Politics Obamacare

redux · Apr 3, 2014

If the ACA is such an "economic tsunami" and "job-killer" as opponents suggest, why is the US. Job Creation Index at a Six Year High?

Gallup's Job Creation Index, based on employee reports of hiring and layoff activity at their workplaces, reached a six-year high of +23 in March, nearly tying the +24 recorded in March 2008. The index for March is two points higher than it was in February, and shows a six-point improvement from last March.
Click to expand...

grumpyolddude · Apr 3, 2014

Aceventura said: ↑

I do not support the government telling me what wage to pay or what wage I am willing to work for.
I do not support the government telling me what insurance I can buy.

Basically, I want freedom of choice. Is that hilarious? Are you suggesting that you want a government making what should be your decisions?
Click to expand...

Pardon the treadjack, folks, but....

You have choices, Ace. Duck the whole minimum wage issue by:
A) Hire people as outside contractors for a set fee and give them a 1099 to declare their earnings. Work them to death for as little as you can get away with paying them.
B) Work as an outside contractor for as little as you want, take your 1099 and pay your taxes.
(I don't see these as practical options, but they do exist)

As for insurance:
States regulate insurance companies doing business in their jurisdiction, not the Feds. Has nothing to do with "Obamacare." Insurance companies decide where they want to do business by licensing in those jurisdictions. Your gripe is with the insurance industry and/or state regulators.

For the record: I don't mind having a watchdog for the insurance and healthcare industries. They have a long history of fucking people over, and I have been a victim. "Caveat Emptor" should not have to be an admonition in play where people's health and very lives are at stake. Personally, I think anyone opposed to universal healthcare is totally full of shit. Let your bank account decide whether you eat at Taco Bell or Ruth's Chris, not whether you get your needed medical attention. You could still pay for an upgrade, if rubbing elbows with the riff-raff offends you.

Additionally, if everyone were covered, there wouldn't be the deadbeats inherent in the traditional system. Providers wouldn't have an excuse for padding their fees to cover the costs of the uninsured dropping in to an ER, getting service and then skipping out on the bill. Healthcare costs would go down.

I view the ACA as a necessary step in the overall improvement of the American healthcare system. The insurance and health industries were never going to change the game on their own. It's been too profitable. The "Free Market" would never regulate itself to benefit the populace. It's a captive market, and greed in the boardrooms rules all.

The ACA is far from perfect due to the meddling of lobbyists and political hard-liners. The compromises forced into the law just to get it passed are its biggest flaws. Fixes will be hard to pass for the same reason. Opposing forces find it easier and more politically beneficial to tear into each other than work to find realistic solutions.

Your desire for freedom of choice is not what is hilarious. What is hilarious is observing someone contradict himself. Being staunchly politically dogmatic can do that to a fellow. Your minimum wage and interstate insurance arguments eat each other.

rogue49 · Apr 4, 2014

Personally, my instincts are saying the president is more on the ball and the SMEs noted here are underrating the figures.
There are many sources and connections that are under-reported. They are likely not taking into account state and local level efforts and the random pushes.
You're not going to get a real accounting until some time after.
I find the numbers tend to increase over time...even if others have stopped paying attention.

‘Billions’ spent on attacking Obamacare?
By Glenn Kessler, Updated: April 4

“We didn’t have billions of dollars of commercials like some critics did.”

–President Obama, remarks in the Rose Garden, April 1, 2014

A reader asked us about this comment during the president’s victory lap on the Affordable Care Act. Were there really “billions” of dollars worth of commercials opposing the law?

Our initial reaction was that this was just a bit of presidential hyperbole. On the other hand, the president did make this assertion in a major speech. So let’s see what the data say.

The Facts
The best source for spending on political ads is Kantar Media Ad Intelligence, which closely tracks the numbers.

In July, Kantar announced that both opponents and proponents of the law were on track to spend $1 billion—by 2015.

