Obamacare

the supporters of obamacare are quiet because they cant explain why the president lied in order to get the bill through, Whether it was the keeping of your insurance and doctor, or that 30 million uncovered people were lierally without insurance and dying for the opportunity to obtain it.

When we look at the 7 mil figure. They estimate 20 percent have no payment. That brings it down to 5.6 mil. Then in 6 months subtract out the people who will drop out by having to decide whether they will make their car payment , their rent payment...or health insurance.... and then subtract out all the people who were dumped by their old insurance and went to obamacare plans.

When the smoke clears I would be surprised if its more like 3 million that were never insured before. And I would guess that those 3 million would have a high concentration of high cost/high maintence disease states. The sickest of the sick of that "30mil" of course signed up. The increased cost ensuing will be absorbed by the policy holders in the end.

3 million vs 30 million.

the public was sold a bill of good/

Quote: LarryS

the supporters of obamacare are quiet because they cant explain why the president lied in order to get the bill through, Whether it was the keeping of your insurance and doctor, or that 30 million uncovered people were lierally without insurance and dying for the opportunity to obtain it.

When we look at the 7 mil figure. They estimate 20 percent have no payment. That brings it down to 5.6 mil. Then in 6 months subtract out the people who will drop out by having to decide whether they will make their car payment , their rent payment...or health insurance.... and then subtract out all the people who were dumped by their old insurance and went to obamacare plans.

When the smoke clears I would be surprised if its more like 3 million that were never insured before. And I would guess that those 3 million would have a high concentration of high cost/high maintence disease states. The sickest of the sick of that "30mil" of course signed up. The increased cost ensuing will be absorbed by the policy holders in the end.

3 million vs 30 million.

You forgot to subtract out those who had coverage they liked and lost it due to the Obamacare bill in the first place.

the public was sold a bill of good load of lies.

Quote: AZDuffman

You forgot to subtract out those who had coverage they liked and lost it due to the Obamacare bill in the first place.

the public was sold a bill of good load of lies.

I didnt forget.....second paragraph...at the end

Quote: steeldco

This thread has gone strangely silent. What happened to all the guys who thought that they could read the tea leaves and know what will happen with the Affordable Care Act? You know, those guys who thought that they knew what was best for all of us......thru their divine wisdom I guess.

The Republicans are going to end up being awfully sorry that they attached Obama's name to this act. They may end up making him a legend, which would be a shame.

It is the Democrats who call it the ACA--they are the ones trying to distance themselves from the "Obama"care label. If it were hurting Republicans, they'd be the ones doing the distancing.

I guess we'll be talking soon about another delay in the employer mandate--there are rumblings of that now. The President will just change the dates established in the law again without bothering with the consent of anyone.

Quote: LarryS

Quote: AZDuffman

You forgot to subtract out those who had coverage they liked and lost it due to the Obamacare bill in the first place.

the public was sold a bill of good load of lies.

I didnt forget.....second paragraph...at the end

My apologies and let my remarks be stricken from the record if you prefer. Call it a long week for me. Fun if you like history, but long.

Bang up job for Obamacare in MD!

"Maryland Health Insurance Exchange testified Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only 60,000 people have signed up for Obamacare through the state’s exchange - 13,000 less than the number of individuals reported to lose their insurance due to Obamacare. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/it-s-loss-md-73k-lose-insurance-60k-enroll-exchange."

So, Maryland, how do you like that free health care you thought you were getting?

Quote: AZDuffman

So, Maryland, how do you like that free health care you thought you were getting?

Crabby.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Crabby.

Meh.

Just killing time before a gig tonight.

I went to my billing service last week. It is my job to evaluate the accounts that are outstanding, and decide if we should send them to a collection agency, or write them off, or accept a reduced payment plan, etc.... What is happening with many of the 'Obamacare' plans is that to be 'affordable', they have ridiculously high deductibles, in the thousands of dollars. So the patient presents to our surgicenter, shows their insurance card, and they have the elective procedure. Then when my bill, say $500, is sent to their insurance company, it is applied to their deductible. So then I have to send the patient a bill for $500. A large number of patients just ignore the bills, period. Why should they pay me, they have health insurance for that! To be fair, this is not unique to Obamacare, but it has escalated substantially.
By the way, earlier in this thread, I think, I bemoaned the new coding system which was required as law in the ACA, page 1,286, I believe, called ICD 10. Non doctors probably didn't notice, but that has also been delayed by an extra year by an executive order..... My friend who is an expert in billing issues and runs a large multi-state group, says ICD 10 will require 20% more employees than the present way we submit bills. So I will congratulate Obama on 'jobs creation'!!!!

