Initial attempts to sign up for ObamaCare go about as well as expected [Archive] - Page 3

boutons_deux

11-08-2013, 02:19 PM

Denial-of-service tool targeting Healthcare.gov site discovered

Researchers have uncovered software available on the Internet designed to overload the struggling Healthcare.gov website with more traffic than it can handle.
"ObamaCare is an affront to the Constitutional rights of the people," a screenshot from the tool, which was acquired by researchers at Arbor Networks, declares. "We HAVE the right to CIVIL disobedience!"

In a (http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/new-denial-of-service-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/)blog post published Thursday (http://www.arbornetworks.com/asert/2013/11/healthcare-gov-dos-tool/), Arbor researcher Marc Eisenbarth said there's no evidence Healthcare.gov has been subjected to any significant denial-of-service attacks since going live last month. He also said the limited request rate, the lack of significant distribution, and other features of the tool's underlying code made it unlikely that it could play a significant role in taking down the site.

The tool is designed to put a strain on the site by repeatedly alternating requests to the https://www.healthcare.gov and https:www.healthcare.gov/contact-us (http://www.healthcare.gov/contact-us) addresses.

If enough requests are made over a short period of time, it can overload some of the "layer 7" applications that the site relies on to make timely responses.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/new-denial-of-service-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/

TSA

11-08-2013, 03:59 PM

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, —the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it."

SnakeBoy

11-08-2013, 04:43 PM

Context and subtlety is everything.

Yet another over-simplification turned into a misleading political meme. Sadly par for the course these days.

If context and subtlety were everything then Obama wouldn't had to claim everyone could keep their plans period. I find it surprising that the left thinks that the best political response to Sundby is to attack and discredit her. She will soon be dead and the story will be that she lost her insurance and died because of Obamacare...context and subtlety won't change that storyline.

boutons_deux

11-08-2013, 05:11 PM

"She will soon be dead and the story will be that she lost her insurance and died because of Obamacare."

You Lie

She lost her insurance, like millions of others in the individual market over the decades before ACA, because the insurance company cancelled.

AntiChrist

11-08-2013, 05:20 PM

5 people have enrolled in DC. :clap:cheer:tu

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-enrollments-washington-dc-99589.html?ml=po_r

boutons_deux

11-08-2013, 05:22 PM

5 people have enrolled in DC. :clap:cheer:tu

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-enrollments-washington-dc-99589.html?ml=po_r

how many signed up for Medicaid?

TSA

11-08-2013, 07:11 PM

In almost the exact amount of time it took from getting Obamacare passed into law til it's web site being opened, the US in the early forties waged the entire second world war. We brought our industry up to speed, we uniformed millions, we built liberty boats at a rate of one per week, we completely rebuilt our navy, we out produced the world in guns, food, tanks and everything else to WIN the war. And yet the administration was unable to develop a successful web site.-Bill from Kentucky

:lmao

boutons_deux

11-08-2013, 09:02 PM

Clipper Nation

11-09-2013, 12:53 AM

:lol Boutons being reduced to blindly insisting a bill that is already a total clusterfuck will be a "huge success" just because his party says so

Nbadan

11-09-2013, 01:00 AM

:lol Boutons being reduced to blindly insisting a bill that is already a total clusterfuck will be a "huge success" just because his party says so

despite what the pundits who were wrong about Bengazi, and IRS gate say, the ACA has already saved 100's of billions of dollars in future debt...

Jacob1983

11-09-2013, 01:33 AM

What about the 3.5 million that have already lost their health insurance because barrycare? Will you shed any tears for them?

boutons_deux

11-09-2013, 10:32 AM

What about the 3.5 million that have already lost their health insurance because barrycare? Will you shed any tears for them?

You Lie

Cancellations were done by the insurance companies, not ACA.

For many, 20% of whom were cancelled anyway EVERY YEAR before ACA, their health "insurance" was totally useless other than as a I-didnt-read-the-fine-print-limits false security blanket.

ACA made those useless policies illegal, aka, govt protecting Human-Americans against Corporate-Americans (because nobody else can).

boutons_deux

11-09-2013, 10:35 AM

:lol Boutons being reduced to blindly insisting a bill that is already a total clusterfuck will be a "huge success" just because his party says so

clusterfucked TSA believes the VRWC/Fox/Repug propaganda because they say so.

Read my lips: ACA will be a huge, everlasting success. VRWC/Fox/Repug absolutely know it, too, which is exactly why they are trying so hard to sabotage it while fucking over red state poor people.

xrayzebra

11-09-2013, 11:02 AM

clusterfucked TSA believes the VRWC/Fox/Repug propaganda because they say so.

Read my lips: ACA will be a huge, everlasting success. VRWC/Fox/Repug absolutely know it, too, which is exactly why they are trying so hard to sabotage it while fucking over red state poor people.

Yeah, my little Communist friend, using the work friend, very loosely, just like the USSR was such a success. Like Cuban medical care is so great, that Fidel imported a surgeon to work on him. Yeah boutons, you intelligence is showing again. :downspin: :downspin:

oh, and you might ask how the POOR are going to handle the deductibles. Or have you even bothered to look up what Daddy
Barry is offering his surf's.

SA210

11-09-2013, 11:11 AM

Saw this posted elsewhere. I lol'ed

"FDR promised to defeat National Socialism. JFK promised to put a man on the moon. Reagan promised to crush Communism. Obama promised to.... fix a website, by the end of the month."

SA210

11-09-2013, 11:12 AM

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/s720x720/1452505_10151957343208490_243590366_n.jpg

boutons_deux

11-09-2013, 11:56 AM

boutons_deux

11-09-2013, 11:58 AM

https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/s720x720/1452505_10151957343208490_243590366_n.jpg

yep, but there's no profit margin in fresh food, that's why BigFood only sells heavily processed, "value"-added pathogenic dead garbage.

SA210

11-09-2013, 12:30 PM

yep, but there's no profit margin in fresh food, that's why BigFood only sells heavily processed, "value"-added pathogenic dead garbage.

sad truth tbh..if only people turned to this...it's a huge part of what should be discussed when talking about real "Healthcare". But it isn't.

People are really just talking about sick care.

boutons_deux

11-11-2013, 04:01 PM

Up to seven million people may be able to get health policies without paying any premium at all. Some four million people may have to pay more for new (and better) policies, not all of whom will necessarily be upset at getting better coverage at a competitive rate.

three independent estimates by Wall Street analysts found that five million to seven million people will qualify for federal subsidies that will exceed the cost of the cheapest plans for individuals and families on the exchanges. Neither the Obama administration nor the insurance companies, however, are promoting the plans vigorously. They believe that many consumers would be better off paying a bit more for a policy that would cover more of the out-of-pocket costs for a doctor’s visit or hospital stay.

estimates 12 million people are currently covered by policies bought on the individual market. He says that, after factoring in subsidies on the exchanges, perhaps eight million will be covered by less costly policies next year, and four million will be covered by more expensive policies, which often provide richer benefits.

Individuals facing higher premiums are understandably distressed. But there is no getting around the fact that health reform changes the status quo — including requiring insurance companies to provide essential health benefits that were not previously covered and to take on people who were rejected before because of their health.

Those who will pay more should take comfort in the knowledge that should they lose their jobs or face financial hardships or a medical crisis their previous policies would not have adequately covered, they would benefit from a health care safety net that offers federal subsidies and comprehensive coverage.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/opinion/high-and-low-premiums-in-health-care.html

boutons_deux

11-11-2013, 04:29 PM

The Obama Pledge on Keeping Your Insurance

First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.

The plans being terminated because they don't meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.

However if the insurers didn’t tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.

In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.

In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan.

As a practical matter there are many plans that insurers will opt to drop for market reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the ACA. It’s hard to see how this could be viewed as a violation of President Obama’s pledge. After all, insurers change and drop plans all the time. Did people who heard Obama’s pledge understand it to mean that insurers would no longer have this option once the ACA passed?

On closer inspection, the claim that President Obama lied in saying that people could keep their insurance looks like another Fox News special. In the only way that the pledge could be interpreted as being meaningful, the pledge is true. The ACA does not eliminate plans that were in existence at the time the bill was approved.

If we want to play Fox News, President Obama also promised people they could keep their doctor. Since 2010 tens of thousands of doctors have retired or even died. Guess the pledge that people could keep their doctor was yet another lie from the Obama administration.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/19955-the-obama-pledge-on-keeping-your-insurance

Much of the ACA claimed fiasco and complexity is due to the huge, complicated fiasco known as the American for-profit health care wealth-extraction racket.

TSA

11-11-2013, 05:11 PM

boutons_deux

11-11-2013, 05:23 PM

:lol the hits keep on coming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2497637/Three-20-year-old-programmers-build-working-Obamacare-website-just-days-government-do.html

While the Obamacare website still remains broken, three 20-year-old programmers have shown the government how it should be done.

Ning Liang, George Kalogeropoulos and Michael Wasser developed a site in matter of days - and it does things the expensive and faltering healthcare.gov can't do.

From a San Francisco office the men have built HealthSherpa.com, which presents the Affordable Health Care Act data in a much simpler way to the government website.

I visited that website last week. It doesn't NOT replicate the full healthcare.gov, does not do anything but show the plans, prices, doesn't sign up, and doesn't forward signups to the insurance companies.

One of the healthsherpa programmers said it was the full stack web framework/language Ruby on Rails.

I have not heard if healthcare.gov was developed from scratch or built on a full stack web framework like Ruby, Django, or web2py, nor what language healthcare.gov uses. I bet they used some garbage languagses like php or perl

so your schadenfreude is again misplaced, go suck a glock.

rascal

11-11-2013, 05:37 PM

Sure you can, and doing so while refusing to participate in the ACA makes your opinion worthless, but you already knew that.

Saying someone's opinion is worthless yet spending hours arguing with him.

Jacob1983

11-11-2013, 08:33 PM

Didn't FDR put Japanese Americans in internment camps? Just sayin'.

TSA

11-11-2013, 08:39 PM

I visited that website last week. It doesn't NOT replicate the full healthcare.gov, does not do anything but show the plans, prices, doesn't sign up, and doesn't forward signups to the insurance companies.

One of the healthsherpa programmers said it was the full stack web framework/language Ruby on Rails.

I have not heard if healthcare.gov was developed from scratch or built on a full stack web framework like Ruby, Django, or web2py, nor what language healthcare.gov uses. I bet they used some garbage languagses like php or perl

so your schadenfreude is again misplaced, go suck a glock.
I hate Glocks, Sig guy here.

TSA

11-11-2013, 08:41 PM

Saying someone's opinion is worthless yet spending hours arguing with him.

:lol hours

boutons_deux

11-12-2013, 11:41 AM

ISSA ACCUSES OBAMA OF TRYING TO MAKE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WORK

—In an explosive accusation, the House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) today charged President Obama with “using all the resources at his disposal to make the Affordable Care Act work.”

Accusing the President of participating in “a wide-ranging conspiracy,” Mr. Issa told reporters that “behind closed doors, the President has quietly assembled a high-tech brain trust that is working around the clock to fix the Healthcare.gov Web site—at government expense.”

Rep. Issa said that he would call for a new round of hearings and would subpoena “all those persons suspected of being involved in the ongoing plot to fix Obamacare.”

“This is a conspiracy, if you will, that goes all the way to the top,” Rep. Issa said. “If there is a plan to fix Obamacare, what did the President know about that plan and when did he know it?”

Rep. Issa concluded his remarks on a defiant note, drawing a line in the sand: “If the President thinks he is going to repair that Web site so that it works when anyone tries to access it, I’ve got news for him: not on my watch.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/11/issa-accuses-obama-of-trying-to-make-affordable-care-act-work.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(196)

boutons_deux

11-12-2013, 03:53 PM

Separating myth from reality on Obamacare

My heart sank when I got an email late last month from my friend Robert, who has been battling multiple sclerosis for the past decade. He wrote to tell me that he was among the many Americans who in recent weeks received letters from their insurance companies saying that their policies won’t be available next year.

Insurance companies are sending those letters primarily because the policies they will no longer offer don’t provide enough coverage — or have deductibles that are too high — to comply with the Affordable Care Act. In many cases, however, the policyholders getting those letters are simply victims of a business practice insurers have engaged in for years: discontinuing policies because they’re no longer sufficiently profitable.
Robert understandably was worried. Like most of us, he’d been seeing the news stories about people who had received similar letters and seemed to be resigned to having to pay more in premiums next year for comparable or even less coverage, thanks to Obamacare.

Considering his very serious and costly preexisting condition — his medications alone cost more than $5,000 a month — Robert was nervous as he started looking for a replacement policy. How much more would he have to pay to stay insured?

A couple of weeks went by. I assumed Robert, like many others, was still waiting for the Obama administration to fix Healthcare.gov so he could shop online for coverage. It turns out Robert wasn’t willing to just wait. He decided to call an insurance agent and talk to a real live human being about his options for next year.

He could barely believe what he heard: he could get better coverage than the policy being discontinued — and pay less — thanks to Obamacare.

“The overall cost of the plans I’m considering is cheaper than the plan I am currently paying for,” he wrote me this week. “My total cost for coverage now, including premiums and out of pocket costs, is about $9,800. Two of the plans I’m seriously considering for next year have total costs of $8,400. I’m shocked, but in a good way.”

So not only did Robert not experience the sticker shock he had been expecting, he willsave $1,400 next year on health insurance.

The plan he is leaning toward — a top-of-the line “platinum” plan — will have a higher monthly premium, but he will still save on average about $117 a month because of the way his out-of-pocket costs will be calculated.

Robert is among many who are losing their current coverage but in the end will be better off.

In fact, considering that many folks buying coverage on the individual market have at least one pre-existing condition — which insurers can no longer take into consideration when pricing their policies — it’s likely that more people will get more for their insurance buck next year than less.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/11/12/13701/separating-myth-reality-obamacare?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email

The Reckoning

11-13-2013, 02:53 PM

http://doyougotinsurance.com/index.php?id=2

funny link. not sure if serious.

boutons_deux

11-13-2013, 03:02 PM

http://doyougotinsurance.com/index.php?id=2

funny link. not sure if serious.

seriously funny, but serious

TeyshaBlue

11-13-2013, 03:06 PM

Got Insurance is a project of the Thanks Obamacare campaign, created by the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado Education to educate everyone about the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

SA210

11-13-2013, 03:51 PM

First Official Obamacare Enrollment Numbers Released by Administration

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-13-at-11.37.05-AM.png
At 3:30pm ET Wednesday,

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius released the highly-anticipated, first official insurance enrollment numbers since the Affordable Care Act went into effect on October 1st. According to Sebelius, 106,185 people enrolled in both the state and federal marketplaces. Of those, only 26,794 signed up through HealthCare.gov, which covers the 36 states not operating their own state-based exchanges.

Expectations were low followed a widely-cited report from the Wall Street Journal that estimated 40,000 to 50,000 enrollees as of last week, or “far short” of the goal set by the Obama Administration. Officials have been cautioning that the initial numbers would be lower than expected due to the ongoing problems with the HealthCare.gov (https://www.healthcare.gov/) portal.

As the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/13/500000-people-were-expected-to-buy-obamacare-in-october-about-100000-actually-did/) yesterday, the administration had initially estimated that 500,000 people would sign up under the law by the end of October. But according to sources with access to the figures, the real number of people who have signed up for private plans using both state-based marketplaces and HealthCare.gov is closer to 90,000.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/first-official-obamacare-enrollment-numbers-released-by-administration/

lol

AntiChrist

11-13-2013, 08:12 PM

Wow, those enrollment numbers are awesome. :lmao

Nbadan

11-13-2013, 08:23 PM

:sleep

Number of completed applications through the marketplace: 846,184
Total number of individuals included in completed marketplace applications: 1,509,883
Number of individuals determined eligible to enroll in marketplace: 1,081,592
Number of individuals who have already selected a plan: 106,185

This doesn't figure in the over 500,000+ who have enrolled in Medicaid.

These figures are ONLY for Oct.1st - Nov.2nd

The rest: http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/183955385

boutons_deux

11-13-2013, 08:27 PM

signup looks exactly like the slow startup of the highly successful Romneycare, a couple 100 at first, then a huge rush right before the deadline, and 2 years required before Romneycare reached its current level of signups. Another huge rush just before the penalties for having no insurance kicked in.

Where were you right wing assholes then?

TSA

11-13-2013, 08:40 PM

SA210

11-14-2013, 12:53 AM

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/1470421_10153519001080515_911983998_n.jpg

Nbadan

11-14-2013, 01:15 AM

The Real Story Behind the Phony Canceled Health Insurance Scandal - MotherJones
Insurance companies ripped off Americans for years with lousy health plans. Obamacare was designed to fix that.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance

Over the past few weeks, insurers have been sending out hundreds of thousands of notices alerting customers that their current plans won't comply with the ACA as of January 1 and that the owners of these plans need to find alternatives. Republicans and conservatives pointed to the development as evidence that Obama lied. Several prominent right-wingers who were covered under these plans, including Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, have helped fuel this outcry. When Malkin got her cancelation notice, she went on the Twitter warpath. She later wrote a piece for the National Review slugged, "Obama lied. My health plan died." Malkin had a high-deductible plan from Anthem Blue Cross that doesn't meet the minimum coverage requirements created by the ACA. So she has to get a new plan on the state health exchange. Malkin blamed Obamacare for destroying the individual insurance market.

The media have covered these complaints with gusto, as if the cancelations are a genuine crisis and indication of a failure of Obama's health care law. The ACA was designed specifically to prevent insurance companies from peddling lousy insurance plans and to force these firms to replace these subpar products with affordable plans providing better and effective coverage. The plans being canceled are ending because they offered insufficient coverage—and only a few years ago both Rs and Ds were upset about these kinds of plans. But there's been collective amnesia about the shoddy plans that GOPers have happily exploited in recent days. Perhaps Obama should have said, "Those of you who obtain insurance on the individual market can keep your plans unless it’s the sort of rip-off plan the ACA will forbid. Otherwise, you will be offered new options that actually give you decent coverage at a decent price."

Here's what led to the current situation: In the early aughts, the number of people with employer-based coverage declined dramatically. That left an increasing number of Americans uninsured and about 30 million adults underinsured and at serious financial risk. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that between 2003 and 2010, the number of underinsured Americans nearly doubled.

The fastest growing group of underinsured was people in households around the national median income, the $40,000 to $50,000 annual income range—folks who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but who don't have employer-sponsored plans or who can't afford the ones they're offered. Insurance companies jumped into the void with a lot of products Consumer Reports dubbed "junk insurance." These were plans that barely qualified as insurance because they had very low caps on coverage or weren't even really insurance at all. Many were merely medical discount programs that didn't protect against health-related financial calamity. Insurance companies, including many of the biggest, marketed these products aggressively and often misleadingly—which was made easier by the lack of disclosure requirements in the sale of health insurance. Regulators struggled to protect consumers because so many of the junk plans were perfectly legal.

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 05:31 AM

Having the Backbone to Set Minimum Standards for Health Insurance

Democrats are showing once again they have the backbones of banana slugs. :lol

The Affordable Care Act was meant to hold insurers to a higher standards. So it stands to reason that some insurers will have to cancel their lousy sub-standard policies.

But spineless Democrats (including my old boss Bill Clinton) are caving in to the Republican-fueled outrage that the President "misled" Americans into thinking they could keep their old lousy policies - and are now urging the White House to forget the new standards and let people keep what they had before.

And some congressional Republicans are all too eager to join them, and allow insurers to offer whatever crap they were offering before - exposing families to more than $12,700 in out-of-pocket expenses, canceling policies of people who get seriously sick, failing to cover prescription drugs, and so on.

Can we please get a grip? Whenever industry standards are lifted - a higher minimum wage, safer workplaces, non-toxic foods and drugs, safer cars - people no longer have the "freedom" to contract for the sub-standard goods and services.

But that freedom is usually a mirage because big businesses have most of the power and average people don't have much of a choice. This has been especially the case with health insurance, which is why minimum standards here are essential.

Yes, the President might have spelled this out a bit more clearly beforehand, explaining that 95 percent of us aren't in the private insurance market to begin with and won't be affected, and that most of the 2 percent who lose their lousy policies and have to take better and more expensive ones will be subsidized.

But right now the President needs all the political support he can muster to hold insurers' feet to the fire. Democrats should stand firm for a change.

http://robertreich.org/post/66876915801

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 05:43 AM

Obama Lied is nothing but another Repug/Fox/right-wing hate media fabricated scandal.

The two articles Dan and I posted above are The Truth which, in the kludgeocracy aka America, is way too complicated for the sheeple who can't think past Fox/Repug sound bites, some Dem politicians and even supposedly brilliant politician and backstabber Bill "my cigar smells funny" Clinton.

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 06:33 AM

WaPo: CBS Ran Misleading Story On HealthCare.gov Security Issues

CBS News aired a misleading report (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57611858/memo-warned-of-limitless-security-risks-for-healthcare.gov/) on Monday about security issues concerning the federal health insurance exchange website based on leaked partial transcripts of a health care official's testimony, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/11/13/another-cbs-news-story-comes-under-attack/).

CBS reported that Henry Chao, lead project manager of Healthcare.gov at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had been unaware of two major security holes in the website that could lead to identity theft.

"CBS News has learned that the project manager in charge of building the federal health care website was apparently kept in the dark about serious failures in the website's security," the CBS report reads. "Those failures could lead to identity theft among buying insurance."

When questioned by Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) Wednesday at a House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing, it became apparent that the security flaws that the CBS report discussed could not actually lead to identity theft.

According to Chao, the two modules the CBS report referenced are not currently active on the exchange website and that neither module used personally identifiable information.

Connolly, while questioning Chao on Wednesday, implied that the partial leaked transcript came from Republican committee staff. :lol

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cbs-news-ran-misleading-story-on-healthcare-gov-security-issues

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 07:22 AM

Repug/Fox sabotage and propaganda working very well in Repug-fucked red states:

Where People Have Signed Up For Insurance Under Obamacare

http://a3.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/ruiqjq7pu5yt54sfjsmq.jpg

More than 100,000 people have enrolled in a private health plan since Obamacare's insurance marketplaces opened on Oct. 1, the federal government announced Wednesday.

But the disparity across states was striking. The 14 states (plus D.C.) that created their own marketplaces accounted for nearly 80,000 of those sign-ups. HealthCare.gov, which serves the other 36 states, totaled less than 27,000.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/here-s-where-people-have-signed-up-for-obamacare

George Gervin's Afro

11-14-2013, 07:24 AM

Well you have to give credit to the GOP With exploiting every misstep along the way for the last 3 1/2 years.... they even managed to scare people... but in the end the ACA is here to stay and the situation will continue to improve... so the GOP is on it's final stand.. just as the Confederate army was in the last battle of the civil war...

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 09:24 AM

the Repugs/tea baggers (having had their teeth kicked out in Confederate VA) are SO screwed, with CA showing how demographics will marginalize the Repugs to bunch of infantile, foot stomping, breath-holding shit tossers.

The Repugs/tea baggers know their future, is why they, aided by the Fox propaganda channel, etc, are desperate to sabotage ACA.

Dems know this too so they should go ahead nuke the fabricated, unConstitutional 60 vote constipation requirement.

AntiChrist

11-14-2013, 10:29 AM

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 10:38 AM

"credit to the GOP With exploiting every misstep along the way for the last 3 1/2 years."

then add in all the FABRICATED CONTROVERY and LIES about ACA, and we have a real serious and effective REPUG/FOX/right-wing hate media SABOTAGE campaign, plus the insurance companies cancelling and/or (re) selling and/or modifying junk policies AFTER ACA was passed (cancelling policies that would have been grandfathered) that they know they'd have to cancel to meet ACAs coverage.

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 10:39 AM

Lol, Democrats OWN this clusterfuck. This P.O.S. law passed with not ONE GOP vote.

Tough shit. Repugs don't GAF about how people are screwed by insurance companies, how many uninsured people they are, but above they must reflexively BLOCK EVERYTHING the Dems propose.

AntiChrist

11-14-2013, 10:47 AM

Tough shit. Repugs don't GAF about how people are screwed by insurance companies, how many uninsured people they are, but above they must reflexively BLOCK EVERYTHING the Dems propose.

I give the Dems 100% credit for screwing over people and boosting the margins of insurance companies. :lmao

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 10:49 AM

I give the Dems 100% credit for screwing over people and boosting the margins of insurance companies. :lmao

dumbfuck. it's the insurance companies screwing over people, and LONG before ACA, which STOPS insurance companies from screwing people.

AntiChrist

11-14-2013, 11:01 AM

dumbfuck. it's the insurance companies screwing over people, and LONG before ACA, which STOPS insurance companies from screwing people.

Actually, dumbfuck, it's the ACA that is forcing insurance companies to cancel policies that don't meet the ACA minimum requirements. It's also the ACA that will increase the premiums for some to subsidize them for others.

And the Dems OWN it. And some Dems are starting to distance themselves from it.

George Gervin's Afro

11-14-2013, 11:40 AM

Lol, Democrats OWN this clusterfuck. This P.O.S. law passed with not ONE GOP vote.

yet it, the ACA, will continue to improve and you will have to suck it.. darrins..

Clipper Nation

11-14-2013, 12:03 PM

:lol Literally the only argument in defense of this clusterfuck from the Team Blue homers is "it will get better," with absolutely no basis for it whatsoever....

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 12:08 PM

Actually, dumbfuck, it's the ACA that is forcing insurance companies to cancel policies that don't meet the ACA minimum requirements. It's also the ACA that will increase the premiums for some to subsidize them for others.