As of last summer, however, the spending amounted to $500 million, and that was based on tracking “more than $500 million in advocacy and campaign advertising referencing the health care reforms from the very first spots to air about the prospect of a law in 2009 up through Q2 2013.”

The organization noted that this included advertising that “would have happened in the course of regular campaigning.”

“If you are asking me, have billions of dollars been spent on ads attacking the ACA, the answer is no,” said Elizabeth Wilner, senior vice president of Kantar Media Ad Intelligence with oversight of its Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG). “Several hundred million dollars, yes. Really an unprecedented sum. But not billions.”

Wilner said that Kantar has not updated the numbers since then. But one of the biggest spenders on anti-Obamacare ads, the Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, has spent $30 million since July on a relentless assault that has been closely fact checked in this column. But few others come close, so it hard to see how one gets to $1 billion in negative ads, let alone “billions.” The Kochs may be billionaires, but even they have not yet spent billions attacking the law.

Still, Kantar Media also noted that opponents outspent proponents by a ratio of five to one, so by now the anti-Obamacare ads probably amount to nearly $500 million. So maybe if you were on the receiving end of such a barrage, perhaps it felt like billions.

“The point made in the speech was that we have been vastly outspent, and that is more than backed up by the facts below, including the Kantar Media report showing we were outspent 5 to 1,” a senior administration official said.

Update: Stuart Stevens, a GOP political consultant who was senior strategist for the Mitt Romney campaign, tweeted that it was “odd” that The Fact Checker did not mention the fact the the federal and state governments have spent an estimated $700 million promoting the need for health insurance and healthcare.gov. “The $700 million is building brand that’s defining product,” he said, comparing it to marketing budgets of major brands. “It’s a unified campaign.”

“The pitch: If you don’t make much money, the government can pick up some of the cost of your health insurance,” the Associated Press reported. “If you can afford a policy, by law you have to get one. People will be directed to healthcare.gov, a government site, for more information.”

As it happens, Wilner in February compared AFP’s anti-Obamacare spending to what insurance companies spent on television advertising in the same time period, and found they were roughly equivalent. But she noted:

This isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. The anti-ACA political ad dollars and the ACA-driven product ad dollars aren’t necessarily being spent in the same ways. For starters, a fair amount of insurer dollars go to network advertising, whereas AFP and other political critics have concentrated their firepower on local broadcast. The messaging in all the political ads is sharply negative (“lie of the year,” “disaster,” “just isn’t working”), whereas the messaging in a typical insurer ad falls somewhere between less negative and neutral (“confusing,” “concerned”).

The Pinocchio Test
Clearly “billions” is incorrect, and such statements have a tendency to seep into the public discourse when made by a president. So they need to be corrected.

But we are willing to cut the president some slack here, though that may not please some of our readers. (Others may accuse us of nitpicking.) Opponents of the law have spent significantly more than proponents to discredit the Affordable Care Act—and the margin is so lopsided that the president might feel justified in inflating the numbers. But next time, Mr. President, stick to “half a billion” rather than billions—or focus on the ratio.

Two Pinocchios
Click to expand...

redravin · Apr 4, 2014

I wonder how far back they are going for their numbers.
To the time when the ACA was voted in or when they were trying to get it passed?
Might make some difference, though not the full billion.

Actually one word change in that sentence would make it true.
If he had said, "We didn't have billions of dollars for commercials like some critics did." it would be absolutely true.

redux · Apr 4, 2014

E.J. Dionne: The GOP must admit it was wrong on Obamacare - The Washington Post

Is there any accountability in American politics for being completely wrong? Is there any cost to those who say things that turn out not to be true and then, when their fabrications or false predictions are exposed, calmly move on to concocting new claims as if they had never made the old ones

The fact that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) hit its original goal this week of signing up more than 7 million people through its insurance exchanges ought to be a moment of truth — literally as well as figuratively. It ought to give everyone, particularly members of the news media, pause over how reckless the opponents of change have been in making instant judgments and outlandish charges.

