are you completely sure that wasn't part of the backroom deal Obama did with the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies and a Democratic Congress dutifully passed?Insurers screwing Human-Americans isn't ACA's fault.
Obama didn't ing write ACA.
Corrupt Baucus's insurance industry exec/lobbyist did
The health care industry, through its politicians, makes govt policy to protect/enrich themselves. aka, USA is the oligarchs' corporatocracy, not a democracy.
Pin the shortcomings (for Americans) on business, which of forces deals that protect/enrich itself. Else, NO DEAL (eg, Harry-and-Louise).
That is correct.Obama didn't ing write ACA.
Obama did a deal behind closed doors, then Congressional leadership carried water for the President and his corporate masters.
face it, boutons: the ACA is a corporatist turd that does little to reduce the cost of health care and is skimpy on benefits, except for the included special interests.
Don't get why you would post a chart and then proceed to argue against the chart
Millions of people, on or off Medicaid, have premiums they can afford, and get health care they need.
ACA is corporatist turd, and it won't EVER be any other way. Just another way capitalists/BigCorp suck wealth out of Americans. BigCorp/1% own America and it up. That ACA even passed and DOES actually help some Ms is a minor ing miracle.
that is a good thingMillions of people, on or off Medicaid, have premiums they can afford, and get health care they need.
this isn'tACA is corporatist turd, and it won't EVER be any other way.
ACA got help to people ONLY because the capitalists/health industry allowed it by GETTING PAID. NOTHING happens in federal govt unless somebody gets paid.
New survey of employers about health insurance market
"There appears to be a serious information deficit among employers when it comes time for them to assess the quality of health insurance plans," said Trevor Tompson, director of the AP-NORC Center. "Nine in 10 of the employers who offer health insurance to employees are unfamiliar with objective sources of quality information, such as Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems data and Health Effectiveness Data and Information Set Scores even though they think quality ratings are important."
Here are some of the key findings from the AP-NORC Center poll:
Among Private Sector Employers with at Least Three Employees
- Most employers think the ACA will have an impact on businesses' decisions about the health benefits they offer, though some say it will make scaling benefits back easier and others say harder.
- One in 5 employers say their organization is examining the design of health insurance exchange plans as they work on updating or changing the insurance benefits they offer.
- Six in 10 employers offering insurance think plan quality ratings are important, but 9 in 10 are unfamiliar with objective quality metrics.
- When selecting health plans, employers' top consideration is their own bottom line, but the cost to their employees is also important.
- Only 4 percent of companies offering insurance that employ 100 or more workers plan to change employee schedules to reduce the number of full-time employees to comply with the ACA.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...cienceDaily%29
Obamacare Officials Exaggerate Enrollment Total by Counting Dental Plans
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/20/ob..._medium=social
The Obama administration admitted today that it mistakenly inflated the number of health insurance enrollments under the Affordable Care Act by adding in those who selected dental plans to raise the total above 7 million — the White House’s original goal.
“This mistake is unacceptable,” Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said on her Twitter account today. “I will be communicating that clearly throughout the department.”
Congressional investigators with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee discovered the error after receiving data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a sub-agency within HHS that oversees the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.
The Obama administration incorrectly added 380,000 consumers who selected only dental plans, Bloomberg first reported. According to CMS, the accurate number of Americans who selected health insurance plans is 6.7 million.
In a prepared statement, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa said:
HHS must provide a clear and detailed account of who knew about this decision and when they knew it. This administration still appears to be calling its Obamacare transparency plan from the Jonathan Gruber playbook: dismissing the American public’s right to know with the same deceptive arrogance that helped them pass the bill in the first place.
Since the first open enrollment period ended in mid-April, the administration’s reported enrollment figures have declined.
First, in May, the White House celebrated enrollments topping 8 million. However, that figure was disputed because HHS failed to distinguish between those who paid their first month’s premiums and those who did not. More than 1 million enrolled in dental coverage, the administration reported that month.
Then, in September, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner told Congress that 7.3 million Americans had enrolled in health plans through the Affordable Care Act.
Last month, Tavenner said enrollment was around 7.1 million.