And the Dems OWN it. And some Dems are starting to distance themselves from it.

:lol dumbfuck. Those "I like my policy" cheapo, very high deductible, very low coverage JUNK policies are a scam.

20%+ get cancelled every year before ACA, and if you've been sick or made a big claim, the policy NAZI says GFY, "No Policy For You".

Typical right wingers, totally ignorant from Repug/Fox propaganda, supporting, APPROVING, ENCOURAGING Corporate-Americans to continue screwing Human-Americans. :lol

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 12:12 PM

:lol Literally the only argument in defense of this clusterfuck from the Team Blue homers is "it will get better," with absolutely no basis for it whatsoever....

that's better than the Repugs $1B spending on the FBI system that GOT CANCELLED. :lol

George Gervin's Afro

11-14-2013, 12:13 PM

:lol Literally the only argument in defense of this clusterfuck from the Team Blue homers is "it will get better," with absolutely no basis for it whatsoever....

no homerism needed to know that the site will get fixed and the Administration will find a way to allow others to keep their healthcare plans. The Obama haters are clinging to the notion that things will stay the same... you do realize websites can get fixed? ..right? that would make the site "better".. you're not very bright..

SA210

11-14-2013, 12:21 PM

It gets better? So they will strike down the mandate? The one Obama was against before he was for it?

TSA

11-14-2013, 12:25 PM

no homerism needed to know that the site will get fixed and the Administration will find a way to allow others to keep their healthcare plans. The Obama haters are clinging to the notion that things will stay the same... you do realize websites can get fixed? ..right? that would make the site "better".. you're not very bright..

You're not very bright if you think the website is the only thing wrong with the ACA.

George Gervin's Afro

11-14-2013, 12:56 PM

You're not very bright if you think the website is the only thing wrong with the ACA.

the law will become more popular.. it's not rockets science to know that.. we get it.. you want this to fail and you are going top hang your hat opn the hope it does.. no worries because you will find something else to complain about..

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 01:13 PM

Obama Allows 1-Year Renewal of Canceled (scamming junk) Health Plans

will let insurance companies keep people on health care plans that would not have been allowed under the Affordable Care Act.

The president’s plan would apply only to people who have had their existing policies canceled. Those currently without insurance would not be able to buy the old plans.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obama-to-offer-health-care-fix-to-keep-plans-democrat-says.html?hp&_r=0)State insurance commissioners would have the right to override the administrative changes.

A White House official confirmed that “we don’t have a commitment from state insurance commissioners” to go along with the president’s new policy. State insurance regulators also said they had not discussed it with the administration.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obama-to-offer-health-care-fix-to-keep-plans-democrat-says.html?hp&_r=0)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obama-to-offer-health-care-fix-to-keep-plans-democrat-says.html?hp&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obama-to-offer-health-care-fix-to-keep-plans-democrat-says.html?hp&_r=0)

and the insurance companies are not required to re-instate the junk policies that THEY CANCELLED.

Th'Pusher

11-14-2013, 01:21 PM

Th'Pusher

11-14-2013, 01:27 PM

Lol, Democrats OWN this clusterfuck. This P.O.S. law passed with not ONE GOP vote.
Darrin in 10 years: the only reason the ACA worked is because it's founded on free market principles as republicans and the heritage foundation rightly pointed out long before the democrats ran with the idea.

angrydude

11-14-2013, 01:32 PM

no homerism needed to know that the site will get fixed and the Administration will find a way to allow others to keep their healthcare plans. The Obama haters are clinging to the notion that things will stay the same... you do realize websites can get fixed? ..right? that would make the site "better".. you're not very bright..

lol. that website isn't getting fixed for at least a year.

Even when they get the front end fixed, there are going to HORROR stories coming out about private info lost/hacked/stolen from the back end for YEARS

Th'Pusher

11-14-2013, 01:33 PM

You're not very bright if you think the website is the only thing wrong with the ACA.
The law will grow more popular because it is a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Look at how many people have signed up for Medicaid since the expansion. If you think this law is going anywhere, you're a fucking moron.

angrydude

11-14-2013, 01:33 PM

Obama should just say that he wasn't lying when he said he said you could keep your insurance if you like it, but rather that he vastly underestimated the number of people who like spending their hard earned money on junk worthless insurance policies that provide a false sense of security.

It's almost like people don't have a lot of disposable income anymore. I wonder why that is?

angrydude

11-14-2013, 01:35 PM

The law will grow more popular because it is a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Look at how many people have signed up for Medicaid since the expansion. If you think this law is going anywhere, you're a fucking moron.

A dumbass is born every minute it seems.

The middle class, which is the group getting hammered on this one, ARE NOT RICH.

Th'Pusher

11-14-2013, 01:37 PM

It's almost like people don't have a lot of disposable income anymore. I wonder why that is?
Why are people who don't have a lot of disposable income buying junk insurance policies?

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 01:38 PM

It's almost like people don't have a lot of disposable income anymore. I wonder why that is?

War on Employees has suppressed real income growth for the 99% these past 35 years.

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 01:58 PM

Inside the Fox News spin machine: I fact-checked Megyn Kelly on Obamacare (http://www.salon.com/2013/11/14/inside_the_fox_news_spin_machine_i_fact_checked_me gyn_kelly_on_obamacare/)

Bill Lawrence of Texas recently posted on his Facebook page that he sold his business because of Obamacare.

Naturally, Mr. Lawrence was then invited on Fox News to be interviewed (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-kelly-file/transcript/2013/11/04/texas-businessman-sells-company-because-obamacare) about his ordeal. He was on the Megyn Kelly show a week ago Friday.

Most of Kelly’s questions were fat softballs or in some cases just statements (“Employers like you might just have to say, ‘I’m gettin’ rid of my company!’”; “Your thoughts on having your livelihood directly affected based on what politicians in Washington felt was best for you?”).

I looked up Bill and decided to give him a buzz to learn more. He lives outside of Houston. We spoke for 45 minutes. He’s a guy who’s sort of hard not to like — funny, very sharp and obviously a very good businessman who built a large business from scratch.

Would he show me some of his business’s financial records? Maybe an annual report, preferably something audited, so I could analyze his claim about the catastrophic effect Obamacare would have had on his business? He would not.
Did Megyn Kelly request such verification? No, he said, she did not.

I then pressed Bill on whether there were any other reasons he was selling his business. He admitted to me that there were plenty of others (“myriad reasons,” in his words). What were some of them? “You ever run a business?” he asked with a chuckle. And then he began ticking off a bunch of problems in his life that he said he’d now be glad to be rid of. The headache of managing workers. Taxes, fees and permits of every shape and size and color (dumpster permits, gate permits, this permit, that permit). He complained to me that he has to pay $300 for an “auto dealer’s” permit just to sell air fresheners at the checkout counter of his car wash centers.

Bill also told me most of his wage earners do not want health insurance. He’s offered a mini-med program in the past, a very cheap and bare-bones plan that employees could purchase, and they usually decline it. If that’s the case, Bill’s burden will be much smaller than what he told Megyn Kelly. Under the Affordable Care Act, Bill must simply offer his employees a chance to share in the cost of an insurance plan. The worker’s share can legally be as high as 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income. Once Bill has made this offer to an employee, if the employee declines the coverage then Bill is off the hook and doesn’t have to pay a penalty.

And sadly, Bill might be correct that his wage earners (who earn $8.50 to $10 an hour) can’t afford to spend as high as 9.5 percent of their salaries sharing the cost of an insurance plan.

I sent Bill an article from a recent Forbes magazine (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/21/employers-can-minimize-their-exposure-to-obamacares-health-insurance-mandate-by-offering-low-cost-skinny-coverage/) that shows how businesses of his size, and specifically Texas businesses, will have ample opportunity to keep Obamacare costs very low by strategically offering insurance plans that they know their employees will reject, forcing them onto the individual exchange in some cases. He did not respond.

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/14/inside_the_fox_news_spin_machine_i_fact_checked_me gyn_kelly_on_obamacare/

SA210

11-14-2013, 02:34 PM

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/q71/994971_10153516924620515_1761016842_n.jpg

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 02:49 PM

REPUBLICANS BLAST OBAMA’S SUPPORT OF THEIR IDEA

Moments after President Obama said he would allow insurers to continue health plans that were to be cancelled under the Affordable Care Act, leading Republicans blasted the President for agreeing with an idea that they had supported.

“It’s true that we’ve been strongly in favor of Americans being allowed to keep their existing plans,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “But now that the President is for it, we’re convinced that it’s a horrible idea.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) went further in ripping the President, calling Mr. Obama’s tactic of adopting ideas proposed by him and fellow Republicans “beneath contempt.”

“The President should be aware that any future agreeing with us will be seen for what it is: a hostile act,” he said.

Minutes later, White House spokesman Jay Carney helmed a hastily called press conference, hoping to stem the quickly escalating coöperation scandal.

“The President understands that he has offended some Republicans in Congress by agreeing with them,” Mr. Carney said. “He wants to apologize for that.”

But far from putting an end to the controversy, the President’s apology drew a swift rebuke from another congressional Republican, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who called it a “blatant provocation.”

“If the President is going to continue agreeing with us and apologizing to us, he is playing with fire,” he warned.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/11/republicans-blast-obamas-support-of-their-idea.html?utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=borowitz&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(1)

TSA

11-14-2013, 04:15 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1113/Businesses-cut-full-time-workers-to-meet-Obamacare-mandate-study-says-video

First, President Obama had to backtrack from his promise that if you like your health insurance plan, under Obamacare "you can keep it." Now, a new study is suggesting that, under Obamacare, "If you like your workweek, you can’t necessarily keep it, either."

The moves are part of a bid to control health-care expenses, and they are a sign of how the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was designed to greatly expand the number of Americans who have health insurance, could be having some unintended consequences in the job market.

A key Obamacare incentive is an “employer mandate” that asks businesses to sponsor health insurance (or pay a penalty) if they have more than 50 full-time employees. It defines a full-time worker as one serving 30 or more hours per week. So a firm can avoid the mandate by having fewer than 50 people working full-time.

Although the provision won’t be enforced until 2015, some employers with 40 to 500 workers have already started adjusting for the new landscape, the survey by Public Opinion Strategies found:

Some 31 percent of franchise businesses and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses say they have already reduced worker hours because of the law.
About 27 percent of franchise businesses and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses have already replaced full-time workers with part-time employees because of the law.
Some 41 percent of the non-franchise firms say they already see health-care costs rising because of the law.
As the franchise firms look toward the future, 28 percent of them say they’ll stop offering health coverage in 2015 because of the law. One-third of franchise businesses already do not offer health insurance.
The poll arrives as Obamacare is already under attack for the botched rollout of its enrollment website, HealthCare.gov, and for insurance cancellations despite Mr. Obama’s pledge that if you like your health plan “you can keep it.”

“Instead of providing affordable health care coverage to employees, the law will effectively take hours and wages away from Americans who need and want full-time jobs,” said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, in a statement accompanying the study. “That’s bad for businesses and their employees.”

It’s less clear, however, if the law is bad for workers’ health coverage.

Employers in some industries such as the restaurant business may feel pressed to follow suit when competitors drop health benefits. But in some cases, workers will gain access to Obamacare subsidies and be able to get coverage with much stronger benefits than their employer had been offering.

Basically, the ACA is a law that hinges on two “mandates,” one for individuals and one for employers. It calls on all individuals to have health insurance starting next year, or to pay a tax penalty. And come 2015, the “employer mandate” kicks in for firms with more than 50 full-time employees.

The poll surveyed more than 400 businesses with 40 to 500 employees – the ones most likely to be affected by the ACA. About half were franchises such as restaurant chains, and half were non-franchise businesses.

The number of firms polled is small relative to the vast and varied realm of US employers. Pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies told reporters he’s “comfortable” that his sample represents the “known universe” of firms in this size range.

Citing the challenge that the 30-hour cutoff represents for worker paychecks, the business groups that sponsored the poll are supporting legislation to lift the definition of a “full-time” week to 40 hours.

They say it will help more workers get ample paychecks. Critics of the idea say the move could still prompt firms to cut work hours to avoid the employer mandate, with the effects falling on people who currently work about 40 hours per week.

boutons_deux

11-14-2013, 04:24 PM

"the law will effectively take hours and wages away from Americans who need and want full-time jobs,” said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, in a statement accompanying the study"

US CoC? :lol

studies have shown that the 30 hour cutoff will have negligible effect. Walmart, in the ACA context, is actually increasing benefits.

SA210

11-14-2013, 05:07 PM

Arch-Liberal, Piers Morgan Unleashes Three Anti-Obama Tweets in a Row –
Says More People Signed a Petition to Have Him Deported Than Have Signed Up for Obamacare!

http://www.libertynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Piers-Morgan.jpg

Within the last 24 hours, the arch-liberal MSNBC anchor, Piers Morgan, has unleashed a three-tweet barrage attacking Barack Obama’s credibility and the breathtaking ineptitude with which Obamacare’s rollout has been executed. Piers Morgan even condemned Obama’s epic fail of a press conference today too! (http://www.libertynews.com/2013/11/a-closer-look-at-barack-hussein-obamas-unconstitutional-agenda-free-obamacare-fix/)

Here are the three tweets you have to read to believe!

Considerably more Americans signed a petition to have me deported, than enrolled for Obamacare. I'd start panicking, Mr President...

I actually agree with the principle of #Obamacare (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Obamacare&src=hash) - but the implementation's been an utter disaster, as was that press conference.

"I said I wasn't perfect" - President Obama finally thinks of a promise he hasn't broken to the American 'folks'. Good grief, this is awful.

See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2013/11/arch-liberal-piers-morgan-unleashes-three-anti-obama-tweets-in-a-row-says-more-people-signed-a-petition-to-have-him-deported-than-have-signed-up-for-obamacare/#sthash.KLKpHkIg.dpuf

AntiChrist

11-14-2013, 05:37 PM

I guess Obama's press conference today didn't win people over.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/obama-media-health-care-press-conference_n_4275571.html

SA210

11-14-2013, 05:40 PM

Shorter Obama: "I don't know what's going on in the executive branch. I'm just the president."

:lmao

TSA

11-14-2013, 06:35 PM

Ouch, even firedoglake is piling on.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/11/15/obama-basically-admits-he-never-really-understood-his-own-health-care-law/#comments

President Obama delivered a very apologetic presser today on the problems with the Affordable Care Act, but the most remarkable moment was when Obama basically admitted he never really understood how his signature law would actually work.

He claims to have only realized in the past few weeks that buying insurance on an exchange is an inherently complicated and often confusing process. From Obama [7:00]:

But even if we get the hardware and software working exactly the way it’s supposed to, with relatively minor glitches, what we’re also discovering is that, you know, insurance is complicated to buy. And another mistake that we made, I think, was underestimating the difficulties of people purchasing insurance online and shopping for a lot of options, with a lot of costs and a lot of different benefits and plans, and somehow expecting that that would be very smooth, and then they’ve also got to try to apply for tax credits on the website. [...]

Because the bottom line, ultimately, is I just want people to know what their options are in a clear way. And, you know, buying health insurance is never going to be like buying a song on iTunes. You know, it’s just a much more complicated transaction. But I think we can continue to make it better.

This is truly remarkable admission. One of Obama’s big promises in selling his law to the public was that it would make buying insurance insanely easy. It is a promise he repeated all the time and seemed to really believe.

For example, just six weeks ago Obama was still claiming the exchange would make buying insurance basically as easy as getting a song on iTunes. He said this about the launch of the site last month:

Just visit healthcare.gov, and there you can compare insurance plans, side by side, the same way you’d shop for a plane ticket on Kayak or a TV on Amazon. You enter some basic information, you’ll be presented with a list of quality, affordable plans that are available in your area, with clear descriptions of what each plan covers, and what it will cost. You’ll find more choices, more competition, and in many cases, lower prices — most uninsured Americans will find that they can get covered for $100 or less.

This is not a small mistake or another too rosy promise. This basic concept is the foundation of the law.

The idea private insurance exchanges will magically drive down price and improve quality through competition was based on the assumption that buying insurance could be made so incredibly simple that almost everyone would be able figure out which plan was best for them. For this kind of competition even theoretically to work the consumers needed to understand trade offs with the all the different options. If you can’t buy insurance extremely simple the whole concept won’t deliver.

One of the main reasons I had so little faith in the supposed promise of these exchanges is because I know ACA wouldn’t make this process simple enough. This is why even in countries that use a system that appears to resemble the basic design of ACA, such as Switzerland, they require extreme plan standardization.

Obama didn’t just admit he never fully understood his signature law, he seems to indirectly acknowledge that the whole thing is conceptually flawed.

Clipper Nation

11-14-2013, 06:45 PM

:cry "But, but, it'll get better and become more popular, because Team Blue said so!" :cry

Th'Pusher

11-14-2013, 07:58 PM

I guess Obama's press conference today didn't win people over.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/obama-media-health-care-press-conference_n_4275571.html

I thought the mainstream media just sucked down whatever Obama served up?

SA210

11-14-2013, 08:16 PM

^^ They normally do. They also did for Bush in his first term, then 2nd term it was almost open season. They won't go after Obama the way they should, but it's hilarious to see them apply a little pressure, even if just pretend or for some ratings. lol

boutons_deux

11-15-2013, 05:48 AM

symple19

11-15-2013, 06:28 AM

"buying insurance on an exchange is an inherently complicated and often confusing process."

US health care has been a HUGE CLUSTER FUCK of a KLUDGEOCRACY for decades.

No surprise that any attempt to improve it like ACA, written by an for-profit insurance exec/lobbyist, HAD TO BE A MATCHING KLUDGEOCRACY and had to be fucked up by the scorched-earth sabotage by the Repugs and tea baggers.

the ONLY solution is a no-profit, government insurance option that EVERYBODY pays into out of earned AND unearned income, and that covers EVERYBODY. As simple and hyper-efficient as SS. No annually renewable, super-complicated incomprehensible super-fine-print-gotcha multi-page lawyer-speak contracts.

BD has some good points here, once you wade through the craziness. Just imagine if businesses didn't have to worry about health care? It's not a big leap to say that they would be able to invest more and raise wages. Frankly, I still don't understand why big business doesn't support a universal system. It would be nothing but beneficial for them

It's also worth noting that a single payer system wouldn't destroy private health care. The upper middle class and the rich would ensure a thriving continuation of non-government entities.

Having said that, I think those who keep yelling "ACA will inevitably lead to a single-payer system" are ignoring the possibility that Obamacare will be (is?) such a massive disaster (which is where I'm leaning right now) that the country will seize up and head back in the other direction. Not only will it do a lot of damage to the Dem party (lol), but it will give Republicans (lol) tons of ammo to enact legislation which will put even more money back into the coffers of slimy, profit hungry healthcare corporations.

This whole saga further underlines how our two-party system has failed us. Both parties are too busy trying to line the pockets of their overseers instead of doing what is right for the country (iow, universal healthcare)

boutons_deux

11-15-2013, 07:05 AM

"single payer system wouldn't destroy private health care"

single payer would still pay to for-profit medical care, and would reduce but not destroy for-profit insurance which would be limited to complimentary, top-up, 5-star policies beyond the govt insurance.

but even better would be a govt health care provider, in direct competition with for-profit health care, with salaried doctors (not the current fee-for-service racket) and non-profit facilities with complete, primary emphasis on health outcomes, not on health revenue and profits and capitalist enrichment.

govt doctors would get free medical primary care education in return for 25 years govt employment, much like the military getting free room, board, education, and health care in return for service.

and the REPUG CORPORATE-WELFARE REGULATION that govt cannot negotiate for lower prices for BigPharma/BigDevice products must be killed.

The govt as SINGLE BUYER will screw down the suppliers to reasonable prices and margins.

"Obamacare will be (is?) such a massive disaster"

bullshit, they'll make it work. When the dust settles, Ms of poor and lower-middle class and pre-condition victims on expanded Medicaid rules in blue states will live better, live longer with less health care (early detection) and less (life long) govt disability. Humanitarian ACA will not be dropped to return to the current Randian/capitalist rip-off racket.

the two-party system is ok, the UCA/1%, whose $$$ count much more than Human-Americans' votes, owning Congress and the Exec is the root problem.

Capt Bringdown

11-15-2013, 08:14 AM

Romney-Obamacare in 5 gifs -->> (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/14/obama-health-care-act/3536591/)

ObamaCare Clusterfuck: No, Obama, you're not "stupid." You're pissy, arrogant, and an Emperor with no clothes -->> (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/14/obama-health-care-act/3536591/)

Now I know why the Republicans haven't impeached this guy: He's doing their work for them too well. The Democrats had better get Obama out of offfice or he's going to cost them 2014 and 2016

AntiChrist

11-15-2013, 02:09 PM

Death Spiral

zE0QkuDLrgs

boutons_deux

11-15-2013, 05:43 PM

Administration: HealthCare.gov Really Is Getting Better

The Obama administration has said (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/white-house-healthcare-gov-will-run-smoothly-for-majority-of-users-by-nov-30) that HealthCare.gov will be "working smoothly for the vast majority of users" by the end of November. They've brought in Jeff Zients, a former corporate executive, to save the ailing website from its disastrous launch.

So how are they doing?

They're making serious progress, Zients said on a Friday conference call with reporters.

The administration is judging its improvement by two metrics, Zients said: the website's response times and its error rates. In other words, how long it takes a page to load for users and how often users encounter a crash or error page.
In both areas, Zients reported, HealthCare.gov is improving exponentially.

When the site launched, pages were taking an average of eight seconds to load. Now, Zients said, the average is less than one second.

The average error rate in the weeks after the site's launch was 6 percent, Zients said; as of this week, it's now below 1 percent.

To top it off, the site didn't experience any scheduled or unscheduled outages this week -- a notable achievement after the opening six weeks.

"We've made measurable progress," Zients said. "The system is more stable, and users are having a better user experience on the site."

Tally it all up, and the administration has crossed 200 bug fixes off its oft-mentioned "punch list" -- about 50 "priority fixes" to go, Zients said, though he cautioned that more issues could arise as traffic increases.

The problem of volume continues to be a top concern for the administration, Zients said. Right now, HealthCare.gov can comfortably handle between 20,000 and 25,000 users at a time. But at "peak volumes, some users still experience slower response times," he said.

Officials are also expecting traffic to spike at the end of the month and onward. So this weekend, the administration is adding more servers and data storage to help handle any additional load.

The goal is "to maintain good speed and response times at higher volumes," Zients said. "This is a key focus of our work now."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/here-s-how-much-healthcare-gov-has-improved

SA210

11-16-2013, 02:32 PM

Students at a historically black Maryland university spoke out this week against President Barack Obama’s signature health care law after the school announced it had cancelled a student insurance policy because of the Affordable Care Act’s regulations.

“It’s stupid and it’s Obama’s fault,” one Bowie State University student told website Campus Reform (http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5239) Thursday. “You haven’t done anything, Obama, and I’m disappointed in you.”

The historically black school had previously provided coverage (http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5235) to students for $50 per semester, but stopped and placed blame on Obamacare.
“I can’t afford anything right now,” one student said. “I can’t even afford my loans.”
“We don’t have that money,” another said. “We can barely afford books.”

Students at Bowie state decry Obamacare after canceled plans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPuFt6g_0a8

SA210

11-16-2013, 03:20 PM

:lmao

Conan: President Obama Tries To Explain Obamacare Without a Teleprompter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNjBLdAyHP0

boutons_deux

11-16-2013, 03:29 PM

Students at Bowie state decry Obamacare after canceled plans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPuFt6g_0a8

totally ignorant interviewees

totally biased, hit job interviewer. ACA $3000/year for college students? if they have parents, the are covered under their parents plan to age 26.

more bullshit propaganda from SA210

SA210

11-16-2013, 03:35 PM

totally ignorant interviewees

totally biased, hit job interviewer. ACA $3000/year for college students? if they have parents, the are covered under their parents plan to age 26.

more bullshit propaganda from SA210

So their plans didn't get canceled?

boutons_deux

11-16-2013, 03:37 PM

So their plans didn't get canceled?

you assume they had plans. who are "they", the students or their parents?

boutons_deux

11-17-2013, 04:48 PM

Beneath the Headlines on HealthCare.gov

A few days ago I was speaking to some folks on the inside of the effort to get HealthCare.gov working. Their take on the much-discussed Post piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/troubled-healthcaregov-unlikely-to-work-fully-by-end-of-november-as-white-house-vowed/2013/11/12/daf9670a-4bca-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html) stating that the site was likely not to be ready by December 1st was that it mistook how any site works. Not that it was wrong per se but was too binary in its take. It's not like a car where you put your key in the ignition and it starts or it doesn't. It's an inherently incremental and iterative process - which at least as a general matter is true with any website, large or small, especially large.

The piece out in the Post today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/troubled-healthcaregov-unlikely-to-work-fully-by-end-of-november-as-white-house-vowed/2013/11/12/daf9670a-4bca-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html) is another case of a headline giving a somewhat misleading view not only of the reality of the situation, but even what's contained in the piece itself.

If you haven't read it, the piece states that the administration's goal (when it will consider the site "working" and a "success") is when 80% of users will be able to use it to buy health care plans. This is apparently what the administration means when they use the now familiar catchphrase that the "vast majority" of users will be able to successfully use the site.

Now, 20% left out is a lot of people.

But fairly far down in the article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/troubled-healthcaregov-unlikely-to-work-fully-by-end-of-november-as-white-house-vowed/2013/11/12/daf9670a-4bca-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html) is this paragraph ...

