Obamacare implimentaiton

[Hemodoc]

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

[noahvale]

^

[Bill Peckham]

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

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 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.

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.

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?

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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

[Hemodoc]

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

[Hemodoc]

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/

[noahvale]

*

[noahvale]

*

[Bill Peckham]

"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.

[Shaks24]

Funny! I was thinking the same thing. What a monster President Obama is. Real bad spirit just like Kim Jong-un.   

[Gerald Lively]

Leftie here!  Uh huh, the ACA is here to stay.  For those teabaggers  I know, ACA equals Obamacare. 
Care for the poor and needy.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Bill Peckham]

Medicare Advantage Enrollment ? Increasing http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-advantage-fact-sheet/
Medicare costs ? Contained http://crfb.org/blogs/determining-medicares-underlying-growth
Health Sector Employment ? Increasing 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

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.

[Gerald Lively]

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]

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.

[Gerald Lively]

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.

[Hemodoc]

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.

[Hober Mallow]

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.