I am not familiar with ICD10. But I knowthe current ICD9 codes are used to bill procedures and the code identifies the medical condition. An insurance biller in a medical office is worth their weight in gold if they know these codes committed to memory, and can pull up uncommon ones from a long long list provided by the govt.It can take a couple of years to be proficient in it. The codes are not easy to remember. I have seen them...they are something like 123.5 222.5...its not like memorizing a whole number.
Are you saying that icd110 will replace the icd9 codes?

Quote: LarryS

I am not familiar with ICD10. But I knowthe current ICD9 codes are used to bill procedures and the code identifies the medical condition. An insurance biller in a medical office is worth their weight in gold if they know these codes committed to memory, and can pull up uncommon ones from a long long list provided by the govt.It can take a couple of years to be proficient in it. The codes are not easy to remember. I have seen them...they are something like 123.5 222.5...its not like memorizing a whole number.
Are you saying that icd110 will replace the icd9 codes?

My wife is a pediatric nurse practitioner and they are having classes on ICD10. It is a lot more complicated and will take more time.

"The International version of ICD should not be confused with national Clinical Modifications of ICD that frequently include much more detail, and sometimes have separate sections for procedures. The US ICD-10 CM, for instance, has some 68,000 codes. The US also has ICD-10 PCS, a procedure code system not used by other countries that contains 76,000 codes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10

It looks like ICD-9 had about 1000 codes, but I am not sure of that...there may be more fo accidents and things like that...

Quote: LarryS

I am not familiar with ICD10. But I knowthe current ICD9 codes are used to bill procedures and the code identifies the medical condition. An insurance biller in a medical office is worth their weight in gold if they know these codes committed to memory, and can pull up uncommon ones from a long long list provided by the govt.It can take a couple of years to be proficient in it. The codes are not easy to remember. I have seen them...they are something like 123.5 222.5...its not like memorizing a whole number.
Are you saying that icd110 will replace the icd9 codes?

Yes. And AFTER you pay for the classes necessary for your staff, estimated at 40 hours of lost time per employee, you will need 20% more workstaff to process the same number of bills. For me, an anesthesiologist, my coder may have to enter a code for something like... "broken femur, rodding of femur, and type of anesthesia" With ICD 10 they will have to add much more data that is irrelevant for how much they will pay me... "which side, what part of femur, was it as a result of an accident, was it open or closed fracture" Although those are important for the patient, they should be irrelevant on an anesthesia bill. many believe that the change is being done so more information can be collected, and analyzed, possibly to help patients in the future. I'm all for that. Does anyone think that the government will be paying us more for collecting this data for them?
Most believe this will hurt the smaller practice more than the big practice. The big practice having 5 billers just needs a 6th biller. If you have 2, its not easy to bump up to 2.4. So you may have to hire a 3rd.
I know I complain about the ridiculous amounts of wasteful paperwork I have to do as a result of government regulation, because it is the only business I really know well. It's great when I get together with a variety of friends in different fields, and I never hear anyone tell me how the government is making it easier for them, rather, all businesses are dealing more and more with anti-business regulations......

Quote: RonC

My wife is a pediatric nurse practitioner and they are having classes on ICD10. It is a lot more complicated and will take more time.

"The International version of ICD should not be confused with national Clinical Modifications of ICD that frequently include much more detail, and sometimes have separate sections for procedures. The US ICD-10 CM, for instance, has some 68,000 codes. The US also has ICD-10 PCS, a procedure code system not used by other countries that contains 76,000 codes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10

It looks like ICD-9 had about 1000 codes, but I am not sure of that...there may be more fo accidents and things like that...

this is labor intensive, and therefore costly. Someone pays for this. More red tape...

Quote: LarryS

this is labor intensive, and therefore costly. Someone pays for this. More red tape...