When the health-care Web site went haywire last fall, conservatives were absolutely certain this technological failure meant that the entire reform effort was doomed. If you doubt this, try a Google search keyed to that period relating the word “doomed” to the health-care law.

It should be said that the general public was much wiser. A CNN poll in November that Post blogger Greg Sargent highlighted at the time found a majority (54 percent to 45 percent) saying that the problems facing the law “will eventually be solved.” Political moderates took this view by 55 percent to 43 percent, independents by 50 percent to 48 percent. Only Republicans — by a whopping 72 percent to 27 percent — and conservatives (by 66 percent to 33 percent) thought the law could never be fixed.

Their representatives in Washington, moderate conservatives as well as the tea party’s loyalists, followed the base’s lead. In mid-November, for example, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) told Fox News flatly that the law is “destined to fail,” “fundamentally flawed” and “not ready for prime time.”House Speaker John Boehner predicted dire outcomes before the Web site fiasco. He repeatedly insisted, as he did in July, that “even the Obama administration knows the ‘train wreck’ will only get worse.”

At this point, the etiquette of commentary typically requires a “to be sure” paragraph, as in: To be sure, the law could still face other problems, blah, blah, blah. But such paragraphs are timid and often insincere hedges. After all, every successful program, even well-established ones such as Medicare, Social Security and food stamps, confronts ongoing challenges.

So let’s say it out loud: The ACA is doing exactly what its supporters said it would do. It is getting health insurance to millions who didn’t have it before. (The Los Angeles Times pegged the number at 9.5 million at the beginning of the week.) And it’s working especially well in places such as Kentucky, where state officials threw themselves fully and competently behind the cause of signing up the uninsured. Those who want to repeal the law will have to admit that they are willing to deprive these people, or some large percentage of them, of insurance.

Too many conservatives would prefer not to say upfront what they really believe: They don’t want the federal government to spend the significant sums of money needed to get everyone covered. Admitting this can sound cruel, so they insist that their objections are to the ACA’s alleged unworkability, or to “a Washington takeover of the health system” (which makes you wonder what they think of Medicare, a far more centralized program). Or they peddle isolated horror stories that the fact-checkers usually discover are untrue or misleading.

Thus the moment of truth, about the facts and about our purposes.

From now on, will there be more healthy skepticism about conservative claims against the ACA? Given how many times the law’s enemies have said the sky was falling when it wasn’t, will there be tougher interrogation of their next round of apocalyptic predictions? Will their so-called alternatives be analyzed closely to see how many now-insured people would actually lose coverage under the “replacement” plans?
Perhaps more importantly, will we finally be honest about the real argument here: Do we or do we not want to put in the effort and money it takes to guarantee all Americans health insurance? If we do — and we should — let’s get on with doing it the best way we can.
Click to expand...

I dont expect our conservative/libertarian colleagues will ever accept the facts and the number of people (7+ million with new affordable insurance and new patient protections, 3+ million new Medicaid eligibles, 3+ million young adults able to stay on parents plan while job hunting, 3+ million senior with new prescription benefits, 50+ million with pre-existing conditions...) who have benefited from the ACA to-date and the fact that the rest of us will as well, over time.

rogue49 · Apr 7, 2014

Interesting perspective...I don't know if it's fully the real angle,
but it wouldn't surprise me at all, if a certain aspect of this is applied...considering the GOP has been playing a siege and war of attrition strategy for some time now.
Leverage yourself in.
Leverage all the force you have
Burn all useful resources of the opponents.

Of course, they have the perfect foil in the Dems, who have a big problem being unified.

But the idealist in me, wishes they would do what's right for the nation & citizens...not what's right for the party.

