KY with their own, well-functioning KYnect insurance exchange (they fool the rednecks and inbreds by not calling it obamacare), a Dem governor and two Repug Senators is even more of a red-state outlier.
My script?It's the Repug's script.
It's the script of the Repug sociopaths preferring to screw their red-state citizens rather than allow Dems/Obama a (humanitarian) victory.
All Repug Politics, All The Time ( everybody and everything, except the corps, VRWC, 1%)
Uninsurance Rate Falls As Millions Sign Up For Obamacare, Survey Finds
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...five-year-low/
Imagine how many more Ms would now have insurance AND access to health care if sociopathic Repugs/tea baggers/ALEC/Fox/VRWC would have been supporting rather than scorched-earth sabotaging ACA.
iow, how America would be a much better country WITHOUT (you) right-wing assholes.
GOP Threatens 24% Pay Cut For Medicare Doctors Unless Democrats Delay Key Obamacare Provision
The GOP-controlled House of Representatives will vote this week to tie bipartisan legislation that would prevent an average 24 percent pay cut for doctors who treat Medicare patients to a multi-year delay of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Even a one-year delay of the mandate is expected to reduce the number of Americans signing up for ACA plans and raise Obamacare premiums by more than 10 percent next year.
In 1997, Congress passed a law establishing the so-called “Sustainable Growth Rate” (SGR) formula to determine federal reimbursement rates for Medicare doctors. The adopted formula proved to be far too draconian, as it would ins ute steep cuts to doctors’ payment rates, raising concerns that fewer physicians would accept Medicare patients. Congress has consequently voted to delay the cuts every year since they were adopted — but has yet to establish a permanent “doc fix” for the underlying formula.
Failing to pass a doc fix at all — temporary or otherwise — could be disastrous for seniors on Medicare, who could face a landscape where fewer numbers of doctors are willing to treat them.That’s why Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) have stated that “[We must] fix the Medicare physician payment formula for the next ten years so that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to health care.”
Initial reports suggested that a bipartisan group of lawmakers were on the cusp of actually agreeing on a permanent, $138 billion fix this year. But Congress remained stalled on a how to pay for the legislation.
That’s where the GOP’s newest proposal comes into play. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that a one-year delay in the individual mandate would yield about $9 billion in savings for the federal government, and that delaying it for longer would save even more money.
However, the move would also increase Obamacare premiums and discourage people from buying insurance. That could lead to less efficient and diversified risk pools in the Obamacare marketplaces and stymie reform during the health law’s nascent years — and physicians’ groups agree that it’s the wrong approach to paying for the doc fix, especially considering this is the first time in years that Congress has agreed on the broad strokes for permanent reform.
“The only way this is going to get done if it’s done in a bipartisan fashion,” said Christian Shalgian, director of advocacy and health policy for the American College of Surgeons, in an interview with The Hill. “I don’t think this pay-for was developed in a bipartisan fashion.”
“We cannot support linking SGR repeal to changes in current law that will result in fewer people getting health insurance coverage,” added Molly Cooke, president of the American College of Physicians, in a statement last week. “We call on House and Senate leadership to immediately engage in a bipartisan process to reach bipartisan agreement on a budgetary solution that can pass both the House and the Senate.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...idual-mandate/
how does Arkansas and KY expanding Medicaid screw red-state citizens?My script?
It's the script of the Repug sociopaths preferring to screw their red-state citizens rather than allow Dems/Obama a (humanitarian) victory.
All Repug Politics, All The Time ( everybody and everything, except the corps, VRWC, 1%)
Texas so far refuses to fund the expansion. isn't there an essential difference there?
For those two states, a tiny minority of red states refusing Medicaid, the Repugs, counter to THEIR script, give their poor a break, but I've already seen some Repug ideas that you don't get Medicaid if you can't prove you're looking for a job (not sure how that proof works or exists)
AR, barely accepting Medicaid expansion, and KY are exceptions, not the rule, esp KY. KY's exchange apparently works better than several blue states that really screwed up their exchanges and are now being pilloried by the Repugs, now the the healthcare.gov is passable. Incompetent states and incompetent contractors. But the overwhelming obstacle is the mind-boggling kludge of for-profit insurers.
I seriously looked into putting my employees into Obamacare and it was still so ed up I reupped for private insurance at $100,000 a year. I just couldn't do that to my employees.
what specific disasters would have hit your employees in healthcare.gov?
live under a rock?
Ms have signed up, are your employees particularly stupid?
No but you are.
Price wasn't compe ive, networks were very limited, no network information security, etc.
Take your blue tinted glasses off. Maybe next year but they aren't ready for prime time now.
Koch brothers' Obamacare 'victim' will save $1,200 a year but insists that 'can't be true'
Here's one more, from The Detroit News, and it turns out she's saving even more money than previous debunkings revealed.
Boonstra said Monday her new plan she dislikes is the Blue Cross Premier Gold health care plan—which caps patient responsibility for out-of-pocket costs at $5,100 a year, lower than the federal law’s maximum of $6,350 a year. It means the new plan will save her at least $1,200 compared with her former insurance plan she preferred that was ended under Obamacare’s coverage requirements.Boonstra’s old plan cost $1,100 a month in premiums or $13,200 a year, she previously told The Detroit News. It didn’t include money she spent on co-pays, prescription drugs and other out-of-pocket expenses
By contrast, the Blues’ plan premium costs $571 a month or $6,852 for the year. Since out-of-pocket costs are capped at $5,100, including deductibles, the maximum Boonstra would pay for all of her cancer treatment is $11,952 for the year.
When advised of the details of her Blues’ plan, Boonstra said the idea that it would be cheaper “can’t be true.”
“I personally do not believe that,” Boonstra said.
How very Republican of her??, refusing to acknowledge the facts because they disprove her beliefs. Because she doesn't personally believe she'll actually be helped by Obamacare, she refuses to recognize the fact that it's true. Speaking of Republicans, remember how the Kochs have used Republican activists in their ads in New Hampshire?
Boonstra is the ex-wife of Mark Boonstra, the former Washtenaw County GOP chairman whom Gov. Rick Snyder appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012. Julie Boonstra said she’s never been a political person beyond advocating for lower-cost oral chemotherapy treatment in Washington.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...28Daily+Kos%29
Repug base is reliable
Opposition to Obamacare Remains Under 40 Percent, the Same as Always
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...nt-same-always
And the Repugs think campaigning on sabotaging/repealing Obamacare is winning election strategy.
Krazy Kruz has already forced Repugs into a "nothing-but-repeal" strategy.
HealthCare.gov Traffic Up 40 Percent After Obama's FunnyOrDie Interview
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...erns-interview
You Might Pay A Lot More Than $95 For Skipping Health Insurance
"So if it's a two-adult household and both are uninsured, it's twice $95 — $190," he says. "Then if there are any children in the family that are uninsured, the penalty for each of them is half of the $95."
This year's top penalty could be about $3,600 for an individual, and $11,000 for a family of four.
There are also lots of exemptions from the penalty itself, Blumberg points out, even for people who remain uninsured. The biggest is for having income below the .
This year that's roughly $10,000 for a single person and $13,000 for a head of household. If you don't have to file income taxes, you won't have to pay a penalty. You also can get an exemption if the cheapest available insurance would cost more than 8 percent of your income, if you have unpaid medical debt, or for any of several other listed on the website.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014...e?sc=17&f=1128
Bush never did a funny or die skit.
dubya was klutzy white guy, Barry a cool mofo
Both are murderers and could be tried for war crimes. Evil is evil.
There Are Co-Op Options for Health Care, but Major Insurers Don't Want You To Know
One of the primary goals of the Affordable Care Act was to make health insurance more affordable for the millions of Americans who had to get insurance on the individual market. The changes in the new law required plans to have better coverage and by requiring everyone to have insurance, spread the risk across a broader spectrum of people to help lower costs. While these changes would help more people be able to get health insurance, the architects of the bill knew that compe ion within the industry would be a necessary component to help ensure affordability.
During the contentious debate during the creation of the law, there was a big push to include a public option. The most popular idea was to have a "Medicaid for all" type of program which would be one of the choices on the insurance exchange along with other private health insurance plans. In between the shouts of death panels and anti-government sentiment, there was little support for such a plan. Still, the Senate tried to create some form of compe ion and was able to come up with a compromise option.
A Consumer Oriented and Operated Plan, or Co-Op, is a non-profit health insurer designed to offer individuals and small businesses more affordable, consumer-friendly and high quality health insurance options. They are run by boards that are voted on by their members – the consumers. They are licensed by the state(s) in which they operate, and may operate locally, statewide, or in more than one state. Created specifically for the purpose of enhancing compe ion, they can offer insurance to individuals and small businesses. Beginning with the launch of open enrollment in October 2013, plans offered by co-ops were available as an often less expensive option for consumers in 23 states.
Often focused on smaller groups of people, co-ops can take many different forms. They can consist of farmers, freelancers or started by hospitals and healthcare providers. The provider networks are smaller, and in some cases the providers are salaried, helping to keep costs lowers. Co-ops also try different cost sharing plans, such as eliminating co-pays for doctor visits and rewarding providers that focus on preventative health.
However, many consumers still aren't aware of them.
Co-ops are offered both on and off the insurance exchanges, but their entrance into the market has been very difficult. Based on the input of commissioned insurance agents and actuarial experts, early drafts of the law included $10 billion dollars in grants. This would help fund startup costs, such as setting up administrative and provider networks, as well as ensure that the co-ops had the necessary solvency funding to handle claims as they built their membership networks. By the time the time open enrollment began, cuts in funding and rigid rules of operation severely reduced the number of co-ops originally planned.
All of which was orchestrated by the for-profit health insurance industry.
As word of the provision spread, the health insurance lobby worked overtime to water it down. Claiming it was unfair compe ion, they convinced Congress to convert the federal grants to loans and reduced them from the originally recommended amount. The loans are structured so that they must begin paying the startup loans within five years and the solvency loans within fifteen. The tight repayment schedule saddles them with a high burden to overcome in a market where they are already the underdog. Furthermore, the original $10 billion dollars recommended had been reduced to $2 billion by January 2013, making it impossible to fund all of the 40 planned co-ops.
Already hampered by the financial constraints at the national level, many had to face hurdles at the state level. With funding in place with federal loans, they still had to get additional funding from private sources prior to accepting members. As these were a new kind of insurer, state licensing requirements had to be created and were more stringent. Before open enrollment even came around, two co-ops had folded due to being unable to get state approval.
Nevertheless, 23 co-ops have been able to make it onto the market and are selling plans. The bumpy rollout of the Healthcare.gov website rollout slowed enrollment for them, which has hurt the bottom line. Provisions in the law prevents them from using federal loan money for marketing, nor are they allowed to participate in the large employer market.
In other words, they can't spend money to let consumers know they exist, or participate in the most lucrative insurance market.
As we enter into the final two weeks of open enrollment, co-ops are looking for innovative ways to get the word out about their existence. Some are going door to door, resorting to old fashioned street marketing. Some have gotten private funding for marketing costs. The federal agency in charge of overseeing the co-ops, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), has relaxed some regulations in order to help. They can use some of the federal money to educate consumer about their companies, but cannot highlight specific plans. They are also allowed to have one-third of their policies in the large employer market.
Due to these obstacles, co-ops are still a long shot at being a true compe ive force in the health insurance market. A recent report shows that at least nine are at risk of financial trouble. Still, preliminary evidence shows that when they are allowed to operate as they should, they can make a difference. In states where successful co-ops are running, costs of policies are averaging about 9 percent lower than states without. They are often the lower priced options on the exchange and have had a comparable share of policies as the other major insurers.
Sometimes the free market does work — which is exactly what for-profit health insurers are trying to stop.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/22441...nt-you-to-know
Rachel Maddow showed Ike, Tricky , St Ronnie, all doing comedy skits on TV.
dubya WAS a funny skit.
Boutons, put down the koolaid.
Jon Stewart and his killer hit man Aasif Mandvi crush yet again
http://www.upworthy.com/watch-15-magically-awkward-seconds-roll-by-while-a-man-panics-after-accidentally-insulting-america?c=upw1
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