Ed Haislmaier, a health policy expert at The Heritage Foundation, noted the decline in enrollment figures throughout the first half of 2014. In a recent report, Haislmaier and Heritage colleague Drew Gonshorowski found that 6.5 million Americans enrolled in Obamacare, according to data provided by insurers.
“It’s another reason that explains why the actual insurer enrollment figures are lower than what HHS has been saying,” Haislmaier told The Daily Signal, adding:
It explains the discrepancy. Insurer enrollment data shows that the market increased by 6.5 million in the first half of 2014, so this helps explain the delta between that and [the] 7.1 million reported by the Obama administration.
In previous administration reports regarding enrollment, the numbers of who signed up for medical and dental plans were reported separately. The White House’s decision to combine the two in the total of 7.3 million broke from that practice.
“A mistake was made in calculating the number of individuals with effectuated marketplace enrollments,” CMS spokesman Aaron Albright said in a statement to The Daily Signal. “We have determined that individuals who had both marketplace medical and dental coverage were erroneously counted in our recent announcements.”
In the future, he said, only those with medical coverage would be included in enrollment numbers.
According to The Washington Post, HHS reported higher enrollment figures twice. In September, the agency inflated the total by roughly 400,000. This month, HHS said 7.1 million were enrolled when 6.7 million actually were.
The Oversight Committee’s findings come just one week after the second Obamacare open enrollment period began.
The White House has been working to distance itself from Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology economics professor who helped craft Obamacare, the president’s signature domestic achievement.
Videos recently surfaced of Gruber discussing how the White House and Senate Democrats manipulated the language of the health care law on purpose, passing it with a deliberate “lack of transparency.”
In subsequent videos, he called the American people “stupid” and mocked a man for expressing concerns about the effects of the law.
if ACA allowed 400K to buy dental insurance, what's the problem? that's still a big positive for ACA. the bean counters.
Just more lyin'...
ACA is an uncons utional ploy to force Americans to purchase a private service. Big business wins again.
Why is it uncons utional?
shocking
what an absolutely ty 16 years of presidency this will have been.
about to be 24 tbh
You really don't read the answers. There's a whole section and references you can read to your hearts content. I've led you to the water. Now I'm done with you.
Iow you have no idea what you're talking about so your going to regurgitate something you think you heard someone else say. The ing commerce clause? That's what people thought SCOTUs was going to use to justify the law. ing bag moron.
the supreme court found that the ACA was cons utional because they determined it is a tax
I'd be ok if it was a tax, but fining people for not having private health insurance is ridiculous. That's a penalty, not a tax.
tax is not a penalty, not paying a LEGAL tax is penalized.
tax is not a penalty, not paying a LEGAL tax is penalized.
Yeah so i'll tax you for owning a life insurance policy (since everyone has a life and will have to pay for death related costs eventually) and then penalize you if you don't take out a life insurance policy because you aren't paying the tax on it. Sure boutons. The courts were going to push it through anyway because it was too big to fail, but this opens it up to a legal storm. I brought up the commerce clause because that's what congress was using as an argument and SCOTUS denied that stance yet pushed the bill through anyway.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 11-22-2014 at 05:59 PM.
Bill Cosby > Obama
The House will sue Obama for delaying the ACA penalty for noncompliance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ver-obamacare/
Andrew McCarthy, hardly an Obama apologist, points out how lame-brained the lawsuit is:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rew-c-mccarthy
Speaker Boehner correctly points out that all Americans, regardless of partisan or ideological inclination, have an interest in stopping executive lawlessness because the imperial precedents President Obama is setting will be available for exploitation by every future president. Yet, Boehner is heedless of the precedent he proposes to set: Instead of Obama’s executive monarchy, we’d now be subjects of a judicial oligarchy—all future presidents, no matter how lawful their actions, would be subject to vexatious congressional lawsuits and court directives from the judiciary Obama has been stocking with hundreds of like-minded Leftists for the last six years. Putting aside the fact that this would put politically unaccountable judges in charge of all policy matters in our body politic, does anyone suppose that Democrats just might use Boehner’s lawsuit gambit as the basis for harassing a future Republican president that they lacked the votes to impeach or slash funding from?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