According to a government official familiar with the new target, the 20 percent who are unlikely to be able to enroll online are expected to fall into three groups: people whose family circumstances are so complicated that the Web site cannot determine their eligibility for subsidies to help pay for health plans; people uncomfortable buying insurance on a computer; and people who encounter technical problems on the Web site.

It would clarify a lot if we knew a breakdown of these three categories within that 20%. But this is some pretty serious fine print and puts the 80/20 in a somewhat different light.

After all, getting the site to "work" for people who are unwilling or uncomfortable buying insurance on their computer seems like a pretty intractable problem and not what most people think of when they talk about the site 'working'.

The issue of people with complex life situations was the main one I heard about talking with people working on the refit process. It's what it sounds like. For your average single person making $40k a year or a family of four making $60k it basically works fine now.

But when you get into more complicated situations with different kinds of dependents, more complicated income situations etc and a lot else, sometimes the site is not able to provide answers.

Obviously, the devil is in the details here. I think everyone understands there will likely be some very complicated edge cases where the calculation of a subsidy may require getting on the phone with someone.

Just how complicated your situation has to be before the website can't help you will be the key question. And what I take from people familiar with the process is that this is the part of the equation, working down that percentage, that will require a lot of iterating and optimization beyond December 1st.

The political reality is that landing with a thud on October 1st means that everything about this site and the law is now getting extremely close and often misleadingly negative scrutiny. The reality reality, however, is not necessarily as dire as a lot of these reports suggest

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/beneath-the-headlines-on-healthcare-gov

boutons_deux

11-17-2013, 04:56 PM

Another red state REPUGNANTLY denying its citizens medical care to screw up ACA and the Dems for purely politcal, ideological reasons, dishonestly hiding behind "gotta control costs" although the funding comes from the Feds.

Tennessee Governor Hesitates on Medicaid Expansion, Frustrating Many

In his case, it involves trying — so far unsuccessfully — to balance some sharply conflicting concerns: struggling hospitals, local business groups, dwindling state resources and fierce conservative opposition to the new health care law.

“It’s time to say yes or no. I don’t want to get morbid or dramatic about this thing, but it’s lives we’re talking about here. It’s human beings.”

Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, among many other Republican governors, have flatly rejected the expansion (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/us/politics/perry-says-texas-rejects-health-law-intrusions.html), even though it would provide billions of federal dollars to their states.

Mr. Haslam has also promised not to enact anything without the approval of the Legislature, whose Republican majority, he said, was dead set against an expansion of Medicaid.

showed him with a 63 percent approval rating. The same poll, however, found that 60 percent of respondents favored the expansion of Medicaid in the state.

Arrayed on the other side are the Tennessee Hospital Association (http://www.tha.com/headlines/Default.aspx?hid=82) and other medical groups, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry (http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2013/03/tn-chamber-supports-medicaid-expansion.html) and local chambers across the state, several antipoverty organizations and the Democratic opposition.

Recent layoffs at a few Tennessee hospitals have focused attention on their plight — and complicated Mr. Haslam’s decision.

David McClure, senior vice president for finance at the state hospital association, said that failing to expand Medicaid would have a devastating effect on the state’s 165 hospitals, leading to layoffs and the closing of some facilities.

“In every community that has a hospital, we are typically the biggest or one of the biggest employers,” Mr. McClure said. “I don’t want to be Chicken Little and say the sky is falling, but there will be some hospitals that will close.”

Without an expansion of Medicaid, hundreds of thousands of Tennessee residents would fall into a gap, making too little money to get subsidized health coverage under the act and too much to qualify for Medicaid. The authors of the Affordable Care Act had assumed that states would expand their Medicaid rolls — which they had been required to do until the Supreme Court struck down that provision (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html) — providing coverage for these working poor families who fell into the gap.

The hospital association estimates that 400,000 Tennesseans fall into that gap. Other estimates are somewhat lower.

Deepening the angst over this decision is the state’s own history with managed health care. Tennessee’s homegrown health care system, TennCare (http://www.tn.gov/tenncare/), went through a wrenching downsizing (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4DD1E3FF933A15752C1A9629C8B 63) in 2005, when the program was totally state sponsored. More than 170,000 people had to be thrown off the TennCare rolls.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/us/politics/tennessee-governor-hesitates-on-medicaid-expansion-frustrating-many.html?from=homepage

boutons_deux

11-17-2013, 05:17 PM

OBAMA SAYS AMERICANS CAN KEEP THEIR DAMN INSURANCE

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/187989322-580.jpg

Faced with a barrage of new questions about the Affordable Care Act, President Obama cut short a White House press conference today, telling the stunned press corps, “You know what? Everybody can keep their damn insurance.”

Glaring at the reporters, the President continued, “You heard me. If your insurance is crappy, then you just go ahead and keep it—the crappier, the better. Let’s pretend this whole thing never happened.”

A vein in his forehead visibly throbbing, the President added, “You know, I really wish I hadn’t spent the last three years of my life on this thing. I should’ve just gone around invading countries for no reason. That would’ve made everybody happy. Well, live and learn.”

As the reporters averted their eyes from the President, many of them looking awkwardly at their shoes, he concluded his remarks: “All those people out there who want to repeal Obamacare? Well, guess what: I’ll make their day and repeal it myself. Really, it’s my pleasure. But I swear that this is the last time I try to do something nice for anybody.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/11/obama-says-americans-can-keep-their-damn-insurance.html

boutons_deux

11-17-2013, 06:15 PM

Louisiana Republican Who Backs Obamacare’s Medicaid Provision Wins Seat Over Party Favorite (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/17/2956311/louisiana-republican-medicaid/)

Louisiana voters elected Republican Vance McAllister in a runoff to fill the state’s vacant Fifth District U.S. House seat on Saturday. McAllister, a businessman who embraced the expansion of Medicaid (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/5th_district_louisiana_debate.html) available to the state under the Affordable Care Act, defeated a Republican party favorite who called for full Obamacare repeal.

In a district won by Mitt Romney with 61 percent of the vote in 2012, two Republicans were the top vote-getters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/louisiana-runoff-election_n_4132510.html) in a 14-candidate October primary.

McAllister, who received nearly 60 percent (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/vance-mcallister-neil-riser-louisiana-99952.html?hp=l3) of the vote in Saturday’s special election, criticized much of the Affordable Care Act, but also criticized Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) decision to dismantle charity hospitals in the state, and to reject its Medicaid expansion, which would expand the qualifications for Medicaid recipients and extend healthcare coverage to hundreds of thousands of uninsured Louisianans. “Our governor and Sen. Riser right here have gutted [heath care] to the core and privatized it.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/17/2956311/louisiana-republican-medicaid/

Confederate LA of course wants to screw their slave descendants, but there are plenty extremely poor white people.

boutons_deux

11-19-2013, 06:59 AM

Eat shit, haters! :lol
East shit, Fox, eat shit MSM herd who love reporting in their echo chamber nothing but bad news!

Healthcare plan enrollment surges in some states that run exchanges

Despite the disastrous rollout of the federal government's healthcare website, enrollment is surging in many states as tens of thousands of consumers sign up for insurance plans made available by President Obama's health law.

A number of states that use their own systems, including California, are on track to hit enrollment targets for 2014 because of a sharp increase in November, according to state officials.

"What we are seeing is incredible momentum," said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation's largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California — which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month — nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month.

Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said.

The growing enrollment in those states is a rare bit of good news for backers of the Affordable Care Act and suggests that the serious problems with the law's rollout may not be fatal, despite critics' renewed calls for repeal. (may not be fatal? :lol )

But the trend also emphasizes how widely experience with the new law varies by location.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia, covering about one-third of the nation's population, are operating their own Obamacare marketplaces and have their own enrollment websites. The others, including most states with Republican-led governments, have declined to do so, making their residents dependent on the malfunctioning federal site. ( :lol it ain't malfunctioning now for the majority, and it's getting better by the day)

In addition to better-functioning websites, many states that are running their own marketplaces also have significantly more resources to help consumers sign up for coverage.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/545/article/p2p-78240693/ (http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/545/article/p2p-78240693/)

To get coverage for 1 Jan, still 3 weeks of SURGING! left. :lol

And enrollment goes on to the other deadline 15 March. In red-states, there will be a lot very positive word of mouth among the uninsured about healthcare.gov. PEOPLE NEED AND WANT HEALTH INSURANCE.

As MA saw, just before the deadlines, enrollment explodes.

Healthcare.gov is working well for those people who are the majority of the cases.

Fringe, exception cases are more complex. Some people just don't have a clue how to work an Internet site, which isn't the problem for the majority of the people, nor the fault of the website.

Asshole Repug states have obstructed navigators and all other resources to inform and help people who aren't Internet savvy or who are complex cases (to qualify for subsidies).

The only reason healthcare.gov exists and has such traffic is because the asshole Repug-sabotaged red-states refuse to setup their own exchanges and force their red-state victims onto healthcare.gov.

boutons_deux

11-19-2013, 01:35 PM

healthcare.gov is WORSE than Katrina? Jon Stewart differs

WATCH: Jon Stewart Destroys All Katrina/Healthcare.gov Comparisons Forever

http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-jon-stewart-destroys-all-katrinahealthcare-gov-comparisons-forever/

boutons_deux

11-19-2013, 02:28 PM

REMINDER: Obamacare Is Still Much More Popular Than The GOP

There’s not much good news for President Obama and his signature legislative achievement in the ABC/Washington Post poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/11/19/National-Politics/Polling/release_274.xml) released Tuesday morning.

Only 33 percent approve of the way the law is being implemented, with 63 percent disapproving. The 40 percent approving of the law itself is just 2 points shy of the president’s 42 percent approval rating, just as the 57 percent who disapprove of the law is just 2 percent higher than the 55 percent who disapprove of President Obama.

Less than 50 percent polled said the president was a strong leader, trustworthy, understanding or a strong manager. The only good news is that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, believe that the president said what he believed was true when he promised that people who like their insurance plans can keep them.

“The administration’s rollout of the law was an epic, unforgivable failure, so it’s not surprising public disapproval is skyrocketing,” writes The Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/19/the-morning-plum-heres-why-dems-should-stick-with-obamacare/). “That’s as it should be.”
This leads to a pretty simple conclusion: President Obama’s popularity is dependent on Healthcare.gov beginning to work well and America finding that there are more “winners” than “losers” under the law (http://www.nationalmemo.com/romneycareobamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-blasts-disgusting-refusal-to-expand-medicaid/).

However, it’s important to remember that when it comes to unpopularity, the Affordable Care Act ain’t got nothin’ on the Republican Party.

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/favorableGOP.png

Huffington Post‘s Pollster has the GOP’s average approval at 27.7 percent with 59.5 percent disapproving, which may explain the key finding of a new United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/poll-most-americans-oppose-obamacare-repeal-despite-rollout-troubles-20131118), also released Tuesday.

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/cdn-media.nationaljournal.com_.jpg
Though the Republican Study Committee has outlined (http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-republican-study-committee-has-a-replace-plan/)an Obamacare alternative and conservatives are increasingly discussing what a conservative plan might look like (http://www.nationalmemo.com/obamacare-can-work-on-conservative-principles/), House Republicans have never offered to replace the law with an alternative, even as they’ve voted to repeal it over three dozen times. :lol

http://www.nationalmemo.com/reminder-obamacare-is-still-much-more-popular-than-the-gop/

SA210

11-20-2013, 09:27 PM

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q71/999300_571122286292805_1837782080_n.jpg

SA210

11-20-2013, 09:35 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93LdTl7cn5s

SA210

11-20-2013, 09:48 PM

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/1457647_260296267455201_367865664_n.jpg

Nbadan

11-21-2013, 12:00 AM

This does not fit into the current news narrative of repeating a right wing talking point along with an old picture of President Obama frowning, then commenting that the ACA will hurt Democrat's chances in 2014. Yup, this is what is reported as news, the same right wing talking points you have heard 24/7 by the MSM....

"Health care spending increases hit new low"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2013/11/20/health-care-spending-growth/3650243/

WASHINGTON — Buoyed by a report showing that health care spending has risen by the lowest rate ever recorded, White House officials said Wednesday a continuation of the trend could lead to more jobs and lower-than-expected costs.

Reduced health care costs for employers could lead to 200,000 to 400,000 new jobs per year by the second half of the decade, said Jason Furman, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

"If just half the recent slowdown in spending can be sustained, health care spending a decade from now will be $1,400 per person lower," Furman said.

The Council of Economic Advisers report released Wednesday also said health care inflation is the lowest it has been in 50 years.

Nbadan

11-21-2013, 12:17 AM

Healthcare plan enrollment surges in some states after rocky rollout

A number of states that use their own systems, including California, are on track to hit enrollment targets for 2014 because of a sharp increase in November, according to state officials.

"What we are seeing is incredible momentum," said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation's largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California — which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month — nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month.

Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said.

The growing enrollment in those states is a rare bit of good news for backers of the Affordable Care Act and suggests that the serious problems with the law's rollout may not be fatal, despite critics' renewed calls for repeal.

Read more: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78240693/

Nbadan

11-21-2013, 12:28 AM

Why Republicans Suddenly Care About Canceled Health Policies
Posted on Nov 15, 2013
By Joe Conason

Amid the current national uproar over the troubles of the Affordable Care Act, it is almost uplifting to hear the deep concern expressed by politicians, pundits, lobbyists and corporate leaders over cancellation of existing health insurance policies. They empathize loudly with the millions of potential victims, whose plight infuriates these worthy observers with fury. They fill hours of television and pages of print with expressions of outrage. Suddenly, everyone in Washington is intensely concerned about Americans losing their health coverage.

The outpouring of noble sentiment would be laudable—indeed, long overdue—if only there were reason to believe these protestations are sincere. Sadly, the evidence points in the opposite direction, for a single obvious reason: Millions of people in this country have been losing health insurance for years, resulting in many thousands of serious illnesses, bankruptcies and early deaths. But until insurance cancellations became a political embarrassment for President Barack Obama, the usual right-wing reaction was silence. (Except for that awkward and revealing outburst during the 2012 Republican debates when a live audience howled its approval for the “let him die” plan.)

For anyone who has ever honestly cared about people losing their health coverage—for instance, Obama or his Democratic predecessor, former President Bill Clinton—the depressing statistical reality has long been plain. Every day, thousands of Americans leave the rolls of the private insurance industry, almost never voluntarily.

People often forfeit insurance after losing a job, which happened to millions during the Great Recession. At its height, when tea party Republicans were fighting to kill Obamacare in the cradle, more than 44,000 people were losing their health coverage every week. In May 2009, the policy journal Health Affairs published a projection that nearly 7 million Americans would lose coverage by the end of 2010.

CONTINUED:

http://www.truthdig.com/report

George Gervin's Afro

11-21-2013, 06:56 AM

so things are getting better...shocking

boutons_deux

11-21-2013, 09:26 AM

G.O.P. Maps Out Waves of Attacks Over Health Law
The memo distributed to House Republicans this week was concise and blunt, listing talking points and marching orders:

“Because of Obamacare, I Lost My Insurance.”

“Obamacare Increases Health Care Costs.”

“The Exchanges May Not Be Secure, Putting Personal Information at Risk.”

“Continue Collecting Constituent Stories.”

they intend to keep Democrats on their heels through a multilayered, sequenced assault.

these stories are creating themselves.” :lol :lol :lol :lol

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/us/politics/gop-maps-out-waves-of-attacks-over-health-law.html?from=homepage

All LIES, PROPAGANDA, MISINFORMATION, ANECDOTES cherry-picked from the overall postive picture than ACA has always planned to be, and will become.

Poor, ignorant, rural red-state VICTIMS of their Repug politicians will regret, if they are smart enough, being denied Medicaid and health insurance.

boutons_deux

11-21-2013, 11:43 AM

Worse yet, the ACA contained zero funding for the development and implementation of the site, and there's no way the congressional Republicans would ever authorize more money for it. It's unclear why the federal exchange was unfunded in the law, but one thing's for sure, a House of Representatives that voted 46 times (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-has-now-voted-46-times-to-repeal-or-dismantle-obamacare) to totally repeal the law wouldn't have coughed up a dime to rectify the oversight.So, what happened?

A cash-starved Healthcare.gov development process, which precipitated serious glitches when October 1 rolled around -- problems that should never have occurred.And those glitches might've been exacerbated when right-wing hacktivists reportedly conducted "denial of service" attacks against Healthcare.gov -- deliberate attempts to overwhelm the website's servers. CNN reported on Monday (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/politics/hackers-attack-obamacare-site/):

Hackers have attempted more than a dozen cyber attacks against the Obamacare website, according to a top Homeland Security Department official. The attacks, which are under investigation, failed, said the official.Authorities also are investigating a separate report of a tool designed to put heavy strain on HealthCare.gov through a so-called distributed denial of service. It does not appear to have been activated.

Sabotaging the Medicaid Expansion

Americans for Prosperity, funded by Charles and David Koch, launched advertising campaigns (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/koch-brothers-eye-states-healthcare-goals) to strong-arm state lawmakers to block the expansion Medicaid in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Once again, in the 26 states that blocked (http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/fact-the-gop-wants-to-cancel-tens-of-millions-of-health-insurance-policies-that-people-like/) the Medicaid expansion, we're left with five to eight million people who are consequently unable to afford exchange policies but who also make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.In Alaska yesterday (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/alaska-rejects-medicaid-expansion), Governor Sean Parnell, a Republican, obviously, rejected the Medicaid expansion thus denying health insurance to 40,000 Alaskans. Parnell said, "I believe a costly Medicaid expansion especially on top of the broken Obamacare system is a hot mess."That's a lie. Fact: the federal government pays the entire cost of the Medicaid expansion for 2014 through 2016. The states pay nothing. So it's not costly at all. In fact, it's free for the first three years.What happens when the expansion is blocked throughout more than half the nation? Potentially millions of pissed-off working class Americans due to what's perceived as punitively expensive Obamacare premiums -- premiums that are only too expensive because Republican governors blocked the Medicaid expansion.

Sabotaging ACA Marketplace Enrollment

Speaking of the Koch brothers and Alaska, a group called Foundation for Government Accountability launched a campaign (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/florida-conservative-group-helping-muck-up-obamacare-in-alaska) to convince Alaskans to deliberately not buy insurance policies in order to undermine ACA enrollment goals, and, naturally, to express their self-defeating hatred of President Obama. Smart.A pair of websites, along with accompanying Facebook pages, were launched back in September: dontenrollalaska.org and knowthefactsalaska.org. And go figure:

Based in Naples, Fla., the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is a 501(c)3 non-profit that "promotes public policies that achieve limited, constitutional government and a robust economy that will be an engine for job creation across the states." One of the foundation's directors is Robert Levy, the chairman of the board of the Cato Institute, the Washington, D.C. think tank with a long and complicated relationship with the Koch brothers.

Yep. All roads lead back to the Kochs.

There's something especially visceral and sinister about well-protected billionaires telling middle class Americans to go without health insurance in order to, you know, kick Obama in nuts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-massive-republican-ca_b_4311424.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-massive-republican-ca_b_4311424.html)

TSA

11-21-2013, 11:46 AM

If people think the cancellations are bad now what will happen when millions more are cancelled by small businesses forcing them on the exchange

boutons_deux

11-21-2013, 05:08 PM

If people think the cancellations are bad now what will happen when millions more are cancelled by small businesses forcing them on the exchange

who says?

your right-wing buddy CC seems pretty happy sending his people to exchange, and that's in fricking TX.

boutons_deux

11-21-2013, 05:34 PM

Brownback (Kansas) Turns Medicaid Over to Private Companies.. and these are the results (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/20/1257166/-Brownback-Kansas-Turns-Medicaid-Over-to-Private-Companies-and-these-are-the-results)

Today, Pitch Magazine, a Kansas City alternative newspaper released a scathing, on point analysis of Kansas "KanCare" debacle.

Since learning of his condition in college, Bullers has slowly lost control of his body. But his mind remains clear. These days, the former Kansas City Star reporter spends his days hounding a bureaucracy in Topeka in an attempt to keep in-home nurses all day, every day. This past January, the state transferred the care of 380,000 Medicaid recipients to three private companies as part of a program called KanCare.Gov. Sam Brownback has said the wholesale privatization of Medicaid under KanCare was meant to save $1 billion over five years. He also promised that the move wouldn't sacrifice Kansans' level of care, and the number of people on Medicaid's waiting list would be reduced.

But the only way for the three managed-care organizations to realize cost savings on clients with permanent physical disabilities, like Bullers, is by cutting Medicaid services. Bullers' 24/7 care was slated to be reduced by November 1 to 40 hours per week. Caregivers, who now work in three eight-hour shifts, could visit him only on weekdays for eight hours a day, or all seven days of the week for five hours each.

"To me, that's an Orwellian clusterfuck," Bullers tells The Pitch. "How can you take out that chunk of money on the backs of the most vulnerable and say with a straight face that you're going to improve services? It defies common sense."

(http://www.pitch.com/kansascity/kancare-sam-brownback-finn-bullers/Content?oid=4031015)http://www.pitch.com/...

The Pitch of course does all of the leg work in a multi-page piece that deserves to be read. Because it highlights what is wrong with using a for-profit motive when dispensing need to those who are amongst the most vulnerable.

It isn't as though Kansas couldn't see it coming:

Steve Rose

Star columnistThe Kansas Health Institute has nailed it.

KanCare – to paraphrase – is likely to be a mess when it is implemented on Jan. 1.

On that date 380,000 poor and disabled Kansans, who now receive services through Medicaid, will be shifted to private, managed care in an attempt to save money. The new program is called KanCare.

The KHI researched what has happened in Kentucky, which recently has implemented what we are about to implement. And, so far, it has had lots of hiccups.
And Kentucky did not even include three categories that are included in the Kansas plan: long-term services for the elderly, physically disabled and, eventually, the developmentally disabled.

http://joco913.com/ (http://joco913.com/news/steve-rose-kancare-is-looking-like-another-dmv-disaster-to-be/#storylink=cpy)...

Pitch lays out the truth in page after page..

Medicaid is a health program for low-income Americans that's funded jointly by states and the federal government. Several states have transferred segments of their Medicaid programs to private insurers to curb rising costs.

While other states have dipped their toes into the privatization of Medicaid, Kansas has cannonballed into the deep end by shifting all of its Medicaid management to three private companies."It is the most extensive in the nation," says Gary Blumenthal, a former Kansas legislator who is now CEO of the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers in suburban Boston and a member of the federal National Council on Disability. "Other states have viewed managed care as an area to move slowly and cautiously in the use of managed care, to determine if the use of managed care can produce the savings that advocates claim can occur while preserving the quality and safety for people that it would be serving."

Brownback has made every effort to twist the truth and portray this story one way.. when it is far different than that.

"The process has not gone as smoothly as the people at the Statehouse would have you believe, as far as the implementation is concerned," said Allen Van Driel, CEO of Smith County Memorial Hospital in north-central Kansas, according to a September 23 Kansas Health Institute News Service report. "The party line is that the managed-care plans are working and that KanCare is a huge success, that it's processing claims and all that. But that's simply not factual."

This is a powerful piece that needs to be read by more people. What it doesn't touch on, though is the falseness of this dilemma altogether. Those like Brownback assert that there simply isn't enough money to support all those who are sick and disabled, therefore they must cut costs. What isn't be said is that there is another alternative to continuous cutting of costs.. it's called increasing revenues.

Brownback and others hate that - cut, cut cut is the only way. But in the end, part of the social responsibility has to be the fact that we care for those who need it most. This means that we count on companies not getting over the top tax breaks, we ask that people carry their weight and we provide for our population.But that kind of talk makes people unhappy. Too bad, because tonight here in KC there are a lot of people on a wait list that is now 7+ years long who won't get services because the continuous cuts to healthcare in Kansas.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/20/1257166/-Brownback-Kansas-Turns-Medicaid-Over-to-Private-Companies-and-these-are-the-results?detail=email

Repugs are clinical sociopaths. goddam these assholes.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 05:37 AM

All the Details of the GOP's Health Care Game Plan

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-T.jpghere's a reason why NFL coaches guard their playbooks the way that the warrant officer guards the nuclear "football" briefcase wherever the president goes. If you have an effective strategy, you spring it by surprise. You don't throw it across the pages (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/us/politics/gop-maps-out-waves-of-attacks-over-health-law.html?hp&_r=0) of, say, the New York Times. You spring it as a surprise. Maybe the Republicans are smarter than I think they are, but this move seems very much like a well-developed bluff.

The effort has its roots in a strategy developed last spring, when House Republican leaders - plagued by party divisions that were thwarting legislative accomplishments - refocused the House's committees on oversight rather than on the development of new policies. Rob Borden, a general counsel to Representative Darrell Issa of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, moved to a newly created position that reported jointly to Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the majority leader. Mr. Borden's task was to coordinate and monitor oversight activities across separate committees to make sure they are not overlapping or undercutting one another. That aggressive campaign, which produced numerous hearings on the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, as well as on I.R.S. scrutiny of conservative groups, is now increasingly consumed by the health care fight. House Republican leaders empowered four committees - oversight, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and the Workforce - to take the lead, with support from other panels, such as the Science and Homeland Security Committees, which have examined computer security.

(iow, Repugs priority is to fuck up govt rather than govern)

The reason the probes into the IRS and into Benghazi, Benghazi!,BENGHAZI! came to nothing was not the lack of coordination between various committees in the Republican House. The reason the investigations flopped was that the scandals were both fake and Darrell Issa, a clownish hack who shouldn't be trusted with a butter knife. (It might have been nice if the Times, while donating several dozen column inches to the Republicans so they can lay out their battle plan, had acknowledged this, but never mind.)

