Initial attempts to sign up for ObamaCare go about as well as expected [Archive] - Page 6

boutons_deux

07-25-2014, 01:06 PM

Millions of Americans can expect to get a refund from their insurance companies this year, at an average of about $80 dollars per family, thanks to a little-known Obamacare provision that’s helping people save money on their premiums. According to a new report (http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Forms-Reports-and-Other-Resources/Downloads/Final-MLR-Report_07-22-2014.pdf) released by the Health and Human Services Department on Thursday, Americans across the country have received a total of $1.9 billion dollars in rebates since this provision first took effect in 2011.

Obamacare’s medical loss ratio (http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Health-Insurance-Market-Reforms/Medical-Loss-Ratio.html) provision — which is also frequently referred to as the “80/20 rule” — requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of every American’s premium costs on their medical care, rather than on the company’s own profits or administrative overhead. If insurance companies don’t hit the right balance, they have to issue a refund check to their customers to make up for it.

According to HHS’s calculations, 6.8 million Americans will save $330 million in refunds this year because of the 80/20 rule. Insurance companies are required to provide those reimbursements by no later than the beginning of August. Not everyone will actually receive a physical check in the mail; insurers are allowed to apply the reimbursements to future premiums, so the savings could show up that way.

In a press release announcing the new data, HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said that the health reform law is giving Americans a “better value for their premium dollars.” The whole point of the 80/20 rule is to encourage insurance companies to operate more efficiently and cut down on their overhead — and it’s slowly working. The portion of premium dollars allocated to insurers’ profits and administrative costs dropped (http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Forms-Reports-and-Other-Resources/Downloads/Final-MLR-Report_07-22-2014.pdf) from 15.3 percent in 2011 to 11.7 percent in 2013.

HHS estimates that if insurers weren’t making those type of changes, Americans would have likely paid about $3.8 billion in additional premiums in 2013. Altogether, since the medical loss ratio took effect three years ago, the administration calculates that it’s averted $9 billion dollars worth of unnecessarily high insurance premiums.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/24/3463602/obamacare-premium-savings/

boutons_deux

07-30-2014, 10:48 AM

Drop in uninsured is a mixed blessing for hospitals

Some of the big, urban hospitals around the country – the "safety net (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/02/dsh/ch2.htm#What)" hospitals that serve the poor – are getting hit with a dose of good news.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the number of uninsured patients is dropping sharply. Hospitals like Our Lady of Lourdes (https://www.lourdesnet.org/about-lourdes-health-system/)in Camden, New Jersey, are now spending millions less on providing charity care.

That’s a $3.5 million of savings at the Camden hospital.

“$3.5 million can make a difference between breaking even or operating in the red,” Hatala says.

What’s happening in Camden is happening around the country – at least for hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare.

This summer the Colorado Hospital Association – looking at stats from 30 states – found (http://www.cha.com/Documents/Press-Releases/CHA-Medicaid-Expansion-Study-June-2014.aspx) a 30 percent jump in Medicaid charges, and a 30 percent drop in charity care costs.

That puts hospitals on track to save billions this year.

“Yeah, there’s more money. But it also comes with a caveat,” says Ellen Kugler, Executive Director of the National Association of Urban Hospitals (http://www.nauh.org/about-us/history-and-mission.html). “There are a number of federal cuts coming and many more that are coming.”

Federal, state, and local government funding currently covers about 65 percent (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/5/807.abstract) of charity care costs. Under the ACA, the plan has been to reduce that funding - at least at the federal level - as more Americans gain insurance coverage.

In this new landscape, the Urban Institute’s Teresa Coughlin (http://www.urban.org/health_policy/about/coughlin.cfm?page=1) says these hospitals will now have to fight to keep their newly-insured patients: “Do they have contracts with [insurers]? Are they able to retain patients who became newly insured and still continue to come to their facility? Or will they go elsewhere now that they have a choice?”

Coughlin says some of these hospitals are considered second-tier facilities, and to keep their doors open, they must build relationships with insurers and convince consumers they offer excellent service for a fair price.

A whole new world, says Coughlin - a world where not all safety net hospitals may survive.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/health-care/drop-uninsured-mixed-blessing-hospitals

"not all safety net hospitals may survive" ... esp in sadistic, death-panel (Repug) states that refused to expand Medicaid.

TheSanityAnnex

08-05-2014, 04:31 PM

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2014/August/04/A-Doctors-Perspective-On-Obamacare.aspx

A Doctor's Perspective On Obamacare Plans

This story is part of a partnership that includes WNPR (http://www.wnpr.org/) , NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/news/) and Kaiser Health News. It can be republished for free. (details (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Syndication.aspx))
On a recent afternoon at his office in Hartford, Conn., Dr. Doug Gerard examines a patient complaining of joint pain. Gerard, an internist, checks her out, asks her a few questions about her symptoms and then orders a few tests before sending her on her way.
For a typical quick visit like this, Gerard could get reimbursed $100 or more from a private insurer. For the same visit, Medicare pays less — about $80. And now, with the new private plans under the Affordable Care Act, Gerard says he would get something in between, but closer to the lower Medicare rates.
That's not something he's willing to accept.
"I cannot accept a plan [in which] potentially commercial-type reimbursement rates were now going to be reimbursed at Medicare rates,” Gerard says. “You have to maintain a certain mix in private practice between the low reimbursers and the high reimbursers to be able to keep the lights on."
Three insurers offered plans on Connecticut’s ACA marketplacein 2014, and Gerard is only accepting one. He won't say which, but he will say it pays the highest rate to doctors.
"I don't think most physicians know what they're being reimbursed. Only when they start seeing some of those rates come through will they realize how low the rates are they agreed to."
Gerard's decision to reject two plans is something officials in Connecticut are concerned about. If reimbursement rates to doctors stay low in Obamacare plans, more doctors could reject those plans. And that could mean that people will get access to insurance, but they may not get access to a lot of doctors.
That worries Kevin Counihan, who runs Connecticut's health insurance marketplace (https://www.accesshealthct.com/).
"I think it could lead potentially to this kind of distinction that there are these different tiers of quality of care," Counihan says.

His agency recently approved rules geared at getting more providers into plans on the exchange. The goal is to make sure that everyone gets good care regardless of their income.
He doesn't want the impression left that someone who gets a subsidy to buy ACA coverage will get inferior care. “That's been something, at least in our state, that we're trying to work against. And the carriers are, as well," Counihan says.
All three of the insurers on Connecticut's exchange were asked to comment. Two declined. One agreed. Ken Lalime is the CEO of Healthy CT — an insurance co-op. He says insurers face a real challenge figuring out how to pay doctors enough but also keep consumer premiums low (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2014/july/08/in-unhealthy-eastern-tennessee-limited-patient-options-brings-some-of-the-countrys-cheapest-premiums.aspx?referrer=search).
"Every time you increase payments to providers, you have to offset that with increased reimbursements from the consumer,” says Lalime. “So there's this balance between how much do you want to cost to provide that service and how much you can pass along in your premiums rates. It's a balancing act."
Healthy CT may have missed the balance – just 3 percent of the exchange's consumers bought the co-op's insurance in 2014. Lalime says he also thinks low reimbursement rates are forcing some doctors to decide against accepting insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Dr. Bob Russo is sure of it. He's a radiologist and he's also the president-elect of the Connecticut State Medical Society (http://csms.org/). He says that the low rates and administrative burdens that come along with the ACA could make it a financial loser.
"You get what you pay for,” Russo says. “If you can't convince [doctors] that they're not losing money doing their job, then it's a problem. And they haven't been able to convince people of that."
He, like Counihan, worries about creating a tiered health care system. He says, think about Medicaid. Before a recent rise in rates, it paid doctors even less than Medicare, so many stopped accepting Medicaid patients.
"There's no question that Medicaid, under its old rates, wasn't working. So, have we just invented a new Medicaid that kind of slid the scale up a little more to make access a little more?" Russo says.
The experience of these doctors is a good reminder that the Affordable Care Act is more than a thought exercise in health care. It's happening. And here's another reminder: open enrollment for 2015 begins in just over three months (https://www.healthcare.gov/what-key-dates-do-i-need-to-know/).

TheSanityAnnex

08-05-2014, 05:30 PM

boutons_deux

08-09-2014, 11:09 AM

MAP: Your State Lost Billions by Refusing to Expand Medicaid

Conservatives who oppose the Medicaid expansion make other arguments, of course. They say they don’t want to increase federal spending, they think Medicaid is a lousy insurance program, and, more generally, they don’t like big government. Those are fine arguments to have. But the idea that expanding Medicaid is a poor financial decision for states is not just wrong. It appears to be the opposite of the truth.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119011/map-how-much-24-states-lost-refusing-expand-medicaid

boutons_deux

08-12-2014, 08:41 AM

Feds: Texas Responsible for Misspent Medicaid Dollars
For nearly five years, the Texas Medicaid and Healthcare Partnership (TMHP), a subsidiary of Xerox, allowed workers with limited expertise to approve dental claims for Texas’ Medicaid program, the joint state-federal insurer.

State spending on orthodontic services spiraled out of control: Between 2003 and 2010, Texas Medicaid payments for orthodontic services grew by more than 3,000 percent — from $6.5 million to $220.5 million — while program enrollment only grew 33 percent.

By 2012, federal and state auditors found that the contractor’s actions had opened the door to a “massive Medicaid fraud scheme” that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/11/feds-texas-responsible-misspent-medicaid-dollars/

One of the many reasons Repug's prefer block grants rather than Federal string attached. The Repugs can re-allocate, steal the Federal block grant for other purposes, fraud.

boutons_deux

08-18-2014, 05:43 AM

Five Biggest Lies About Obamacare

On the evidence available to us so far, nearly everything that the more vocal conservative critics have said about the ACA has been wrong. No. “Wrong” implies a statement made in good faith.

These charges were often made in the worst possible faith. And they were lies.

1. Healthy People Won’t Sign Up

Or call this “Death Spiral Part I.” The idea here, spread lustily by many conservatives since 2010 but especially during last fall’s disastrous roll out, was that healthy people simply wouldn’t buy insurance. Senator Orrin Hatch said last November (http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=490afe84-b4a2-4cb8-a432-442a3cac835e) that “at this pace, the Obama administration will never be able to meet their enrollment goals.” Speaker John Boehner at the time groused that “the idea that the federal government should come in and create a one size fits all for the entire country never was going to work.”

Their hope was that only really sick people would sign up, which would lead rates to spike—the much-feared death spiral (more on that later). But lo and behold it turned out that millions of healthy people did want health insurance. As noted above, the precise numbers are hard to come by. But Gallup’s estimate is that the country has roughly 10 million (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/06/latest-gallup-numbers-confirm-10-12-million-newly-insured-under-obamacare) newly insured citizens under Obamacare.

2. You Won’t Be Able to Choose/Keep Your Doctor/Plan

It’s true that this happened in a limited number of cases—maybe six or seven million people who bought policies on the individual market got cancellation letters from insurers telling them that their plans didn’t meet the minimum requirements under the new law, as NBC News explosively reported (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance-f8C11484394) last fall.

It harmed the administration’s credibility, and rightly so. But it didn’t represent much of a change from the past — the “churn-rate” in the individual market has always been high.

in a country where some 260 million people have health insurance, no one has adduced any proof that the ACA has resulted in anything remotely like the cataclysm opponents predicted.

In fact, last fall, Factcheck.orgrated such claims (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/) as outright falsehoods. And Gruber noted to me that if some people are “losing” their doctors, it’s often by their own choice, because now that they have so many different coverage options, many are choosing less expensive or so-called “limited network” plans. “No one is making people buy these plans,” Gruber says. “They’re cheaper alternatives. This is capitalism at its finest. For the right to criticize that is just ludicrous.”

3. Obamacare Will Explode the Federal Deficit

You heard this one a jillion times back when the law was being debated. Still today, Republicans and conservatives are deft at cherry-picking numbers out of official reports that can convey the misleading impression that fiscal watchdogs think the law will be a disaster.

The truth is that the Congressional Budget Office said in 2010 and reaffirmed this summer (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45447) that the Affordable Care Act’s budget impact would be positive. The 2010 estimate was that the ACA would cut deficits by $124 billion over its first decade. And in June, CBO head Douglas Elmendorf reported that his experts “have no reason to think that their initial assessment that the ACA would reduce budget deficits was incorrect.”

The CBO has estimated that the law will especially reduce the deficit in its second decade, and there’s every reason to believe that those estimates are on course.”

4. Okay, Then, It Will Bust States’ Budgets

Texas’ Rick Perry, Florida’s Rick Scott, and numerous other Republican governors have said that Obamacare will bust their budgets. They’re basing that on the fact that the federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs of Medicaid expansion through 2016, but a little less than that thereafter (although never less than 90 percent).

here’s the part Perry and Scott leave out. All states have, of course, an existing relationship with the Medicaid program in which states pay for some portion of the program’s implementation. And a number of studies estimate that in that pool of funds, states will save significant amounts of money (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3801) that will offset most of the new expenses incurred under Obamacare. For example, Massachusetts found that after implementation of Romneycare, its costs for “uncompensated care”—charity work, basically—decreased considerably. And one study (http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-uncompensated-care-dropping-fast.html) released in June found that uncompensated care costs are already dropping dramatically under the ACA—but only in the states that have taken the Medicaid money.

Perry, Scott, et alia are perhaps agents of a self-fulfilling prophecy

5. Premium Rates Will Shoot Through the Roof

This is the big enchilada, and the culmination of the alleged death spiral. The charge here is that the lack of healthy enrollees will force insurers to jack rates up to the heavens, because they’ll have all these sick and dying people on their hands.

let’s step back. What’s a typical, pre-ACA rate increase? Good question. In 2008 it was 9.9 percent; 2009, 10.8 percent; 2010, 11.7 percent. Within those broad averages, numbers were all over the map: In 2010, rates went up in Kentucky by just 5.5 percent, but in Nebraska by 21.8 percent.

The Health Research Institute at PricewaterhouseCoopers looked at rate requests from insurers that have been filed across 29 states and the District of Columbia and found (http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/aca-state-exchanges.jhtml) that the average increase is 8.2 percent, which is impressively low and definitely not “sticker shock.” And remember, these are mostly just requests (in Rhode Island and Oregon, the rates are final), which aggressive state insurance commissioners might seek to make still lower. "So far, the filings suggest modest increases for 2015, well below the double digit hikes many feared,

This is another area where Republican saboteurs of the law can, if they choose to, make it not work.

That is, Republican state insurance commissioners can approve big premium hikes just to make the law look bad. Says Sally McCarty, the former Indiana state insurance commissioner, now at the Georgetown Center on Health Insurance Reforms: “States that are in earnest about implementing the law will likely see lower increases, and states not so concerned about seeing the law succeed will see higher increases.”

Republicans aren’t bashing it quite so much anymore, because even they see it’s kind of working.

The damage they’ve already done is considerable.

“Health care is a topic that people feel particularly close to as it involves the most important decisions people make; it is also a topic people can feel incredibly anxious about for the same reason,”

“The right wing has preyed upon those anxieties by manufacturing one lie after another to create a veil of opposition against a bill that has so far been pretty effective at covering people and lowering costs.

It is an indictment of our policy deliberations as a country that these lies have been so effective.” Slowly, the truth is catching up.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/17/the-five-biggest-lies-about-obamacare.html

As ALWAYS, the Repugs are either flat-out wrong, hurting people and the country, or LYING.

Thanks, asshole, lying Repugs, and you asshole right-wingers who keep voting them into office.

boutons_deux

08-18-2014, 02:36 PM

:lol

GOP Governor In Tough Re-election Bid Prepares To Implement Obamacare (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/08/28/3477007/politically-vulnerable-republican-governor-agrees-to-accept-obamacare-funds/)

Pennsylvania will soon become (http://www.vox.com/2014/8/28/6079245/report-pennsylvania-will-be-the-27th-state-to-expand-medicaid) the 12th Republican-led state to expand its Medicaid program in accordance with the Affordable Care Act at a time when conservatives across the country are downplaying (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/08/19/3472905/more-proof-that-republicans-are-finally-accepting-that-obamacare-is-here-to-stay/) their opposition to the law.

On Thursday, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will announce that it had granted a waiver and reached agreement with the state to provide health care coverage to 500,000 low-income residents through private insurance. The waiver will make Pennsylvania the 27th state, plus the District of Columbia, to accept federal Medicaid dollars.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/08/28/3477007/politically-vulnerable-republican-governor-agrees-to-accept-obamacare-funds/

boutons_deux

09-02-2014, 10:49 AM

As always intended, the racist Confederate South screwing the blacks

Southern Blacks Are Biggest Victims Of GOP's Obamacare Obstructionism

Medicaid expansion is making progress. As TPM reported (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/wyoming-medicaid-expansion-obamacare-why-wy) yesterday, even states as conservative as Wyoming are coming around. Others like Indiana and Pennsylvania are making progress as well. But a handful remain hardened in their opposition. They are largely contained to the South, and that means that the people being left out of Obamacare's safety-net expansion are disproportionately poor blacks.

Nelson Lichtnestein, director of the University of California-Santa-Barbara's Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy, flagged the ongoing disparity in an email to TPM on Monday, responding to the Wyoming story. "There is a large elephant that escapes your notice," he said. "Republican governors in North and West are indeed climbing aboard, but not those in the South."

And it's true. A map (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/medicaid-expansion-map-obamacare-losers) of Medicaid expansion leaves out the five states that, at least by the standard definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deep+South), comprise the Deep South. You can tack on two huge adjoining states -- Florida and Texas -- and go by the "original Confederate States" definition. Arkansas and Kentucky are the most Southern states so far to expand, and both are led by Democrats. GOP-led Tennessee is working on it.

In a June op-ed for Reuters (http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/06/18/todays-south-is-boldly-moving-backward/), Lichtenstein used the South's obstruction of Medicaid expansion as "Exhibit A" in his argument that the region was reverting to the "New South," formerly the description of the period between the Civil War (or Reconstruction, more precisely) and civil rights.

"A ruling white caste (is) now putting in place policies likely to create a vast economic and social gap between most Southern states and those in the North, upper Midwest and Pacific region," he wrote. "Of course, such regressive social policies... are supported by a fierce white partisanship."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/medicaid-expansion-southern-blacks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

The Repug party nation-wide is hard-core racist, has been for 50 years since Dems helped the blacks in the 1960s.

boutons_deux

09-04-2014, 11:10 AM

Federal Appeals Court Withdraws Decision Defunding Obamacare (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/04/3477801/breaking-federal-appeals-court-withdraws-decision-defunding-obamacare/)

In July, two Republican judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed down a decision defunding much of the Affordable Care Act (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/22/3459165/halbig/) (ACA). This effort to implement Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) top policy priority from the bench waswithdrawn on Thursday by the DC Circuit (http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/halbig_enbanc_20140904.pdf), and the case will be reheard by the full court — a panel that will most likely include 13 judges. In practical terms, this means that July’s judgment cutting off subsidies to consumers who buy insurance plans in federally-operated health exchanges is no more. It has ceased to be. It is, in fact, an ex-judgment.

The reason why this matters is because the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, known as Halbig v. Burwell, are hustling to try to convince the GOP-dominated Supreme Court to hear this case, where they no doubt believe that they have a greater chance of succeeding than in the DC Circuit, as a majority of the active judges in the DC Circuit are Democrats. The Supreme Court takes only a tiny fraction of the cases brought to their attention by parties who lost in a lower court — a study of the Court’s 2005 term, for example, found that the justices granted a full argument to only 78 of the 8,517 petitions (http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/16-2_Wachtell.pdf) seeking the high Court’s review that term. The justices, however, are particularly likely to hear cases where two federal appeals courts disagree about the same question of law.

Two hours after the divided DC Circuit panel released its opinion attempted to defund Obamacare, a unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit upheld the health subsidies that are at issue in Halbig (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/22/3462810/two-hours-after-republican-judges-strike-obamacare-subsidies-another-appeals-court-upholds-them/). Thus, so long as both decisions remained in effect, Supreme Court review was very likely. Now that the full DC Circuit has vacated the two Republican judges’ July judgement, Supreme Court review is much less likely.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/04/3477801/breaking-federal-appeals-court-withdraws-decision-defunding-obamacare/

:lol Repugs get fucked for trying to fuck Americans. :lol

but they'll keep trying, that's what you Repugs are best at, fuck America, fuck the environment.

boutons_deux

09-09-2014, 06:04 AM

America Shocked As It's Revealed: Bill Kristol May Be Right About Something (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/08/1328023/-America-Shocked-As-It-s-Revealed-Bill-Kristol-May-Be-Right-About-Something)

But way back in 1992, Kristol wrote a memo to the GOP (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-1993-kristol-memo-on-defeating-health-care-reform) warning that the Clinton healthcare reforms would make the GOP look like assholes and make the Democrats look like the good guys. Wrote Kristol:

"But the long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse — much worse.

It will re-legitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation. :lol

It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests.

And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/08/1328023/-America-Shocked-As-It-s-Revealed-Bill-Kristol-May-Be-Right-About-Something?detail=email#

"Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government" :lol

boutons_deux

09-16-2014, 07:06 AM

Number of Americans Without Health Insurance Falls

Federal researchers reported on Tuesday that the number of Americans without health insurance had declined substantially in the first quarter of this year, the first federal measure of the number of uninsured Americans since the Affordable Care Act (https://www.healthcare.gov/) extended coverage to millions of people in January.

The number of uninsured Americans fell by about 8 percent to 41 million people in the first quarter of this year, compared with 2013, a drop that represented about 3.8 million people

there should be no doubt at this point that the law is increasing the number of people insured,”

“It is too early,” said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at M.I.T. whose work was used in shaping the law. “This is really a three-year process of implementation,” he said, pointing out that federal estimates assume the law will take three years to take full effect, similar to the timing around health care overhaul (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in Massachusetts. “Trying to draw strong conclusions from one quarter of one year is impossible.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/us/number-of-americans-without-health-insurance-falls-survey-shows.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

boutons_deux

09-16-2014, 04:29 PM

Cruz-Backed GOPer Continues Bizarre Dodging About Health Care Coverage

http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/m5f4o2rbapgtpncey4ve.jpg

why is New Hampshire state Rep. Marilinda Garcia (R), a vocal critic of Obamacare, so defensive about what kind of health care coverage she has?

she first said she didn't want to talk about it, then clarified she wasn't getting insurance through Obamacare, then followed up with the NHPR to say she was definitely covered but didn't say how.

her campaign clarified that she has a catastrophic care short-term plan while she runs for New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District, that she purchased it month-to-month, and that it's outside of Obamacare.

Is it compliant with Obamacare requirements for new health insurance policies?

campaign official did acknowledge Monday that Garcia's plan was non-compliant

New Hampshire has a part-time legislature (http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx) that does not provide health coverage. Garcia, according to the Union Leader, also lives with her parents and sister Bianca, also a member of the state legislature. She's older than the age-26 cutoff for obtaining coverage under her parents' health insurance plan. She has also said she supplements her income with work as a harp teacher

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/marilinda-garcia-health-care-insurance-plan?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

non-ACA-compliant plans are still sold?

she could be Krazy Kruz's sister.

boutons_deux

09-17-2014, 10:34 AM

A New Way Insurers are Shifting Costs to the Sick

By charging higher prices for generic drugs that treat certain illness, health insurers may be violating the spirit of the Affordable Care Act, which bans discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions.

Health insurance companies are no longer allowed to turn away patients because of their pre-existing conditions or charge them more because of those conditions. But some health policy experts say insurers may be doing so in a more subtle way: by forcing people with a variety of illnesses — including Parkinson's disease, diabetes and epilepsy — to pay more for their drugs.

what sort of consumer behavior is encouraged when all generic medicines for particular diseases are 'non-preferred' and subject to higher co-pays."

Specifically, the complaint contended that the plans placed all of their H.I.V. medications, including generics, in their highest of five cost tiers, meaning that patients had to pay 40 percent of the cost after paying a deductible. The complaint is pending.
"It seems that the plans are trying to find this wiggle room to design their benefits to prevent people who have high health needs from enrolling,"

http://www.propublica.org/article/a-new-way-insurers-are-shifting-costs-to-the-sick

The basic strategy of for-profit medicine is to ALWAYS screws the patients to increase profits. shittiest possible product for the highest possible price

boutons_deux

09-17-2014, 11:44 AM

Today, ACA Boosts Voluntary Part-Time Employment

In today’s EconoBytes, economists Helene Jorgensen and Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research on how the Affordable Care Act has contributed to an increase in voluntary part-time employment.By allowing people to buy insurance through the exchanges and extending Medicaid coverage to millions of people, the ACA largely ends workers’ dependence on their employer for insurance.

This gives tens of millions of people the option to change their job, to work part-time, or take time off to be with young children or family members in need of care, or to retire early.

There has been a notable uptick in voluntary part-time employment in the first seven months that the exchanges have been in operation.

Table 1 shows that the monthly average of workers who reported they were voluntarily working part-time (less than 35 hours a week) was 372,000 higher in the first seven months of 2014 than in the same months of 2013.

While this may in part reflect cyclical dynamics (there was a larger increase in 2012), there is not a simple relationship between a strengthening labor market and increased part-time employment.

Voluntary part-time employment rose by just 43,000 in 2013 and actually fell as a share of total employment.

Voluntary part-time workers are people who report that they have chosen to work part-time. The number of people who report that they are working part-time but would like full-time employment has been dropping throughout the recovery.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/today-aca-boosts-voluntary-part-time-employement?utm_source=CEPR+feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cepr+%28CEPR%29

tlongII

09-17-2014, 12:30 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/16/watchdog-report-healthcaregov-still-has-security-issues-that-puts-sensitive/?intcmp=latestnews

Watchdog report: HealthCare.gov still has security issues

Despite efforts to protect patient information on the HealthCare.gov website, a new government watchdog report scheduled to be released Thursday says security issues are still a concern.

According to the Government Accountability Office report, “weaknesses remained in the security and privacy protections applied to HealthCare.gov and its supporting systems.”

The agency will present its findings to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday.

In the report, the GAO makes six recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services to implement security and privacy controls to protect sensitive material. The report also makes 22 recommendations to resolve technical weaknesses in security controls.

Problems with the site ranged from the agency not setting up an alternate processing site for HealthCare.gov systems to allow them to be recovered if the site was hacked or went down to the strength of passwords.

“In addition to these weaknesses, we also identified weaknesses in security controls related to boundary protection, identification and authentication, authorization and configuration management,” the report states. “Collectively, these weaknesses put HealthCare.gov systems and the information they contain at increased and unnecessary risk of unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification or loss.”

According to the GAO report, HHS has agreed with three of the six recommendations and has agreed with all 22 technical recommendations.

Many Republican lawmakers have criticized the technology used to run and maintain the HealthCare.gov site since it was launched last fall. They argue that the Obama administration rushed through the system despite knowing problems existed.

HealthCare.gov is used in 30 states as a one-stop shop for health-insurance plans. Signing up for plans as well as applying for tax credits requires them to enter personal data about themselves including their Social Security number.

The government report says the agency in charge of the site also failed to ensure system-security plans were in place and instead was relying on a draft data-use agreement with a contractor who is paid to verify user identities.

The newest security warnings follow demands earlier this month from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa that a key ObamaCare official testify before his committee after the Obama administration revealed hackers successfully breached the site.

Issa, R-Calif., said in a statement that Marilyn Tavenner, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “must testify” before Sept. 18 to discuss “transparency, accountability, and information security.” regarding the federal website.

The health care site had numerous technical problems when it was launched last fall and was initially unworkable for most consumers. Among the issues that concerned the administration's own technical experts at the time was that security testing could not be completed because the system was undergoing so many last-minute changes.

The part of HealthCare.gov that serves as the entry way for consumers eventually passed security certification, but the GAO revealed that security testing continued well into this year on other important components that deal with health plan information and financial management. The administration said that's because those components were still in stages of development.

The report also confirmed security flaws in state computer systems linking to the federal network, a problem reported earlier this year by The Associated Press.

spurraider21

09-17-2014, 01:37 PM

OT, but hey

roughly the same approval ratings at the same time of their second terms. :lol

the media made damn well sure we all knew about how shitty GWB was, but they're a bit more secretive about Barry

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/10679958_760242384035479_1224774713297654618_o.jpg

TheSanityAnnex

09-17-2014, 02:25 PM

spurraider21

09-17-2014, 02:29 PM

TheSanityAnnex

09-17-2014, 03:13 PM

you have a bunch of networks with different ranges of liberal bias, and then you have fox with the ridiculous, over the top conservative bias. but when you tally it all up... you can tell who is winning the spin game

Don't discount all of the extreme left wing boutons clonebots running rampant on the internet as well.

boutons_deux

09-17-2014, 03:13 PM

:lol shocking

what an absolutely shitty 16 years of presidency this will have been.

false equivalence. 6 years of Repugs fucking up, obstructing Obama and the Dems, while still trying fuck up ACA, CFPB, SEC, IRS, EPA, etc, are vastly superior to the 8 years of disaster, still ongoing for many more years, from the dubya and dickhead.

spurraider21

09-17-2014, 03:16 PM

Don't discount all of the extreme left wing boutons clonebots running rampant on the internet as well.
there are also wild cobras running around. i'm telling you, those two on ST are great political caricatures

spurraider21

09-17-2014, 03:17 PM

false equivalence. 6 years of Repugs fucking up, obstructing Obama and the Dems, while still trying fuck up ACA, CFPB, SEC, IRS, EPA, etc, are vastly superior to the 8 years of disaster, still ongoing for many more years, from the dubya and dickhead.
this is why i call him Oblamo

TheSanityAnnex

09-17-2014, 04:54 PM

boutons_deux

09-18-2014, 03:36 PM

News from those pill-popping THE SLUTS, who actually LIKE TO FUCK, and CAREFREE! :

"The proportion of privately insured U.S. women who paid zero dollars out of pocket for oral contraceptive pills increased sharply, from 15% to 67%, between the fall of 2012 (before the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement took effect for most women) and the spring of 2014.

Because we are A Lady, and therefore cannot do math good, we don’t know for sure, but that sounds like a lot! And it’s not just that more women are saving money on birth control pills; more women are saving on vaginal rings, injectable contraceptives, and IUDs too.

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Guttmacher-chart.png

This analysis shows that the contraceptive coverage guarantee under the ACA is working as intended. Large numbers of women are now able to obtain highly effective birth control methods without co-pays or deductibles, making it easier for them to choose the method they can use most consistently and effectively to avoid an unplanned pregnancy."

http://wonkette.com/560732/all-the-lady-americans-are-saving-money-on-slut-pills-thanks-obama

"avoid an unplanned pregnancy" ?? sounds like a great way to AVOID ABORTIONS!

tlongII

09-18-2014, 04:41 PM

Sounds like a great way to increase the transmission of STD's as well!

boutons_deux

09-20-2014, 11:59 AM

:lol Another anti-ACA Repug flip-flopping to support Medicaid/ACA because he needs votes more than he needs Kock Bros $Ms and blind sociopathic ideology.

Hypocrite Rick Snyder now touting Medicaid expansion he originally fought (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/18/1330688/-Hypocrite-Rick-Snyder-now-touting-Medicaid-expansion-he-originally-fought)

Now facing an extremely tight race (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2014-michigan-governor-snyder-vs-schauer), and hoping that the voting population of Michigan has short memories, Snyder is bragging (http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/09/snyder_touts_expanded_medicaid.html) about the program's success.

LANSING — Gov. Rick Snyder on Tuesday touted Michigan's successful Medicaid expansion as part of his re-election bid, saying 63,000 more low-income adults have signed up than projected this year, with 3 ½ months left. […]His embrace of a key component of the federal health care law roiled conservative activists. But Snyder's campaign is hoping expanded Medicaid's appeal among the broader electorate helps him in November.

Schauer can remind voters of Snyder's tea party past. That and the fact that, "it took him a long time to get [expansion] done. It cost the state $600 million or so," in lost Medicaid money alone.

Schauer is not going to let Snyder claim this political win.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/18/1330688/-Hypocrite-Rick-Snyder-now-touting-Medicaid-expansion-he-originally-fought?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

boutons_deux

09-22-2014, 03:05 PM

Administration announces 7.3 million paid Obamacare enrollments, Republicans whine (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/19/1330878/-Administration-announces-7-3-million-paid-Obamacare-enrollments-Republicans-whine)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/90988/large/Darrell_Issa_2012..jpg?1403680750 (http://www.dailykos.com/user/Joan%20McCarter)

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa held yet another "oversight" hearing on Thursday, trying to find something, anything that smelled like an Obamacare scandal. Instead, he got the gut-punch of finding out that there are officially 7.3 million paid up enrollees (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/18/obamacare-enrollment_n_5843402.html?&ir=Politics&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016), beating the Congressional Budget Office's prediction of 6 million.

And it's more bad news for Republicans, who were absolutely certain a few months ago that Obamacare would be such a dud that none of those 8 million people would stick with it.

Let's revisit a bit.

Here's Issa in May (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/1/hhs-new-obamacare-figures-cant-say-how-many-paid/?page=all): "I think the important thing is that 20 percent to 33 percent are signing up and then not paying, which means that the 7 million figure was never 7 million or close to it." That statement came out with the release of a completely fabricated (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/01/1296120/-House-Republicans-go-full-Benghazi-on-Obamacare-enrollments) report the Republican Energy and Commerce Committee cooked up to "prove" that only 67 percent of people paid their first premium, so instead of 8 million enrollments, there'd be something like 5.5 million.

And don't forget House Speaker John Boehner (http://www.c-span.org/video/?318284-1/speaker-boehners-weekly-briefing), who confidently claimed in March that "When you look at the 6 million Americans who have lost their policies and some—they claim 4.2 million people who have signed up—I don't know how many have actually paid for it—that would indicate to me a net loss of people with health insurance. And I actually do believe that to be the case.”

Republicans in the hearing tried to downplay (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-111097.html) the number (and Politico dutifully reports their skepticism) with a "yeah, but" kind of rejoinder. Issa tried to say the 7.3 figure was a "precipitous drop," (ignoring that it beat his own projection) and

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) said that for "the past five months, the administration has been silent on enrollment details for the president’s healthcare law, and now we know why: the number was going down." Nice try there, boys, but that's one dead talking point.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/19/1330878/-Administration-announces-7-3-million-paid-Obamacare-enrollments-Republicans-whine?detail=email6

:lol

ah, the schadenfreude, danke schoen, Repugs!

boutons_deux

09-23-2014, 03:36 PM

Terri Lynn Land pledges to take health insurance away from 630,000 Michiganders (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/23/1331816/-Terri-Lynn-Land-pledges-to-take-health-insurance-away-from-630-000-nbsp-Michiganers)

"I pledge, if elected, to vote for all bills which seek to REPEAL the health care bill, HR 3590, signed into law on March 23, 2010.*To that end, I would now and will in the next Congress endorse and vote for all measures, including discharge petitions, leading to its defunding, deauthorization, and repeal.

I shall do so whether those measures are taken for the whole of the bill or those component parts that impose mandates, restrict patient and doctor choice and access, violate individual freedom and privacy, reduce healthy competition, increase costs, or raise taxes."

as of last week, 245,000 Michiganders have private insurance through Obamacare, and 385,000 have Medicaid.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/23/1331816/-Terri-Lynn-Land-pledges-to-take-health-insurance-away-from-630-000-nbsp-Michiganers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

boutons_deux

09-25-2014, 11:11 AM

New census data shows desperate need for health care in red states (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/22/1331642/-New-Census-data-shows-desperate-need-for-healthcare-in-red-nbsp-states)

Seven of the 11 large metro areas where the uninsured rate was higher than the 14.5 percent national average last year are located in states that refused to expand to Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Two are in Florida, three are in Texas, and the others are Atlanta and Charlotte, North Carolina.

The metro area with the highest uninsured rate was Miami, at a staggering 25 percent, compared to the national low of 4 percent in greater Boston. […]

According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, those decisions not to expand the program will leave 4.8 million people uninsured (http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/).

More than 1 million of them live in Texas, 764,000 are in Florida, 409,000 are Georgia residents and 319,000 live in North Carolina.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/22/1331642/-New-Census-data-shows-desperate-need-for-healthcare-in-red-nbsp-states?detail=email

Thanks, Repugs! And congrats on suckering a hard-core base that's too fucking stupid to know its getting screwed by the Repugs.

boutons_deux

09-25-2014, 11:17 AM

Thanks To Obamacare, Hospitals Will Save Nearly $6 Billion This Year (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/25/3571964/obamacare-uncompensated-care-savings/)

Hospitals will save $5.7 billion in uncompensated care costs this year, thanks to the fact that people are gaining insurance under Obamacare and are now able to pay their bills, according to a new report (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/UncompensatedCare/ib_UncompensatedCare.pdf) from the Department of Health and Human Services. Compared to what hospitals would have likely needed to pay without the law’s coverage expansion, that represents a 16 percent drop in costs.

The report finds that there are now fewer uninsured people going to the emergency room and being admitted to the hospital — which translates into big savings for hospitals. Since people without insurance typically don’t have any means to cover their medical bills, the cost of their treatment ends up falling on the hospital itself.

The Obama administration’s findings echo previous evidence that the health law is contributing to a drop in uninsured patients (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/16/3438782/hospitals-arkansas/) visiting the ER, and ultimately providing a boost to hospitals’ bottom lines (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/08/3435616/obamacare-is-already-providing-a-big-boost-to-public-hospitals/).

But those gains aren’t being shared equally across the country. According to HHS, three-fourths of the total uncompensated care savings — $4.2 billion — comes from the states that have agreed to expand their Medicaid programs under Obamacare, an optional provision of the law that seeks to extend coverage to additional poor Americans with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/25/3571964/obamacare-uncompensated-care-savings/

boutons_deux

09-29-2014, 11:33 AM

Little-Noticed Obamacare Provision Insuring Hundreds Of Thousands Of Kids In Red States (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/29/3573316/florida-and-texas-expand-medicaid-coverage-for-children/)

Florida and Texas — two states in which GOP lawmakers refused to expand Medicaid for adults (http://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/resources/primers/medicaidmap) — broadened coverage for children earlier this year and enrolled thousands of youngsters, according to a survey (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2014/September/29/Texas-Florida-Expand-Kids-Medicaid.aspx) conducted by Kaiser Health News.

Since the beginning of the year, more than 200,000 children enrolled in Texas’ Medicaid program — more than 75 percent of whom most likely transferred from the state’s Children’s Insurance Program (CHIP), the federal-state program for families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but too low to afford private insurance. Florida experienced a similar spike in enrollment, with 137,000 new children joining — more than 62,000 of whom counted among former members of the state’s CHIP program.

Experts ascribe the growth in enrollment among youngsters to a little known provision (http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Provisions/Childrens-Health-Insurance-Program.html) of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires states to expand coverage to children between the ages of six and 18. Children in 21 states — most of which are controlled by Democrats — received coverage under Medicaid. This year, California led the charge, covering nearly 750,000 youngsters.

The positive trend in Medicaid enrollment among low-income children shows promise of changing the health outcomes of a group that experts say often misses opportunities to diagnose serious health conditions early. Right now, more than 5 million people — nearly 10 percent of whom are children (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/politics/btn-health-care/) — don’t have health insurance.

The uninsured stand the most likely to have their health decline upon discovery of a chronic disease, due to a lack of follow-up care and the burdensome cost of medication, according to a 2012 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation report (http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/).

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/29/3573316/florida-and-texas-expand-medicaid-coverage-for-children/

simplistic checkers-playing Repugs get their boards wiped clean again by chess-playing Obama! :lol

boutons_deux

10-02-2014, 11:00 PM

nasty redstate Indiana looks like its another one whoring itself out to fed $Bs

GOP Gov Wants Personal Meeting With Obama On Medicaid Expansion

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-pence-obama-meeting-medicaid-expansion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

boutons_deux

10-03-2014, 01:51 PM

Obama mocks Fox dead-enders for still calling Obamacare a threat to civilization (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/02/1333912/-Obama-Fox-vs-the-real-world)

"There's a reason fewer Republicans are preaching doom on deficits—because the deficits have come down at almost a record pace, and they’re now manageable.

There's a reason fewer Republicans are running against Obamacare–because while good, affordable health care might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News, it’s working pretty well in the real world," Obama told students at Northwestern University, to applause.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/02/1333912/-Obama-Fox-vs-the-real-world?detail=email

boutons_deux

10-05-2014, 10:22 PM

Nearly Four Times More People Signed Up For Obamacare Than Watch Fox News

Fox News had a record setting third quarter in 2014 (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/ratings). The conservative news network was the most watched channel on all of cable. 1.77 million people watched Fox News’ primetime lineup. 1.045 million people watched Fox News during the day. Fox News grew 10% in total viewers over the same period in 2013. Cable news viewership overall continued to plunge as Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC combined attracted under 3 million primetime viewers.

Conservatives love to tout the success of Fox News as proof that America is a right-wing nation, but Fox can’t hold a candle to the success of the Affordable Care Act. 7.3 million people (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-111097.html) have enrolled in the ACA. All total the law is estimated to be providing 26 million Americans (http://acasignups.net/) with access to affordable healthcare.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/03/times-people-signed-obamacare-watch-fox-news.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

ouch! :lol and that's with red states blocking their Fox watching citizens, poor, white, rural, old, clutching the Bibles and guns bitterly, from getting Medicaid.

Now that word is getting around the ACA is working, overcoming somewhat the non-stop Repug/FOX LIES (don't them much anymore, do we?), expect a few million more to sign up in the 2 months ahead.

boutons_deux

10-09-2014, 10:45 AM

Report: Billing Errors, Varying Procedure Costs Create Environment For Excessive Medical Debt
A new report (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2014/10/08/medical-bills-debt-crisis/) from financial-advice company NerdWallet found that about 63% of Americans have received a medical bill that was more than they expected, The Atlantic reports (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/why-americans-are-drowning-in-medical-debt/381163/).
While for the most part the increased costs were a result of billing errors, other issues such as inconsistent costs for procedures and surprise add-ons wreak havoc on consumer’s financials.
Peter told the Atlantic that he was prepared for a majority of the costs associated with a procedure to fix a herniated disk. However, when the final bill came, he was shocked to find an additional charge of $117,000 for an “assistant surgeon,” an out-of-network doctor added at the last-minute.
https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/costs.png?w=680&h=484

http://consumerist.com/2014/10/08/report-billing-errors-varying-procedure-costs-create-environment-for-excessive-medical-debt/

boutons_deux

10-09-2014, 10:47 AM

Americans Are Burdened By More Than $21 Billion In Medical Debt (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/08/3577171/americans-medical-debt-study/)

Even with the expansion of insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act, many American households face heaps of medical debt, according to a new study (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2014/10/08/medical-bills-debt-crisis/). A report released by consumer assistance agency NerdWallet Health on Wednesday finds that Americans pay three times more in third-party collections of medical bills annually than that of bank and credit card debt combined.

The results of an online survey of more than 2,000 American adults in August, along with public and private sector reports, show that more than 60 percent of Americans have accumulated medical costs that surpassed their expectations. Nearly three out of four people surveyed also said that they could have made better medical decisions had a doctor reviewed the cost of medical care beforehand.

Both American families and the federal government have taken the brunt of spiraling medical costs. In 2012, patients doled out more than $21 billion (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2014/10/08/medical-bills-debt-crisis/) for medical bills to third-party collection agencies. This year, according to NerdWallet’s estimations, American hospitals are expected to provide more than $50 billion worth of care for which the insurer or patient will not pay.

Other research has confirmed similar findings. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in four (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/28/3213161/families-struggle-medical-bills/) American households have accumulated thousand of dollars in medical debt. Forty percent of people in that group said they haven’t made payments as of yet. Researchers said the majority of these costs derived from emergency room visits and medical procedures for which patients received charges that far exceed its market value.

“Most consumers would be shocked to learn that health care expenses are the largest category of consumer debt in collections,” Christina LaMontagne, lead author of the NerdWallet Health study, told ThinkProgress.
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Excessive-Medical-Costs-Study-638x322.jpg

For example, Californians pay nearly $300,000 for an inpatient stay for severe intestinal bleeding, while the same stay would cost a patient in Arkansas just $5,400.
Billing errors, unexpected additions and varying procedure costs are just a few reasons why 1-in-5 – or about 51 million – consumers find themselves being contacted by a debt collection agency about medical debt, NerdWallet reports.
While it can be tough to plan ahead for accidents, NerdWallet advises consumers to educate themselves on their health insurance coverage and to audit their own bills to avoid falling into medical debt purgatory.
“The system that Americans trust for their medical care is not very trustworthy when it comes to their finances,” says Christina LaMontagne, general manager of health for NerdWallet and author of the recent study. “Many Americans think they are getting the greatest care in the world, and yet the American household is more indebted to the medical system than ever before.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/08/3577171/americans-medical-debt-study/

Just another way Human-Americans are looted non-stop. America is fucked and unfuckable.

$15K/year for health insurance, and people wonder why Human-Americans have no savings at age 65?? :lol

boutons_deux

10-11-2014, 08:30 AM

Medicaid, Often Criticized, Is Quite Popular With Its Customers

Low-income people in three Southern states were recently asked whether they preferred Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) or private insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/insurance/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). Guess which one they picked?

A study (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2014/10/02/hlthaff.2014.0747) published in the journal Health Affairs found that poor residents of Arkansas, Kentucky and Texas, when asked to compare Medicaid with private coverage, said that Medicaid offered better “quality of health care” and made them better able to “afford the health care” they needed.

But repeated surveys show that the program is quite popular among the people who use it.

A 2011 survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation (http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8190-c.pdf) found that 86 percent of people who had received Medicaid benefits described the experience as somewhat or very positive.

A slightly more recent Kaiser survey (http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8339-c.pdf)showed that 69 percent of Americans earning less than $40,000 a year rated the program important to them or their families.

Michael Perry, a pollster at the left-leaning public opinion firmPerryUndem (http://perryundem.com/), has found that Medicaid tends to rank higher (http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/professionals/CHIP-Medicaid-Survey-Topline.pdf#page=20)on satisfaction than private insurance.

“It’s surprisingly popular,” said Mollyann Brodie, Kaiser’s top pollster. She’s been surveying the public about attitudes on Medicaid for years and has seen the program get high marks for more than a decade. “Conventional wisdom :lol is that it shouldn’t be, but it actually is.”

Studies have also found that Medicaid rates highly among the public at large. A majority of people told Kaiser pollsters that the program was important to them and their families. That’s perhaps not a surprise. Medicaid is now the country’s largest health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) program, covering some 67 million Americans. (http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Medicaid-Moving-Forward-2014/Downloads/FINAL-July-Medicaid-Applications-Eligibility-Enrollment-Report-2.pdf)

Repeated surveys have shown that a majority of Americans support the program’s expansion as part of the Affordable Care Act.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/10/3578877/black-teens-were-21-times-more-likely-to-be-shot-dead-by-the-cops-reported-deaths-suggest/

"conventional wisdom"? :lol

... perverted by the non-stop trashing by the VRWC/Repugs/hate-meida.who LIE to people that govt has NO role, that EVERYTHING is done better by gouging Americans for profit.

Repugs anti-ACA/anti-Medicaid is just another case where Repugs are AGAINST the American majority, as with anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, etc, etc.

boutons_deux

10-14-2014, 04:36 PM

Most Georgians Want Medicaid Expansion as GOP Legislators Fight Against It

The poll also found that an even higher percentage of residents have a positive view of the Medicaid program. Among those surveyed, 75 percent said they believe Medicaid is very important for health care, and 91 percent say Medicaid is an important program for the state.

States that expanded Medicaid under the ACA in 2013 and 2014 have seen sharp declines in their uninsured rate, while the percentage of uninsured in Georgia has only dropped from 22.4 percent to 20.2 percent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/174290/arkansas-kentucky-report-sharpest-drops-uninsured-rate.aspx#2) during that time.

Data released by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey found that seven out of 11 major metropolitan areas with rates of uninsured people higher than the national average are in states that have refused to expand Medicaid (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/09/24/new-census-numbers-show-consequences-rejecting-medicaid-expansion/). That includes Atlanta.

Gov. Nathan Deal (R) in 2012 said he would not expand Medicaid (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/deal-rejects-expansion-of-medicaid/nRMfK/) to cover an estimated 650,000 low-income residents because he said it would be too expensive—a common Republican charge despite the federal government’s commitment to cover costs during the expansion’s first few years and most of the costs beyond that.

Georgia lawmakers claim (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/bill-targeting-obamacare-clears-another-hurdle/nd49Q/) that expanding Medicaid would cost anywhere from $2 billion to more than $4 billion over the next ten years. The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute estimates that the expansion’s positive effect on tax revenue would reduce the overall cost, and that expansion would only cost the state $350 million (http://gbpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Medicaid-Fact-Check2.pdf) over the next decade.

Georgia lawmakers this year refused to expand Medicaid (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/03/24/georgia-lawmakers-pass-abortion-insurance-coverage-ban-refuse-expand-medicaid/) during the legislative session, instead passing legislation that prohibits legislators from even advocating for Medicaid expansion. Georgia joined 22 other states that have refused federal funds (http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-decisions-for-creating-health-insurance-exchanges-and-expanding-medicaid/) to expand Medicaid.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/10/14/georgians-want-medicaid-expansion-gop-legislators-fight/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

boutons_deux

10-18-2014, 03:51 PM

One Million Low-Income Texans Fall Into ACA ‘Coverage Gap,’ With No Help in Sight

the so-called coverage gap (http://www.riograndeguardian.com/health_story_feature.asp?story_no=2). Think of the ACA as a free federal car that states have to drive, but they can opt out of getting one with seat belts. The seat belts are paid for, just as the Medicaid expansion is paid for. But the State of Texas wants the car without seat belts, because state leaders believe seat belts would limit their freedom.

The Medicaid expansion, which would have covered Texans who make up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, is an integral part of Obamacare’s design, says Anne Dunkelberg, associate director at the Center for Public Policy Priorities.

“The ACA is written with the assumption that the poorest uninsured really need to have a different kind of system,” Dunkelberg told RH Reality Check, “because they can’t afford the kind of cost sharing that a traditional insurance model requires.”

Back in 2012, when Gov. Rick Perry first started making noises about refusing the expansion, public health experts had a hard time believing (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/10/is-rick-perrys-rejection-affordable-care-act-just-another-step-closer-to-medicaid/) Perry wouldn’t ultimately take the federal funds, saying it was just too good a deal to pass up.

“If you smooth it out over time, it’s a 90 percent federal match for services for a huge amount of low-income residents, but it’s also for city and state governments, nonprofits, health-care agencies, hospitals,” the University of Chicago’s Dr. Harold Pollack told RH Reality Check in the summer of 2012 (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/10/is-rick-perrys-rejection-affordable-care-act-just-another-step-closer-to-medicaid/).

But now the health insurance marketplace is live, and Texas has adamantly refused not only the Medicaid expansion, but a modified so-called Texas Solution to the Medicaid problem that was proposed during the last legislative session (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/dunkelberg-a-texas-solution-for-the-affordable-car/nXspC/) by one of its most conservative state lawmakers.

In a state that already has some of the most stringent Medicaid eligibility requirements (http://prospect.org/article/cruelty-republican-states-one-chart), and where nearly a quarter of residents are uninsured (Texas has the highest rate of uninsured adults in the entire country (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/30/states-with-the-worst-health-coverage/2898803/)), Texans are swiftly falling into the coverage gap (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/dunkelberg-a-texas-solution-for-the-affordable-car/nXspC/).

In numbers, this means families of three who make more than about $3,700 per year but less than about $20,000 per year will see no change in their ability to afford health insurance under Obamacare.

And Texas won’t enroll any childless adults under 65 in Medicaid, period.

That means any individual making less than about $11,500 per year qualifies neither for Medicaid nor for an ACA insurance subsidy.

In fact, the only people who qualify for Medicaid in Texas are poor children, pregnant people, some disabled adults, and the state’s very, very poorest parents—parents who make no more than 15 percent of the federal poverty level.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/10/14/one-million-low-income-texans-fall-into-aca-coverage-gap-with-no-help-in-sight/

all y'all rednecks tell us yet again what a GREAT PLACE that REPUG Texas is! :lol

Lines Blur as Texas Gives Industries a Bonanza

Under Mr. Perry, Texas gives out more of the incentives (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html#TX) than any other state, around $19 billion a year, an examination by The New York Times has found. Texas justifies its largess by pointing out that it is home to half of all the private sector jobs created over the last decade nationwide. As the invitation to the fund-raiser boasted: “Texas leads the nation in job creation.”

Yet the raw numbers mask a more complicated reality behind the flood of incentives, the examination shows, and raise questions about who benefits more, the businesses or the people of Texas.

Along with the huge job growth, the state has the third-highest proportion of hourly jobs paying at or below minimum wage. And despite its low level of unemployment, Texas has the 11th-highest poverty rate among states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/us/winners-and-losers-in-texas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

boutons_deux

11-07-2014, 09:02 PM

JUSTICES TO HEAR New Challenge To HEALTH Law

The Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) on Friday agreed to hear (http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110714zr_n75o.pdf) a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act, potentially imperiling President Obama’s signature legislative achievement two years after it survived a different Supreme Court challenge by a single vote.

The case concerns tax subsidies that currently help millions of people afford health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) under the law. According to the challengers, those subsidies are being provided unlawfully in three dozen states that have decided not to run the marketplaces, known as exchanges, for insurance coverage.

If the challengers are right, people receiving subsidies in those states would become ineligible for them, destabilizing and perhaps dooming the law.

The Obama administration said it would mount a vigorous defense in the Supreme Court.

“This lawsuit reflects just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act and to strip millions of American families of tax credits that Congress intended for them to have,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. “We are confident that the financial help afforded millions of Americans was the intent of the law and it is working as Congress designed.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-new-challenge-to-health-law.html?_r=0

boutons_deux

11-08-2014, 07:28 PM

I'd say the SCOTUS5 are going to kill ACA, overriding the OBVIOUS intent of the law to subsidize people's insurance in states that didn't run their own exchanges.

By taking this case, they prevented the DC circuit hearing the case en banc, the entire set of judges, where Dem-appointed judges are in the majority.

But, no surprise, that's why the Repugs put these extremist, activist assholes on SCOTUS, to fuck up Americans while protecting/enabling/enriching the 1%/VRWC/BigCorp

Spurs 4 The Win

11-08-2014, 07:36 PM

boutons_deux

11-08-2014, 07:37 PM

You mad bro?

GFY

Spurs 4 The Win

11-08-2014, 07:42 PM

GFY

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b1/b153d57798269fbe680da5c3b98bbd9ec33dc2de69e75a055a 67fb9bfc36e008.jpg :lmao

boutons_deux

11-09-2014, 03:10 PM

fixing Obamacare (but Repugs will object, obstruct, hold hearings, witch hunts!)

One of the necessary Obamacare fixes is about to be made, when the administration closes a loophole (http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/obama-administration-closing-health-law-loophole-for-plans-without-hospitalization/) that has allowed large employer plans to still qualify under the law even if they don't offer hospitalization. With new regulations the Treasury Department is set to issue, that will end.\

The administration intends to disallow plans that "fail to provide substantial coverage for in-patient hospitalization services or for physician services," the Treasury Department said in a notice Tuesday morning. It will issue final regulations banning such insurance next year, it said.Hundreds of lower-wage employers such as retailers and temporary-staffing companies have been preparing to offer such plans for 2015, the first year large companies are liable for fines if they don’t provide minimum coverage. Some have enrolled workers for insurance beginning Oct. 1.

For employers that have committed as of Nov. 4 to such coverage, the administration will temporarily allow it under the health law, the notice said.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/07/1341751/-Administration-closing-Obamacare-hospitalization-coverage-loophole?detail=email

DarrinS

11-10-2014, 10:48 AM

boutons_deux

11-10-2014, 10:57 AM

Here Is What Will Happen If The Supreme Court Strikes Down Obamacare’s Subsidies (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/11/08/3590572/the-6-biggest-consequences-of-the-supreme-court-striking-down-obamacares-subsidies/)

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Supreme_Court_US_2010-638x425.jpg

to understand the consequences of stripping away subsidies from the 5.4 million Americans who are currently enrolled in insurance through a federal exchange — and are receiving subsidies — one only need to look at the table below from the RAND Corporation (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR708/RAND_RR708.pdf). The research group ran the numbers for what would happen if the subsidies simply went away and here is what it came up with:

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Rand-premiums-638x240.jpg

In short: higher health care costs, lower enrollment, and a higher number of uninsured Americans.

Enrollees who are eligible for the law’s subsidies — with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level — “pay no more than a fixed percentage (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR708/RAND_RR708.pdf) of their income for the second-lowest-cost silver plan available in their rating area,” RAND explains. This structure cushions “enrollees against premium increases due to other people’s enrollment decisions and guards against a cycle of premium increases and subsequent disenrollment.”

Take that away and these five things will happen:

1. Millions of people will see triple digit premium hikes.

87 percent (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Apr2014/ib_2014Apr_enrollAddendum.pdf) of the 5.4 million people enrolled in the federal marketplaces picked a plan using federal tax credits, lowering the amount of what they paid for their monthly premium from $346 to $82 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/Premiums/2014MktPlacePremBrf.pdf), on average. Without the tax credits, these families would be paying an average of $264 more per month, a 322 percent increase (https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/healthcare/news/2014/07/25/94510/conservatives-want-you-to-pay-more-for-the-health-plan-you-like/). Analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation has also found that most of the individuals receiving subsidies are working families without access (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/upshot/two-americas-on-health-care-and-danger-of-further-division.html?abt=0002&abg=1) to employer-based coverage, earning between 200 and 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The subsidies paid for more than three-quarters of the cost of their premiums making it unlikely that they would be able to afford insurance otherwise.

2. Millions of people will lose health care coverage.

The Urban Institute estimate of eliminating subsidies from federally-run exchanges found that 7.3 million (http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2014/07/halbig-v-burwell--potential-implications-for-aca-coverage-and-su.html) people could lose out on $36.1 billion in subsidies by 2016.

3. Obamacare will face a death spiral.

The RAND study found that “in scenarios in which the tax credits are eliminated, our model predicts a near ‘death spiral (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR708/RAND_RR708.pdf),’ with very sharp premium increases and drastic declines in individual market enrollment.” Health economists believe that sick people who need care will sign up for coverage, no matter the cost. Healthy people generally don’t and so the individual health care mandate and the subsidies act as inducements to encourage that group to enroll in coverage and balance out the cost of providing insurance to the sick. Eliminating the subsidies increases costs and discourages healthy people from remaining insured, leading to even higher premium increases and a very expensive risk pool full of sicker — and by definition more expensive — beneficiaries.

4. Insurers will advocate for repealing market protections.

Currently, insurers are prohibited from discriminating against individual with pre-existing health conditions and must offer everyone coverage at an average community rate. (Sick people or women (http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/obamacare-and-you-if-you-are-a-woman/) cannot be charged more for coverage, for instance). But, if the pool of beneficiaries shrinks as coverage without subsidies becomes too expensive for healthy individuals, insurers will likely advocate to repeal these protections. The industry hasspent millions (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09) on lobbying and political contributions guaranteeing that Congress will be more than happy to listen to its demands.

5. States will lose billions of dollars.

Without subsidies, families and individuals would lose $36.1 billion (http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2014/rwjf414644) worth of subsidies in 2016, the Urban Institute estimates. These dollars trickle down to health care providers and have a sizable impact on state economies. “Losses would be as high as $4.8 billion in Florida and $5.6 billion in Texas,” Urban estimates (http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2014/rwjf414644) and would especially hurt the states refusing to expand their Medicaid programs. Those states are already foregoing large amounts of federal dollars “while their providers are experiencing the Medicare and Medicaid payment cuts included in the law.”

6. The health of Americans living in red states will worsen.

While states with state-run marketplaces won’t experience a disruption, those that allowed the federal government to build their exchanges will. The latter are mostly run by Republican-leaning lawmakers and already have higher numbers of uninsured on average (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149321/Texas-Mass-Health-Coverage-Extremes.aspx#2). A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would thus perpetuate a health care divide between so-called blue and red states.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/11/08/3590572/the-6-biggest-consequences-of-the-supreme-court-striking-down-obamacares-subsidies/

boutons_deux

11-10-2014, 11:34 AM

One of the architects of ACA speaks candidly

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies."

"In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed."

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass."

why would be bill die (no Repugs voted for it) if mandate was considered a tax?

"if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in " that's not what ACA is, so shut up. older (sicker) people pay more than younger (less sick, but still sick) people, everybody's covered.

HE can call it the stupidity of the American voter, but ACA was not passed in a citizen's general referendum, it was passed DEMOCRATS' Congresscritters, so the stupidity of the American people is a stupid comment.

And since when does an extreme right-winger whine or worry about "stupidity of the American people" when the entirety of right-wing politics is based on that stupidity, ignorance, ideological/religious fantasies of its voters?

boutons_deux

11-10-2014, 12:48 PM

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.

During this era, at this time, the federal government was trying to encourage as many states as possible to set up their exchanges. ...

At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn't ready by 2014, and states hadn't set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn't get the tax credits right away. ...

But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.

There are few people who worked as closely with Obama administration and Congress as I did, and at no point was it ever even implied that there’d be differential tax credits based on whether the states set up their own exchange. And that was the basis of all the modeling I did, and that was the basis of any sensible analysis of this law that’s been done by any expert, left and right.

I didn’t assume every state would set up its own exchanges but I assumed that subsidies would be available in every state. It was never contemplated by anybody who modeled or worked on this law that availability of subsides would be conditional of who ran the exchanges.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118851/jonathan-gruber-halbig-says-quote-exchanges-was-mistake

tlongII

11-10-2014, 01:21 PM

Study: Pre-Obamacare Health Insurance Was Better Quality Than Exchange Plans

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/15/study-pre-obamacare-health-insurance-was-better-quality-than-exchange-plans/

Individual health insurance policies were of higher quality in 2013, before Obamacare regulations hit, than the offerings on health-care exchanges this year, according to a study released Monday.

The National Center for Public Policy Research examined the health insurance plans available before the health care law took effect in ten major cities and found that for 27 year-olds and 57 year-old couples, the individual market used to provide more comprehensive coverage than the exchanges.

As is typically the case with Obamacare, young adults were the hardest hit. Last year, there was an average of 33 health insurance plans in each area studied that offered not only lower premiums than the least expensive Obamacare plans currently available, but also lower or equal deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

Older adults have a similar experience. There’s an average of 10 policies per area that had lower premiums and deductibles last year, compared to the cheapest exchange offerings this year.

Cost isn’t the only factor, either. The study found that Obamacare exchanges are populated by more restrictive types of health insurance — significantly more so than the individual market was in 2013. (RELATED: Insurer: Obamacare Customers Must Break ‘Choice Habit’)

Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are generally the most restrictive type of provider network, where the insurance company doesn’t cover out-of-network providers at all, according to the study. Preferred provider organizations (PPOs), usually cover out-of-network providers, but require patients to pay higher cost-sharing for it, giving patients the widest range of options to choose their doctors.

While Obamacare exchanges have already become infamous for offering significantly narrower networks than are common in the individual and employer-based health insurance markets, the exchanges in these areas also have a higher proportion of more restrictive HMO plans, which don’t pay for any care outside the already-shrunken network. Obamacare exchanges had an average of 16 more HMO plans for both age groups.

The 2013 private individual market boasted 32 more less-restrictive PPO plans for 27 year-olds compared to Obamacare exchanges, and 25 more plans on average for 57 year-olds. (RELATED: Obamacare-Forced Narrow Networks Will Spread To The Whole Country, Expert Warns)

“When millions of people were losing their health insurance plans in late 2013, Obamacare supporters claimed those plans were of poor quality, calling them substandard and even ‘crappy,’” Dr. David Hogberg, the study’s author, said in a statement. “But they never provided any evidence to support those claims. Quite the contrary, this study shows that in important ways, the plans on the individual market in 2013 were of better quality than those on the Obamacare exchanges.”

While Obamacare supporters have long charged that the health insurance industry was filled with “junk” insurance plans instead of quality plans, the market appears to have had quite a few advantages over the Affordable Care Act’s first year of offerings.

Either way, customers may be more satisfied with the lower-cost coverage they had before the health-care law. One Kaiser Family Foundation survey found customers were happier with plans that weren’t compliant with Obamacare regulations than they are with Obamacare-approved insurance plans.

boutons_deux

11-10-2014, 02:20 PM

just another anti-government, anti-Dem, bogus VRWC stink tank

"TheNational Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a self-described conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) think tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research

"young adults hardest hit" while being covered on their parents' plans until age 26? :lol

etc, etc, etc. Pure VRWC bullshit, as expected from TLong.

tlongII

11-10-2014, 02:32 PM

The truth hurts doesn't it boo?

boutons_deux

11-10-2014, 03:38 PM

The truth hurts doesn't it boo?

truth! you posted shit.

what about 20M Americans who now have Medicaid coverage?

children covered by parents to age 26?

by more transparency of health costs?

the illegal junk insurance plans?

the blocking of insureres denying to insure sick people?

etc, etc, etc.

your "shit" above is propaganda from a VRWC stink tank, not the truth.

boutons_deux

11-10-2014, 05:43 PM

Study: Pre-Obamacare Health Insurance Was Better Quality Than Exchange Plans

:lol bitch, meet slap!

The Affordable Care Act & Medicare

Top 5 things to know about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if you have Medicare:

Your Medicare coverage is protected.Medicare isn’t part of the Health Insurance Marketplace established by ACA, so you don't have to replace your Medicare coverage with Marketplace coverage. No matter how you get Medicare, whether through Original Medicare or a Medicare Advantage Plan, you’ll still have the same benefits and security you have now.
You don’t need to do anything with the Marketplace (http://www.medicare.gov/about-us/affordable-care-act/medicare-and-the-marketplace.html) during Open Enrollment.

You get more preventive services, for less. Medicare now covers certain preventive services (http://www.medicare.gov/coverage/preventive-and-screening-services.html), like mammograms (http://www.medicare.gov/coverage/mammograms.html) or colonoscopies (http://www.medicare.gov/coverage/colorectal-cancer-screenings.html), without charging you for the Part B coinsurance or deductible. You also can get a free yearly "Wellness" visit (http://www.medicare.gov/coverage/preventive-visit-and-yearly-wellness-exams.html).
You can save money on brand-name drugs. If you’re in the donut hole, you'll also get a 55% discount when buying Part D-covered brand-name prescription drugs. The discount is applied automatically at the counter of your pharmacy—you don’t have to do anything to get it. The donut hole will be closed completely by 2020 (http://www.medicare.gov/part-d/costs/coverage-gap/more-drug-savings-in-2020.html).
Your doctor gets more support. With new initiatives to support care coordination (http://www.medicare.gov/manage-your-health/coordinating-your-care/coordinating-your-care.html), your doctor may get additional resources to make sure that your treatments are consistent.
The ACA ensures the protection of Medicare for years to come.The life of the Medicare Trust fund will be extended to at least 2029—a 12-year extension due to reductions in waste, fraud and abuse, and Medicare costs, which will provide you with future savings on your premiums and coinsurance.

http://www.medicare.gov/about-us/affordable-care-act/affordable-care-act.html

tlongII

11-10-2014, 05:58 PM

Health Premiums Up $3,065; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-premiums-3-065-obama-224300715.html

During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.

But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.

Premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3,065 — 24% — from 2008 to 2012, the Kaiser survey found. Even if you start counting in 2009, premiums have climbed $2,370.

What's more, premiums climbed faster in Obama's four years than they did in the previous four under President Bush, the survey data show.

There's no question about what Obama was promising the country, since he repeated it constantly during his 2008 campaign.

In a debate with Sen. John McCain, for example, Obama said "the only thing we're going to try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed onto you. And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year.

At a campaign stop in Columbus, Ohio, in February 2008, Obama promised that "We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president.

2008 Promises, 2012 Reality

To back that up, Obama pointed to a memo drafted by Harvard professors (and unpaid campaign advisers), which claimed that investing in health care IT, cutting administrative bloat, and improving management of chronic diseases would cut health costs by $140 billion a year. That would translate into $2,500 in premium savings for families.

But those projections were wildly optimistic, overestimating potential savings from IT, making big assumptions about disease management, and ignoring the fact that past government interventions have always increased health care administrative costs.

Meanwhile, the health reform law Obama signed in March 2010 has pushed up insurance costs.

In 2011, premiums spiked 9.5%, and many in the industry blame ObamaCare for at least part of it. Premiums climbed another 4.5% in 2012, Kaiser found.

And ObamaCare will continue to fuel health premium inflation.

First, the law piles on new coverage mandates. It requires insurance companies to provide 100% coverage for various types of preventive care, bans lifetime coverage limits, extends parents' coverage to offspring up to 26 years old, and requires plans to meet certain "medical loss ratios." Coming up are rules on "essential standard benefits," limits on deductibles, bans on annual spending caps, and much more.

The experience with state mandates show that they only tend to grow over time, and get more expensive. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance found more than 2,200 state benefit mandates, which add from 10% to 50% to the cost of coverage.

"One of the biggest cost drivers in our health care system is the steady proliferation of federal and state-based coverage mandates," noted CAHI's Victoria Craig Bunce.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare's insurance reforms — guaranteed issue and community rating — will likely raise premiums, too.

State Experiments

States that have tried these reforms — which forbid insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions or charging the sick more — have seen insurance premiums spiral upward as healthy people leave the market, knowing they are guaranteed coverage when they get sick.

"Premium rates tended to increase, sometimes dramatically" in the eight states that tried these reforms, according to a study by Milliman, a health care consulting group.

The law's backers claim the individual mandate will prevent these rate hikes, because it requires everyone to buy insur ance. But experts say millions will still refuse to buy coverage and pay the fine instead.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Gruber — who helped design ObamaCare — found that the law will hike individual market premiums in three states by as much as 30%. The Congressional Budget Office said ObamaCare would push them "about 10% to 13% higher in 2016." Supporters say people will be getting more generous coverage for those higher prices, and that tax subsidies will offset higher cost for many of these families. But that will be small comfort to those forced to pay more.

Perhaps the best evidence that ObamaCare won't bring costs down is a report published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine and signed by nearly two dozen leading health economists and policy experts — some of whom worked for the Obama administration. The report warns that "health costs remain a major challenge" and calls for a "systematic approach" to get spending under control.

One thing that isn't on their list of proposals: Scrapping Obama-Care and starting over.

boutons_deux

11-10-2014, 07:47 PM

"The report warns that "health costs remain a major challenge" and calls for a "systematic approach" to get spending under control."

ACA doesn't set health care cost, price of insurance policies.

the health care industry has been raping America for decades. That's not ACA's fault

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries_chart03.gif?w=675&h=396

Winehole23

11-11-2014, 12:13 PM

SCOTUS takes up a Halbig challenge, to rule by July 1:

In a Wow moment, the Supreme Court announced Friday that they will take one of the four pending "Halbig" cases––specifically King v. Burwell.

The issue is over whether the new health law actually authorizes the payment of premium subsidies in the 37 states that will rely upon the federal government to run their exchange in 2015.

This effort is being made on a number of fronts but has been generally know as the "Halbig" challenge. I guess we will now call it the King challenge.

If the Supreme Court eventually affirms this challenge, anyone receiving a health insurance subsidy in the 37 states run by the feds would immediately lose it. Given that the bulk of those currently getting subsides are at the lower income range for those subsidy eligible, most would likely drop their Obamacare insurance unless they were so sick it made sense for them to beg, borrow, or steal the money they would need to continue making premium payments.

The result would be a much smaller Obamacare insurance pool disproportionately filled with sick people.http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2014/11/supreme-court-takes-obamacare-subsidy.html

Winehole23

11-11-2014, 12:15 PM

Still, it’s worth remembering all of the parts of the health law that are not under attack by this case. The Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) expansions, now underway in 27 states, would stand. Young adults would still be able to get coverage through their parents’ health insurance. The law’s reforms of Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) payment policy would stay on the books. Regulations on insurance companies limiting their profits and requiring that all products cover certain basic benefits would stay in effect. And the subsidies flowing to states that ran their own exchanges would continue.

An anti-Obamacare decision in the King case wouldn’t take the health law off the books. It would just make federal spending on health care more uneven than it already is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/upshot/whats-at-stake-in-supreme-courts-latest-health-care-case.html

boutons_deux

11-11-2014, 12:47 PM

SCOTUS takes up a Halbig challenge, to rule by July 1:
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2014/11/supreme-court-takes-obamacare-subsidy.html

Death by Typo

My parents used to own a small house with a large backyard, in which my mother cultivated a beautiful garden. At some point, however — I don’t remember why — my father looked at the official deed defining their property, and received a shock. According to the text, the Krugman lot wasn’t a rough rectangle; it was a triangle more than a hundred feet long but only around a yard wide at the base.

On examination, it was clear what had happened: Whoever wrote down the lot’s description had somehow skipped a clause. And of course the town clerk fixed the language. After all, it would have been ludicrous and cruel to take away most of my parents’ property on the basis of sloppy drafting, when the drafters’ intention was perfectly clear.

But it now appears possible that the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an equally obvious typo. And if you think this possibility has anything to do with serious legal reasoning, as opposed to rabid partisanship, I have a long, skinny, unbuildable piece of land you might want to buy.

Last week the court shocked many observers by saying that it was willing to hear a case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/07/the-supreme-court-is-one-step-closer-to-torpedoing-obamacare/) claiming that the wording of one clause in the Affordable Care Act sets drastic limits on subsidies to Americans who buy health insurance. It’s a ridiculous claim; not only is it clear from everything else in the act that there was no intention to set such limits, you can ask the people who drafted the law what they intended, and it wasn’t what the plaintiffs claim. But the fact that the suit is ridiculous is no guarantee that it won’t succeed — not in an environment in which all too many Republican judges have made it clear that partisan loyalty trumps respect for the rule of law.

To understand the issue, you need to understand the structure of health reform. The Affordable Care Act tries to establish more-or-less universal coverage through a “three-legged stool (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2010/08/05/8226/health-care-reform-is-a-three-legged-stool/)” of policies, all of which are needed to make the system work. First, insurance companies are no longer allowed to discriminate against Americans based on their medical history, so that they can’t deny coverage or impose exorbitant premiums on people with pre-existing conditions. Second, everyone is required to buy insurance, to ensure that the healthy don’t wait until they get sick to join up. Finally, there are subsidies to lower-income Americans to make the insurance they’re required to buy affordable.

Just as an aside, so far this system seems to be working very well. Enrollment is running above expectations, premiums well below, and more insurance companies are flocking to the market.

So what’s the problem? To receive subsidies, Americans must buy insurance through so-called exchanges, government-run marketplaces. These exchanges, in turn, take two forms. Many states have chosen to run their own exchanges, like Covered California (https://www.coveredca.com/) or Kentucky’s Kynect (https://kynect.ky.gov/). Other states, however — mainly those under G.O.P. control — have refused to take an active role in insuring the uninsured, and defaulted to exchanges run by the federal government (which are working well now that the original software problems have been resolved).

But if you look at the specific language authorizing those subsidies, it could be taken — by an incredibly hostile reader — to say that they’re available only to Americans using state-run exchanges, not to those using the federal exchanges.

As I said, everything else in the act makes it clear that this was not the drafters’ intention, and in any case you can ask them directly, and they’ll tell you that this was nothing but sloppy language.

Furthermore, the consequences if the suit were to prevail would be grotesque. States like California that run their own exchanges would be unaffected. But in places like New Jersey, where G.O.P. politicians refused to take a role, premiums would soar, healthy individuals would drop out, and health reform would go into a death spiral. (And since many people would lose crucial, lifesaving coverage, the deaths wouldn’t be just a metaphor.)

Now, states could avoid this death spiral by establishing exchanges — which might involve nothing more than setting up links (http://acasignups.net/14/11/07/my-dennys-grand-slam-halbigking-solution-looking-less-joke-today) to the federal exchange. But how did we get to this point?

Once upon a time, this lawsuit would have been literally laughed out of court. Instead, however, it has actually been upheld in some lower courts, on straight party-line votes — and

the willingness of the Supremes to hear it is a bad omen.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening here.

Judges who support this cruel absurdity aren’t stupid; they know what they’re doing.

What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters.

And what we’ll find out in the months ahead is how deep the corruption goes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/opinion/paul-krugman-the-latest-frivolous-attack-on-obamacare.html

2centsworth

11-11-2014, 01:35 PM

Not a Typo, but I totally support the government's position here.

http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/a-walk-through-halbig-king-and-the-aca-litigation/

boutons_deux

11-11-2014, 03:34 PM

Not a Typo, but I totally support the government's position here.

http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/a-walk-through-halbig-king-and-the-aca-litigation/

Obviously Kruggy using typo as a MISstatement 100% incompatible with the totality of the ACA law.

This is nothing but Repug/conservative BAD FAITH, smash-mouth, scorched earth destructive politicking.

I read one article that suggested Roberts could now repeat what he did in saving ACA: save the ACA, but at the same time reduce federal power in the states (eg, allow the states to say no to Medicaid expansion and fuck over their poor citizens (esp blacks and browns, but of course Ms of whites, too), making Repugs and conservatives everywhere happy to fuck over Human-Americans). Repugs are nothing if not "states rights" racists.

spurraider21

11-14-2014, 04:46 PM

The Truth About Gruber-Gate (http://time.com/3583526/the-truth-about-gruber-gate/)

boutons_deux

11-14-2014, 05:25 PM

suck it, punks

Newly Insured Through Exchanges Give Coverage Good Marks

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bzdrvtsyhe2whtlbdv7xqa.png

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179396/newly-insured-exchanges-give-coverage-good-marks.aspx

spurraider21

11-17-2014, 03:42 AM

so you say "suck it" and then provide a chart that shows the new healthcare recipients aren't better off than the general insured population, and more likely to be worse off. cool.

boutons_deux

11-17-2014, 06:14 AM

so you say "suck it" and then provide a chart that shows the new healthcare recipients aren't better off than the general insured population, and more likely to be worse off. cool.

suck it,

ACA works for people it was intended to help, in spite of your Repugs killing 1000s of their redstate victims by denying them health care.

And the "general population" is "better off"/screwed by the predatory, greedy, gouging health care system. "free market" delivering the shittiest possible product for highest possible price.

btw, BigPharma, already pouring $Bs of drugs into school kids, is now pushing hard to add the anti-psychotic Abilify, outselling all other prescription drugs at $7B/year, to kids already taking ADHD drugs.

Of course, Abilify hasn't been tested on kids, and nobody knows really how Abilify works.

Winehole23

11-17-2014, 10:23 AM

ACA works for people it was intended to help, in spite of your Repugs killing 1000s of their redstate victims by denying them health care.not here in Texas it doesn't:

Since our yearly income is too low for a tax credit, I was anxious to locate an affordable plan, for purchase. I reasoned that there might be coverage available that would be affordable, in case of a catastrophic event, in the least. My husband and I could figure the cost for purchasing the plan into a new monthly budget that we are working on, given our recent move to Texas. After completing my application, the healthcare.gov (https://www.healthcare.gov/) site directed me to an available 33 plans for purchase. Not one plan is affordable. In fact, some of the plans exceed or nearly exceed our monthly income. The lowest-cost plan available calls for nearly half of our monthly income, just for the premium. The deductible is roughly equivalent to one-half of our yearly income. Were I to schedule, for example, a monthly visit to a regular doctor, I would still have to pay cash for every single visit, without even coming close to meeting the deductible. Here is an example, taken directly from the list of choices in my application this morning:

Catastrophic
Covers less than 60% of the total average costs of care: $612.62/month
Deductible $6,600 Out–of–pocket maximum $6,600
Copayments / Coinsurance $40 Primary doctor
No Charge After Deductible Specialist doctor
No Charge After Deductible Generic prescription

If I get sick, and I have the ‘catastrophic’ plan, which I cannot afford to have, I will have to pay $612.62 plus $40 plus $6000, in order to receive one single generic antibiotic tablet, let alone receive any care for a real catastrophe. At the other end of the spectrum, the best plan available, there is this:

Health care costs
Plan covers 80% of total average cost of care
Yearly premium
$12,559.56

This yearly premium is only slightly less than our yearly income, and it does not provide full coverage. In addition, the list of medications that are covered in this best-case scenario, is limited. When I called the 800-number and spoke to a representative this morning, I asked what I should do, to prepare for the possibility of a catastrophic event, such as an accident or severe illness. She told me that I could go to a local clinic and apply for a card, so that in the event of an accident, I can present the card, and maybe qualify to be taken to a local health clinic (not a hospital), but even this is not guaranteed.

When we first moved here, I stopped by an office to inquire about low-income options for health insurance such as Medicaid, but I do not qualify. Entry-level jobs that I have applied for do not offer benefits, and the wages are too low to be able to purchase even the least expensive, catastrophic plan.

I am ineligible to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to purchase health insurance, because Texas refused the billions of dollars it was offered, in federal subsidies. Not only that, but if it weren’t for filling out an application this morning and receiving an exemption code, I would be fined, for not signing up for unaffordable government health insurance, that provides no benefits.

http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2014/11/15/my-experience-with-applying-to-aca-in-texas/

boutons_deux

11-17-2014, 10:38 AM

not here in Texas it doesn't:

http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2014/11/15/my-experience-with-applying-to-aca-in-texas/

Insurers screwing Human-Americans isn't ACA's fault. ACA needs a lot of fixing, but Repugs, esp TX Repugs, prefer to screw their citizens (to death) by not expanding Medicaid, by not allowing ANY fixes to ACA.

Winehole23

11-17-2014, 10:40 AM

Insurers screwing Human-Americans isn't ACA's fault.are you completely sure that wasn't part of the backroom deal Obama did with the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies and a Democratic Congress dutifully passed?

boutons_deux

11-17-2014, 10:54 AM

are you completely sure that wasn't part of the backroom deal Obama did with the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies and a Democratic Congress dutifully passed?

Obama didn't fucking write ACA.

Corrupt Baucus's insurance industry exec/lobbyist did

The health care industry, through its whore politicians, makes govt policy to protect/enrich themselves. aka, USA is the oligarchs' corporatocracy, not a democracy.

Pin the shortcomings (for Americans) on business, which of forces deals that protect/enrich itself. Else, NO DEAL (eg, Harry-and-Louise).

Winehole23

11-17-2014, 10:57 AM

Obama didn't fucking write ACA.That is correct.

Obama did a deal behind closed doors, then Congressional leadership carried water for the President and his corporate masters.

Winehole23

11-17-2014, 11:00 AM

face it, boutons: the ACA is a corporatist turd that does little to reduce the cost of health care and is skimpy on benefits, except for the included special interests.

spurraider21

11-17-2014, 11:04 AM

Don't get why you would post a chart and then proceed to argue against the chart

boutons_deux

11-17-2014, 11:26 AM

face it, boutons: the ACA is a corporatist turd that does little to reduce the cost of health care and is skimpy on benefits, except for the included special interests.

Millions of people, on or off Medicaid, have premiums they can afford, and get health care they need.

ACA is corporatist turd, and it won't EVER be any other way. Just another way capitalists/BigCorp suck wealth out of Americans. BigCorp/1% own America and fuck it up. That ACA even passed and DOES actually help some Ms is a minor fucking miracle.

Winehole23

11-17-2014, 11:38 AM

Millions of people, on or off Medicaid, have premiums they can afford, and get health care they need.that is a good thing

ACA is corporatist turd, and it won't EVER be any other way.this isn't

boutons_deux

11-17-2014, 11:46 AM

that is a good thing

this isn't

ACA got help to people ONLY because the capitalists/health industry allowed it by GETTING PAID. NOTHING happens in federal govt unless somebody gets paid.

boutons_deux

11-21-2014, 03:18 PM

New survey of employers about health insurance market

"There appears to be a serious information deficit among employers when it comes time for them to assess the quality of health insurance plans," said Trevor Tompson, director of the AP-NORC Center. "Nine in 10 of the employers who offer health insurance to employees are unfamiliar with objective sources of quality information, such as Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems data and Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set Scores even though they think quality ratings are important."

Here are some of the key findings from the AP-NORC Center poll:

Among Private Sector Employers with at Least Three Employees

Most employers think the ACA will have an impact on businesses' decisions about the health benefits they offer, though some say it will make scaling benefits back easier and others say harder.
One in 5 employers say their organization is examining the design of health insurance exchange plans as they work on updating or changing the insurance benefits they offer.
Six in 10 employers offering insurance think plan quality ratings are important, but 9 in 10 are unfamiliar with objective quality metrics.
When selecting health plans, employers' top consideration is their own bottom line, but the cost to their employees is also important.
Only 4 percent of companies offering insurance that employ 100 or more workers plan to change employee schedules to reduce the number of full-time employees to comply with the ACA.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141120183606.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

tlongII

11-21-2014, 04:45 PM

Obamacare Officials Exaggerate Enrollment Total by Counting Dental Plans

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/20/obamacare-officials-exaggerate-enrollment-total-counting-dental-plans/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

The Obama administration admitted today that it mistakenly inflated the number of health insurance enrollments under the Affordable Care Act by adding in those who selected dental plans to raise the total above 7 million — the White House’s original goal.

“This mistake is unacceptable,” Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said on her Twitter account today. “I will be communicating that clearly throughout the department.”

Congressional investigators with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee discovered the error after receiving data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a sub-agency within HHS that oversees the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.

The Obama administration incorrectly added 380,000 consumers who selected only dental plans, Bloomberg first reported. According to CMS, the accurate number of Americans who selected health insurance plans is 6.7 million.

In a prepared statement, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa said:

HHS must provide a clear and detailed account of who knew about this decision and when they knew it. This administration still appears to be calling its Obamacare transparency plan from the Jonathan Gruber playbook: dismissing the American public’s right to know with the same deceptive arrogance that helped them pass the bill in the first place.

Since the first open enrollment period ended in mid-April, the administration’s reported enrollment figures have declined.

First, in May, the White House celebrated enrollments topping 8 million. However, that figure was disputed because HHS failed to distinguish between those who paid their first month’s premiums and those who did not. More than 1 million enrolled in dental coverage, the administration reported that month.

Then, in September, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner told Congress that 7.3 million Americans had enrolled in health plans through the Affordable Care Act.

Last month, Tavenner said enrollment was around 7.1 million.

Ed Haislmaier, a health policy expert at The Heritage Foundation, noted the decline in enrollment figures throughout the first half of 2014. In a recent report, Haislmaier and Heritage colleague Drew Gonshorowski found that 6.5 million Americans enrolled in Obamacare, according to data provided by insurers.

“It’s another reason that explains why the actual insurer enrollment figures are lower than what HHS has been saying,” Haislmaier told The Daily Signal, adding:

It explains the discrepancy. Insurer enrollment data shows that the market increased by 6.5 million in the first half of 2014, so this helps explain the delta between that and [the] 7.1 million reported by the Obama administration.

In previous administration reports regarding enrollment, the numbers of who signed up for medical and dental plans were reported separately. The White House’s decision to combine the two in the total of 7.3 million broke from that practice.

“A mistake was made in calculating the number of individuals with effectuated marketplace enrollments,” CMS spokesman Aaron Albright said in a statement to The Daily Signal. “We have determined that individuals who had both marketplace medical and dental coverage were erroneously counted in our recent announcements.”

In the future, he said, only those with medical coverage would be included in enrollment numbers.

According to The Washington Post, HHS reported higher enrollment figures twice. In September, the agency inflated the total by roughly 400,000. This month, HHS said 7.1 million were enrolled when 6.7 million actually were.

The Oversight Committee’s findings come just one week after the second Obamacare open enrollment period began.

The White House has been working to distance itself from Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who helped craft Obamacare, the president’s signature domestic achievement.

Videos recently surfaced of Gruber discussing how the White House and Senate Democrats manipulated the language of the health care law on purpose, passing it with a deliberate “lack of transparency.”

In subsequent videos, he called the American people “stupid” and mocked a man for expressing concerns about the effects of the law.

boutons_deux

11-21-2014, 04:50 PM

if ACA allowed 400K to buy dental insurance, what's the problem? that's still a big positive for ACA. fuck the bean counters.

tlongII

11-21-2014, 09:04 PM

Just more lyin'...

The Reckoning

11-21-2014, 10:28 PM

ACA is an unconstitutional ploy to force Americans to purchase a private service. Big business wins again.

Th'Pusher

11-21-2014, 11:14 PM

ACA is an unconstitutional ploy to force Americans to purchase a private service. Big business wins again.
Why is it unconstitutional?

The Reckoning

11-21-2014, 11:23 PM

Why is it unconstitutional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

The Reckoning

11-21-2014, 11:27 PM

:lol shocking

what an absolutely shitty 16 years of presidency this will have been.

about to be 24 tbh

Th'Pusher

11-22-2014, 12:07 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
:lol how does the ACA violate the commerce clause?

The Reckoning

11-22-2014, 12:16 AM

You really don't read the answers. There's a whole section and references you can read to your hearts content. I've led you to the water. Now I'm done with you.

Th'Pusher

11-22-2014, 12:34 AM

You really don't read the answers. There's a whole section and references you can read to your hearts content. I've led you to the water. Now I'm done with you.
Iow you have no idea what you're talking about so your going to regurgitate something you think you heard someone else say. The fucking commerce clause? That's what people thought SCOTUs was going to use to justify the law. Fucking shitbag moron.

spurraider21

11-22-2014, 05:10 AM

the supreme court found that the ACA was constitutional because they determined it is a tax

The Reckoning

11-22-2014, 06:32 AM

I'd be ok if it was a tax, but fining people for not having private health insurance is ridiculous. That's a penalty, not a tax.

boutons_deux

11-22-2014, 06:51 AM

I'd be ok if it was a tax, but fining people for not having private health insurance is ridiculous. That's a penalty, not a tax.

:lol

tax is not a penalty, not paying a LEGAL tax is penalized.

The Reckoning

11-22-2014, 05:49 PM

:lol

tax is not a penalty, not paying a LEGAL tax is penalized.

Yeah so i'll tax you for owning a life insurance policy (since everyone has a life and will have to pay for death related costs eventually) and then penalize you if you don't take out a life insurance policy because you aren't paying the tax on it. Sure boutons. The courts were going to push it through anyway because it was too big to fail, but this opens it up to a legal shit storm. I brought up the commerce clause because that's what congress was using as an argument and SCOTUS denied that stance yet pushed the bill through anyway.

Infinite_limit

11-23-2014, 12:14 AM

Bill Cosby > Obama

Winehole23

11-23-2014, 01:48 PM

The House will sue Obama for delaying the ACA penalty for noncompliance:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/21/house-republicans-sue-obama-administration-over-obamacare/

Andrew McCarthy, hardly an Obama apologist, points out how lame-brained the lawsuit is:

Speaker Boehner correctly points out that all Americans, regardless of partisan or ideological inclination, have an interest in stopping executive lawlessness because the imperial precedents President Obama is setting will be available for exploitation by every future president. Yet, Boehner is heedless of the precedent he proposes to set: Instead of Obama’s executive monarchy, we’d now be subjects of a judicial oligarchy—all future presidents, no matter how lawful their actions, would be subject to vexatious congressional lawsuits and court directives from the judiciary Obama has been stocking with hundreds of like-minded Leftists for the last six years. Putting aside the fact that this would put politically unaccountable judges in charge of all policy matters in our body politic, does anyone suppose that Democrats just might use Boehner’s lawsuit gambit as the basis for harassing a future Republican president that they lacked the votes to impeach or slash funding from?http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381244/boehner-issues-memo-explaining-his-feckless-plan-sue-obama-andrew-c-mccarthy

Winehole23

11-23-2014, 01:51 PM

the leader of the opposition party controlling the House may well be able to pass an “explicit House authorization for the lawsuit” Boehner anticipates filing. After all, how hard is it to get a bunch of congressional Republicans to agree that punting to the courts is easier than rolling up their sleeves and doing their jobs? (See, e.g., Obamacare.)

Boehner’s problem is not that Congress lacks a responsive arsenal. It is that he is afraid of the administration and press criticism attendant to using it. That’s a political problem, not a legal problem.

Boehner and Beltway Republicans are essentially saying, “We can’t use our power because Obama and his media friends would say mean things about us. But our lunatic conservative base is demanding action. So let us file a lawsuit so we can say we did something. Who knows . . . maybe in a year or two we’ll get lucky and get a favorable ruling against Obama that can’t be enforced without Obama’s help.”

Now that’s leadership!

same

boutons_deux

11-23-2014, 02:32 PM

Repug MISgovernance, All Politics, All The Time

How about a Congressional vote on authorizing more $Bs for the Repugs' botched, illegal wars in Repug-broken M/E and Lost_Another_War_istan?

nah, that would be Repug Congress assuming its exclusive war-making responsibility.

Winehole23

11-23-2014, 04:16 PM

How about a Congressional vote on authorizing more $Bs for the Repugs' botched, illegal wars in Repug-broken M/E and Lost_Another_War_istan?no need for that when Obama is doing the heavy lifting:

President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) decided in recent weeks to authorize a more expansive mission for the military in Afghanistan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) in 2015 than originally planned, a move that ensures American troops will have a direct role in fighting in the war-ravaged country for at least another year.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/us/politics/in-secret-obama-extends-us-role-in-afghan-combat.html?_r=0

boutons_deux

11-23-2014, 04:52 PM

no need for that when Obama is doing the heavy lifting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/us/politics/in-secret-obama-extends-us-role-in-afghan-combat.html?_r=0

For Iraq he won't send the $1.5B or whatever the military is asking for unless war-making-authority Congress authorizes.

Winehole23

11-23-2014, 04:58 PM

Obama wants political cover for Iraq. Doesn't want sole ownership of that quagmire.

By contrast, he's perfectly willing to do the drone wars all on his own.

boutons_deux

11-23-2014, 05:02 PM

Iraq war was declared over, US combat role terminated.

Not so for Afghanistan.

I love how he's putting Boner/McConnell/tea baggers' feet to the fire over Repugs' broken Iraq. They've been bitching about the lawless President, so he asks them to follow the Constitution and exercise their war-making powers. Nice move! :lol

Winehole23

11-23-2014, 05:13 PM

Transparently duplicitous would be a more accurate description.

Obama is fine with authorizing drone strikes in half a dozen countries and extending the war in Afghanistan another year in secret, but wrings his hands in public about Congressional war powers when it comes to Iraq.

boutons_deux

11-23-2014, 05:40 PM

Remember it was dubya and dickhead and their Unitary Executive, and never-ending Global War on Terrorism that they claimed was had been declared by Congress, so dubya was free to conduct it as he never-ending-ly pleased.

If Obama had asked Congress to approve airstrikes on ISIS, he'd still be waiting.

They bitched about his "lawlessness", so now he says, "ok motherfuckers, vote on it". and he's STILL waiting.

Winehole23

11-24-2014, 02:11 PM

Congressional Republicans allergy to governing is right up there with the President's two-facedness as a thing to dislike about the present political atmosphere.

Winehole23

11-24-2014, 02:14 PM

there's electoral cunning on both sides of that, to be sure, somewhat undercut -- imho --by tacit contempt for the governed.

Winehole23

11-30-2014, 10:03 PM

http://healthcare.mckinsey.com/sites/default/files/2015%20OEP%20Emerging%20Trends%20-%20McK%20Reform%20Center_0.pdf

boutons_deux

01-11-2015, 06:53 AM

Texas is the biggest "get" left for the program, which is expected to account for roughly half of the law's health coverage expansion. More than 1 million (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/medicaid-expansion-map-obamacare-losers) people have been left without insurance under Obamacare because outgoing Gov. Rick Perry (R) refused to expand Medicaid. That would make it a huge coup for ACA supporters: Texas accounts for about one-fourth of the Medicaid coverage gap nationwide.

During a meeting with state legislators last month, the incoming governor said he would seek out more information about the Medicaid expansion plan that conservative Utah has been negotiating with the federal government. It's a huge reversal, as Texas was one of the states that industry groups had more or less written off (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-medicaid-expansion-lobbying-2015) in late 2013,

Abbott's openness comes as deep-red states like Utah, Wyoming, and Tennessee are actively working (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/wyoming-medicaid-expansion-obamacare-why-wy) with the federal government to craft their own alternative Medicaid expansion plans. And if the biggest Republican-controlled state, one that serves as something of a conservative bellwether, comes around on Medicaid expansion, it's easy to imagine that more of the 20-odd holdouts would start to reconsider their position. There are already rumblings (http://www.cnbc.com/id/102292844) that Florida, the second-biggest holdout, is also more likely to expand this year.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/texas-medicaid-expansion-optimisi

OBAMAcare kicking redneck ass!

MultiTroll

01-11-2015, 08:27 AM

Texas is the biggest "get" left for the program,

Is the Repug (and not just Ricky Bobbys) medical plan for the 99% still?:
1. Don't get sick.
2. If you get sick, die soon.

CosmicCowboy

01-12-2015, 03:49 PM

Another interesting Obamacare change.

I just got my renewal rates for my employees insurance for my March 2015 renewal. For 30 years I have always been given an "average" rate for singles, couples, and families (including kids)

That has changed due to Obamacare for employer provided health care. Now, every single employee is individually rated depending on their health history. I now have employee health costs ranging from $300 a month for the youngest and healthiest guy to $1600 a month for one older guy...

You don't think that gives an employer an incentive to fire the older and sicker employees when it is costing him almost $16,000 a year more for the same job that could be done by a younger healthy guy?

CosmicCowboy

01-12-2015, 04:13 PM

Oh yeah...plus an 11% overall increase over 2014 after a 17% increase over 2013. I'm just SO glad to see Obamacare has gotten health care costs under control.

Th'Pusher

01-12-2015, 04:20 PM

CosmicCowboy

01-12-2015, 04:23 PM

Are you planning on a little age discrimination in 2015 CC?

why are you such a bitter little bitch? Does your life really suck that bad?

boutons_deux

01-12-2015, 04:24 PM

CosmicCowboy

01-12-2015, 04:25 PM

that sucks, it should be fixed, but the Repugs will block any fixes, you know DAMN WELL.

LOL, your beloved Democrats WROTE the bill, stupid.

boutons_deux

01-12-2015, 04:27 PM

Oh yeah...plus an 11% overall increase over 2014 after a 17% increase over 2013. I'm just SO glad to see Obamacare has gotten health care costs under control.

YET AGAIN, I repeat, ACA doesn't set prices, the insurnace companies do (and they fuck us all like they always do. It's THE AMERICAN WAY! Freedom! for-profit BigCorps FOREVER)

If the "risk pool" was 320M people under a mandatory, universal non-profit govt health insurance ...

... nah NEVER gonna happen. BigCorp make govt policy, not We The People

CosmicCowboy

01-12-2015, 04:31 PM

YET AGAIN, I repeat, ACA doesn't set prices, the insurnace companies do (and they fuck us all like they always do. It's THE AMERICAN WAY! Freedom! for-profit BigCorps FOREVER)

If the "risk pool" was 320M people under a mandatory, universal non-profit govt health insurance ...

... nah NEVER gonna happen. BigCorp make govt policy, not We The People

So what did the ACA accomplish besides expanding Medicaid? My President PROMISED me my costs would go down!

_o65vMUk5so

boutons_deux

01-12-2015, 04:45 PM

So what did the ACA accomplish besides expanding Medicaid? My President PROMISED me my costs would go down!

_o65vMUk5so

yep, BigCorp doesn't GAF what the President "promises". However, your case is, solipsistically, JUST your case,NOT everybody's case.

google: aca reduces costs

boutons_deux

01-13-2015, 01:26 PM

BigMed, BigPharma, BigInsurance ALLOWED ACA to pass after they themselves wrote it, and then lobbied the hell out of the rule-making.

So go bitch at the Real Culprit, rather than jerk yourself off about Obama.

boutons_deux

01-13-2015, 02:22 PM

:lol

U.S. House Republican optimistic about Obamacare replacement plan

Price gave no details but said any plan would need to be based on the principles of "accessibility, affordability, quality and choice."

"If you accept those principles ... then you pretty much have a clear path to what the policies would be,” he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/12/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN0KL29A20150112?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews

It will ALSO be written BigHealthInsurance, etc, etc, NOT by ignorant, anti-government House Repugs. Results? Absolutely much worse than ACA.

boutons_deux

01-15-2015, 10:15 AM

LOL, your beloved Democrats WROTE the bill, stupid.

"Democrats Max Baucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Baucus), Jeff Bingaman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bingaman), and Kent Conrad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Conrad), and Republicans Mike Enzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Enzi), Chuck Grassley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley), and Olympia Snowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe) — met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate's healthcare reform bill."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

DINO and health insurance industry pawn/shill Senator Max Baucus (now working in pharmaceutical industry) hired an insurance industry top exec/lobbyist Liz Fowler to actually write ACA with her team of health care lobbyists, who also got their way at the rule-making level.

btw, it was your buddy dubya and dickhead who made it illegal for the US govt to negotiate drug, device prices as "single buyer", assuring the prices in US have continued to MUCH HIGHER than in "adult" countries that operate as "single buyer"

boutons_deux

01-15-2015, 10:20 AM

CC, here's another big win for ACA

Signs of a Decline in Financial Distress Connected to Medical Bills

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/upshot/financial-distress-connected-to-medical-bills-shows-a-decline-the-first-in-years.html

but there are still 43 MILLION Americans behind in paying their medical bills, and still many, most?, of personal bankruptcies continue to be for medical catastrophes.

Great fucking humane country BigCorp has delivered, huh?

boutons_deux

01-15-2015, 12:26 PM

A Repug IRS would never do this

For Nonprofit Hospitals Who Sue Patients, New Rules

Last month, ProPublica and NPR detailed how one nonprofit hospital in Missouri sued thousands of lower income workers (http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofit-hospitals-are-seizing-patients-wages/) who couldn't pay their bills, then seized their wages, all while enjoying a big break on its taxes.

Since then, the IRS has released long-awaited rules designed to address such aggressive debt collection against the poor. Largely because these new rules fill a void — there were hardly any rules at all — patient advocates agree they are a major step forward.

Even so, they have easily exploitable gaps. It remains up to each hospital, for example, to decide which patients the new rules should apply to. And because the rules only apply to hospitals that have been granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, they don't apply to for-profit hospitals or most public hospitals. ProPublica reported last month that public hospitals can be even more aggressive in collecting debt than nonprofits (http://www.propublica.org/article/in-alabama-a-public-hospital-serves-the-poor-with-lawsuits).

Most hospitals in the U.S. are charitable organizations. They don't pay taxes because they are supposed to be a key part of the safety net for the nation's poor patients. In theory, patients who aren't covered by Medicaid and can't afford insurance — or who are underinsured and can't afford their out-of-pocket costs — can receive necessary care from a nonprofit hospital without facing financial ruin. Each hospital is required to offer services to lower-income patients at a reduced cost and to have a financial assistance policy that states who qualifies for aid, known as "charity care."

But while hospitals are required to have this policy, there have been very few rules on how they publicize it or how they treat patients who qualify. That's where the new rules (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/1392422-irs-final-rule.html#document/p183), which go into effect in 2016, will make the biggest difference. The rules were required as part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

At Heartland Regional Medical Center in St. Joseph, the hospital featured in our story (http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofit-hospitals-are-seizing-patients-wages/), many patients had been sued despite apparently qualifying for financial assistance. In interviews, patients either didn't know the hospital had charity care or wrongly believed they didn't qualify.

Under the new rules, all nonprofit hospitals will be required to post their financial assistance policies on their websites and offer a written, "plain language summary" of them to patients when they're in the hospital. If patients don't apply for assistance or pay their bills, then the hospitals are required to send at least one more summary of the policy, along with mentioning it on billing statements.

And if hospitals plan to sue patients over unpaid bills, they must attempt to verbally tell the patients about their policies, as well as send notices that they are planning to sue and that the patients may qualify for financial assistance.

Hospitals that don't take these steps before suing patients could face the ultimate penalty of losing their tax-exempt status.

That sounds clear enough. But the first catch is that the IRS does not have a history of aggressive enforcement.

"That's always been the problem with the charitable hospital rules," said Corey Davis, an attorney with the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit patient advocacy organization. "The IRS doesn't enforce them and nobody else can enforce them."

http://www.propublica.org/article/for-nonprofit-hospitals-who-sue-patients-new-rules

IRS enforcement? Repugs have cut many $100Ms from IRS budget.

boutons_deux

01-19-2015, 11:47 AM

Repugs DEFUNDING ACA is having REAL EFFECTS on real people

Why did CoOportunity fail?

A spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the loans, told me and other reporters that “given the limited amount of funding available, CMS has to prioritize the externally reviewed requests. - See more at: http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/why_did_cooportunity_fail.php#sthash.eNEMGT8e.dpuf

But why the funding was “limited” is no mystery, though this angle has been mostly missing in the coverage.

In early 2013, as part of the deal to resolve the “fiscal cliff,” Congress rescinded 90 percent of uncommitted loan funds that were available to support the co-ops.

This was after an earlier cut had already sharply pared back the level of funding originally authorized in the ACA. CJRreported at the time (http://www.cjr.org/the_second_opinion/the_incredible_shrinking_healt.php) how the 2013 law stopped the development of additional co-ops that were awaiting approval. It may have now contributed to CoOportunity’s failure too.

There was still another source of federal funding—money CMS had for program administration. Some of it could have been transferred to CoOportunity, according to Martin Hickey, president of National Alliance of State Health Co-Ops, a trade association. But a more recent act of Congress—

the “cromnibus” spending bill passed in December—cut those funds.

And, said Hickey, “they explicitly prohibited CMS from using any of that money for any activity under the Affordable Care Act.” The double blow, with no expectation of sufficient federal funds to arrive anytime soon, prompted Iowa regulators to take over the company.

http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/why_did_cooportunity_fail.php

Fuck Repug politicians, and fuck you Repug voters. All y'all are fucking up country.

boutons_deux

01-23-2015, 03:11 PM

The people most at risk of losing insurance in the Supreme Court case? The Republican base. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359731/-The-people-most-at-risk-of-losing-insurance-in-the-Supreme-Court-case-The-Republican-base)

Republicans might end up ruing the day they decided to pile onto the King case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the federal subsidies people in all of the states that are using the federal health insurance exchange. Turns out, the people who will be most hurt by losing their subsidies are in the Republican base (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/upshot/the-people-most-at-risk-of-losing-insurance-in-the-supreme-courts-health-ruling.html?rref=upshot&smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1).

http://images.dailykos.com/images/125732/large/Screen_Shot_2015-01-23_at_9.49.32_AM.png?1422033097
attribution: Urban Institute

The people who could lose their health insurance as a result of a Supreme Court decision this year are predominantly white, Southern, employed and middle-aged, according to an Urban Institute analysis. […]The new Urban study (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/2000078-Characteristics-of-Those-Affected-by-King-v-Burwell.pdf) finds that the biggest regional loser from the court case would be the South. More than 60 percent of people who would lose their individual health insurance live there. Among different income groups, the largest reductions would come for those earning between 200 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level—or between about $40,000 and $80,000 for a family of three. Forty-seven percent of the people who would lose insurance have full-time jobs, and 34 percent have part-time jobs. Sixty-one percent are white. Forty-seven percent have attended at least some college. Ninety-two percent would probably describe their health as better than fair.

This is a deeper look into the group that would lose insurance if the court strikes down subsidies. RAND Corp. estimates it will be 9.6 million (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/08/1356441/-Study-9-6-million-people-would-lose-insurance-if-the-U-S-Supreme-nbsp-Court-guts-nbsp-Obamacare) losing subsidies, and Urban estimates (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/2000078-Characteristics-of-Those-Affected-by-King-v-Burwell.pdf)it's 9.3 million, based on their varied projections for 2015 enrollments. Of those 9.3 million, Urban estimate two-thirds will go uninsured—that's this predominantly white, middle class, Southern group. On top of that, there's about 4.9 million who don't receive the subsidies because of their higher incomes, and Urban estimates that about a quarter of them would become uninsured because they wouldn't be able to afford the 35 percent hike their premiums would take when all those subsidy-receiving people drop out of the market and insurers have to make up for their loss.It's one thing to withhold or take Medicaid away from millions of poor, disenfranchised people. Republicans aren't going to blink an eye at that. But now they've put themselves in quite a pickle, pushing very hard to strip health insurance away from their most reliable voting base.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359731/-The-people-most-at-risk-of-losing-insurance-in-the-Supreme-Court-case-The-Republican-base?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

:lol

boutons_deux

01-27-2015, 11:57 AM

GOP's Stealth Blow To Obamacare Helps Claim Its First Victim

The quiet blow that Republicans dealt to Obamacare in the so-called CRomnibus spending bill passed last month has now helped contribute to the shuttering of one of the law's co-op health plans, as experts told TPM it might.

Iowa Insurance Commissioner Nick Gerhart announced Monday that his office would request that CoOpportunity Health, a non-profit health plan created under the health care reform law, be liquidated. Gerhart's office had taken over control of the plan in December amid financial struggles, per the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-regulator-to-shut-down-insurer-cooportunity-health-1422052829?autologin=y).

Part of the reason that the insurance commissioner took over the struggling insurer, and therefore part of the reason it is now being shut down after state officials determined it couldn't be saved, is a provision that House Republicans inserted into the spending bill approved in December.

As TPM reported (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-cromnibus-risk-corridors) at the time, House GOP staff requested a change to Obamacare's so-called risk-corridor program as part of the CRomnibus. The program, a favorite punching bag of Republicans, who have pushed for its repeal (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/rubio-obamacare-risk-corridors), is designed to help insurers in the law's first few years. Companies estimate what their insurance pools will look like. If they turn out better than expected, then the companies pay money into the program. If they turn out worse, then companies are paid money by the program.

That helps lessen the risk for insurers as they take on a new population of Obamacare enrollees. But what the Republicans inserted into the CRomnibus was a requirement that the risk-corridor program effectively be revenue neutral. So if the program didn't bring in enough money from overperforming companies, it wouldn't be able to make payments to underperforming ones.

Experts told TPM at the time that bigger companies would likely be able to absorb any short-term losses that might come with the change, but that smaller insurers -- like CoOpportunity Health, which covers about 68,000 people in Iowa and Nebraska -- would be more vulnerable.

When Iowa insurance commissioner Gerhart petitioned to take over the company in December, he cited (http://www.iid.state.ia.us/sites/default/files/press_release/2014/12/24/cooportunity_health_petition_for_rehabilitation_pd _77502.pdf) the uncertainty of the risk-corridor money as one reason for CoOpportunity Health's struggles, stating that the CRomnibus provision had "placed in jeopardy" up to $60 million of the company's projected assets.

Becky Blum, a senior official at the Iowa agency, confirmed to TPM in an email that the CRomnibus provision had been one of the factors in the company's financial instability, though not the only one. The bottom line was that the insurer was paying out too much in claims and not bringing in enough revenue.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-iowa-coopportunity-health-liquidation-cromnibus?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Without doubt, Repugs will screw ACA in many different ways, "proving" their ideology that govt sucks (but not nearly as much as Repugs suck).

boutons_deux

02-03-2015, 05:42 PM

Repug NutHouse votes 56th time to repeal ACA

Repugs proving they can govern!

Thanks, Repug voters!

boutons_deux

02-05-2015, 02:57 PM

Republicans Unveil Bill That Would Take Health Care Away From 22.5 Million Americans

A group of Senate and House Republicans have revealed the Republican Party’s replacement plan for the ACA that contains no healthcare and would take away coverage from 22.5 million Americans.

Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) introduced their answer to the ACA, which they have named the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment (CARE) Act.According to Republicans the “CARE Act” would (http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=78f09718-c5cc-47ee-b4e3-c5d33ecc9545):

Establish sustainable, patient-focused reforms:

Adopt common-sense consumer protections;

Create a new protection to help Americans with pre-existing conditions;

Empower small businesses and individuals with purchasing power;

Empower states with more tools to help provide coverage while reducing costs; and

Strengthen consumer directed health care and allow Americans to buy coverage across state lines.

Modernize Medicaid to provide better coverage and care to patients:

Transition to capped allotment to provide states with predictable funding and flexibility.

Reduce defensive medicine and rein in frivolous lawsuits:

Medical Malpractice reforms.

Increase health care price transparency to empower consumers and patients:

Require basic health care transparency to inform and empower patients.

Reduce distortions in the tax code that drive up health care costs:

Cap the exclusion of an employee’s employer-provided health coverage.

Empower Small Businesses and Individuals with Purchasing Power:

Targeted tax credit to help buy health care

What the CARE Act doesn’t contain is health care. At the very bottom of the list of what the bill does, you will see that the legislation will provide tax credits for people to buy health care.

The problem for tens of millions of Americans will be that they will first have to buy the policy in order to qualify for the tax credit. If a person or family can’t afford the policy, they won’t have insurance.The CARE Act also does not contain any mechanism for transferring people who are currently enrolled in health care exchanges to new subsidized coverage.

Instead of expanding Medicaid, the Republican plan caps funding. This means that all of the people who have gotten health care through the Medicaid will be thrown off of their insurance.

The Republicans have introduced a health care plan that doesn’t contain any health care. These are the same old ideas that Republicans have been trying to dress up as health care reform for decades.

The Republican plan will drive up health care costs, and throw millions of people off of their current coverage.

It will allow insurance companies to discriminate and price gouge.

It will drive up the cost of prescription drugs for seniors.

The Republican plan would also toss 3 million children off of their parents’ health insurance.

Republicans have unveiled a plan that would take away health care from at least 22.5 million Americans.

(19.5 million Americans have gotten coverage under the ACA through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion, another 3 million are on their parents’ health insuranc (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/03/house-republicans-pass-bill-health-care-19-million-americans.html)e.)

The Republican plan replaces the ACA with nothing.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/05/republicans-unveil-bill-health-care-22-5-million-americans.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Repugs Governance! Yes We Can! :lol

boutons_deux

02-09-2015, 09:25 PM

America's Largest Health Care Company Tells Supreme Court That Anti-Obamacare Argument Is "Absurd"

HCA argues that the legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs is "absurd," but, more importantly, it presents detailed data drawn from its own operations that demonstrate that the health care law is helping patients and the company itself.

In its brief, HCA says that Obamacare has already cost it more than $600 million in revenues between 2010 and 2014—and that's just in the 15 states that haven't created their own exchanges and where HCA has at least one facility. The decreases were part of the deal forged by the drafters of the ACA. The plan was for hospitals to agree to cuts in federal reimbursement for treating the uninsured, but in exchange they would benefit from an influx of newly insured patients.

HCA says that it has only recently begun to see new revenue come in. (Of the roughly 134,000 patients with federal exchange-based insurance who visited an HCA facility last year, 62 percent had never been there before. This suggests that the new insurance program was definitely driving business to HCA's hospitals and clinics.) If the Supreme Court kills off the Obamacare subsidies, HCA says it will have to absorb about $350 million in initial losses and far more in the future.

In effect, HCA is telling the court that Obamacare is good for both corporate America and individual Americans getting insured through it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hca-king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare-amicus-brief

boutons_deux

02-12-2015, 02:42 PM

The Republican Obamacare problem grows: Enrollments are surging in southern states (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/12/1364002/-The-Republican-Obamacare-problem-grows-Enrollments-are-surging-in-southern-nbsp-states)

Southern states are seeing a surge of Obamacare sign-ups (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/232489-obamacare-signups-surge-in-southern-states) in this last week of open enrollment.

Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Mississippi have each seen 80 percent more signups compared to last year, Deputy Administrator Andy Slavitt said.The same states are also reporting the fastest rate of growth in the final two weeks of the current enrollment period, which ends Feb. 15. Each of the states has reported 5 percent more signups over the last two weeks compared to last year.

That's more than 1 million in Texas, around 180,000 in South Carolina, 150,000 in Louisiana and 90,000 in Mississippi. Florida tops them (http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150211/NEWS/302119971?utm_source=modernhealthcare&utm_medium=email&utm_content=externalURL&utm_campaign=am&mh=) with 1.3 million signups.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/12/1364002/-The-Republican-Obamacare-problem-grows-Enrollments-are-surging-in-southern-nbsp-states?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Repug LIES and FUD about ACA are losing their effect even in Repug-fucked-up red states. :lol

boutons_deux

02-12-2015, 02:46 PM

HHS Dept. Confirms: GOP hoping to force $3,200 tax hike on 6.5 million working class Americans. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/09/1363486/-HHS-Dept-Confirms-GOP-hoping-to-force-3-200-tax-hike-on-6-5-million-working-class-Americans)

According to today’s report, on average, premium tax credits reduced consumers’ monthly premiums by 72 percent. The average monthly premium for 2015 coverage dropped from $374 before tax credits to $105 after tax credits, among 6.5 million consumers in the 37 state using the HealthCare.gov platform who selected a plan with tax credits. Today’s report also includes state-by-state figures. This analysis includes plan selections from Nov. 15 through Jan. 30: depending on the characteristics of people who sign up prior to Feb. 15, the statistics in this report could change.

Of course, assuming the held-together-with-chewing-gum-and-duct-tape (http://acasignups.net/15/02/09/anyone-who-didnt-realize-what-utter-sham-king-v-burwell-case-now) King v. Burwell court case, which is rapidly falling apart (http://theweek.com/articles/537103/supreme-court-challenge-against-obamacare-rapidly-falling-apart) just weeks before it's set to go before the Supreme Court, does somehow end up resulting in those tax credits being torn away, that means that between 6.5 million and 7.3 million people will instantly see their taxes go up by an average of $268 per month.That's right, the Republican Party is gleefully rooting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/01/30/morning-plum-gop-leaders-hope-supreme-court-tears-apart-obamacare/) for a massive tax hike on up to 7 million middle class Americans. You know...the voting kind.

Of course, that $268/month is just an average, as is the 87% rate of credit recipients. When youbreak it out by state, it varies widely (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/MarketPlaceEnrollment/APTC/ib_APTC.pdf)...from as low as 70% of enrollees in New Hampshire to as high as 94% of in Mississippi, and from as "little" as $158/month ($1,900/year) in Arizona to as much as a whopping $534/month in Alaska.

Now, I realize that Alaska is a red state, but I'm guessing those 15,400 people up North aren't going to take too kindly to being hit with a $6,400/year tax hike.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/09/1363486/-HHS-Dept-Confirms-GOP-hoping-to-force-3-200-tax-hike-on-6-5-million-working-class-Americans (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/09/1363486/-HHS-Dept-Confirms-GOP-hoping-to-force-3-200-tax-hike-on-6-5-million-working-class-Americans)

boutons_deux

02-13-2015, 11:51 AM

Public strongly supports federal subsidies for health insurance (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/11/1363886/-Public-strongly-supports-federal-subsidies-for-health-insurance)

The poll, released Feb. 9, shows 63 percent of respondents favoring a plan to secure subsidized health insurance, should the court rule against subsides in King v. Burwell.

The suit, filed last year, challenges the federal government’s ability to distribute subsidies to low-income Americans purchasing health insurance through Healthcare.gov, the federal exchange established by the Affordable Care Act.

Sixty-eight percent of respondents think Americans should have access to healthcare subsides, regardless of whether they come from a state or federal exchange.

The poll also separated respondents by those who live in a state with their own exchange, versus a state using a federal exchange.

Those living with state-based exchanges were more supportive of subsidies than those living in states with federal exchanges only by six percentage points.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/128857/large/statefedexchanges-1024x466.jpg?1423695205

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/11/1363886/-Public-strongly-supports-federal-subsidies-for-health-insurance?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

As always, the Repugs and their minority base ALWAYS on the wrong side of history, the law, science, and "serious" Americans, etc.

Blizzardwizard

02-13-2015, 02:01 PM

Repugs are fighting a losing battle. The American people aren't that stupid, they see other western countries sustaining universal healthcare, and realise that at the very least the US should have an affordable single pay rate for healthcare. Obamacare doesn't cut it though.

boutons_deux

02-15-2015, 10:05 PM

Another Obama Success The Media Won’t Talk About: Obamacare To Blow Past 2015 Goals

The media hasn’t talked about Obamacare since the website was fixed, but very quietly the president’s health care law has morphed into a raging success as enrollment is projected to be 2 million over the administration’s 2015 goal.Enrollment as of February 13 was estimated to be at 11.3 million (http://acasignups.net/).

Expectations are the ACA will blow past the administration’s goal of 9 million for 2015.As Politico reported (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obamacare-enrollment-2015-targets-115180.html#ixzz3RqiEaJ4x), the quiet push to get people enrolled was an intentional White House strategy:

Obamacare enrollment draws to a close Sunday night, and all signs point to the White House easily meeting its target of getting 9 million Americans covered in 2015 — a drama-free ending to a season that proved a 180-degree turnaround from last year’s many problems.

The quiet conclusion isn’t just because HealthCare.gov hasn’t been on the verge of collapse. The White House intentionally adopted a lower key, more targeted pitch this year. There were a lot fewer star-studded tweets promoting the website and coverage.

Red states whose political leaders oppose the ACA the most have seen a huge surge in enrollment, (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/29/republicans-failed-obamacare-enrollment-spreads-wildfire-red-states.html)

“Republicans who thought that they were stopping the law by refusing to set up their own state exchanges have created a trap for themselves.

Florida, Maine, Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina have all covered at least 40% of their eligible residents under the federal exchange.

Arkansas also depends on subsidies to fund their “private option” plan.

All of these states will face an immediate backlash if the Supreme Court rules that only states that have set up exchanges are eligible for subsidies.”

The fact that the ACA deadline can come and go and civilization will not collapse is proof that Republicans have been and remain completely wrong on healthcare. Tens of millions of people have access to affordable healthcare because of the law.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/15/obama-success-media-talk-about-obamacare-blow-2015-goals.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

red state Repugs still killing and deepening the diseases of their poor residents by refusing to expand Medicaid.

And Repugs intend to defund, cut disability payments to the old, the sick, the disabled, and young poor by 19%

Repugs, tea baggers, conservatives, libertarians together are the BIGGEST THREAT to America.

Winehole23

02-16-2015, 01:37 PM

And Repugs intend to defund, cut disability payments to the old, the sick, the disabled, and young poor by 19%pretense of paying for the tax cuts they're about to pass. they're trying to convince their donors they're unsentimental and fiscally disciplined. it may work.

boutons_deux

02-16-2015, 04:01 PM

Obamacare enrollment ends: Is an extension preferable to penalties?

WASHINGTON — The official sign-up season for President Barack Obama (http://www.csmonitor.com/csmlists/topic/Barack+Obama)'s health care law may be over, but leading congressional Democrats (http://www.csmonitor.com/csmlists/topic/U.S.+Democratic+Party) say millions of Americans facing new tax penalties deserve a second chance.

Three senior House members told The Associated Press that they plan to strongly urge the administration to grant a special sign-up opportunity for uninsured taxpayers who will be facing fines under the law for the first time this year.

The three are Michigan's Sander Levin (http://www.csmonitor.com/csmlists/topic/Sander+Levin), the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott (http://www.csmonitor.com/csmlists/topic/Jim+McDermott) of Washington, and Lloyd Doggett (http://www.csmonitor.com/csmlists/topic/Lloyd+Doggett) of Texas (http://www.csmonitor.com/csmlists/topic/Texas). All worked to help steer Obama's law through rancorous congressional debates from 2009-2010.

Based on congressional analysis, tax preparation giant H&R Block says roughly 4 million uninsured people will pay penalties.

The IRS (http://www.csmonitor.com/csmlists/topic/Internal+Revenue+Service) has warned that health-care related issues will make its job harder this filing season and taxpayers should be prepared for long call-center hold times, particularly since theGOP (http://www.csmonitor.com/csmlists/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party)-led Congress has been loath to approve more money for the agency.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2015/0216/Obamacare-enrollment-ends-Is-an-extension-preferable-to-penalties

The real IRS scandal is that Repugs have cut many $100Ms from IRS budget since 2010, a scandal MSM won't touch.

Following their bad-faith, VRWC/ALEC destroy/hate-evil-govt strategy, the Repugs want Americans to hate govt and do everything they can to make Americans dealing with govt as painful, negative as possible.

boutons_deux

02-19-2015, 01:10 PM

Repugs were LYIN to all y'all bubbas

8 ways Obamacare has proved its critics wrong

1) Nobody wants to buy Obamacare

2) Obamacare will "never" meet its enrollment goal

http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/4760052/enrollment.png

3) Obamacare will wreak havoc on the economy

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3_qULm24N2Cmbp_aEHUl3Q-UiDk=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3425512/Screen_Shot_2015-01-09_at_8.51.10_AM.0.0.png

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/wjR-PUeODbQaOG44s4_f2tn7fh4=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3425440/fred_graph.0.png

4) The website will never work

5) Only people who already had coverage are signing up

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4635145/exchange_enrollees.png

6) Obamacare would cause a net-loss of insurance

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xglhKZkDfT5WZIiMdeYGH5NsdvM=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3423404/gallup_obamacare_uninsured.0.0.png

7) Premiums will skyrocket

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Y9w_PALdulVnsTI7XPBbAKm6SJ8=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3424574/average_premium_increases.0.png

8) Obamacare just can't work

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4734886/commonwealth5.png

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8069117/obamacare-critics-wrong

As always, Repugs GOT NOTHING but slander and LIES. And still y'all rednecks vote 'em. :lol

spurraider21

02-25-2015, 02:35 PM

boutons_deux

02-25-2015, 03:26 PM

saw this on fb

"A majority of ObamaCare customers, 52 percent, are being forced to pay back some of their subsidies during this year’s tax season, according to new data from H&R Block. Customers are paying back an average of $530, which has caused a 17 percent drop in the average return so far this spring, according to the analysis by the tax services giant."

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/233691-hr-block-half-of-obamacare-customers-owe-money-back#.VO0AX6uTr4w.twitter (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/233691-hr-block-half-of-obamacare-customers-owe-money-back#.VO0AX6uTr4w.twitter)

yep, the incredibly OVER complicated for-profit "health care" $3T/year racket makes any system like ACA equally OVER complicated trying to interface with it. That's not ACA's fault.

We'll see after the tax season dust settles where we are.

America is so FUCKED in so many ways, and Repugs, VRWC, BigCorp will block ANY and EVERY attempt to unfuck.

boutons_deux

02-28-2015, 03:54 PM

Undermining Children’s Insurance

Senior Republicans in Congress are seeking major changes to the Children’s Health Insurance Program when the program’s money runs out in September.

could deprive more than a million children of insurance or force their families to pay higher out-of-pocket costs for their coverage. It also would shift costs to states, which would be left holding the bag to pay for the children’s insurance or for the care of the children as uninsured patients.

The Republican proposal would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that states keep the family-income eligibility levels stable until 2019, and it could make it harder for families to prove their eligibility. Faced with a loss of federal funds for CHIP, as suggested in the Republican proposal, many states would probably shrink their CHIP programs and reduce their own financial contributions.

A result would be fewer children enrolled in the program.

The proposal would also eliminate a requirement that states enroll children who are just above the poverty line in Medicaid.

This would enable states to move them from Medicaid back to CHIP, where enrollments are often limited by budget caps.

And the proposal would allow states to impose a 12-month waiting period (up from the current 90 days) before children who lose coverage from a parent’s insurance plan can be enrolled in CHIP.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/opinion/undermining-childrens-insurance.html

Repugs ALWAYS fuck up whatever they touch. Of course, that's why they won't touch tax breaks, subsidies, etc for BigCorp and 1%.

tlongII

02-28-2015, 04:42 PM

You lie.

boutons_deux

02-28-2015, 05:26 PM

You lie.

You Wish, in your evidence-free right-wing fantasy world. You People have done nothing positive for USA, or for the 99% in decades.

tlongII

02-28-2015, 06:07 PM

You lie.

boutons_deux

03-01-2015, 08:51 AM

You lie.

so list all the wonderful stuff Repugs have done for their states and The American People, say from 1980 when the VRWC got its shitball rolling.

hitmanyr2k

03-01-2015, 11:00 AM

Karma is a bitch. Dick Mack railed against Obamacare for years but didn't have the sense to get any health insurance of his own. And now because of being so shortsighted he's reduced to being a "taker" from strangers to pay for costly medical bills. The comments from people giving him money are amusing.

http://www.gofundme.com/helpsheriffmack

RandomGuy

03-08-2015, 09:54 PM

RandomGuy

03-08-2015, 10:13 PM

Don’t kill Obamacare
As the Supreme Court considers whether to gut Obamacare, evidence is mounting that the law is working

AMERICA’S health-care system is the costliest in the world, gobbling up 17% of GDP. The average for rich nations is only 9%; even the French spend less than 12%. Despite this avalanche of cash, one American in ten has no cover and American life expectancy, at 79, is four years worse than Italy’s.

The Affordable Care Act of 2010, better known as Obamacare, was supposed to deal with these problems. Five years later, Barack Obama’s most important domestic reform is unpopular (56% of Americans disapprove of it) and under renewed attack. This week the Supreme Court heard yet another legal challenge. In King v Burwell, the law’s opponents argue that its subsidies for individuals buying health insurance on the federally organised online exchanges are illegal (see article). They are unlikely to prevail but, if they do, the law will be gutted and the insurance market thrown into turmoil.

RandomGuy

03-08-2015, 10:15 PM

Obamacare appears to be working better than expected. First, despite the incompetent rollout of healthcare.gov (the website that allows people to use the federal exchanges), the proportion of Americans who lack cover has fallen from 16.2% to 12.3% since 2009. Second, the previously terrifying pace of medical inflation has slowed. The amount that America spends on health care grew by 3.9% a year in nominal terms between 2009 and 2011—having grown by 7.3% a year in 2000-08. The trillion dollar question is: how much of this squeeze is because of Obamacare?

Not all, clearly. The economic downturn accounted for much of the fall in health-care inflation: 77% by one estimate, 37% by another. Yet Obamacare also played its part. For one thing, it may have helped trim some of the fat from Medicare, the bloated public-health scheme for the old. Many hospitals appear to have changed the way they behave in anticipation of the law. The old rule of thumb for American health care—and particularly for Medicare—was that doctors were paid for every test and surgical procedure, and so performed many that were unnecessary. The new law has provisions that encourage them to keep people well; for example, it imposes penalties on hospitals where patients are frequently readmitted. Hospitals are merging, streamlining and restraining their enthusiasm for buying all the latest expensive equipment (see article). A new paper in Health Affairs shows that they have improved productivity in the past decade, and especially since 2009.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21645730-supreme-court-considers-whether-gut-obamacare-evidence-mounting-law

boutons_deux

03-08-2015, 10:17 PM

(56% of Americans disapprove of it)

typical shitty reporting, by leaving out a bunch of that 56% wanted ACA to go further, like a govt public insurance option.

and probably 30% are "I obstruct everything from the n!gg@ even if ACA would help me get insurance" assholes.

ElNono

03-08-2015, 10:57 PM

boutons_deux

03-09-2015, 08:27 PM

Obamacare’s Projected Costs Continue To Tumble, CBO Report Says

Costs of providing health care under the Affordable Care Act are projected to be almost one-third less than what had been anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office in 2010. By 2019, the costs are expected to be 33 percent less than forecast.

Continued reductions in private insurance premiums are largely responsible for the decline, the CBO said, along with a slight reduction — to 24 million, down 1 million — in the number of Americans projected to gain insurance under the program.

www.nationalmemo.com/obamacares-projected-costs-continue-to-tumble-cbo-report-says/

boutons_deux

03-16-2015, 04:08 PM

Another Repug nasty failure to "govern" actually succeed to enrich BigMed (the objective from the start)

A FOIA find for CPI: Government study identified inflated payments in Medicare Advantage

In a three-part series (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/06/04/14840/why-medicare-advantage-costs-taxpayers-billions-more-it-should) last summer, Schulte and his CPI colleagues showed how some sellers of Medicare Advantage plans have taken advantage of the program’s structure to overcharge the government. Under the program, the federal government pays the plans a set fee each month based a “risk score” which measures how sick each patient is. Sicker patients mean higher payments, and some insurers have figured out how to game the system and inflate those risk scores. From 2008 to 2013, “improper” payments amounted to $70 billion, mostly due to overbilling, according to CPI’s coverage.

On Friday, Schulte reported (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/03/13/16882/feds-were-advised-medicare-advantage-overcharges-years-ago) that at least some in the government have been aware of these issues for years.

A 2009 study commissioned by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that Medicaid Advantage risk scores began rising in 2004, and that between 2004 and 2008 enrollees’ scores grew twice as fast as they would have had the same person remained in traditional Medicare—and that it was “extremely unlikely” the MA patients were actually getting that much sicker.

The coding inflation resulted in “inappropriate payment levels,” in the words of the report—or “widespread billing errors and overcharges that have since wasted billions of tax dollars,” as Schulte puts it.

The CMS report was never published on a government website. CPI obtained it through a Freedom of Information Act request.

If the overbilling concerns have been known for so long, why do they persist?

Schulte’s coverage explains that, too. Medicare Advantage is popular with many seniors, and the insurance industry lobbies hard for the program, often through “grassroots” efforts (http://www.medicarechoices.org/protecting-lifes-sweetest-things/) like a recent “food truck” promotion that drew visits from Sens. Mark Warner and Orrin Hatch.

In past years, these lobbying efforts have helped turn proposed rate cuts into increases (http://www.cjr.org/the_second_opinion/six_times_medicare_caved.php), and there is bipartisan support in Congress for the status quo.

http://www.cjr.org/the_second_opinion/medicare_advantage_center_public_integrity.php

Thanks, Repugs. Screwing taxpayers again, as always, by distributing taxpayer wealth to BigCorp

boutons_deux

03-17-2015, 08:45 AM

16 Million Fewer Uninsured Thanks To Obamacare

More than 16 million Americans gained health coverage because of the Affordable Care Act, mainly via the law's health insurance exchange and Medicaid expansion, according to an analysis published Monday by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The government estimate is consistent with numerous surveys taken over the past two years. The Health and Human Services report issued Monday (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/uninsured_change/ib_uninsured_change.pdf) is based in part on findings from the polling company Gallup, which found the uninsured rate has fallen from 20.3 percent in October 2013, when Obamacare sign-ups began, to 12.3 percent during the first quarter of this year.

The latest figures stand as more evidence that Obamacare is achieving one of its core goals of reducing the number of uninsured Americans, even as the Affordable Care Act remains embattled in Congress and faces an uncertain future at the Supreme Court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/obamacare-uninsured_n_6877656.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

Repeal O'BamaCare!

boutons_deux

03-19-2015, 01:33 PM

HUSSEIN OBAMAcare kickin Repug ass

once people get the TRUTH rather than the Repug/Fox lies and FUD:

Poll on Health Care Law Shows Increased Support

The gap between Americans who view the Affordable Care Act favorably and those who do not is smaller now than at any time since the fall of 2012, a year before the law’s disastrous rollout, according to a monthly poll that has tracked attitudes about the polarizing law since President Obama signed it five years ago.

The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll (http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-march-2015/), conducted in early March by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy research group, found that 43 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of the law, while 41 percent viewed it favorably. Though more Americans continue to reject the law than embrace it, the margin has narrowed considerably even since last July, when 53 percent viewed it unfavorably in the Kaiser poll and 37 percent viewed it favorably.

Drew Altman, the foundation’s president, noted that the near closing of the gap had happened after a three-month open enrollment period that involved few technological problems, and at a time when the law is not being as bitterly debated in Washington and in the states as it has been in the past.

“It reflects the fact that the last several months have not been a time when, compared to the past, the Affordable Care Act has been under sharp political attack,”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/us/poll-on-health-care-law-shows-increased-support.html?_r=0

so Repugs' totally bogus, fuck-red-states and fuck America totally DISHONEST FUD of "sharp political attack" on Obamacare ceases, AMERICA ADVANCES!

Thanks, Repugs!

cd021

03-20-2015, 12:54 AM

boutons_deux

03-20-2015, 05:21 AM

Obama Care Approval Rating:

March, 2015

Approval-41%
Disapproval-43%
Don't Know-15%

In July, 2014 (8 months ago)

Approval-37%
Disapproval-53%
Don't Know-10%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/affordable-care-act-fav_n_6900938.html

Americans starting to figure it out :tu

The disapprovers includes significant %age who want ACA to be more "socialistic", including a non-profit govt health insurance option, like universal Medicare (kill Advantage).

boutons_deux

03-23-2015, 09:08 AM

With Expansion of Medicaid, Some States Are Identifying More New Diabetes Cases

suggesting that the health care law (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) may be helping thousands of people get earlier treatment for one of this country’s costliest medical conditions.

One in 10 Americans (http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014statisticsreport.html) have diabetes, and nearly a third of cases have not been diagnosed. The disease takes a toll if it is caught too late, eventually causing heart attacks, blindness (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/blindness/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier), kidney failure (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/acute-kidney-failure/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and leg and foot amputations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/centers_for_disease_control_and_prevention/index.html?inline=nyt-org) estimates that the disease accounts for $176 billion in medical costs annually. The poor and minorities are disproportionately affected.

In the states that expanded Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), the number of Medicaid enrollees with newly identified diabetes rose by 23 percent, to 18,020 in the first six months of 2014, from 14,625 in the same period in 2013. The diagnoses rose by only 0.4 percent — to 11,653 from 11,612 — in the states that did not expand Medicaid.

In all, the Quest study identified 434,288 people as having diabetes — equal to about a quarter of all new American cases in a year, according to the most recent federal data (http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/statsreport14/national-diabetes-report-web.pdf).
The number of Americans with diabetes more than tripled from 1990 to 2010 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1310799),

“We just know the change for Quest. But that change was real. And it was not splitting hairs — 23 percent versus zero.”

is the first step in preventing some of the most severe long-term consequences and saving dollars and lives. He pointed out that diabetes rates tended to be highest in the Southern states that did not expand Medicaid, and that full insurance coverage there would likely produce an even stronger effect.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/science/with-expansion-of-medicaid-some-states-are-identifying-more-new-diabetes-cases.html

So, all you right-wingers who vote in Repug Death Panelists, how's it goin'? :lol

Repugs are committing HOMICIDE, and increasing Medicaid spending, for political purposes for not expanding Medicaid.

Winehole23

03-23-2015, 09:57 AM

Winehole23

03-23-2015, 10:01 AM

if King v. Burwell fails and a Republican is elected in 2016, opposition to to the ACA and expanding Medicare will diminish. the political cost of reducing access to healthcare will be too high -- look how many GOP controlled states have already caved.

boutons_deux

03-23-2015, 10:42 AM

AZ, AK, IN, IA, MI, NV, NY, MA, NM, ND and OH, all GOP run states, have expanded Medicare.

TN and UT have plans to do so.

So then, wouldn't it be true to say Republicans are saving lives in at least a dozen states?

yep, but it always Repugs shoveling money to BigCorp, not the original Medicaid plan.

The still-recalcitrant and caving Repugs look pretty stupid, but their Medicaid-needy voters don't care, because even when govt helps them save their heatlh and lives, they hate govt blindly.

Winehole23

03-23-2015, 11:56 AM

when Dems expand health care it's compassion, but when the GOP does it, it's because they're greedy and stupid.

(rolls eyes)

Winehole23

03-23-2015, 11:59 AM

demonizing one side completely makes you look like the unreasonable asshole who twists words and tortures facts until they say what you want them to.

boutons_deux

03-23-2015, 01:28 PM

when Dems expand health care it's compassion, but when the GOP does it, it's because they're greedy and stupid.

(rolls eyes)

When did Repugs expand expand healthcare?

boutons_deux

03-23-2015, 01:30 PM

demonizing one side completely makes you look like the unreasonable asshole who twists words and tortures facts until they say what you want them to.

Not my job to demonize the non-Repugs. Whine Hole is butthurt.

TeyshaBlue

03-23-2015, 02:36 PM

Job. :lol

Winehole23

03-23-2015, 02:40 PM

trolling the GOP. it's his job.

boutons_deux

03-23-2015, 03:18 PM

trolling the GOP. it's his job.

I troll all you jerks and stalkers. It's my job

TeyshaBlue

03-23-2015, 03:55 PM

Job. :lmao

boutons_deux

03-23-2015, 04:06 PM

TB :lol just got trolled, and he doesn't even know it.

TeyshaBlue

03-23-2015, 04:07 PM

:lol Trolled.

Winehole23

03-25-2015, 04:11 AM

odd wrinkle:

The U.S. Treasury Department has rebuffed a request by House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R- Wis., to explain $3 billion in payments that were made to health insurers even though Congress never authorized the spending through annual appropriations.

At issue are payments to insurers known as cost-sharing subsidies. These payments come about because President Obama’s healthcare law forces insurers to limit out-of-pocket costs for certain low income individuals by capping consumer expenses, such as deductibles and co-payments, in insurance policies. In exchange for capping these charges, insurers are supposed to receive compensation.

What’s tricky is that Congress never authorized any money to make such payments to insurers in its annual appropriations, but the Department of Health and Human Services, with the cooperation of the U.S. Treasury, made them anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/26/treasury-wont-explain-decision-to-make-3-billion-in-obamacare-payments/

boutons_deux

03-28-2015, 09:11 AM

Obamacare Opponents Still Await The Apocalypse

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/obamacare-red-riding-hood-668x501.jpg

Conservatives denounced the plan as “socialized medicine” or a “communist takeover” of the American health care system. One notable conservative was especially alarmist, declaring that if the proposal passed Congress, “… you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

No, that hysterical tirade didn’t come in response to the Affordable Care Act. Those words were spoken in 1961 by Ronald Reagan, who was crisscrossing the country to campaign against the adoption of Medicare. Yes, Medicare, which Congress passed in 1965 and is widely considered a resounding success.

Fast-forward a few decades. The same alarms were sounded more recently, as progressive activists and politicians pushed for legislation to provide inexpensive health insurance for those who couldn’t afford it. Actually, the denunciations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, usually called “Obamacare,” may have been even more hysterical.

First off, let’s note that there has been no “socialist takeover” of American medicine. Obamacare uses private health insurance providers; the law merely sets requirements for health insurance plans and issues subsidies to patients who cannot afford to purchase policies.

As you might expect, the number of Americans with health insurance — and, therefore, with access to preventive medical care — has increased in the last five years. Before the law went into effect, there were 48 million uninsured Americans. Now, with 16 million people having signed up for Obamacare, that number has been cut by a third.

Furthermore, health insurance companies are no longer allowed to deny coverage to patients who are already sick or to set a “lifetime cap” on the amount of money a company will pay for medical care. Adult children, who might be in college or working at low-paying jobs without benefits, can stay on their parents’ policies until they are 26.

The Affordable Care Act may also have decreased the rate at which health care costs were escalating. Five years ago, medical care costs were skyrocketing, well beyond the rate of general inflation. Now, those costs are still going up — but at the lowest rate in 50 years. While economists aren’t certain that Obamacare’s cost-containment measures are responsible, many of them give the law credit.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/obamacare-opponents-still-await-the-apocalypse/

Dems kicked Repugs asses, and ESPECIALLY St Ronnie The Diseased, in the 1960s with Medicare and Medicaid

Dems kicked Repugs asses in the 2010s with ACA.

All Repugs left is their FUD and LIES, all proven to be lies.

boutons_deux

04-02-2015, 10:56 AM

Anti-ObamaCare GOP Governors Collect $400M in Health Grants

Four anti-ObamaCare governors who are likely gunning for the White House in 2016 have quietly received nearly $400 million in grants under the law, federal records show.

The Republican governors —

Scott Walker of Wisconsin,

Chris Christie of New Jersey,

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and

former Texas Gov. Rick Perry — have all spent much of their tenures working to undo the healthcare law.

All four have refused to help the rollout of the law, leaving federal officials to launch ObamaCare exchanges on their own in their states.

But a review of records by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/01/us-usa-election-obamacare-exclusive-idUSKBN0MS42420150401?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews)shows that the four states have received a windfall of federal dollars under programs created or expanded under ObamaCare.

Walker, Jindal and Perry have been the fiercest critics of the law. In addition to refusing state exchanges, all three have refused to expand the eligibility for Medicaid out of opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/237582-400m-obamacare-dollars-went-to-gop-governors-eying-2016

:lol Repugs, LIARS, HYPOCRITES, DEMAGOGUES.

boutons_deux

04-02-2015, 01:10 PM

Fact check: Has Obamacare helped save 50,000 lives? Why yes, it has (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/02/1375090/-Fact-check-Has-Obamacare-helped-save-50-000-lives-Why-yes-it-nbsp-has)

Largely relying on more than 30,000 medical records, the study looked at how many fewer patient-related problems had taken place in hospitals—the study calculated 1.3 million fewer incidents over three years—and then used that to determine how many lives might have been saved. In general, the researchers used mortality estimates from other research.For instance, pressure ulcers, which result from a lack of blood flow to the skin because of sustained pressure, are estimated to result in additional 72 deaths per 1,000; meanwhile, adverse drug events result in an additional 20 deaths per 1,000.

Higher costs are involved, too, with estimated of $17,000 for each pressure ulcer and $5,000 for drug events. So overall the study estimates $12 billion in health care costs were saved in addition to the 50,000 lives. […]

The numbers might seem large, but the research seems solid, according to experts we consulted, and it is based on a review of an extensive database. The results likely reflect work that predated the ACA but at the same time the ACA has spurred even greater cooperation among hospitals. Since the president is using a figure more than a year old, it is likely understated—unless, of course, the interim number for 2013 turns out to be overstated.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/02/1375090/-Fact-check-Has-Obamacare-helped-save-50-000-lives-Why-yes-it-nbsp-has?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

boutons_deux

04-02-2015, 01:26 PM

The Obamacare Doomsday Cult Struggles to Adapt to World That Did Not End

The Republican Party in the Obamacare era is a doomsday cult after the world failed to end. Its entire analysis of the issue is built upon a foundation of falsehoods.

Michael Tanner, a health-care analyst at the Cato Institute :lol :lol :lol Libertianism! :lol , has a column (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416253/replacing-obamacare-michael-tanner) forNational Review usefully summarizing the most current iteration of anti-Obamacare talking points. Most of Tanner’s piece is devoted to arguing for alternative proposals, but he begins with the ritual incantation of Obamacare doomsaying. Tanner does not argue that Obamacare is wrong because conservatives philosophically object to using taxation and regulation to transfer resources from the rich and healthy to the poor and sick. Instead he makes eight substantive claims about the law’s impact on health-care access. Every single one of them is overblown or demonstrably wrong.

1.“Millions of Americans were forced to change insurance plans.”

2. “ ... and others found themselves pushed into smaller networks with few choices of providers.”

3. “Premiums rose.”

4. “Businesses, laboring under the higher costs imposed by the law ... ”

5. “ ... have slowed growth.”

6. “many have delayed hiring … ”

7. “or shifted workers from full- to part-time.”

8. “The potential impact on the quality of care remains troubling.”

This is the reality that the entire Republican Party has failed to come to grips with. The American health-care system before Obamacare was an utter disaster — the most expensive in the world and also the only one that denied access to millions of its own citizens. Obamacare set out to change those things, and it has worked.

There is one remaining indictment of the law that Tanner makes, and it’s true. “The law remains extraordinarily unpopular, with opponents topping supporters by nearly 11 percentage points, according to the latest Real Clear Politics average,” he argues.

It is telling that, having lost every substantive argument about the law’s operation, their sole remaining refuge is an argument about its perception. It’s true: Their lies got halfway around the world before the truth could get its pants on.

Indeed, if you google most of the factual disputes I discuss above, you’ll get a lot more hits from conservatives making hysterical and false predictions than you will find from reports showing those predictions failed to come true.

Those myths still hold enormous sway over public opinion.

Far more (http://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8273007/obamacare-poll-death-panels) Americans believe Obamacare has death panels, which is false, than believe its costs have come in under projections, which is true.

Conservatives have won the propaganda war over Obamacare. The trouble is that they think this is an indictment of Obamacare, when in fact it’s an indictment of them.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/obamacare-doomsday-cult-struggles-to-adapt.html

Propaganda, Lies (O'Reilly!), Slander, etc are all the Repugs have, and 10Ms of Americans are ignorant, stupid enough (the ideal Repug base) that they believe it all.

boutons_deux

04-02-2015, 01:43 PM

This Red State Almost Expanded Health Insurance to 280,000 Poor People -- Then Koch Group Got Involved

Bill Haslam, aims to expand Medicaid coverage to Tennesseans who live 138 percent (http://www.tn.gov/tenncare/insureTennessee.shtml)below the federal poverty level ($16,000 for an individual and $27,000 for a family of three). (http://www.tn.gov/tenncare/insureTennessee.shtml) It also aims, desperately, to differentiate itself from Medicaid expansion that's associated with the Affordable Care Act (Tennessee is one of 22 states (https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/medicaid-map) that refused to expand Medicaid under the ACA).

The next day, the plan died in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, dashing the hopes of activists and sympathetic lawmakers who'd been energized by last week's resurrection of the proposal, after it had been voted down at a special emergency session in February. (http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/08/haslam-calls-special-session-insure-tennessee/21446767/)

It should not be surprising that anti-government conservatives backed by the Koch brothers gave torpedoing the plan their all. The day of the Moral Monday protest, Tennessee's chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group (David Koch heads AFP's Foundation), had relaunched its radio campaign (http://tnreport.com/2015/03/27/afp-tn-re-launches-radio-campaign-opposition-insure-tn/)against Insure Tennessee.

AFP-Tenn has relentlessly hammered the proposal's parallels to Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, making things exceedingly awkward for its Republican backers. "Obamacare has been a disaster. Expanding Obamacare in Tennessee will be the same," the latest ad said.

"Radio ads, social media and grassroots activism led by AFP-TN was a significant factor in the defeat of the Insure Tennessee plan,"

a larger AFP strategy of impacting politics at the state level, especially in states in the South and West with Republican-controlled legislatures, where "policy debates are between more moderate Republicans and the party's conservative wing."

"The vote was one of the clearest illustrations of the increasing power of AFP and other conservative groups funded in part by the Koch brothers,"

"Now we have to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Is Insure Tennessee Obamacare? I can assure you, it is not." Sen. Briggs declared.
Their sell was predictably pro-business Republican. They made market-friendly arguments, such as that a healthy workforce is essential to economic prosperity. They pointed out that many rural hospitals were at risk for closure due to the economic hit of treating the uninsured and noted that businesses might think twice about relocating to an area where their employees would not have access to a hospital.
"This is no free ride for the insurance-less,"

Michele Johnson (http://www.tnjustice.org/staff/), co-founder and executive director of the Tennessee Justice Center, managed to come up with a hopeful message. "What happens now is, we take this democratic movement to every part of the state. We'll keep telling the truth. Just keep telling the truth."

http://www.alternet.org/red-state-almost-expanded-health-insurance-280000-poor-people-then-koch-group-got-involved?akid=12964.187590.YUtgO5&rd=1&src=newsletter1034202&t=1

Thanks, Repugs, you murderous, socipathic Death Panels.

boutons_deux

04-02-2015, 03:03 PM

‘Give it up, a**hole!’: Tennessee Republican shouts at health care protester

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TN-state-Sen-Todd-Gardenhire-via-screencap-800x430.png

A Republican state senator from Tennessee got into a heated exchange with an irate protester at the state’s capitol on Tuesday, calling the constituent an “asshole” before stomping away.According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/story/2015/apr/01/sen-todd-gardenhire-calls-insure-tennessee-protester/296402/), the protester was a supporter of Gov. Bill Haslam (R)’s Insure Tennessee initiative, which would extend health insurance coverage to many of the state’s poor and uninsured.

“Senator, are you willing to give up your health insurance?” the protester asked.

“Why don’t you give it up, asshole?” said Gardenhire as he walked away down the corridor.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/give-it-up-ahole-tennessee-republican-shouts-at-health-care-protester/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Looks like not only TB :lol "bag of dicks" losing his cool around here! :lol

TeyshaBlue

04-02-2015, 05:42 PM

RSS feed rousing the rabble per par.

boutons_deux

04-02-2015, 07:01 PM

RSS feed rousing the rabble per par.

TB :lol stalking the Great Boutons

TB :lol coward NEVER articulates anything, just crap

TB :lol trash-talking an Internet protocol :lol

How that's bag of dicks tasting?

TeyshaBlue

04-02-2015, 07:06 PM

:lol stalking

:lol Do I need to post bitch slapping links again? Please say "yes" coward. :lmao

:lol confirmation bias feed.

:lol facile coward.

boutons_deux

04-02-2015, 07:34 PM

:lol stalking

:lol Do I need to post bitch slapping links again? Please say "yes" coward. :lmao

:lol confirmation bias feed.

:lol facile coward.

TB :lol is really really butthurt

TeyshaBlue

04-02-2015, 07:37 PM

:lol...boutons is really scared. :lmao

TeyshaBlue

04-02-2015, 08:44 PM

lol simpleton

www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239560&p=7603920#post7603920

TeyshaBlue

04-03-2015, 07:01 AM

Yeah, that's what I thought. :lmao

boutons_deux

04-07-2015, 04:58 PM

18,000 Californians use extended Obamacare sign-up to avoid tax penalty

California officials said about 18,000 people have taken advantage of an extended Obamacare enrollment period that was created as a final opportunity to escape the health law's tax penalties

The special enrollment window runs until April 30 for people who claim they were unaware of the Affordable Care Act's financial penalties for being uninsured.

Peter Lee, executive director of the Covered California exchange, said Tuesday that since Feb. 23 more than 18,000 people have signed up for a private health plan and cited that reason for enrolling during the extended period.

Normally, obtaining a policy outside regular open enrollment, which closed Feb. 20, is reserved for people who experience a qualifying event such as divorce, having a child or losing employer coverage. That type of special enrollment is available year round.

Overall, 1.4 million Californians get their health coverage through the state marketplace.

Uninsured people can't avoid a health-law penalty for lacking coverage in 2014. But there's still time to do something for the 2015 tax year.

"It's not too late to avoid a penalty for 2015," Lee said. "2014 is water under the bridge. You can't affect that."

http://www.latimes.com/business/healthcare/la-fi-obamacare-california-taxes-20150407-story.html

TeyshaBlue

04-07-2015, 06:53 PM

TeyshaBlue

04-07-2015, 06:58 PM

Obamacare Cadillac plans? You're gonna
Pay for that.....

www.cnbc.com/id/102170937

Th'Pusher

04-07-2015, 09:03 PM

"Cadillac tax' the next big Obamacare battle
Experts say a majority of employers could eventually face the tax on health care benefits.

www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obamacare-health-care-cadillac-tax-116659.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obamacare-health-care-cadillac-tax-116659.html)

Everyone can agree that they don't want to pay for entitlements.

I can't remember, did they end up repealing the medical device tax? At some point, we'll be left with the entitlement and congress will have repealed all taxes imposed to pay for said entitlement, but it will have been done in a bipartisan fashion. Hooray!

TeyshaBlue

04-07-2015, 09:56 PM

Everyone can agree that they don't want to pay for entitlements.

I can't remember, did they end up repealing the medical device tax? At some point, we'll be left with the entitlement and congress will have repealed all taxes imposed to pay for said entitlement, but it will have been done in a bipartisan fashion. Hooray!

The med device tax has not been repealed yet, but there's a pretty good push from both sides to do away with it.

boutons_deux

04-08-2015, 04:31 AM

"deficits don't matter" so the Repugs would love to add $90B/year to the deficit, just like they'd love to privatize Fanny and Freddy handing free money to the financial sector (until they see F & F pumping profits of $50B/year into the Treasury).

What govt should do is a cadillac tax on home mortgage tax deductions, but the financial sector would block that.

TeyshaBlue

04-08-2015, 06:56 AM

:rolleyes

CosmicCowboy

04-08-2015, 07:56 AM

Boos politics of envy.

boutons_deux

04-08-2015, 08:04 AM

Boos politics of envy.

CC and conservatives ALWAYS wrong.

TeyshaBlue

04-08-2015, 07:14 PM

:lol delusional bitch slapped hack.

Th'Pusher

04-08-2015, 07:41 PM

If you can't repeal the law, you shouldn't be able to repeal the mechanisms implemented to pay for said law.

TeyshaBlue

04-08-2015, 09:30 PM

The stealth repeal is as old as politics.

Wild Cobra

04-08-2015, 09:33 PM

If you can't repeal the law, you shouldn't be able to repeal the mechanisms implemented to pay for said law.

It happens all the time at all levels.

Are there enough police hired to enforce jaywalking laws, following too close, California stops, etc?

Th'Pusher

04-09-2015, 07:21 PM

The stealth repeal is as old as politics.

It's not a stealth repeal if the entitlement still exists. It's simply an entitlement that's not payed for.

TeyshaBlue

04-09-2015, 07:53 PM

Hence the stealth nature of the repeal by inaction. Like I said, this practice is nothing new.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-09-2015, 08:09 PM

Hence the stealth nature of the repeal by inaction. Like I said, this practice is nothing new.

The problem is that the bill will come due with hospitals and insurers crying over unpaid premiums and bills. When the judiciary gets involved then it becomes a big clusterfuck.

It's bad leadership whoever the individuals on either side who participate. Political brinksmanship creates market instability and its getting really really old.

TeyshaBlue

04-09-2015, 09:37 PM

The problem is that the bill will come due with hospitals and insurers crying over unpaid premiums and bills. When the judiciary gets involved then it becomes a big clusterfuck.

It's bad leadership whoever the individuals on either side who participate. Political brinksmanship creates market instability and its getting really really old.

In the case of the med device tax, the push back is pretty bipartisan...not really a case of brinkmanship imo.

Th'Pusher

04-09-2015, 10:27 PM

In the case of the med device tax, the push back is pretty bipartisan...not really a case of brinkmanship imo.
Go figure. Congressmembers from both parties want to cut taxes while not taking away the entitlements the taxes were intended to pay for. Again, if you can't repeal the entitlement, you shouldn't be able to repeal the mechanism enacted to pay for it. Say what you will about the ACA, but there was an attempt to make the law revenue neutral. If you wanna repeal the law, then garner the political capital to repeal the law. It's irresponsible to repeal the the taxes while leaving the entitlement in place.

FuzzyLumpkins

04-09-2015, 11:41 PM

In the case of the med device tax, the push back is pretty bipartisan...not really a case of brinkmanship imo.

Sure but the push to completely dismantle the bill via defunding is all GOP.

I still say the good way to tackle the issue is antitrust scrutiny of the hospital system and pricing transparency. Medical ethics seems about limiting liability and creating a noncompetitive marketplace. You cannot just cash in full on the free market and then cry ethics to justify price gouging.

TeyshaBlue

04-10-2015, 06:46 AM

No argument here but its going to take a league of political capital to even consider, much less legislate along the lines of monopolistic practices.
We need The League of Extraordinary Senators®.

boutons_deux

04-10-2015, 11:19 AM

Moderate Republicans buck Kochs, pass Montana Medicaid expansion (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/10/1376774/-Moderate-Republicans-buck-Kochs-pass-Montana-Medicaid-expansion)

Montana is slated to become the 29th state to pass Medicaid expansion after a critical vote (http://www.kaj18.com/story/28765991/house-set-to-vote-on-montana-medicaid-expansion-thursday-evening) in the Montana House Thursday, in which a half-dozen poison pill amendments from tea party Republican Rep. Art Wittich were beaten back.

After Wittich's committee hearing—dominated (http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/montana-moderates-revive-medicaid-expansion/) by "witnesses" from the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity, a "do not pass recommendation" from the committee, and a complicated rules battle (http://mtcowgirl.com/2015/04/09/house-rules-battle-on-medicaid-expansion-compromise-explained/)—moderate Republicans and Democrats prevailed and got the bill to the floor.

It passed on its second reading, after all amendments but one were rejected, in a 54-46 vote. Thirteen Republicans joined Democrats to pass the bill, which has already been approved by the Senate. Final action by the Senate, which will have to reconsider the bill because it has been amended, is expected Saturday.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/10/1376774/-Moderate-Republicans-buck-Kochs-pass-Montana-Medicaid-expansion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Expect the Kock Bros to try to defeat the Repugs who voted for expansion.

boutons_deux

04-15-2015, 03:13 PM

WATCH: Terrified ‘Tea Party Patriot’ realizes he could lose Obamacare if GOP wins in 2016

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/tpp_hillary_150415a-800x430.jpg

A conservative video blogger with over a million views (https://www.youtube.com/user/jamey123456789/about) on YouTube said this week that he would likely vote for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton because he was terrified that a Republican president would take away his affordable health insurance.

James Webb, a 51-year-old YouTube celebrity who devotes his “Hot Lead” channel to topics like his love of guns and ranting about gay men kissing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jaMTLkc7jc) on The Walking Dead, may have shocked his viewers on Monday when he revealed that he was torn over which party to vote for (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfo0o7ay7A) in the 2016 election.

“And I’m serious because I asked myself, ‘Which party has helped me out the most in the last, I don’t know, 15 years, 20?’ And it was the Democrat [SIC] Party,” Webb lamented. “If it wasn’t for Obama and that Obamacare, I would still be working.”

“With Obamacare, I got to retire at age 50 because if it wasn’t for Obamacare, I would have had to work until I was 65 and get on Medicare because health insurance is expensive when you’ve got medical problems,” he continued.

Webb said that he hoped to lose some weight and get in shape by taking advantage of a gym membership that was covered by his health insurance.

“But you know, the Republican Party, they haven’t done nothing for me, man. Nothing,” he remarked. “So, I’m leaning toward voting for Hillary unless something major comes up. I don’t trust the Republicans anymore because they’re wanting to repeal the Obamacare. And I don’t want them to do that, man, because then I’ll have to go to work again.

My life’s already planned out.”

“Just a tough decision,” Webb sighed. “I voted for Republicans for 32 years, I’m a charter member of my Tea Party Patriots chapter. I’m also a veteran of the U.S. Army under Reagan, when Reagan was in. That was great when Reagan was in there.”

“Things have changed. So unless the Republicans change with it, I’m probably going to have to swing my vote over toward Hillary.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/watch-terrified-tea-party-patriot-realizes-he-could-lose-obamacare-if-gop-wins-in-2016/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

:lol

Some of you Repugs are at least FUNNY assholes.

boutons_deux

04-16-2015, 01:36 PM

Repugs will AGAIN run on kiling Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, because fucking up stuff is all the Repugs do.

Hey GOP, look! Medicaid and Medicare keep costs down better than private insurance (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/16/1378163/-Hey-GOP-look-Medicaid-and-Medicare-keep-costs-down-better-than-private-insurance)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/138800/large/BN-HX263_percap_G_20150415172801.jpg?1429201058

Just to emphasize, this is spending per capita, comparing covering the elderly and disabled and low income people—generally a more expensive group to take care of—versus everyone else with coverage. Public heath coverage is more efficient, and cheaper, than private insurance.

That's not really news, you only have to look at where the U.S. ranks compared to other developed nations which all have some variety of single-payer healthcare system.

We're consistently dead last on outcomes (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) and first in spending.

That's the system Republicans want to see swallow up Medicare and Medicaid—the system that costs us far more and keeps us sicker. Is it time for more healthcare reform?

For Medicare for all? Yes, it is indeed.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/16/1378163/-Hey-GOP-look-Medicaid-and-Medicare-keep-costs-down-better-than-private-insurance?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

boutons_deux

04-21-2015, 05:47 AM

No, Obamacare isn't unpopular with the majority of Americans (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/20/1379029/-No-Obamacare-isn-t-unpopular-with-the-majority-of-nbsp-Americans)

It's a given if you're a Republican: everyone hates Obamacare. And it's actually true—if you are a Republican. In the rest of the political world, a big majority of people are okay with it. In fact, according to the latest Bloomberg poll (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-17/bloomberg-politics-poll-majority-of-americans-say-obamacare-should-get-time-to-work), 63 percent think the law should either just be left entirely alone (12 percent) or allowed to work to see what small changes should be made (51 percent—a majority). Who wants it repealed? The same roughly 35 percent who've been screeching for repeal for the past three years (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/15/1161737/-Poll-Obamacare-repeal-loses-public-nbsp-support).But there's more to keep in mind (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121581/obamacare-opinion-poll-repeal-popularity-driven-old-people) about that 35 percent: Obamacare doesn't really affect them.

Only a third of the country supports full repeal, and, like the Republican coalition itself, it is a very old third—comprised of the only people in the country with almost no stake in the law's core costs and benefits.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, whose tracking poll is a touchstone for measuring public sentiment about Obamacare, the law is under water—barely. Forty-one percent of respondents hold favorable views of the ACA, while 43 percent hold unfavorable views. But if you break it out by age cohort, you find that that two percent margin is entirely attributable to people who have aged out of the program.

Among 18- to 64-year-olds—the people who pay for the law, or are eligible for the law's benefits, or might become eligible for the law’s benefits at some point in the future—Obamacare is breakeven. Forty-two percent favorable, versus 42 percent unfavorable. Among those whose opinions we should generally ignore on this issue—old people—it's a bloodbath. Only 36 percent view the law favorably, while 46 percent view it unfavorably.

That's likely most attributed to the big Medicare lie that dominated two election cycles—the $716 billion cuts in Medicare Republicans hammered on and lied about incessantly (the same $716 billion Paul Ryan included in his budgets (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/13/1119635/-Romney-rips-Obama-for-Medicare-cuts-in-Ryan-budget) to make his numbers work).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/20/1379029/-No-Obamacare-isn-t-unpopular-with-the-majority-of-nbsp-Americans?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

RandomGuy

04-23-2015, 11:49 AM

boutons_deux

04-27-2015, 02:23 PM

Obamacare customers happier with plans than other insured people (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/27/1380672/-Obamacare-customers-happier-with-plans-than-other-insured-nbsp-people)

People who had coverage through Obamacare had an average satisfaction score of 696 (out of 1,000) in 2014, thinking back to their last year of coverage.

During that same year, people in mostly employer-based plans had a satisfaction rating of 679—17 points lower. […]So why would these plans score higher?

The J.D. Power survey suggests that there's another variable enrollees think a lot about: choice. Their research also shows that people with employer-sponsored coverage who have "multiple plan options" have the exact same satisfaction rating as the people on Obamacare.

And this might actually circle back to the cost issue. People shopping on Obamacare have the option to decide whether they want a plan with a high premium or a low one.

Shoppers have typically gravitated toward the lower-cost premium.

The average monthly premium on Healthcare.gov is $374 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2015/MarketPlaceEnrollment/APTC/ib_APTC.pdf). For people getting coverage at work, the average premium is $464 (http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/single-coverage/).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/27/1380672/-Obamacare-customers-happier-with-plans-than-other-insured-nbsp-people?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

boutons_deux

04-27-2015, 03:54 PM

Oops! Anti-Obamacare Lawsuit Would Invalidate Reagan Tax Law If It Succeeds (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/27/3651495/oops-anti-obamacare-lawsuit-invalidate-reagan-tax-law-succeeds/)

A lawsuit attacking the Affordable Care Act relies on such a sweeping legal theory that it would invalidate countless laws if it were successful — including a prong of President Ronald Reagan’s tax policy.

The latest chapter in the “never-ending saga (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-114_lkhn.pdf)” of lawsuits seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act ended in failure on Friday (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-20039-CV0.pdf), and in one of the most conservative courts in the country to boot — a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit turned away an effort to strike down the entirety of Obamacare.

Hotze v. Burwell rests on an obscure provision of the Constitution which provides that “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” The bill that became Obamacare began as a House bill, so even if it counts as a bill “for raising Revenue” — itself a doubtful proposition (http://theusconstitution.org/cases/hotze-v-burwell) — the requirement that the law had to “originate in the House” is met. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in Hotze claim that the law is void because of the particular way that it became law. As the Fifth Circuit explains, the Affordable Care Act began in the House as an irrelevant bill known as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act. After that bill passed the House, “the Senate struck the language of the SMHOTA in its entirety and substituted the language of the ACA.” The plaintiffs claim that this practice, of replacing an entire bill with an amendment, is not allowed.

The problem with this argument, however, is the second part of the constitutional provision quoted above: “the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” There simply aren’t any limits, whether constitutional or otherwise, on the Senate’s power to amend bills to say something entirely different than what the House originally stated. Moreover, this power to enact amendments replacing bills in their entirety stretches back almost to the beginning of the republic. As Vice President Thomas Jefferson explained (https://ecf.ca5.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDocMulti&incPdfHeader=Y&pacer=t&incPdfHeaderDisp=Y&outputType=doc&d=7684934&incPdfFooter=&outputForm=view) in an 1801 manual on parliamentary practice, “Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the proposition[.] . . . A new bill may be ingrafted, by way of Amendment, on the words ‘Be it enacted,’ &c.”

Indeed, the practice of amending a revenue raising bill in its entirety is sufficiently common that, were the courts to side with the Hotze plaintiffs, it would force them to go line by line through the entirety of federal law, effectively crossing out provisions at random. One law that would need to be crossed out is the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, a tax bill signed by President Ronald Reagan that was enacted through the very same process as the Affordable Care Act (http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2012/11/09/2903/). That alone would raise a cloud of constitutional doubt over any tax filing that would have been different if Reagan had not signed this law more than three decades ago, casting the finances of the United States into chaos.

The Fifth Circuit, for its part, avoided the question of whether Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson were right about the Senate’s power to amend legislation, instead kicking the case on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to hear it (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-20039-CV0.pdf). Nevertheless, the decision, which was authored by the conservative Reagan appointee Judge E. Grady Jolly, is a significant setback for this effort to kill Obamacare.

Though the lawyers behind this suit may be able to find a better plaintiff who does have standing to bring the suit, it will take months or even years for that case to work its way up to a Fifth Circuit panel. In that time, millions more Americans will sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and a judicial decision repealing the law will become even more reckless — potentially deterring judges who would otherwise be inclined to stretch the law in order to strike a blow at the Affordable Care Act. (It’s worth noting that Hotze is not the only case raising the same legal challenge to Obamacare. Last July, a unanimous DC Circuit panel rejected a similar lawsuit on the merits (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0DAD4A1E3A868F6385257D24004FA91E/$file/13-5202-1504947.pdf).)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/27/3651495/oops-anti-obamacare-lawsuit-invalidate-reagan-tax-law-succeeds/

boutons_deux

05-04-2015, 02:16 PM

This small, wonky Obamacare program saved $384 million over two years

Medicare's independent actuary has certified that an Obamacare program has saved money — $384 million over the past two years, to be exact. And the Obama administration is now eying how to make this program bigger — and, ideally, generate even more savings.
The big question, however, is whether America's health care system is ready. We don't know if the savings reflect the fact Obamacare has found a better way to deliver medicine — or if they show us that a handful of go-getter, entrepreneurial hospitals were able to innovate in ways that other systems can't replicate. But we're about to find out.

Obamacare punishes hospitals who provide bad care — and rewards doctors who do better

In 2012, the Obama administration launched a plan to change that. The Pioneer Accountable Care Organization, or Pioneer ACO, rewards hospitals that deliver high quality care at lower-than-expected costs — and punishes high spenders.

If hospitals in the Pioneer ACO program covered Medicare patients at lower-than-expected costs, they kept 70 percent of the savings in 2014 (the other 30 percent went back to the federal government). But if they spent more than expected, they would have to pay the feds back the difference.

All of a sudden, the Pioneer ACO program gave doctors a reason to spend less in a system that typically rewards anyone who spends more.

Obamacare actually found a way to save money. That's huge.

Thirty-two hospital systems signed up to become Pioneer ACOs in 2012 (thirteen have since dropped out, and you can read more about that, and what it means, here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/22/hospitals-are-quitting-a-key-obamacare-cost-control-program/)). And two papers reviewing the program's performance — published today here (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2290608&utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social_jn&utm_term=176254767&utm_content=content_engagement%7Carticle_engagemen t&utm_campaign=article_alert&linkId=13941657) and here (http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/Pioneer-Certification-2015-04-10.pdf) — are largely positive in their findings.

HOSPITALS SAVED, ON AVERAGE, $300 PER PATIENT

The Pioneer ACO hospitals saved $384 million in two years — $280 million in their first year and $105 million in the second. This worked out to a savings, on average, of about $300 per patient

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/4/8545993/obamacare-costs-aco-savings

boutons_deux

05-06-2015, 05:55 AM

Senate Republicans Pass Budget That Throws 27 Million Americans Off Health Insurance

The GOP budget takes away health insurance from 27 million Americans by disabling the federal health insurance exchanges (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/20/bernie-sanders-busts-gop-plan-health-insurance-27-million-americans.html), “According to a report from the Senate Budget Committee Democrats, Republicans would take away health insurance from 27 million Americans by disabling the federal health insurance exchanges.”

The Republican passed budget promises big tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires that are paid for by throwing people off of their health insurance and turning Medicare into a voucher system. Today’s vote was a message to millions of people that the billionaire controlled Republicans in Congress are coming for their health care.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/05/senate-republicans-pass-budget-throws-27-million-americans-health-insurance.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

boutons_deux

05-07-2015, 05:23 AM

New study gives more evidence of Obamacare gains for millions

As congressional Republicans move toward another vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act, new evidence was published Wednesday about the dramatic expansion of insurance coverage made possible by the law.Nearly 17 million more people in the U.S. have gained health insurance since the law's major coverage expansion began, according to a study from the Rand Corp., a Santa Monica nonprofit research firm.

That tally takes into account 22.8 million newly insured people and 5.9 million who lost coverage in the last year and a half.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-554a9eaa/turbine/la-dc-g-obamacare-coverage-1-20150506/300/300x169

Researchers found gains across all types of insurance, including employer-provided coverage, government Medicaid programs and policies offered through state insurance marketplaces created by the law.

At the same time, the vast majority of Americans have seen no change in the source of their coverage, with 80% remaining in the same insurance, researchers found.

“The ACA has greatly expanded health insurance coverage in the United States with little change in the source of coverage for those who were insured before the major provisions of the law took effect,”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-obamacare-coverage-20150506-story.html

boutons_deux

05-07-2015, 05:54 AM

Koch brothers clash with GOP lawmakers as their lobbyists turn Tennessee into a ‘horror movie

Some Tennessee Republicans are getting tired of the Koch brothers (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/high-profile-tennessee-republicans-lash-out-koch-brothers-group-were-aggravated-it) meddling in their state politics.

The billionaire libertarians pour cash into Republican campaigns and steer pro-business policies through their Americans for Prosperity organization — which attacks GOP lawmakers who are insufficiently supportive.

That’s what happened to state Rep. Kevin Brooks (R-Cleveland), who asked his GOP colleagues to at least consider Republican Gov. Bill Haslam’s plan to use federal dollars and extend Medicaid health coverage to 280,000 low-income residents through his Insure Tennessee proposal, reported The Tennessean (http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/05/americans-prosperity-aims-tennessee-influence/26947607/).

AFP launched a series of radio ads claiming that Brooks, the House assistant majority leader, had betrayed voters by flip-flopping on Obamacare.

Insure Tennessee ultimately failed twice in this year’s General Assembly after AFP attacks on Brooks and GOP state Reps. Jimmy Eldridge and John Holsclaw for their perceived support of the governor’s plan.

But the Koch brothers’ disproportionate influence on the state’s politics rubbed some Republicans, including the governor’s top political adviser, the wrong way.
Tom Ingram, the advisor to Haslam and a registered lobbyist during the last session for a business group supporting Insure Tennessee, blames the situation on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

He said AFP is able to pour money directly and indirectly into state politics and push their agenda in ways that individual voters cannot.

“I find something out of whack about that,” Ingram said.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/koch-brothers-clash-with-gop-lawmakers-as-their-lobbyists-turn-tennessee-into-a-horror-movie/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Repugs, tea baggers, VRWC/Kock Bros are the REAL DEATH PANELS, killing 1000s of red state victims by denying them health care.

boutons_deux

05-15-2015, 11:23 AM

This is what ripping holes in Obamacare looks like: The horrific human cost of the GOP’s anti-reform crusade

http://media.salon.com/2015/05/luis_lang_gofundme.jpg

Case in point: this Charlotte Observer profile (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/health-care/health-care-challenge-blog/article20696283.html) of Luis Lang, a rock-ribbed conservative from South Carolina who refused to comply with the ACA’s insurance mandate and proudly paid for all his own medical care, until disaster struck:

But after 10 days of an unrelenting headache, Lang went to the emergency room on Feb. 25. He says he was told he’d suffered several ministrokes. He ran up $9,000 in bills and exhausted his savings. Meanwhile, his vision worsened, and he can’t work, he says.

That’s when he turned to the Affordable Care Act exchange. Lang learned two things: First, 2015 enrollment had closed earlier that month. And second, because his income has dried up, he earns too little to get a federal subsidy to buy a private policy.

Lang, a Republican, says he knew the act required him to get coverage, but he chose not to do so. But he thought help would be available in an emergency. He and his wife blame President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats for passing a complex and flawed bill.

“(My husband) should be at the front of the line, because he doesn’t work and because he has medical issues,” Mary Lang said last week. “We call it the Not Fair Health Care Act.”

We’ve been hearing stories similar to Mr. Lang’s (http://www.salon.com/2014/05/08/party_of_moral_failures_why_obamacare_foes_are_abo ut_to_pay_a_price/) for a long time now – low-income people in red states who are in acute need of medical care but refused to be a party to the Affordable Care Act owing to their conservative politics. They made a decision: the ideological satisfaction of resisting “big government” outweighed the practical benefit of access to medical care. And partly as a consequence of that decision, they’ve suddenly found themselves in the situation that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent: they’re sick, uninsured, and unable to obtain coverage.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/13/this_is_what_ripping_holes_in_obamacare_looks_like _the_horrific_human_cost_of_the_gops_anti_reform_c rusade/

boutons_deux

05-15-2015, 11:25 AM

Evil Gov. Rick Scott Would Rather Shut Down Government Than Give Healthcare To Florida Poors

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/scott.png

Florida is having quite a dumb fight right now, simply because gross reptile Gov. Rick Scott refuses to take federal money to pay for low-income people’s healthcare if it’s got Obamacare all over it.

So let’s shut down the government! (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268748/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=5TKUSeWm)

Gov. Rick Scott told agency heads to prepare for the worst Thursday, asking them to list only the state’s most critical needs in the event the Legislature can’t reach an agreement on a budget that doesn’t expand health care to the poor. […]

“Prepare a list of critical state services our citizens cannot lose in the event Florida is forced to shut down on July 1st,” Scott wrote.

In writing the letter, Scott is further digging in his heels in his refusal to expand health care coverage to 800,000 Floridians, a move that could cost the state more than $1 billion in federal money to help hospitals treat the poor, which is called the low-income pool.

In the event that they are FORCED to shut down!

So, who is forcing them to do that?

Rick Scott is forcing them to do that because, as we all know by now, he is an asshole.

Because you see, the Florida Senate was okay with expanding Medicaid, because as yr Wonk has explained before, (http://wonkette.com/584508/florida-is-completely-fcked-the-legislative-edition-your-florida-roundup) the Senate is full of corporate whores, but they’re okay with being practical on occasion.

The House, on the other hand, is full of morons, Jesus freaks and other sorts of characters who pick the corn out of their own poop, and they can’t handle the idea of expanding Medicaid, because that’s part of evil socialist Obamacare, therefore it’s different from taking federal money in other non-Obama ways.

http://wonkette.com/585681/evil-gov-rick-scott-would-rather-shut-down-government-than-give-healthcare-to-florida-poors

boutons_deux

05-22-2015, 03:44 PM

The best study done so far shows people with Obamacare plans like their plans

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/9lvTeFPFkdZEhM9NC2ATQnhLgOw=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3714872/kff1.png

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/6CtCwidx83140wSsokM9N8XjNLk=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3714880/kff2.png

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/CnZnp512l7CvgckYcCxpZxANI8U=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3714890/deductible.png

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/WtbTaGTwvZbmsTwLK4v8KSan36g=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3714908/shopping.png

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/21/8631863/obamacare-coverage-satisfaction-enrollees

Capt Bringdown

05-23-2015, 11:56 AM

Who would have guessed that a bill written by profitcare lobbyists who lead to this?

CPI Shows Sharply Rising Medical Costs; Huge Obamacare Hikes Planned

Health Insurers Seek Hefty Rate Boosts

Worse yet, planned Obamacare premiums are about to explode, setting the stage for debate over federal health law’s impact.

The Wall Street Journal reports Health Insurers Seek Hefty Rate Boosts.
Major insurers in some states are proposing hefty rate boosts for plans sold under the federal health law, setting the stage for an intense debate this summer over the law’s impact.

In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016. The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.

All of them cite high medical costs incurred by people newly enrolled under the Affordable Care Act.

“This year, health plans have a full year of claims data to understand the health needs of the [health insurance] exchange population, and these enrollees are generally older and often managing multiple chronic conditions,” said Clare Krusing, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group. “Premiums reflect the rising cost of providing care to individuals and families, and the explosion in prescription and specialty drug prices is a significant factor.”
-- more --> (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/05/cpi-shows-sharply-rising-medical-costs.html?)

TeyshaBlue

05-23-2015, 01:56 PM

boutons_deux

05-23-2015, 03:25 PM

lol Vox. Peeps like free/subsidized stuff. Shocker

.... so what is your solution to a rip-off health care racket where people can't afford the insurance, never mind actual treatments?

TeyshaBlue

05-23-2015, 05:53 PM

Already answered that a million times....single payor.

boutons_deux

05-24-2015, 07:08 AM

Already answered that a million times....single payor.

We all know that govt health insurance/single payer won't ever happen, because America is fucked and unfuckable, BigCorp/BigFinance owns Congress and fucks America.

But you're love to snark away at ACA's BigCorp-written-and-crippled PROGRESSIVE, HUMANITARIAN attempt to help sick people get health care.

Single payer? Your buddies the Repugs actually REGULATED against the US govt negotiating prices as single buyer from BigPharma and BigMedDevice. So, eg, the DoD can pump the troops full of drugs at retail prices.

TeyshaBlue

05-24-2015, 12:21 PM

You just cant carry on a conversation without your asinine red vs blue teddy bear. Pathetic.

boutons_deux

05-24-2015, 06:06 PM

You just cant carry on a conversation without your asinine red vs blue teddy bear. Pathetic.

show us where RED has done fuck all for the health care crisis for the poor vs what BLUE has done.

TeyshaBlue

05-24-2015, 06:21 PM

Case in point. :rolleyes

TeyshaBlue

05-24-2015, 09:07 PM

Single payer? Your buddies the Repugs actually REGULATED against the US govt negotiating prices as single buyer from BigPharma and BigMedDevice. So, eg, the DoD can pump the troops full of drugs at retail prices.
Dumbass. The DOD does not even sniff retail pricing on pharmaceuticals. Never have.
I used to administer the VA pharm contracts....like the DOD contracts, they got the best contact pricing, period.

TeyshaBlue

05-25-2015, 06:28 PM

lol crickets

boutons_deux

06-02-2015, 04:01 AM

lol crickets

There's been a lot of articles and talk about the cost of drugs recently. A guy on NPR said the Medicare must pay whatever price the drug companies set, so USA pays 2x or the price paid by other countries.

boutons_deux

06-02-2015, 04:05 AM

Texas business community at war with legislature over Medicaid expansion (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/01/1389605/-Texas-business-community-at-war-with-legislature-over-Medicaid-nbsp-expansion)

There's an outside chance at real political change in Texas soon, not at the hands of the growing Latino population there. It could come from a much more powerful, and deep-pocketed source: business leaders. They're fed up with the state's Republican governor and legislature's stubborn refusal of Medicaid expansion, and the billions it's going to cost the state (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/29/410520561/texas-politicians-and-businesses-feud-over-medicaid-expansion).

"It's our money that we are sending to Washington, D.C.," says Bill Hammond, CEO of the Texas Association of Business, which includes many of the state's richest and most powerful business owners. "We are not getting it back," he says. "We pay for it with corporate income tax, we pay for it with our personal income tax and we pay it in the fact that our premiums are higher than they would be if everyone was insured.""Texas businesses pay almost 63 percent of all state and local taxes," Hammond says.

He says if the state expanded Medicaid it would save Texas business billions of dollars a year that could be invested in upgrading equipment, hiring new employees, providing raises and rewarding shareholders.

For every dollar the state would pay into Medicaid expansion, it would earn back $1.30 from the economic activity created, ( :lol govt can't create jobs or wealth! :lol ) according to an analysis by Ray Perryman.

He's an economist who has consulted for the Texas Legislature and six governors. That economic activity would top out at $3 billion in 10 years, creating 300,000 new jobs each year, he says. […]

Totally aside from the health benefits, Perryman says, when you look at the numbers, "You look at them and you say, 'This is a no-brainer. We need to be doing this.' It's really an apolitical situation. It's just math."

What that means in real terms is that one in four Texans is uninsured. It also means that the state's hospitals are losing billions. Parkland Hospital in Dallas, alone, lost $765 million last year in providing uncompensated care helping those uninsured people. All the state's hospitals combined lost $5.5 billion. That's not sustainable, not for Parkland, not for any hospital and certainly not for the state. Yeah, it's simple math and it's a no-brainer, but for Texas Republicans none of that matters because it's Obamacare. Is it going to be enough for a political revolution in Texas?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/01/1389605/-Texas-business-community-at-war-with-legislature-over-Medicaid-nbsp-expansion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Texas biggest enemy is the fucking scumbags it elects.

"We'll show Obama, let's fuck over Texas! Teach him a lesson!"

Blue states thank red states deeply for paying for blue states' Medicaid expansion! :lol

boutons_deux

06-02-2015, 04:09 AM

Obamacare-Obstructing States Start to Freak at the Consequences

Tonight the Wall Street Journal has a fascinating look something we may soon hear a lot more about in a very rushed and chaotic fashion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milbank_Quarterly&redirect=no). Last month, an outfit called the Milbank Memorial Fund (as best I can tell a relatively non-ideological foundation focused on health care policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milbank_Quarterly&redirect=no)) held a secret one day meeting in Chicago for officials from states who may suddenly find their citizens cut off from Obamacare health care insurance subsidies because of the new GOP challenge to the law.

The verdict. Basically that they're screwed.

There's simply no way for states to set up exchanges in time for this year - just at the purest technical level, setting aside whatever politics are involved. And that's setting aside a lot because Republican controlled state legislatures in particular are staunchly against budging in favor of facilitating the functioning of the law. Governors - even GOP governors - tend to be a bit more pragmatic since they face state-wide electorates and are most likely to bear the brunt of any backlash.

Republican state legislatures seem likely to sit back and let the agony happen. At least for a good long time.

The upshot in all these cases is that it is not clear just what the Supreme Court would say if it broadly ruled against the law - whether it would rule in a way that made workarounds relative simple or extremely complicated. But the big issue is political willingness or flexibility in the states. Republicans running for statewide office in blue and purpled states have already made clear enough that they're very worried about the consequences of a subsidy cut off.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/obamacare-obstructing-states-start-to-freak-at-the-consequences?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Capt Bringdown

06-11-2015, 05:13 PM

'Surprise'—Obamacare insurers desire double-digit hikes
*12% premium hikes on average
*Higher for popular plans
(http://www.cnbc.com/id/102746364?__source=xfinity|mod&par=xfinity)

boutons_deux

06-11-2015, 06:46 PM

Obamacare insurers
(http://www.cnbc.com/id/102746364?__source=xfinity|mod&par=xfinity)

.... don't exist.

There's ACA/Obamacare and totally independent FOR-PROFIT, gouging, rip-off health insurers, many of whom are cheating on ACA for-patient rules.

boutons_deux

06-11-2015, 09:34 PM

Some Insured Patients Still Skipping Care Because Of High Costs

A key goal of the Affordable Care Act is to help people get health insurance who may have not been able to pay for it before. But the most popular plans – those with low monthly premiums – also have high deductibles and copays. And that can leave medical care still out of reach for some.

A recent study released (http://familiesusa.org/sites/default/files/product_documents/ACA_HRMSurvey%20Urban-Report_final_web.pdf)by the nonprofit Families USA shows that a lot of folks with coverage like Mitchell's feel a similar burden, and a poll (http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/survey-of-non-group-health-insurance-enrollees-wave-2/) from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds the same thing. The majority of people who buy insurance on state or federal exchanges pick silver-level plans, which often carry a lower monthly premium, but have a high annual deductible – $1,500 or more.

"Consumers are still struggling with unaffordable, out-of-pocket costs," says Lydia Mitts (http://familiesusa.org/author/lydia-mitts), a senior policy analyst with Families USA. "One in four adults who were fully insured for the whole year still reported they went without some needed medical care because they couldn't afford it," Mitts says.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/10/411982831/some-insured-patients-still-skipping-care-because-of-high-costs?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app

boutons_deux

06-11-2015, 09:37 PM

Consumers In 'Grandfathered' Health Plans Can Face Higher Costs

The insurance representative explained that was because the plan Naillon and her husband had through his job was "grandfathered (http://khn.org/news/grandfathered-plans-faq/)" under the health law. In other words, unlike other health plans, Naillon's insurance policy, which existed before the health law was enacted, doesn't have to cover many preventive services, including contraception (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/05/12/406139645/free-contraceptives-must-be-free-obama-administration-tells-insurers).

About a quarter of insured workers today are enrolled in grandfathered plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and these plans haven't significantly changed (https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/grandfathered-plans/) their benefits or costs to consumers since 2010.

Old Plans Not Subject To New Rules

These older plans differ in other ways, too. They don't have to guarantee a member's right to appeal a decision by the insurer, for example, and may charge consumers higher copays or higher co-insurance for out-of-network emergency services. The plans also aren't required to comply with the law's limits on a policy-holder's annual out-of-pocket spending (currently $6,600 for someone in an individual plan and $13,200 for families). So, consumers who have these health plans may be on the hook financially (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-limit/) for more of their medical care than people with Obamacare policies.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/10/413213820/consumers-in-grandfathered-health-plans-can-face-higher-costs?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app

iow, no matter what help the govt/taxpayers offer, BigInsurance, BigMedicine is going to spend minimum, charge the maximum, and max out the insurance clients.

And American sheeple are helpless, forced to bend over and take it forever. and none of that sodomy is the fault of Obamacare.

boutons_deux

06-15-2015, 04:25 AM

For you simpleton racists blaming Obamacare for high prices of insurance and care

For-profit hospitals mark up prices by more than 1,000 percent because there's nothing to stop them

If you think costs would come down if hospitals were all owned and operated by big for-profit corporations like Hospital Corporation of America, you might want to take a look at a study (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/34/6/922.full.pdf+html) published last week by the journal Health Affairs.

Of the 50 U.S. hospitals that mark up prices the most, 49 of them are part of for-profit hospital chains, according to the study’s authors, Ge Bai of Washington & Lee University and Gerard Anderson of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Using 2012 data provided by 4,483 hospitals to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Bai and Anderson found that those 50 had an average markup of 1,013 percent over what Medicare pays for the thousands of items on hospitals’ “chargemasters.” (Chargemasters are lists of all the items and services hospitals bill for. Hospitals set their own charges. Few states set any limits on what hospitals can charge.)

That’s almost three times the average markup at the other 4,433 hospitals. The average markup for all those other hospitals—most of them nonprofits—was 340 percent.
Of those high-markup 50, more than a fourth of them are owned and operated by Nashville-based Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). But with 14 hospitals on the list, HCA was just in second place. A full half of the top 50 are owned by HCA’s biggest rival, Community Health Systems, a Franklin, Tennessee company that operates 199 hospitals in 29 states.

At the very top of the markup list was North Okaloosa Medical Center in Crestview, Florida. That hospital, in the Sunshine State’s panhandle, had the distinction of marking up its costs an average of 1260 percent. The Atlantic’s Olga Khazan took a look at North Okaloosa’s markups (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/hospitals-that-charge-1000-more-than-they-should/395099/). She found, for example, that the hospital charged $79,350 to treat a hemorrhage. That’s compared to Medicare’s reimbursement of $5,177.

As the authors noted in their Health Affairs article,

“Collectively, this system (of giving hospitals free rein to mark up their costs) has the effect of charging the highest prices to the most vulnerable patients and those with the least market power.”

Those who are the most vulnerable, of course, are the uninsured and under-insured. Bai and Anderson pointed out that even when (or if) the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented, there will still be 30 million people without insurance. When those folks get sick or injured and wind up in the hospital, they’ll be on the hook to pay whatever the hospitals decide to charge. This means that even with the ACA, thousands of families will still find themselves in bankruptcy court every year because of medical bills they can’t possibly pay.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/06/15/17474/profit-hospitals-mark-prices-more-1000-percent-because-theres-nothing-stop-them?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29

boutons_deux

06-15-2015, 02:11 PM

Republicans keep voting to make Obamacare more expensive

Peter Orszag notes (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-15/congress-doesn-t-understand-health-costs-or-care) that at the precise moment health-care costs look to be picking up again, House Republicans are voting to repeal one of Obamacare's most powerful cost controls — the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

Orszag, who helped conceive of the board when he worked in the Obama administration, offers a useful history of the idea and a rundown of its promise. But I want to make a slightly different point.

When Obamacare was grinding through the legislative process, a common conservative complaint (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/the-end-of-the-excise-tax/?_r=0) was that its cost controls would prove to be a bait-and-switch: Democrats would pass harsh, deficit-reducing measures like the IPAB or the excise tax into law, which would make it look like Obamacare saved money, but then Democrats would repeal those policies before they took effect.

That complaint is proving half true. Members of Congress really are trying to repeal some of Obamacare's toughest cost controls, and if they succeed, they really would make Obamacare a budget-buster.

The catch is that it's not Democrats trying to repeal Obamacare's cost controls, but Republicans.
That's true on two levels, actually.

First, Republicans are trying to repeal specific policies, like IPAB, that are unpopular because they control costs.

But second, Republicans are trying to repeal Obamacare in its entirety — a move that Congress's official budget agency says would increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades, and for which Republicans have produced no offsets.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8783965/republicans-obamacare-costs

:lol Obamacare is making Repugs repeal medical cost controls! :lol

boutons_deux

06-15-2015, 02:52 PM

Where an anti-Obamacare ruling would hit hardest:

http://dlccdigital.ngpvanhost.com/form/5783449423176599552?ms=E.20151308.w4

boutons_deux

06-15-2015, 04:01 PM

Consider this, Republicans: 86 percent of people really, really like their Obamacare (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/15/1393424/-Consider-this-Republicans-86-percent-of-people-really-really-like-their-Obamacare)

With the Supreme Court about to decide King v. Burwell, the case that will decide whether more than six million people can keep their Obamacare insurance, a new survey (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/jun/experiences-marketplace-and-medicaid) from the Commonwealth Fund shows just how much is at stake in this decision.

That includes the political dimension, because it turns out that huge majorities of people newly insured through Obamacare really like it.

Eighty-six percent of the people who are newly insured through Obamacare are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the coverage, whether in private plans or expanded Medicaid.

A total of 91 percent are satisfied with the doctors who are covered in their plans, and nearly 70 percent have used their coverage and seen a doctor.

Among them, 62 percent say they would not have been able to access or afford this coverage before the law.

Those high satisfaction rates continue with the ease with which people have found care—78 percent found it easy to find a primary doctor and 60 percent got their first appointment to see that doctor within two weeks, and 53 percent of people needing to see a specialist got those appointments with in two weeks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/15/1393424/-Consider-this-Republicans-86-percent-of-people-really-really-like-their-Obamacare?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Capt Bringdown

06-17-2015, 09:07 AM

29 hour work week & no benefits thanks to Obamacare.
Q:Who would have guessed this would have happened?
A: Anyone who isn't an Obot

The 29 hour work week: It's not just for nasty Republican restaurant owners anymore ;-).
Who would have ever guessed this would happen! I mean, yeah, Mr. Right-wing Olive Garden did it. But a city government in an uber liberal state skirts the ObamaCare mandate by limiting the most lowly paid employees to 29 hours/week? OMGee!!!! And BTW, where's the outrage from the local media over this? Non-existent.
-- more -->>
(http://www.correntewire.com/the_29_hour_work_week_its_not_just_for_nasty_repub lican_restaurant_owners_anymore)
http://correntewire.com/files/styles/original/public/29hourworkweek.JPG?itok=o3Fvb1Hm

boutons_deux

06-17-2015, 09:41 AM

If employers screw their low-paid employees and hide behind ACA, it's not the fault of ACA.

This could be fixed, but Repugs have and will block any fixes to ACA. They supposedly have their "plan" to screw Americans out of health care.

Shitty employers are just another reason for-profit insurance must be replaced with govt public insurance paid from with pay check deductions to achieve universal health insurance.

but this is America, and the VRWC's War on Employees will screw them down lower and lower.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacar

plenty of data exposing the "29 hour" rightwingnut propaganda

search "how many employers use the 29 hours to avoid health insurance"

boutons_deux

06-17-2015, 02:15 PM

Republicans’ raging civil war: GOP can’t decide how best to take away your healthcare

There’s been a spate of stories (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-rife-with-tensions-over-obamacare-scotus-response-119040.html) recently on how Republicans are fretting that they won’t be able to deal with the potential political fallout of crippling the Affordable Care Act. With a Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell still pending and the fate of the ACA’s health insurance subsidies in the majority of states hanging in the balance, Republican politicians are in the awkward position of rooting for the subsidies to be killed but also seeking to avoid the blowback that would come from effectively kicking millions of people off their insurance.

This tension was perfectly expressed by Sen. Susan Collins when asked by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/politics/gop-is-wary-that-health-care-win-could-have-its-own-risks.html) if she wants the high court to invalidate the ACA’s subsidies:

Asked if she hoped the court would rule for the plaintiffs, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, paused a moment, then said: “Yes, I guess I do. It would provide an opportunity to transition to a new law, or an improved version of the Affordable Care Act.” But she added, “I don’t think it would be fair to cut off people who have been using Obamacare subsidies.”

So Sen. Collins is pretty sure wants the court to cut off the subsidies, but she doesn’t think cutting off the subsidies would be fair. It’s the picture of clarity. :lol

Collins, like many of her party colleagues, envisions a scenario in which Congress acts to temporarily reinstate the ACA’s subsidies while doing violence to other parts of the law, which, in theory, will buy the GOP time to craft its own replacement for the ACA in time for the 2016 elections. The problem with this approach is the same problem that’s plagued Republican healthcare policymaking efforts for years: irreconcilable internal divisions.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/17/republicans_raging_civil_war_gop_cant_decide_how_b est_to_take_away_your_healthcare/

boutons_deux

06-22-2015, 10:19 AM

If the Repug SCOTUS5 VRWC shills kill ACA, here's some b/g into the arguments they will have accepted.

Four Giant Problems With The Supreme Court Case Against Obamacare

Sometime within the next two weeks, the Supreme Court will reveal whether it will take health care away from millions of people (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01/12/3609638/study-96-million-people-will-lose-health-care-if-supreme-court-decides-to-gut-obamacare/) at the request of the conservative attorneys behind a case known as King v. Burwell. The premise of the King plaintiffs’ arguments is that most of the text of the Affordable Care Act does not count (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/12/3591081/a-simple-non-lawyers-guide-to-the-latest-supreme-court-case-attacking-obamacare/). Instead, they claim, a single sentence of the law must be plucked out of context which, if read entirely in isolation, seems to suggest that tax credits which enable millions of people to afford health insurance should be cut off in approximately three dozen states.

This is not how laws are supposed to be interpreted. To the contrary, as

Justice Antonin Scalia explained in a 2014 opinion of the Court, there is a “fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/02/3628103/justice-likely-vote-case-obamacare/).”

Nor have the attorneys hoping to gut Obamacare merely asked the Supreme Court to creatively interpret the Affordable Care Act. They’ve also developed an alternative history of the law’s passage where Congress actually intended to use the threat of lost tax credits to force states to set up health insurance exchanges, rather than having the federal government operate exchanges in those states.

The details of this alternative history have not fared well in the face of scrutiny, however. Here are a few examples of claims made by the attorneys behind King v. Burwell that have since been revealed as false:

The Myth of Ben Nelson

The King plaintiffs’ central claim is that Congress considered the question of whether state or federal bureaucrats would operate the Affordable Care Act’s health exchanges to be a matter of such superseding importance that they were willing to deny health care to millions of people — and potentially toss numerous states’ health insurance markets into a catastrophic “death spiral (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/09/3563817/deadly-consequences-of-halbig/)” — in order to ensure that only state officials operated these exchanges. According to the plaintiffs’ brief (https://cei.org/sites/default/files/KING%20v%20BURWELL%20-%20No.%2014-114%20-%20Petitioners%20Opening%20Brief%20of%20the%20Meri ts%20-%20December%2022%202014.pdf), former Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), as well as some unnamed “other senators,” insisted that the law be designed this way because “it was important to keep the federal government out of the process, and thus insufficient to merely allow states the option to establish Exchanges.”

Their brief offers no support for this claim, however, beyond a citation to a 2010 Politico article that does not actually bolster their claim at all (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/06/3576207/the-glaring-falsehood-that-could-steal-health-care-away-from-millions-of-americans/). The claim was also repudiated by Senator Nelson himself, who wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) that

“I always believed that tax credits should be available in all 50 states (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/04/3619375/senator-orrin-hatch-grills-health-secretary-believing-senator-orrin-hatch-said-2010/) regardless of who built the exchange, and the final law also reflects that belief as well.”

The Letter That Was Literally A Joke

Shortly after oral arguments in King, Michael Carvin, the lead attorney for the King plaintiffs, spoke on a panel sponsored by the insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this panel, he claimed that he had uncovered a letter sent by state officials asking the federal Department of Health and Human Services to identify the legal authority that permits it to “administer premium tax credits” in the federally-run exchanges. Thus, Carvin claimed that this letter was proof that state officials believed that there was no legal authority permitting such credits during the implementation phase of the Affordable Care Act.

The problem with this claim, however, is that the letter Carvin cites was quite literally a joke (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/16/3633684/oops-anti-obamacare-lawyer-cites-satirical-letter-evidence-supporting-supreme-court-case/).

The origin of the letter, according to a state official who signed it, was an onerous demand for information that federal officials sent to state governments. As a kind of practical joke, some of the state officials who received this federal demand drafted their own letter — the one Carvin cites — making a similarly long and onerous request for information from the federal government.

It is true that this letter from the state officials does include a request for information regarding the federal government’s authority to administer tax credits, but that request was not made in earnest. Rather, as the state official who signed the letter explained to ThinkProgress, “We weren’t spoofing a letter from the Feds exactly, but we were very much spoofing their proposed documentation requirements of states that wanted to set up a state-based exchange by restating these in a form that would apply to the Feds.” He added that letter was drafted “purely to illustrate the inanity of the federal requirements — and their own inability to provide anywhere near close to the same information to the states.”The letter Carvin sites, in other words, was a satirical act of trolling. It is not evidence that state officials doubted the legality of tax credits paid in federally-run exchanges.
Blindsiding State Officials

One legal obstacle that the King plaintiffs must overcome is that, even if the justices were to conclude that the plaintiffs’ idiosyncratic reading of the statute is correct, that reading raises serious constitutional problems if it is adopted by the Court. One of these problems is known as the clear statement doctrine.

The King plaintiffs claim that the law offers states a kind of coercive choice — set up your own health exchange or your residents will lose their share of billions of dollars worth of tax credits. Yet, as the Supreme Court explained in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, a state is not bound by ambiguous or uncertain conditions. “[I]f a State is unaware of the conditions or is unable to ascertain what is expected of it,” the condition is void. Moreover, as the Court explained in a subsequent case, the question of whether states are able to ascertain whether federal money comes with conditions is evaluated “from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept . . . the obligations that go with those funds.”

Six state attorneys general who support the King plaintiffs filed a brief claiming, without evidence, that state officials were “well aware” that the Affordable Care Act “conditioned the availability of tax credits on States establishing exchanges.” Yet this claim hasn’t just been proven false, it was proven false by statements made by officials within four of the six states that these attorneys general represent.

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R), for example, explained his decision to allow the federal government to set up Nebraska’s exchange by stating that “[o]n the key issues, there is no real operational difference between a federal exchange and a state exchange.” Similarly, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) wrote that “y refusing to implement state-based exchanges, the state is ceding nothing,” a statement which cannot be squared by the claim that the state was actually ceding tax credits for its residents. Lower-ranking state officials involved in Georgia and West Virginia’s exchanges made similar statements.

Additionally, multiple officials from states whose attorneys general did not sign a brief siding with the King plaintiffs also indicated that they were unaware of the supposed condition hidden within the Affordable Care Act. Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) said that he was unaware of any “clear benefits of a state run exchange to our citizens.” While Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) said that “there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange.” A brief filed by the governors or attorneys general of 24 states the last time Obamacare was threatened by the Supreme Court said that the law “can only operate in the manner that Congress intended” if the tax credits are “intact.”

[B]The Plaintiff Who Has No Business Being In Court

Finally, the plaintiff who lent his name to King v. Burwell, David King, appears to have no business being involved in this lawsuit as anything other than a spectator. That’s because of a doctrine known as “standing,” which requires plaintiffs to establish that they are actually hurt in some way by a law in order to challenge the law in court.

As part of their narrative explaining why they believed Mr. King did have standing to bring this suit, his attorneys told a lower court that “King is not eligible for employer- or government-sponsored health coverage that satisfies” the law’s requirement that most people either carry insurance or pay higher income taxes. Subsequent reporting, if it does not completely disprove it, at least raises a serious cloud of doubt over this claim. The Wall Street Journal reported in February that King is qualified for “medical coverage with no premiums through the Department of Veterans Affairs.” And King himself confirmed in a more recent interview with the New York Times that “he was not really worried about the outcome of the case, King v. Burwell, because as a Vietnam veteran, he has access to medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/22/3672267/four-times-lawyers-trying-kill-obamacare-caught-making-false-claims/

boutons_deux

06-24-2015, 11:36 AM

Meet the Diehard Right Wingers Who Just Can't Quit Obamacareho Just Can't Quit Obamacare

A Republican lifer in Wranglers and cowboy boots, Pierce is his party’s old school ideal: a self-sufficient small-business owner living off the land, growing steaks for people who can afford them. He’s also a prominent Arizona state senator, formerly president of the senate and majority whip.

So it’s somewhat surprising that he has invited me to his home district in order to sell me on the benefits of Obamacare.

Here in Yavapai County, most everybody you’ll meet is Republican. In 2012, Mitt Romney received nearly two votes here to each of Obama’s. And yet in this rural red county in a very red state, it’s only taken a couple of years for federally-subsidized health care to quietly seep into the hinges of everyday life and governance. The rate of sign-ups for the program in the county has nearly doubled from 2014, when 22 percent of the area’s potential market share chose a plan through the federal exchange, to March 2015, when 43 percent did, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The latter figure ranks the county sixth among 54 areas in the state in percentage of the potential market share which has signed up, outranking far more liberal areas in Arizona.

This is what Obamacare Country looks like.

Yavapai County acts as a pop.-200,000 lab slide of a phenomenon occurring in conservative regions around the country, where party politics have been pitted against everyday pragmatism, often resulting in spectacular GOP infighting.

When Pierce backed up the governor with a vote in the state senate, he became a magnet for the ire of conservatives. The powerful conservative group Americans for Prosperity, backed by the billionaire Koch brothers, listed him in its “Hall of Shame” for his “disgusting” act of “betrayal.” County Republicans voted to censure him, a largely symbolic gesture of scorn.

14 out of the state’s 15 sheriffs, nine of whom were Republican, backed the expansion. One of those sheriffs was Yavapai County’s Scott Mascher, whose own conservative bona fides include vowing not to enforce federal gun control laws, but who argued that the Medicaid expansion would help reduce recidivism and length of stays for mentally ill prisoners. (The lone holdout among the sheriffs was Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who that year was busy losing a federal lawsuit that accused him of racial profiling in targeting Latinos during traffic stops.)

The expansion of Medicaid, following the Arizona legislature’s deep cuts to who was eligible for the state health care program, was a lifeline for dozens of hospitals and medical centers which were in danger of closing because so many uninsured people could not pay.

After Obamacare coverage went into effect in January 1, 2014, hundreds of thousands of residents—including those with new Medicaid cards and people with subsidized private insurance—could suddenly pay their bills.

... a LONG article, but you get the idea, if you want to

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/theslice/conservatives-obamacare-scotus-subsidies-arizona

ACA is helping Ms of poor, rural, redneck red-state Repugs obtain and pay for health insurance.