That is where government excels--adding red tape and bureaucracy to solve problems. They even begin to believe that they are doing a good job in the midst of what most would see as limited success or even failure. The Post Office borrowed there limit of $15 billion a couple years back and has yet to make any repayments on it--yet their cheerleader-in-chief was on TV the other day saying how it will all be fixed by 2018 without acknowledging any problems with money.

This is the same thing Obamacare was shoved down our throats with--bad math, lies, and the inability to understand reality. If you take money from years that aren't part of the program and count it to cover the cost of the program, it doesn't take much of math person to figure out that the program won't cover expenses at some point in the future. There will be more medical red tape than ever and care will not improve all that much, if at all. The people they need to sign up didn't sign up so even their cost estimates will be wrong in the short term...

Quote: RonC

That is where government excels--adding red tape and bureaucracy to solve problems. They even begin to believe that they are doing a good job in the midst of what most would see as limited success or even failure. The Post Office borrowed there limit of $15 billion a couple years back and has yet to make any repayments on it--yet their cheerleader-in-chief was on TV the other day saying how it will all be fixed by 2018 without acknowledging any problems with money.

This is the same thing Obamacare was shoved down our throats with--bad math, lies, and the inability to understand reality. If you take money from years that aren't part of the program and count it to cover the cost of the program, it doesn't take much of math person to figure out that the program won't cover expenses at some point in the future. There will be more medical red tape than ever and care will not improve all that much, if at all. The people they need to sign up didn't sign up so even their cost estimates will be wrong in the short term...

what the general public doesnt realize is that when obama calls for lowering cost...it often means lowering quality of care,

I can speak from experience that in pharmacy year after year insurance companies cut their reimbusrsement (they just ay take it or leave it)....meanwhile rents, salaries, insurance, energy costs, medication costs keep going up. Therefore a pharmacy has to fill more Rx per hour with the same staff in order to make the same money they did the year before and keep up with growing expenses. Result.............The misfill events are astronomically higher than they were 20 years ago.
Patient care suffers, Patient health suffers. And its all great until its your child that gets the wrong medication.

The same with doctors visits. I woudl guess that the length of time a doctor spends with a patient compared to 20-30 years ago is much less.
The more expenses the practice has to endure due to red tape, govt rules and regs, combined with reduced costs....the more patients they have to see per day in order to keep afloat.

The patient feels all warm and fuzzy when obama and others talk about reducing costs. Ok...but who pays for it in the end. You get what you pay for.
And for something like healthcare,,,and ones personal wellbeing......its not trivial.

If the govt reduces the payment for bypass surgery.....and if a hospotal usualy can comfortably do 2 of those surgeries a day.....well then they may have to squeeze in 3 per day in order to make the same money to keep their doors open and everyone payed. Maybe 3 perday isnt the optimal amount for patient health and care. But as a patient you will never know if a rush job was done..

Again, the quality of care will decrease..and no one will know the difference.....until substandard or rushed work hits them

The New Yorker does it again.
What a funny cover. Cruz, Bachman, Mitch as children having to take their medicine.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/04/cover-story-barry-blitt-the-best-medicine.html

Quote: terapined

The New Yorker does it again.
What a funny cover. Cruz, Bachman, Mitch as children having to take their medicine.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/04/cover-story-barry-blitt-the-best-medicine.html

We are all having Obamacare shoved down our throats.

The following is from the Los Angeles Times:

"The long-awaited Rand Corp. study of Obamacare's effect on health insurance coverage was released Tuesday and confirmed the numbers that had been telegraphed for more than a week: At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the law.


That's a net figure, accommodating all those who lost their individual health insurance because of cancellations. The Rand study confirms other surveys that placed the number of people who lost their old insurance and did not or could not replace it -- the focus of an enormous volume of anti-Obamacare rhetoric -- at less than 1 million. The Rand experts call this a "very small" number, less than 1% of the U.S. population age 18 to 64.

The Rand study was eagerly anticipated in part because of the dearth of hard information from other sources, including the federal and state governments, which are still compiling their statistics and may not have a full slate for months.

Rand acknowledges that its figures have limitations -- they're based on a survey sampling, meaning that the breakdowns are subject to various margins of error, and they don't include much of the surge in enrollments in late March and early April. Those 3.2-million sign-ups not counted by Rand could "dramatically affect" the figures on total insureds, the organization said.