Mr. Cantor and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, another member of the Republican leadership, have also leaned on all 231 House Republicans. A 17-page "House Republican Playbook" walks members through "messaging tools" like talking points, social media tactics and "digital fliers"; details lines of attack; offers up a sample opinion article for local newspapers; and provides an extensive timeline on the health care law and an exhaustive list of legislative responses that have gone nowhere.

Page 15: Make Sure Gohmert Is Medicated. :lol

A message of the week is presented to the Republican members at the beginning of each week, Ms. McMorris Rodgers said. A "Call to Action" email chain distributes relevant breaking news. A new website, gop.gov/yourstory, is collecting anecdotes from each member. The goal, according to Ms. McMorris Rodgers, is to use all the "Republican voices we have in the House, the media markets in all the districts we represent, to take our message all over the country." "It penetrates," she said. "It's powerful."

Contact your physician for an anecdote lasting four hours or more.

Republicans have gone to the floor of the House and the Senate to tell constituent stories of soaring premiums or yawning new deductibles. But on Wednesday, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released a report showing that health care spending had grown by 1.3 percent since 2010, the year the health care law passed. That is the lowest rate on record for any three-year period and less than a third of the average since 1965, according to the White House.

Well, all right, then.

This may work. The American public has demonstrated a profound sweet-tooth for bullshit storytelling, and the Times has shown itself willing to run informercials for the new campaign. But, for me, this looks like wrapping your battle plan around some cigars and leaving them in a field for the other side to find. (Take that, Bateman!) In any case, it's certainly a full employment plan for fact-checkers.

Oh yeah, there's nothing in there about actually getting people health-care, either.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gop-health-care-game-plan-112113

AntiChrist

11-22-2013, 09:06 AM

Lol, people still defending this POS law.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 09:47 AM

Lol, people still defending this POS law.

It's VASTLY more popular than tea baggers and Repugs :lol

TeyshaBlue

11-22-2013, 10:05 AM

It's VASTLY more popular than tea baggers and Repugs :lol

Biting analysis.

Also more popular than Dems.

TeyshaBlue

11-22-2013, 10:07 AM

http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/

And falling apparently.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 11:55 AM

http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/

And falling apparently.

the naive sheeple get suckered and lied to by the Repug/ALEC/VRWC propaganda machine.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 12:25 PM

STUDY: Nearly Three-Quarters Of Americans With Individual Plans Qualify For Obamacare Subsidies (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/21/2979101/americans-obamacare-subsidies/)

Over 70 percent of Americans under age 65 who buy insurance through the individual market will either qualify for Obamacare subsidies or the health law’s expansion of Medicaid in the states that accept it, according to a new study (http://www.familiesusa.org/ACA-individual-market/) by Families USA.

Obamacare provides insurance subsidies to Americans making up to 400 percent of the poverty level — about $94,200 for a family of four — who enroll in plans through the health law’s statewide marketplaces. The new study (http://www.familiesusa.org/ACA-individual-market/) finds that 71 percent of current individual policyholders have annual incomes that fall below this threshold. Earlier estimates by groups like the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimated that just under half (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/14/2465831/almost-half-americans-obamacare-subsidies/) of these Americans could qualify for subsidies.

Families USA’s study also confirms earlier reports that the current individual market burdens consumers with uncertainty. For instance, a full “64.5 percent of consumers with individual market insurance kept that insurance for a year or less” irrespective of income, according to study authors. Many of these plans also skimp on the types of benefits (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/29/2850701/coverage-good-thing/) that Americans actually need when they get sick, such as maternity, mental health, prescription drug, and even hospitalization coverage, while placing annual and lifetime caps on coverage. The health law has far more robust minimum coverage requirements, outlaws benefit caps, and doesn’t allow insurers to drop customers or raise their premiums based on health status.

Researchers also noted that just a fraction of a percent of all non-elderly Americans have individual plans that they keep for more than a year but won’t qualify for a government subsidy when they go out to buy new plans through the Obamacare marketplaces.

“[U]nder the ACA, only 0.6 percent of Americans under age 65 will be at risk of losing their current individual market plan and will not be income-eligible for financial assistance that will make their new insurance plan more affordable,” concluded (http://www.familiesusa.org/ACA-individual-market/#conclusion) the authors. “Even among this 0.6 percent, some have insurers who will not or cannot cancel their plans. Others will decide that they are better off with higher-value plans in the new insurance marketplaces.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/21/2979101/americans-obamacare-subsidies/

TeyshaBlue

11-22-2013, 12:37 PM

the naive sheeple get suckered and lied to by the Repug/ALEC/VRWC propaganda machine.

Lol..its Pew Research..

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 01:04 PM

the naive sheeple get suckered and lied to by the Repug/ALEC/VRWC propaganda machine.

healthcare.gov is NOT ACA ( see Romneycare, Repug Medicare Advantage startup problems, and Repugs blowing $1B on FBI system that never worked )

Fox/Repug disinformation and LIES about ACA are not ACA

Low-volume signups at startup is NOT ACA disaster ( see Romneycare startup PROBLEMS and ramp, and see where it is today )

ACA is going to be huge, open-ended success, just like MA Romneycare. Although Romneycare didn't have nation-wide Fox Repug round-the-clock LIES and Repug states sabotaging it, or even MA REpugs sabotaging(they actually helped their constituents sign up).

TeyshaBlue

11-22-2013, 01:17 PM

lol...there is no comparison to the scope and complexity of ACA to Romney's system. Your comparison is as laughably simplistic as your progressive echo chamber talking points.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 01:27 PM

Costly complexity is baked into Obamacare. No health insurance system is without problems but Canadian style single-payer full Medicare for all is simple, affordable, comprehensive and universal.
In the early 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson enrolled 20 million elderly Americans into Medicare in six months. There were no websites. They did it with index cards!
Below please find 21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare.

Repeal Obamacare and replace it with the much more efficient single-payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital.

Love, Canada

Number 21:
In Canada, everyone is covered automatically at birth – everybody in, nobody out.
In the United States, under Obamacare, 31 million Americans will still be uninsured by 2023 and millions more will remain underinsured.

Number 20:
In Canada, the health system is designed to put people, not profits, first.
In the United States, Obamacare will do little to curb insurance industry profits and will actually enhance insurance industry profits.

Number 19:
In Canada, coverage is not tied to a job or dependent on your income – rich and poor are in the same system, the best guaranty of quality.
In the United States, under Obamacare, much still depends on your job or income. Lose your job or lose your income, and you might lose your existing health insurance or have to settle for lesser coverage.

Number 18:
In Canada, health care coverage stays with you for your entire life.
In the United States, under Obamacare, for tens of millions of Americans, health care coverage stays with you for as long as you can afford your share.

Number 17:
In Canada, you can freely choose your doctors and hospitals and keep them. There are no lists of “in-network” vendors and no extra hidden charges for going “out of network.”
In the United States, under Obamacare, the in-network list of places where you can get treated is shrinking – thus restricting freedom of choice – and if you want to go out of network, you pay for it.

Number 16:
In Canada, the health care system is funded by income, sales and corporate taxes that, combined, are much lower than what Americans pay in premiums.
In the United States, under Obamacare, for thousands of Americans, it’s pay or die – if you can’t pay, you die. That’s why many thousands will still die every year under Obamacare from lack of health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time.

Number 15:
In Canada, there are no complex hospital or doctor bills. In fact, usually you don’t even see a bill.
In the United States, under Obamacare, hospital and doctor bills will still be terribly complex, making it impossible to discover the many costly overcharges.

Number 14:
In Canada, costs are controlled. Canada pays 10 percent of its GDP for its health care system, covering everyone.
In the United States, under Obamacare, costs continue to skyrocket. The U.S. currently pays 18 percent of its GDP and still doesn’t cover tens of millions of people.

Number 13:
In Canada, it is unheard of for anyone to go bankrupt due to health care costs.
In the United States, under Obamacare, health care driven bankruptcy will continue to plague Americans.

Number 12:
In Canada, simplicity leads to major savings in administrative costs and overhead.
In the United States, under Obamacare, complexity will lead to ratcheting up administrative costs and overhead.

Number 11:
In Canada, when you go to a doctor or hospital the first thing they ask you is: “What’s wrong?”
In the United States, the first thing they ask you is: “What kind of insurance do you have?”

Number 10:
In Canada, the government negotiates drug prices so they are more affordable.
In the United States, under Obamacare, Congress made it specifically illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices for volume purchases, so they remain unaffordable.

Number 9:
In Canada, the government health care funds are not profitably diverted to the top one percent.
In the United States, under Obamacare, health care funds will continue to flow to the top. In 2012, CEOs at six of the largest insurance companies in the U.S. received a total of $83.3 million in pay, plus benefits.

Number 8:
In Canada, there are no necessary co-pays or deductibles.
In the United States, under Obamacare, the deductibles and co-pays will continue to be unaffordable for many millions of Americans.

Number 7:
In Canada, the health care system contributes to social solidarity and national pride.
In the United States, Obamacare is divisive, with rich and poor in different systems and tens of millions left out or with sorely limited benefits.

Number 6:
In Canada, delays in health care are not due to the cost of insurance.
In the United States, under Obamacare, patients without health insurance or who are underinsured will continue to delay or forgo care and put their lives at risk.

Number 5:
In Canada, nobody dies due to lack of health insurance.
In the United States, under Obamacare, many thousands will continue to die every year due to lack of health insurance.

Number 4:
In Canada, an increasing majority supports their health care system, which costs half as much, per person, as in the United States. And in Canada, everyone is covered.
In the United States, a majority – many for different reasons – oppose Obamacare.

Number 3:
In Canada, the tax payments to fund the health care system are progressive – the lowest 20 percent pays 6 percent of income into the system while the highest 20 percent pays 8 percent.
In the United States, under Obamacare, the poor pay a larger share of their income for health care than the affluent.

Number 2:
In Canada, the administration of the system is simple. You get a health care card when you are born. And you swipe it when you go to a doctor or hospital. End of story.
In the United States, Obamacare’s 2,500 pages plus regulations (the Canadian Medicare Bill was 13 pages) is so complex that then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said before passage “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Number 1:
In Canada, the majority of citizens love their health care system.
In the United States, the majority of citizens, physicians, and nurses prefer the Canadian type system – single-payer, free choice of doctor and hospital , everybody in, nobody out.

For more information see Single Payer Action (http://www.singlepayeraction.org/).

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/22-1

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 01:34 PM

lol...there is no comparison to the scope and complexity of ACA to Romney's system. Your comparison is as laughably simplistic as your progressive echo chamber talking points.

Of course there's no comparison, SIMPLETON, because the Repug red states sabotaged it, requiring healthcare.gov to interface with about 30 different states.

If all the Repug states had run their own exchanges, they'd be having the same success as CA, KY, etc, risible SIMPLETON.

Big difference was the MA Repugs helped their constituents, while red-state Repugs are sabotaging ACA, lying to their states, fucking over the poor, disabled, etc.

And I was talking about the SUCCESS of Romneycare showing the eventual success of ACA in those states that implement it.

TeyshaBlue

11-22-2013, 01:40 PM

Again, lol simpleton.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 01:45 PM

Again, lol simpleton.

iow, "dammit, The Great Boutons has bitch slapped me again. I'll call him simpleton, that'll show 'im" :lol

TeyshaBlue

11-22-2013, 01:46 PM

lol delusions of grandeur. lol bitchslap from a bitch.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 01:47 PM

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/1452085_10152005494749255_414711301_n.jpg

TeyshaBlue

11-22-2013, 01:54 PM

And your conversion to SA210 is complete.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 01:57 PM

Pity poor TB :lol

his ego after The Great Boutons Bitch Slapping must feel like this:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/58435/large/tully2_.jpg?1384981182

TeyshaBlue

11-22-2013, 01:59 PM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211059&p=6879850#post6879850

that's what bitchslapping looks like. Feel free to runaway again.

boutons_deux

11-22-2013, 04:06 PM

Health Law Is Dividing Republican Governors

COTTSDALE, Ariz. — Republicans are planning to use the troubled health law against Democrats in next year’s midterm elections, but the Affordable Care Act is increasingly dividing their party, too.
At the annual meeting here of the nation’s Republican governors, the ones who are eyeing presidential runs in 2016 say they oppose the health care law. But there is sharp disagreement among those who have helped carry out the law and those who remain entrenched in their opposition.

These early divisions reveal not only the difficult calculations of ambitious Republican politicians as they look to the next presidential campaign, but also the complexities of being a governor rather than a lawmaker at a time when the party’s base is hostile to those who cooperate with Democrats.

The governors who refused the Medicaid expansion money that is part of the health care law — believing they had found a wedge issue — are already boasting about it.

(http://mobile.nytimes.com/images/100000002565611/2013/11/22/us/politics/health-law-is-dividing-republican-governors.html?from=homepage)“I said no,” Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said, “because if I took the Medicaid expansion I’d be dependent on the same federal government that can’t get a basic website up and going even after two and a half years to come through with payments for Medicaid in the future when they start weaning off paying for 100 percent of coverage.”

Under the new law, the federal government pays the entire cost of Medicaid expansion for three years and 90 percent after that.

Mr. Walker, who is seen as a candidate who can potentially bridge the differences between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, said conservatives would have long memories on how the law was carried out.

“I don’t think it’s a deal-breaker, but I think it’s pretty high on the importance list for a lot of voters out there,” he said.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who also turned down the Medicaid money and is thought to be considering a second presidential run, used even more vivid language. “It’s like putting 1,000 more people on the Titanic when you knew what was going to happen,” he said.

He also said in an interview between sessions of the Republican Governors Association meeting that it would matter in a political context.

“I think it’s a factor; I think it’s a philosophical position,” Mr. Perry said of Medicaid expansion, noting that even President Obama had called Medicaid — which is financed by both the states and federal government — part of “a broken system.”

“Whether somebody took it or didn’t, I’ll leave it up to them to justify to their constituents why,” he said of the federal money.

That is not to say that Mr. Perry would not use the issue to his advantage in a presidential primary race. It is not difficult to project how it could play out in the 2016 campaign, said Republican strategists, noting that the governors who accepted the Medicaid expansion could easily be pegged in television ads and mailers as having effectively approved the president’s health care law.
Mr. Walker and Mr. Perry are not the only ambitious Republicans to sound a “Where were you on Obamacare?” line of attack. Senator Rand Paul said this week that Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, perhaps the leading 2016 contender among establishment Republicans, would have to answer for his decision to take the Medicaid money.

“On the case of the New Jersey governor, I think embracing Obamacare, expanding Medicaid in his state is very expensive and not fiscally conservative,” Mr. Paul said.

He added, “Many Republican governors I would say are conservative did resist expanding and accepting Obamacare in their states.”

Mr. Paul’s criticism underlines one of the challenges governors face as they contemplate presidential campaigns. House members and senators do not face the same dilemma: While members of Congress vote on legislation, bills can be passed without their support. But governors face decisions that affect the residents of their states.

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio expressed this political fact of life, becoming animated as he was questioned at a meeting with reporters here about his decision to expand Medicaid.

“I always try to put myself in the shoes of somebody else to say: ‘How would I feel if I didn’t have health insurance? Are you kidding me?’ ” said Mr. Kasich, who has been mentioned as a 2016 hopeful, his voice rising. In defending Medicaid, he spoke at length about the scourge of drug addiction and challenges faced by those with mental illnesses.

“It’s going to save lives,” he said. “It’s going to help people, and you tell me what’s more important than that.”

The issue is a particularly delicate one among Republican governors, not only because they have disagreed on whether to take the Medicaid money, but because Mr. Christie, already a leading figure in the party, formally took over the Scottsdale meeting as the association’s chairman.

Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina has made much of her decision to turn down the Medicaid expansion, frequently boasting that “we didn’t just say no, we said never.” But she took a more restrained position here when sitting next to Mr. Christie at a news conference.

“I don’t think that the people of South Carolina will make a decision on one issue,” said Ms. Haley, whose state holds the South’s first presidential primary.

But when asked if she was suggesting that the health law would not be a factor in 2016, Ms. Haley clarified “it is going to be an issue, certainly,” but would not be “the sole issue.”

Some of the Republican governors are still determining how to handle Medicaid expansion. They include Mike Pence of Indiana, who said he would like to take a middle course on the issue, using the new federal money to cover more low-income Indiana residents but do so through a state-run program.

“I believe it could be a pilot program for the kind of health care reform that is grounded in the principles of consumer-driven health care,” Mr. Pence said.

As to whether he would be vulnerable in a presidential primary because he accepted money provided through the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Pence demurred. “The circumstances of each state with regard to Medicaid are different,” he said.

Former Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi made same argument in discussing why conservatives ultimately would not punish governors who took the Medicaid money. “Some people may try to make it an issue, but I think they’re going to find out it’s not the kind of issue they expect it to be,” he said.

Mr. Kasich, asked if taking the funding could hamper his own presidential prospects, shot back, “Is that how you’re going to make a decision?”

But then he offered a prediction that might have been rooted in his hopes: “I think all things kind of fade over time.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/health-law-is-dividing-republican-governors.html?from=homepage

boutons_deux

11-24-2013, 08:49 AM

Not that Fox/Repugs GAF about truth

Three Obamacare Truths That the Republicans Ignore

The wreck of private insurance.

Ours has been the only healthcare system in the world designed to avoid sick people. For-profit insurers have spent billions finding and marketing their policies to healthy people - young adults, people at low risk of expensive diseases, groups of professionals - while rejecting people with preexisting conditions, otherwise debilitated, or at high risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. And have routinely dropped coverage of policy holders who become seriously sick or disabled. What else would you expect from corporations seeking to maximize profits?

The Affordable Care Act is a modest solution.

It still relies on private insurers - merely setting minimum standards and "exchanges" where customers can compare policies, requiring insurers to take people with preexisting conditions and not abandon those who get seriously sick, and helping low-income people afford coverage.

A single-payer system would have been preferable. Most other rich countries do it this way. It could have been grafted on to Social Security and Medicare, paid for through payroll taxes, expanded to lower-income families through Medicaid. It would have been simple and efficient. (It's no coincidence that the Act's Medicaid expansion has been easy and rapid (http://robertreich.org/post/%5Bhttp://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/health/map-obamacare/) in states that chose to accept it.)

The moral imperative.

Even a clunky compromise like the ACA between a national system of health insurance and a for-profit insurance market depends, fundamentally, on a social compact in which those who are healthier and richer are willing to help those who are sicker and poorer. Such a social compact defines a society.

The other day I heard a young man say he'd rather pay a penalty than buy health insurance under the Act because, in his words, "why should I pay for the sick and the old?" The answer is he has a responsibility to do so, as a member the same society they inhabit.

http://robertreich.org/post/67778425081

boutons_deux

11-24-2013, 10:16 AM

Repugs and Fox whining about people being fined for not buying health insurance? GMAFB

Take a look at REPUGS' Medicare Advantage operation, aka Repugs' corporate welfare, fining people if they don't sign up to buy prescription drugs (what about generics?)

Healthcare Is So Horrible Here that Thousands Rely on Free Clinics—And You're Fined if You Don't Use Prescription Drugs

In the process of enrolling in the Medicare Advantage plan, we were told that we would have to pay a penalty because we hadn't joined a Medicare (or any other “creditable”) prescription drug coverage. We were never informed about that requirement, which began in 2006.

Since we’ve always avoided taking prescription drugs, we never felt the need for it. I called the Health Insurance Counseling Advocacy Program and learned that the penalty would be $32 for each of us. That means $64 every month for the rest of our lives. It seems somewhat absurd and unfair that we could be penalized for nottaking any prescription drugs.

Ironically, “This penalty is required by law is designed to encourage people to enroll in a Medicare Drug Plan when they are first eligible,” yet we had no way ofknowing there was such an option to consider. Another irony is that Medicare doesn’t cover any dental procedures, even though rotten teeth and gums can cause internal illness that Medicare does cover.

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/healthcare-so-horrible-here-thousands-rely-free-clinics-and-youre-fined-if-you-dont?akid=11177.1084699.-A-v-E&rd=1&src=newsletter928098&t=13--&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

SA210

11-24-2013, 02:17 PM

And your conversion to SA210 is complete.

Defend fraud Obama? Don't be silly :lol

Winehole23

11-24-2013, 03:20 PM

the forced hilarity, mangled syntax and Olympian hauteur, you two share in common.

SA210

11-24-2013, 05:01 PM

blah blah more of my boring pseudo intellectualism blah blah

boutons_deux

11-24-2013, 10:54 PM

Obamacare horror story debunked by Seattle Times columnist

A Seattle Times columnist took a closer look at a conservative headline-making health care reform case Friday and discovered that the Rush Limbaugh narrative doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

In Danny Westneat’s piece “Debunking Obamacare sob story,” the writer checked on the reversal of fortune claimed by Jessica Sanford, a Washington parent of an ADHD-diagnosed child, who had been touted by President Obama last month as an example of the success of the Affordable Care Act because she could obtain insurance for the first time in 15 years.

When Sanford said on a Facebook post that the state had miscalculated her eligibility for a subsidy based on her income and that she was “screwed,” the media pounced, particularly conservative outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

However, Westneat’s examination revealed that Sanford’s son qualified for Medicaid coverage at $30 a month, which would have not been available before the ACA. “He has ADHD and, according to Sanford, it costs them $250 a month for prescription drugs alone. Which will now all be covered,” Westneat wrote. While Sanford had originally been quoted for coverage at $169 a month, a bronze-level policy for a 48-year-old woman making $49,000 costs $237 a month, while a silver-level policy costs $313, Westneat added.

“So here’s a family that was totally uninsured for 15 years because it had always cost at least $500 to $600 a month for skimpy policies to cover them both. And what they can get now is full coverage for $30 a month for the son and scantier coverage in the $250 to $300 a month range for the mom. How is that a horror story?”

The decline in cost for Sanford appears to mirror the experiences of the uninsured in rural Kentucky, which like Washington state have set up state-level insurance exchanges and avoided the problems associated with the federal exchange. In a Washington Post profile of Breathitt County in rural Kentucky, writer Stephanie McCrummen noted that enrollment in areas like the poor, coal mining “Coronary Valley” are driving the state’s relatively high enrollment figures.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/24/obamacare-horror-story-debunked-by-seattle-times-columnist/

:lol

Winehole23

11-25-2013, 02:37 AM

my literary bs beats your so called facts every day, 'ese.

SA210

11-25-2013, 02:51 AM

I see that bothered you all day long since you first read it. Nice. :tu lol

Winehole23

11-25-2013, 03:17 AM

what you see wouldn't fit in a thimble.

boutons_deux

11-25-2013, 09:21 AM

SA210

11-25-2013, 11:08 AM

what you see wouldn't fit in a thimble.

I see that you're so angry you had to say something about me when I didn't address you, then you got angrier when called an old tired boring unimpressive psuedo intellectual :lol

Now you will show more anger by responding to me with lies and spin, instead of talking about "sickcare" :lol

Carry on..

boutons_deux

11-25-2013, 01:13 PM

John Boehner Successfully Enrolls In Obamacare 45 Minutes After He Blogs About 'Frustrating' Experience

Being speaker of the House doesn't make it any easier to sign up for health care coverage using the troubled federal website. Just ask John Boehner.

The Ohio Republican says he had to re-start the process several times while spending four hours trying to sign up at HealthCare.gov.

At one point Thursday, Boehner tweeted his frustration — "Guess I'll just have to keep trying" — along with photos of himself at a computer and the error message he says he received. The House speaker has 583,000 followers on Twitter.

Nearly an hour after his tweet, Boehner received an email confirming he was signed up, his spokesman said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/john-boehner-enroll-obamacare_n_4319933.html

:lol

"maybe the transaction would have proceeded faster if Mr. Boehner’s office hadn’t, according to the D.C. exchange, put its agent — who was calling to help finish the enrollment — on hold (https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/403659130885267456) for 35 minutes, listening to “lots of patriotic hold music.” " :lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/opinion/krugman-california-here-we-come.html?hp&rref=opinion/international&_r=0&pagewanted=print

Boner trying to sabotage healthcare.gov and failed, failure being his greatest accomplishment as Speaker.

boutons_deux

11-26-2013, 03:45 PM

Obama just launched single-payer in America (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/24/1258135/-Obama-just-launched-single-payer-in-America)

Did you notice? Did you see what happened when everyone was complaining about a website? Single-payer got started in America.

Vermont is using authority granted under the Affordable Care Act to start a single-payer system (http://www.occupydemocrats.com/vermont-makes-promise-people-video/). Most Americans still don't know what the phrase "single-payer" even means. It had little support in Congress in 2009 and Senate "Democrats" like Nelson and Lieberman even killed (http://www.healthcare-now.org/sen-reid-obamacare-absolutely-a-step-toward-a-single-payer-system)the public option. But, ACA had this sweet little provision that allowed states to set up a single-payer system and now people will see it in action. You know what that means (http://www.policymic.com/articles/70549/vermont-wants-to-be-the-first-state-with-universal-health-care).

As Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) opines, "The quickest route toward a national health care program will be when individual states go forward and demonstrate that universal and non-profit health care works, and that it is the cost-effective and moral thing to do.”

Oh I know this is hard to swallow. Obama is third-way! He's dismantling the safetynet! A corporatist! He killed the public option!Whatever else he is, Obama is a President who acts in a thoughtful, deliberate way that the chicken little headlines of the day often miss. As many predicted (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/27/888193/-Are-Obama-s-compromises-the-same-as-Clinton-triangulation), ACA is already leading to the kind of transformative progressive change Obama promised. The progressive movement will be responsible for showing the nation how well single-payer works after the Vermont system goes into effect. When public and non-profit insurance becomes the national norm, we'll know where it began.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/24/1258135/-Obama-just-launched-single-payer-in-America?detail=email

red states will of course stay self-fucked-up, fucking over their citizens, but I bet CA, OR, WA could have referendums to go single-payer like VT.

