first time they got sick? or after a year or two or less of treatment their insurance dropped them because they reached a lifetime cap?
It could be but for Obamacare the author would be able to keep seeing every doctor she wanted to keep and receive care at the facility she chooses but it is more likely that but for Obamacare her insurer would have pulled out of the CA market since it has only 8,000 policy holders (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/04/2881581/wall-street-journal-horror-story-cancer-patient-losing-doctors-wrong/) in an era of medical insurance networks. Aside from that it isn't definitive that she won't be paying less and getting more, she states that "After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed."
Ms Littlefield still has over 6 weeks to figure this out and her WSJ essay will no doubt bring clarity to her options so it will be interesting to see what she finds out over the next month. I wonder if she'll end up like the "obamacare victim" CBS featured - more informed and insured (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-greta-van-susteren-out-journalisms-cbs-news-on-florida-womans-junk-insurance/).
-
One more individual Obamacare nightmare:
Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446)
Should public policy care only about Ms Littlefield or about people with gallbladder cancer generally? How many people die every year of gallbladder cancer because they could not carry insurance? or their insurance dropped them the first time they got sick? or after a year or two or less of treatment their insurance dropped them because they reached a lifetime cap?
It could be but for Obamacare the author would be able to keep seeing every doctor she wanted to keep and receive care at the facility she chooses but it is more likely that but for Obamacare her insurer would have pulled out of the CA market since it has only 8,000 policy holders (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/04/2881581/wall-street-journal-horror-story-cancer-patient-losing-doctors-wrong/) in an era of medical insurance networks. Aside from that it isn't definitive that she won't be paying less and getting more, she states that "After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed."
Ms Littlefield still has over 6 weeks to figure this out and her WSJ essay will no doubt bring clarity to her options so it will be interesting to see what she finds out over the next month. I wonder if she'll end up like the "obamacare victim" CBS featured - more informed and insured (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-greta-van-susteren-out-journalisms-cbs-news-on-florida-womans-junk-insurance/).
Bill, I am quite surprised you are unaware of how restrictive Obamacare networks are?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23/turns-out-obamacare-is-going-to-limit-your-choices.html
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/14/news/economy/obamacare-doctors/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/health/lower-health-insurance-premiums-to-come-at-cost-of-fewer-choices.html?_r=0
You are not representing accurately at all the reality of restrictive networks in the exchanges. People in the US enjoy their current plans by a wide margin. The sticker shock that comes with Obamacare is that he lied big time when he stated that you could keep your doctor or your current insurance if they wanted to. That is a just one of many lies associated with this monstrous healthcare disaster. Obamacare is not designed to give affordable care. It is instead designed to destroy employer based health care to lead to single payor.
-
Single payer. Excellent if it in fact does. Welcome to the modern civilized world America. Sure am glad GW never lied to us. ;) ;) WMD's in Iraq my eye. More like revenge at Saddam for threatening his daddy. How much did that cost in human life, misery and treasury?
-
Single payer. Excellent if it in fact does. Welcome to the modern civilized world America. Sure am glad GW never lied to us. ;) ;) WMD's in Iraq my eye. More like revenge at Saddam for threatening his daddy. How much did that cost in human life, misery and treasury?
Let's have an honest political debate on the issue if that is what folks want. Instead, Obama is deceiving everyone and destroying what we have already. Is that honest? Yes, yes, it must be Bush's fault. BTW, I have never defended Bush as an ideal president.
-
^
-
Whats a LOFO? Are you an AH? :urcrazy;
-
Whats a LOFO? Are you an AH? :urcrazy;
From the venerable urban dictionary:
1. lofo
Low information, most commonly used in the phrase, "low-information voter." Used to describe a person that is manifestly uninformed, ill-informed, brainwashed, unable to think long-term or rationally, etc., and yet insists on screwing up the country by exercising his or her so-called "right to vote."
American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase 'low-information signaling" in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns.
Sam: Are you going to vote in the election tomorrow?
Harry: No way. What's the point? The polls are going to be swamped by lofos.
Sam: You're right. I guess I'll just watch The Voice. This country has gone to pot.
-
*
-
Oh thank you. AH is American Hero.
-
*
-
So the Tbagger ran a stupid campaign and lost. Was outsmarted by Dems. Whats new? More to come I hope. Close counts in horse shoes not elections. Get over it. Obama won two elections. The second one was a drubbing.
-
So the Tbagger ran a stupid campaign and lost. Was outsmarted by Dems. Whats new? More to come I hope. Close counts in horse shoes not elections. Get over it. Obama won two elections. The second one was a drubbing.
How soon they forget the two Bush terms and demolishing Scary Kerry. Please, let's keep things civil if you don't mind.
The libertarian candidate siphoned off enough votes to make the difference in a BLUE state mind you. In addition, a very large percentage of folks work for the FEDS that live in Virginia and don't like the word cutbacks. In addition, the Republican party does not support TEA party folks. So really, he had to run a campaign against the DEMS, the Libertarians AND the GOP.
THe split in the GOP is conservative vs progressive. The progressives dominate the DEMS and a large majority of the GOP. Many conservative people have lost interest in supporting RINO's and I don't blame them. So, your evaluation of so called Tbaggers really doesn't paint the entire story.
Lastly, it is readily apparent from history that democracies fail when people realize they can raid their treasuries. We are long past that point. Historically, we are at a point where people are going to support those that will continue to give away the house, but ultimately it will lead to our destruction. So, don't be so smug in your condemnation of Tbaggers, they are the only ones with enough common sense to realize the trouble we are in. If America wishes to self immolate, so be it. But how smart is that my friend?
EDITED: Corrected topic title misspelling - kitkatz-Admin
-
^
-
One more individual Obamacare nightmare:
Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446)
Should public policy care only about Ms Littlefield or about people with gallbladder cancer generally? How many people die every year of gallbladder cancer because they could not carry insurance? or their insurance dropped them the first time they got sick? or after a year or two or less of treatment their insurance dropped them because they reached a lifetime cap?
It could be but for Obamacare the author would be able to keep seeing every doctor she wanted to keep and receive care at the facility she chooses but it is more likely that but for Obamacare her insurer would have pulled out of the CA market since it has only 8,000 policy holders (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/04/2881581/wall-street-journal-horror-story-cancer-patient-losing-doctors-wrong/) in an era of medical insurance networks. Aside from that it isn't definitive that she won't be paying less and getting more, she states that "After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed."
Ms Littlefield still has over 6 weeks to figure this out and her WSJ essay will no doubt bring clarity to her options so it will be interesting to see what she finds out over the next month. I wonder if she'll end up like the "obamacare victim" CBS featured - more informed and insured (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-greta-van-susteren-out-journalisms-cbs-news-on-florida-womans-junk-insurance/).
Bill, I am quite surprised you are unaware of how restrictive Obamacare networks are?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23/turns-out-obamacare-is-going-to-limit-your-choices.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23/turns-out-obamacare-is-going-to-limit-your-choices.html)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/14/news/economy/obamacare-doctors/ (http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/14/news/economy/obamacare-doctors/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/health/lower-health-insurance-premiums-to-come-at-cost-of-fewer-choices.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/health/lower-health-insurance-premiums-to-come-at-cost-of-fewer-choices.html?_r=0)
You are not representing accurately at all the reality of restrictive networks in the exchanges. People in the US enjoy their current plans by a wide margin. The sticker shock that comes with Obamacare is that he lied big time when he stated that you could keep your doctor or your current insurance if they wanted to. That is a just one of many lies associated with this monstrous healthcare disaster. Obamacare is not designed to give affordable care. It is instead designed to destroy employer based health care to lead to single payor.
I'm not what? The world of medical provider insurance networks are nothing new. What's your point? I said it might be that Ms Littlefield could have maintained her preferred providers if Obamacare had never happened but it is also true that according to the article she wrote, she is confused about her options. In other words she is not certain that she will not be able to keep her preferred arrangements, or she isn't sure what it would cost to keep her preferred arrangements. After all no matter what insurance she ends up with she could still self pay for any legal treatment anywhere in the world. Ms Littlefield's issue is who will pay for the care she needs, with the provider she wants, she wants an insurance company to pay, which is likely the same desire held by everyone else with gallbladder cancer. Should public policy address the needs of Ms Littlefield alone or should it address the needs of people with gallbladder cancer generally?