A few other important takeaways:

--The number of people getting insurance through their employers increased by 8.2 million. Rand said the increase is likely to have been driven by a decline in unemployment, which made more people eligible for employer plans, and by the incentives in the Affordable Care Act encouraging more employer coverage. The figure certainly undermines the contention by the healthcare law's critics that the legislation gave employers an incentive to drop coverage.

--Of the 3.9 million people counted by Rand as obtaining insurance on the individual exchange market, 36% were previously uninsured. That ratio is expected to rise when the late signups are factored in. Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million, the majority of whom did not have insurance before signing up.

--These figures are only the leading edge of a long-term trend. "It's still early in the life of the ACA," Rand said. Its experts expect more enrollments "as people become more familiar with the law, the individual mandates increase to their highest levels, the employer mandate kicks in, and other changes occur." But their bottom line is that the law already has led to "a substantial increase in insurance coverage."


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-rand-20140408,0,6208659.column#ixzz2yKrKgi2P

I'll buy into most of the above. The paragraph regarding the number of people getting insurance through their employers increasing by 8.2 million is a little difficult, for me, to believe..........

Quote: steeldco

Of the 3.9 million people counted by Rand as obtaining insurance on the individual exchange market, 36% were previously uninsured. That ratio is expected to rise when the late signups are factored in. Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million, the majority of whom did not have insurance before signing up.

In no sense is Medicaid insurance. For starters, no one is paying any premiums. The mere tying together of Medicaid and health care insurance is a blithe mixture of disingenuousness and malfeasance.

Medicaide is welfare.If obama gets more people into the welfare system and calls this a victory for healthcare....its very sad.

Quote: LarryS

Medicaide is welfare.If obama gets more people into the welfare system and calls this a victory for healthcare....its very sad.

Suppose someone gets early treatment for conditions which could later cause a stroke or heart attack or lead to some permanent disability. How much does the latter cost to treat if you just wait?

We pay for the emergent care if not for preventive. Imagine the hit to the healthcare system if everyone thought flu shots and vaccines were a waste of money. Or blood pressure checks. All preventive.

Early treatment of disease should be cost saving if society is going to absorb that cost anyway which it will with the Medicaid.

Quote: rxwine

Suppose someone gets early treatment for conditions which could later cause a stroke or heart attack or lead to some permanent disability. How much does the latter cost to treat if you just wait?

We pay for the emergent care if not for preventive. Imagine the hit to the healthcare system if everyone thought flu shots and vaccines were a waste of money. Or blood pressure checks. All preventive.

Early treatment of disease should be cost saving if society is going to absorb that cost anyway which it will with the Medicaid.

here is a dose of reality. The people on welfare in general are on welfare for a reason. They are not very responsible with their lives. They in geneeral arent very educated, do not have the drive to better themselves. Many are on welfare for years and even generations. Many are obese from inactivity. They have acess to medical care but the people on welfare arent the healthiest people because they are by nature not responsible enough to take care of themselves.

I am leaving people who are mentally disabled out of this conversation. Sp now we have more people onto the welfare roles. Great.

Quote: LarryS

here is a dose of reality. The people on welfare in general are on welfare for a reason. They are not very responsible with their lives. They in geneeral arent very educated, do not have the drive to better themselves. Many are on welfare for years and even generations. Many are obese from inactivity. They have acess to medical care but the people on welfare arent the healthiest people because they are by nature not responsible enough to take care of themselves.

If I remember correctly you're against increasing the buying power of the working poor. Minimum wage adjusted for inflation should be $10.00 by now. Why leave welfare?

Quote: rxwine

If I remember correctly you're against increasing the buying power of the working poor. Minimum wage adjusted for inflation should be $10.00 by now. Why leave welfare?

Why leave welfare? Because work is a requirement of life. You are supposed to work because you want to pull your own weight and live a productive life. This idea that we need to raise the minimum wage to "make work attractive" is silly. The idea that you spend your life on minimum wage is silly.

Quote: rxwine

If I remember correctly you're against increasing the buying power of the working poor. Minimum wage adjusted for inflation should be $10.00 by now. Why leave welfare?

welfare is an unlimited printing press of money unlike unemployment.

You see with unemployment it runs out. People used to making 30/hr collect the check....but when the check runs out they are willing to work for whateever they can get. Its amazing how people can be coaxed to take lesser paying jobs when the money is cut off.