Gradually, we need to screw the for-profit insurers, their capitalist investors, and greedy overpaid execs out of the mass market.

boutons_deux

11-26-2013, 03:59 PM

As glitches fade, Obamacare approval will rise

The latest polls on Obamacare are bleak. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that almost half of those questioned last week had an unfavorable opinion of the law. Just a third had a favorable opinion, even less than the 40 percent support for the law in the Nov. 14 Gallup poll.

But those poll numbers will change as more people like Bob Freukes of St. Louis and Donna Smith of Denver are finally able to shop for coverage on the new health insurance websites — and find coverage that is surprisingly affordable.

Considering all the negative stories about the malfunctioning HealthCare.gov website and policy cancellations folks have been receiving, the steep decline in support for Obamacare shouldn’t surprise anyone.

But in the very week that poll numbers reached an all-time low, people who had tried for more than a month to enroll online in a health plan were finally able to do so.

Just minutes after the administration’s tech surge team said 90 percent of applicants were now able to enroll online, I started getting emails from people eager to share their success stories.

“My wife and I are both self-employed small sole proprietors,” wrote Freukes, a photographer. “This will be the first time in our married lives we will have health insurance.”

Freukes said that over the course of the past year, he and his wife — married 30 years and are now in their fifties — rarely went to the doctor because of the expense.

“We paid for doctor visits, prescriptions, eye glasses and everything else out of [our] own pockets, always knowing we were one major illness away from bankruptcy.

“We tried to find an affordable policy, but the going rate for my wife and me was roughly $900-$1,400 dollars a month with deductibles in the $5,000 range.” Considering that their combined annual income is often no more than $25,000, health insurance was out of the question.

Not only will they finally have coverage starting January 1, it will cost the Freukes less than they had expected because of the federal tax credits available to low- and middle-income individuals who buy coverage on the state exchanges. In fact, with the tax credits, the Freukes will not have to pay monthly premiums at all.

“I sat rubbing my eyes in amazement as the website did the math. Our portion of the premium for both plans was ZERO. No cost to us at all. I was stunned.”

Donna Smith wasn’t that fortunate, but she at long last will be able to get a comprehensive policy that she can afford.

Like Bob Freukes, it took Smith weeks of effort before she was finally able to enroll in a plan. Her delay, though, was caused by a different, though no less frustrating quirk in the system. Colorado is one of 13 states and the District of Columbia operating their ownexchanges, which generally have experienced fewer problems than the federal website, where residents of most states have been sent. Several thousand people were able to begin the application process in Colorado but they had to wait — and wait and wait — while state officials checked to see if the applicants were eligible for Medicaid.

Smith knew her income was too high to qualify for Medicaid, but she nevertheless had to fill out an extensive questionnaire and was put in what she described as a “bureaucratic black hole” for 37 days. It was an agonizing wait for Smith, a cancer survivor who — along with husband Larry — had to file for bankruptcy several years ago because of medical debt. If her name sounds familiar, by the way, it might be because you’ve seen her in the movies. When she wrote filmmaker Michael Moore about her plight, he included her in the 2007 documentary, SiCKO. Since then she has been an active supporter of health care reform.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/11/25/13807/glitches-fade-obamacare-approval-will-rise?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email

KY poor will realize, if not already, that Bitch McConnell and all their Repug politicians have been outright lying to them about the trainwreck of ACA.

Word will get around, and the Feds will start pushing hard in red states to promote healthcare.gov and red-state exchanghes as they get debugged and navigators, etc get better at their jobs.

boutons_deux

11-26-2013, 04:24 PM

3 Ways Obamacare Is Changing How A Hospital Cares For Patients

"Everybody in the health care system gets rewarded for doing more, rather than rewarded for doing the right thing," he says.

Starting on Jan. 1, the federal government, the hospital and some of the doctors there will try a new approach.

Rather than paying for that bypass operation and then paying again for bleeding, Medicare will pay one lump sum upfront to cover the surgery and any complications that occur after surgery. One payment for one operation, plus follow-up; that's it.

If the patient doesn't have problems within 30 days of being discharged from the hospital, the doctors could make even more money than they do today. But if there are lots of problems after surgery, they could lose money.

This shift in how medical providers get paid is changing how things are done at Summa Akron City Hospital in three important ways.

1. Checklists

Surgeons and nurses at the hospital now carry around a sheet of paper listing every simple step they're supposed to perform.

Did the patient get her antibiotics on time? Check.

Did the catheter come out on time? Check.

Research has long shown that documenting simple steps can significantly reduce medical error. Yet hospitals have a hard time implementing checklists, because doctors don't really like them.
"When we came up with this, I kind of felt a little silly for the first few weeks following a sort of checklist or menu," surgeon Eric Espinal says.

But, he concedes, pilots and NASCAR drivers use checklists because they reduce complications. So checklists could be better for patients — and, in the new system, the hospital's bottom line.

2. A Team Mentality

Traditionally, Medicare paid hospitals separately from doctors. But in the experiment at the Akron hospital, Medicare will pay the entire team together, so everyone will share in the savings or costs of each surgery. It's meant to foster a culture of collaboration.

Berkovitz, the cardiologist, says this change hasn't been easy.

"Physicians are a dedicated, strong-willed independent lot, and many of them went into the practice of medicine because traditionally you've been able to be the captain of your ship, and that's not always equated to good care," he says.

3. Helping Patients After They Go Home

Before the ACA, doctors didn't have a financial incentive to prevent patients from being readmitted to the hospital.

Now, once doctors discharge someone, it's in their financial interest to make sure their patients stay healthy even when they're at home. In some cases, that means sending nurses from the hospital to check up on patients once they've gone home.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/11/26/247216805/three-ways-obamacare-is-changing-how-a-hospital-cares-for-patients

boutons_deux

11-26-2013, 04:42 PM

These Californians Greeted Canceled Health Plans With Smiles

Barbara Neff of Santa Monica is one of the roughly 1 million Californians who recently got word that their health insurance coverage would be expiring soon.

The canceled plans as people realized President Obama's promise — "If you like your plan, you can keep it" — didn't apply to everyone.

But Neff, a 46-year-old self-employed writer, isn't outraged. She's relieved. Even though she makes too much money to receive a subsidy to buy insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the policy cancellation was good news for her.

She's not the only one. Other Californians are also finding that having their plans canceled allows them to sign up for better coverage.

Neff says she has been stuck in a bad plan because treatment for a back problem years ago red-flagged her with a .

"The deductible has ranged anywhere from $3,000 to as high as $5,000, which means I have to spend that much each year before the insurance even kicks in," she says. "I was rejected [from a more affordable policy] because I'd had a bout of sciatica five years previously that has never returned."

Starting Jan. 1, the federal health law will prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging more for such pre-existing problems. That has opened an array of options for Neff, who has enrolled in a new plan through California's state-run insurance marketplace, . On Thursday, the state health exchange board voted unanimously that it canceled policies, rejecting the president's for the problem.
Neff's new policy has a $2,000 deductible, and her premium will go up by $24 a month. Under the federal law, she'll no longer have to pay for preventive care, and she figures that alone will more than make up for the additional premium costs.

"I've been paying for my mammograms out of pocket, and that's $400 to $450 per year," Neff says. "That type of care is 100 percent covered under this new policy."

Tim Wilsbach

Huge deductibles have been the norm for Tim Wilsbach, a 40-year-old TV editor who lives in Culver City with his family. Like Neff, Wilsbach makes too much to qualify for federal subsidies, so when he received his cancellation notice a few weeks ago, he was worried that his premium would go up.

Wilsbach has two plans for his family. The one being canceled is a bare-bones policy with an $11,000 deductible that he has for himself and his 4-year-old son.

"It was not a great policy," he says, "which is essentially why we had a second plan for my wife, which we paid a little more for."

Wilsbach and his wife are planning to have a second baby, so they bought a policy for her with better coverage and a $5,000 deductible.

After getting the cancellation notice, Wilsbach checked out plans on the Covered California website, and he was pleasantly surprised. He found a plan for the whole family that offers broader coverage, a $4,000 deductible and a more affordable monthly premium.

"Our premium went down not quite 100 bucks, and just looking through what the plan covers versus what used to be covered, yeah, I'm quite happy about it," Wilsbach says.

Jane Bradford

Jane Bradford, 52, is a stay-at-home mom in Pasadena. She's losing the HMO insurance she has for herself and her three kids, who are 16, 21 and 23. Her policy offers low copays for doctor visits and a relatively low $3,000 family deductible, but she'll shed no tears to see it go. Bradford says that's because she has found several plans that will cost hundreds less in monthly premiums — even though her husband's income is too high for the family to qualify for a federal subsidy.

"Saving possibly $400 or more a month is awesome, so I'm not sad at all," Bradford says.

None of this comes as a surprise to , a senior researcher at the Bay Area Council Economic Institute in San Francisco. "A lot of the anecdotes about people having policies canceled and gigantic increases are real — but not representative of what's happening more broadly in the marketplace," he says.

Weinberg predicts many people who are losing their policies will come out ahead — even if their premiums go up — because of lower deductibles, full coverage of preventive care and no penalties for pre-existing conditions. What's more, he says, health insurance will almost certainly be cheaper for those who qualify for subsidies. In California, that's an estimated 2.5 million people.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/26/246798207/these-californians-greeted-canceled-health-plans-with-smiles

The good stories will vastly outweigh the bad.

red-states are looking like shitty places to live and be poor and/or self-insured.

boutons_deux

11-26-2013, 05:09 PM

What Happens When You Fact Check Fox News

Fox News reported that the Cleveland Clinic was instituting "massive layoffs" due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but when asked about the reports, a Clinic spokesperson told Media Matters, "We're not."

On November 25, The Daily Caller published (http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/25/top-4-u-s-hospital-laying-off-staff-due-to-obamacare/) an article titled, "Top U.S. hospital laying off staff due to Obamacare." On Fox Business' Markets Now, host Connell McShane reported (http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2013/11/25/33054/fbn-marketsnow-20131125-clevelandclinic) on the "massive layoffs."America's Newsroom host Bill Hemmer claimed (http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2013/11/25/33064/fnc-an-20131125-clevelandclinic) that the Cleveland Clinic was going to "shed workers." Later, during the America's News HQ, Fox reporter Chris Stirewalt claimed that the layoffs "rocked the community there in northeastern Ohio."

But there's one problem: the Cleveland Clinic is not laying off any employees. Eileen Sheil, Cleveland Clinic's Executive Director of Corporate Communications, said in an e-mail to Media Matters,

"There have been several mis-reports and they keep mentioning that we're laying off 3,000 employees. We're not." Sheil explained that Cleveland Clinic is offering voluntary retirement to 3,000 eligible employees and that the Clinic is also "working on many initiatives to lower costs, drive efficiencies, reduce duplication of services across our system and provide quality care to our patients." Sheil continued, "Many of these initiatives do not impact our employees."

Sheil told Media Matters that Fox had been notified of its error and that the Cleveland Clinic requested Fox's future reporting on the issue more accurately present the Clinic's plans. According to a Media Matterssearch, Fox had not corrected its mistake by the time of publication.

Despite Fox's reporting, Sheil reiterated the Clinic's support for the Affordable Care Act, stating:

We believe reform is necessary because the current state is unsustainable. The ACA is a step toward that change and we believe more changes will come/evolve as there are still many uncertainties. Hospitals must be responsible and do what we can to prepare and support the law.

Fox's continued focus on the Cleveland Clinic is due, presumably, to President Obama's frequent praise (http://www.healthcarecommunication.com/Main/Articles/_Obama_heaps_praise_on_Cleveland_Clinic_9633.aspx) of the hospital. In September, host Greta Van Susteren acknowledged (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/25/foxs-shoddy-reporting-on-cleveland-clinic-and-o/196066) the network's flawed reporting on the Cleveland Clinic after it was cited by U.S. Sen. John Barasso (R-WY) on her program.

http://www.alternet.org/what-happens-when-you-fact-check-fox-news?akid=11189.187590.c2hnsm&rd=1&src=newsletter929418&t=8

Nbadan

11-27-2013, 02:23 AM

Source: Raw Story

A Seattle Times columnist took a closer look at a conservative headline-making health care reform case Friday and discovered that the Rush Limbaugh narrative doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

In Danny Westneat’s piece “Debunking Obamacare sob story,” the writer checked on the reversal of fortune claimed by Jessica Sanford, a Washington parent of an ADHD-diagnosed child, who had been touted by President Obama last month as an example of the success of the Affordable Care Act because she could obtain insurance for the first time in 15 years.

When Sanford said on a Facebook post that the state had miscalculated her eligibility for a subsidy based on her income and that she was “screwed,” the media pounced, particularly conservative outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

However, Westneat’s examination revealed that Sanford’s son qualified for Medicaid coverage at $30 a month, which would have not been available before the ACA. “He has ADHD and, according to Sanford, it costs them $250 a month for prescription drugs alone. Which will now all be covered,” Westneat wrote. While Sanford had originally been quoted for coverage at $169 a month, a bronze-level policy for a 48-year-old woman making $49,000 costs $237 a month, while a silver-level policy costs $313, Westneat added.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/24/obamacare-horror-story-debunked-by-seattle-times-columnist/

boutons_deux

11-27-2013, 06:20 AM

Hilarious and expected that right-wingers here believe absolutely any LIES Fox and Repugs spew at them.

It's all nothing but ALL SMASH-MOUTH, BAD-FAITH POLITICS, ALL THE TIME, no matter who or what gets screwed, esp when screwing Repugs' own voters.

Next Repug disaster: the next round of very deep sequester cuts, flattening growth or pushing it negative in 2014.

boutons_deux

11-27-2013, 06:57 AM

Part-Time Workers With Minimal Health Coverage Get New Options

In January, part-time workers who have so-called mini-med health insurance plans with very limited benefits and annual caps on payments will begin to lose that coverage.

Under the health care overhaul, they after the beginning of the year. For some, that may be just as well. Part-timers likely will have better options in January.

Mini-med plans, often favored by retailers and restaurants with lots of low-wage and part-time workers, generally provide an extremely limited range of benefits, and total coverage may be capped at just a few thousand dollars a year.

After the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, nearly all plans were required to eliminate lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits. But some businesses that offered mini-med plans said that if they had to conform to the new rules, they would drop the plans. Their workers would lose what little protection they had.

Some employers received waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services that permitted them to continue offering the limited plans temporarily. Starting in January, they can't offer plans that have annual benefit caps, although some large employers .

When Roberta Grindle was diagnosed with colon cancer in October, she blew through the $5,000 coverage limit on her mini-med plan almost immediately. Grindle, 62, worked 16 hours a week at a big-box store near her home in Sebring, Fla., and paid $32 every two weeks for the store's plan, the only coverage available to part-time workers.

She woke up with severe pain in her lower abdomen one morning and drove herself to the emergency room. Doctors suspected a ruptured appendix, and while performing emergency surgery discovered a cancerous tumor in her colon.

Grindle needs a second surgery to remove the tumor but has had to delay it until she recovers from an infection.

She says she doesn't know how she'll pay for her medical care, but it's certainly not going to be with the coverage she had on the job. "I have no idea what exactly it covered, but clearly not much of anything," she says. "I would have been better off without it."

Most employers don't offer part-timers any coverage at all. Only a quarter of companies that offered employee health insurance made coverage available to part-time workers in 2013, according to the . (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

When they do offer health insurance, the coverage is often not equivalent to that available to full-time workers.

Existing plans are "not going to be super robust," says Tracy Watts, a senior partner at human resources consultant Mercer. "Part-timers might be offered access to full-time benefits but have to pay more for them, or might not be eligible at all and just get a mini-med plan."

The health law requires that employers offer health insurance to employees who work at least 30 hours a week or face penalties starting in January, but the Obama administration delayed that provision until 2015. With the delay, speculation over whether employers would reduce workers' hours in order to avoid penalties has subsided, at least for now.

Many part-time workers will have more options for better coverage starting in January. If their employer doesn't offer a health plan, they can shop for insurance on the online marketplaces, and subsidies will be available to those with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($45,960 for an individual in 2013).

If they do have access to coverage on the job, part-timers can still shop on the exchanges, but they'll only qualify for subsidies if the job-based insurance costs more than 9.5 percent of their family income or pays less than 60 percent of medical costs, on average.

In addition, part-timers may be eligible for Medicaid if they live in a state that's expanding coverage to adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($15,856 for an individual in 2013). The health law requirement was made optional following a Supreme Court challenge; half of the states have so far opted to expand eligibility.

As for Grindle, Medicaid isn't likely an option since . She and her husband, who's 67 and on Medicare, have a combined income of $2,270 each month, about 175 percent of the federal poverty level of $15,510 for a couple in 2013.

With a premium subsidy, Grindle can buy a silver plan on the exchange for about $118 a month, according to Laurel Lucia, a policy analyst with the Center for Labor Research and Education at University of California, Berkeley.

Though more expensive than the roughly $70 a month Grindle paid for her mini-med plan, "the coverage would definitely be better than the mini-med they had," says Lucia.

Grindle says she plans to apply for coverage on the marketplace soon. As for the bills she's racking up now, she's been talking with the hospital to see what can be done.

"I'm just not letting it get me down," she says. "I'm just going to put the bills in a file. What can you do? It's a shame, because we've had excellent credit all our lives."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/26/247339613/part-time-workers-with-minimal-health-coverage-get-new-options?sc=17&f=1001

So even the minuscule number of employees forced by their asshole employers into part time so the employer can avoid the 50-employee mandate are taken care of by ACA.

boutons_deux

11-27-2013, 10:17 AM

This Is Why We Can’t Have An Adult Conversation About Health Care

In 2009, former Republican nominee for vice president Sarah Palin dominated the conversation about health care reform (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/) with one of the most potent and viral pieces of demagoguery in recent American history: death panels.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil,” she said.

Palin’s science fiction-like conjecture of what the still-developing health care law will yield wound up killing a crucial and harmless part of the law: taxpayer-provided end-of-life counseling that would have asked all Medicare recipients to voluntarily set up a living will, which could have saved taxpayers billions (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/18brod.html) while easing suffering for those near death and their families, who are often forced to make unbearable decisions.

Still, the lie persists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/why-talk-of-non-existent-obamacare-death-panels-wont-die/).

A recent study suggests that even the act of debunking the law did little to blunt the misinformation. ”Sometimes, providing accurate information will only propel false beliefs,” wrote The Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/why-talk-of-non-existent-obamacare-death-panels-wont-die/).

Since there’s no evidence that what Palin described is in the law, Republicans have just decided that the real “death panel” is the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

IPAB is a 15-member board that cannot cut benefits or increase co-pays. It exists to make recommendations on cuts in payments to doctors only if Medicare’s costs grow too fast. Because the costs of government’s single-payer health care program for seniors are growing at an all-time low, the board won’t even convene until 2015 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/03/as-health-care-costs-slow-ipabs-launch-is-delayed/) — at the earliest.

You can see now why it’s so hard to debunk this lie. The falsehood is so much more compelling.

Time magazine’s Mark Halperin did his part (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mark-halperin-death-panels-are-built-into-obamacare-video)to keep the fraud alive during an interview with WorldNetDaily on Monday, when he said death panels are “built into the plan.” In the video above it comes around the eight-minute mark. Halperin corrected himself the next day — but the damage had been done.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-this-is-why-we-cant-have-an-adult-conversation-about-health-care/

Thanks, right wingers and the Repug tea baggers you elect, repeatedly.

boutons_deux

11-28-2013, 11:11 AM

Millions Of Americans Had Their Insurance Canceled And Their Premiums Rise — Before Obamacare

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/insurancecosts.jpg

“The health insurance industry is racing to defuse a growing furor over retroactive policy cancelations that have saddled some patients with big medical bills and sparked lawsuits,” the Wall Street Journal‘s Rhonda Rundle wrote in February of 2008.

Some people who like their plans may have lost them this year but before Obamacare became law, the private individual insurance market was a mess.

Health insurers praised employees who helped drop sick customers. Buyers kept their insurance for two years on average. Premiums exploded, doctors were removed from networks and plans were canceled, sometimes right when they were needed most.

Since Obamacare, health care costs have grown at the lowest rate ever recorded.

Millions of people did have their plans canceled this year — either because the plan didn’t meet minimum standards or the insurance industry didn’t want to offer it to people with pre-existing conditions. But unlike those who lost their insurance in the past, they will be able to get a plan, whether they’re sick or not.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/tell-your-republican-relatives-these-5-obamacare-facts-at-thanksgiving-dinner-then-duck/4/

More Than 99 Percent Will Pay The Same Or Less Under Obamacare

Fewer than 1 percent — .6 percent — of the population will pay more for their health insurance under Obamacare.

“Families USA’s finding of 0.6 percent was based on data showing that only 5.7 percent of the non-elderly population have individual—as opposed to group—health coverage and that just 29 percent of that group have family incomes that are higher than the limits for subsidies,” writes CNBC’s Dan Mangan. “And just one-third of that smaller group would be expected to remain in the individual market for longer than a year, given its historical turnover.”

The vast majority will pay the same or less for health insurance that’s as good as or better than what they had before.

As many as 26 million Americans will receive subsidies to help buy coverage and millions more will be completely covered under Obamacare.

This isn’t going to be a relief to those who have to pay more but they now have access to a system where sick children and adults cannot be discriminated against. And if they don’t like paying more, they can advocate for a public option that would save billions by offering lower rates.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/tell-your-republican-relatives-these-5-obamacare-facts-at-thanksgiving-dinner-then-duck/5/

Fox, Repugs, tea baggers just GUSHING CROCODILE TEARS over all those poor, poor victims of insurance companies cancelling their shitty plans. :lol

Many of those plans were sold AFTER the insurance companies knew they'd have to cancel them for being so shitty and not providing ACA minimum coverage. iow, just another bad-faith, screw-all-y'all-suckers corporate rip-off.

boutons_deux

11-28-2013, 11:14 AM

Rejecting Medicaid Expansion Raises Rates By As Much As 15 Percent

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Rick-Perry.jpg

Republicans are furious that Obamacare is canceling people’s insurance and demanding they pay more for new policies. But that’s what Republican governors are doing when they turn down Medicaid expansion for more than five million Americans.

When the Supreme Court ruled states could reject Obamacare’s provision to cover people who earn up to 138 percent of the poverty level, 25 Republican-led states took the opportunity to do just that — even though the federal government is paying 100 percent of the cost for three years, which will taper down to 90 percent by the end of the decade.

As a result of Republican obstinance, residents of these states are paying 15 percent more in health care exchanges, according to MIT’s Jonathan Gruber, and putting rural hospitals in the states in danger of closing. Rejecting Medicaid expansion also encourages those in poverty to remain there or lose their health insurance.

Texas, where 1 in 4 residents lacks health insurance, is denying about one million people health insurance through Medicaid.The cruelty of denying Medicaid expansion can also be measured in lives.

An independent analysis by the Rand Corporation found that the result of just 14 of 25 states not expanding could be as many as 19,000 people dying for lack of insurance each year.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/tell-your-republican-relatives-these-5-obamacare-facts-at-thanksgiving-dinner-then-duck/3/ (http://www.nationalmemo.com/tell-your-republican-relatives-these-5-obamacare-facts-at-thanksgiving-dinner-then-duck/3/)

boutons_deux

11-29-2013, 08:41 AM

Obamacare’s Secret Success

The law establishing Obamacare was officially titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And the “affordable” bit wasn’t just about subsidizing premiums. It was also supposed to be about “bending the curve” — slowing the seemingly inexorable rise in health costs.

So, how’s it going?

The answer, amazingly, is yes. In fact, the slowdown in health costs has been dramatic.

the facts are striking. Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita — that is, total spending adjusted for overall inflation and population growth — has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average. Real spending per Medicare recipient hasn’t risen at all; real spending per Medicaid beneficiary has actually fallen slightly.

it’s hard to see why a weak economy would have more effect in reducing the prices of health services than it has on overall inflation. Finally, Medicare spending shouldn’t be affected by the weak economy, yet it has slowed even more dramatically than private spending.

A better story focuses on what appears to be a decline in some kinds of medical innovation — in particular, an absence of expensive new blockbuster drugs, even as existing drugs go off-patent and can be replaced with cheaper generic brands. This is a real phenomenon; it is, in fact, the main reason the Medicare drug program has ended up costing less than originally projected

So what aspects of Obamacare might be causing health costs to slow? One clear answer is the act’s reduction in Medicare “overpayments” — mainly a reduction in the subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare Advantage Plans, but also cuts in some provider payments. A less certain but likely source of savings involves changes in the way Medicare pays for services. The program now penalizes hospitals if many of their patients end up being readmitted soon after being released — an indicator of poor care — and readmission rates have, in fact, fallen substantially. Medicare is also encouraging a shift from fee-for-service, in which doctors and hospitals get paid by the procedure, to “accountable care,” in which health organizations get rewarded for overall success in improving care while controlling costs.

Furthermore, there’s evidence that Medicare savings “spill over” to the rest of the health care system — that when Medicare manages to slow cost growth, private insurance gets cheaper, too.

And the biggest savings may be yet to come. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel with the power to impose cost-saving measures (subject to Congressional overrides) if Medicare spending grows above target, hasn’t yet been established, in part because of the near-certainty that any appointments to the board would be filibustered by Republicans yelling about “death panels.” Now that the filibuster has been reformed, the board can come into being.