GOP Grapples With The Unsettling Fear That Obamacare May Succeed
SAHIL KAPUR – APRIL 7, 2014

In light of Obamacare achieving its goal of 7 million initial insurance sign-ups, William Kristol's 1993 memo urging his party to block health care reform at all costs seems prescient. In it, the then-GOP operative's message was remarkably candid: it's a "serious political threat to the Republican Party."

Kristol argued that it would cast Democrats as protectors of the middle class and "strike a punishing blow" to GOP ideals about the evils of government.

"[T]he long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse -- much worse," Kristol wrote. "It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."

Two decades later, Democrats have achieved their century-long dream, defeating the GOP's revived Kristol-esque strategy to destroy health care reform at all costs. Obamacare unexpectedly crossed its first big milestone last week with 7 million sign-ups on the exchanges. While the law still faces many challenges, conservatives who broadly predicted it would collapse under its own weight are forced to reckon with the unsettling fear that health care reform might succeed.

Few understood the dilemma better than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who made it his personal mission to kill health care reform from its inception in 2009. His aggressive whip operation led to unanimous GOP opposition to the effort and a variety of scorched-earth tactics aimed at scuttling it. But the bill passed anyway. And in a cruel twist, it is performing especially well in his home state, cutting Kentucky's uninsured rate by 40 percent. But McConnell, who faces re-election this year, isn't relenting: upon news of the 7 million signups, he maintained that the law was a "catastrophe."

Conservative policy wonks are more shaken, conceding that the law appears able to sustain itself and warning that simply repealing it is no longer feasible because it would strip away benefits from up to millions of Americans. Variations of that argument have been made by the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, conservative health care consultant Avik Roy, National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru and Kristol himself, who is now the editor of the Weekly Standard.

These conservatives are confronting the realities of Obamacare, which include roughly 7 million signed up on the exchanges, 3 million new Medicaid enrollees and 3 million young adults on their parent's plan. They argue that the benefits are popular and can't simply be taken away without a political backlash. But elected Republicans now face a difficult choice: rescind these benefits or demoralize their right-wing base, which remains animated for total destruction of the health law. And so GOP lawmakers haven't flinched in their quest for repeal as reporters force them to confront the impracticality of undoing Obamacare.

"I don't buy that for a second," said House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI), maintaining that "the architecture of this law is so fundamentally flawed that I think it's going to collapse under its own weight." Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said Obamacare "continues to wreak havoc on American families" and vowed that House Republicans "will continue to work to repeal this law."

The GOP's political inclination to dig in runs deeper than keeping conservatives energized for the November congressional elections. It's about preserving their party's brand. Even minor concessions of Obamacare's potential for success would gravely damage their credibility after relentless warnings for years that the law was fatally flawed, irreparably damaging to the health care system and ruinous to economic freedom. They don't have a good option other than to stay the course and keep highlighting Obamacare's downsides and flaws -- of which there are plenty -- at least through the 2014 election, where the fundamentals so strongly favor them that they're unlikely to pay a price.

Indeed, Obamacare remains a vulnerability for Democrats in the mid-terms, threatening to damage incumbent senators in red states where the law remains unpopular. Republicans have cushioned the near-term blow by uniting against Obamacare in an unparalleled way, which has kept their base voters animated.

The long-run, however, is a different story. By 2016, the political cost of repeal will skyrocket as Obamacare is projected to cover 30 million Americans. Republicans were somewhat fortunate that Social Security and Medicare -- which they also fought tooth and nail at the time, echoing rhetoric they use against Obamacare -- weren't named after a Democratic president. If the Affordable Care Act succeeds, the public will know who to attribute it to.

Kristol didn't respond to a request for comment on this article. His 1993 memo emphasized the political potency of health care reform for Democrats.

"'Health care will prove to be an enormously healthy project for Clinton... and for the Democratic Party.' So predicts Stanley Greenberg, the president's strategist and pollster," he wrote. "If a Clinton health care plan succeeds without principled Republican opposition, Mr. Greenberg will be right."
Click to expand...

redux · Apr 7, 2014

This says it all:

The long-run, however, is a different story. By 2016, the political cost of repeal will skyrocket as Obamacare is projected to cover 30 million Americans. Republicans were somewhat fortunate that Social Security and Medicare -- which they also fought tooth and nail at the time, echoing rhetoric they use against Obamacare -- weren't named after a Democratic president. If the Affordable Care Act succeeds, the public will know who to attribute it to.
Click to expand...

It may cost the Democrats in this year's Congressional elections but it will become fully entrenched before Obama leaves office in Jan. 2017, with tens of millions of Americans benefiting and cost-cutting programs beginning to have an impact.

redux · Apr 8, 2014

"The Best Medicine"

The artist told the magazine “I enjoyed drawing Ted Cruz, John Boehner, and Michele Bachmann as petulant children—and I especially wanted to draw an open-mouthed Mitch McConnell being spoon-fed his meds.”

To add insult to injury...from rogue's article:

And in a cruel twist, it is performing especially well in his home state, cutting Kentucky's uninsured rate by 40 percent. But McConnell, who faces re-election this year, isn't relenting: upon news of the 7 million signups, he maintained that the law was a "catastrophe."

rogue49 · Apr 8, 2014

Well, the GOP is against government supported subsidies and big government.
YET...they effective do big government & subsidies through various paths.
Defense & Security, CIA, Oil & Gas, Prisons, etc.

Either party does social engineering though laws & policy.

So it's not like either REALLY is against big government.
It's just what their focus is...
GOP tends to support big business. (Although the Dems get their own too)
Dems tend to support a safety net. (Although the GOP do safety nets too, but they do this in a round-about way)

Basically, it's whatever their philosophy is at the time...and whatever is convenient for them.
Ex. The Koch Brothers are against big govt, EXCEPT in support and subsidies of their own industry.
Ex. Many elderly are against big govt, think an "entitlement" is an evil, EXCEPT keep your hands off their own Medicare or Social Security.

Obamacare/ACA is, quote, a big govt subsidy...EXCEPT that the govt is facilitating you buying from the insurance companies.
With a couple of laws in there that say, the insurance companies don't get to take your money and run. (ex. "pre-existing")
Although, I'm beginning to hear from Medical Billers they are starting to come up with different ploys

America has got to figure out how to get away from the business scam.
It's one thing to make money off a service...it's another to promise one thing, then don't deliver. (which to me is fraud & theft)
If you can't handle it...get out of the business.

That's the problem...because there are inherent conflicts of interest in all businesses,
then you're going to need a govt to monitor and regulate them...to protect both businesses AND citizens. (oh yes, businesses want protection too...)

In pro sports, you need refs.
In pro sports, you need med staff to support the players.

There you have it, Owners, Big Govt, ACA & Entitlements...in a pinch.
Obamacare is simply a new helmet rule.

Chris Noyb · Apr 9, 2014

samcol said: ↑

...

rofl. wife more concerned about loosing dollars than your health ...
Click to expand...

Not rofl.

rogue49 · Apr 9, 2014

Oopsy.
Fortunately for him, most Americans don't remember anything say until it's repeated a few thousand times. (and only in a catchy phrase)

Paul Ryan’s Obamacare repeal admission
By Jonathan Capehart

For as long as Republicans preached the gospel of “repeal and replace” and then just “repeal” Obamacare, they also assured everyone that the popular parts of the Affordable Care Act would remain. Keeping your kids on your insurance policy until they are 26 would stay. So, too, would the ban on denying coverage due to a preexisting condition. But in an interview with Al Hunt of Bloomberg News, Ryan let the cat out of the bag. Repeal of Obamacare would mean repeal of everything.

Here’s the exchange between Ryan and Hunt. Read it carefully, and I’ll meet you on the other side.

HUNT: You think it will be repealed?

RYAN: I don’t think it can last. Yes. I think the architecture of this law is so fundamentally flawed that I think it’s going to collapse under its own weight. And the sooner those of us who want true, real reform can show a better way forward, the faster we can repeal.

And, yes, I really do believe in the next administration with a better Congress that we will replace this law and save the health care system from this really ugly moment that’s –

HUNT: Let me ask you then about what you — some of the things you might replace or not replace, just a couple provisions that are popular. There’s some of Obamacare that — it bans insurance companies from discriminating for preexisting conditions. It lets you keep kids on your insurance until you’re 26. It bars insurance companies from creating different rates for people with — who engage in physical labor, like roofers and waitresses. It closes the donut hole, $10 billion more for senior, for prescription drugs.

Will those all survive? Will they be changed?

RYAN: So we can go through each one of those? And I have an answer specifically for each one of those, but if you look at these kinds of reforms, where they’ve been tried before, say the state of Kentucky, for example, you basically make it impossible to underwrite insurance. You dramatically crank up the cost. And you make it hard for people to get affordable health care.

Here’s the argument I would make. We can have in this country universal access to affordable health insurance for everybody, including people with preexisting conditions without a costly government takeover of one-sixth of our economy.

HUNT: And you think –

RYAN: We can do that. And I think there are better ideas and better reforms for getting at these very serious issues without these kinds of things that needlessly jeopardize the health care for people who–

HUNT: To keep all those protections, kids on –

RYAN: Yes, that was — that particular one was in the Republican alternative –

HUNT: – and not discriminate against people who do physical labor, like roofers and –

RYAN: There are better ways of dealing with those particular issues.

HUNT: But still be covered?

RYAN: Yes, and I think there are better ways of dealing with those very serious and legitimate issues without doing it this way, because I think this is the wrong approach.

HUNT: And the same thing with filling the donut hole, so-called donut hole?

RYAN: Look, how long do you have? Do you want to get into it all?

HUNT: No.

According to Ryan, Obamacare will collapse under its own weight. Not only must the law be repealed, but the provisions that are more popular than the law that makes them possible must go, too. He says they must be replaced by “better ways of dealing with those very serious and legitimate issues” without ever articulating what those “better ways” are.

“In the interview, Congressman Ryan did not substantively respond to the question of how he would provide consumer protections for individuals with health issues in a more effective way than the Affordable Care Act,” said Linda Blumberg of the Urban Institute. “For a while, Republicans were saying they would keep the popular parts. But that was folly from my perspective.” That’s because you have to think of the ACA as a machine with a series of interlocking gears needed for proper and effective operation. Remove one and the whole thing falls apart.

Let’s take the provision that requires insurers to provide health coverage to those with preexisting conditions. As Blumberg explained to me yesterday, “If you have the preexisting condition provision but don’t require insurers to issue a policy to all applicants, it won’t help anyone who needs it. If you have guaranteed issue but don’t require the same premiums regardless of health status, the sick won’t be helped” because then insurance companies could charge astronomical rates for policies that would make it difficult if not impossible for those with preexisting conditions to afford them. And “if the other protections are in place but there is no individual mandate, then people will get coverage only after they get sick and that would collapse the entire private insurance market.”

We can’t have that happen. Not when the number of uninsured is falling fast. According to the latest Gallup poll, “the uninsured rate dipped to 15.6% in the first quarter of 2014, a 1.5-percentage-point decline from the fourth quarter of 2013. The uninsured rate is now at the lowest level recorded since late 2008.” Gallup also said it was “a sign that the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as ‘Obamacare,’ appears to be accomplishing its goal of increasing the percentage of Americans with health insurance coverage.”

Because repealing Obamacare would strip millions of people of health insurance, Ryan’s “better ways” word salad and its dearth of details are beyond inadequate. The ACA has been the law of the land for four years and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court two years ago. That House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) today is saying his members are working on an alternative to Obamacare and need to “coalesce around a plan” is ridiculous.

© The Washington Post Company
Click to expand...

ASU2003 · Apr 10, 2014

I kind of doubt we will see a real Republican plan that they can get everyone on board with. With no new taxes and without kicking anybody off. I'm sure they will try and decouple it from the employer though. Probably have some sort of personal IRA/HSA account too (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). But, don't expect the average person to manage the investments and be 100% successful at doubling their money every 5 years.

What I am worried about is that the GOP/Tea Party will come up with something that sounds good to the loudest people out there, and they will repeal Obamacare in 2017. Then they won't pass or even bring up their healthcare proposal. They will just start cutting 'waste' wherever they can find it. Basically becoming the 'Death Panels' the warned about.

rogue49 · Apr 10, 2014

Kathleen Sebelius resigning from top HHS post

I was wondering how much longer she'd last.
She's been put through the wringer...whether legit or not. (or both)

Me, I'd get away for a LONG time.

rogue49 · Apr 15, 2014

Well, Obama is now having some good things going his way... (not that the public will likely pay attention )

- Insurance rolls are actually 4.8 million more than the 4.7...except they didn't go through the exchanges.
- CBO stating that the cost of the ACA will now be billions less.
- There have been a savings in medical costs, lower than previous years.

And the insurers themselves are now liking what they're seeing...MONEY. (ooo...let's do that again.)
Insurers see brighter Obamacare skies

Now, the subtle good thing for Obama and Dems is this...not that the insurers will be involve more with the ACA.
But the GOP won't stop going after it on their own...they'll keep trying to kill it.
HOWEVER, if the Big Insurance and Big Pharma gets involved...then they'll be pressing on the GOP with influence & cash to STFU.

Money talks, Bullshit walks

So...now my next question is this...sure they may have more success.
But will this have unintended consequences? Created a Monster?
Not as the GOP implied ever...but where the Insurance companies become a bit too influential?
We'll see.

RedSneaker · Apr 15, 2014

Having signed up for insurance through the exchange - and finding it a wee bit too expensive for my comfort level - I worry that now that they have us, what will keep them from upping the rates over and over again? Please tell me there's some kind of protection in place.

redux · Apr 15, 2014

The biggest challenge will be stabilizing premium rates in the first few years, given that many of the new enrollees are not the youngest or healthiest. Next year's rates will be based on this year's experiences and the law has several provisions so that insurers are not hit with huge bills this year, thus proposing big increases next year.

Most notably, there is a $50 billion reinsurance program that protects insurers from high claims by paying 80% of the claims. There is also what is called a risk corridor program for plans on the Exchanges that insurers get federal rebates if their direct health care costs are greater than expected and make payments to the government if those costs are less than expected.

In the longer term, as more folks sign up, the more stable the cost of premiums. And the law requires that any premium increase of 10 percent or more must be justified by the insurer and approved by HHS (or the state).

Also, for the first time, 80-85 percent of your premiums must be applied to patient care and not padding the profits of insurers.

That is not a direct answer, but these premium control features along with features of the law to drive down costs over time are the best guarantee that rates wont increase at the same annual high rates as they have before the law.

rogue49 · Apr 15, 2014

redux said: ↑

Also, for the first time, 80-85 percent of your premiums must be applied to patient care and not padding the profits of insurers.
Click to expand...

This is true for ALL accounts and companies...not just those who went through the ACA
so if your provider pulls too much from your payments within the year and goes beyond 20% administration,
then you'll be getting a rebate check at the end of the year. (this has already happened to me, I recall I got back $125)

They are starting to buckle down on all the providers for their excesses in past years.
And thank god they are, because I'm still experiencing some of the scams from before the law went full into effect. (Jan 2014)

My previous insurance company said ALL my claims before December were "pre-existing", thus denied them from the get-go.
And they set it up so the doctor would have to certify it, within 30 days...and me answer a questionnaire. (which they didn't give out or give contact info)
So now I'm battling them to pay...otherwise this will cost me $2000.

redux · Apr 16, 2014

rogue49 said: ↑

This is true for ALL accounts and companies...not just those who went through the ACA
so if your provider pulls too much from your payments within the year and goes beyond 20% administration,
then you'll be getting a rebate check at the end of the year. (this has already happened to me, I recall I got back $125)

....
Click to expand...