-
Bill, gall bladder cancer is perhaps one of the best examples to explore the deficiencies of Obamacare. Gall bladder cancer is NOT a diagnosis anyone would ever want to hear. Most cases are discovered very late leading in part to the terrible cure rates of this dreaded cancer. The only effective treatment is surgical cure which is only a viable option when the illness is caught early. Thus, the difficulty of this cancer is most early cases are asymptomatic.
Most cases are in patients are in the 60's and 70's which will be important to our discussion. 5 year survival rates are usually in the 20% range with some programs achieving a little bit better results. As an orphan disease, the only centers with any experience in this relatively rare condition are large medical centers. Unfortunately, the latest news is the many of these large medical centers are opting out of Obamacare.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare
In addition, UCSF does not accept the same exchange program as Cedar Sinai for instance. For patients with orphan disease, they may be quite limited in their options.
Lastly, the entire philosophical basis of Obamacare is much different than what most patients have become accustomed with their employer based or individual policies. Ezekiel Emanuel is one of the architects of this program. He advocate for allocating funds mostly to those ages 15 to 40 and much less to those younger or older than this.
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions
When implemented, the complete lives system produces
a priority curve on which individuals aged between
roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance,
whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that
are attenuated (figure).
http://bme.ccny.cuny.edu/faculty/mbikson/Courses/BMESeniorDesign/EthicsOfHealthRationing.pdf
Thus, with limited access to these large medical centers and policies designed to shunt more money to those between the ages of 15 and 40, Obamacare gives those with gall bladder cancer much less of a chance of receiving orphan drugs for this rare but deadly cancer.
-
Here is an interview with the lady in question in this article. Very articulate lady who must choose between her primary care docs or her cancer docs. Great job Obama.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/06/govt-biggest-loser-cancer-survivor-criticized-white-house-over-health-care-fights-back
-
Looks like the Obama administration is now ATTACKING this person for simply giving her testimony of what has happened to her losing her insurance and the severe limitations of the exchanges.
Obama advisor draws fire for jab at Edie Littlefield Sundby’s insurer UnitedHealthcare
Dan Pfeiffer is now getting slammed for pushing back against the cancer patient’s claims about Obamacare by posting a link to story blaming the insurer.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-advisor-outrages-jab-cancer-victim-insurer-article-1.1507182#ixzz2jwSkjLMI
-
The healthcare exchanges in Washington D.C. are working over time to accommodate the 5 new Obamacare enrollees while millions of people get cancellation notices from their insurance providers:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/08/dc-obamacare-numbers-show-5-people-signed-up-for-exchange/
-
*
-
*
-
"Those who have still not yet seen through Obama will have many more opportunities to do so during the coming year, as the medical, financial and other painful human consequences of ObamaCare keep coming out in ways so clear that not even the mainstream media can ignore them or obscure them." - Dr. Thomas Sowell
The horror of people getting medical care.
-
Funny! I was thinking the same thing. What a monster President Obama is. Real bad spirit just like Kim Jong-un. :sarcasm;
-
Leftie here! Uh huh, the ACA is here to stay. For those teabaggers I know, ACA equals Obamacare.
Care for the poor and needy.
-
Leftie here! Uh huh, the ACA is here to stay. For those teabaggers I know, ACA equals Obamacare.
Care for the poor and needy.
Yup, now to bail out the insurance companies, that is what is on the agenda right now with unilateral action by el presidente. It may be here to stay since the alleged 7 million on the books are here to stay. What is interesting is this. My current health care is a group coverage. I get much less than what I did under Kaiser which was valued at about 11,000 a year, much less and higher copays. My current Group health is costing Kaiser 42,000 a year, up from 36,000 last year. This is a group policy and has nothing to do with my own ESRD. Income redistribution is what is here to stay Gerald. Health care is going into the tank and many who applied still do not have health care. No, this is not in any manner a success story at all, in fact, wait until the employer mandate hits and the companies start dumping all their employees unto this disaster. Employer based insurance will soon be an exception instead of the rule.
This is progress? Sorry, if they wanted real health care reform, I can point to a whole lot of other nations that did true health care reform. What Obama did is not health care reform at all but simply a large slice of his underlying agenda.
-
Medicare Advantage Enrollment ? Increasing http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-advantage-fact-sheet/ (http://crfb.org/blogs/determining-medicares-underlying-growth)
Medicare costs ? Contained http://crfb.org/blogs/determining-medicares-underlying-growth (http://crfb.org/blogs/determining-medicares-underlying-growth)
Health Sector Employment ? Increasing http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag62.htm (http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag62.htm)
Number of insurers willing to offer plans under Obamacare ? Increasing for 2015 http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/209358-health-insurers-new-message-on-obamacare-count-us-in (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/209358-health-insurers-new-message-on-obamacare-count-us-in)
So now that the previous concerns have been revealed to be misplaced the new concern is that the federal government will need to reimburse insurers for losses due to not charging enough for premiums. A few things to remember when considering this concern.
The cost of Obamacare is less because insurers are charging less than what was projected which resulted in less money being needed for subsidies. So if insurers had changed more going in – enough so that no reimbursement is needed – the subsidies would have been higher. As is, even if some reimbursement is need the net cost of the program is less than what was budgeted.
One last thing, like so many of the other concerns expressed by opponents of Obamacare, this concern could be revealed badly misplaced as time passes. The law goes both ways, if premiums are too high, if insurers erred by charging too much they will have to reimburse consumers. Opponents of the law are making a rhetorical bet that insurers charged to little but given the slow growth of Medicare the smart money would be on insurers charging too much.
Of course by then will have changed to some other concern but like all the others that have gone before that too will be revealed to be a politically expedient talking point rather than anything deriving from fair minded analysis.
-
HemoDoc: The ACA programs is Republican in origin, an idea meant to satisfy the Health Insurance industry. In case you haven\t noticed, Democrats would rather go to a single payer system because is is more efficient and costs less, both to the consumer and to government. ACA would never have been adopted if the insurance people were not included.
-
HemoDoc: The ACA programs is Republican in origin, an idea meant to satisfy the Health Insurance industry. In case you haven\t noticed, Democrats would rather go to a single payer system because is is more efficient and costs less, both to the consumer and to government. ACA would never have been adopted if the insurance people were not included.
Gerald, why do you always assume I back up the GOP?
Secondly, the GOP was shut out of all Obamacare planning. The impact of Obamacare will eventually lead us to a single payor system after it completely destroys the employer based system the majority of people had.
-
The ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation and given to Governor Romney for the stateof Massachusetts . The Heritage Foundation is a Republican think-tank. I find it interesting that Republicans oppose their own program when it is offered on a national scale.
Contemporary conservatism has no place in a democracy. Often I have said, the Tea Party is a cancer on America. Look what has happened since its inception.
-
The ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation and given to Governor Romney for the stateof Massachusetts . The Heritage Foundation is a Republican think-tank. I find it interesting that Republicans oppose their own program when it is offered on a national scale.
Contemporary conservatism has no place in a democracy. Often I have said, the Tea Party is a cancer on America. Look what has happened since its inception.
Old news Gerald. Yes even Obama give Romneycare the credit for Obamacare. Who says I support Romney? Once again, why do you always assume that I am their advocate? Sorry, but I am sounding more and more like a broken record but I guess you need a sounding board or something.
-
The ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation and given to Governor Romney for the stateof Massachusetts . The Heritage Foundation is a Republican think-tank. I find it interesting that Republicans oppose their own program when it is offered on a national scale.
Contemporary conservatism has no place in a democracy. Often I have said, the Tea Party is a cancer on America. Look what has happened since its inception.
No, they were fine with it on a national scale also. Republicans were pushing for it all though the 90s. From 1993 to 2009, it was the free-market alternative to universal health care. In 2009, that free-market solution was magically transformed into socialism.