But under the surface, health reform is starting to look like a bigger success than even its most ardent advocates expected.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/opinion/krugman-obamacares-secret-success.html

If you don't know or remember, Medicare Advantage is an UNFUNDED REPUG CORPORATE WELFARE program that costs taxpayers 10%+ more than regular Medicare.

boutons_deux

11-29-2013, 08:55 AM

Health Exchanges Brace For A December Deluge

"There is an avalanche coming,"

Williams says the firm knows from years of experience with open enrollment for Medicare patients, that the Monday after Thanksgiving is always the single busiest day for business.

"People will have been thinking about this over the holidays and talking to family members, and they are going to feel an impetus to do something on that Monday; and there is going to be a huge crush,"

Why December? Well, it finally represents a deadline. Originally you had to sign up by Dec. 15 in order to have your insurance coverage begin Jan. 1. Last week the administration extended the deadline to Dec. 23.

there are still two big groups that will try to squeeze through the tight enrollment window.

One group includes those who have from their insurance companies and who need insurance that meets the health law's new requirements.

The other group includes people who have been shut out of coverage until now because of and who have been waiting for HealthCare.gov to get its act together.

The website should be able to handle 50,000 users at the same time by the end of this month, HealthCare.gov repair czar

"We're also beefing up additional paths for enrollment — through the call centers, in-person assistance, and ... direct enrollment with issuers," he said.

When Zients talked about direct enrollment, he meant allowing individual insurance companies, as well as large Web-based brokers, to sign up people so they don't even have to visit the federal website. Right now that can happen for people who aren't eligible for government subsidies to help them afford coverage. But subsidy calculations still have to run through HealthCare.gov.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/25/247121576/health-exchanges-brace-for-a-december-deluge?sc=17&f=1128

Dems gonna bitch slap the Repugs in 2014, 2016 with ACA success, esp in red states that force their poor into ERs instead of Medicaid. The Dems will have TONS of excellent ACA successes with which to destroy the Repugs.

boutons_deux

11-29-2013, 09:00 AM

Meanwhile Repugs plan to and continue to screw their states

Maine Hires Firm to Study Medicaid System, to Democrats’ Ire

The contract was given to the Alexander Group, whose president, Gary Alexander, is a former secretary of Public Welfare in Pennsylvania under Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican. During his tenure, from 2011 to 2013, Mr. Alexander proposed cuts to public assistance programs and was opposed to expanding Medicaid.

“The philosophy of the consultants, I believe, is merely an effort on the part of the administration to bolster their own philosophy about the human service budget in the State of Maine,”

the record of Mr. Alexander, who, while running Pennsylvania’s welfare department, established an asset test for food stamp eligibility and cut about 130,000 people from state welfare rolls in a five-month period, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. Critics also objected to the cost of the contract, $925,000.

“It’s really just another gimmick to deny tens of thousands of Mainers health care,”

Mr. LePage twice vetoed bills passed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature in May and June that would have expanded Maine’s Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act. And he has sought to cut tens of thousands of people from the state’s existing Medicaid rolls.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/news/affordable-care-act/2013/11/21/maine-hires-firm-to-study-medicaid-system-to-democrats-ire/

This is just like Michigan Repugs sending a bankruptcy expert (as opposed to a general purpose manager) as emergency dictator of Detroit. No surprise when his recommendation was the Repug-desired-all-along .... municipal bankruptcy.

boutons_deux

11-29-2013, 09:15 AM

Medicaid Growth Could Aggravate Doctor Shortage

as California’s Medicaid program is preparing for a major expansion under President Obama’s health care law, Dr. Mazer says he cannot accept additional patients under the government insurance program for a simple reason: It does not pay enough.

“It’s a bad situation that is likely to be made worse,”

His view is shared by many doctors around the country. Medicaid for years has struggled with a shortage of doctors willing to accept its low reimbursement rates and red tape, forcing many patients to wait for care, particularly from specialists like Dr. Mazer.

Community clinics, which typically provide primary but not specialty care, have expanded and hired more medical staff members to meet the anticipated wave of new patients. And managed-care companies are recruiting doctors, nurse practitioners and other professionals into their networks, sometimes offering higher pay if they improve care while keeping costs down. But it is far from clear that the demand can be met,

In California, with the nation’s largest Medicaid population, many doctors say they are already overwhelmed and are unable to take on more low-income patients. Dr. Hector Flores, a primary care doctor in East Los Angeles whose practice has 26,000 patients, more than a third of whom are on Medicaid, said he could accommodate an additional 1,000 Medicaid patients at most.

The health care law seeks to diminish any access problem by allowing for a two-year increase in the Medicaid payment rate for primary care doctors, set to expire at the end of 2014. The average increase is 73 percent, bringing Medicaid rates to the level of Medicare rates for these doctors.

But states have been slow to put the pay increase into effect, experts say, and because of the delay and the fact that the increase is temporary, fewer doctors than hoped have joined the ranks of those accepting Medicaid patients.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/us/lack-of-doctors-may-worsen-as-millions-join-medicaid-rolls.html?from=homepage

rascal

11-29-2013, 09:18 AM

What I don't understand is how can it work so well in other countries and in the US it is so difficult to get it to work out.

boutons_deux

11-29-2013, 09:28 AM

Medicaid Expansion Faces Major Logistical Challenges Among the Homeless

Today, most state Medicaid programs cover only disabled adults or those with dependents, so Mr. Cannon and millions of other deeply impoverished Americans are left without access to the program. But starting Jan. 1, President Obama’s health care law will expand Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes under 138 percent of the federal poverty line, and enrollment is expected to increase by about nine million next year. Thousands of homeless people will be among the newly covered.

Housing advocates say they believe that the Medicaid expansion has the potential to reduce rates of homelessness significantly, both by preventing low-income Americans from becoming homeless as a result of illness or medical debt and by helping homeless people become eligible for and remain in housing.

signing up homeless people for Medicaid is a huge logistical challenge, as housing advocates acknowledge. Homeless individuals often do not have an email address, phone number or permanent address. Many are unaware of the health care law or are skeptical of public programs.

For homeless people, experts said, the Medicaid expansion will mean more consistent treatment for medical conditions, including alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic pain and depression. For states and cities, they said, it will mean a more effective safety net, and perhaps even a cheaper one.

“You cannot successfully treat someone for diabetes if they’re living under a bridge,”

“And serious mental illness and chronic health conditions are barriers to getting housing.”

“They’re accustomed to a no,” Ms. Ward said of her homeless clients. “You really have to encourage them and let them know it’s their right to be covered.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/us/medicaid-expansion-faces-major-logistical-challenges-among-the-homeless.html (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/us/medicaid-expansion-faces-major-logistical-challenges-among-the-homeless.html)

SnakeBoy

11-30-2013, 12:47 AM

What I don't understand is how can it work so well in other countries and in the US it is so difficult to get it to work out.

Obamacare doesn't work in other countries either.

boutons_deux

11-30-2013, 09:08 AM

What I don't understand is how can it work so well in other countries and in the US it is so difficult to get it to work out.

In other countries, it's non-profit, universal health care, deducted from everybody's income, everybody's in, nobody's out, you're born, you're covered.

No super complicated, multiple plans to decide on, no in/out-of-network cartel bullshit, no 50-state differences.

iow, universal health insurance in other countries is as simple and efficient as USA's Social Security.

And just as people buy supplementary retirement plans beyond SS, citizens in other countries can buy from supplementary insurance (top up) from for-profit insurance companies.

USA is a huge, wasteful, corrupt, rip-off, for-profit KLUDGEOCRACY.

That's why ACA, specifically healthcare.gov, trying work with the for-profit KLUDGEOCRACY is itself a super-complicated KLUDGEOCRACY, trying to deal with 10s of states's KLUDGEOCRACY of state regulations and plans (state's rights!! fuck you Repug SCOTUS for the ACA opt-out fuck job) because the red-state Repug states are sabotaging ACA by not participating.

btw, super wealthy, supposedly highly competent Oracle Corp has really botched the much simpler Oregon's ACA website as badly as private contractors botched the much more complicated healthcare.gov.

btw, another simplification, perhaps coming later, would have been for ACA to deliver a minimum, plain-English, no-fine-print universal policy with all the mandated minimum coverage, NO CHOICE, so the people would compare the various for-profit plans on price only, cut throat competition, rather than on the more complex KLUDGEOCRACY choices now.

boutons_deux

11-30-2013, 12:52 PM

How we got Obamacare to work

Jay Inslee, a Democrat, is governor of Washington.

Steve Beshear, a Democrat, is governor of Kentucky.

Dannel P. Malloy, a Democrat, is governor of Connecticut.

In our states — Washington, Kentucky and Connecticut — the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” is working. Tens of thousands of our residents have enrolled in affordable health-care coverage. Many of them could not get insurance before the law was enacted.

People keep asking us why our states have been successful. Here’s a hint: It’s not about our Web sites.

but each of our state Web sites has had its share of technical glitches. As we have demonstrated on a near-daily basis, Web sites can continually be improved to meet consumers’ needs.

The Affordable Care Act has been successful in our states because our political and community leaders grasped the importance of expanding health-care coverage and have avoided the temptation to use health-care reform as a political football.

In Washington, the legislature authorized Medicaid expansion with overwhelmingly bipartisan votes in the House and Senate this summer because legislators understood that it could help create more than 10,000 jobs, save more than $300 million for the state in the first 18 months, and, most important, provide several hundred thousand uninsured Washingtonians with health coverage.

In Kentucky, two independent studies (http://governor.ky.gov/healthierky/Documents/MedicaidExpansionWhitePaper.pdf) showed that the Bluegrass State couldn’t afford NOT to expand Medicaid. Expansion offered huge savings in the state budget and is expected to create 17,000 jobs.

In Connecticut, more than 50 percent of enrollment in the state exchange, Access Health CT, is for private health insurance. The Connecticut exchange has a customer satisfaction level of 96.5 percent, according to a survey of users (http://learn.accesshealthct.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/pressrelease_102813b.pdf) in October, with more than 82 percent of enrollees either “extremely likely” or “very likely” to recommend the exchange to a colleague or friend.

In our states, elected leaders have decided to put people, not politics, first.

Thanks to health-care reform and the robust exchanges in our states, people are getting better coverage at a better price.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-we-got-obamacare-to-work/2013/11/17/3f2532bc-4e42-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html

suck a big one, right-wingers. ACA works now and is going to work even better. The Repugs and VRWC know it, too, that's why they are desperate to sabotage it, to LIE to their red-state assholes that ACA is a trainwreck, and DENY their poor resident access to Medicaid.

boutons_deux

12-01-2013, 09:53 PM

Republican critics of Obamacare rose up in anger today, claiming that, after two months of fixes, the healthcare.gov Web site is now “unacceptably fast.”

Leading the howls of protest was the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who accused President Obama of designing a Web site that operates at a “blistering, breakneck speed.”

“With pages loading in milliseconds, this Web site is insuring people before they know what hit them,” Rep. Issa charged. “Clearly, this is what the President and his team had in
mind.”

Additionally, Rep. Issa said, at such high speeds “it is questionable whether this Web site is even safe for consumers to use, particularly the elderly.”

The California Republican said he would call for hearings this week to investigate the dangerous new velocity of healthcare.gov, telling reporters, “If anyone can slow this thing down, it’s me.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/12/gop-healthcaregov-too-fast-now.html#entry-more

Winehole23

12-02-2013, 11:11 AM

The slowdown in spending is due in part to the recession and the tepid recovery—but not as much as you’d think. A recent paper by the Harvard economists David Cutler and Nikhil Sahni estimated that the recession explained scarcely more than a third of the spending slowdown. Oddly enough, the public debate over Obamacare has also played a role. Bob Kocher, who was a special assistant for health care in the White House in 2009 and 2010, did a report for Lawrence Summers on the past sixty years of health-care legislation, and found that when Congress seriously considered enacting health-care reform the rate of health-care spending often slowed for a year or two. Just talking about medical costs, it seems, limits medical costs. Kocher, a physician turned venture capitalist (and currently a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution), dubs this “the health-care-policy placebo effect.” As he told me, “When you’ve got politicians going around the country making speeches about how out-of-control health-care spending is killing the economy, health-care providers come to feel that it might make sense to be less aggressive in setting prices.”

Both those effects are bound to be temporary. But there’s good reason to think that the moderation of health-care spending will persist, because, according to Jason Yeung, an investor at Morgan Stanley’s Growth Team, we’re beginning to see deeper structural changes in the health-care system. Historically, costs have been hard to contain because most of the players in the system have had no incentive to do so. Hospitals and doctors have typically been paid on a fee-for-service basis: the more things they do, the more money they get. Insured patients have paid only a small fraction of the cost of their care, and insurers have just passed costs along to their customers. Employers and the government, meanwhile, have been left to foot the bill.

“What we’re moving toward instead is a world in which everybody in the system is sharing financial risk,” Yeung told me. “And therefore everybody has an incentive to control costs.”

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2013/12/09/131209ta_talk_surowiecki

Winehole23

12-02-2013, 11:13 AM

For consumers, this means higher deductibles and co-pays, and having to think more about prices. A peculiar feature of the American health-care system is the enormous variation in prices that hospitals charge for a procedure, which often are not correlated with quality. So in 2011 California adopted a system of “reference-based pricing” for state workers and retirees. If you needed hip-replacement surgery, say, the state would cover you for the amount charged (minus a deductible) at forty-one “value” hospitals in the state. If you went for a costlier option, you had to make up the difference. Most people chose one of the value hospitals, and their outcomes were similar to those of people who chose the more expensive hospitals. The state saved money, and the threat of losing customers, in turn, led the more expensive hospitals to cut prices; one study found that the price of joint-replacement surgery fell by about a third.

boutons_deux

12-02-2013, 12:07 PM

"he enormous variation in prices that hospitals charge for a procedure"

I think ACA forces hospitals and clinics to publish their prices. If not, there is something that is allowing studies to obtain the prices and show the enormous variations.

then of course, there's is the huge price difference with the same procedures between USA, vs Canada, UK, Germany, France.

boutons_deux

12-02-2013, 05:22 PM

ACA wins in court, again, split decision

Supreme Court declines to hear case on Obamacare's 'employer mandate'

The Supreme Court will not reconsider the part of President Obama’s healthcare law that requires employers to provide basic health insurance for their workers or pay a tax penalty.

The justices on Monday dismissed an appeal brought by a conservative Christian college in Virginia that contended the “employer mandate” is unconstitutional.
Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision upheld the “individual mandate,” deciding that people may be required to either obtain insurance or pay a tax penalty.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/609/article/p2p-78403338/

boutons_deux

12-03-2013, 04:45 PM

you Repugs, libertarians, and tea baggers are ALL as much sons of bitches as the sons of bitches y'all elect.

California GOP creates fake health care website to discourage constituents from obtaining insurance (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/02/1259641/-California-GOP-creates-fake-healthcare-website-to-discourage-constituents-from-obtaining-insurance)

California Republicans are desperate and shameless. In the past two weeks, GOP Assembly members have sent mailings out on what appears to be the state's dime to their constituents about health insurance. Only, they don't direct those people to CoveredCA.com to sign up. Instead, they send them to their own astroturf version with the url CoveringHealthCareCA.com.

On their version, there are links to negative articles and twisted messages intended to sour people on signing up for health insurance before they ever land at the official health exchange site.

If you click on the "Don't have health insurance" tab on the front page, you're taken to a page that puts all the focus on the penalty and none on the benefits.

In fact, they have a "penalty calculator" on that page, rather than a premium calculator.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/02/1259641/-California-GOP-creates-fake-healthcare-website-to-discourage-constituents-from-obtaining-insurance?detail=email

cantthinkofanything

12-03-2013, 04:46 PM

boutons_deux

12-03-2013, 05:46 PM

Cost of Health Care Law Is Seen as DecreasingThe rollout of President Obama’s health care law may have deeply disappointed its supporters, but on at least one front, the Affordable Care Act is beating expectations: its cost.

Over the next few years, the government is expected to spend billions of dollars less than originally projected on the law, analysts said, with both the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for private insurance plans ending up less expensive than anticipated.

Economists broadly agree that the sluggish economy remains the main reason that health spending has grown so slowly for the last half-decade. From 2007 to 2010, per-capita health care spending rose just 1.8 percent annually. Since then, the annual increase has slowed even further, to 1.3 percent. A decade ago, spending was growing at roughly 5 percent a year.

But even though the Affordable Care Act might be more a beneficiary of changes in health care spending than the primary driver of them, the law’s provisions to control costs could prove increasingly important as the economy improves, demand for health care increases and spending picks back up.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/business/affordable-care-act-so-far-seems-likely-to-cost-less-than-expected.html?from=homepage

boutons_deux

12-03-2013, 05:48 PM

the REpugs and their VRWC paymasters keep on fighting a losing war

A New Wave of Challenges to Health Law

More than a year after the Supreme Court upheld the central provision of President Obama’s health care overhaul, a fresh wave of legal challenges to the law is playing out in courtrooms as conservative critics — joined by their Republican allies on Capitol Hill — make the case that Mr. Obama has overstepped his authority in applying it.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in one of several cases brought by states including Indiana and Oklahoma, along with business owners and individual consumers, who say that the law does not grant the Internal Revenue Service authority to provide tax credits or subsidies to people who buy insurance through the federal exchange.

At the same time, the House Judiciary Committee will convene a hearing to examine whether Mr. Obama is “rewriting his own law” by using his executive powers to alter it or delay certain provisions. The panel also will examine the legal theory behind the subsidy cases: that the I.R.S., and by extension, Mr. Obama, ignored the will of Congress, which explicitly allowed tax credits and subsidies only for those buying coverage through state exchanges.

“We have agencies under this administration having an attitude that they can fix a statute, that they can improve upon a statute, that they can look at a statute’s clear language and disregard it,” Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, who is bringing one of the cases, said in an interview Monday. “The president himself has said on more than one occasion, ‘I can’t wait on Congress.’ In our system of government, he has to.”

The subsidy lawsuits grow out of three years of work by conservative and libertarian theorists at Washington-based research organizations like the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The cases are part of a continuing, multifaceted legal assault on the Affordable Care Act that began with the Supreme Court challenge to the law and shows no signs of abating.

“After the A.C.A. was enacted and after the president signed it, a lot of people — me included — decided that we weren’t going to take this lying down, and we were going to try to block it and ultimately either get the Supreme Court to overturn it or Congress to repeal it,” said Michael F. Cannon, a health policy scholar at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, who helped develop the legal theory for the subsidy cases and will testify in the House on Tuesday.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/us/politics/a-new-wave-of-challenges-to-health-law.html?from=homepage

irredeemable, sociopathic assholes everyone of them, the VRWC stink tanks included.

boutons_deux

12-03-2013, 05:51 PM

As Hospital Prices Soar, a Stitch Tops $500

With blood oozing from deep lacerations, the two patients arrived at California Pacific Medical Center’s tidy emergency room. Deepika Singh, 26, had gashed her knee at a backyard barbecue. Orla Roche, a rambunctious toddler on vacation with her family, had tumbled from a couch, splitting open her forehead on a table.

On a quiet Saturday in May, nurses in blue scrubs quickly ushered the two patients into treatment rooms. The wounds were cleaned, numbed and mended in under an hour. “It was great — they had good DVDs, the staff couldn’t have been nicer,” said Emer Duffy, Orla’s mother.

Then the bills arrived. Ms. Singh’s three stitches cost $2,229.11. Orla’s forehead was sealed with a dab of skin glue for $1,696. “When I first saw the charge, I said, ‘What could possibly have cost that much?’ ” recalled Ms. Singh. “They billed for everything, every pill.”

In a medical system notorious for opaque finances and inflated bills, nothing is more convoluted than hospital pricing, economists say. Hospital charges represent about a third of the $2.7 trillion annual United States health care bill, the biggest single segment, according to government statistics (http://kff.org/slideshow/health-spending-trends-and-impact), and are the largest driver of medical inflation, a new study in The Journal of the American Medical Association (http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2013-11/28584310-new-research-reveals-why-u-s-health-care-performance-trails-that-of-other-countries-a-major-article) found.

A day spent as an inpatient at an American hospital costs on average more than $4,000, five times the charge in many other developed countries, according to the International Federation of Health Plans (http://hushp.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/downloadable_files/IFHP%202012%20Comparative%20Price%20Report.pdf), a global network of health insurance industries. The most expensive hospitals charge more than $12,500 a day. And at many of them, including California Pacific Medical Center, emergency rooms are profit centers. That is why one of the simplest and oldest medical procedures — closing a wound with a needle and thread — typically leads to bills of at least $1,500 and often much more.

At Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, Daniel Diaz, 29, a public relations executive, was billed $3,355.96 for five stitches on his finger after cutting himself while peeling an avocado. At a hospital in Jacksonville, Fla., Arch Roberts Jr., 56, a former government employee, was charged more than $2,000 for three stitches after being bitten by a dog. At Mercy Hospital in Port Huron, Mich., Chelsea Manning, 22, a student, received bills for close to $3,000 for six stitches after she tripped running up a path. Insurers and patients negotiated lower prices, but those charges were a starting point.

The main reason for high hospital costs in the United States, economists say, is fiscal, not medical: Hospitals are the most powerful players in a health care system that has little or no price regulation in the private market.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/health/as-hospital-costs-soar-single-stitch-tops-500.html?from=homepage

boutons_deux

12-03-2013, 09:05 PM

your black Jesus has fucked up shit beyond imaginable and probably irreparable.

black Jesus has fucked the Repugs and tea baggers by providing millions of uninsured Americans access to health care, reducing the price of insurance in the individual market, bending down the curve of the greedy health care scam.

Repugs will pay dearly electorally in 2014, 2016, and beyond because of ACA. Then add in Asians, women, Latinos, blacks, the young voting by a huge majority with the Dems, you assholes and your asshole politicians are fucked.

boutons_deux

12-03-2013, 10:47 PM

Rep. Mike Rogers: Obamacare isn’t worth helping the ‘few’ 48 million uninsured

“You’re punishing these people,” Rogers told NBC host David Gregory. “Here’s the problem, you have 15 percent of the population that didn’t have health insurance when this started, roughly — and we think that number was high, we think it was closer to 10. So what they’ve done is disrupted it for the 85 percent that had health care. And their costs are going up significantly.”

“So we’ve broken the system to help a few,” he insisted. “Nobody would fix a problem that way.”

“The reality is that it hasn’t messed up 80 percent of the market,” Van Hollen explained. “The individual market, which has always been broken, represents about 5 percent of the market. A lot of those people were losing their health care on an annual basis before. We’re trying to fix that.”

According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report, 48 million Americans were uninsured in 2012. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that 25 million of those people will be covered by 2023 because of the new law.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/01/rep-mike-rogers-obamacare-isnt-worth-helping-the-few-48-million-uninsured/

Regugs got NOTHING BUT LIES, from Boner, Issa, Ryan, on down, NOTHING BUT LIES.

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 06:31 AM

Smerconish was on MSNBC last night. As self-employed with a wife and 3 children in a state w/o an exchange, he's been pissing on healtcare.gov since 1 Oct when we got up at 5 AM to shop.

But last night on TV, he said the site works great for him, the price range is basically $1000 to $2000/month (he makes too much for subsidy, etc), while he has been paying $2200.

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 06:39 AM

Repugs preaching more LIES, very probably dissuading their right-to-work-for-less, low-wage, unemployed redneck choir from getting health care

GOP: HealthCare.gov Might Be Fixed, But Obamacare Still Sucks

Republicans aren't impressed with the Obama administration's claim that HealthCare.gov is now effectively fixed. That's not really the issue, they've started to say. No, the problem is canceled policies, lost doctors and higher premiums. Who cares if the website is working?

That is a far cry from the early days of October when a dysfunctional website was "proof" that Obamacare "has been an unmitigated disaster" in the words of House Speaker John Boehner in an Oct. 4 statement.

But that's no longer the preferred talking point. Instead, the GOP has become enamored with insurance cancellations that they say violate President Obama's "if you like your health plan, you can keep it" promise and claims of rate shock. Boehner reinforced that shift at his most recent press conference.

"It's not just a broken website," he said Tuesday. "This bill is fundamentally flawed, causing people to lose the doctor of their choice, causing them to lose their health plan, and if that's not enough, they have to pay more in premiums."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) echoed the same point moments later.

"While the White House wants to claim that HealthCare.gov is now working, we know that Obamacare is still plagued with problems," he said. "This is not something that is helping Americans. It is harming people who need help most right now."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-healthcaregov-who-cares

Amazing, just like the dubya's era, black is white, down is up, bad is good, as told by the Repug Ministry of Truth.

ACA is fucking the Repugs hard and deep, and they know that their own TRUE electoral/demographic trainwreck is hurtling down the tracks straight at them.

TSA

12-04-2013, 07:48 AM

I really enjoyed the Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell, although I'm weary of Mark Walberg playing his character in the upcoming film. Walberg is not 6'4 230 lbs.

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 10:33 AM

Poll: Americans More Concerned With Job Creation Than Obamacare Woes

According to a United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/poll-americans-want-washington-focused-on-jobs-not-health-20131202) released Monday, an overwhelming majority of Americans want Congress and President Barack Obama to focus on job creation more than any other issue — including health care.