Cutting off welfare may be extreme...so reducing it over 6 months periods little by little until the person reaches the point where working seems like a good idea would be a motivating factor.

I agree, if the govt gave me enough money to pay for my cable tv, my smart phone bills, my food, and shelter. and gave me more money everytime I had a kid....its highly motivating to stay home, get fat in front of the TV, and let the world pass me by.

Anyway if the min wage went up....the welfare people who have been out of the job market for years with no real sharp skills of anykind....would not be the people hired under the new higher rates. As more would be expected for thier money being paid...companies would be more selective who they hired. More selectivity would be bad news for the welfare crowd.

HHS Secretary Sebelius has resigned to spend more time with heERROR 404 PAGE NOT FOUND

Quote: rxwine

If I remember correctly you're against increasing the buying power of the working poor. Minimum wage adjusted for inflation should be $10.00 by now. Why leave welfare?

I wonder how much more gasoline and any product brought to retail outlets by transportation methods powered by gasoline could be bought at the same dollar amount if taxes on gasoline were lowered. The problem doesn't seem to be what poor folks (or anyone else for that matter) are taking in as much as it is what taxes are taking out.

Quote: MrWarmth

I wonder how much more gasoline and any product brought to retail outlets by transportation methods powered by gasoline could be bought at the same dollar amount if taxes on gasoline were lowered. The problem doesn't seem to be what poor folks (or anyone else for that matter) are taking in as much as it is what taxes are taking out.

EvenBob, is that you?

Quote: treetopbuddy

EvenBob, is that you?

Hehe, no, is that something he/she would say? Is that the same one with 14,999 posts? I'm something short of that ...

Though they have been trying to do the socialist method a/k/a "single payer," Vermont is learning what a child should know. That it isn't some magical way to reduce costs.

My favorite part of the article is this sentence:

"And the once-vaunted fabulous savings from preventative care have mostly turned out not to exist."

Vermont is smaller in population than metro Buffalo with one insurer having 74% of the market. Every savings from single-payer should exist, yet they do not. So those that want single-payer should take a long, hard look and be careful what they wish for.

The next President, Democrat or Republican, will have a heck of a job in front of them. If they try to "kick the can down the road", we're in trouble. This badly written and poorly implemented law won't work in the long run. There is an unwillingness among supporters to concede that point at this time because they want to win in 2014. When they lose, and I am hopeful they will lose, they will change their tune to help keep the White House.

HOW it will be "fixed" is a matter of which party wins and how much of a majority they have...but, make no mistake, the bumbling administration we have now will fix nothing.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/cbo-obamacare-will-cover-more-people-at-a-lower-cost-than-we-expected/360633/

first paragraph:
Into the bucket labeled "Small Bits of Good News that Will Not Change People's Minds on Obamacare" (it is a wide bucket), throw this: The Congressional Budget Office has reduced its estimate for how much Obamacare will cost and increased its estimate of how many people will be covered.

Quote: Dalex64

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/cbo-obamacare-will-cover-more-people-at-a-lower-cost-than-we-expected/360633/

first paragraph:
Into the bucket labeled "Small Bits of Good News that Will Not Change People's Minds on Obamacare" (it is a wide bucket), throw this: The Congressional Budget Office has reduced its estimate for how much Obamacare will cost and increased its estimate of how many people will be covered.

There is little trust in any numbers because there is no transparency regarding how many people enrolled per month, how many people are making payments on time, how many "net new" people have coverage (those that went from no coverage to having coverage) and how many merely switched types of coverage (could still be a positive if they gained employer coverage and no cost was added to the government's expenses), etc. As often happens in politics, we don't get the whole picture; just the spin.

I did look at the report:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45231

One thing I noticed is that it counts on billions in penalty payments and other collections. Since the penalties have never seemed easy to collect unless someone is getting a tax refund, I wonder how accurate that number will turn out to be.

The article is right...it is sure not enough to make someone who was against this support it or the opposite...but it is a positive report on Obamacare.

Quote: RonC

One thing I noticed is that it counts on billions in penalty payments and other collections. Since the penalties have never seemed easy to collect unless someone is getting a tax refund, I wonder how accurate that number will turn out to be.

When the Jersey Turnpike installed E-ZPass, Governor Christie Whitman promised that the tens of millions of dollars in costs would be paid by the fines collected from toll evaders and not an increase in tolls. The collections never happened. And the tolls did go up.

Excerpted from a Gallup article of today:

"Many states continue to debate implementing these measures. Nebraska's state government recently voted down Medicaid expansion, while New Hampshire voted to expand, effective July 1. Perhaps no state is being watched more closely than Utah, a conservative state with a Republican governor, Gary Herbert, that is considering Medicaid expansion but under revised, more flexible terms than what the Affordable Care Act provides. These plans, which include a three-year block grant to cover about 110,000 low-income residents with private insurance, plus cost sharing and work requirements, have fueled ongoing conversations with federal officials at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The resolution of these negotiations and Utah's final decision may ultimately pave the way for more conservative-leaning states to follow, which could prove to be the best source of continued decline in the national uninsured rate in the months ahead."

Wow? Can there be some Republicans who are finally realizing how wrong they were? Coming to their senses? It's time to toss the current heads of that party along with the tea guys and restore it to the once great party that it was...........

Quote: Dalex64

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/cbo-obamacare-will-cover-more-people-at-a-lower-cost-than-we-expected/360633/

first paragraph:
Into the bucket labeled "Small Bits of Good News that Will Not Change People's Minds on Obamacare" (it is a wide bucket), throw this: The Congressional Budget Office has reduced its estimate for how much Obamacare will cost and increased its estimate of how many people will be covered.

Are they saying that the outlay from the federal govt is going to be less than they thought?

Its always been my observation that the cost is being absorbed by the policy holders in the forms of higher deductables, higher copays, less full coverage on certain procedures,....

Its like the federal govt ordering insurance companies to accept coverage by people applying AFTER their house burned down, causing them to raise rates for everyone else.....and then declaring it cost the federal govt zero extra dollars.

Quote: LarryS

Are they saying that the outlay from the federal govt is going to be less than they thought?

Its always been my observation that the cost is being absorbed by the policy holders in the forms of higher deductables, higher copays, less full coverage on certain procedures,....

Its like the federal govt ordering insurance companies to accept coverage by people applying AFTER their house burned down, causing them to raise rates for everyone else.....and then declaring it cost the federal govt zero extra dollars.

No one tackles the most evasive number--the cost of everything that changed, not just the government costs. If your premium went up and your coverage didn't get better, your deductible went up for the same premium, or if either went down, it is a change in the price of the bill one way or the other. Shifting costs to me from you may not cost the government any money, but it is a cost...

Quote: steeldco

Excerpted from a Gallup article of today:

"Many states continue to debate implementing these measures. Nebraska's state government recently voted down Medicaid expansion, while New Hampshire voted to expand, effective July 1. Perhaps no state is being watched more closely than Utah, a conservative state with a Republican governor, Gary Herbert, that is considering Medicaid expansion but under revised, more flexible terms than what the Affordable Care Act provides. These plans, which include a three-year block grant to cover about 110,000 low-income residents with private insurance, plus cost sharing and work requirements, have fueled ongoing conversations with federal officials at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The resolution of these negotiations and Utah's final decision may ultimately pave the way for more conservative-leaning states to follow, which could prove to be the best source of continued decline in the national uninsured rate in the months ahead."

Wow? Can there be some Republicans who are finally realizing how wrong they were? Coming to their senses? It's time to toss the current heads of that party along with the tea guys and restore it to the once great party that it was...........

If the administration is somehow changing the rules of the program to make it more attractive to Utah, what authority are they doing it under? Obama's Super Powers Act? The debate is not about whether or not to take federal money; it has been about who will pay once the federal funding ends. It is like buying a brand new car with that extra monthly check you'll get for 36 months when you are financing the car forever--where do the extra bucks come from after 36 months?

WASHINGTON — President Obama's health law has led to an even greater increase in health coverage than previously estimated, according to new Gallup survey data, which suggests that about 12 million previously uninsured Americans have gained coverage since last fall.


That is millions more than Gallup found in March and suggests that as many as 4 million people have signed up for some kind of insurance in the last several weeks as the first enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act drew to a close.

Just 12.9% of adults nationally lacked coverage in the first half of April, initial data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index indicate. That's the lowest rate since the survey began in 2008.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-insurance-20140417,0,5622418.story#ixzz2zEiTutTL


As I have been saying, the dumbass Republicans are going to make Obama's presidency a great one by calling the health care act "Obamacare". Man, the party needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Quote: steeldco

As I have been saying, the dumbass Republicans are going to make Obama's presidency a great one by calling the health care act "Obamacare". Man, the party needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

If that happens, bravo! I just don't think a couple of 'feel good" numbers make that much difference when there are more "feel bad" numbers out there...and the administration continues to provide only the good numbers and not the bad ones (like how many have paid, how many are now on Medicaid that taxpayers will pay for, how many accounts are subsidized, etc.). That is in their best interests, but it also makes the bad numbers seem worse when someone finally gets them.

This is no time for either party to be cocky...

Quote: RonC

This is no time for either party to be cocky...

Wow. I think that's the most humble thing any republican has said in this thread...

Once, when I served on a jury in California, the prosecution presented a videotape of a defendant stealing a sweatshirt from an athletic supply store. The defendant took the stand in the case, and testified that she had never stolen anything in her life.

On cross, the prosecution presented the video evidence (there was lots of other evidence, but the video is what caused us to convict her). The defendant said the tape had been doctored. It hadn't.

The prosecutor asked the defendant if she knew what stealing was. The defendant replied (roughly) that stealing was taking something that didn't belong to you.

The prosecutor asked, did the sweatshirt belong to you. She said, no.

The prosecutor asked, did you take the sweatshirt. She said, yes.

The prosecutor said, so you testify that stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you. She said, yes.

The prosecutor said, you've testified that the sweatshirt didn't belong to you and that you took it. She said, yes.

The prosecutor said, but you've never stolen anything in your life. She said, no.

The defendant, it turns out, was a caucasian woman who had two degrees from UC Davis, one of which was their version of pre-law. She was not minority, she was not ignorant, she was not "victimized' by any stretch of any definition of the word.

Upon conviction, she maintained (yelled and cursed) her innocence of having stolen anything.

This woman reminds me of any liberal/Democrat/progressive who can stare in the face of the abomination that is Obamacare and still defend it. There is no level of denial that an otherwise sane and educated person will fail to attain when it comes to something they perceive to be close to their self-esteem and identity.

To think Obamacare is anything but an utter disaster and contrary to the American tradition is, simply put, on the same level as anyone who believes Earth is flat, the universe is 8,000 years old, the climate is not changing, homosexuality is a choice, and humans did not evolve from lower life forms. It is the most willful and submissive form of ignorance that I can think of. The woman is a thief; Obamaacare is an unmitigated disaster.

To those who still think Obamacare is a good thing ... that's OK, just don't pretend that belief makes someone anything other than the same type of person as the right reverend Fred Phelps.

+10,000

Quote: MrWarmth

To those who still think Obamacare is a good thing ... that's OK, just don't pretend that belief makes someone anything other than the same type of person as the right reverend Fred Phelps.

The reason most people attack the person speaking against Obamacare is that they have little to argue in support of it, and the way it has been implemented, to this point. The good numbers don't seem to prove out once examined (though some may when they give us all the numbers; I just doubt it).

Deleted double post...

Whatever the reasons are for people attacking those who speak against Obamacare, it is not necessarily that attackers have little to support their side. It would seem just the converse is true, though, in light of all the accusations of "if you oppose, you're racist" out there. Also, agnosticism is a horrible way to approach or silence debate, and I always wondered why anyone would try that tactic, particularly on an issue that should be intensely examined. If you just want quiet, I would have more respect if you said something like, "I'm tired of this issue, I acknowledge it remains open but can we please move on?"

But the lack of solid, reasonable points for or against it that should be vigorously debated? No.

But if it's helpful, the example I gave above is based on the appeal going on right now in the DC circuit court. The case is Halbig v. Sebelius and it regards the subsidizing of health insurance for people who signed up through the federal exchange (and not a state exchange). Obamacare states somewhat repeatedly and forcefully that, if you sign up through a federal exchange, you are not eligible for federal subsidies. You are only eligible for federal subsidies if you sign up through a state exchange. I don't know the thinking/reasoning behind that, but there it is.

Several Texas representatives (I think Johnson, Doggett, Cuellar, and a couple of others) took exception during the debate and famously sent a letter to then-Speaker Pelosi saying that the law should include subsidies for those who sign up through the federal exchange as well, but they didn't succeed in getting it into the bill.

