Initial attempts to sign up for ObamaCare go about as well as expected

[boutons_deux]

I don't think the Repug/VRWC SCOTUS5 will kill ACA by killing the Fed exchange subsidies, but like Roberts did last time, they'll try to figure out some way to screw it up as much as as they can.

By unusually reaching to lower level to bring Burwell into their court, they certainly have some evil intentions, which is what they were appointed to deliver.

[RandomGuy]

The only hospital within 90 miles of Prescott, and the county’s biggest employer, is the not-for-profit Yavapai Regional Medical Center West. Its Republican CEO, John Amos, is a buff former physical therapist who worked his way up the hospital’s ranks to his top position. Like the other hospital chiefs represented by the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, Amos lobbied for the passage of Medicaid expansion. Amos told Pierce, in convincing him of the importance of the expansion, that in the two years after childless adults were disqualified from Arizona’s Medicaid program in July 2011, uncompensated care at the hospital—the all-important rate of bills that aren’t getting paid—had rocketed from 3.5 percent to 8.5 percent. Without enough patients on private health care plans and revenue plummeting, the hospital had to cut more than 100 fulltime positions. Pierce says Amos was concerned that he might have to close the maternity ward and the cardiac unit.

Lack of funding for health care has had an increasing effect like this. As more and more Americans became uninsured in the last decade or so, this has happened more and more.

Those hospitals either cut care, or charged the paying customers, i.e. insurers, more. Those insurers had to get their money from somewhere...

Costs... benefits... cost shifting. It happens all the time in the free market, you just generally don't see it.

[boutons_deux]

health care in USA is one fucked up disaster for-profit.

And there's nothing Human-Americans can do to fix it.

[Capt Bringdown]

Note to Obots:
Health care is not the same thing as Health Insurance.
Obamacare is Health Insurance, not health care.

[boutons_deux]

Note to Obots:
Health care is not the same thing as Health Insurance.
Obamacare is Health Insurance, not health care.

yep, and Obamacare doesn't set any prices on health care or health insurance, so both keep rising FOR-PROFIT

Health insurance For-Profit is the gate keeper to health care for-profit.

[boutons_deux]

Breaking: Obamacare Subsidies Upheld By Supreme Court Ruling
http://www.nationalmemo.com/obamacare-subsidies-upheld-by-supreme-court-ruling/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Breaking_News&utm_campaign=Breaking%20News%20-%202015-06-25

[boutons_deux]

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Scalia:


The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."


:lol ... ignoring the context and overall intent, which Scalia ruled earlier is how vague, ambiguous, poorly written laws should be judged :lol

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare Ruling May Have Just Killed State-Based Exchanges

Now that the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has ruled (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/supreme-court-affordable-care-act-health-subsidies.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news) that health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) consumers can receive federal subsidies regardless of their state’s role in running their insurance market, fewer states may stay in the game.

When the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, most people expected that each state would want to run its own health insurance marketplace. That never really happened, as many states opted to let the federal system, HealthCare.gov, do the work for them. Many of those states that did try running their own marketplaces are starting to think twice.

Now, with the Supreme Court ensuring (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf) that every state’s consumers will have equal access to federal subsidies, it is becoming clear that more of those states will revert to a federal system for enrolling people in health insurance.

“There may be a little bit of buyers’ remorse going on in some state capitals right now,” said Sabrina Corlette, the director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

She said states underestimated the difficulty and expense of building and maintaining state marketplaces. Now, she said, many officials are asking: “What did we get ourselves into?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/upshot/obamacare-ruling-may-have-just-killed-state-based-exchanges.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&abt=0002&abg=1

[boutons_deux]

Read the 7 Most Ridiculous Lines from Justice Antonin Scalia's Obamacare Dissent

Just how absurd is it, in Scalia's mind, that the court upheld the subsidies? Here are his other prime quotes of indignation at the majority's opinion:



"Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'"
"[The decision] rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare".
"The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says 'Exchange established by the State' it means 'Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.' That is of course quite absurd, and the Court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."
"You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it."
"Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!"
"Today's interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of."
"[T]he cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/obamacare-king-burwell-scalia-dissent

Thanks, Repugs, for this judicial cretin

[boutons_deux]

Chief Justice Roberts trolled the Supreme Court’s conservatives in his Obamacare ruling

The challenge to Obamacare in King v. Burwell (http://www.vox.com/cards/obamacare-subsidies-lawsuit/what-do-we-know-about-what-congress-actually-intended) always seemed rather strange to health policy wonks. The plantiffs focused on just four words in the law (http://www.vox.com/cards/obamacare-subsidies-lawsuit/whats-the-argument-against-subsidies-on-healthcare-gov) to argue that Obamacare's drafters didn't want subsidies to be provided in states using federal insurance exchanges, even though when combined with other provisions of the law, this would wreak havoc on those states' insurance markets.

It was unclear why anyone would have wanted the law to do such a thing — particularly when everyone involved with the drafting of the law said they had no such intention (http://www.vox.com/cards/obamacare-subsidies-lawsuit/what-do-we-know-about-what-congress-actually-intended).

Indeed, even the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court once acknowledged that the federal exchanges couldn't function as intended without the subsidies — as Chief Justice John Roberts decided to cheekily point out in his opinion ruling (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8804053/king-v-burwell-obamacare-scotus-in-favor) for the administration:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIWk-0iWwAAJuf9.png

https://twitter.com/irin/status/614078327939272705/photo/1

Yup, that's John Roberts quoting the four conservatives who dissented from the first big Supreme Court health care case back in 2012. "Without the federal subsidies ... the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all," they wrote at the time.

Regardless of the fog thrown up around this since, Roberts seems to be saying, at one point Congress's intent was well understood.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8845527/obamacare-supreme-court-roberts

[boutons_deux]

The White House’s Obamacare defense hinged on two key legal theories

The government's defense hinged on two key pieces of precedent:



An old principle of common law (deriving ultimately from Heydon's Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heydon%27s_Case) in the 16th century), which says that particular provisions of a law must be read in light of the overall purpose of the legislation
The 1984 principle of Chevron deference (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference), according to which the Supreme Court has said that the legal system should defer to executive agencies' interpretations of statutes unless they are plainly unreasonable


Both of these legal doctrines, the White House argues, set the bar low. The Obama administration doesn't need to show that their preferred interpretation of the disputed sentence is the most natural rendering of the English-language phrase in question. They merely need to show that it is one possible reasonable interpretation of the sentence in light of the overall purpose of the law.

So the White House argues that the overall purpose of the law is, pretty clearly, to give lots of people subsidized health insurance and that the IRS interpretation is a reasonable effort to fulfill that purpose.

From the government's viewpoint, the plaintiffs are positive there's a massive — and extremely strange — conspiracy in which a Democratic Congress and a Democratic administration designed a scheme whose purpose was to punish recalcitrant states.

Then, once the bill was signed into law, its architects and supporters all changed their minds so quietly and so decisively that when the IRS promulgated an interpretation that was contrary to their initial purpose the only person who raised any objections was a longtime anti-Obamacare fanatic working at a libertarian think tank (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/19/7242671/obamacare-lawsuit-supreme-court).

The government's more straightforward interpretation of events is that things proceeded exactly as they seem to have proceeded — one legislative provision was drafted unclearly, the IRS used its discretion to bring practice in line with the overall intention of the bill, and conservative litigators are objecting because they simply disagree with the idea of using taxes, spending, and regulation to provide millions of people with subsidized health insurance.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8845527/obamacare-supreme-court-roberts

[boutons_deux]

BigCorp is unstoppable in screwing over America.

Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016

Health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.

The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people. Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase.

Jesse Ellis O’Brien, a health advocate at the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, said: “Rate increases will be bigger in 2016 than they have been for years and years and will have a profound effect on consumers here. Some may start wondering if insurance is affordable or if it’s worth the money.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html

Here's VRWC stoolie, shill, John Roberts:

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,"

... note, for Roberts, ACA was about (big insurance Corporate-Americans) markets, not about providing insurance for Human-Americans.

[boutons_deux]

IRS: More Taxpayers Paid Obamacare Fine Than Expected

They paid their Obamacare fine, even though many of them apparently didn't have to.

About 7.5 million taxpayers so far have paid a penalty on their taxes for failing to have health insurance last year, as required for the first time by the Affordable Care Act. That number is well in excess of original expectations, officials said Monday.

The average penalty paid was about $200 a person, and in all $1.5 billion was collected by the Internal Revenue Service (http://www.cnbc.com/irs/) in these fines.

The Treasury Department said about 300,000 people who paid the penalty likely qualified for an exemption from having to have health coverage. There are a slew of exemptions from the Obamacare mandate based on income status (https://www.healthcare.gov/fees-exemptions/exemptions-from-the-fee/) or certainhardships (https://www.healthcare.gov/fees-exemptions/exemptions-from-the-fee/#hardshipexemptions).

"The IRS will be reaching out to these taxpayers to inform them about available exemptions and note that they may benefit from amending their tax return," said Mark Mazur, assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, in a blog post Monday. "This outreach will also help educate taxpayers about the options they have for future years."

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2015/07/20/irs-more-taxpayers-paid-obamacare-fine-than-expected/

[DarrinS]

Hmm, IRS really helping out there. Any chance the IRS will start reaching out to people to let them know about all the other deductions and exemptions they failed to take advantage of?

[boutons_deux]

$1.5B paid in penalty, and get NOTHING in return.

[Winehole23]

somewhat possible?

attempts to clarify the requirements of the ACA for taxpayers who have proven their good-natured idiocy by attempting to comply in the first place, were very welcome for everyone who has not.

[boutons_deux]

BigCorp screwing you because they can.

Drug Companies Pushed From Far and Wide to Explain High Prices

As complaints grow about exorbitant drug prices, pharmaceutical companies are coming under pressure to disclose the development costs and profits of those medicines and the rationale for charging what they do.

So-called pharmaceutical cost transparency bills have been introduced in at least six state legislatures in the last year, aiming to make drug companies justify their prices, which are often attributed to high research and development costs.

“If a prescription drug demands an outrageous price tag, the public, insurers and federal, state and local governments should have access to the information that supposedly justifies the cost,”

, more than 100 prominent oncologists called for support of a grass-roots movement (http://chn.ge/1DCWT1M) to stem the rapid increases of prices of cancer (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/cancer/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier)drugs, including by letting Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies and letting patients import less expensive medicines from Canada.

“There is no relief in sight because drug companies keep challenging the market with even higher prices,”

“This raises the question of whether current pricing of cancer (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/cancer/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier)drugs is based on reasonable expectation of return on investment or whether it is based on what prices the market can bear.”

Gilead Sciences, whose hepatitis C (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/hepatitis-c/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier)drugs, which cost $1,000 a pill or more,

$300,000 per year price of Vertex’s cystic fibrosis (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/cystic-fibrosis/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) drug Kalydeco and roughly $150,000 for Celgene’s cancer drug Revlimid.

pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry trade groups say the transparency bills would be costly to comply with and would provide misleading information.

“The past R&D cost is really kind of a red herring,”

“The current revenue doesn’t pay for past R&D; it pays for current R&D.”

Prices for cancer drugs, some of which extend lives by only a couple of months, routinely exceed $100,000 a year, and some new ones exceed $150,000.

the drug companies are shameless, and they charge what they can get away with.”

“We all look at each other and keep pace with each other,” “Honestly, there is no science to it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/business/drug-companies-pushed-from-far-and-wide-to-explain-high-prices.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Another article said when a new hyper-expensive drug appears, even the generics in the same category raise their prices to follow the "price leader"

oncologists make most of their money from buying, prescribing cancer drugs, so there is a moral hazard.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/07/oncologists-incentive-prescribe-expensive-treatments.html

BigMed has and will continue to buy enough politicians to block govt health insurance/public option and "VA-for-all" (taxpayer-owned medical facilities + staff).

[Winehole23]

Reich fingers insurance company mergers as a cause of the spike in rates:

http://robertreich.org/post/123327070510

[Winehole23]

Mayo clinic protests price-gouging for cancer drugs:


The high prices of cancer drugs are affecting the care of patients with cancer and our health care system.1 In the United States, the average price of new cancer drugs increased 5- to 10-fold over 15 years, to more than $100,000 per year in 2012. A study by Howard et al2 documented the escalation in cancer drug prices by an average of $8500 a year over the past 15 years. The cost of drugs for each additional year lived (after adjusting for inflation) has increased from $54,000 in 1995 to $207,000 in 2013.2 This increase is causing harm to patients with cancer and their families. Here are the facts:



•Cancer will affect 1 in 3 individuals over their lifetime

•Recent trends in insurance coverage put a heavy financial burden on patients, with their out-of-pocket share increasing to 20% to 30% of the total cost3

•In 2014, all new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved cancer drugs were priced above $120,000 per year of use4

•The average annual household gross income in the United States is about $52,0005

•For a patient with cancer who needs one cancer drug that costs $120,000 per year, the out-of-pocket expenses could be as high as $25,000 to $30,000—more than half the average household income and possibly more than the median take-home pay for a year. Patients with cancer then have to make difficult choices between spending their incomes (and liquidating assets) on potentially lifesaving therapies or foregoing treatment to provide for family necessities (food, housing, education). This decision is even more critical for senior citizens who are more frequently affected by cancers and have lower incomes and limited assets.6 Because of costs, about 10% to 20% of patients with cancer do not take the prescribed treatment or compromise it.7 It is documented that the greater the out-of-pocket cost for oral cancer therapies, the lower the compliance.8 This is a structural disincentive for compliance with some of the most effective and transformative drugs in the history of cancer treatment8

•Given the rising incidence of cancer in our aging population, high cancer drug prices will affect millions of Americans and their immediate families, often repeatedly

In 2006, the US government made a great effort to improve access to approved cancer drugs by requiring Medicare Part D to cover such drugs. Conversely, the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act contains legislation that forbids Medicare from negotiating drug prices.9 These policies have created an opportunity for drug companies, rendering them the sole decision makers on the price of cancer drugs.10, 11 There is no relief in sight because drug companies keep challenging the market with even higher prices. This raises the question of whether current pricing of cancer drugs is based on reasonable expectation of return on investment or whether it is based on what prices the market can bear.12http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2815%2900430-9/fulltext

[Winehole23]

Journal of the American Medical Association measures the changes in (self-reported) coverage and care:


Among the 507 055 adults in this survey, pre-ACA trends were significantly worsening for all outcomes. Compared with the pre-ACA trends, by the first quarter of 2015, the adjusted proportions who were uninsured decreased by 7.9 percentage points (95% CI, −9.1 to −6.7); who lacked a personal physician, −3.5 percentage points (95% CI, −4.8 to −2.2); who lacked easy access to medicine, −2.4 percentage points (95% CI, −3.3 to −1.5); who were unable to afford care, −5.5 percentage points (95% CI, −6.7 to −4.2); who reported fair/poor health, −3.4 percentage points (95% CI, −4.6 to −2.2); and the percentage of days with activities limited by health, −1.7 percentage points (95% CI, −2.4 to −0.9). Coverage changes were largest among minorities; for example, the decrease in the uninsured rate was larger among Latino adults (−11.9 percentage points [95% CI, −15.3 to −8.5]) than white adults (−6.1 percentage points [95% CI, −7.3 to −4.8]). Medicaid expansion was associated with significant reductions among low-income adults in the uninsured rate (differences-in-differences estimate, −5.2 percentage points [95% CI, −7.9 to −2.6]), lacking a personal physician (−1.8 percentage points [95% CI, −3.4 to −0.3]), and difficulty accessing medicine (−2.2 percentage points [95% CI, −3.8 to −0.7]).

Conclusions and Relevance The ACA’s first 2 open enrollment periods were associated with significantly improved trends in self-reported coverage, access to primary care and medications, affordability, and health. Low-income adults in states that expanded Medicaid reported significant gains in insurance coverage and access compared with adults in states that did not expand Medicaid.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2411283

[Winehole23]

ACA co-ops struggling:


Obamacare's co-op plans are in trouble. The consumer-operated and -oriented plans — co-ops, for short — launched with Obamacare grant money as nonprofit insurers to sell on the health insurance marketplaces.
The hope was they would push other plans to lower premiums — but a new federal report (https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region5/51400055.pdf) suggests that the co-ops are not faring well.


Most of them have not hit their enrollment targets. And 19 of them didn't bring in enough in premiums to cover their claims, a difficult way to run an insurance business.


"The low enrollments and net losses might limit the ability of some CO-OPs to repay startup and solvency loans and to remain viable and sustainable," the report (https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region5/51400055.pdf), from the Health and Human Service Inspector General's Office, warns.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/31/9078815/obamacare-coops-struggling

[boutons_deux]

Number of unpaid hospital bills shrinks under Obamacare

The number of unpaid medical bills is shrinking across the United States thanks to the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act. As more people sign up for private health insurance, and as more states expand Medicaid programs for low-income Americans, hospital companies are reporting lower expenses for charity and uncompensated expenses, a Forbes columnistnoted (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/08/02/as-obamacare-takes-hold-unpaid-hospital-bills-vanish/) Sunday.

The latest example comes from Universal Health Services Inc., one of the largest U.S. hospital management companies. The firm's acute care hospitals have seen a "decrease in the aggregate of charity care, uninsured discounts and provision of doubtful accounts as a percentage of gross charges," executives said in their earnings report (http://www.ibtimes.com/press-release/20150730/universal-health-services-inc-reports-2015-second-quarter-financial-results) for the second-quarter and first half of 2015.

Uncompensated care declined in the second quarter "as it has the last six quarters now," Steve Filton, the company's chief financial officer, told analysts on a conference call Thursday.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/number-of-unpaid-hospital-bills-shrinks-under-obamacare/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[TheSanityAnnex]

Gotta clean up the shit before elections
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/politics/obama-administration-urges-states-to-cut-health-insurers-requests-for-big-rate-increases.html?_r=0&referrer=

[spurraider21]

^inb4 "more repug/VWRC/1% LIES"

[boutons_deux]

ACA doesn't set prices, your adored BigHealthCare does.

for-profit, rip off health care is major reason American can't get ahead, end up after 40 years of working and still not financially secure.

[Capt Bringdown]

Tax filing problems could jeopardize 1.8 million Household's Obamacare aid (http://www.businessinsider.com/tax-filing-problems-could-jeopardize-18-million-americans-obamacare-aid-2015-8#ixzz3i4qZCvD6)


About 1.8 million households that got financial help for health insurance under President Barack Obama's law now have issues with their tax returns that could jeopardize their subsidies next year.

The 1.8 million households with tax issues represent 40 percent of 4.5 million households that had tax credits provided on their behalf and must account for them. Consumers who got health care tax credits are required to file tax returns that properly account for them, even if they are unaccustomed to filing because their incomes are low. Unless they follow through, "they will not be able to receive tax credits to help lower the cost of their health insurance for 2016," Lodes explained.

[boutons_deux]

Medicaid expansion isn't bankrupting states—it's saving them money and will continue to (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/08/1409123/-Medicaid-expansion-isn-t-bankrupting-states-it-s-saving-them-money-and-will-continue-to)

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has an update on how Medicaid expansion has been working out for states. We've seen plenty of reports (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/20/1372250/-States-beginning-to-reap-rewards-of-Medicaid-expansion) about how states aren't only able to cover more of their uninsured, but how they're saving money by not having to spend it on other programs. That's confirmed, again (http://www.cbpp.org/blog/higher-medicaid-expansion-enrollment-means-not-only-greater-coverage-but-also-state-savings) by CBPP.


Kentucky, for example, has saved $109 million and Washington has saved $465 million through June, according to a recent report from the State Health Reform Assistance Network. By the end of 2015, Colorado expects its expansion to save $308 million while Oregon projects $275 million in savings. Medicaid expansion has had similar impacts in other states, as we’ve shown (http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-expansion-is-producing-large-gains-in-health-coverage-and-saving-states).These savings come in two main forms, both due to strong enrollment.

First, by expanding Medicaid, states have been able to move people who received health services through targeted Medicaid programs, such as family planning services and care for certain women with breast and cervical cancers, at the state’s regular matching rate of sharing the costs with the federal government into the new eligibility group for which the federal government is now paying the entire cost.

Second, as more people have gained health coverage, demand for health services for uninsured low-income people that states fund entirely, such as funding for hospitals to offset their uncompensated care costs and behavioral health services, has fallen. States that experience greater-than-expected expansion enrollment may therefore experience a larger-than-projected drop in demand for these services. That in turn could mean even greater state savings in these programs.


So here's what's becoming clearer through these results: states are saving enough to outweigh those costs they'll incur when they have to start chipping in to pay for the expansion.

Beginning in 2017, states will start paying a modest percentage of the tab, eventually reaching—but not exceeding—10 percent. With the kinds of returns the expansion states are seeing now, the expansion will still more than pay for itself.

That's the main argument the 10 or so holdout Republican governors and legislatures have been using—that it'll end up bankrupting their states once federal support starts shrinking. That's clearly a bogus argument. If moral concerns aren't enough to bring these Republicans around—and clearly they are not—then maybe fiscal concerns eventually will.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/08/1409123/-Medicaid-expansion-isn-t-bankrupting-states-it-s-saving-them-money-and-will-continue-to?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[boutons_deux]

More good jobs and economy news from Obamacare (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/10/1410589/-More-good-jobs-and-economy-news-from-nbsp-Obamacare)


Economist Dean Baker has noticed something about Obamacare and jobs that is pretty significant: it's giving people who want the flexibility to work part time the opportunity to do so (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-07/dean-baker-there-s-a-big-economic-benefit-to-obamacare-that-isn-t-getting-much-attention). The growth in part-time employment has been a persistent and troubling aspect of the economic recovering from the great recession. But Baker says (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-08-06/is-obamacare-driving-part-time-jobs-) it doesn't have to be so troubling.


"[This has] in my mind been incredibly underreported, because this is one of the really good aspects of the Affordable Care Act. I mean, it's important that people get health insurance, that's a really big deal, but one of the problems that we had in the market before we had the Affordable Care Act was that people felt tied to their jobs. Most people pre-Medicare age get insurance through their employer, so what that means is that, particularly if they are in bad health ... they are very worried that if they leave their job or if they lose their job, they're going to lose insurance for themselves and/or their family. Well, now that you can get insurance through the exchanges we see there's a big increase in voluntary part-time employment. ... These are people who choose to work part-time. It's particularly [apparent] among young parents and what we also see among people pre-Medicare age. ... To me, that is a great story, so they can spend time with their families, their kids."



http://images.dailykos.com/images/158542/large/baker-2015-05-19-1.png?1439219648

The largest increases (http://www.cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/obamacare-is-making-it-easier-to-be-a-young-working-parent) in people choosing to work part-time are among younger people with children, a 10.2 percentage point increase in the share of workers under 35 who have 1 or 2 kids and a 15.4 percent increase for those younger workers with three of more kids.

Factored into this has to be the high cost of child care—parents might still feel that they don't have much choice about one of them working part-time because they can't afford day care. At the same time though, now they have that option because they can get health insurance.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/10/1410589/-More-good-jobs-and-economy-news-from-nbsp-Obamacare?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

[boutons_deux]

Alaska Republicans ready to spend upward of $1 million in taxpayer money to stop Medicaid expansion (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/27/1416029/-Alaska-Republicans-ready-to-spend-upwards-of-1-million-in-taxpayer-money-to-stop-Medicaid-expansion)



Alaska's independent Gov. Bill Walker, fed up with a Republican legislature which refused to even debate a Medicaid expansion proposal, decided last month to act unilaterally and take the expansion (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/16/1402952/-Alaska-governor-bypasses-Republican-legislature-expands-Medicaid). Alaska's attorney general and the legislature's legal department agree (https://www.adn.com/article/20150825/suing-governor-over-medicaid-expansion-wrong-investment-alaska) that the state constitution gives him authority to do so. Nonetheless, the Republican-led legislature hascommitted to spending a minimum of $450,000 in taxpayer funds (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/08/26/3695036/alaska-lawmakers-sue-to-take-away-peoples-health-care-send-450000-legal-bill-to-taxpayers/) to sue. The governor is likely to spend an equal amount in defending the action.Who did the Alaska Republicans get to be their lawyer? Who else, Paul Clement.


Clement, who has urged courts to adopt conservative positions on issues as diverse as immigration, health care (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/23/450582/scotus-preview-part-ii-clements-misleading-brief/), voter suppression, […] and gay rights (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/19/159671/clement-520-per-hour/), is the de facto Solicitor General of the Republican Party—an experienced Supreme Court advocate frequently hired by Republican lawmakers and interest groups to argue landmark cases.If past is prologue, it is likely that the total bill for this legal team will exceed $450,000. In 2011, for example, U.S. House Republicans hired Clement to defend the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act for “a sum not to exceed $500,000.00.” This contract was amended several times to raise this cap, however. In the end, the American people paid Clement’s legal team $2.3 million to unsuccessfully defend (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/26/2219971/house-republicans-charged-the-american-taxpayer-23-million-to-lose-doma-case/) the proposition that same-sex couples are not entitled to the same federal marriage rights as opposite-sex couples.



Now Alaskans are going to have to shell out again to pay Clement to fight against their interests, this time with their state taxes. State Rep. Sam Kito III notes (https://www.adn.com/article/20150825/suing-governor-over-medicaid-expansion-wrong-investment-alaska) that the expansion would "save the state over $6 million in the first year, bring over $140 million in federal funding to the state, and provide healthcare coverage for up to 40,000 hardworking, low-income Alaskans." What the Republican legislature is doing, in contrast, will cost the state maybe as much as $1 million.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/27/1416029/-Alaska-Republicans-ready-to-spend-upwards-of-1-million-in-taxpayer-money-to-stop-Medicaid-expansion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[Winehole23]

Cadillac tax to crapify your insurance?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/09/obamacare-to-crapify-health-insurance-at-26-of-employers-with-cadillac-tax.html

[Winehole23]

The governor of Texas was angry about a health plan leader's demand that he expand Medicaid to low-income, uninsured adults under the Affordable Care Act because he hates Obamacare (http://www.modernhealthcare.com/section/articles?tagID=928).

But behind the scenes, he and his aides were trying to convince the Obama administration to keep sending Texas billions of dollars in supplemental Medicaid funding to finance care for low-income, uninsured Texans—while continuing to insist he didn't want or need a Medicaid expansion that would extend coverage to more than 1 million Texans.

If that sounds like a contradiction, welcome to the continuing political battle over the ACA and Medicaid expansion that has hospitals caught squarely in the middle.

According e-mails obtained by the Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/31/emails-show-abbotts-plans-health-care-safety-net), Republican Gov. Greg Abbott asked aides to investigate a health plan whose leader urged Medicaid expansion. Meanwhile, Abbott and his advisers were pursuing negotiations with the Obama administration about extending Texas' five-year Medicaid waiver program, which ends next September.http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150902/BLOG/150909969

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/31/emails-show-abbotts-plans-health-care-safety-net/

[boutons_deux]

Americans are so fucked by health insurance and confiscatory, exorbitant health prices, and so unfuckable.

Anybody have a number on the cost of people OVER-consuming health care because they have Cadillac insurance? Is this really a huge problem in the $3T health racket?

[boutons_deux]

Kentucky Is Obamacare’s Undeniable Success Story. This Man Is Trying To Burn It All Down.


http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/09163819/MattBevin2015-1125x635.jpg


Though it has been largely ignored by national media and pollsters, Kentucky’s November gubernatorial election could mean striking changes for the Bluegrass State. The nation’s most unlikely Obamacare success story — a state system that has provided more than 500,000 Kentuckians with affordable health insurance — might well be ransacked by a Tea Party candidate named Matt Bevin.

From the earliest days, Kentucky’s efforts to implement Obamacare have earned national acclaim. As the troubled roll out of the national health care exchange website was ruthlessly mocked (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2013/10/28/obamacare-the-butt-of-late-night-tv-jokes) bylate night (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ok4102/the-weakest-link---healthcare-gov) television, Fortune praised “one health exchange success story (http://fortune.com/2013/11/21/one-health-exchange-success-story/)“: Kentucky’s new state-level marketplace.

Unlike most southern states, Kentucky opted to both set up its own state exchange (http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-health-insurance-marketplace-types/) (the Kentcuky Health Benefit Exchange, commonly known as “Kynect”) and to expand Medicaid (http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/) under the Affordable Care Act. These efforts, ordered by Gov. Steve Beshear (D) and overseen by Governing magazine’s 2014 Public Official of the Year Carrie Banahan (http://www.governing.com/poy/poy-carrie-banahan.html), helped get 521,000 (http://www.msnbc.com/hardball-with-chris-matthews/watch/obamacare-fading-as-a-campaign-issue--316220483592) Kentuckians insurance coverage in the first year alone. According to a Gallup poll (http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/55c7f1e314000077002e263e.png), by the first half of 2015, Kentucky’s uninsured rate had fallen from 20.4 percent in 2013 to just 9 percent, the second largest drop of any state. Governing fêted (http://www.governing.com/poy/poy-carrie-banahan.html) Kentucky as “one of the few states that got everything right.”

In testimonials provided to ThinkProgress by Kentucky Voices for Health, a coalition of health advocacy groups, many Kentuckians agreed. “Thank God for Kynect,” said Eddie Alvis, who after years of struggling financially was able to get health insurance, and discovered he had severe asthma. “It has really empowered me,” said Lynn Young, a Louisville resident who got insured despite her recent unemployment. And Helen Spalding, who lost her job and benefits after a serious car accident, was also able to purchase insurance. “Kynect has been here for me,” she said. “It’s a blessing.”

There’s over 300,000 [Kentuckians that are on expanded Medicaid], and Matt Bevin is just going to take it from every single one of them.But with Beshear term-limited, Bevin, the GOP nominee, has made it clear he wants to reverse course. The Tea Party-backed (https://web.archive.org/web/20140327234735/https://mattbevin.com/endorsements/)candidate vows he’ll do away with both the successful state exchange and the Medicaid expansion that has helped hundreds of thousands get affordable health care — moves that the governor could likely make unilaterally.

It’s a prospect that worries many state-based health experts, business groups, and public officials who spoke to ThinkProgress about the upcoming election and the state of Kentucky’s health care system. One of those officials was Beshear himself, who accused Bevin of playing politics with the hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians who now have insurance for the first time.

“It terrifies me,” Beshear said. “There’s over 300,000 [Kentuckians that are on expanded Medicaid], and Matt Bevin is just going to take it from every single one of them — just because he doesn’t like the fact that President Obama was the one that got it passed.”

Despite Kynect’s popularity and growing support among conservatives for the system, the most recent polls show Bevin locked in a tight race (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2015/governor/ky/kentucky_governor_bevin_vs_conway-5186.html) with current Attorney General Jack Conway (D), who has indicated he would continue (http://wfpl.org/bevin-conway-clash-kynect-education-kentucky-chamber-debate/) the state’s current health care regime. So the questions are surely worth asking — who is Matt Bevin? And what would happen to Kentucky’s health care system if he won?

A Long-Time Obamacare Hater

If Bevin’s name sounds familiar, it’s probably because last year he mounted a primary challenge to Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the current Republican leader.

Among Bevin’s top priorities (https://web.archive.org/web/20140327235154/https://mattbevin.com/issue/healthcare/) was a full repeal of Obamacare. Calling the law “already a disaster,” the manufacturing millionaire vowed (https://web.archive.org/web/20140327235154/https://mattbevin.com/issue/healthcare//) to use any means necessary to stop the law, even if it meant voting for a government shutdown.

“Washington politicians say they oppose Obamacare, but they continue to vote for spending bills that fund it,” Bevin wrote on his campaign website at the time. “This has to stop. Matt will not vote for any spending bills that fund Obamacare. None.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/09/14/3698831/matt-bevin-kentucky-eliminate-health-care/

[ducks]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-paid-enrollment-drops-9-194224725.html;_ylt=AwrTHRR5TPdV.EUAD8VXNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTByZDNzZTI1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYw NzYw--

[ducks]

Obamacare enrollees must double to make budget projections work

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/13/obamacare-enrollees-must-double-to-make-budget-pro/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

[ducks]

Obamacare May Miss Enrollment Mark by 11 Million
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-Americans-For-Tax-Reform-Health-Insurance/2015/09/14/id/691480/

[Winehole23]

bipartisan opposition to the ACA "cadillac tax":



A new bipartisan effort to cancel Obamacare’s so-called Cadillac tax, the 40 percent levy on high-cost health insurance plans, adds a wrinkle to an impending fight in Congress.


The repeal bill unveiled Thursday in the U.S. Senate by Nevada Republican Dean Heller and New Mexico Democrat Martin Heinrich stands little chance of becoming law soon, especially with Barack Obama in the White House. Yet it demonstrates lawmakers’ frustration with the tax, which takes effect in 2018.


“I have not seen a piece of legislation that brings more sides together,” Heller said at a news conference in the Capitol on Thursday, invoking a coalition of business groups and unions opposed to the tax, including those that represent casino workers in Las Vegas. “I think we’re going to see a breakthrough.”



“I have not seen a piece of legislation that brings more sides together.”


Businesses have already begun planning for the tax and are considering trimming health benefits while closely monitoring rules from the Internal Revenue Service. About one-third of employers are at risk of paying the Cadillac tax in 2018 if they don’t adjust their insurance plans, according to Mercer, the benefits consulting unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos. The proportion is projected to quickly rise to over 50 percent.


The tax applies to family health-care coverage exceeding $27,500 and individual coverage exceeding $10,200, with low inflation adjustments intended to capture more people over time.


The tax was designed to put pressure on health costs and reduce the benefit of the largest tax break for individuals, which allows the value of employer-provided health insurance to escape income and payroll taxation.
It has faced bipartisan opposition since first being proposed. Republicans dislike it as they have almost every piece of the Affordable Care Act. Democrats aligned with labor unions also object, as unions have often negotiated generous, untaxed benefit packages in lieu of taxable wage increases.


Heller and Heinrich said the tax has stymied labor negotiations and would hurt middle-income workers it wasn’t intended to affect.


“This is not a Cadillac tax,” Heinrich said. “This is not a Lexus tax. This is going to be a Ford Focus tax.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-17/bipartisan-senate-pair-raise-pressure-on-obamacare-cadillac-tax

[Winehole23]

deductibles outpace wage gains. mandated health insurance makes Americans poorer:


It may not seem like much — just an extra hundred dollars or so a year.


But the steady upward creep in health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) deductibles has easily outpaced the average increase in a worker’s wages over the last five years, according to a new analysis (http://kff.org/health-costs/report/2015-employer-health-benefits-survey/) released on Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Kaiser, a health policy research group that conducts a yearly survey of employer health benefits, calculates that deductibles have risen more than six times faster than workers’ earnings since 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/health-insurance-deductibles-outpacing-wage-increases-study-finds.html

[TeyshaBlue]

Shocking.
Not.

[boutons_deux]

BigHealthCare rapes ALL Americans, has been for DECADES, and you rightwingnutters blame Obama and Obamacare.

[ducks]

I know several who had insurance and do not know thanks to Obamacare and several that cost them 10% of their income
that is a BAD

[boutons_deux]

I know several who had insurance and do not know thanks to Obamacare and several that cost them 10% of their income
that is a BAD

Avg annual cost of health insurance for a family of 4 is approaching $20K/year. That's not Obamacare's fault. Insurance costs have been on the upward trajectory, way above inflation, for many years before Obamacare (which doesn't set prices)

[TeyshaBlue]

Which is the central failure of ACA.

[boutons_deux]

Which is the central failure of ACA.

... ACA doesn't set prices, but it has had some effect in moderating increases. It's still early, only a couple years so far. Central objective of ACA was to get more people insured and therefore get them health care. That has been a huge success, even with the Repugs screwing their own poor people by refusing to expand Medicaid

[TeyshaBlue]

The escalation of deductibles would seem to counter the notion of moderating increases.

[boutons_deux]

Martin Shkreli Is Just a Tiny Part of a Huge Problem

Americans were outraged over his 5,000 percent price hike of a life-saving drug. They should see what Big Pharma has in store.

The United States pays the highest drug prices in the world. According to Valerie Paris, an economist with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we spend about $1,000 per person per year on drugs, which is about 30 percent higher than Canada. We spend over 50 percent more than what European countries like France and Germany spend per person. These inflated costs are passed on to consumers, in the form of co-pays and healthcare premiums, and to taxpayers, who subsidize healthcare through public programs like Medicaid and Medicare, the Veterans Administration, and the Indian Health Service.

The justification for these high prices is always that this is the cost of innovation, something Shkreli also cited in defense of his 5,000 percent price hike. New drugs tomorrow require private investment today. However, this claim is almost entirely unverified.

Most companies refuse to disclose their research-and-development costs to the public and ask that we take it on faith that the massive profits they receive (between 10 and 43 percent for the largest pharmaceutical companies (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223)) are being plowed back into generating new medicines.

It’s high time to call the companies’ bluff—let them show us the data on the investments in all their drugs on the market and let us make a judgment based on the evidence. In fact, one California state assemblyman, David Chiu, tried to pass a bill to require this kind of transparency. The industry killed the bill in Sacramento.

 The simple fact is, we do not lack policy proposals to bring down the price of high drugs. My short list would include:



Expand utilization of existing generics by further incentivizing their use or further penalizing the use of brand-name versions.
Expedite the entrance of generic versions of expensive medications to the market by shortening the lifetime of patents on brand-name drugs, or by buying out patents from the originator companies, as Harvard’s Michael Kremer suggested back in the late 1990s.
Set thresholds for the cost paid by public and/or private payers for classes of drugs that are bioequivalent or therapeutically equivalent—that is, they are either the same chemical entities produced by different drug-makers or drugs that act in the same way for the same condition—based on the lowest price in a given class.
Use cost-effectiveness analysis to look at the bang-for-the-buck, the increase in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) offered by a drug at a given cost, and set a threshold above which the cost for a QALY is too expensive to justify. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK has been around since 1999 and has made recommendations to the National Health Service there on which drugs to cover as part of its formulary using this approach.


Despite these and other proposals, many of which are already implemented in other countries, the drug lobby has killed every attempt to address the exorbitant price of drugs in the United States over the past few decades, including in the negotiations over the Affordable Care Act and Medicare Part D. In the partisan world of Washington, DC, there is one thing both parties rely on and cherish—the largesse of the pharmaceutical industry. Until we address this political reality, we won’t see these mechanisms being championed in any serious way anytime soon.

In fact, drug companies are pushing ahead with aggressive measures to further deregulate the industry and neuter the Food and Drug Administration, which approves new medical products. Since the thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s, the FDA has been able to require that companies show that their drugs are both safe and effective before putting them on the market. That’s hardly too much to ask for from clinical and public-health perspectives, and from the consumer’s point of view as well: We pay a lot of money for these medicines, they should work as advertised and be safe to use. However, even though the FDA approves 96 percent of the drugs that come before it nowadays, the industry is pushing legislation to water down the requirements for drug approval to make it even easier to get on the market with less and less data.

The 21st Century Cures Act just sped through the House of Representatives this summer, and a similar bill is likely to make it through the Senate within the next few months. The legislation is touted as being about innovation—there’s that word again—but two former FDA commissioners, David A. Kessler and Margaret Hamburg, along with leading academic experts on the FDA, have criticized the bill as being a Trojan horse and a threat to the FDA’s core mandate to keep unsafe and ineffective drugs off of pharmacy shelves.

Meanwhile, in the courts, conservative think tanks like the Washington Legal Foundation and their Pharma allies are pushing the free-speech rights of drug companies, which would allow them to make claims about their products without sufficient evidence to prove that they are true, as long as the claims are not proven false or misleading. Two of these cases have been successful this far, and should the Supreme Court take up a similar case and rule as the lower courts have, the 1st Amendment may give drug companies the right to get a drug approved on the narrowest of indications by the FDA and then market the hell out of the drug for everything else as long as the claims aren’t shown to be patently untrue.

With less and less evidence being required for FDA approval, and with wider and wider latitude in what companies can claim about the drugs they market, we may be returning to the pre-thalidomide days, when opening one’s medicine cabinet was akin to a game of Russian roulette. In a few years, we’ll be living, and dying, with greater uncertainty about whether the drugs we put in our bodies are actually safe and actually do any damn good.

When you think about Martin Shkreli is this light, you realize he is small fry. Was what he did stupid and greedy? Yes. But the bigger threat is still out there, and with no significant opposition to stop Big Pharma’s march forward. We all may have been mad at Martin Shkreli, but what drug companies have in store for us scares me to death.

http://www.thenation.com/article/martin-shkreli-is-just-a-tiny-part-of-a-huge-problem/

BigCorp corrupts govt, makes the laws, regulations, which aren't enforced.

America is fucked and unfuckable.

A few years ago, BigPharma was spending $30B/year on innovation, development and $60B/year on marketing.

[boutons_deux]

How Big Pharma Is Price Gouging You

We pay roughly twice as much for our drugs as the average for other wealthy countries.

The United States stands out among wealthy countries in that we give drug companies patent monopolies on drugs that are essential for people’s health or lives and then allows them to charge whatever they want. Every other wealthy country has some system of price controls or negotiated prices where the government limits the extent to which drug companies can exploit the monopoly it has given them. The result is that we pay roughly twice as much for our drugs as the average for other wealthy countries. This additional cost is not associated with better care; we are just paying more for the same drugs.

This is not an issue about the free market. The free market doesn’t have patent monopolies. The monopoly power provided by a patent is a government policy to promote innovation. There are problems with patent monopolies in many areas, but nowhere is the issue worse than with prescription drugs.

A monopoly that allows drug companies to sell their drugs at prices that can be hundreds of times the free market price has all the problems economics predicts when governments interfere with the market. Drug companies routinely mislead doctors and the public about the safety and effectiveness of their drugs to increase sales. The cost in terms of bad health outcomes and avoidable deaths runs into the tens of billions of dollars every year.

Drug companies also spend tens of millions on campaign contributions and lobbying to get every longer and stronger patent protection.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the main forces behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and its demands for stronger patent protections is one of the main obstacles to reaching an agreement with the other countries.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-big-pharma-price-gouging-you?akid=13517.187590._QQs4K&rd=1&src=newsletter1042974&t=20

[boutons_deux]

Insurance Loopholes & Master Pricing: How Surprise Medical Bills Knock Consumers Down

Most of us know which local hospitals and doctors are covered by our insurance providers, but even when we make sure that we only see an in-network physician or surgeon, nearly one-third of privately insured Americans are still hit with higher-than-expected medical bills (http://consumersunion.org/news/consumer-reports-survey-finds-nearly-one-third-of-privately-insured-americans-hit-with-surprise-medical-bills/), often because their in-network hospital brought in or contracted out to an out-of-network service provider.

How did we get to the point where so many consumers have so little information about what to expect when their hospital bill arrives?

According to consumer advocates and a medical billing specialist who spoke to Consumerist, the problem of surprise medical bills isn’t exactly new, but healthcare providers appear to be taking greater advantage of long-existing loopholes in the insurance system, leaving more patients feeling blindsided when they finally get their bills.

“It’s a tremendous problem that seems to be getting worse and worse,” Chi Chi Wu, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, tells Consumerist. “The big picture is that it’s due to peculiarities and problems and how healthcare is priced in the U.S.”

At the core of the issue is the distinction between in-network and out-of-network health insurance coverage and how each is priced and passed on to consumers.

In-network providers are those who have agreed to charge lower fees to customers of a particular insurer, with the expectation that being listed as a covered provider will bring in more patients.

Julie, a long-time medical billing specialist, provided Consumerist with an example of how in-network billing works:

You have a procedure done for which an in-network doctor normally charges $1,000, but your insurance company has negotiated a maximum fee of $600 for that procedure with that doctor, so that’s the most the physician can charge.

The doctor must write off the remaining $400 and is prohibited from “balance-billing” you for the difference between the $1,000 list price and what your insurance’s “maximum allowable amount” or “negotiated fee” is for that service.

On the other hand, an out-of-network doctor is, basically, not bound by any rules of your insurance company because he or she has not agreed to any of maximum.

That doctor, therefore, can charge you the full $1,000 for that procedure, or the difference between $1,000 and whatever your insurance pays, with no discount.

http://consumerist.com/2015/09/24/a-loopholes-and-master-pricing-how-surprise-medical-bills-knock-consumers-down/

America is SO FUCKED and SO UNFUCKABLE.

[ducks]

when are you moving since america is so fucked and so unfuckable?

[Winehole23]

Texas Hospital Ass'n launches an ACA related website:


The Texas Hospital Association launched a website Thursday to help educate Texans about enrolling in health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.


The site includes links to information and enrollment, as well as a way to calculate costs. It is designed to promote enrollment and make the process easier to understand, officials said.
The Insure Health Insure Texas site can be found at insurehealthtx.org.


Open enrollment starts Nov. 1 and ends Jan. 31, 2016.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional/health-insurance-website-for-texans-launches/nnsSQ/

[boutons_deux]

Americans Fall In Love With Obamacare As New Poll Shows Growing ACA Support

According to the latest PPP Poll, more Americans support Obamacare than oppose it as Democrats have become unified in their support of the ACA.PPP (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_100715.pdf)discussed the results, “Evidence continues to mount that the Affordable Care Act is just not a liability for Democrats anymore. Nationally we find that 42% of voters support it to 40% who are opposed.

Those numbers are in line with what we’ve found in most swing states where we’ve polled on it over the course of this year. It’s a far cry from when we used to consistently find voters opposed to it by a 10-15 point margin nationally and in key states. One big reason for the change is that Democrats (73%) are more unified in their support of it than Republicans (70%) are in their opposition to it.”

It turns out that as more Americans have gained first-hand experience with the health care law, they have liked the results.

Obamacare as a term has been demonized by years of Republican lies and smears, but the law itself is not the political anchor that Republicans had hoped it would be.

The worse news for Republicans is that approval of the law has been steady since people started experiencing the benefits of the ACA.

Obamacare is closer to becoming a political asset than it is to being a liability for Democrats.As more people gain coverage, it is going to be difficult to impossible for Republicans to be able to repeal the law.

What makes 2016 so urgent for Obamacare critics is that if they fail to win the White House, it is likely that the ACA will be the law of the land for a very long time.

The public is finally catching up to what Democrats have known for a long time. Obamacare is a good thing for our country and the calls of hands off my Obamacare will only grow in the months and years to come.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/07/americans-fall-love-obamacare-poll-shows-growing-aca-support.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

of the 40% who are opposed, many of them are opposed because ACA doesn't go far enough, does provide a govt insurance option

[spurraider21]

obama, champion of healthcare... bombing a hospital in afghanistan

[boutons_deux]

obama, champion of healthcare... bombing a hospital in afghanistan

he bombed a hospital like Hillary killed 4 Benghazi people

[boutons_deux]

Repus privatizing, screwing up Medicaid

Iowa Hands Over Medicaid to Companies With Troubled Histories

Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) officials said last week that the agency had signed contracts with four companies to implement RepublicanGov. Terry Branstad (http://rhrealitycheck.org/tag/gov-terry-branstad/)’s plan to privatize the state’s Medicaid (http://rhrealitycheck.org/topic/health-systems/medicaid/)program, despite the troubled history and frequently criticized lobbying tactics of the companies selected to run the program.

Critics of the privatization scheme point to other states that have handed over Medicaid to health-care companies only to watch Medicaid waiting lists grow and service dwindle.

Iowa Medicaid Director Mikki Stier said in a statement (http://dhs.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/PR_DHS_Announces_Medicaid_Modernization_Contracts. pdf) that implementation of the program is intended to improve quality and access, promoting outcomes and accountability while creating a more predictable and sustainable Medicaid budget.

DHS officials have claimed (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/2015/10/07/testimony-calls-into-question-medicaid-savings-estimate/73463058/) that the program could save the state $51.3 million in its first six months. Lawmakers and critics of the privatization plan have questioned the accuracy of the agency’s estimates.

The four companies that the state has hired to manage Medicaid were announced by DHS in August. Amerigroup Iowa, AmeriHealth Caritas Iowa, UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley and WellCare of Iowa will operate the state’s $4.2 billion Medicaid program.

Iowa’s DHS is working with the companies to establish provider networks in the new IA Health Link program that will serve nearly 600,000 low-income Iowans.

The four companies that the state has contracted each have troubled histories of managing similar programs in other states, according to a Des Moines Register investigation (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/2015/09/19/serious-service-errors-plague-medicaid-companies/71903372/). More than $10.2 million in fines have been imposed on the companies resulting from more than 1,500 regulatory violations.

Amerigroup, the parent company of Amerigroup Iowa, in its bid for the contract, provided the state with information about nearly 800 regulatory sanctions against it, totaling more than $4.7 million in fines. Among the companies that provided bids for the Iowa contracts, no other company disclosed as many sanctions or as many fines as Amerigroup.

Amerigroup agreed to pay $225 million in 2008 to settle claims that it defrauded the Illinois Medicaid program by systematically avoiding enrolling pregnant women and unhealthy patients in the state’s managed care program, reported the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121884581899646109).

Amerigroup was one of the three managed care companies contracted by Kansas to operate a similar Medicaid privatization program championed by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback. KanCare has been mired in controversy since its inception, and Amerigroup has been at the center.

KanCare was launched in January 2013, when the state’s traditional Medicaid program was phased out. In its place, the Brownback administration contracted three for-profit health insurance companies to coordinate health care for more than 360,000 low-income residents. Amerigroup Kansas, United Healthcare Community Plan and the Sunflower Health Plan all received contracts to operate the program.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/10/13/iowa-hands-medicaid-companies-troubled-histories/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

Privatizing Medicaid fails as wonderfully as privatizing K12 to charter schools.

[boutons_deux]

Cosmic Irony: States That Didn't Expand Medicaid Paying More For The Program


http://a3.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/zzyc5dzhktmf2uecxrab.jpg

States that refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are now paying the price, literally.

A new Kaiser Family Foundation report released last week (http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-enrollment-spending-growth-fy-2015-2016/?hsCtaTracking=15c4fab3-f190-4ee1-bf37-164881751614%7Cbfcadb1d-4da3-4f71-af82-ce1dfa73d7db&utm_campaign=KFF%3A+2015+50+State+Medicaid+Budget+ Survey&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-88tkZb1pW6H5czkZyKxW1TAB7j4RQM_r5UJzOngtaIOGaNQNM6 6Q8AkKTnLqaDGqNlkmoMaRBA9cCXdT7tnmcvyKzacA&_hsmi=22859273&utm_source=hs_email&utm_content=22859273) suggests that the Republican-controlled non-expansion states are seeing their share of Medicaid costs rise more sharply than expansion states.

The trend undercuts a popular argument against the Medicaid expansion in states where Republican leaders continue to resist opting into the program, under which the federal government pays 100 percent of costs through 2016 and at least 90 percent share after.

“We did see a higher growth rate of what states spent of their own dollars on Medicaid in the in non-expansion states than we did in the expansion states” said Laura Snyder, a senior policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation. The report found that total spending in expansion states grew by 17.7 percent, but the state spending only grew by 3.4 percent. Meanwhile, state spending on Medicaid in non-expansion states increased by 6.9 percent as total spending rose by 6.1 percent.

http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/yqfkqrxwphyvrfjgd8zh.jpg


According to Snyder, it is not entirely clear what is driving the trend, but a number factors appear to be at play. Obviously having the federal government bear the burden for Medicaid expansion costs helped expansion-states curb their own spending on the program after it expanded. However, it also appears that Medicaid expansion states have saved money beyond that, such as in the way it they were delivering the program or how the expansion affected other aspects of Medicaid.

“There’s some potential the ACA is having some effect in the report we did,” Snyder said. “Among the expansion states, some of them noted savings in other parts of their budgets, some of them also noted savings within the Medicaid program.”

Furthermore, the report found that more than two-thirds of expansion states saw that the amount they paid per member per month was at or lower than their previous projections.

Additionally, non-expansion states on average saw a rise in their enrollees, perhaps due to more people becoming aware they were eligible for Medicaid with the publicity about the ACA, which could have attributed to the rise in the states' costs.

Finally, spending levels of non-expansion states -- which was measured by Kaiser in weighted averages, rather than in state-by-state breakdowns in the report -- could have been impacted by the rise in costs in big states like Texas, which saw a decline in their traditional match rate, Snyder said.

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

:lol Repug MISgovernance! :lol

fuck over their own states, fuck over their own poor, to spite the Muslim n!gg@

[TeyshaBlue]

www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/20/Obamacare-s-Dirty-Secret-31-Million-Still-Can-t-Afford-Treatment

This it's how Ponzi's work....look great on paper....makes beautiful charts....real life, not so much.

[boutons_deux]

www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/20/Obamacare-s-Dirty-Secret-31-Million-Still-Can-t-Afford-Treatment (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/20/Obamacare-s-Dirty-Secret-31-Million-Still-Can-t-Afford-Treatment)

This it's how Ponzi's work....look great on paper....makes beautiful charts....real life, not so much.

people who can't afford treatmnt isn't ACA's, Obama's fault. It's the fault of the predatory, greedy, fuck-all-y'all insurers, docs, hospitals, and their INVESTORS demanding stock price up and dividend.

That's how unregulated, predatory capitalism works, in real USA life.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's nothing more than cost shifting.....something that was easily predicted by anyone with an occupied brain pan.

[boutons_deux]

It's nothing more than cost shifting.....something that was easily predicted by anyone with an occupied brain pan.

insurance IS cost shifting, more precisely cost spreading. you against insurance, too?

[TeyshaBlue]

Thats the gist.. It aint insurance anymore. Its all HMO. Trying to shoehorn that concept into leveraging risk across time is asinine.
Hence the ongoing rate and affordability chaos we're witnessing now.

[boutons_deux]

Thats the gist.. It aint insurance anymore. Its all HMO. Trying to shoehorn that concept into leveraging risk across time is asinine.
Hence the ongoing rate and affordability chaos we're witnessing now.

the affordability "chaos", with health care prices' annual increase of 2 or 3 x inflation been around for 20, 30 years. That's not ACA's fault, but keep trying.

For-profit health care is just another way BigCorp/investors/capitalists suck up the wealth of all Americans, aka, ATMs.

[TeyshaBlue]

ACA did nothing to address this...nothing.
Instead, it simply provided another avenue for increase. Keep trying to defend this piece of shit legislation.

[boutons_deux]

ACA did nothing to address this...nothing.
Instead, it simply provided another avenue for increase. Keep trying to defend this piece of shit legislation.

If ACA had touched BigHealthCare's cheese, the rats would have Harry-and-Louise'd it before it got out of committee.

[boutons_deux]

Totally separate from ACA, the entire for-profit health care system is a huge scam

Drug Makers Sidestep Barriers on Pricing


The pain reliever Duexis is a combination of two old drugs, the generic equivalents of Motrin and Pepcid.

If prescribed separately, the two drugs together would cost no more than $20 or $40 a month. By contrast, Duexis, which contains both in a single pill, costs about $1,500 a month.

Yet sales of the drug are growing rapidly, in large part because its manufacturer, Horizon Pharma, has figured out a way to circumvent efforts of insurers and pharmacists to switch patients to the generic components, or even to the over-the-counter versions.

It is called “Prescriptions Made Easy.” Instead of sending their patients to the drugstore with a prescription, doctors are urged by Horizon to submit prescriptions directly to a mail-order specialty pharmacy affiliated with the drug company. The pharmacy mails the drug to the patient and deals with the insurance companies, relieving the doctor of the reimbursement hassle that might otherwise discourage them from prescribing such an expensive drug.

“They are all trying to get rid of the sticker shock of using their drugs,” said Dr. Kenneth Beer, a dermatologist in West Palm Beach, Fla. “They become the drugstore now,” he said.

.... Valeant ... etc, etc, etc

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/business/drug-makers-sidestep-barriers-on-pricing.html

[TeyshaBlue]

If ACA had touched BigHealthCare's cheese, the rats would have Harry-and-Louise'd it before it got out of committee.

So instead we get shit. Good solution. Awesome show Great Job!

[boutons_deux]

So instead we get shit. Good solution. Awesome show Great Job!

the overriding objective was to get people access to health care, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Your "perfect" plan would have NEVER passed. ACA is having lots of other effects, like price transparency, penalties for re-admissions, but BigHealthCare is a fucking greedy, nasty, impossible animal to wrangle. That's not ACA's fault.

[DarrinS]

next phase -- Obamacare death spiral

[boutons_deux]

next phase -- Obamacare death spiral

.... still waiting for it, along with hyper-inflation, a destroyed US economy, and a weak dollar. you mofos, and the mofos you elect, are ALWAYS wrong.

[TeyshaBlue]

the overriding objective was to get people access to health care, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Your "perfect" plan would have NEVER passed. ACA is having lots of other effects, like price transparency, penalties for re-admissions, but BigHealthCare is a fucking greedy, nasty, impossible animal to wrangle. That's not ACA's fault.

Access ro healthcare they cant afford. Solid answer

[DarrinS]

.... still waiting for it, along with hyper-inflation, a destroyed US economy, and a weak dollar. you mofos, and the mofos you elect, are ALWAYS wrong.

Well, what will cause it is not enough young, healthy people enrolling to help pay for all the sickos. Don't blame the messenger.

[TeyshaBlue]

the overriding objective was to get people access to health care, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Your "perfect" plan would have NEVER passed. ACA is having lots of other effects, like price transparency, penalties for re-admissions, but BigHealthCare is a fucking greedy, nasty, impossible animal to wrangle. That's not ACA's fault.
:lmao "price transparency".
The plan I propose it's far from perfect....thanks for the strawnan. :rolleyes
I would, however, stay away from the fool's gold of the current trainwreck....that is rolling it in all at once.
Lay out a framework of changes to be made, problems to address then draw up the time frame. I wouldnt even consider < 5 years. Hell, I'd shoot for a decade.

:cry But it's impossible to pass. :cry

Bullshit.

[boutons_deux]

:lmao "price transparency".
The plan I propose it's far from perfect....thanks for the strawnan. :rolleyes
I would, however, stay away from the fool's gold of the current trainwreck....that is rolling it in all at once.
Lay out a framework of changes to be made, problems to address then draw up the time frame. I wouldnt even consider < 5 years. Hell, I'd shoot for a decade.

:cry But it's impossible to pass. :cry

Bullshit.

The Repugs have voted 50+ times to kill ACA, and now are attempting to take it apart piecemeal.

the 40 Billionaire Boys Toys in the House will NEVER vote for any kind of serious health care reform (ideology: 1. the free market is perfect, 2. NO GOOD (for the 90%) can come from govt) , and they will be joined by dickless House Repugs who fear not voting with the 40 and get punished by being primaried by the billionaires (eg, Cantor beat by a tea bagger)

So as long as insane gerrymandering (and new gerrymandering is their menu), plus voter suppression cements the Repugs SAFELY into place, the gridlock will continue, nothing significant will change, or even be attempted. The 40+ want the Hastert rule left in place.

iow, America (of the 90%) is FUCKED by the Repugs, and is unfuckable due to gerrymandering, voter suppression, aided by Repug vote counting fraud, Citizens-United.

[TeyshaBlue]

Bullshit.

One piece at a time. Stop the give-up and go borrow some balls.

[boutons_deux]

Bullshit.

One piece at a time. Stop the give-up and go borrow some balls.

My balls are 100% more realistic than yours, dickless.

That 40+ plus Repug pussies will keep growing, to 50 and up, as the Kock Bros, etc buy more control of America, both at Federal and state levels.

=========

How about this insane MISgovernance, USA default is their objective:

Lawmakers Wrangle Over Plans to Avert, Manage or Embrace Default

With the potential for an unprecedented federal default two weeks away, House Republicans on Wednesday plan to pass legislation not to avert disaster, but rather to manage it, channeling daily tax collections to the nation’s creditors and Social Security (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_security_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) recipients if the government’s borrowing limit is not lifted.

nine of last year’s 28 Republican supporters have left Congress and at least three of their Republican successors — Representatives Dave Brat of Virginia, Steve Knight of California and Mark Walker, Republican of North Carolina — are almost certain to be opposed.

Also, 14 Democrats who voted to increase the debt limit are gone, replaced by Republicans, some of whom are likely to vote no.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/us/politics/lawmakers-wrangle-over-plans-to-avert-manage-or-embrace-default.html?_r=1


Nobody on this board has any given me any path to stop Repugs from fucking America and Americans, who will remain fucked for decades, fucking paid for by the kleptocratic/oligarchic/plutocratic 1%/VRWC/BigCorp/ALEC owning the Repugs.

America has reverted to, and will keep moving to, the historic mean, which is a few wealthy, powerful individuals running the show. The period 1945 - 1975 was an anomaly.

"Stop the give-up and go borrow some balls"

:lol, yep, practical advice that will reverse the gerrymandering, stop voter suppression, prevent USA defaulting, no more govt shutdowns! :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry :cry :cry

Pussy.

[boutons_deux]

Pussy.

feckless impotent

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry :cry :cry

[boutons_deux]

'Death by poverty' in Idaho (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/31/1440258/--Death-by-poverty-in-Idaho)


http://images.dailykos.com/images/140834/large/RTX17Z1K.jpg?1430338278

Idaho is one of the red states that refused Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in 2012 that saved the law as a whole, but further politicized Medicaid and condemned millions of people to being without health insurance—and condemned some to death. Idahoan Jenny Steinke is dead, killed by an asthma attack, but more specifically killed by the Republican party. Steinke died on September 1 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/10/25/4053206_life-in-coverage-gap-turns-tragic.html?rh=1), the day her husband's brand new insurance from the only job either of them has had that offered benefits kicked in. Steinke had been self-treating her asthma buy getting short-acting inhalers when she could from a community health clinic, and by buying extra short-acting inhalers from friends. Because she wasn't being treated regularly for her asthma, here's what she didn't know.


“Several times a week I see people who have delayed medical care because they don’t have coverage, either Medicaid or insurance,” said Ken Krell, director of critical care at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center.“They put off being seen until it’s really dire,” he said. “It’s a very common occurrence.” […]

“With asthma, if you use the short-acting inhalers you get some relief,” Krell said. “But if you keep accelerating the use, the effect is shorter and shorter and eventually you become refractory to it.”


Jenny’s inhaler was no longer working. She would’ve soon started to feel like she was suffocating, Krell said. She walked next door to a retired neighbor she was friends with, Richard Kelley, and asked him to drive her to the hospital. She knew she was having an asthma attack, Kelley said, but hadn’t initially seemed overly distressed or out of breath.


Just three minutes into their drive to the hospital, she was no longer breathing. She was put on a respirator for three days, but it wasn't enough. Too much damage had been done to her brain from the lack of oxygen during that asthma attack. She died a completely preventable death. It was, as her mother-in-law Clella Steinke said, "death by poverty."


"This is how poverty treats people, when they're up and down, back and forth, trying to make it," Clella said. "Without medical care, you don't make it very far."


Except it's not poverty that killed her son's wife. Indifference to poverty is what caused this random and totally preventable death, and that indifference has names and faces attached: Republicans.

It's Idaho's Gov. Butch Otter, who has repeatedly refused to consider expanded Medicaid even after a working group he appointed (http://magicvalley.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/idaho-work-group-favors-medicaid-expansion/article_62b9c360-240b-11e4-9932-001a4bcf887a.html) to explore the program recommended it, twice.

It's every elected Republican in the state of Idaho and all of the people who voted for them.

It's Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

They killed Jenny Steinke by refusing her the simple, inexpensive luxury of getting regular treatment for her very common health condition.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/31/1440258/--Death-by-poverty-in-Idaho?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Exactly the same murderous truth for you Texians who vote in sociopathic, hate-filled, misogynistic TX Repugs

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare opponents are now targeting protections for preexisting conditions

a slew of recent attacks has taken aim at what one would think is the law's most sacrosanct provision. That's the protection of insurance customers with preexisting medical conditions, otherwise known as "guaranteed issue."

The Affordable Care Act forbids insurers to refuse coverage, or charge higher premiums, to anyone for medical reasons, a practice known as medical underwriting. Insurers can charge higher rates to smokers or older applicants, within limits. The act's counterbalance to guaranteed issue is its individual mandate, which aims to ensure that younger, healthy persons buy into the national health insurance pool to help cover the older, sicker buyers who don't need any outside incentive.

Protection against preexisting-condition exclusions is a core guarantee of Obamacare, and one that consistently garners the greatest public approval. In a Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll in March 2014, some 70% of respondents had a favorable view of the rule, a result that spanned political coloration -- even 69% of Republicans (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/republican-party-ORGOV0000004-topic.html) were in favor. (See chart below.)

http://www.trbimg.com/img-563a6be4/turbine/la-fi-mh-pre-existing-conditions-20151104-001/750/750x422


Yet now the ACA's solution to the "preexisting" problem is being seen as an Obamacare problem. The conservative market-oriented Mercatus Center at George Mason University (http://www.latimes.com/topic/education/colleges-universities/george-mason-university-OREDU000815-topic.html)has convened a group of conservative economists (http://mercatus.org/publication/pre-existing-condition-innovative-solutions-america-s-thorniest-healthcare-challenge) to address the issue, which it calls "America's thorniest healthcare challenge." Their papers, most of which are online, will be packaged into an ebook next week. More on their prescriptions in a moment.

Then there's a recent op-ed (http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/pre-existing-problem-obamacare/) by Kathy Hoekstra, a former spokesman for the Herman Cain (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/government/herman-cain-PEPLT00008439-topic.html) presidential campaign :lol :lol of 2012. Describing herself as the mother of a child with diabetes, which means that in the pre-ACA era her child and possibly her entire family would have been uninsurable in the individual market, Hoekstra asserts that "the preexisting condition mandate of Obamacare actually makes our healthcare system worse."

Disallowing pricing based on preexisting conditions is like mandating that Las Vegas has to accept bets on the Super Bowl after the game is over.- Kathy Hoekstra, Detroit News op-ed writer

She continues, "disallowing pricing based on preexisting conditions is like mandating that Las Vegas has to accept bets on the Super Bowl after the game is over." :lol :lol

This is an utterly faulty comparison: The ACA doesn't allow anyone to wait until after a diagnosis to buy insurance, but allows purchases only during the annual open enrollment period for coverage starting the following Jan. 1. Open enrollment for 2016 has just begun. Of course, the ACA's individual mandate is designed to avoid the free-rider problem of people waiting until they're sick to buy insurance.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-pre-existing-conditions-20151104-column.html

[boutons_deux]

http://i.imgur.com/tZ1i62f.jpg

[rmt]

Oh, well, liberals at the universities and unions wanted Obamacare - have fun with this and the cadillac tax.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/12/mizzou-protesters-angry-over-obamacare-cuts/

[boutons_deux]

Let's recap hilariously wrong Republican predictions about Obamacare (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/3/1443846/-Let-s-recap-hilariously-wrong-Republican-predictions-about-Obamacare)

In light of the latest GOP proclamation (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/03/1430228/--Top-Republican-This-time-Obamacare-is-really-going-to-collapse#) of Obamacare DOOOM, why don't we take a look back at a handful of their past predictions, just to remind us how wrong these people constantly are?John

Boehner, 1/6/2011 (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/boehner-predicts-obamacare-will-never-work/):

When you step back and look at the totality of this, I don't think it's ever going to work.

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, 11/13/2013 (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/363858/obamacare-dead-long-live-obamacare-victor-davis-hanson):

In the next 90 days, the Obama administration will have to declare victory and then abandon most of Obamacare. The legislation defies the laws of physics.

Bill Kristol, 11/3/2013 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53448997/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/nov-mitt-romney-deval-patrick-bill-kristol-david-axelrod-bob-woodward-katty-kay/):

Obamacare is failing and will fail. And I'm very much looking forward to being on this show [Meet the Press] with [David Axelrod] in January of 2017 when finally all of Obamacare is repealed."

Rep. Paul Broun, 10/07/2013 (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360598/conservatives-wary-deal-robert-costa):

America is going to be destroyed by Obamacare, so whatever deal is put together must at least reschedule the implementation of Obamacare. This law is going to destroy America and everything in America, and we need to stop it.

Glenn Beck, 11/19/2009 (http://mediamatters.org/video/2009/11/19/beck-insists-audience-must-not-allow-health-car/157244):

This is the end of prosperity in America forever, if this passes. This is the end of America as you know it.


Tom Coburn, 10/13/2010 (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/13/123951/coburn-private-insurance/):

There will be no insurance industry left in three years. That is by design. You’re going to make insurance unaffordable for everyone — which is what they want. Because if there’s no private insurance left, what’s left? Government-centered, government-run, single-payer health care.

Rush Limbaugh, 2/6/2014 (http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/02/06/limbaugh-repeats-right-wing-myth-that-cbo-repor/197959):

This is horrible for our country ... an absolute tragedy ... It breaks my heart folks to see this literal tragedy happen to this country ... Obamacare is going to cost this country two and half million jobs minimum."

John Boehner, 7/15/2012 (https://www.facebook.com/johnboehner/posts/375683912481495):

ObamaCare is only making our economy worse, driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire.

Rand Paul, 2/20/2015 (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150220/NEWS02/150229995?template=printart):

I think that what’s going to come out of ObamaCare is worse than anybody can imagine. I think it will lead to bankruptcy in the states that are fully embracing it.

Scott Walker, 2/20/2015 (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150220/NEWS02/150229995?template=printart):

In a 2013 interview with CNBC's Larry Kudlow, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker argued that Obamacare was hampering the economic recovery."They made a promise that nobody could actually deliver on, not just in terms of the website, but on the overall policy of Obamacare, which is an abysmal failure," Walker told Kudlow, adding, "It's not only a failure for Obamacare, it is continuing to be a wet blanket on the recovery of the nation's economy."

"Firm after firm telling the White House, the administration this isn't going to work," Walker went on. "It's either one of those things where there not listening to the facts, or they're not being informed, in either case, it's troubling."

"Troubling," Kudlow chimed in, "No CEO experience whatsoever."


There are definitely two sides to our politics today, and they are "right" and "wrong." In a sane world, that whole "wrong" crowd would never have a platform or be treated seriously again.It's also amazing how resilient the law has been in the face of persistent and pervasive obstruction and resistance from the GOP, from refusing to expand Medicare Medicaid in all states, to a blizzard of legal challenges, to propagandizing its own supporters from taking advantage of the law's benefits. And yet it keeps trucking on.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/3/1443846/-Let-s-recap-hilariously-wrong-Republican-predictions-about-Obamacare

[rmt]

Good to see MSM finally writing about the unaffordability of this law:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/14/new-york-times-digital-many-say-high-deductibles-make-their-health-law-insurance-all-but-useless.html

[boutons_deux]

Good to see MSM finally writing about the unaffordability of this law:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/14/new-york-times-digital-many-say-high-deductibles-make-their-health-law-insurance-all-but-useless.html

unaffordability is 100% due to what the insurance companies charge, not to ACA which doesn't set prices.

get back to with instances of Wall St/BigFinance/VRWC pimp CNBC bitches about the insurance companies overcharging decades before ACA.

[rmt]

For boutons - from Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-karr/why-obamacare-will-fail_b_8586192.html

[boutons_deux]

For boutons - from Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-karr/why-obamacare-will-fail_b_8586192.html

"Dan is the founder and CEO of ValChoice (https://www.valchoice.com/), an insurance analytics company." :lol iow, an insurance industry vested-interest insider :lol

the insurance industry WROTE ACA, to enrich itself, so naturally no surprise if the insurance industry WANTS it to fail, always in their favor.

USA health care scam is just one of the many fuckjobs that makes America fucked and unfuckable.

some if not all of the state co-ops have failed due to Repugs cutting funding, which is natural since Repugs fuck everything the touch and everyone associated.

Bernie has the answer in universal health insurance, but he doesn't make the laws, the health care industry does.

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare made 'em do it!!

More Big Pharma outrage after 2,000% overnight price hike on an infant seizure medication (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/16/1450631/-More-Big-Pharma-outrage-after-2-000-overnight-price-hike-on-an-infant-seizure-medication)

In 2014, global pharmaceutical company Mallinckrodt acquired Questcor Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Synacthen Depot—a drug critical to the treatment of seizures in infants. It is used to treat a rare form of epilepsy: (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/2-000-price-hike-infant-100000468.html)


The price of drug prescribed to infants in Canada with a rare and potentially dangerous form of epilepsy has jumped by 2,000 per cent practically overnight, upsetting specialists and parents.

Infantile spasms, also called West syndrome, is a catastrophic and rare form of epilepsy. It's diagnosed in babies with seizures that show abnormal bursts in the brain's electrical activity on an electroencephalogram or EEG.


The price went from $35 per vial to $801 per vial, raising the six-week treatment price from $750 to $17,000.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/16/1450631/-More-Big-Pharma-outrage-after-2-000-overnight-price-hike-on-an-infant-seizure-medication?detail=email

[boutons_deux]

Repugs DEATH PANELS killing women

Maternal Mortality Down Worldwide, Except in United States

There has been a 44 percent decrease in the worldwide maternal mortality rate over the past 25 years,

the United States is one of 13 countries that saw maternal mortality rates rise during this period.
In 1990, 12 women died for every 100,000 births in the United States. Now that number is 14, meaning that the country’s maternal mortality rate is double that of Canada.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/11/13/maternal-mortality-worldwide-except-united-states/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

[boutons_deux]

capitalists unhappy with reduced wealth extraction from the diseases of the 99%

The country's largest private health insurer throws a 'tantrum' over lower profits

UnitedHealth (http://www.latimes.com/topic/business/unitedhealth-group-inc.-ORCRP015915-topic.html) Group, the country's largest private health insurer, has discovered that sick people tend to go to the doctor.

And that means bills to pay.

And that's bad for the company's bottom line.So UnitedHealth said Thursday that because of the "continuing deterioration" of its profits from Obamacare, it may quit offering coverage through the system by 2017.

In its next breath, UnitedHealth stressed that it "remains a strong supporter of sustainable efforts to ensure access to affordable, quality care for all Americans." :lol

But, well, business is business. The company's concerned that it might not see the same $1.6 billion in profit that it pocketed in the third quarter.

Supporters of healthcare reform will view UnitedHealth's warning as further proof that for-profit companies shouldn't be making money off the sick.

Critics will see evidence of Obamacare's failed promise of fixing a broken healthcare system. :lol Who promised that? :lol

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20151120-column.html

[boutons_deux]

Another huge, wealth-sucking fuckup that isn't caused by ACA

Report: Some Prescription Drugs Now Cost More Than Household Incomes


Prices have skyrocketed on certain drugs for complex diseases like cancer.


The average annual retail cost of certain specialty pharmaceuticals now exceeds the median U.S. household income. These drugs are used to treat complex diseases such as multiple sclerosis, cancer and rheumatoid arthritis,

They found that roughly 576,000 Americans spent more than the median household income on prescription medications in 2014—up a whopping 63% from 2013. In 2014, the last year for which data is available, median household income was $53,657. The number of patients with costs exceeding $100,000 a year nearly tripled in 2014 to 140,000. In total, the extra cost burden, according to the study, is about $52 billion annually.

Put plainly: certain life-saving drugs are rapidly getting obscenely expensive. Even though most people don't pay the full retail cost of drugs, as the Washington Post notes, the effects begin to add up:

A study this year by the pharmacy benefit company Express Scripts (http://lab.express-scripts.com/insights/drug-options/super-spending-US-trends-in-high-cost-medication-use), for example, found that in 2014, patients whose pharmacy bills were more than $100,000 that year paid less than 2 percent of their costs—on average, $2,782 out of pocket. Insurance plans and employers shouldered the rest, although those costs are ultimately passed on to patients in the form of higher premiums.


Predictably, the makers of the drugs in question are pushing back against the study's findings. Holly Campbell, a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical trade group PhRMA, told the Washington Post that the study is flawed because it did not, "take into account the discounts and rebates that are applied to drugs through the negotiations between drug manufacturers."

A surprising two-thirds of drug spending for patients whose costs exceed $100,000 in 2014 was on medications that treat hepatitis C and cancer.

You can see a comparison between how many people with certain illnesses spend more than $100,000 a year retail on specialty drugs versus those with the same ailments who do not spend this amount below:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/jxfv8FueSDwCT1yQiiuPjTNPdBUoQbYcaqqKpgWlJTHbJ1iWlw 0B_fdfBmmxMQSmq7Q4Lcowr06wNAwNohZfH90Iti31EMMhW2Ux X1_QeibgUfOkg9Cnrq68iahQBkzIm-0qsxgv

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/report-some-prescription-drugs-now-cost-more-household-incomes

[rmt]

In my experience, high blood pressure is very difficult to control with diet (without medication), but high blood cholesterol and diabetes (type II) respond very well to a high fat, low carb diet.

[Winehole23]

definitions matter:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/obamacare-observations-and-elusive.html

[rmt]

Repeal and replace that pos

1. Tort reform - loser pays ALL - that'll cut down on frivolous lawsuits
2. Sell across state lines like Geico, Progressive
3. Cheap catastrophic policies
4. All prices posted
5. HSA at birth to be funded with tax-free dollars - can be shared with anyone/invested - can be passed on to heirs - that'll discourage extending end-of-life care.
6. Use those billions wasted on website, subsidies - give blocks to states to decide/experiment how to use for pre-existing conditions, poor.

Welcome to $80 diagnostic mammograms and $80 bilateral breast ultrasounds (cash - no insurance company involved, no extra employee to handle insurance, fierce competition with comparison shopping).

[boutons_deux]

This REALLY pisses off Repugs, racists. America is exclusively for white Europeans IMMIGRANTS.

UMD study shows that Affordable Care Act has reduced racial/ethnic health disparities

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has significantly improved insurance coverage and use of health care for African Americans and Latinos, according to a new study led by researchers in the University of Maryland School of Public Health.

"Since the ACA took effect in 2014, the rates of uninsured African Americans and Latinos were reduced by 7%, as compared to 3% for whites," explains Dr. Jie Chen, assistant professor in the Department of Health Services Administration at Maryland.

"We also found that these groups were more likely to visit a primary care doctor and receive timely health care than before the ACA coverage began."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-12/uom-uss120215.php

[boutons_deux]

HealthCare.gov sign-ups exceed last year's pace: officials

U.S. government health officials said on Wednesday that enrollment in 2016 individual insurance through the HealthCare.gov website is higher than it was a year ago at this time, with 1 million new customers signed up.

The officials cited the latest enrollment data as one reason for confidence in the long-term stability of HealthCare.gov, which was created under President Barack Obama's national healthcare law and sells individual insurance plans in 37 states.

Private insurers including Anthem Inc, Aetna Inc and UnitedHealth Group Inc are among the private insurers who sell plans on HealthCare.gov and who have said they are losing money on the business.

A top health official said during a conference call with reporters that the market is robust, with more than 100 insurers selling plans there.

"I would caution you not to be overly swayed by any one or a handful of companies and whether they are making money or not," said Andy Slavitt, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-insurance-idUSKBN0TS2G220151209?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews

[rmt]

HealthCare.gov sign-ups exceed last year's pace: officials

U.S. government health officials said on Wednesday that enrollment in 2016 individual insurance through the HealthCare.gov website is higher than it was a year ago at this time, with 1 million new customers signed up.

The officials cited the latest enrollment data as one reason for confidence in the long-term stability of HealthCare.gov, which was created under President Barack Obama's national healthcare law and sells individual insurance plans in 37 states.

Private insurers including Anthem Inc, Aetna Inc and UnitedHealth Group Inc are among the private insurers who sell plans on HealthCare.gov and who have said they are losing money on the business.

A top health official said during a conference call with reporters that the market is robust, with more than 100 insurers selling plans there.

"I would caution you not to be overly swayed by any one or a handful of companies and whether they are making money or not," said Andy Slavitt, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-insurance-idUSKBN0TS2G220151209?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews




boutons, this is just the admin trying to make everything look rosy. Bottom line, when the risk corridors run out, this fiasco will have to be self-sufficient - meaning the health insurance companies will have to price the policies correctly (not depend on tax payer bailout, others making profit, etc). When that happens, the premiums will be sky high - too high for people to afford. Those who are healthy will drop out and the spiral will begin. Besides the deadline for coverage to begin Jan 1 is December 15, so to me 1 million new customers is nothing to be pumping up especially as they have said that there will be no extra enrollment period this time around (they extended it last year).

It is so easy to game this system. If you know you have a problem, say you need shoulder surgery, sign up during open enrollment, go see a specialist in January, schedule operation asap, and after 6 week rehab, cancel the policy. Or sign up, see your PCP, get all your labs, colonoscopy, pap smear, mammogram, etc done in January (ALL FREE) and cancel. How do you think any insurance company could make money with patients such as these?

Young, healthy people (usually with few assets) will do the above and take their chances. Only if you have substantial assets to protect (usually older) or have serious health problems, will you continue to sign up for this or find some other way out - like I have (health sharing ministries).

[boutons_deux]

risk corridors? Your asshole Rubio killed them, killed insurance companies, coops participating, and will SCREW Americans with higher premiums, deductibles.

Marco Rubio Quietly Undermines Affordable Care Act

A little-noticed health care provision that Senator Marco Rubio (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/14/us/elections/marco-rubio.html?inline=nyt-per)of Florida slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s signature health law.

So for all the Republican talk about dismantling the Affordable Care Act (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/politics/a-post-election-day-certainty-new-scrutiny-for-the-affordable-care-act.html), one Republican presidential hopeful has actually done something toward achieving that goal.

Mr. Rubio’s efforts against the so-called risk corridor provision of the health law have hardly risen to the forefront of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, but his plan limiting how much the government can spend to protect insurance companies against financial losses has shown the effectiveness of quiet legislative sabotage.

The risk corridors were intended to help some insurance companies if they ended up with too many new sick people on their rolls and too little cash from premiums to cover their medical bills in the first three years under the health law. But because of Mr. Rubio’s efforts, the administration says it will pay only 13 percent of what insurance companies were expecting to receive this year. The payments were supposed to help insurers cope with the risks they assumed when they decided to participate in the law’s new insurance marketplaces.
Mr. Rubio’s talking point is bumper-sticker ready. The payments, he says, are “a taxpayer-funded bailout for insurance companies.” But without them, insurers say, many consumers will face higher premiums and may have to scramble for other coverage. Already, some insurers have shut down over the unexpected shortfall.

“Risk corridors have become a political football,” said Dawn H. Bonder, the president and chief executive of Health Republic of Oregon, an insurance co-op that announced in October it would close its doors after learning that it would receive only $995,000 of the $7.9 million it had expected from the government. “We were stable, had a growing membership and could have been successful if we had received those payments. We relied on the payments in pricing our plans, but the government reneged on its promise. I am disgusted.”

Blue Cross and Blue Shield executives have warned the administration and Congress that eliminating the federal payments could have a devastating impact on insurance markets.

Twelve of the 23 nonprofit insurance cooperatives created under the law have failed, disrupting coverage for more than 700,000 people, and co-op executives like Ms. Bonder have angrily cited the sharp reduction in federal payments as a factor in their demise.

But Mr. Rubio is pressing forward, demanding a provision in the final spending bill now under negotiation that continues the current risk corridor restrictions, or even eliminates the program altogether. That enormous spending bill is being worked out as Congress slides toward (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/congress-seeks-to-keep-momentum-ahead-of-funding-deadline/) a deadline of Friday, when much of the federal government’s funding runs out.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.html

So Rubio, Regugs fuck up ACA, fuck up Americans, and offer NOTHING positive.

Repugs only destroy, never build, never solve problems, except for BigCorp and the 1%

[rmt]

Why in the world should taxpayers subsidize insurance companies? If this pos is so AFFORDABLE, it needs to stand on its own feet - meaning with policies priced right - not with backdoor taxpayer subsidies - so that the public can see what a rotten piece of legislation it is - not sugar coated with lower premiums on the back of the taxpayers. Remember it's Obama himself who shafted the insurance companies when he agreed to and signed the budget overturning the risk corridors. Just like all the democrats in congress wanting to overturn the cadillac tax after they all voted for this pos - just because all the unions are whining.

[boutons_deux]

"Why in the world should taxpayers subsidize insurance companies"

only if they lose money due to too many sick people. risk corridors subsidize poor people getting care.

affordability is not under ACA's control, the predatory, wealth-sucking insurance companies and care providers set the prices.

[rmt]

"Why in the world should taxpayers subsidize insurance companies"

only if they lose money due to too many sick people. risk corridors subsidize poor people getting care.

affordability is not under ACA's control, the predatory, wealth-sucking insurance companies and care providers set the prices.



How many times do I have to remind you about the 85/15% rule - that the insurance companies have to spend 85% on patient care? That it is the ACA MANDATED 10 essential benefits that drive up the price - that every policy has to cover birth control pills, pap smears, pediatric dental and vision, etc regardless of whether you can use the service or not. As per Jonathan Gruber, the ACA does nothing to control the cost of health care - it tries to cover more people (mostly through Medicaid).

Poor people are on Medicaid or get subsidies - nothing to do with risk corridors.

[boutons_deux]

The 85/15 rule is an attempt to keep clients' premium money paying for health care rather than for excess profits, luxurious "overheads" executive kingly salaries, and payouts to investors.

"birth control pills, pap smears, pediatric dental and vision" all preventative and/or humanitarian, which of course you are, probably as Ayn Randian asshole, no doubt firmly against.

[rmt]

The 85/15 rule is an attempt to keep clients' premium money paying for health care rather than for excess profits, luxurious "overheads" executive kingly salaries, and payouts to investors.

"birth control pills, pap smears, pediatric dental and vision" all preventative and/or humanitarian, which of course you are, probably as Ayn Randian asshole, no doubt firmly against.




boutons, I am not against any of these things, but all mens' policies should not be covering this stuff - that's what drives UP the price - unnecessary coverage that cannot possibly be used.

[boutons_deux]

Hiltzik trashing the NYT

No, Marco Rubio didn't score a blow against Obamacare -- he merely hurt patients

Rubio's provision, which indeed was slipped onto page 892 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1378743-pg-892.html) of the 1,603-page spending bill last December, dealt with the risk corridor provisions of the Affordable Care Act. (By the way, when a newspaper states that something was "little-noticed," it means unnoticed by itself. But we noticed it (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-secret-swipe-at-obamacare-20141212-column.html), and we weren't alone.)

Risk corridors were designed to stabilize insurance premiums in the first few years of the ACA. The drafters understood that health insurers would have difficulty pricing their plans in the individual market in those first years. Not only would some insurers be entering that market in volume for the first time, but the market itself would be dramatically altered by the flood of new customers, as well as the law's prohibition on exclusions for preexisting conditions. Some insurers would set their premiums too low, and therefore pay out benefits higher than they anticipated; others would set their rates too high, and capture a windfall.

That's exactly what has happened. Without a safety valve, these miscalculations could have an impact on premiums the following year, as insurers tried to adjust.

Under the risk corridor provision, insurers that set prices more than 3% below a set target would get a reimbursement from the government, and those that overpriced by the same margin would pay some of the windfall to the government. The arrangement expires after next year, when it's assumed that insurers will know what they're doing.

Rubio started grousing about the risk corridors in 2013, when he called the arrangement a "bailout" of insurers. We labeled that claim the most cynical attack (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/19/business/la-fi-mh-cynical-20131119) on the ACA up to that point, because as

Rubio well knew the provision's purpose was consumer protection, not corporate protection.

"a serious flaw (http://theincidentaleconomist.com/does-the-risk-corridor-program-have-a-fatal-technical-flaw/): the ACA didn’t appropriate any money to fund it." The administration's workaround was that the Department of Health and Human Services would use the money that came from profitable plans to make payments to cover the losses of unprofitable plans.
Rubio's rider prohibits the use of any other federal funds to cover the shortfall.

the plans owed money that they'll get only 12.6 cents on the dollar of what they're owed -- $362 million to cover claims of $2.87 billion.

health plans owed money have the right to sue the government in the U.S. Court of Claims, which can order them to be repaid; the position of Health and Human Services is that the claims are valid as an obligation of the U.S. government. If the court upholds them, the taxpayer hasn't saved a dime.

Rubio's provision has undeniably produced pain, especially among nonprofit co-op health plans that were created under the ACA to provide competition in some state marketplaces. In terms of enrollment, some of these plans were immensely successful -- the co-op serving Iowa and Nebraska had 80,000 customers last year, nearly eight times what it expected. But they tended to be financially shaky, as was expected at first.

They've been devastated by the shortfall in risk corridor funds. As healthcare expert Timothy Jost reported (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/11/20/risk-corridor-payments-unitedhealth-cooperatives-and-the-marketplaces/), the Colorado co-op got only $184,000 on its nearly $16 million in risk corridor claims; Kentucky's recovered only $9.7 million of $77 million in claims. The Iowa-Nebraska co-op got $16 million to cover $140 million in claims. The New York Freelancers CO-OP received about $19 million on $150 million in claims. So they've shut down, leaving their patients high and dry.

As Bagley states, "Marco Rubio hasn’t killed Obamacare and he hasn’t saved taxpayers any money. All he’s done is throw a wrench in the works."

, the Rubio rider is worse than an innocuous complication for the ACA; it actually will cost taxpayers money.

That's because (among other things) the disappearance of the co-ops willreduce competition in their old markets, raising premiums and requiring the government to spend more in premium subsidies for the buyers eligible for them--more than 80% of the buyers.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-no-marco-rubio-didn-t-score-20151210-column.html

Thanks, Repugs. You're ideological, fuck-everything-fuck-everybody MISgovernance is always welcomed by Americans.

[boutons_deux]

Marco Rubio enrolled under Obamacare — benefits from taxpayer-funded subsidy

Rubio campaign staffers confirmed to NBC late Thursday that he continues to accept a $10,000 federal subsidy reserved for congressional members under an Affordable Care Act exchange program.

Rubio first received criticism for accepting the subsidy back in 2013, when he attached a provision to a spending bill seeking to prevent insurance companies from receiving reimbursement owed under the law. Rubio has used the provision as a campaign tactic, arguing that he has done the most to “hurt” Obamacare of any of the presidential candidates. His critics contend (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-no-marco-rubio-didn-t-score-20151210-column.html) that blocking reimbursement for insurance plans only hurts patients who qualify for federal assistance, but Rubio says he saved taxpayers billions of dollars.

To receive health insurance from their employer (the U.S. government), federal lawmakers must enroll under Obamacare. All lawmakers were required to sign up through an exchange, under a law that Republicans introduced in 2009 to try to embarrass Democrats for supporting the program. Since then, many critics of the program, including presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, have refused to accept the $10,000 subsidy, in order to demonstrate their opposition.

Rubio argued back in 2013 that he was merely accepting an employer contribution like anyone else who receives health insurance at work. This is correct (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjibEkDoXQc), but it doesn’t exactly look good on the debate stage to rail against your employer’s policies, then reap all the benefits of those policies when opting out is a perfectly acceptable option.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/marco-rubio-enrolled-under-obamacare-benefits-from-taxpayer-funded-subsidy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Rubio puts his mouth and actions where other people's money is, not his own.

Haven't Congress critters had 5-star, gold-plated health insurance for many years? who put their $10K subsidy into ACA?

[TeyshaBlue]

Ummm...it's an employer subsidy, not an ACA subsidy. His employer......the Fed.

PS....he's not alone.

[boutons_deux]

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin says Obamacarenot working—70 percent of Kentuckians disagree (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/11/1459192/-Kentucky-Governor-Matt-Bevin-says-Obamacare-not-working-70-of-Kentuckians-disagree)

A new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that 72 percent of all Kentuckians want to keep Medicaid the same, opposing Gov. Matt Bevin’s calls to repeal or change the program in Kentucky. Kentucky is rare among southern states in that leadership under Democratic former Gov. Steve Beshear chose to expand Medicaid to cover low-income healthy adults and run the state health insurance marketplace. The innovative program used re-branding (changing its state marketplace name to Kynect) to market to citizens who demonstrated an aversion to “Obamacare,” but less so to its central policies.

Bevin ran on a platform (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kentucky-confronts-the-consequences-its-decision) to dismantle Kynect and roll back the Medicaid expansion and won handily (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/kentucky-governor-race-matt-bevin-wins-215502)in November’s election. However, his constituents now oppose some of these core policy points. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation survey (http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/survey-of-kentucky-residents-on-state-health-policy/):

The poll finds that Kentuckians are divided, leaning negative in their views of the ACA in general (41 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable), but they feel more positively about the two biggest ways the law has played out in their state.

Over six in ten (63 percent) have a favorable view of the Medicaid expansion, and more have a favorable than an unfavorable view of Kynect (42 percent versus 28 percent, with 29 percent saying they don’t know enough to say).

Asked about next steps, more than seven in ten residents (72 percent) say they would prefer to keep the state’s Medicaid program as it is today rather than change it to cover fewer people.

One in five (20 percent) would prefer to scale back the program so that fewer people are covered.

When it comes to the health insurance marketplace, about half (52 percent) want the new governor to keep Kynect, while roughly a quarter (26 percent) would prefer to switch to the federal marketplace and 18 percent aren’t sure.

As in the nation as a whole, Kentuckians’ views on the ACA and its provisions divide sharply along party lines.

However, when it comes to Medicaid, even 54 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of those who say they voted for Governor Bevin would prefer to keep Medicaid as it is today rather than scale it back to cover fewer people.


The survey also shows the general effectiveness of the re-brand, :lol

noting disapproval for policies known as “Obamacare” or the “Affordable Care Act” :lol but

approval for Kynect and the Medicaid expansion, :lol

two policies that are a part of the ACA.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/11/1459192/-Kentucky-Governor-Matt-Bevin-says-Obamacare-not-working-70-of-Kentuckians-disagree?detail=email

goddam, you red staters, slave staters are fucking stupid, ignorant.

[boutons_deux]

TX Repug DEATH PANEL news

Gains in health insurance across Texas fall behind rest of US, new report shows

Low-income Texans see lowest decrease in uninsured rate from 2013 to 2015


The rate of adults without health insurance across the US dropped nearly twice as much as in Texas from 2013 to 2015, according to a new report. The report found that since enrollment began in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in September 2013, the adult uninsured rate in the U.S. fell by 41 percent. Researchers found Texas' uninsured rate dropped just 21 percent during the same time.

The rate of adults without health insurance across the U.S. dropped nearly twice as much as in Texas from 2013 to 2015, according to a new report released today by Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and the Episcopal Health Foundation (EHF).

The report found that since enrollment began in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in September 2013, the adult uninsured rate in the U.S. fell by 41 percent. Researchers found Texas' uninsured rate dropped just 21 percent during the same time.

"The good news is that Texans, like all Americans, saw meaningful drops in the rates of uninsured since the ACA began," said Elena Marks, president and CEO of the EHF and a nonresident health policy fellow at the Baker Institute. "However, Texas still has the most uninsured adults in the nation, and Texans with the lowest incomes continue to get health-insurance coverage at a rate far below anyone else."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151217143522.htm


then add in 1000s of additional unwanted pregnances and 20K more abortions/year because of TX Repugs closing health clinics, what's not to love?

[Winehole23]

premiums rising in MA. Obamacare's achilles heel is that it doesn't control costs.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/01/03/health-care-costs-rising-faster/WUfquz4gBEjncURDm20b6L/story.html

[boutons_deux]

premiums rising in MA. Obamacare's achilles heel is that it doesn't control costs.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/01/03/health-care-costs-rising-faster/WUfquz4gBEjncURDm20b6L/story.html

ACA was only an attempt to "bend the curve" of costs down. There certainly savings in poor people getting preventative, early detection care before they get much more expensively sick, but not enough to offset BigMedicine looting America.

[Winehole23]

so much for affordability

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They need to expand the insurance commissions of the 50 states. They already have actuarial control over P&C and life so it's not like they are reinventing the wheel. Until corporate lobbying becomes illegal or otherwise severely curtailed it will never happen.

[boutons_deux]

so much for affordability

... was NEVER the primary goal of ACA. If ACA had drug price regulation limits (like allowing govt to negotiate as single buyer), or anything that touched BigMed's looting, BigMed would have killed ACA like it killed Hillary's health plan. BigCorp runs the USA, not the govt.

[tlongII]

... was NEVER the primary goal of ACA. If ACA had drug price regulation limits (like allowing govt to negotiate as single buyer), or anything that touched BigMed's looting, BigMed would have killed ACA like it killed Hillary's health plan. BigCorp runs the USA, not the govt.

Uh, isn't it called The Affordable Care Act?

[boutons_deux]

Uh, isn't it called The Affordable Care Act?

ACA made insurance (subsidized) affordable for poor people so they could get timely medical care without being bankrupted. ACA didn't target the price of medical CARE, only insurance for poor people.

Uh, isn't Repugs' (black, brown) Voter Suppression called Voter Fraud Suppression?

[boutons_deux]

Repug death panels report

A wretched example of American exceptionalism: Our poor showing on maternal mortality (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/2/1459961/-A-wretched-example-of-American-exceptionalism-Our-poor-showing-on-maternal-mortality)

A United Nations report (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52532#.Vm4oWuMrJPv) released in November had some very good news for most of the world in terms of maternal mortality in the past 25 years:

“Over the past 25 years, a woman’s risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes has nearly halved,” said Dr. Flavia Bustreo, WHO Assistant Director-General, Family, Women’s and Children’s Health. “That’s real progress, although it is not enough. We know that we can virtually end these deaths by 2030 and this is what we are committing to work towards.”


Nearly halved, as in reduced by 44 percent. To be more exact, maternal deaths—those that occur during pregnancy or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy—globally fell from about 532,000 in 1990 to some 303,000 in 2015, according to the report. Sierra Leone is estimated to have the highest rate at 1,360. Some other examples: There were 1,340 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in Afghanistan in 1990; this year that number is 396. In Guatemala, the rate of maternal deaths was 205 in 1990 vs. 88 in 2015. In France, the rate was 15 in 1990 and 8 in 2015. Measured across all countries, the rate worldwide is 216 deaths per 100,000 births. While that is still a huge number, progress has been remarkable. Still, 99 percent of the world’s maternal deaths occur in developing nations.

A dozen of those developing nations—including Zimbabwe, Venezuela and North Korea—showed an increase in maternal deaths during the period measured by the report, whose research was led by the World Health Organization. Only one developed nation did, the United States.

That’s right, the nation with the biggest economy, and that spends the most money per capita on health care of any other nation except Switzerland and Norway, saw maternal deaths rise from 12 per 100,000 in 1990 to 14 in 2015, twice the rate of Canada.

That puts the United States behind 45 other nations, including all but three of the 34 nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/list-oecd-member-countries.htm). In 24 nations, the rate is half that of the United States.


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/2/1459961/-A-wretched-example-of-American-exceptionalism-Our-poor-showing-on-maternal-mortality?detail=email

[rmt]

ACA made insurance (subsidized) affordable for poor people so they could get timely medical care without being bankrupted. ACA didn't target the price of medical CARE, only insurance for poor people.

Uh, isn't Repugs' (black, brown) Voter Suppression called Voter Fraud Suppression?

So it's only affordable for poor people (even this is doubtful with deductibles and copays) but not the rest of us? Paying for UNNECESSARY mandated benefits that people will never use is mostly what's driving up the price. Sooner or later, it'll be too expensive, people will stop buying and insurance companies will exit the market. Can't happen soon enough.

[boutons_deux]

BigMed Looting Americans

Lost Jobs, Houses, Savings: Even Insured Often Face Crushing Medical Debt

Here is the surest way to enjoy the peace of mind that comes with havinghealth insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier): Don’t get sick.
The number of uninsured Americans has fallen by an estimated 15 million (https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/health-insurance-coverage-and-affordable-care-act-september-2015)since 2013, thanks largely to the Affordable Care Act. But a new survey, the first detailed study of Americans struggling with medical bills, shows that insurance often fails as a safety net. Health plans often require hundreds or thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket payments — sums that can create a cascade of financial troubles for the many households living paycheck to paycheck.

roughly 20 percent of people under age 65 with health insurance nonetheless reported having problems paying their medical bills over the last year. By comparison, 53 percent of people without insurance said the same.

“We’re at a point where there’s been slow growth in health care costs and huge improvements in the numbers of people who have health insurance,” said Sara Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, a health research group. “But there is this underlying trend towards higher cost sharing that could put increasing numbers of people at risk for being underinsured.”

Among those who reported having problems paying their bills despite having insurance, 63 percent said they used up all or most of their savings; 42 percent took on an extra job or more work hours; 14 percent moved or took in roommates; and 11 percent turned to charity.

The health law has led to a decline in the number of Americans suffering financial stress (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/probs_paying_medical_bills_jan_2011_jun_2014.pdf) from health problems, thanks to the new options for receiving coverage, especially for the poor. But the problem is still widespread, touching roughly a quarter of Americans under 65, when the insured and uninsured are looked at together. Americans older than 65 are covered by Medicare (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), which more frequently protects people from major financial trouble.

Unlike other polls, which have focused on the ways that insurance affects health care, the new Times-Kaiser survey explored the effects of medical bills on people’s daily lives well beyond the medical system. We found that medical bills don’t just keep people from filling prescriptions and scheduling doctors’ visits (http://www.gallup.com/poll/187190/cost-delays-healthcare-one-three.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_WELLBEING&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles). They can also prompt deep financial and personal sacrifices, affecting their housing, employment, credit and daily lives. Kaiser has released a report today (http://kff.org/health-costs/report/the-burden-of-medical-debt-results-from-the-kaiser-family-foundationnew-york-times-medical-bills-survey), detailing the survey’s main findings about this population.

“The major impact is actually a pocketbook or economic impact: their ability to pay the rent or the mortgage or buy food,” said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The rates at which people with medical bill problems sought charity or borrowed money from friends was similar among people earning less than $25,000 and those earning more than $100,000.

Medical Problems Lead to Financial Sacrifices

People who reported problems paying medical bills in the last year told pollsters they’d done the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/lost-jobs-houses-savings-even-insured-often-face-crushing-medical-debt.html?_r=0&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

Just more DATA that America is fucked and unfuckable.

[boutons_deux]

For working-age cancer survivors, debt and bankruptcy are common

One third of working-age cancer survivors go into debt, and 3 percent file for bankruptcy, according to a new study.

Cancer care costs have increased two to three times faster than other healthcare expenses in recent years in the U.S., the authors wrote. The average monthly cost of a new cancer therapy agent is now $10,000 and can be as high as $60,000.

Using 2012 survey data from 4,719 cancer survivors ages 18 to 64, Dr. Matthew P. Banegas at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Oregon and colleagues found that one-third had gone into debt because of cancer, and in more than half of those cases, the debt was above $10,000. Three percent had filed for bankruptcy.

Younger age, lower income and public health insurance increased the risk of debt or bankruptcy, the researchers reported in Health Affairs.

A previous study found that bankruptcy rates are more than two times higher for people with a history of cancer than for others.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-financing-idUSKBN0UJ24F20160105?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews

[boutons_deux]

Actelion sees Uptravi price of $160,000-170,000/patient

Swiss drug company Actelion expects an average annual per-patient price for its new pulmonary arterial hypertension medicine in the United States of $160,000 to $170,000, before rebates, Chief Operating Officer Otto Schwarz told analysts on Tuesday.

The drug, Uptravi, won approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last month and went on sale this week, giving doctors another option to treat the deadly disease that kills victims within a few years.

Actelion declined to give forecasts for Uptravi's average price after rebates or say how many patients could be eligible annually for the treatment to open pulmonary arteries, easing pressure on the heart.

However, Schwarz said Uptravi will likely compete for treating a group of intermediate-stage disease sufferers who number around 3,800 people in the United States and now get inhaled treatments.

"There is an influx of new patients in this segment," Schwarz said, predicting physicians will prescribe Uptravi for them before progressing to an inhaled treatment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-actelion-pah-prices-idUSKBN0UJ1SQ20160105?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews

I can't find a price in Europe, but it will certainly be lower than in USA, as all drugs are.

[boutons_deux]

Study: ObamaCare not shifting workers to part-time jobs

ObamaCare has not caused employers to shift workers into part-time work, according to a new study.

The study, released Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs, examines the claim made by critics of the law that employers will make more people work part-time in order to avoid having to give them health insurance.The law mandates that employers provide health insurance for people working 30 hours or more per week. This had sparked reports that some employers would cut hours to avoid paying out insurance.

However, the study, which looks at data from the Current Population Survey, does not find evidence to support suggestions the law would have such an effect.

The authors write that their study finds “no evidence consistent with the thesis that the ACA caused an overall increase in part-time employment in the United States.”

The probability of working 25-29 hours a week has stayed essentially flat over the last few years, even after the employer mandate went into effect in 2015. The probability of working 30-34 hours also did not decrease.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/264841-study-obamacare-not-shifting-workers-to-part-time-jobs

[TeyshaBlue]

Of course, you left out this part.
"The employer mandate, which was delayed from its original start in 2014, went into effect for employers with 100 or more workers in 2015. It only just went into effect, at the start of 2016, for employers with 50-99 workers, so it is possible more effects will emerge over time."

[boutons_deux]

Of course, you left out this part.
"The employer mandate, which was delayed from its original start in 2014, went into effect for employers with 100 or more workers in 2015. It only just went into effect, at the start of 2016, for employers with 50-99 workers, so it is possible more effects will emerge over time."

we'll see

Congress will pass destruction of ACA soon, Obama will veto. Repugs wasted their time, taxpayer $Ms with symbolic bullshit. Vote Repug, America will always regret it.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes. We'll see. Keep the touchdown dances in your pants for now.

[boutons_deux]

Barry's beloved ACA made 'em do it!It's all Obamacare's fault! :lol

Pfizer hikes U.S. prices for over 100 drugs on January 1

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-prices-idUSKBN0UM2FU20160108?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews

[boutons_deux]

The GOP’s Obamacare alternative?


http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/ratio--3-2--830x553/public/503902824.jpg?itok=_O3UqE7k

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-gops-obamacare-alternative-dont-hold-your-breath?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[rmt]

Here you go, boutons, even Politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/gaming-obamacare-insurance-health-care-217598

And even healthy people can game the system - make sure you adjust w-4 to not get tax refund, sign up in Dec., go to PCP in Jan, run labs, do procedures (colonoscopy, pap smear, mammogram, etc for free) and then cancel for February onwards. Rinse and repeat next December.

[boutons_deux]

Here you go, boutons, even Politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/gaming-obamacare-insurance-health-care-217598

And even healthy people can game the system - make sure you adjust w-4 to not get tax refund, sign up in Dec., go to PCP in Jan, run labs, do procedures (colonoscopy, pap smear, mammogram, etc for free) and then cancel for February onwards. Rinse and repeat next December.

all that is fixable, and anyway much smaller by $100Bs than the Medicare/Medicaid fraud by docs, clinics, hospital corps.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/11/rick-scott-alex-sink-florida

[boutons_deux]

Repugs, LEGENDARY job creators! :lol , said ACA was going to destroy jobs, destroy America

So much for the ‘Obamacare hurts job creation’ argument
http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/1.14.16.jpg?itok=P5PQ2PGG

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/so-much-the-obamacare-hurts-job-creation-argument?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Bobby Jindal left office today. 100,000 residents of Louisiana will gain health care tomorrow.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/bobby-jindal-left-office-today-100000-louisiana-residents-will-gain-health-care-tomorrow/23509/

Thanks to Dem guv John bel Edwards

[rmt]

Repugs, LEGENDARY job creators! :lol , said ACA was going to destroy jobs, destroy America

So much for the ‘Obamacare hurts job creation’ argument
http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/1.14.16.jpg?itok=P5PQ2PGG

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/so-much-the-obamacare-hurts-job-creation-argument?cid=sm_fb_maddow






upward economic/social mobility in USA is declining, is now less than it is in Europe.

10Ms of people work hard in 1 or 2 shitty jobs, and see no way to upward.

Even people with somewhat decent jobs are again going into serious debt, average credit card debt is over $10K, and their real income continues to decline.




Please think about what kind of jobs these are if income has dropped. That's right - probably mostly part-time, low-paying jobs. See where my dd interned last summer - all internships were 28 hour jobs. Stupid repubs helped delay the Cadillac tax - should've left it alone to crash Obamacare sooner.

[CosmicCowboy]

Compare the frequency of mass shootings to the passing of the ACA.

Clearly the ACA is responsible for mass shootings.

That makes just as much sense as giving ACA credit for job growth in the same period.



https://i2.wp.com/thesocietypages.org/feminist/files/2015/07/Mass-Shootings-Frequency.png

[Th'Pusher]

Compare the frequency of mass shootings to the passing of the ACA.

Clearly the ACA is responsible for mass shootings.

That makes just as much sense as giving ACA credit for job growth in the same period.



Who made the claim the ACA would create jobs? Republicans were claiming the ACA would destroy jobs, which clearly hasn't happened.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who made the claim the ACA would create jobs? Republicans were claiming the ACA would destroy jobs, which clearly hasn't happened.

How do you know? It's relative. Maybe more jobs would have been created without it. None of us can prove or disprove the result.

I do know it led to the creation of a lot of 28 hour work weeks.

[Th'Pusher]

How do you know? It's relative. Maybe more jobs would have been created without it. None of us can prove or disprove the result.

I do know it led to the creation of a lot of 28 hour work weeks.

A bit dated, but still relevant: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/

the point is republicans were shitting their pants claiming the ACA was the end of the world and a massive job killer. The reality is it isn't. That's just a fact.

[Winehole23]

overstating the case leads to disappointment, but only if people are willing to look at the results.

they aren't. it's easier to stick with fixed ideas.

[Winehole23]

and idiotic correlations, like the passage of the ACA and mass killings.

[angrydude]

and idiotic correlations, like the passage of the ACA and mass killings.

You realize that was his point right?

Speaking of idiotic...

[boutons_deux]

I do know it led to the creation of a lot of 28 hour work weeks.

have a useless anecdote, or a real study?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/

any cutting of hours would be totally eliminated if Bernie's universal govt health insurance were implemented. employers could get out of the employee group health insurance completely. But, no, America is broken, and BigInsurance pays to keep it broken.

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare Is Spurring Startups and Creating Jobs

More than 90 new health-care companies employing as many as 6,200 people have been created in the U.S. since Obamacare became law, a level of entrepreneurial activity that participants say may be unprecedented for the industry.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-20/dozens-of-startups-in-obamacare-s-wake-reveal-law-as-job-creator

[CosmicCowboy]

and idiotic correlations, like the passage of the ACA and mass killings.

like the passage of the ACA and job creation

I thought you were smart enough that I wouldn't have to post it in blue.

[CosmicCowboy]

Obamacare Is Spurring Startups and Creating Jobs

More than 90 new health-care companies employing as many as 6,200 people have been created in the U.S. since Obamacare became law, a level of entrepreneurial activity that participants say may be unprecedented for the industry.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-20/dozens-of-startups-in-obamacare-s-wake-reveal-law-as-job-creator



*gasp*

6200 out of 10 million

[Th'Pusher]

*gasp*

6200 out of 10 million

Was the ACA a job killer as predicted by so many on the right?

Marco Rubio is apparently living in an alternate reality as he called is a job destroyer in the debate just last night.

[CosmicCowboy]

Was the ACA a job killer as predicted by so many on the right?

Marco Rubio is apparently living in an alternate reality as he called is a job destroyer in the debate just last night.

There is no way of knowing. Would the job numbers be much higher without ACA?

I don't know and you and Boo don't know, so logically neither side has a claim to being "right".

[boutons_deux]

There is no way of knowing. Would the job numbers be much higher without ACA?

I don't know and you and Boo don't know, so logically neither side has a claim to being "right".

I can play your silly game: would the job number been so much higher if Repugs hadn't blocked further fiscal stimulus, and instead applied austerity at all levels of gobt, esp education and health care?

Repugs are the true JOB KILLERS, the anti-CREATORS

[CosmicCowboy]

I can play your silly game: would the job number been so much higher if Repugs hadn't blocked further fiscal stimulus, and instead applied austerity at all levels of gobt, esp education and health care?

Repugs are the true JOB KILLERS, the anti-CREATORS

If you call having a strong dollar relative to the rest of the world (which does affect exports) then it has certainly killed some jobs. At the same time it has made a lot of consumer goods including energy relatively cheaper for the average American.

[boutons_deux]

Healthcare Jobs Just Grew At Fastest Pace Since 1991

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/dandiamond/files/2015/06/HospitalJobsGrowth2.png

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/06/05/hospitals-jobs-growth-is-suddenly-booming/#2715e4857a0b5c1519683bce

[CosmicCowboy]

Healthcare Jobs Just Grew At Fastest Pace Since 1991

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/dandiamond/files/2015/06/HospitalJobsGrowth2.png

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/06/05/hospitals-jobs-growth-is-suddenly-booming/#2715e4857a0b5c1519683bce

Hey Booshit....heard of the baby boom? They are older and sicker.

Duh

[boutons_deux]

Hey Booshit....heard of the baby boom? They are older and sicker.

Duh

Certainly, fat, diseased Americans contribute, but 10Ms now have access to healthcare due to ACA, and reports say the are using it.

A big obstacle is still the exorbitant costs from your adored BigPharma/BigMedicine/BigInsurance, even with ACA helping. Deducitibles, copays, drugs are still a kick in the head for people in poverty.

But kicking poor people in the head is one of America's, esp Repugs' and Christian Taliban's, most beloved activities.

[CosmicCowboy]

Certainly, fat, diseased Americans contribute, but 10Ms now have access to healthcare due to ACA, and reports say the are using it.

A big obstacle is still the exorbitant costs from your adored BigPharma/BigMedicine/BigInsurance, even with ACA helping. Deducitibles, copays, drugs are still a kick in the head for people in poverty.

But kicking poor people in the head is one of America's, esp Repugs' and Christian Taliban's, most beloved activities.

sorry about your headache.

[boutons_deux]

Big Pharma Spent $27 Billion Marketing to Doctors in 2012…Here’s More

“Drug companies are like high school boyfriends. They’re more interested in getting inside you than in being effective once they are there.”

http://naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/OpenPayments_SA_Infographic_730.jpg

http://naturalsociety.com/john-oliver-big-pharma-doctors-bribes/?utm_source=Natural+Society&utm_campaign=e630b13716-Why_Chipotle_Shutting_Down_Feb_8th1_15_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f20e6f9c84-e630b13716-324066477

[boutons_deux]

U.S. top court rejects new challenge to Obamacare

The U.S. Supreme Court, which delivered major rulings in 2012 and 2015 preserving President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, on Tuesday declined to take up a new, long-shot challenge to Obamacare brought by an Iowa artist.

The court turned away an appeal by Matt Sissel, who had asserted that the 2010 Affordable Care Act violated the U.S. Constitution's requirement that revenue-raising legislation must originate in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate, as the healthcare law did.

The high court left in place a 2014 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholding a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit, which was backed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group. The suit targeted the law's "individual mandate" that Americans obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-obamacare-idUSKCN0UX1X0?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

VRWC rightwingnuts brought the suit http://www.pacificlegal.org/sentry/Affordable-Care-Act-critics-and-supporters-are-raising-concerns-on-Obamacare

[boutons_deux]

How a huge insurance company screwed up on Obamacare

UnitedHealth Group is the nation's biggest private health insurer, so when its executives started whining last year about how it was losing millions onAffordable Care Act (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/healthcare/healthcare-policies-laws/affordable-care-act-%28obamacare%29-EVGAP00039-topic.html) exchange plans and threatened to leave the ACA market as early as 2017, people took notice. Even Obamacare devotees wondered whether United's experience signaled deeper problems with the ACA exchanges generally. Obamacare's critics gorged on United's words and still do:

As recently as last week, the Wall Street Journal's editorial writers lamented that "the ObamaCare money-pit sunk [United's] year-over-year profit margin to 3.7% from 4.3%." They blamed, among other things, the ACA's "bureaucratic nuisance."

We were skeptical (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-big-insurer-is-threatening-to-pull-out-of-obamacare-20151119-column.html) of United's complaint about the ACA, arguing that it "may say a lot more about the company than the law." Now there's more evidence for that. Analysts at the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center have taken a close look at the pricing and design of United's Obamacare policies (http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/5000591-What-Does-the-Failure-of-Some-Coops-and-the-Possible-Pullout-of-United-Healthcare-Mean-for-theAffordable-Care-Act.pdf) and concluded that the company shot itself in the foot.

In addition, they concluded that United is such a marginal player in the individual exchange market that its departure won't matter very much.

The Urban Institute critique coincides with a broadside fired at the company by Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, the state's ACA exchange and a distinct Obamacare success story.

"Instead of saying, 'We screwed up,' they said, 'Obamacare is the problem and we may not play anymore,'" Lee told Chad Terhune of California Healthline (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/03/465330030/california-exchange-chief-rips-unitedhealth-for-obamacare-excuses).

"It was giving an excuse to Wall Street and throwing the Affordable Care Act under the bus." The company's words, he added, have "fed this political frenzy that Obamacare doesn't work. It's total spin and unanchored in reality."

United, which specializes in large-group employer health plans, came into the individual exchange market reluctantly — and, as Urban Institute analysts imply, ineptly. The company seldom offered the lowest or second-lowest prices in the markets it did enter, but did offer "a broader-than-average provider network." These two features discouraged enrollment by customers who were younger or in relatively good health, for whom price is the chief concern. But it attracted sicker customers, for whom the widest choice of doctors is paramount.

In any event, United didn't offer wider networks for some public-spirited reason; they did so because they were incompetent at designing health plans for the individual market. They're blaming the market for their own mistakes, which is a bit like a football team blaming the scoreboard for showing that it's losing 52-0.

Back in December, Covered California's Lee pointed out to me another aspect of United's poor planning (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-new-obamacare-myth-20151201-column.html): It plunged into markets that had allowed old health plans to be grandfathered. That left the risk pools in those states fragmented, and hurt the profitability of ACA-compliant plans. California didn't do that, and its ACA plans are generally profitable as a result. In any event, grandfathering will end this year.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-56b36c9b/turbine/la-fi-mh-insurance-company-screwed-up-on-obama-002/750/750x422

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-insurance-company-screwed-up-on-obamacare-20160203-column.html

[rmt]

Aetna joins UnitedHealth in warning about Obamacare failing

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/aetna-joins-growing-chorus-warning-about-obamacare-failing/

[ElNono]

Aetna still made a solid profit on the exchanges, they're just not making as much as they thought they would:

"Great question. Let me first highlight that this revenue shortfall is almost predominantly associated with the lack of growth on the public exchanges. I can't emphasize that point enough. And ultimately, that would be the one area I would say, while we're projecting profitability still in 2016, clearly at margins below what we think are the long-term margins for sustainable program and product. So that would be the one area I would point to relative to yield. We are still able to cover our cost of capital on them and be profitable, but we're looking forward to some of the structural changes that I know the administration is looking at to make these programs even more viable in the long term."

Wayne DeVeydt, Anthem, Inc. - EVP & CFO


They just make more money off Medicare, and this is where the whole conundrum between profit motive and health comes to a head. Barrycare did nothing to address cost, while keeping all the same profit driven middle-men, and that is it's biggest failure.
Insurance companies will care first and foremost about margins and profitability. Nothing wrong with that, they're a business, that's what they should do.
But, they couldn't care less about quality of service or patients' needs or outcomes. They squeeze providers as much as they can and try to pocket the difference. In that sense, it's the same perverse system we had before Barrycare, with the difference being they whine now because their margins are not as good, despite plans being absolute shit in general, with deductibles so high that if you don't make a lot of money, you're basically paying out of pocket unless it's something catastrophic. And most people just need regular care (beetus patients need their insulin, check that flu at the doc, check that back pain, etc).

On the other hand, I hope these companies start failing one after the other, and basically people express with their wallets that this shit isn't going to cut it. It's the only way we're going to get the powers that be to actually start looking at cost, the middle-men, etc. I think as far as stirring up the hornet's nest, that was a positive of Barrycare.

[Winehole23]

incremental progress. that's the HRC slogan.

[boutons_deux]

‘Obamacare’ enrollment points to continued success

When the first open-enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act began in October 2013, it failed miserably thanks largely to a website that simply didn’t work. After a month, an underwhelming total of 106,185 consumers signed up for insurance through an exchange.

And Republicans thought this was hilarious. The GOP’s “Obamacare” critics, not at all shy about rooting for failure, openly mocked (http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/190166-republicans-mock-obamacare-enrollment-figures) the system, pointing to sports venues with more than 106,185 seats. For the right, low enrollment totals stood as undeniable proof that the Affordable Care Act was “hurtling toward failure (https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/443876864395075584),” and conservatives could hardly contain their glee.

A little more than two years later, the right’s laughter has disappeared (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/nearly-13-million-sign-obamacare-health-insurance-n511521) – right along with the low enrollment totals.

About 12.7 million Americans signed up for 2016 health insurance coverage through the government insurance exchanges,
surpassing its expectations, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said on Thursday.

That means Republicans running in this year’s elections may find it harder to deliver on their promise of repeal, while Democrats may yet be able to tap the newly insured as a voting constituency.


“Open enrollment for 2016 is over and we are happy to report it was a success,” Burwell told reporters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-million-enroll-obamacare_us_56b3a063e4b01d80b2457abf). “It’s clear that marketplace coverage is a product that people do want and need.”

Going into the open-enrollment period, the Obama administration projected totals between 11 million and 14 million, and yesterday’s announcement put the actual figure almost exactly between those two points.

So far, I haven’t seen any congressional Republicans pointing to stadiums that can hold 12.7 million people. Maybe they’re still looking.

The Huffington Post’s Jeffrey Young, who took a deeper dive into the new numbers, added yesterday (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-million-enroll-obamacare_us_56b3a063e4b01d80b2457abf), “[M]easured by its performance expanding health coverage to Americans who previously lacked it, Obamacare is working. Since health insurance plans from these exchanges and coverage from expanded Medicaid took effect at the beginning of 2014, the uninsured rate sharply dropped. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates 17.6 million more people were covered as of the third quarter of 2015 than at the end of 2013.”

For an even more granular look, don’t miss the analysis (http://acasignups.net/16/02/05/2016-open-enrollment-tally-127m-or-130m-or-134m-depending-pov) from Charles Gaba at ACA Signups.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obamacare-enrollment-points-continued-success?cid=sm_fb_maddow

But the Repug blind ideology / robot-speak is that they MUST and the WILL repeal ACA in entirety, ASAP.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/1613927_651012104963981_1372131227_n_zpsyazyao0t.j pg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/1613927_651012104963981_1372131227_n_zpsyazyao0t.j pg.html)

[boutons_deux]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/1613927_651012104963981_1372131227_n_zpsyazyao0t.j pg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/1613927_651012104963981_1372131227_n_zpsyazyao0t.j pg.html)

and your solution to the BigHealth ripoff? To millions of moocher/taker people not buying insurance but getting their diseases and care bailed about taxpayers?

[TeyshaBlue]

Shell game. Still paying for healthcare for those peeps.

[boutons_deux]

Shell game. Still paying for healthcare for those peeps.

we're all paying for the uninsured anyway.

[SpursforSix]

and your solution to the BigHealth ripoff? To millions of moocher/taker people not buying insurance but getting their diseases and care bailed about taxpayers?

Ironic coming from the bitchmaster. You've never proposed a solution for anything.

[rmt]

‘Obamacare’ enrollment points to continued success

When the first open-enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act began in October 2013, it failed miserably thanks largely to a website that simply didn’t work. After a month, an underwhelming total of 106,185 consumers signed up for insurance through an exchange.

And Republicans thought this was hilarious. The GOP’s “Obamacare” critics, not at all shy about rooting for failure, openly mocked (http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/190166-republicans-mock-obamacare-enrollment-figures) the system, pointing to sports venues with more than 106,185 seats. For the right, low enrollment totals stood as undeniable proof that the Affordable Care Act was “hurtling toward failure (https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/443876864395075584),” and conservatives could hardly contain their glee.

A little more than two years later, the right’s laughter has disappeared (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/nearly-13-million-sign-obamacare-health-insurance-n511521) – right along with the low enrollment totals.

About 12.7 million Americans signed up for 2016 health insurance coverage through the government insurance exchanges,
surpassing its expectations, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said on Thursday.

That means Republicans running in this year’s elections may find it harder to deliver on their promise of repeal, while Democrats may yet be able to tap the newly insured as a voting constituency.


“Open enrollment for 2016 is over and we are happy to report it was a success,” Burwell told reporters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-million-enroll-obamacare_us_56b3a063e4b01d80b2457abf). “It’s clear that marketplace coverage is a product that people do want and need.”

Going into the open-enrollment period, the Obama administration projected totals between 11 million and 14 million, and yesterday’s announcement put the actual figure almost exactly between those two points.

So far, I haven’t seen any congressional Republicans pointing to stadiums that can hold 12.7 million people. Maybe they’re still looking.

The Huffington Post’s Jeffrey Young, who took a deeper dive into the new numbers, added yesterday (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-million-enroll-obamacare_us_56b3a063e4b01d80b2457abf), “[M]easured by its performance expanding health coverage to Americans who previously lacked it, Obamacare is working. Since health insurance plans from these exchanges and coverage from expanded Medicaid took effect at the beginning of 2014, the uninsured rate sharply dropped. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates 17.6 million more people were covered as of the third quarter of 2015 than at the end of 2013.”

For an even more granular look, don’t miss the analysis (http://acasignups.net/16/02/05/2016-open-enrollment-tally-127m-or-130m-or-134m-depending-pov) from Charles Gaba at ACA Signups.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obamacare-enrollment-points-continued-success?cid=sm_fb_maddow

But the Repug blind ideology / robot-speak is that they MUST and the WILL repeal ACA in entirety, ASAP.




What you neglect to mention is that CBO's estimate was 21 million. The administration knew it would never meet this lofty estimate and projected the above. So getting 12.7 million falls way below what CBO estimated - 40% lower than expected. CBO estimated 24 million for 2017 - they'll get nowhere near that. (Free) Medicaid, otoh, is 20% higher than CBO expected. Gee, I wonder why things turned out this way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/upshot/budget-office-lowers-its-forecast-for-obamacare-enrollment.html?_r=0

[boutons_deux]

Ironic coming from the bitchmaster. You've never proposed a solution for anything.

I've been for destroying the for profit BigHealthInsurer and going full bore public option/govt health insurace/medicare for all.

Universal health coverage as a birthright, just like in adult countries.

Instead of employers skimming salaries, before tax, to send to BigHealthInsurer, they stop that and would simply increase their 1.9% Medicare payroll tax and send it to the govt, just like now.

what's your solution?

[SpursforSix]

I've been for destroying the for profit BigHealthInsurer and going full bore public option/govt health insurace/medicare for all.

Universal health coverage as a birthright, just like in adult countries.

Instead of employers skimming salaries, before tax, to send to BigHealthInsurer, they stop that and would simply increase their 1.9% Medicare payroll tax and send it to the govt, just like now.

what's your solution?

Sure let's reward people for filling their bodies full of shit and being lazy by burdening everyone.

[SpursforSix]

I've been for destroying the for profit BigHealthInsurer and going full bore public option/govt health insurace/medicare for all.

Universal health coverage as a birthright, just like in adult countries.

Instead of employers skimming salaries, before tax, to send to BigHealthInsurer, they stop that and would simply increase their 1.9% Medicare payroll tax and send it to the govt, just like now.

what's your solution?

I don't have a solution. It's a fucked up system and I don't know that it's fixable.

[boutons_deux]

Sure let's reward people for filling their bodies full of shit and being lazy by burdening everyone.

:lol thanks, very helpful.

so people eat, drink S A D from BigFood and get sick and/or smoke, so you don't want to reward them.

you're are already paying for them whether you or they have insurance, or not.

[SpursforSix]

:lol thanks, very helpful.

so people eat, drink S A D from BigFood and get sick and/or smoke, so you don't want to reward them.

you're are already paying for them whether you or they have insurance, or not.

So your solution is give them more. Very helpful.

[boutons_deux]

So your solution is give them more. Very helpful.

no, medicare for all get them ALL to pay, and gets them earlier medical care before they become much sicker and much more expensive on the taxpayers' tab.

[boutons_deux]

Did US Drug Ads Increase the Number of Depression Sufferers?

From the debut of Prozac in 1988, 10 years before direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising, one of the top-performing drug categories in the United States was depression drugs. Because depression has no drug or lab test and pop culture has convinced many that life should be one big “buzz” of extreme happiness, “depression” sailed Pharma through the 1990s and 2000s—even sometimes when people really didn’t probably have it.

Certainly, if you had money, job, and career problems, family and relationship problems, or many kinds of health problems, you could be “unhappy” but not necessarily “depressed.”

Whereas drugs like Valium and Librium were once prescribed for “anxiety,” anxiety was redefined as “really” depression during the blockbuster antidepressant years and was treated with the new drug class.

In fact, 10 years after DTC advertising began, the number of Americans on antidepressants had doubled to 27 million, or 10 percent of the population!

Nor was it probably a marketing coincidence that unlike anxiety drugs, antidepressants were not taken as needed but taken every day, for years. Ka-ching.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1939650-did-us-drug-ads-increase-the-number-of-depression-sufferers/

guns? not about safety, but about $$$

drugs? not about health, but about $$$

[Winehole23]

growth potential: Medicaid rather than state insurance exchanges



This trend not only underscores the diversity of healthcare solutions embedded in Obamacare, but may also point to its future. In Medicaid, as in Medicare (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/healthcare/medicare-HEPRG00002-topic.html), government is the single payer. It sets reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals and sets enrollment terms so that members, once enrolled, stay enrolled.


Moreover, the programs are almost entirely free or at least very inexpensive for members. That ensures that they get a lot of healthy enrollees as well as those with heavy medical needs, a mix that makes the costs of the overall insurance pool relatively stable and predictable.


These factors and others eliminate many of the uncertainties that have bedeviled insurers in the exchange market, where the health profiles of customers have been hard to gauge and their movement into and out of health plans, sometimes to Medicare and Medicaid, has been vigorous.


"It seems that insurers are perfectly happy and prosperous competing in the markets where the government is the payer," observes Andrew Sprung on his Xpostfactoid blog (https://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2016/02/what-if-all-aca-options-were-public.html). He's right. Anthem, which has been quietly grousing about the elusive profits in the exchange market, also has been buying up Medicaid insurers — acquiring Amerigroup (http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20120709/NEWS01/120709873/anthem-parent-buying-amerigroup-for-about-446b), which operates Medicaid plans in 13 states, for nearly $4.5 billion in 2012, and Simply Healthcare, with nearly 200,000 Medicaid and Medicare members in Florida, for $1 billion last year (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150218005093/en/Anthem-Completes-Acquisition-Simply-Healthcare-Holdings).


Medicaid specialty insurers such as Wellcare and Centene have done especially well, as Bruce Japsen observed recently (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/02/14/insurers-lose-billions-on-obamacare-but-not-medicaid-expansion/#484cf4126105) in Forbes. Medicaid managed care enrollment at St. Louis-based Centene grew last year by more than 20% (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=130443&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=2136632), to 5.1 million members in 24 states.


"Clearly, 2015 was a banner year," crowed its CEO, Michael Neidorff, in a conference call last week. No dissing of Obamacare was heard on the call.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-insurers-are-making-a-mint-from-obamacare-20160216-column.html

[boutons_deux]

growth potential: Medicaid rather than state insurance exchanges

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-insurers-are-making-a-mint-from-obamacare-20160216-column.html

All those $100Bs in profits to private insurers working the Medicaid area would be

1) absent

or

2) going, in much reduced volume, to the govt with public option/single payer.

[Winehole23]

you didn't read the article, did you?

[boutons_deux]

you didn't read the article, did you?

I, way ahead of you, read the article the day it was published.

[rmt]

Obama propping up the insurance companies:

http://www.atr.org/government-illegally-diverts-billions-obamacare-reinsurance-slush-fund

[Winehole23]

anecdotal: ACA crapifies healthcare, premiums and deductibles increasingly unaffordable

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/obamacare-and-the-crapification-of-health-care-a-case-study-and-a-growing-collection-of-horror-stories.html

[boutons_deux]

anecdotal: ACA crapifies healthcare, premiums and deductibles increasingly unaffordable

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/obamacare-and-the-crapification-of-health-care-a-case-study-and-a-growing-collection-of-horror-stories.html

BigMedicine, BigInsurance crapifies healthcare.

ACA succeeded in getting more people coverage, but BigInsurance, BigPharma set the prices.

America will remain fucked and unfuckable until we have Medicare for all, paid out of everybody's pay slip, just like now.

And Govt MUST regulate prices of drugs and procedures. SCOTUS just allowed, 6-2, to let providers keep their prices, stats, etc, secret.

Blaming America's health care catastrophe on ACA is pure bullshit.

btw, IRS penalties are doubling for people who didn't buy insurance last year.

America is radically fucked (and You People just accept it), and it will take a radical solution to unfuck it.

[Winehole23]

ACA was a direct sop to Insurance and Pharma sectors. It's working more or less as designed (behind closed doors, prior to any legislative process): to keep insurance and pharmanceutical firms flush with cash.

meanwhile, rising premiums and deductibles for ever crappier coverage is becoming the norm.

only a few years in, the ACA isn't very affordable.

[Winehole23]

face it, boutons, it's crap.

[rmt]

Enrollment drops by over 1.1 million in last half of 2015

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/03/14/obamacare-losing-enrollees-exchange-enrollment-drops-by-over-1-1-million-in-last-half-of-2015/#771959b029ab

[boutons_deux]

face it, boutons, it's crap.

of yeah? ask the Ms of people who now have access to affordable insurance and/or have heretofore uninsurable pre-conditions.

US health care system is crapified by predatory, greedy for-profits assholes. ACA can't fix the entire stinking pile of US health care crap.

ACA needs fixing, as would any first cut of anything so complex (and as written by a team headed by a health insurance exec/lobbyist and the whole project extorted by BigPharma), but Repugs want to keep ACA unfixed to piss off people so the Repg ideology that all govt sucks, can't do anything good (for the 99%) is fulfilled.

[Winehole23]

the ACA is not sustainable and its affordability is exaggerated. coverage has been expanded, to some extent that is good, but also bad -- policies cover less and cost more year over year.

[boutons_deux]

the ACA is not sustainable and its affordability is exaggerated. coverage has been expanded, to some extent that is good, but also bad -- policies cover less and cost more year over year.

Health health care / insurance totally fucks Human-Americans, who are unfuckable.

Proof: When ACA was the "best" that was politically acceptable, one knows we're all fucked.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/handtwo.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/handtwo.jpg.html)

[CosmicCowboy]

What did you guys expect? You give millions new "free" insurance someone has to pay for it...turns out relatively healthy middle class workers are paying for it...gee...what a surprise.

[boutons_deux]

What did you guys expect? You give millions new "free" insurance someone has to pay for it...turns out relatively healthy middle class workers are paying for it...gee...what a surprise.

Before ACA, 80/20 or 90/10. And you don't complain about the healthies paying $100Bs every year for smokers' cancer, drinkers' liver, fatties' TypeII D, etc, etc.

[dbestpro]

The biggest problem I have seen in the ACA is the rush to healthcare services for those who don't necessarily need it. It is causing a back log for those who do need it, and can't get appointments for months at a time thus exacerbating their condition. Also nursing wages have remained stagnant for the last 10-15 years, while the job has only grown more difficult.

[boutons_deux]

The biggest problem I have seen in the ACA is the rush to healthcare services for those who don't necessarily need it. It is causing a back log for those who do need it, and can't get appointments for months at a time thus exacerbating their condition. Also nursing wages have remained stagnant for the last 10-15 years, while the job has only grown more difficult.

primary care docs and nurses had already been understaffed for many years, "free market" and all that magic.

Docs prefer the wealth of specialties.

Most nurses, like teachers, don't recommend, nor would repeat, their professions.

Pretty fucked up, but what does one expect from The Proudest, Greatest, Wealthiest Country in the Universe?

Govt could lead with some solutions, but the Repugs would block them all.

[Pelicans78]

Free market has nothing to do with it. It's government regulations bringing a ton of extra paperwork and mandating electronic health records for both doctors and nurses which is causing stagnation and burnout. Things can't get done in a timely fashion due to the ton of paperwork involved whether it's filling out forms trying to get medications or tests approved for patients or documenting things electronically which takes a lot longer than writing on paper.

Also, no one wants to see medicaid or ACA patients because the reimbursement is crappy. You're basically losing money when you factor in the time and effort compared to the reimbursement.

[boutons_deux]

Another prediction failure for ‘Obamacare’ critics

Last year, on the fifth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, I put together a top-10 list (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/5-years-later-obamacare-critics-cant-believe-their-lying-eyes) of failed predictions from “Obamacare” critics about the reform law. As it turns out, however, there are new additions that we can add to an even longer list. The New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/business/employers-keep-health-insurance-despite-affordable-care-act.html) today:

The Affordable Care Act was aimed mainly at giving people better options for buying health insurance on their own. There were widespread predictions that employers would leap at the chance to drop coverage and send workers to fend for themselves.

But those predictions were largely wrong. Most companies, and particularly large employers, that offered coverage before the law have stayed committed to providing health insurance.


In fairness, it was generally difficult to take this prediction seriously before, and I imagine most health care wonks are less than shocked by the evidence. Still, Larry Levitt, a senior executive at Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Times that the employer-coverage market is proving to be even more stable “than anyone anticipated.”

Michael Thompson, the chief executive of the National Business Coalition on Health, which represents employers and other buyers of insurance, added (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/business/employers-keep-health-insurance-despite-affordable-care-act.html), “The demise of employer-based coverage was definitely overstated.”

Wait, you mean claims from anti-health care partisans, offered as part of a ridiculous political crusade, have turned out to be wild exaggerations? Imagine that.


In the meantime, Daily Kos’ Joan McCarter noted (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/4/1509064/-Job-killing-Obamacare-Bwahahahahah) that healthcare employment continues to be robust as the ACA takes root, with medical offices and facilities adding “36,800 jobs in March,

representing roughly 1 out of 6 jobs that were created in the entire U.S. economy last month.”I continue to think this chart (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/so-much-the-obamacare-hurts-job-creation-argument), inspired by (http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/03/05/five-years-ago-they-called-obamacare-a-job-killer-heres-what-they-say-now/) Forbes’ Dan Diamond, is very difficult for conservatives to explain away.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-prediction-failure-obamacare-critics?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Failed Prediction #1: Americans won’t enroll in the ACA

In 2009 and 2010, it was widely assumed among Republicans that Democrats had fundamentally miscalculated public demand and consumers would show no real interest in signing up for coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, among some on the right, this was a foregone conclusion – Americans wouldn’t trust “Obamacare.” We now know, of course, that the opposite is true (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/11-million-people-enroll-obamacare) and that millions of families have eagerly signed up for benefits through the ACA.

Failed Prediction #2: The ACA won’t meet its enrollment goals

OK, so maybe some consumers would enroll, Republicans eventually said, but the ACA would inevitably lose the numbers game when the enrollment projections proved overly ambitious. In reality, both this year and last year, enrollment totals exceeded (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/republicans-finally-admit-why-they-hate-the-aca.html) the Obama administration’s preliminary projections.

Failed Prediction #3: Insurers will want no part of the ACA system


Conservatives were absolutely convinced that private insurers would refuse to participate in the ACA’s exchange marketplaces, repeating the prediction over and over again. This also proved to be the opposite of the truth (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-obamacare-victory-lap-takes-another-spin), as insurance companies have been eager to compete for Americans’ business.

Failed Prediction #4: The economy will suffer terribly because of ‘Obamacare’

Among Republicans, there was near-certainty that 2014 – the first full year for ACA implementation – would be an abysmal year for the American job market. After all, it seemed obvious to the right that “Obamacare” would crush job creation and push unemployment higher. In reality, 2014 was the best year (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/january-jobs-report-offers-more-good-economic-news) for American job creation since the ’90s; the unemployment has shown sharp improvement; and there’s literally no evidence that the ACA had an adverse effect on economic growth at all.

Failed Prediction #5: Even if Americans enrolled, they won’t pay their premiums

When the evidence started looking good for the ACA, Republicans got a little desperate, looking for ways to downplay good news, and the “people won’t pay their premiums” talking point took root. It was, however, completely wrong (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-gop-talking-point-obamacare-bites-the-dust).

Failed Prediction #6: Even if people pay their premiums, the flawed ACA structure will send premiums soaring

Those hoping to see the American system fail counted on soaring insurance premiums. This just hasn’t happened (http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8069117/obamacare-critics-wrong) and the ACA model has proven to be quite effective (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/putting-the-affordable-the-affordable-care-act).

Failed Prediction #7: The ACA won’t reduce the uninsured rate because it will only help those who already have coverage

This was a GOP favorite for quite a while, right up until the evidence proved the right had this backwards (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/republicans-finally-admit-why-they-hate-the-aca.html), too.

Failed Prediction #8: The ACA will lead to a “net loss” on overall coverage

This line was pushed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for a while, with the Republican leader arguing a year ago that “Obamacare” would end coverage for more people than it would expand coverage to, “a net loss.” Boehner said, “I actually do believe that to be the case.” As it turns out, his actual beliefs were ridiculously wrong (http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8069117/obamacare-critics-wrong).

Failed Prediction #9: The ACA will lead to higher deficits and a weaker fiscal footing for the nation

One of the projections that never sat well for Republicans, who sometimes pretend to care about the deficit, was that “Obamacare” would reduce the nation’s deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years. The GOP assumed the non-partisan budget analyses were wrong and proceeded to tell the country the law would make the deficit larger and “bankrupt” the country. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, Republicans got this backwards (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cbo-offers-welcome-news-obamacare-backers), too. In fact, the overall price tag of the ACA is now smaller (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/aca-price-tag-continues-drop) than previously projected.

Failed Prediction #10: Americans will end up hating the coverage they receive through the ACA

Customer satisfaction rates (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/obamacare-health-exchanges-coverage-112892.html) came as a huge surprise to Republicans, who expected the opposite results: “A majority of Americans give good reviews for insurance they recently acquired through government exchanges within the past year, a new poll shows. With the second round of Obamacare enrollment set to begin on Saturday,

71 percent said their coverage through the exchanges was good or excellent, according to a Gallup poll released Friday. Another

19 percent said the coverage was fair, while

9 percent rated it poorly.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/5-years-later-obamacare-critics-cant-believe-their-lying-eyes

[rmt]

Keep pumping up this pos excuse for redistributing wealth and controlling 1/6 of the economy. The 3 risk adjustments end at the end of 2016. Hopefully the true cost of this abomination will be revealed on November 1 - just in time for the election - although it's probably a good bet that Obama will delay the start of the open enrollment period until after the election.

[boutons_deux]

Keep pumping up this pos excuse for redistributing wealth and controlling 1/6 of the economy. The 3 risk adjustments end at the end of 2016. Hopefully the true cost of this abomination will be revealed on November 1 - just in time for the election - although it's probably a good bet that Obama will delay the start of the open enrollment period until after the election.

:lol

[rmt]

:lol

Maybe instead there should be some compassion for the middle class which is bearing the cost of high premiums, deductibles, co-pays and limited networks. It's only going to get worse when the risk adjustments go away.

[boutons_deux]

Maybe instead there should be some compassion for the middle class which is bearing the cost of high premiums, deductibles, co-pays and limited networks. It's only going to get worse when the risk adjustments go away.

Dear POS, the "middle class" was fucked annually by BigMedicine, BigInsurance skimming your salary for decades before ACA was dreamed of. Where was your compassion then?

[boutons_deux]

‘Obamacare’ delivers a big boost to those who need it most

When it comes to evaluating the Affordable Care Act’s successes, one of the key metrics is pretty straightforward: “Obamacare” is lowering the uninsured rate to the lowest levels on record, bringing coverage to people who didn’t have it. But it turns out there’s an even more detailed way to consider this measurement.

The New York Times, relying largely on Census data, published a fascinating report (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/health/immigrants-the-poor-and-minorities-gain-sharply-under-health-act.html) on which American constituencies have seen the sharpest improvements thanks to the reform law, and the results point to an important angle for the larger political debate.

The first full year of the Affordable Care Act brought historic increases in coverage for low-wage workers and others who have long been left out of the health care system, a New York Times analysis has found. Immigrants of all backgrounds – including more than a million legal residents who are not citizens – had the sharpest rise in coverage rates.

Hispanics, a coveted group of voters this election year, accounted for nearly a third of the increase in adults with insurance. That was the single largest share of any racial or ethnic group, far greater than their 17 percent share of the population. Low-wage workers, who did not have enough clout in the labor market to demand insurance, saw sharp increases. Coverage rates jumped for cooks, dishwashers, waiters, as well as for hairdressers and cashiers. Minorities, who disproportionately worked in low-wage jobs, had large gains.


In other words, struggling, low-wage workers, who tend to have the least amount of political capital, have seen the biggest gains. While there’s been progress among every demographic since the ACA was implemented, the Times analysis found that the reform law has narrowed “the gap between the haves and the have-nots,” even while income inequality has gotten worse overall.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obamacare-delivers-big-boost-those-who-need-it-most?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Study: Medicaid Expansion Encourages More Poor Adults To Get Health Care

In states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, low-income adults were more likely to see a doctor, stay overnight in a hospital and receive their first diagnoses of diabetes and high cholesterol, according to a study published Monday.
Yet researchers found no improvement in adults’ own assessments of their health, a conclusion echoed by similar studies (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2411283), the authors wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine. (http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2515051)

Two factors might explain the lack of perceived improvement. People did not sign up for Medicaid as soon as it expanded in January 2014 so there was little time to better their health. Also, survey participants’ increased contact with health providers and fresh knowledge about their health might have negatively affected their opinions, the authors said.

https://kaiserhealthnews.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/medicaid-expansion-march-14-2016.jpg?w=770&h=513&crop=1

Researchers at University of Michigan and the University of California-Los Angeles who did the study said it provides the first evidence of low-income adults’ increased use of health services in states that expanded Medicaid. Federal surveys of adults living in poverty conducted in the second half of 2014 were the foundation for the study.

Joel Cantor, director of the Rutgers University Center for State Health Policy, said the study confirms that enrolling people in Medicaid means they are more likely to access health services. He anticipates better results in 2015 after people have more time to use their healthcare coverage. “Health status is not a leading indicator. It’s a lagging indicator,” said Cantor, who was not involved in the study.

“The first step is people get coverage.

Second, they get care,” he said.

The third step is better health and we will see that in later years.”

http://khn.org/news/study-medicaid-expansion-encourages-more-poor-adults-to-seek-health-care/

Light Blue states in image above are the Repug "death panel" states.

Thanks, Repugs

[rmt]

UnitedHealth Group to exit Obamacare exchanges in all but a ‘handful’ of states:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/19/unitedhealth-group-to-exit-obamacare-exchanges-in-all-but-a-handful-of-states/

Or if you prefer Huffington Post - Major Health Insurer Bailing On Most Obamacare Exchanges

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/unitedhealth-group-obamacare-exchanges_us_571554d9e4b0018f9cbade3b

[tlongII]

Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster.

[boutons_deux]

House Republican on health care plan: ‘Give us a little time’

One of the best running jokes in American politics is the one about Republicans releasing their own alternative to the Affordable Care Act.

Any day now, GOP leaders have been saying for many years, they’re going to have a plan that rivals “Obamacare,” and it’s going to be awesome.

Yesterday, The Hill reported (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/276547-gop-group-promises-obamacare-replacement-plan-soon) on the latest installment in this ongoing fiasco.

A group of senior House Republicans is promising to deliver proof that the party is making headway in its six-year struggle to replace ObamaCare.

“Give us a little time, another month or so,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) told reporters this week. “I think we’ll be pretty close to a Republican alternative.”


Upton is not just some random figure in the broader effort: The Michigan Republican is a key committee chairman and a member of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s “task force,” responsible for coming up with the GOP’s reform alternative.

Upton said the Republican group is currently in “listening mode” – which it’s apparently been in since its creation 14 months ago (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-ryan-shape-republican-health-plan).
And yet, we’re apparently supposed to believe that in “another month or so,” House Republican lawmakers will be “pretty close” to having their own reform plan.

Who knows, maybe the GOP is making enormous strides towards its goal. Maybe “listening mode” is going so well that the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act is nearly complete. Maybe, with “a little time,” they’re ready to deliver.

It’s certainly possible, but the odds are heavily against it.

As we discussed (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-ryan-shape-republican-health-plan) when the Republican “task force” was created early last year, the political world may not fully appreciate just how overdue this GOP health care plan really is.

It was on June 17, 2009 that then-Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) made a bold promise. The Missouri Republican, a member of the House Republican leadership at the time, had taken the lead in crafting a GOP alternative to the Affordable Care Act, and he was proud to publicly declare (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020635.php), ”I guarantee you we will provide you with a bill.”

The same week, then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters that the official Republican version of “Obamacare” was just “weeks away (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64877-gopers-impatient-on-healthcare-alternative).” We’d all see the striking proof that far-right lawmakers could deliver real solutions better than those rascally Democrats.

This was nearly seven years ago. The Huffington Post’s Jeffrey Young has gotten quite a bit of mileage (https://storify.com/JeffYoung/just-in-time) out of a joke, documenting all of the many, many times in recent years GOP officials have said they’re finally ready to unveil their big health care solution, only to quietly fail every time.

In early April 2014, then-House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-08/house-republicans-to-delay-obamacare-replacement-plan-rollout.html) his party’s health plan was nearly done, but it was being delayed “at least a month.” That was 24 months ago.

In 2015, assurances that the Republican plan was on the way were also wrong (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-08/house-republicans-to-delay-obamacare-replacement-plan-rollout.html).

In 2016, however, a GOP leader has been reduced to arguing, “Give us a little time,” seemingly unaware of how hilarious this is.

As we talked about (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-ryans-suspect-intentions) last week, the problem probably isn’t dishonesty. In all likelihood, Republicans would love to have a health care plan of their own – no one likes to appear ridiculous while breaking promises – but haven’t because they don’t know how to craft one.

As New York’s Jon Chait explained (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/paul-ryans-magical-realist-campaign.html),

“The reason the dog keeps eating the Republicans’ health-care homework is very simple: It is impossible to design a health-care plan that is both consistent with conservative ideology and acceptable to the broader public.

People who can’t afford health insurance are either unusually sick (meaning their health-care costs are high), unusually poor (their incomes are low), or both. Covering them means finding the money to pay for the cost of their medical treatment. You can cover poor people by giving them money. And you can cover sick people by requiring insurers to sell plans to people regardless of age or preexisting conditions. Obamacare uses both of these methods. But Republicans oppose spending more money on the poor, and they oppose regulation, which means they don’t want to do either of them.”

Or as a Republican Hill staffer famously put it (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republicans-new-obamacare-reality-no-repeal-without-replace) in 2014, “As far as repeal and replace goes, the problem with replace is that if you really want people to have these new benefits, it looks a hell of a lot like the Affordable Care Act…. To make something like that work, you have to move in the direction of the ACA.”

Which, of course, Republicans can’t bring themselves to do.

But hope springs eternal, and I can’t wait to hear more about the GOP’s progress in “another month or so.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/house-republican-health-care-plan-give-us-little-time?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Here's a Sneak Preview of the Upcoming Republican Health Care Plan


I've seen a leak of their upcoming plan. Here it is:


Block granting of Medicaid :lol Repugs love 'em, "just give us the $Bs, we know where to spend it" :lol
Tort reform :lol
Interstate purchase of health plans (:lol each state has different regulations, so fuck the states)
High-risk pools
Tax breaks for buying individual coverage :lol
Health savings accounts :lol


None of this would have much effect on the health care market, and it would probably fall about 19 million short of covering the 20 million people currently covered by Obamacare.

That's why they don't want to unveil it.

They know what they want, and they know how to craft it, but they still don't know how to make up a plausible set of lies about how it will do anybody any good. As soon as they figure that part out, they'll go public the next day.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-sneak-preview-upcoming-republican-health-care-plan

[boutons_deux]

U.S. will spend $2.6 trillion less on health care than expected before Obamacare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/21/u-s-will-spend-2-6-trillion-less-on-health-care-than-expected-before-obamacare-study-projects/?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=bufferf633b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com

[boutons_deux]

:lol Fuck the 99%, it's Repug ideology

Paul Ryan offers Obamacare alternative that raises Medicare eligibility age and caps liability damages

“Obamacare has limited choices for patients, driven up costs for consumers, and buried employers and health care providers under thousands of new regulations,” a draft of the Ryan plan said. “This law cannot be fixed.”

But Ryan’s proposal would keep some popular aspects of the law, including not allowing people with pre-existing conditions to be denied coverage and permitting children to stay on their parents’ coverage until age 26.

The Obama administration says some 20 million Americans have become insured as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

The Ryan plan recycles long-held Republican proposals like allowing consumers to buy health insurance across state lines, expanding the use of health savings accounts and giving states block grants to run the Medicaid program for the poor.

For people who do not get insurance through their jobs, the Republican plan would establish a refundable tax credit. Obamacare, by contrast, provides subsidies to some lower-income people to buy insurance if they do not qualify for Medicaid.

The Republican proposal would gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age, which currently is 65, to match that of the Social Security pension plan, which is 67 for people born in 1960 or later.

Like Obamacare’s so-called Cadillac tax on expensive healthcare plans offered by employers, the Republican proposal would cap the tax deductibility of employer-based plans.

The Republican plan includes medical liability reform that would put a cap on non-economic damages awarded in lawsuits, a measure aimed at cutting overall healthcare costs.

Under Obamacare, many states expanded the number of people eligible for Medicaid. The Republican plan would allow states that decided to expand Medicaid before this year to keep the expansion, while preventing any new states from doing so.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/paul-ryan-offers-obamacare-alternative-that-raises-medicare-eligibility-age-and-caps-liability-damages/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Why stop at 67? that's pretty low. Why not withhold Medicare, no Soc Sec until 70? Fuck the 99% harder, it's The Repug Way.

Jobs for people in the '60s are universally wonderful, with lots of benefits.

[boutons_deux]

U.S. will spend $2.6 trillion less on health care than expected before Obamacare, study projects

Expanding health insurance coverage to millions of Americans was bound to increase overall spending.

After the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, the actuaries for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projected that, as the economy recovered, the historically low growth in health spending would return to higher levels, reaching $4.6 trillion by 2019.

But in the intervening years, the annual expenditure increases have been more modest than expected, and the new estimate from the Urban Institute suggests national health spending is on to track reach $4 trillion by 2019.

"When CMS originally made those projections, they really thought the slowdown in health-care spending [growth] was mostly due to the recession, and afterward we'd see a return to the higher rates of spending growth — and that didn't really happen,"

U.S. will spend $2.6 trillion less on health care than expected before Obamacare, study projects

A big reason some BigInsurance/investors are getting out. Their looting of America has been somewhat restrained.

[TeyshaBlue]

"But another factor that Levitt and Hempstead pointed to was the increase in deductibles. Research has shown that patients with high-deductible health plans simply avoid the use of health care altogether while they are on the hook for their health care costs.

If that's what's happening, it could look good for reining in spending in the short term, but may not save money in the long run — or be good for people's health."

Duh.

[boutons_deux]

Fight over Medicaid expansion reaches a crossroads

And then there’s Kentucky, which was celebrated as a national model for ACA success, right up until Gov. Matt Bevin (R) was elected. The far-right governor ran on a platform of eliminating Medicaid expansion altogether, though he backed off (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-governor-blinks-medicaid-fight) soon after taking office. Last week, however, as theCourier-Journal in Louisville reported (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/06/24/storm-clouds-gather-around-ky-medicaid-plan/86282330/), Bevin laid out some “reforms” that he says are non-negotiable.


A thunderstorm rumbled through Frankfort Wednesday as Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin laid out his sweeping proposal to reshape the state’s Medicaid plan into one

he predicts will encourage responsible health choices (translation: quit getting health care) and

teach Kentuckians the basics of paying for health care (translation: quit getting health care).

As he spoke in the crowded Capitol Rotunda, a crack of lightning and boom of thunder reverberated through the marble corridors, prompting Bevin to pause.

“God’s weighing in on this,” :lol :lol :lol the governor, a conservative Christian, joked. “He agrees with everything I just said.”



Well, that’s certainly one way of interpreting things, but given the details of his pitch, there’s an alternative worth considering.

Medicaid expansion in the Bluegrass State, which has brought coverage to 440,000 people, has been extremely effective, which Bevin is eager to change.

The governor’s plan includes premium hikes on people who can least afford it and new work requirements.
Bevin’s proposal would need approval from the Obama administration, and the governor has already said it’s a take-it-or-leave-it proposition: if federal officials balk at his “reforms,”

Bevin says he’s prepared to scrap Medicaid expansion altogether (http://www.cbpp.org/blog/governors-medicaid-proposal-puts-coverage-for-over-400000-kentuckians-at-risk), leaving 440,000 of his constituents with nothing.

It’s worth noting the electoral irony of all of this: as we discussed (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kentucky-voters-create-big-problem-themselves) after the governor was elected, a local political scientist who crunched the numbers found that

the Kentucky counties most reliant on Medicaid expansion were also the most likely to vote for the candidate who vowed to tear down Medicaid expansion. :lol

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fight-over-medicaid-expansion-reaches-crossroads?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Another Obamacare Success: It's Cut Premiums By 30-50%

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_health_affairs_obamacare_premiums.jpg

They imply that ACA marketplace premiums for the [second-lowest-cost silver] plan in 2014 came in a remarkable 21 percent lower than average individual market premiums the year prior,

or 32 percent lower when accounting for the new plans’ higher actuarial value, even without incorporating likely utilization increases in response to the additional coverage.

....That the ACA might have caused premiums to drop so precipitously when its marketplaces took effect may seem surprising at first — it was to us....However, the premium reductions make more sense upon deeper analysis.

First, even though sicker people were charged higher premiums in the pre-ACA world (and some were denied coverage altogether), many still purchased insurance, but likely at significantly higher rates....Moreover, by creating large premium subsidies and imposing the individual mandate, the ACA may have caused a greater influx of relatively healthy enrollees into the individual market in 2014 and beyond.

....Second, the ACA creates a price-competitive and transparent market structure, where consumers can compare similar health insurance products.

....Third, selling costs are likely to be lower in the ACA marketplaces because of the prohibition on medical underwriting and limited variation in the policies and policy riders that can be offered.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/another-obamacare-success-its-cut-premiums-30-50

The main reason some insurers are pulling out: the ACA cost reductions means they can't rape Americans for profit.

[rmt]

Those individual policies in your post are peanuts compared to Medicaid. Those states that accepted Obamacare Medicaid expansion are in for huge expenses as the feds pull back and they take over the costs:

A new government report shows that the average ObamaCare Medicaid expansion enrollee cost the federal government $6,366 in 2015, 49% above the per-person cost of $4,281 projected a year ago.

http://www.investors.com/news/obamacare-medicaid-costs-rocket-49-past-estimates/

[boutons_deux]

Those individual policies in your post are peanuts compared to Medicaid. Those states that accepted Obamacare Medicaid expansion are in for huge expenses as the feds pull back and they take over the costs:

A new government report shows that the average ObamaCare Medicaid expansion enrollee cost the federal government $6,366 in 2015, 49% above the per-person cost of $4,281 projected a year ago.

http://www.investors.com/news/obamacare-medicaid-costs-rocket-49-past-estimates/

well, fuck poor people on Medicaid, they are undeserving, criminal untermenschen in Repug/conservative ideology. America doesn't give a shit about losers.

[CosmicCowboy]

well, fuck poor people on Medicaid, they are undeserving, criminal untermenschen in Repug/conservative ideology. America doesn't give a shit about losers.

We care about some losers. We just don't like YOU.

[boutons_deux]

We care about some losers. We just don't like YOU.

no, you don't GAF. Your Repug politicians are relentlessly fucking over TX losers, of all "sub groups".

[rmt]

Well, boutons, if you want to trot out an article about Obamacare premiums going down, I think I can find 10 articles saying they're going up for every one of yours. The risk corridors are coming off and you are going to see premiums sky-rocket. Imo, Obama will find some way of delaying the opening of enrollment (Nov 1) until after the election.

[boutons_deux]

Well, boutons, if you want to trot out an article about Obamacare premiums going down, I think I can find 10 articles saying they're going up for every one of yours. The risk corridors are coming off and you are going to see premiums sky-rocket. Imo, Obama will find some way of delaying the opening of enrollment (Nov 1) until after the election.

They're going up, yes, but from being reduced by ACA.

BigHealthCare is an unstoppable ripoff, has been 30+ years.

[rmt]

They're going up, yes, but from being reduced by ACA.

BigHealthCare is an unstoppable ripoff, has been 30+ years.

How many times do I have to remind you that the health insurers are limited to 20% - 80% must be spent on healthcare. The 10 essential benefits mandated by Obamacare is mostly responsible for driving up costs. Why should we pay for benefits we don't need - why should every man, child's and old person have to carry maternity benefits - that can never be used?

[Th'Pusher]

How many times do I have to remind you that the health insurers are limited to 20% - 80% must be spent on healthcare. The 10 essential benefits mandated by Obamacare is mostly responsible for driving up costs. Why should we pay for benefits we don't need - why should every man, child's and old person have to carry maternity benefits - that can never be used?

To offset the cost of the people who do use it.

[Pelicans78]

Obamacare doesn't mean much if doctors aren't willing to see those patients with that type of insurance. Just means alot more insured people not being able to see a doctor unless they go far away.

[boutons_deux]

Kentucky Republicans try to redefine ‘insured’

Under former Gov. Steve Beshear’s (D) leadership, Kentucky became a national leader in health care. The Bluegrass State implemented the Affordable Care Act to perfection and saw results that most states envied. No state has seen a sharper improvement in its uninsured rate.

Kentucky voters decided last year, however, to go in a very different direction, electing a far-right amateur, Matt Bevin (R), as their new governor, inadvertently endorsing his anti-healthcare platform.

The Republican, in his first year, has already scrapped Kentucky’s state-based marketplace, choosing instead to direct consumers to the federal healthcare.gov, and now he’s pushing to overhaul Kentucky’s Medicaid-expansion policy, uprooting an effective system while demanding conservative “reforms.”


There has not been a historic drop in uninsured – this is misleading,” [cabinet spokeswoman Jean West’s] statement said. “Medicaid is not health insurance – it is a benefit program like SNAP (food stamps) or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) … What we have seen is a historic rise in people on taxpayer-funded Medicaid.”


Got that? It may look like a low-income Kentucky family has coverage, which means being able to afford a doctor’s visit or a trip to the hospital, but that’s because that family is covered through Medicaid.

And according to the Republican governor of Kentucky,

Medicaid coverage shouldn’t count as coverage at all because, well, because the Bevin administration says so.

How exactly does Team Bevin intend to tell struggling families,

“Don’t worry, we’re taking your coverage away, but it didn’t really count in the first place”?

As things stand, Bevin’s administration has told federal officials that if the Obama administration rejects the governor’s Medicaid “reforms,”

the Republican will reject Medicaid expansion altogether (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fight-over-medicaid-expansion-reaches-crossroads) and strip over 400,000 Kentuckians of their coverage.

That may seem needlessly cruel, but according to Bevin’s office, “Medicaid is not health insurance,” so the crises these families would face don’t really count.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/kentucky-republicans-try-redefine-insured?cid=sm_fb_maddow


And Repugs wonder why their redneck, ignorant, white racist, low-wage, low-education, bubba base revolts against their establishment, Rand Paul? :lol, by choosing Trash?

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare Appears to Be Making People Healthier

Obamacare has provided health insurance to some 20 million people. But are they any better off?

This has been the central question as we’ve been watching the complex and expensive health law unfurl.

We knew the law was giving people coverage, but information about whether it’s protecting people from debt or helping them become more healthy (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/upshot/what-to-look-for-in-judging-the-affordable-care-act.html) has been slower to emerge.

A few recent studies suggest that people have become less likely to have medical debt (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/upshot/obamacare-seems-to-be-reducing-peoples-medical-debt.html) or to postpone care because of cost.

They are also more likely to have a regular doctor and to be getting preventive health services (http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleID=2513980) like vaccines and cancer screenings (http://papers.nber.org/tmp/49037-w22265.pdf).

A new study (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2542420), published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, offers another way of looking at the issue.

Low-income people in Arkansas and Kentucky, which expanded Medicaid insurance to everyone below a certain income threshold, appear to be healthier than their peers in Texas, which did not expand.
The study took advantage of what Dr. Benjamin Sommers, an author of the paper and an assistant professor of health policy and economics at Harvard, called “a huge natural experiment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/upshot/obamacare-appears-to-be-making-people-healthier.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Naturally, the Repug asshole KY governor is wants to remove coverage from 400K KY citizens.

[TeyshaBlue]

Probably need to actually read the study rather than be told what to think about it. It's stuffed full of caveats.

[boutons_deux]

New report: Rate of uninsured young adults drops by more than one-third in Texas

HOUSTON - (Aug. 23, 2016) - The percentage of young adults ages 18 to 34 in Texas without health insurance has dropped by 35 percent since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect, according to a new report released today by Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and the Episcopal Health Foundation.

The report found the uninsured rate among young adults in Texas dropped from 33 percent in September 2013 to 21 percent in March 2016. This age group is often called "young invincibles" by the health insurance industry because they don't always purchase health insurance since they believe they are too healthy to warrant the cost.

Prior to the ACA going into effect, young invincibles had higher uninsured rates than older Texans. However, the report found this group of young Texans now has a lower uninsured rate than Texans ages 36 to 49.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/ru-nrr082316.php

[TheSanityAnnex]

New report: Rate of uninsured young adults drops by more than one-third in Texas

HOUSTON - (Aug. 23, 2016) - The percentage of young adults ages 18 to 34 in Texas without health insurance has dropped by 35 percent since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect, according to a new report released today by Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and the Episcopal Health Foundation.

The report found the uninsured rate among young adults in Texas dropped from 33 percent in September 2013 to 21 percent in March 2016. This age group is often called "young invincibles" by the health insurance industry because they don't always purchase health insurance since they believe they are too healthy to warrant the cost.

Prior to the ACA going into effect, young invincibles had higher uninsured rates than older Texans. However, the report found this group of young Texans now has a lower uninsured rate than Texans ages 36 to 49.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/ru-nrr082316.php





Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system :lol

[Th'Pusher]

:lol[/FONT][/COLOR]

Why is that disclaimer :lol ?

[boutons_deux]

Why is that disclaimer :lol ?

it's boilerplate on lots of articles, but gun fellator nutcase means the good news about ACA in TX is a lie.

[boutons_deux]

ACA is bad because Barry HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim devil

Alex Jones: 'Flies Landing On' Obama Prove He’s Satanic

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-flies-landing-obama-prove-he-s-satanic

[Th'Pusher]

it's boilerplate on lots of articles, but gun fellator nutcase means the good news about ACA in TX is a lie.

Yeah. It aggregates articles from a number of different sources, which is why I didn't get the :lol from TSA. He probably didn't understand what the service does...

[boutons_deux]

Yeah. It aggregates articles from a number of different sources, which is why I didn't get the :lol from TSA. He probably didn't understand what the service does...

rightwingnuts, there's a LOT of stuff they don't understand, but when there down there ankle biting, the view ain't so good.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why is that disclaimer :lol ?
It should be boutons sig line :lol

[Th'Pusher]

It should be boutons sig line :lol

I think it's implied tbh. It's not like he writes the stuff. With any linked content on this site, the first thing I do is look at the source, then decide whether I want to even bother with reading it. If I do choose to read it, I try to apply critical thinking taking into account the objectivity of the source.

I think that would be a good practice for you to employ next time you find yourself trolling around brietbart looking for some anti Hillary/Obama material to spam this forum with.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I think it's implied tbh. It's not like he writes the stuff. With any linked content on this site, the first thing I do is look at the source, then decide whether I want to even bother with reading it. If I do choose to read it, I try to apply critical thinking taking into account the objectivity of the source.

I think that would be a good practice for you to employ next time you find yourself trolling around brietbart looking for some anti Hillary/Obama material to spam this forum with.

Should be easy then to find just one post of mine linking brietbart. Go ahead.

[Th'Pusher]

Should be easy then to find just one post of mine linking brietbart. Go ahead.

Not interested tbh. Anybody who frequents the political forum knows you're a partisan driven by emotion favoring sources that confirm your bias. It's not like you have attempted to achieve any sort of credibility here. Don't try and start now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Not interested tbh. Anybody who frequents the political forum knows you're a partisan driven by emotion favoring sources that confirm your bias. It's not like you have attempted to achieve any sort of credibility here. Don't try and start now.
Just one breitbart link. Cmon.

[rmt]

Obamacare killing jobs in New York area, executives tell Federal Reserve survey

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/17/obamacare-killing-jobs-in-new-york-area-executives-tell-federal-reserve-survey.html

[Chucho]

My favorite Left rhetoric in defense of this awful scam is "It's the Right's fault for fighting it all the way." Fighting something in Congress, that was a piss poor idea to begin with, isn't what causes a piss-poor idea to fail, it's the piss-poor idea and the piss-poor planning.

I was an Obama believer when I voted for him in 08. And then after seeing the first drafts of the bill, I was instantly left wondering, "how does this combat high health care costs in any way? It's just forcing people to buy a ticket to a terribly unregulated health care industry." and that is pretty much when the Obamanation realization set in for me, let alone his lies of ending the wars and the personal spending records that were coming to light in 11ish.

Say what you want about Trump, who is a fucking moron- but still better than Hillary-and a perfect reflection of the stupidity we've cultivated in the last twenty years, but at least he has a better idea of how to combat the costs of actual healthcare like letting us import our drugs at a fair price instead of paying the insane markup that apparently only we pay, it's a lot better than continuing on with this wretched "healthcare" we have now.

It's such a shitty system and you never hear how many Physicians flat out retired or closed their practices because of this. One of the most successful marketing campaigns my firm ran over the past few years was for the largest network of independent consigliere Drs. We basically helped them recruit Physicians that had responded to our advertising to get out of taking peanuts for their services and they take on only patients they want to take on and patients that pay them cash. Response was incredible. In two months, we helped the network bring on over 1,000 physicians. The Drs' hate Obamacare, most people who work hate it, Seniors and the disabled who were on MUCH BETTER programs before this crap really FUCKING HATE IT. It's been an unabashed failure at every turn. But how to fix it, aside from regulating health care, like they should with the banks, again...

It's not an easy answer, but anyone who thinks universal healthcare is possible for a country of 350 million people from a heavily indebted country are fucking high. Go ahead and point to some small Scandanavian country with 5-10 million people, it's possible on a small scale. It isn't possible for a nation of 350 million without someone footing the bill and the rich already foot a majority of our bills anyway, so fuck that nonsense too. Universal healthcare is almost as laughable as people thinking a $15 minimum wage helps more than hurts.

[boutons_deux]

"rich already foot a majority of our bills anyway"

:lol

[Winehole23]

legal claims piling up enables an end run around Congress:


The Obama administration is maneuvering to pay health insurers billions of dollars the government owes under the Affordable Care Act, through a move that could circumvent Congress and help shore up the president’s signature legislative achievement before he leaves office.


Justice Department officials have privately told several health plans suing over the unpaid money that they are eager to negotiate a broad settlement, which could end up offering payments to about 175 health plans selling coverage on ACA marketplaces, according to insurance executives and lawyers familiar with the talks.


The payments most likely would draw from an obscure Treasury Department fund intended to cover federal legal claims, the executives and lawyers said. This approach would get around a recent congressional ban on the use of Health and Human Services money to pay the insurers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-may-use-obscure-fund-to-pay-billions-to-aca-insurers/2016/09/29/64a22ea4-81bc-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html

[rmt]

legal claims piling up enables an end run around Congress:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-may-use-obscure-fund-to-pay-billions-to-aca-insurers/2016/09/29/64a22ea4-81bc-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html

The payments most likely would draw from an obscure Treasury Department fund intended to cover federal legal claims, the executives and lawyers said. This approach would get around a recent congressional ban on the use of Health and Human Services money to pay the insurers.


LOL - you mean the budget deal SIGNED BY OBAMA and now he's turned around and encouraging the insurance companies to sue the government for the money? If Obamacare is so wonderful, it should be self-sustaining and not require taxpayer bailouts.

[Winehole23]

the ACA was never sustainable -- and is increasingly unaffordable -- because it doesn't control health care costs. it was doomed to fail at the start.

[Winehole23]

Minnesota rates to rise by half:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-30/near-collapse-minnesota-insurers-up-obamacare-rates-by-half

[Winehole23]

GAO finds payments to insurers from the US Treasury illegal:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/09/29/busted-gao-finds-payments-to-insurers-under-affordable-care-act-are-illegal/#2397ce3c47db

[boutons_deux]

U.S. says 6.4 million signed up for Obamacare from November 1: Dec. 19

Roughly 6.4 million consumers signed up for Obamacare insurance on Healthcare.gov from Nov. 1 to Dec. 19 indicating "clear demand for quality, affordable coverage," the U.S. government said on Wednesday.

The number of people signing up for Jan. 1, 2017 coverage during this period represents an increase of 400,000 compared with the same period a year ago, the government said.

Total plan selections through the extended deadline of Dec. 19 include 2.05 million new consumers and 4.31 million returning consumers actively renewing their coverage.

HealthCare.gov sells plans for 39 states while the other states run their own exchanges.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-obamacare-idUSKBN14A285?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

:lol

[rmt]

U.S. says 6.4 million signed up for Obamacare from November 1: Dec. 19

Roughly 6.4 million consumers signed up for Obamacare insurance on Healthcare.gov from Nov. 1 to Dec. 19 indicating "clear demand for quality, affordable coverage," the U.S. government said on Wednesday.

The number of people signing up for Jan. 1, 2017 coverage during this period represents an increase of 400,000 compared with the same period a year ago, the government said.

Total plan selections through the extended deadline of Dec. 19 include 2.05 million new consumers and 4.31 million returning consumers actively renewing their coverage.

HealthCare.gov sells plans for 39 states while the other states run their own exchanges.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-obamacare-idUSKBN14A285?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

:lol




affordable - LOL. I guess affordable for them since they're getting subsidies - not for those paying for them.

Wanna bet RECORD numbers will DROP (after they get their physical/procedures done).

[boutons_deux]

affordable - LOL. I guess affordable for them since they're getting subsidies - not for those paying for them.

Wanna bet RECORD numbers will DROP (after they get their physical/procedures done).

employer group insurance costs $16K+/year, SUBSIDIZED by taxpayers.

evidence of getting tested and treated then dropping out, so far?

[rmt]

employer group insurance costs $16K+/year, SUBSIDIZED by taxpayers.

evidence of getting test, treated then dropping out, so far?

boutons, it's a guess. 2017 hasn't even started yet. I'm sure there are stats on how many signed up starting Jan 2016 and how many dropped by June 2016.

[johnsmith]

Ask of January 1st, I will be paying just a hair under $1k a month for my family to be insured.....fuck Obamacare....and super fuck anyone that justifies is by bragging about all the people that are now insured and don't pay a thing because of subsidies.....you're spitting in the face of the middle class.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just got the bad news on my company health insurance renewal. Up 17%. That makes it about $170,000 a year to insure 12 families.

[CosmicCowboy]

employer group insurance costs $16K+/year, SUBSIDIZED by taxpayers.

evidence of getting test, treated then dropping out, so far?

Deductible doesn't mean subsidized you stupid fuck.

[johnsmith]

Just got the bad news on my company health insurance renewal. Up 17%. That makes it about $170,000 a year to insure 12 families.

I know this doesn't help at all, but 17% isn't bad compared to a few companies I deal with.

Our insurer from last year wanted 146% so we went shopping and found 15% for an HSA and 19% for a PPO.

[Winehole23]

Insurance companies still control access, through pricing. Same old problem.

[boutons_deux]

Just got the bad news on my company health insurance renewal. Up 17%. That makes it about $170,000 a year to insure 12 families.

That's about right, compared to avg of $16K per family of four. how's that BigInsurance wealth-sucking ass taste?

[Th'Pusher]

That's about right, compared to avg of $16K per family of four. how the BigInsurance wealth-sucking ass taste?

Yeah. My employer and I pay $16k+ annually for my family.

[boutons_deux]

boutons, it's a guess.

:lol rmt, you're conned fool, benighted by ideology and bullshit