The poll finds that by more than a 3-1 margin, voters would be “very pleased” or “somewhat pleased,” if the president and Congress worked together to create more jobs, as opposed to “very disappointed” or “somewhat disappointed.” Surprisingly, voters expressed very little partisan variation on how they hope the president and lawmakers create more jobs; 75 percent say they would be “pleased” or “very pleased” if jobs were created by reducing taxes and regulation – generally a Republican position – and 77 percent said the same about increasing investment in infrastructure projects, which Democrats tend to favor.

The findings should serve as a wakeup call for congressional Republicans, who have dedicated a great amount of their time to attacking the Affordable Care Act (http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-vow-no-let-up-on-obamacare/) and its troubled rollout (http://www.nationalmemo.com/health-care-website-kinks-a-political-embarrassment-for-obama/), and now say there is little left for them to do anything else.

According to The New York Times, U.S. Representative Reid Ribble (R-WI) even claimed that his constituents would not “want me to be overaggressive in writing new laws (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/us/politics/least-productive-congress-on-record-appears-in-no-hurry-to-produce.html?ref=politics&_r=0).” The new poll suggests that his constituents would disagree

http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-americans-more-concerned-with-job-creation-than-obamacare-woes/

Repugs WILLFULLY ignoring their constituents' priorities, Dems not any better, but Dems know the Repugs will obstruct any job creation/economy stimulus, so what's the point?

AntiChrist

12-04-2013, 12:22 PM

Poll: Americans More Concerned With Job Creation Than Obamacare Woes

blah blah blah

I'm pretty sure Americans have been more concerned with job creation since 2008, but BHO needed his signature P.O.S. law that nobody cared about. Lol.

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 12:32 PM

I'm pretty sure Americans have been more concerned with job creation since 2008, but BHO needed his signature P.O.S. law that nobody cared about. Lol.

you conveniently forget that you assholes and Repugs were screaming HYPERINFLATION, etc when Dems were shooting for a bigger stimulus, y'all parrots kept the stimulus too small for the depth of the Banksters Great Depression, and kept all further stimulus foreclosed on as the Repugs tried hard to screw up/depress the economy to defeat Obama/Dems in 2012.

Sure enough, the Repugs were hitting the Dems with "Where are the jobs?" but the Repugs were guilty of killing the stimulus AND not proposing any job creation bills.

so, GFY

AntiChrist

12-04-2013, 12:43 PM

you conveniently forget that you assholes and Repugs were screaming HYPERINFLATION, etc when Dems were shooting for a bigger stimulus, y'all parrots kept the stimulus too small for the depth of the Banksters Great Depression, and kept all further stimulus foreclosed on as the Repugs tried hard to screw up/depress the economy to defeat Obama/Dems in 2012.

Sure enough, the Repugs were hitting the Dems with "Where are the jobs?" but the Repugs were guilty of killing the stimulus AND not proposing any job creation bills.

so, GFY

Shovel-ready

AntiChrist

12-04-2013, 12:44 PM

But, hey, a website where you can barely create an account, can't shop, leaves your personal information vulnerable, and has no mechanism for paying -- who wouldn't want to sign up for that?

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 01:00 PM

But, hey, a website where you can barely create an account, can't shop, leaves your personal information vulnerable, and has no mechanism for paying -- who wouldn't want to sign up for that?

your information is out of date, but keep it up, you lying assholes are looking sillier by the day

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 01:06 PM

Obamacare Not The First New Program To Have Launch Problems

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/obamacare-problems_n_4148466.html

Here's how the Repug Corporate Welfare FOR-PROFIT Medicare works, while costing taxpayers 10%+ more than govt Medicare:

Why Consumers Disenroll from Medicare Private Health Plans

There are various reasons why consumers disenroll from a Medicare private health plan.

According to the data from our cases,

provider access problems,

misinformation and marketing misconduct,

as well as coverage denials for medical services

are the most prevalent reasons for disenrollment, followed by

complaints about high cost-sharing,

coverage denials for prescription drugs and

premium increases.

By understanding the reasons behind disenrollments, policymakers can identify problems both with the Medicare Advantage program as a whole and with
individual plans.

For example, a high proportion of consumers who disenroll after joining as a result of
misleading or abusive marketing, as this report finds, indicates the need for stepped-up
oversight of plans’ marketing conduct. If a large portion of a plan’s enrollees disenroll and
cite the cost of medical care as a reason, it may indicate that the cost-sharing structure
under the plan is poorly suited to the needs of the Medicare population.

This report presents useful data on the reasons consumers disenroll from Medicare private health
plans, but is not representative on a plan-specific basis. Such data would be useful to both
consumers and policymakers; this report’s principal recommendation is for CMS to resume
collecting and publishing plan-specific data on consumers’ reasons for disenrollment. CMS
has indicated it plans to reinstate a survey on reasons underlying disenrollment in late
summer 2010, although it has not publicly committed to resuming the survey on a
permanent basis or to providing the results to consumers.4

http://www.medicarerights.org/pdf/Why-Consumers-Disenroll-from-MA.pdf

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 01:19 PM

Did Medicare Part D have the same rollout problems as the Obamacare online marketplaces?

Big programs have seen rocky rollouts only to achieve success later, they say. Their top example:the 2005 launch of Medicare Part D, President George W. Bush’s prescription drug benefit plan.
"Things went wrong with the Medicare prescription D plan that George Bush rolled out," Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., told MSNBC on Nov. 6. "When things go wrong, there are two things we can do as a country. We can spend all our time figuring out who to blame, or we can spend all our time figuring out how to fix it."

Eight years after it went live, Medicare Part D is now widely popular (http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/10/03/poll-medicare-prescription-drug-program-popular/1609995/) among the seniors who use it.

Were there major problems with the rollout of Medicare Part D? And were they comparable to the challenges facing Obamacare? We decided to take a more a detailed look at its implementation.

Strangely similar

Let’s play a quick game: who made this statement?

"This is a huge undertaking and there are going to be glitches. My goal is the same as yours: Get rid of the glitches."

A Democrat in 2013? Wrong!Actually, it wasRep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee, about Medicare Part D in 2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20060228220724/http:/energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/02152006_1778.htm).

The similarities between the two health care programs, both heralded as the signature domestic achievements of the presidents who signed them into law, are at times eerie. Supporters of the laws asked for time and promised a quick fix. Critics did not mince their words. Even the lingo -- words like "glitches" -- has been recycled.

A report (http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2013/rwjf406589) documenting the history of Medicare Part D was released earlier this year bya group of health policy experts at the Center on Health Insurance Reform at Georgetown University. It highlighted several areas where Medicare Part D struggled in its implementation that sound extremely familiar.

For one thing, the Bush administration faced a difficult political battle to get the bill passed in 2003. That damaged public opinion of the law, making it a challenge to educate 43 million seniors on its nuances.

Enrollment in the law was set to begin in late 2005. In April of that year, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 27 percent of respondents understood the law, while only 21 percent favored it. (In a comparable Kaiser poll in April 2013, 35 percent viewed the Affordable Care Act favorably and less than half felt they were well-informed of its details.)

The Medicare site, meant to help seniors pick benefit plans, was supposed to debut Oct. 13, 2005, but it didn’tgo live until weeks later in November. Even then, "the tool itself appeared to be in need of fixing," the Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110701415.html) at the time.

"Visitors to the site could not access it for most of the first two hours. When it finally did come up around 5 p.m., it operated awfully slowly," the Post reported. (Sensing a pattern?)

Once seniors began to enroll, problems persisted. According to the report, the online tools had "accuracy problems," and local organizations designated with assisting seniors "reported problems getting necessary and accurate information." Call centers provided by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services underestimated "the needed capacity to ensure that reliable answers could be provided" and "service representatives were not knowledgeable or failed to provide accurate information."

The Georgetown experts anticipated similar hiccups with the Affordable Care Act, noting that the country’s experience with Medicare Part D suggested "the experience will be far from perfect" and "problems were not always addressed as quickly or as thoroughly as critics would have liked, but fixes were usually found."

These days,nine in 10 seniors who utilize the program report they are satisfied with it.

"There’s really a striking amount of similarity even though this time it’s a far larger and daunting task. It’s a fair comparison," said Jack Hoadley at the Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute and one of the authors of the study. "Once something works its way through the problems, you forget the problems."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/13/steve-israel/medicare-part-d-and-obamacare-health-care-gov/

:lol So you right wing assholes have been duped and conscripted by the Repug LIE machine to parrot ignorantly Repug LIES

CavsSuperFan

12-04-2013, 01:29 PM

In Nevada, where prostitution is legal, prostitutes are signing up for Obamacare...
Which explains why the most popular pick-up line in Nevada is, "Let me help you with your co-pay."

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 02:05 PM

why the Repugs and VRWC push so hard for total privatization

Think the E.R. Was Expensive? Look at How Much It Cost to Get There

Kira Milas has no idea who called 911, summoning an ambulance filled with emergency medical technicians. Ms. Milas, 23, was working as a swim instructor for the summer and had swum into the side of the pool, breaking three teeth.

Shaken, she accepted the ambulance ride to Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla, Calif. The paramedics applied a neck brace as a precaution.

A week later she received a bill for the 15-minute trip: $1,772.42. Though her employer’s workers’ compensation will cover the bill, she still was stunned at the charge. “We only drove nine miles and it was a non-life-threatening injury,” she said in a phone interview. “I needed absolutely no emergency treatment.”

Thirty years ago ambulance rides were generally provided free of charge, underwritten by taxpayers as a municipal service or provided by volunteers. Today, like the rest of the health care system in the United States, most ambulance services operate as businesses and contribute to America’s escalating medical bills. Often, they are a high-cost prequel to expensive emergency room visits (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/health/as-hospital-costs-soar-single-stitch-tops-500.html?_r=0).

Although ambulances are often requested by a bystander or summoned by 911 dispatchers, they are almost always billed to the patient involved. And the charges, as well as insurance coverage, range widely, from zero to tens of thousands of dollars.

“There are a significant numbers of patients who have no coverage for this, and the number of self-pay patients has climbed” since the recession, said Jay Fitch, president of Fitch and Associates, the largest emergency medical services consulting firm in the United States.

What is more, since ambulances companies typically collect only 30 to 40 percent of the amount they bill, they often try to charge more for patients with insurance and those who can pay, Mr. Fitch said.

Part of the inconsistency in pricing stems from the fact that ambulance services are variously run by fire departments, hospitals, private companies and volunteer groups. Some services are included in insurance networks, others not.

In a recent study, the federal Health and Human Services Department’s Office of the Inspector General noted that the Medicare ambulance services were “vulnerable to abuse and fraud,” in part because there were lax standards on when an ambulance was needed and how the trip should be billed. The number of transports paid for by Medicare increased 69 percent between 2002 and 2011, while the number of Medicare patients increased only 7 percent during that period. In the last year, two ambulance companies have pleaded guilty or settled claims for overbilling Medicare.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/health/think-the-er-was-expensive-look-at-the-ambulance-bill.html?from=homepage

iow, just more wealth-sucking kludgeocracy courtesy of for-profit health care.

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 03:22 PM

from an email from DCCC

"This week, Speaker Boehner got caught red-handed.

He just couldn’t stop himself from promoting the latest fake Obamacare “horror story.”

This one’s about a New York father who was allegedly told that his 18-month-old daughter couldn't be included on the family’s plan. Boehner actually insinuated that Obamacare would only cover children once they reach two years of age.

Well guess what, the story AND Boehner’s claim are 100% false.

The New York father, who is a failed conservative candidate for the state legislature, forgot to list one of his children on his plan and the error has already been resolved.

But Boehner hasn't made a statement to set the record straight."

boutons_deux

12-04-2013, 05:51 PM

Republicans Revive Mitt Romney’s Favorite Medicare Attack

With HealthCare.gov substantially improved (http://www.nationalmemo.com/obamacare-website-vastly-improved-bugs-fixed/) and new insurance signups surging (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/04/obamacare-signups-surge_n_4384984.html), Republicans have been forced to pivot to a new line of attack against the Affordable Care Act. On Tuesday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a series of news releases accusing Democratic candidates of cutting Medicare through their support of the health care reform law.

“As the ObamaCare disaster continues to unfold, Mark Pryor and National Democrats have resorted to deceiving seniors using their old and discredited MediScare playbook,” reads the release (http://e.nrsc.org/t/j-F5582044012884BF) targeting Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR).

“What’s new this year is the blatant hypocrisy that Mark Pryor and his liberal allies in Washington are exhibiting,” it continues. “Pryor’s deciding vote for ObamaCare cut $717 billion from Medicare—including nearly $5.4 billion directly from Arkansas ($10,296 per Medicare recipient in Arkansas).”

CNN reports (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/first-on-cnn-republicans-bring-back-medicare-attack/) that the NRSC campaign will target Senators Pryor, Mark Begich (D-AK), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Al Franken (D-MN), along with Senate candidates Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) and Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI).

If this line of attack sounds familiar, it’s because it was a centerpiece (http://www.nationalmemo.com/mitts-most-shameless-lie/) of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s case against the Affordable Care Act in the 2012 elections. The Republican ticket repeatedly accused President Obama of having “robbed” and “raided” $716 billion from Medicare to “pay for Obamacare, a risky, unproven, federal takeover of health care.”

Of course, that attack ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of the $716 billion actually represented reductions in how much Medicare pays hospitals and insurers, as WonkBlog’s Sarah Kliff explained (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/) last August. Medicare benefits themselves are not affected.

It also ignored the fact that Ryan’s own budget included the exact same $716 billion in cuts (with the implied promise of deeper cuts in the future to pay for trillions of dollars in new defense spending and tax cuts). He has also kept the savings in subsequent budget proposals. Nearly every Republican in Congress — including Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Pryor’s chief rival in his 2014 re-election bid — has supported Ryan’s budget plans, significantly blunting the accusation’s impact.

Nonetheless, House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) spokesman Brendan Buck told MSNBC that the attack is

“a tried and true campaign hit” — ignoring that it totally failed to blunt the Democratic Party’s sweeping victory in 2012. :lol

There’s no denying that Republicans had a good political month targeting the Affordable Care Act’s rocky rollout. But the fact that they are already returning to this easily debunked attack, which was proven to be unpersuasive in the last election, raises the question of whether they are running out of fresh attacks against the law. And with repeal seemingly off the table (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/01/the-gop-push-for-obamacare-repeal-is-dead/), one wonders where Republicans will turn if good news about the law continues to trickle out.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-revive-mitt-romneys-favorite-medicare-attack/

Repugs are so bitch slapped! :lol

TSA

12-04-2013, 06:53 PM

Walberg was decent in shooter. Maybe he won't be so bad.

Poor Walberg being forced to pay for the incompetents insurance.

SnakeBoy

12-04-2013, 09:22 PM

The desperate attempts by bots like boutons to polish this turd are amusing.

Nbadan

12-05-2013, 01:58 AM

:lol bots

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/131204-consumer-reports-updates-opinion-of-newly-repaired-healthcare-gov.jpg

Nbadan

12-05-2013, 02:07 AM

Op-Ed Columnist
Obamacare’s Secret Success
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 28, 2013

Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita — that is, total spending adjusted for overall inflation and population growth — has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average. Real spending per Medicare recipient hasn’t risen at all; real spending per Medicaid beneficiary has actually fallen slightly.

What could account for this good news? One obvious answer is the still-depressed economy, which might be causing people to forgo expensive medical care. But this explanation turns out to be problematic in multiple ways. For one thing, the economy had stabilized by 2010, even if the recovery was fairly weak, yet health costs continued to slow. For another, it’s hard to see why a weak economy would have more effect in reducing the prices of health services than it has on overall inflation. Finally, Medicare spending shouldn’t be affected by the weak economy, yet it has slowed even more dramatically than private spending.

A better story focuses on what appears to be a decline in some kinds of medical innovation — in particular, an absence of expensive new blockbuster drugs, even as existing drugs go off-patent and can be replaced with cheaper generic brands. This is a real phenomenon; it is, in fact, the main reason the Medicare drug program has ended up costing less than originally projected. But since drugs are only about 10 percent of health spending, it can only explain so much.

So what aspects of Obamacare might be causing health costs to slow? One clear answer is the act’s reduction in Medicare “overpayments” — mainly a reduction in the subsidies to private insurers offering Medicare Advantage Plans, but also cuts in some provider payments. A less certain but likely source of savings involves changes in the way Medicare pays for services. The program now penalizes hospitals if many of their patients end up being readmitted soon after being released — an indicator of poor care — and readmission rates have, in fact, fallen substantially. Medicare is also encouraging a shift from fee-for-service, in which doctors and hospitals get paid by the procedure, to “accountable care,” in which health organizations get rewarded for overall success in improving care while controlling costs.

Furthermore, there’s evidence that Medicare savings “spill over” to the rest of the health care system — that when Medicare manages to slow cost growth, private insurance gets cheaper, too.

And the biggest savings may be yet to come. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel with the power to impose cost-saving measures (subject to Congressional overrides) if Medicare spending grows above target, hasn’t yet been established, in part because of the near-certainty that any appointments to the board would be filibustered by Republicans yelling about “death panels.” Now that the filibuster has been reformed, the board can come into being.

The news on health costs is, in short, remarkably good. You won’t hear much about this good news until and unless the Obamacare website gets fixed. But under the surface, health reform is starting to look like a bigger success than even its most ardent advocates expected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/opinion/krugman-obamacares-secret-success.html?_r=0

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 05:23 AM

The desperate attempts by bots like boutons to polish this turd are amusing.

The turds around here are you right-wing monkeys and the shit you hurl, on command by your thought dictators, at any target the Repugs try dicklessly to attack.

And, if needed, Mythbusters showed turds can be highly polished.

AntiChrist

12-05-2013, 11:32 AM

lulz

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/192132-young-invincibles-spurn-enrollment

AntiChrist

12-05-2013, 11:32 AM

doh!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/obamacare-enrollment_n_4384820.html

Winehole23

12-05-2013, 12:08 PM

If the front end of the website is the part seen by people who want to get insurance, the back end is the part seen by insurance companies who want to sell it to them. There are increasing reports that the back end of the system is just as glitchy now as the front end was back in October. Insurance company executives and industry spokespeople have raised increasingly frantic alarm bells that the information they are receiving from the website is at times faulty and duplicative. That's when they receive information at all. There are reports from some insurers that they have tested the website with John Doe applications and not received them through the back end
(http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/02/news/economy/obamacare-insurers/index.html)

That's led to concerns that there are people who think they've signed up for health insurance but who might not be on the radar of any insurance company.

But while Bataille said Monday a new fix would address 80% of these errors, she wouldn't say how many errors there are. She declined to answer that question again on Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/obamacare-secrets/index.html

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 12:14 PM

the backend, healthcare.gov connecting to about 30 states, is of course being sabotaged by the Repug states that refuse to expand Medicaid and refuse to set up their state exchanges, which would have removed complexity from healthcare.gov.

Fuck the Repugs and fuck all the assholes who vote for them.

George Gervin's Afro

12-05-2013, 12:21 PM

I see the resident Obama haters are still keeping their fingers crossed that things don't get better..lol Keep the faith!

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 12:35 PM

lulz

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/192132-young-invincibles-spurn-enrollment

While you right-wing assholes HATE ACA penalizing people for not buying health insurance, your adored Repug lawmakers are considering forcing (young) women to buy RAPE INSURANCE

Michigan Lawmakers Considering Abortion Bill That Would Force Women To Buy ‘Rape Insurance’ (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/04/3018691/michigan-lawmakers-rape-insurance-abortion/)

Michigan lawmakers are currently deciding whether to advance a bill (http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2013/12/04/Lawmakers-weigh-passing-ignoring-abortion-bill.html) that would require women in the state to purchase a separate insurance policy for abortion coverage, even in cases of rape or incest. If it’s approved, Michigan would join a long list of other states (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/13/1588121/obamacare-abortion-access/) that have attacked abortion access by preventing women from using their own insurance to pay for it.

The debate over the legislation has heated up this week, particularly since the measure would deny abortion coverage even to women who have become pregnant as a result of rape. Although the overwhelming majority of Americans (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/01/1119451/americans-overwhelmingly-support-abortion-access-for-rape-victims/) believe that rape victims should have access to legal abortion services, lawmakers continue to propose policies (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/20/2495591/abortion-restrictions-rape-exceptions/) that would have callous implications for individuals who have been sexually assaulted.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/04/3018691/michigan-lawmakers-rape-insurance-abortion/

But but but! what happened to the Repug Rape Caucus "member", aka dick, who said raped women can just think themselves out of getting pregnant from rapist's sperm? Wouldn't that be cheaper than rape insurance?

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 12:52 PM

GA State Insurance Commissioner Compares People With Pre-Existing Conditions To Reckless Drivers

According to Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens, a person with a pre-existing condition applying for health insurance is like a reckless driver asking for auto collision coverage: they're both at fault.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution surfaced video (http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/dec/04/ralph-hudgens-compares-pre-existing-conditions-car/) Wednesday of Hudgens' appearance last month at a CSRA Republican Women's Club meeting, where the commissioner expressed concern that covering pre-existing conditions on the individual market would double insurance costs.

"And if you don't really understand what covering pre-existing conditions would be like, it would be like in Georgia we have a law that says you have to have insurance on your automobile," Hudgens said. "You have to have liability insurance. If you're going to drive on Georgia's roads, you have to have liability insurance. You don't have to have collision ... But you have to have liability."

"But say you're going along and you have a wreck. And it's your fault," he continued. "Well, a pre-existing condition would be you then calling up your insurance agent and saying, 'I would like to get collision insurance coverage on my car.'

And your insurance agent says, 'Well, you never had that before. Why would you want it now?' And you say, 'Well, I just had a wreck, it was my fault and I want the insurance company to pay to repair my car.' And that's the exact same thing on pre-existing insurance."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ga-insurance-chief-compares-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-to-reckless-drivers

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 01:01 PM

Another stupid fucking Christian supremacist/televanglist-money-grubbING pastor exposes his ignorance

Contraception Mandate Like Making A Jewish Deli Sell Pork

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rick-warren-contraception-mandate-like-making-a-jewish-deli-sell-pork

Winehole23

12-05-2013, 01:04 PM

a nutshell of ongoing legal challenges to the ACA: http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/guide-remaining-legal-arguments-against-obamacare/355707/

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 01:09 PM

a nutshell of ongoing legal challenges to the ACA: http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/guide-remaining-legal-arguments-against-obamacare/355707/

Here is the Repug health plan to replace ACA:

Winehole23

12-05-2013, 01:51 PM

no need for any replacement just yet. job one is destroying the ACA.

if subsidies are stripped, the affordable part goes out the window for a lot of people.

Winehole23

12-05-2013, 01:58 PM

the states which decided not to set up their own exchanges are essentially driving their own citizens into federal exchanges for which the ACA, it is argued, provides no subsides. this is starting to make sense to me as a political tactic. it consists in letting the Federal exchanges take all the applicants from the conscientiously abstaining states, then stripping the federal subsides by legal challenge.

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 02:06 PM

"federal exchanges for which the ACA, it is argued, provides no subsidies."

first I've heard of that. link?

Winehole23

12-05-2013, 02:08 PM

read the damn story, boutons.

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 02:29 PM

ok, a badly worded law on that point.

Fuck the asshole "conservative small business owners in states using the federal exchange" who want to kill ACA for this bad wording.

And fuck the activist extremist Repug SCOTUS POLITICAL FIVE who would agree with them.

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 03:17 PM

In particular, the project was doomed by a relatively late decision that required applicants to open an account and let the site verify their identity, residence, and income before they could browse for insurance. That meant the site would have to interface in real-time with databases maintained by the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies.

the federal site took on complications that would befuddle even the best technologists. “The scope of ‘we will provide all the functionality for 34 states, and linkage to 1,000 insurance companies, and an online real-time marketplace’ was probably too big to accomplish given the time available,” Halamka says.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/521981/diagnosis-for-healthcaregov-unrealistic-technology-expectations/

George Gervin's Afro

12-05-2013, 03:19 PM

Federal exchange states aren't eligible for tax subsidies

As we explained earlier this year, Halbig v. Sebelius is a case launched by conservative small business owners in states using the federal exchange. They argue that, because the Affordable Care Act only specifically mentions subsidies for exchanges "established by the state," the federal exchange can't grant subsidies. And if they can't get subsidies, then the insurance becomes unaffordable, so they want the court to block the IRS from implementing the law. The government argues that, obviously, they meant for everyone to get subsidies, and the case is ignoring all the prep work the administration has done to provide subsidies in all states.

Since subsidies are the main appeal of the law — for many, that's the "affordable" part — taking them away would hit hard. And as Mother Jones notes, there's a chance they'll get their wish. "The case seems destined for the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority is already hostile to Obamacare," writes Mother Jones' Stephanie Mencimer.

So the plan is too deny the subsidies to those who qualify..with the end result making the affordable 'unaffordable'... and the GOP is going to be happy with this? Are they going to blame Obama for this?

boutons_deux

12-05-2013, 03:31 PM

So the plan is too deny the subsidies to those who qualify..with the end result making the affordable 'unaffordable'... and the GOP is going to be happy with this? Are they going to blame Obama for this?

GOP will be happy with ANY destruction, obstruction they can visit on ANY Dem project, no matter who or what gets hurt. All Politics, All The Time (and misgovernance, too)

SnakeBoy

12-05-2013, 04:13 PM

:lol bots

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/131204-consumer-reports-updates-opinion-of-newly-repaired-healthcare-gov.jpg

http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo216/koolbreeze29/obama/turd-polishcopy.jpg

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 03:00 AM

So the plan is too deny the subsidies to those who qualify..with the end result making the affordable 'unaffordable'... and the GOP is going to be happy with this? Are they going to blame Obama for this?the GOP didn't write the law, the Democrats did.

if SCOTUS rules that subsides for the federal exchanges are not to be found in the language of the statute, the legislators who passed it are guilty of malpractice.