So, paraphrased, the case is going something like this:

The judge asks, states have the right to decide whether or not to set up state exchanges? Obama (his administration's lawyer) said, yes.

The judge asks, 34 states elected to not do that? Obama said, yes.

The judge asks, the law says only those who sign up through state exchanges are eligible for federal subsidies? Obama says, yes.

The judge says, many people who signed up through the federal exchange are receiving subsidies? Obama says, yes.

The judge says, how can that be? Obama says, they signed up through a state exchange.

The judge reminds, didn't you just say that they signed up through the federal exchange? Obama says, yes.

The judge asks, how is this not against the law? Obama says, they signed up through a state exchange.

The phrase I used was "willful and submissive ignorance." There could not be a better example.

Now ... it's a paraphrase, but it reflects the essence of what's going on in that courtroom. Those subsidies will eventually be stricken down, "enrollment" (phantom or otherwise) through the federal exchanges will plummet, and millions will lose their health insurance.

Ironically, millions will (and have) lost insurance because the law is being followed/upheld, not struck down.

As I recall, the purpose of the law was to make sure people were able to get health insurance, not lose it.

That is a nuts-and-bolts example of why the law is a disaster, how Obama is breaking his own law, why the supporting of it cannot be because of concern for people having health insurance, and why supporting it under that auspice is "willful and submissive ignorance."

The most effectively enslaved person is one who does not believe he is enslaved.

blind¡¤er (bl¨©n¡ädər)
n.
1. blinders A pair of leather flaps attached to a horse's bridle to curtail side vision. Also called blinkers.

2. Something that serves to obscure clear perception and discernment.

Yep....seems to fit the current Republican leadership.

The plan isn't to just get everyone insurance. It is to get everyone insurance at a certain minimum level.

Some people have lost their plan because the minimum level, others because their employers are no longer providing a plan.

I think the net effect is more people are insured now than they were before, and the floor has been raised as to what is acceptable insurance.

And yes, it will cost society as a whole more dollars.

I think it is too soon to call it an absolute disaster, though. I can't lump the supporters togeter with the young earth believers.

Maybe not, but a) the insurance-at-a-certain-level was not what was sold, and b) cost society as a whole more dollars was the exact opposite of what was sold ... at least, I can't think of a mathematical method of "the average bill will decrease $2,400" does not = "cost society as a whole less dollars." Society is just the collection of people who (among other things) have insurance.

The government's sole revenue sources are taxes and borrowing, at least if the chart on p. 100 of the 1040 instructions is reliable. Subsidies come from taxes, which come from society and therefore cannot be ignored in the "society as a whole" equation. And again, we were not sold "once you add subsidies, your insurance will cost less." We were sold, "it will cost less."

I know that selling is a different exercise than enacting, but this leaves us with very few choices regarding those who both sold and enacted the law: Democrats (not one Republican in either body voted for this). 1. They didn't know what they were talking about, or 2. They knew and lied about it. The gentler of the two is that they didn't know what they were talking about, but they said they did know ... which means they knew they didn't know and lied about it. In the end, the conclusion cannot be escaped that Democrats lied about this legislation.

But them lying about it doesn't axiomatically make the legislation poor. What it does do, however, is provide a backdrop for anything else Democrats tell us about the legislation. They cared enough about passing it to lie about it; it is not a stretch by any means to assume they're lying about it now in its implementation phase. Also, add to it a despotic executive who has unilaterally changed the law over 70 times. One wonders why a law that is supposedly so excellent has to be changed in smoke-filled back rooms ruled by rich people who want to get richer.

As for the minimum level, that's easily best taken care of in the marketplace and by the individual. For example, both I (single, no kids) and my post-menopausal mother must, by law, carry pregnancy insurance for us .. not for anyone who depends on us, but us. If I had someone depending on me, say, a 6-year-old daughter, then yes, my policy would cover my 6-year-old daughter for pregnancy. I know for a fact that my previous policy did not insure me for pregnancy.

FWIW, I voted for Obama, both times, and Harry Reid and Shelley Berkley. The last Republican I voted for was GWB in 2004. But it will be several elections before I vote Democrat again. This work simply must be undone.