The medical loss ratio (80/20 rebates) rebates were implemented starting in 2012 and have totaled more that $2.5 billion to-date. In most cases (mine included), for group insurance, the rebate went to the employer who applied it to lowering the employee share this year.

A blog from The Hill

ObamaCare: What was all the fuss about

Can you imagine such a headline in November 2014?

All that after hundreds of millions in Koch brothers' negative ads, over 50 votes in the Republican-led House to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act and Republican candidates from coast to coast convinced they were going to get elected by putting all their eggs in the anti-ObamaCare basket.

And the American people were scratching their heads — really, this seems to be working, coming together, people signing up, costs down, premiums stabilizing.

So, not only were the Republicans crying from the rooftops, but this was all they were campaigning on.

They were offering no alternatives and, oh, yes, what were they contributing to create more jobs and improve our economy? What were they proposing?

The Ryan budget ... I don't think so.

The latest reports out of the nonpartisan budget analysts at the Congressional Budget Office indicate that premiums will be lower than expected, saving $104 billion over the next decade. Yes, lower.

Projections from CBO put the number of uninsured who will be covered at 12 million people this year. By 2017, there will be an additional 14 million who have lacked insurance who will be covered.

Just in the next few years, 26 million Americans will not fear economic ruin, will be able to see a doctor and will be able to live healthier, more productive lives.

Plus, all of us won't fear being dropped by our insurance company or not getting covered because of a pre-existing condition. All of us will not fear running up against caps for a serious health problem. All of us with children under 26 will have the peace of mind knowing that our policies cover our kids.

We have had around 50 million Americans without healthcare at some point in a given year for a while now. That figure will be cut roughly in half over the next few years.

Is this major reform easy? No. Is it to be accomplished without changes and alterations and negotiations with the states? No. Is it going to happen overnight? No.

That was true about Social Security and it was true about Medicare.

Cries of "socialized medicine," "government takeover" and "losing our freedoms" were heard over and over from the 1930s to the 1980s. Bogus.

When Medicare was put in place, nearly one in three senior citizens lived in poverty in America. That figure is now less than ten percent.

Will the vast majority of Americans be asking the question "what was all the fuss about?" by election time this year? Maybe not. But my guess is that the more good news continues to build, that will be the common view.

Democrats should hold the Republicans' feet to the fire and insist that they end their sad crusade to destroy real reform of our healthcare system, reform that truly helps people.

It won't be long before Republicans won't want to call this ObamaCare because of their fear that it will give President Obama and the Democrats too much credit.
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Apr 16, 2014

The real bill will be this.
How much money was wasted fighting it??
And still to not get the results they wanted.

In the end, it's Moneyball
How much win can you get for your money and efforts??

Because like the old school coaches that judged according to instinct, "principals" and romantic ideals,
it turns out it's stats...and what gets results.

ralphie250 · Apr 16, 2014

correct me if im wrong,

obamacare works like this......
you go to the doctors they say and obamacare pays significantly less to the drs office. only select few doctors take it, so if you live in the middle of nowhere and the closest dr that takes it is 50 miles away, then so be it. youre out of luck. please explain how it is affordable... i checked into it and it is $85 less per month than what i currently pay for medical dental and vision. and thats just medical.

Log in or Sign up

Politics Obamacare

redux Very Tilted

grumpyolddude Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet.

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

RedSneaker Very Tilted

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ralphie250 Fully Erect

Log in or Sign up

Politics Obamacare

redux Very Tilted

grumpyolddude Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet.

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

RedSneaker Very Tilted

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

redux Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ralphie250 Fully Erect

Useful Searches