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 06:24 AM

"the GOP didn't write the law, the Democrats did. "

The Dems, specifically DINO asshole Max Baucus (who pretty much single handedly aborted any discussion of public option), hired insurance exec/lobbyist Fowler as Wellpoint mole to write the ACA

=======

When the legislation that became known as "Obamacare" was first drafted, the key legislator (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1910651_1910649_1910638,00.html) was the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, whose committee took the lead in drafting the legislation.

As Baucus himself repeatedly boasted (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/29/baucus-thanks-wellpoint-vp-liz-fowler-for-writing-health-care-bill/), the architect of that legislation was Elizabeth Folwer, his chief health policy (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/health) counsel; indeed, as Marcy Wheeler discovered (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/liz-fowlers-plan/), it was Fowler who actually drafted it.

As Politico put it at the time (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21952.html): "If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer."

What was most amazing about all of that was that, before joining Baucus' office as the point person for the health care bill, Fowler was the Vice President for Public Policy and External Affairs (i.e. informal lobbying (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/lobbying)) at WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurance provider (before going to WellPoint, as well as after, Fowler had worked as Baucus' top health care aide).

And when that health care bill was drafted, the person whom Fowler replaced as chief health counsel in Baucus' office, Michelle Easton, was lobbying for WellPoint (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/wellpoint_really_di.php) as a principal at Tarplin, Downs, and Young.

Whatever one's views on Obamacare were and are: the bill's mandate that everyone purchase the products of the private health insurance industry, unaccompanied by any public alternative, was a huge gift to that industry; as Wheeler wrote at the time: "to the extent that Liz Fowler is the author of this document, we might as well consider WellPoint its author as well."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1

In any case, the "conservative small business" assholes have only a couple weeks to kill ACA.

If they succeed after 1 Jan, then the Repugs will be effectively CANCELLING THE INSURANCE POLICIES that people "like and want to keep". :lol

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 06:51 AM

You Can Also Blame Newt Gingrich for the Obamacare Website Screwup

To prevent another Healthcare.gov, Washington could use a digital brain trust. Too bad Newt Gingrich killed the one it had.

As the Obama administration continues to unsuck its health care website, one questions lingers: How did this important government project get so screwed up? If you ask technologistClay Johnson (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=242105911), the insurance exchange's problems began, in a way, in 1995, when "Congress decided to lobotomize itself."

Johnson was referring to a specific action lawmakers took then: They killed a tiny federal agency called the Office of Technology Assessment.

Established in 1972 as Congress' nonpartisan in-house think tank, the OTA studied new technologies and offered recommendations on how Washington could adapt to them. But then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) turned off its lights.

Today, members of Congress have legislative counsels to help draft laws. They have the Congressional Budget Office to analyze how much laws will cost. But they don't have the OTA's experts to tell them how those laws will work.

"An OTA review might have prevented some heartburn and embarrassment" associated with the Healthcare.gov rollout, argues Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), an astrophysicist who has previously introduced legislation that would resurrect the agency.

Warning Congress about problems with Healthcare.gov—and explaining them—would have been right in OTA's wheelhouse. The office, Rep. George Brown (D-Calif.) dryly remarked in 1995, was a "defense against the dumb (http://books.google.com/books?id=Tf-zAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT106&ots=Hi26gMpc3Y&dq=Brown%20%22defense%20against%20the%20dumb%22&pg=PT106#v=onepage&q=Brown%20%22defense%20against%20the%20dumb%22&f=false)." During its 24-year existence, the agency developed a reputation for sharp, foresighted analysis on the problems of the new information age: It called for a new, reinforced tanker design a decade before the Exxon-Valdez spill; emphasized the danger of fertilizer bombs 15 years before Oklahoma City; predicted in 1982 that email would render the postal service obsolete; and warned that President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (better known as "Star Wars") would likely result in a "catastrophic failure (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-12/news/mn-7383_1_star-wars)" if it were ever used.

Analyzing health care spending was one of OTA's specialties. One of its final reports, "Bringing Health Care Online (http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/90-853/medis.dir/otadocs.dir/HealthCareOnlineToc.htm)," published in 1995, focused on the potential (and potential for mishaps) in electronic data interchanges. "Changes in the health care delivery system, including the emergence of managed health care and integrated delivery systems, are breaking down the organizational barriers that have stood between care providers, insurers, medical researchers, and public health professionals," the report warned.
http://t.mookie1.com/t/v1/imp?migAgencyId=66&migSource=mmind&migRandom=124855556&migTrackDataExt=17535759;8436080&migTrackFmtExt=ad;plhttp://pixel-dimestore.dmi.sensic.net/vi-pixel?action=pixel&event=pixel&pixelID=f210058784

But thanks to Gingrich and the Republican Revolution, that OTA review of potential hurdles for the Obamacare website never happened. In 1995, Gingrich set the OTA's funding to zero—and gave the ax to similar agencies, like the General Accounting Office (which lost half its funding) and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.brownlee.html) (which was phased out). He told members of congress with tech questions to consult their local research universities instead.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/office-technology-assessment-gingrich-obamacare

"Thanks, O'Gringrich!"

fucking Repugs, All Intentional No Governance, All Misgovernance, All The Time (for decades)

No surprise, when their Government-Hater-In-Chief said "Government IS the problem", deflecting the blame and hate away from the Repugs themselves.

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 08:59 AM

No surprise, when their Government-Hater-In-Chief said "Government IS the problem", deflecting the blame and hate away from the Repugs themselves.now you're doing the same thing. oh, the ironing!

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 09:01 AM

lol no true Scotsman and blaming the ACA's shortcomings on Newt Gingrich.

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 09:36 AM

now you're doing the same thing. oh, the ironing!

Not deflecting the blame away from the Dems. The damage the Repug's malfeasance, non/misgovernance and bogus wars lasts for decades.

At least the Dems are trying to MAKE PROGRESS, while the Repugs are obstructing, fucking up government.

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 11:24 AM

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2159286-2,00.html

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 11:30 AM

Obviously, the demand in blue states is there. Wonder why there's no demand in red states? :lol

State health exchange swamped with enrollees

California's health exchange is struggling to keep pace with a surge of applicants who are encountering long waits and website problems as they try to meet a Dec. 23 deadline.

In response to higher-than-expected demand, the Covered California exchange said it is adding staff and expanding its capacity to answer consumer calls. It received 17,000 calls in less than an hour Wednesday, more than it received in an entire day in recent weeks. The exchange is also trying to dig through a backlog of 25,000 paper applications filed in October and November.

Dec. 23 is the sign-up deadline to have insurance starting Jan. 1, and consumers must pay the initial monthly premium by Jan. 5. After that, enrollment in the exchange lasts through March 31. The state postponed the initial payment deadline to Jan. 5 to give cash-strapped consumers more time during the holidays.

"We have been running strong all week, and at times we have exceeded the capacity of our phone lines," said exchange spokesman Dana Howard. "The demand is more than we projected. But the bottom line is folks will be able to get themselves enrolled for Jan. 1."

During the first two months of enrollment under the Affordable Care Act, California consistently outperformed the federal marketplace in 36 other states. Through mid-November, the state has enrolled nearly 80,000 people in private health plans, and 140,000 more appear to have qualified for Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program.

But experts warn that even Covered California could be overwhelmed by a surge in applicants the next two weeks.

"Running into these difficulties can discourage people from signing up, and it doesn't bode well for future enrollment," said Shana Alex Lavarreda, director of health insurance studies at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. "It remains to be seen whether everyone can get through."

Health insurance agents, key allies of Covered California so far, are also voicing frustration. The California Assn. of Health Underwriters expressed concern Thursday about the exchange failing to process about 25,000 paper applications that agents had submitted weeks ago.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-78450435/

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 11:34 AM

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2159286-2,00.html

There's LOTS of ripoffs and fraudulance, $100Bs/year, in the FOR-PROFIT US health care. It will take time to address them all, if ever, and it will take a LOT LONGER due to Repug obstruction and defunding. What is Steven Brill's position on Repug sabotaging?

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 11:39 AM

Obama's foot dragging, mismanagement and servility to special interests count too, don't they?

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 11:41 AM

Obama's foot dragging and servility to special interests counts too, doesn't it?

sure it does. no servility to the corporations, then ACA would have been Harry-and-Louise'd

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 11:44 AM

thanks for acknowledging Obama and the Dems at least share the blame for the lackluster rollout.

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 11:51 AM

thanks for acknowledging Obama and the Dems at least share the blame for the lackluster rollout.

of course they do, never said they were flawless in trying rollout a hyper-complicated kludgeocracy into the insane hyper-complicated kludegocracy of US health care.

And it's Friday, so GFY

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 12:00 PM

FTW, the kids used to say.

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 12:15 PM

of course they do, never said they were flawless in trying rollout a hyper-complicated kludgeocracy into the insane hyper-complicated kludegocracy of US health care.I love it when you feign disliking the Democrats. what is the opposite of a backhanded compliment?

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 12:16 PM

(in b4 GFY)

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 12:20 PM

I love it when you feign disliking the Democrats. what is the opposite of a backhanded compliment?

I'm not feigning anything. I PREFER Dems to the Repugs, much lesser of two shitty parties.

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 12:22 PM

funny, WC says the exact same thing

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 12:25 PM

and just like you, he often must overcome considerable reluctance to criticize his preferred tribe.

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 12:48 PM

what is the opposite of a backhanded compliment?toothless criticism?

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 01:48 PM

funny, WC says the exact same thing

WC prefers DEMS?

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 02:31 PM

lesser of two evils

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 03:02 PM

States That Refused Medicaid Expansion Will Lose Billions

When the Supreme Court ruled in the summer of 2012 that individual states did not have to participate in a federal expansion of Medicaid, many Republican governors rejoiced.

“We don’t need the federal government telling us what to do when it comes to meeting the needs of the citizens of our states,” wrote Florida governor (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/medicaid-expansion-gop-governors_n_1775973.html) Rick Scott (R).

Today, the financial implications of the refusal are now clear: States like Scott’s Florida stand to lose billions because of their ideological crusade against the federal government.

The pro-health care reform Commonwealth Fund released a study (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2013/12/1718_Glied_how_states_stand_gain_lose_Medicaid_exp ansion_ib_v2.pdf) this month showing exactly how states will pay for their refusal to accept the Medicaid expansion. The Affordable Care Act states that the federal government is responsible for paying 100 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid for the first three years. After that, the federal government covers 90 percent of the cost. Accepting the expansion is a common-sense economic move by states, according to the study’s authors. They write (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/06/study-refusing-medicaid-expansion-will-cost-states-billions-of-dollars/):

States that choose to participate in the Medicaid expansion will gain considerable new federal funds. States often seek to increase their share of federal funds, lobbying for military bases, procurement contracts, and highway funds. Federal funding provides direct benefits and bolsters local economies.

As the Washington Post notes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/06/study-refusing-medicaid-expansion-will-cost-states-billions-of-dollars//?print=1), Texas will miss out on the most federal funding, but all states who refused the expansion will lose funds offered by the federal government.

Louisiana, Oklahoma and Wisconsin will pass up more than $1 billion, while bigger states like Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia will miss out on more than $2 billion in federal funds.

Nevertheless, Republican governors who lead these states are steadfast in their opposition, despite the negative economic implications.

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (R), for example, thinks the expansion is the federal government trying to “bully” the states. “We will not allow President Obama to bully Louisiana into accepting an expansion of Obamacare,” he said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/bobby-jindal-obama_n_4242584.html) in a statement.

Similarly, Texas governor Rick Perry (R) said about the (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rick-perry-accepting-medicaid-expansion-like-putting-1-000-more-people-on-the-titanic) Medicaid expansion: “It’s like putting 1,000 more people on the Titanic when you knew what was going to happen.” Perry also said about Republican governors who accepted the expansion (such as New Jersey’s Chris Christie), “I think it’s a factor; I think it’s a philosophical position.”

Perhaps Christie’s decision was driven by numbers, rather than “philosophy.” By accepting, New Jersey will receive federal funds to expand the program. Texas, on the other hand, will pass up (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/files/2013/12/1718_Glied_how_states_stand_gain_lose_Medicaid_exp ansion_ib_v2.pdf) $9.2 billion in federal funds over the next 10 years.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/study-states-that-refused-medicaid-expansion-will-lose-billions/

Repug refuseniks are going to have to run against the doctors, hospitals, clinics, medical societies, etc who really, really need those Medicaid $Bs.

boutons_deux

12-06-2013, 03:59 PM

damn, these gun fellators are so easily lied to and manipulated

NRA President Pushes Conspiracy Theory That Obama Will Use Medicare To Create Gun Registry

National Rifle Association President Jim Porter falsely claimed that Medicare enrollees are asked to disclose household gun ownership to revive the NRA's decades-old scare tactics about a federal gun registry.

On the December 4 edition (http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2013/12/05/33164/thesportsmanchannel-camandcompany-20131204-porter) of the NRA News show Cam & Company, Porter claimed, "People are not interested in this government going into their records. That's why we are so concerned about everything they are doing to register people in firearms. Even when you go to register for Medicare or under these new programs they ask intrusive questions about -- that they have no business asking, they invade your privacy, and they also are asking questions about whether or not you have firearms in homes." Noting that the NRA has "been concerned about gun registration since 1968," Porter also suggested that his claim about an Obama administration gun registry scheme meant that "the public clearly sees and agrees with us about our concerns."

NRA leadership often baselessly suggests that the Obama administration is attempting to secretly regulate firearms in a manner inconsistent with the administration's public positions. A White House spokesperson has said (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh-says-it-doesnt-support-national-gun-registry/) a national gun registry "is not something that the president has supported" and the post-Newtown massacre Obama administration proposal (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf) to reduce gun violence did not call for a registry. In fact, the NRA previously acknowledged (http://web.archive.org/web/20130224014112/http:/www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2004/rolling-back-bill-clinton%27s-anti-gun-le.aspx) in a since-deleted post on its website that the creation of a registry by the government would be currently contrary to two federal laws (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/09/06/24-distortions-about-guns-from-wash-times-edito/195749).

Furthermore, in April, the NRA played a critical role (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-says-nra-willfully-lied-to-beat-background-check-bill) in blocking Obama administration-backed U.S. Senate legislation that would have expanded background checks to all commercial gun sales while also making it a (http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968)serious criminal offense (http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968) for an attorney general to create a national gun registry.

Porter offered no evidence to support his claim that Medicare enrollment includes questions about gun ownership and in fact no such question (http://photos.state.gov/libraries/adana/231771/ssforms/ssa-1.pdf) is included in the application for benefits. A related claim that Medicare Annual Wellness Visits (http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/AWV_Chart_ICN905706.pdf) include mandatory questions about gun ownership has also been thoroughly debunked (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/medicare.asp).

Hyperbolic claims that the provision of health care is a privacy threat to gun owners is a common theme (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/17/four-falsehoods-about-doctors-and-guns-pushed-b/192305) seen in conservative media and NRA messaging. In January, after the Obama administration issued an executive action (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_actions.pdf) clarifying that doctors are allowed -- but not required -- to discuss health hazards, including a lack of gun safety at home, conservative media claimed that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) required doctors to ask patients about guns (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/16/drudge-and-limbaugh-misrepresent-what-obama-and/192286). This claim was a misreading of the law; in fact, lobbying by the NRA secured language in the ACA that prohibited (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/10/gun-advocates-celebrate-secret-obamacare-provision-forbidding-exec-order-to-regulate-guns-and-ammo/2/) the Department of Health and Human Services from collecting information about gun ownership under the law.

The NRA's paranoia surrounding medical care is evidenced by the group's support (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/health/policy/09guns.html) for an unconstitutional (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/florida-doctor-gun-law_n_962849.html) 2011 Florida law that would have made it a crime (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/pediatricians-parents-guns-home/story?id=12770294) for doctors to ask about gun ownership.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/12/06/nra-president-pushes-conspiracy-theory-that-oba/197173

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 03:59 PM

President Barack Obama's administration has found a short-term fix to pay insurance companies for plans selected on HealthCare.gov, the not-yet-complete government website used to shop for insurance required under Obama's healthcare program.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not yet finished building the part of the website that would transfer billions of dollars in subsidies for plan premiums and cost-sharing payments to insurance companies.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/usa-healthcare-payments-idINL2N0JJ00S20131204

Winehole23

12-06-2013, 04:01 PM

On the most basic level, the newly proposed patch suggests how much work remains on simply constructing the essential technical infrastructure necessary to make Obamacare's exchange-based insurance scheme work. Some 30 to 40 percent of the functionality remains incomplete, according to Henry Chao, the Medicare technology official who oversaw the development of the exchanges. And the features that remain to be built are vital to the system’s functionality.

The core service that health insurers provide is paying for eligible claims by beneficiaries. But if insurers don't get paid themselves, they can’t cut checks for those claims. Some of the larger insurers could finance delays, at least for a little while, but as former Medicare official Kevin Lucia tells Reuters (http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINL2N0JJ00S20131204?irpc=932), smaller insurance plans, which are heavily represented (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323864604579069243722783808) in the health law’s exchanges, aren't well equipped to do so. Plan providers need that money, and they need it soon if they're going to be able to actually provide insurance to their plan members.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/05/obamacare-insurance-workaround-reveals-l

Winehole23

12-09-2013, 10:57 AM

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/994951f8-5e71-11e3-8621-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2mzfAULxg

boutons_deux

12-09-2013, 11:45 AM

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/994951f8-5e71-11e3-8621-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2mzfAULxg

Likewise, some insurance companies are simply not participating in ACA in some states, and/or not including chains of low-price clinics (that treat sicker poor people) in their network, aka, "cartelization" of health care.

boutons_deux

12-09-2013, 12:37 PM

Amid the (fabricated, spurious outrage, lying) Uproar Over the Health Law, Voices of Quiet Optimism and Relief

Since his chronic leukemia was diagnosed in 2010, Ray Acosta has paid dearly for health insurance: more than $800 a month in premiums, plus steep co-payments for the drug that helps keep him alive.
Mr. Acosta, 57, owns a small moving company in Sierra Vista, Ariz., which he said had barely made it through the recession. He was thinking about dropping his coverage, but the insurance company beat him to it, informing him recently that it would cancel his policy at year’s end.

He sought advice from an insurance agent who had used his moving company. She connected him with an application counselor at a community health center, who found — to Mr. Acosta’s astonishment — that he qualified for Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) under the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, which gives states the option of expanding the program to include more low-income adults.

“I’m kind of in a disbelieving fog,” Mr. Acosta said last week, two days after completing an application. “I’m just hoping, keeping my fingers crossed, that this might really help me out.”

“After being gouged all these years, trying to make ends meet, to all of the sudden get this?” he said. “I’m really blown away.”

This Thanksgiving, she and her family sat down to explore their options in the new insurance marketplace. After about 45 minutes online, they selected a midlevel, or silver, plan that would cost the family about $30 a month, after tax-credit subsidies based on income.

“We were shocked,” Ms. He said. “I actually called a few places to verify that.”

Ms. He is on her parents’ plan because the health insurance her university offers is not comprehensive enough. Her brother, an engineer, receives insurance through his employer.

“I see so much negativity behind this,” she said of the criticism of the new law. “But in reality there’s a lot of families who are like mine.”

The coverage available through the state high-risk pools for people like him, Mr. Kleinschmidt said, typically have “extraordinarily high premiums with really high deductibles.” On the state’s new online exchange, he was able to select a plan from a well-known insurer that came with a deductible of only $1,000.

“It’s a godsend,” he said.

Although he had trouble signing up through the website because it froze when he first tried, he said, it took only about 90 minutes to enroll after he called someone at the exchange, which is called Kynect. His only concern now is that he has yet to hear directly from Humana so he can set up a payment plan for his premiums.\

etc

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/us/amid-the-uproar-over-the-health-law-voices-of-quiet-optimism-and-relief.html?from=homepage

America's (Dem) government a force for good, a humanitarian force for its own citizens? G M A BIG F B

boutons_deux

12-09-2013, 01:23 PM

GOP Comes Up With A Brilliant Outrage Generation Plan

The Republican freakout over the Affordable Care Act has gotten so out of control and elaborate that the freakout is creating more “problems” now for Republicans to freak out over. It’s a dragon eating its own tail form of outrage creation.

For instance, conservatives are up in arms because congressional staffers now can have insurance plans that cover abortion, which is supposedly an outrage because it’s a given in American politics that just because you work for the government, you private finances belong to a bunch of religious fanatics. (If you’re female.)

But the reason staffers have this access is because Republicans made it so. Molly Redden at Mother Jones reports (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/republican-obamacare-amendment-gives-abortion-coverage-gop-staffers):

The bizarre story of how a conservative, anti-abortion Republican ended up expanding abortion access for congressional staff dates back to the initial fight over the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Here’s how it happened: The Obamacare exchanges were expressly designed to provide insurance to the uninsured, so congressional staffers—who, like most Americans, already had insurance—were initially excluded. Republicans claimed that this amounted to Democrats “exempting” themselves and their staff from Obamacare, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress and their staff to use the exchanges. Grassley’s proposal was intended to embarrass Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/25/no-congress-isnt-trying-to-exempt-itself-from-obamacare/). But Democrats called Grassley’s bluff, and the law passed with his amendment.

But Grassley’s measure forced congressional staff (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/25/1923061/how-the-media-invented-the-latest-obamacare-controversy/) out of the Federal Health Benefits Program, which federal law prohibited (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-coverage-federal-employees.pdf) from offering any abortion coverage. Under the the federal plan, any congressional employee who wanted an abortion had to pay for it out of pocket. Now that they’re on the Obamacare exchanges, though, congressional employees will only pay out of pocket for abortion insurance. They’ll be able to choose any of the 112 plans available via Washington, DC’s health care exchange, only 9 (http://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2013_12-02_floor_flyer_on_member_hc_plans.pdf) of which do not cover abortion.

Now the Republicans are up in arms because congressional staffers can choose to spend their money how they like, on insurance plans that cover abortion. As I argue in RH Reality Check this week, anti-choicers are definitely trying to warm up the public on the notion that anti-choicers have a unique right to control how you spend your money (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/12/09/first-they-come-for-your-insurance-coverage-is-your-bank-account-next/), and this is just another example.

Of course, the Hyde Amendment, which bans the government for providing insurance plans that cover abortion, is equally invalid to bans on letting people spend their own money on abortion coverage. Whether it’s your money or your insurance plan, you earned it and it belongs to you. Giving “religious” control over to someone else because they are especially whiny and entitled is bullshit.

But I digress, and you can read my RH Reality Check piece for a more elaborate argument on this front. What I want to point out is that not only do Republicans not care that they created the “problem” they are now mad about, but that this is actually a stroke of genius from Republicans.

After all, they need to have non-problems to raise a fuss about, ideally involving the evils of female sexuality + the evils of people getting real health insurance.

How better, then, but to find shit to complain about knowing full well that if it’s “fixed”, then the solution will be something else you can complain about?

Why wait for the Democrats to do something you can feign outrage over, when you can do it yourself, blame the Democrats, and feign outrage over the thing that is, if you have any sense at all, not actually a problem? This is a dream come true for Republicans, a self-generating fountain of bullshit that is increasingly detached from obstacles like reality.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/09/gop-comes-up-with-a-brilliant-outrage-generation-plan/

boutons_deux

12-09-2013, 02:45 PM

holy shit, you Repugs, tea baggers and the nutty assholes you elect

Ted Cruz coloring book for children says Obamacare‘worse than any war’

Just in time for the holiday season, a controversial publisher has released a new coloring book for children about Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The Missouri-based publisher, Really Big Coloring Books, describes its book (http://www.coloringbook.com/ted-cruz-coloring-book.aspx) as “a non-partisan, fact-driven view of how Texas Sen. Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz became a U.S. senator and details, through his quotes and public information his ideas for what he believes will help America grow.”

The book states that Cruz supports the Second Amendment, unlike Obama who has a “consistent disregard” for constitutional rights. It invites children to color-in the Ten Commandments on a page devoted to the United States national motto, “In God We Trust.”

The book also references Cruz’s 21-hour anti-Obamacare speech, saying that “millions of citizens believe Obama Care is worse than any war.”

“At least American soldiers have weapons with which to defend themselves,” the book adds.

Really Big Coloring Books sells a variety of coloring books for children. But some of its books have sparked controversy.

On the brink of the tenth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center, the company announced it was releasing a 9/11 coloring book. The book, “We Shall Never Forget 9/11: The Kids’ Book of Freedom,” was accused of being Islamophobic (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/09/ted-cruz-coloring-book-for-children-says-obamacare-worse-than-any-war/abcnews.go.com/US/911-coloring-book-draws-criticism-portrayal-muslims/story?id=14414149) and inappropriate for small children.

The company later released (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/07/occupy-protesters-mint-their-own-coloring-book/) a coloring book about the “Occupy Wall Street” protests.

“Many the US citizens denounce this product; our company aspires to be accurate in description even when upopular [sic] and this book generated hate mail. Surprisingly, the Occupy book sold well in China, France, Eastern Europe and some middle eastern countries; in total outselling the US audience,” Really Big Coloring Books wrote on its website (http://www.coloringbook.com/occupy-coloring-book.aspx).

Really Big Coloring Books publisher Wayne Bell told Fox News earlier this year that the White House emailed profanity to his company (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/12/coloring-book-publisher-white-house-cussed-at-us-after-obama-friend-included-on-evil-terror-list/).

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/09/ted-cruz-coloring-book-for-children-says-obamacare-worse-than-any-war/

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol