Obamacare Rocks! (aka Keep Flushing That Toilet!)

[PaceAdvantage]

An interesting piece sent to me by our long lost pal, JustRalph:

All of that tax money you loaned to the Obamacare co-ops? That’s probably gone

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/11/all-of-that-tax-money-you-loaned-to-the-obamacare-co-ops-thats-probably-gone/

The key thing to observe here, which I alluded to above, is that this was not the cost of the program as an approved spending initiative. If the House of Representatives had approved that money as spending and it went south, well… you can’t win ’em all. But much like the Detroit auto industry bailout, these were taxpayer backed loans which were expected to be repaid with interest. Another parallel is the Export Import Bank which makes taxpayer backed loans on a regular basis, though with an admittedly far better record of repayment. If the loan goes bad and the money isn’t returned, that’s our taxpayer dollars gone down a rat hole with no return.

When you combine the shaky nature of the investment which Ed described with the political climate surrounding it, the results are clear. This was a program which a first year economics student should have been able to identify as a sinking ship, but the Democrats were motivated by political reasons to keep flushing cash into it to preserve the tale they were spinning about the American healthcare market. Those assumptions proved false and now a billion dollars of your money has sailed off into the sunset.

[tucker6]

An interesting piece sent to me by our long lost pal, JustRalph:

All of that tax money you loaned to the Obamacare co-ops? That’s probably gone

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/11/all-of-that-tax-money-you-loaned-to-the-obamacare-co-ops-thats-probably-gone/
so can we all drop off emails to you and have you post them? Would save time logging in. Two posts in a row I've looked at, and they are both by you acting as proxy for Ralph. Why doesn't Ralph just suck it up and log in and post himself?

[PaceAdvantage]

Awesome contribution bro

[tucker6]

Awesome contribution bro
It would be nice to engage JustRalph in thread convo. Nothing against you, but that can't be done through proxy. Didn't mean to slam you, but when I came across two in a row, I was like, seriously?

[Tom]

Ralph didn't write either of those pieces.
What do you think you would get from him you are missing?

[tucker6]

Ralph didn't write either of those pieces.
What do you think you would get from him you are missing?
I think I know that. It would be nice to converse with the person and not the article.

[boxcar]

I think I know that. It would be nice to converse with the person and not the article.

I never knew that conversing with an article was even possible. You wouldn't mind sharing that trick with us, would you? :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

I never knew that conversing with an article was even possible. You wouldn't mind sharing that trick with us, would you? :rolleyes:
don't you have a bible verse you need to misinterpret. It is interesting how many butthurt people there are over a fairly obvious point. Carry on. ;)

[boxcar]

don't you have a bible verse you need to misinterpret. It is interesting how many butthurt people there are over a fairly obvious point. Carry on. ;)

You should focus more on your writing skills than any supposed misinterpretations of mine. By the way, have you ever had an article talk back at you? :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

From the article:

This was an experiment which has proven little more than the fact that Washington is barely able to manage the budget for mowing the lawn.

Perhaps the writer misses the fact that at least 15 million Americans were able to secure health insurance since 2009 who did not have it previously. Or maybe he just doesn't care. Either way, for the price of a week in Iraq, we made sure 15 million Americans were able to secure health insurance for at least the last 5 years. Sounds like a phenomenal deal to me - especially when you think about what we got for a buck in Iraq.

Check these Iraq War expenses out and then come back and cry some more about the "insanity" of Obamacare costs:

$1.7 trillion: Amount in war expenses spent by the U.S. Treasury Department as through Fiscal Year 2013.

$5,000: Amount spent per second.

$350,000: Cost to deploy one American military member.

$490 billion: Amount in war benefits owed to war veterans.

$7 trillion: Projected interest payments due by 2053 (because the war was paid for with borrowed money).

$20 billion: Amount paid to KBR, contractor responsible for equipment and services.

$3 billion: Amount of KBR payments Pentagon auditors considered "questionable."

$60 billion: Amount paid for reconstruction, (which was ruled largely a waste due to corruption and shoddy work.)

$4 billion: Amount owed to the U.S. by Iraq before the invasion.

1.6 million: Gallons of oil used by U.S. forces each day in Iraq (at $127.68 a barrel).

$12 billion: Cost per month of the war by 2008.

$7 billion: Amount owed to Iraq by the U.S. after the war (mostly due to fraud).

$20 billion: Annual air conditioning cost.

Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-iraq-war-by-numbers-2014-6

[Stillriledup]

so can we all drop off emails to you and have you post them? Would save time logging in. Two posts in a row I've looked at, and they are both by you acting as proxy for Ralph. Why doesn't Ralph just suck it up and log in and post himself?

I agree, where's Ralph. If he doesn't come back ill pass him in post count. :D

[zico20]

From the article:

This was an experiment which has proven little more than the fact that Washington is barely able to manage the budget for mowing the lawn.

Perhaps the writer misses the fact that at least 15 million Americans were able to secure health insurance since 2009 who did not have it previously. Or maybe he just doesn't care. Either way, for the price of a week in Iraq, we made sure 15 million Americans were able to secure health insurance for at least the last 5 years. Sounds like a phenomenal deal to me - especially when you think about what we got for a buck in Iraq.

Check these Iraq War expenses out and then come back and cry some more about the "insanity" of Obamacare costs:

$1.7 trillion: Amount in war expenses spent by the U.S. Treasury Department as through Fiscal Year 2013.

$5,000: Amount spent per second.

$350,000: Cost to deploy one American military member.

$490 billion: Amount in war benefits owed to war veterans.

$7 trillion: Projected interest payments due by 2053 (because the war was paid for with borrowed money).

$20 billion: Amount paid to KBR, contractor responsible for equipment and services.

$3 billion: Amount of KBR payments Pentagon auditors considered "questionable."

$60 billion: Amount paid for reconstruction, (which was ruled largely a waste due to corruption and shoddy work.)

$4 billion: Amount owed to the U.S. by Iraq before the invasion.

1.6 million: Gallons of oil used by U.S. forces each day in Iraq (at $127.68 a barrel).

$12 billion: Cost per month of the war by 2008.

$7 billion: Amount owed to Iraq by the U.S. after the war (mostly due to fraud).

$20 billion: Annual air conditioning cost.

Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-iraq-war-by-numbers-2014-6

How is that a great deal when many got it for free. Why don't we make it the deal of the century and give everybody free health insurance that is currently uninsured. :bang:

[NJ Stinks]

How is that a great deal when many got it for free. Why don't we make it the deal of the century and give everybody free health insurance that is currently uninsured. :bang:

As opposed to what? Watching them suffer and die? :confused:

[zico20]

As opposed to what? Watching them suffer and die? :confused:

How about we get rid of medicaid and make everyone pay for their health insurance. I know you would hate that idea since the freebies would go away but you can't tax the middle class into oblivion to pay for your utopia society.

[mostpost]

An interesting piece sent to me by our long lost pal, JustRalph:

All of that tax money you loaned to the Obamacare co-ops? That’s probably gone

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/11/all-of-that-tax-money-you-loaned-to-the-obamacare-co-ops-thats-probably-gone/
Whoever wrote this article thinks the exchanges and the coops are the same thing. The exchanges are not failing. They have had some problems, but those are decreasing steadily. The exchanges don't have to pay back any loans because they were never given any loans. Expenses of the exchanges are paid through funds appropriated through the Affordable Care Act.

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, it included $6 billion in loans to launch Consumer Owned and Oriented Plans. The vision was to create nonprofit health insurance companies that would provide low-cost, high quality policies to individuals and small businesses. Without the need to produce a return on investment, these enterprises would, in theory, be able to compete against the major generally for-profit players in the market. In fact, in places where competition was scant, these co-ops would help the market deliver better value for all consumers.

The COOPs are non profit health insurance companies created to provide competition-or in some cases to take the place of-for the established companies.

This obviously worked better in theory than in practice, but stop saying that the Exchanges are failing. They are not. Also, half the coops have not failed.

[Clocker]

This obviously worked better in theory than in practice, but stop saying that the Exchanges are failing. They are not. Also, half the coops have not failed.

I am shocked, shocked that the public sector worked better than the private sector in theory, but not in practice. :rolleyes:

Technically, half the coops have not yet failed. Yet.

Of the original 23, 12 have shut down or have announced that they will no longer offer policies after the end of this year. Most of the rest (about 8 or 9 of 11) are on life support, and are not long for this world.

[Tom]

How is that a great deal when many got it for free. Why don't we make it the deal of the century and give everybody free health insurance that is currently uninsured. :bang:

And now the party of bottomless pockets want to steal MORE money from honest working Americans to give ACA to illegals.

17 - the IQ of someone who thinks you can compare the legitimate costs of a war, which the current front runner for the next POTUS voted YEAH!

13 - the IQ of someone who will soon rush to defend him with phony stats

9 - the IQ of someone who is at this moment trying to decide between purple and mocha for the bars in his graph about to be posted.

Fun with numbers.

[PaceAdvantage]

Whoever wrote this article thinks the exchanges and the coops are the same thing. The exchanges are not failing. They have had some problems, but those are decreasing steadily. The exchanges don't have to pay back any loans because they were never given any loans. Expenses of the exchanges are paid through funds appropriated through the Affordable Care Act.



The COOPs are non profit health insurance companies created to provide competition-or in some cases to take the place of-for the established companies.

This obviously worked better in theory than in practice, but stop saying that the Exchanges are failing. They are not. Also, half the coops have not failed.So you're not disputing the major point of the article...which is...taxpayer money loaned to these failed COOPs is likely to never be seen again...

Was this risk highlighted by the Obama administration and slammed home to us by the critical media during the Obamacare debate? You know, the debate that was supposed to be the most TRANSPARENT in history?

No? I didn't think so.

[davew]

But look, 0bama has been doing such a good job tightening his belt and lowering the deficit. His last year (2015) deficit is even lower than Bush's last year (2008). The total uninsured number in the country has dropped markedly - it is probably near 20 million now and closer to 30 million if you count the 'undocumented visitors'. When something is the right thing to do, it should not matter what it costs.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartDp01f.png

[Clocker]

Was this risk highlighted by the Obama administration and slammed home to us by the critical media during the Obamacare debate? You know, the debate that was supposed to be the most TRANSPARENT in history?


The administration assumed that there was no risk. Once the bill was passed and everyone saw what was in it, everyone would gleefully jump on board and we would all live happily ever after.

The assumption about the coops was that they would soon get enough people signed up to make them self-sustaining. No one with a wit of knowledge about business, insurance, or the private sector believed that for a minute.

The problem with the coops, as with ObamaCare in general, was that rates were too high for the young and healthy people needed to subsidize the older and sicker. Which is why rates on the exchanges, as well as from the coops, keep climbing.

Exchange premiums are climbing all over the country. For example, plans increased rates by 25.1 percent in Kentucky, 14 percent in Ohio, and nearly 11 percent in Michigan. In Idaho, the largest insurer, Blue Cross of Idaho, had a rate increase of 23 percent. Some plans, as in the case of New Mexico, had to pull from the exchanges due to high costs. For the country as a whole, through modeling at The Heritage Foundation, we estimate that a premium increase of roughly 15 percent is in order for 2016.


While this year’s experience with the Affordable Care Act exchanges has been worse than expected, it is important to remember that the Affordable Care Act had already drastically increased premiums for individual health insurance.

For 2014, in the state of Tennessee, premiums for a 27-year-old on the exchanges cost 70 percent more than what that person would have paid previously. In 2015, premiums would increase another 18 percent for that individual, in a year that was billed as one including “modest” increases.

For a 50-year-old, premiums increased by 31.6 percent in 2014 and 9.8 percent in 2015. In 2016, the premium increases for younger adults is similarly larger than the rest of the population. While many will point to the subsidies as a reason premiums are not rising quickly for many individuals in the exchanges, it is important to note the effect higher costs have on discouraging enrollment from people that have higher incomes.



http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/21/why-obamacare-premiums-are-climbing-all-over-us/

[Dave Schwartz]

When something is the right thing to do, it should not matter what it costs.

As one who has had the most cost-effective healthcare of his life during the first 2 years of ACA, I must disagree.

The fact that good healthcare should be available to everyone, does not make it practical. I still do not see how the country can afford to pay for my health insurance.

IMHO, the real problem has not been addressed.

Instead of addressing the question of "How do we lower the cost of INSURANCE," the question addressed should have been, "How do we lower the cost of MEDICAL CARE?"

Example: Instead of taxing the snot out of rank-and-file Americans, how about legislating to get doctors (and hospitals) to charge less?

Oh, wait! I know that answer! Because the AMA lobbyists have a lot of legislators on its bribery... sorry... I mean speed dial list.

[davew]

As one who has had the most cost-effective healthcare of his life during the first 2 years of ACA, I must disagree.

The fact that good healthcare should be available to everyone, does not make it practical. I still do not see how the country can afford to pay for my health insurance.

IMHO, the real problem has not been addressed.

Instead of addressing the question of "How do we lower the cost of INSURANCE," the question addressed should have been, "How do we lower the cost of MEDICAL CARE?"

Example: Instead of taxing the snot out of rank-and-file Americans, how about legislating to get doctors (and hospitals) to charge less?

Oh, wait! I know that answer! Because the AMA lobbyists have a lot of legislators on its bribery... sorry... I mean speed dial list.

One of the problems is what should be included in 'medical care'? Should transplants be available for everyone?

[azeri98]

A friend of mine in Texas just lost his insurance as of Jan 1 because under Obamacare it was switched from ppo to hmo, not sure what it means but all his doctors can't see him anymore, he has lung issues and needs to get a biopsy, now he can't, even if he still had his own insurance hewould have had to pay $3200 before insurance payed the rest. What's the point of paying insurance? I don't know your system so excuse the ignorance.

[davew]

A friend of mine in Texas just lost his insurance as of Jan 1 because under Obamacare it was switched from ppo to hmo, not sure what it means but all his doctors can't see him anymore, he has lung issues and needs to get a biopsy, now he can't, even if he still had his own insurance hewould have had to pay $3200 before insurance payed the rest. What's the point of paying insurance? I don't know your system so excuse the ignorance.


Many insurance policies (health, car, ...) have deductibles, where after a certain amount then the policy pays a certain percentage or all during that policy year. Many low cost policy's have high deductibles - for example you may pay $5 K / yr for the insurance premium and also have a $5 K deductible so you are 'out' $10K before the insurance company starts paying...

[Dave Schwartz]

A friend of mine in Texas just lost his insurance as of Jan 1 because under Obamacare it was switched from ppo to hmo, not sure what it means but all his doctors can't see him anymore, he has lung issues and needs to get a biopsy, now he can't, even if he still had his own insurance hewould have had to pay $3200 before insurance payed the rest. What's the point of paying insurance? I don't know your system so excuse the ignorance.

PPO=Preferred Provider=Choose from our list of doctors and everything must be approved by the insurance company instead of the doctor. (Insurance has worked this way pretty much forever, at least in theory if not always practice.)

Everyone chooses a primary care physician. Typically everything begins with that doctor. IOW, you don't get to see a heart specialist without a referral from a primary care physician.


HMO=Health Maintenance Organization=We are going to "manage" your care. There may be a very short list of physician practices to choose from (perhaps only one in a small area). The practice is usually contracted to support the patients at a flat fee per month/year.

Kind of works like an all-you-can-eat buffet where the management determines what is on the menu and restricts how much of the more expensive items are available. But, hey... you can always get lots of salad (i.e. get an appointment to see a doctor; treatment is another issue) but maybe not in a timely manner.

Forcing people to HMOs in under-populated areas is, IMHO, unethical because there just aren't enough practitioners to fill the need.

In Carson City, NV a local HMO closed its doors with 30-days notice leaving 700+ patients without any primary care. (This was in December.) The only alternative was to be re-assigned to an HMO provider in Reno, which means a 25-40 mile drive to visit the doctor.

[azeri98]

Many insurance policies (health, car, ...) have deductibles, where after a certain amount then the policy pays a certain percentage or all during that policy year. Many low cost policy's have high deductibles - for example you may pay $5 K / yr for the insurance premium and also have a $5 K deductible so you are 'out' $10K before the insurance company starts paying...
Wow, that's crazy, I guess we take our health care up here for granted.

[Tom]

The reason we have health care problems is that we always focus on fixing health insurance and not health care. Obama and the dems have been bought and paid for by insurance companies.

[davew]

great success for Obamacare on all fronts

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-ways-obamacare-failed-americans-133400671.html

[Clocker]

The Clintons are starting to hammer Obama, presenting Hillary as the one who can fix his failures and deliver on his promises.

Chelsea Clinton says that her mother, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, will do something about the “crushing costs” of Obamacare medical insurance.

In a prior campaign event in Salt Lake City, Chelsea Clinton claimed that her mother wants to officially extend Obamacare coverage to illegal aliens (http://www.inquisitr.com/2907196/chelsea-clinton-says-hillary-clinton-wants-obamacare-for-illegal-aliens-video/).

In a campaign appearance in Madison, Wisconsin, this week, Chelsea Clinton also admitted that the Democrats have zero chance of retaking the U.S. House of Representatives from the Republicans in this election cycle, the Washington Post reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/25/daily-202-chelsea-clinton-goes-into-hostile-territory-college-towns-to-help-her-mom/56f40d59981b92a22dae36e2/).

“The campaign has routinely deployed the former First Daughter to college areas where her mother is not popular,” the Post added.

Hillary Clinton has closely associated herself with President Obama’s signature healthcare reform legislation, which cleared Congress on a straight party-line vote, and Chelsea previously created a controversy in the run-up to the New Hampshire Primary by accusing her mom’s rival Bernie Sanders of attempting to dismantle Obamacare.



“The campaign has routinely deployed the former First Daughter to college areas where her mother is not popular,” the Post added. :D

They are going to need a lot more spokespeople for Hillary if they can't send her where she is not popular.

[green80]

The term "covered" is just for stats. These people with the high 3-4-5000 deductables are in effect not really covered by insurance. How many of these people can really pay a $5000 deductable.

[davew]

The term "covered" is just for stats. These people with the high 3-4-5000 deductables are in effect not really covered by insurance. How many of these people can really pay a $5000 deductable.


It does cover catastrophic accidents/injuries in that a $50K bill will set them back but probably prevent or delay a bankruptcy - if that is a good thing. Once again it helps hospitals and insurance industry at the cost to everyone.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I can tell you I had the choice of different plans, including Kaiser (a managed care consortium where the doctors are salaried and only work for Kaiser), the "high deductible" plan, and the "low deductible" plan. If I remember, the total out of pocket for premiums and deductibles was around $15K for either deductible if you had to lay out the maximum, although if you didn't need much doctoring the high deductible was quite a bit less expensive for premiums. So if you knew you were going to have surgeries or procedures, the low deductible plan was probably better. If you just had normal stuff, the high deductible plan was better. Back when I was covered by my employer with what might have been a "Cadillac" plan and I had back surgery it was a huge savings. Friends that have Kaiser are generally happy with it, and it is a fair price. Kaiser is able to do what others haven't - create a single electronic medical record that every doctor accesses. They have a lot of efficiencies that other hospitals and doctors don't.

Without getting into Obamacare, the insurance companies dropping people for pre-existing conditions was total bullshit and that needed to be fixed. I can't imagine why you would need 2,200 pages to do that, but for everyone who is going to repeal Obamacare on their first day in office, I hope they don't mean that requirement.

Everybody I know who is paying for their own insurance and isn't Medicare eligible is laying out in the $15K range. I know when I left my job and did the Cobra thing for a while, I was laying out $13K a year, so my insurance hasn't really gone up a big amount. I'm just happy I knowing if I get really ill I'll be able to get great care and I won't go broke in the process. In America, nobody should have to go bankrupt because of the cost for medical care and nobody should have to die just because they can't afford medical care. How you do that certainly has multiple options.

[davew]

That is the crux of the issue. People who have chronic disease and know their costs are going to be high, want low deductible and inexpensive insurance. People who do not like doctors or hospitals want high deductible and low premium.

In the past, people without insurance, went to the emergency room and expected the best, because they had no intention of paying ever.

So 0bamacare was supposed to give insurance to broke people and everyone would win - a plus / plus, except the money to pay for all of this does not grow on trees.

[Clocker]

the insurance companies dropping people for pre-existing conditions was total bullshit and that needed to be fixed.

They were not dropping people for pre-existing conditions. They were not covering a condition you already had if you signed up for a new policy. Just like Geico doesn't cover pre-existing damage on your car if you switch to them.

Most states had high-risk pools that covered pre-existing conditions. ObamaCare could have done the same, but liberals though it was "unfair" to treat such people differently. So other policy holders have to subsidize them now.

[Clocker]

Last one out please turn out the lights.

The nation’s largest insurer is ending its ObamaCare plans in two states several months after the company predicted nearly $1 billion in losses from participating in the marketplaces.

UnitedHealth Group plans to exit the exchanges in Georgia and Arkansas, both states confirmed to The Hill on Friday.

...

CEO Stephen Hemsley said in November that the company had lowered its revenue forecasts for the ObamaCare plans and was already pulling back on marketing for next year.

He hinted the company could withdraw from the ObamaCare marketplace completely within two years, a move that sent shockwaves across the healthcare and insurance sectors.


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/275660-unitedhealth-to-exit-obamacare-exchanges-in-two-states-report (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/275660-unitedhealth-to-exit-obamacare-exchanges-in-two-states-report)

[delayjf]

In America, nobody should have to go bankrupt because of the cost for medical care and nobody should have to die just because they can't afford medical care. How you do that certainly has multiple options.

I question the notion that Americans need to be shielded from having to file for bankruptcy? If the issue is your life or death, opt for the care, file for bankruptcy and move on. Perhaps bankruptcy laws should be modified to better account for bankruptcy due to a medical condition.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Everybody I know who is paying for their own insurance and isn't Medicare eligible is laying out in the $15K range. I know when I left my job and did the Cobra thing for a while, I was laying out $13K a year, 1) so my insurance hasn't really gone up a big amount. I'm just happy I knowing if I get really ill I'll be able to get great care and I won't go broke in the process. In America, (2)nobody should have to go bankrupt because of the cost for medical care and nobody should have to die just because they can't afford medical care. How you do that certainly has multiple options.

1) Of course not, you're older. ACA increased the costs for younger, healthier consumers, not older consumers. My insurance costs went up 110% (Aetna PPO).

2) The bankruptcy myth was perpetuated by Elizabeth Warren. She misrepresented the role medical costs played in bankruptcies by citing a poll where respondents said medical costs "contributed to" their financial distress. She turned the "contributed to" into "caused" (as in fully responsible for).

Kaiser is a fairly unique model (integrated/managed care) -- most parts of the country have rejected a true managed care model (was given a try in the mid 1990s).

[Clocker]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that ObamaCare has significantly missed its targeted coverage, and has resulted in fewer people having private health insurance and more people on Medicare.

Three years ago, on the eve of Obamacare’s implementation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that President Obama's centerpiece legislation would result in an average of 201 million people having private health insurance in any given month of 2016. Now that 2016 is here, the CBO says that just 177 million people, on average, will have private health insurance in any given month of this year—a shortfall of 24 million people.

Indeed, based on the CBO's own numbers, it seems possible that Obamacare has actually reduced the number of people with private health insurance. In 2013, the CBO projected that, without Obamacare, 186 million people would be covered by private health insurance in 2016—160 million on employer-based plans, 26 million on individually purchased plans. The CBO now says that, with Obamacare, 177 million people will be covered by private health insurance in 2016—155 million on employer-based plans, 12 million on plans bought through Obamacare's government-run exchanges, and 9 million on other individually purchased plans (plus a rounding error of 1 million).

None of this is to say that fewer people have "coverage" under Obamacare—it's just not private coverage. In 2013, the CBO projected that 34 million people would be on Medicaid or CHIP (the Children's Health Insurance Program) in 2016. The CBO now says that 68 million people will be on Medicaid or CHIP in 2016—double its earlier estimate. It turns out that Obamacare is pretty much a giant Medicaid expansion.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/cbo-misses-its-obamacare-projection-by-24-million-people/article/2001732 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/cbo-misses-its-obamacare-projection-by-24-million-people/article/2001732)

[Dave Schwartz]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that ObamaCare has significantly missed its targeted coverage, and has resulted in fewer people having private health insurance and more people on Medicare.

I believe you meant Medicaid.

[Clocker]

I believe you meant Medicaid.

Nitpicker. :p

[davew]

half the co-ops have failed

HHS snubs nose at Congress
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/House-Subpoena-Obamacare-Co-Op/2016/04/20/id/724902/

[classhandicapper]

I don't have any brilliant ideas for a solution, but democrats need to be honest with people and simply say they want to cover everyone that does not have coverage now and THIS IS HOW MUCH IT IS GOING TO COST THE REST OF US, instead of pretending there is a free lunch.

Once we know what various possibilities will actually cost, then you can begin honest negotiations about what the minimum government care should be, how you can make the system more efficient to save money, how much extra the rest of us are willing to pay to cover others, how you will not infringe on the freedom of others to have nothing to do with the government healthcare etc...

Right now we are on the path to doom.

The government has already promised way more than it can possibly deliver and these nitwits are promising even more.

[Clocker]

A press release from Humana, which sells on ObamaCare exchanges in 15 states.

Humana is in the process of finalizing plans for its ACA-compliant individual commercial medical market offerings in 2017. Humana anticipates proposing a number of changes to retain a viable product for individual consumers, where feasible, and address persistent risk selection challenges. Such changes may include certain statewide market and product exits both on and off exchange, service area reductions and pricing commensurate with anticipated levels of risk by state.

[Tom]

.....commensurate with anticipated levels of risk

No matter how hard the lame left tries, it will never understand that insurance is a gamble and the driving force will always be risk vs reward. Indeed, LIFE boils down to risk vs reward.

You cannot deft the laws of economics no matter how mush $$$ you try to steal from those who are successful.

Basing Health care on ANY type of insurance ensures you have poor health care.

[Clocker]

No matter how hard the lame left tries, it will never understand that insurance is a gamble and the driving force will always be risk vs reward.

Insurance, properly used, is a hedge against risk. It allows the individual to chose according to his own desired level of risk versus reward, paying higher premiums the more risk adverse he is.

If you eliminate the correlation between risk and premiums, as ObamaCare does, it is no longer insurance, it is an entitlement program.

[classhandicapper]

If you eliminate the correlation between risk and premiums, as ObamaCare does, it is no longer insurance, it is an entitlement program.

That's exactly what they want. They want an entitlement program where everyone gets the same exact coverage and the rich and middle class pay for it. They just can't sell what they want and how they would have to pay for it. So they lie. Of course they also forget that raising taxes and transferring money causes people to change their behavior and has it's own negative economic implications.

[Clocker]

Insurers are looking at dropping the Bronze Plans they sell on the ObamaCare exchanges. They were supposed to bring in the young and healthy needed to subsidize the old and sick, but it isn't happening.

The trade journal Inside Health Policy warns that insurers might drop plans that qualify for the lowest cost tier in the ObamaCare exchanges and instead focus on the silver level, thanks to an effort by CMS to shore up the financial models of larger insurers. When that happens, Leslie Small writes at Fierce Health Payer, expect an exodus of low-risk consumers who may be unmotivated to pay for an expensive plan they neither need nor will use.

Already, filings show a CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield subsidiary in Virginia will transform its bronze plans into silver-level plans for 2017, according to Inside Health Policy, and experts tell the publication this could set a troubling precedent for the industry.

If insurers do drop their bronze plans, it would have the effect of further destabilizing the marketplace, according to Sean Mullin, a senior director at Leavitt Partners. That’s because such enrollees, which tend to be lower-risk and want the cheapest plans, will likely leave the marketplace altogether, further depleting the exchanges’ share of healthier enrollees.



And I am shocked, shocked to learn that rates will be going up next year. Again.

Oregon’s largest individual market insurer has filed for an average 29.6% rate hike for 2017 policies sold on and off the ObamaCare exchange.

Providence Health, which saw enrollment nearly quadruple in 2016 to 100,900, grabbing 40% of the market, blamed the increase partly on next year’s phase-out of ObamaCare’s temporary reinsurance program, which covers some of the bills of the costliest patients. …

Overall, Oregon insurers are seeking an average 27% premium hike, as calculated by ObamaCare enrollment tracker ACASignups.net, weighted based on 2016 enrollment.

Oregon is just the second state to make public initial rate requests filed by all insurers for 2017. Participants in Virginia’s market are seeking an average 17.9% hike, including a 15.8% increase requested by Anthem (ANTM) for its 180,000 members in ObamaCare-compliant plans.

In New Hampshire, Minuteman Health, the lowest-cost and second-largest exchange participant, has requested a 45.2% premium hike.



http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/06/bronze-plans-to-disappear-from-obamacare-exchanges/

[Clocker]

A federal judge has ruled that the administration has been funding subsidies to ObamaCare insurance providers in violation of the Constitution, using money not appropriated for that purpose, and order them to stop.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/12/breaking-gop-wins-case-against-obamacare-insurer-subsidy-funding/

[fast4522]

Appeal is like automatic, nothing changes until appeal is decided (Feb 2017).
Looks like a complete collapse to ACA

[Clocker]

ObamaCare providers in Florida are asking for rate increases averaging 17.7%. Increases last year averaged 9.5%, and 13% the year before that.

Last year, Federal officials said that the increase of only 9.5%, down from 13%, proved that ObamaCare was working. :D

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/13/florida-insurers-seek-17-rate-hike-under-obamacare/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/13/florida-insurers-seek-17-rate-hike-under-obamacare/)

[tucker6]

Mostie will be along in a little while to let you know why you're too stupid to recognize the savings our country has gotten from obamacare, and that the increases being asked for by insurers are not what it seems when the 'correct' acounting procedures are used. Just wait for it.

[Clocker]

Mostie will be along in a little while to let you know why you're too stupid to recognize the savings our country has gotten from obamacare, and that the increases being asked for by insurers are not what it seems when the 'correct' acounting procedures are used. Just wait for it.

You forgot the part about state insurance commissions can reject part or all of those requested increases.

Libs forget the part about insurance companies can stop offering policies in states where they lose money.

[davew]

Mostie will be along in a little while to let you know why you're too stupid to recognize the savings our country has gotten from obamacare, and that the increases being asked for by insurers are not what it seems when the 'correct' acounting procedures are used. Just wait for it.


He doesn't even need to - you just did.

[davew]

Mostie will be along in a little while to let you know why you're too stupid to recognize the savings our country has gotten from obamacare, and that the increases being asked for by insurers are not what it seems when the 'correct' acounting procedures are used. Just wait for it.

Some increases may occur next year - not near as much as peoples extra money because of the great economy.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/obamacare-sticker-shock-price-hikes-are-on-the-way/ar-BBtnQ8N?ocid=spartandhp

[Clocker]

The ObamaCare Co-op in Ohio is being shut down and liquidated. Nearly 22,000 people will have 60 days to find a new insurance provider.

Twelve of the insurers created under the Affordable Care Act failed in 2015 and another seven of the remaining co-ops are expected to fail within the year.

The initial 23 co-ops, created to increase competition in the marketplace, received $2.5 billion in federal loans in 2010. Most of the $1.2 billion provided to the failed co-ops isn’t expected to be paid back.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/27/another-obamacare-co-op-down-ohio-non-profit-insurer-goes-under/#ixzz49sgbQk4e



Gee, who could have seen that coming? :rolleyes:

[Inner Dirt]

Mostie will be along in a little while to let you know why you're too stupid to recognize the savings our country has gotten from obamacare, and that the increases being asked for by insurers are not what it seems when the 'correct' acounting procedures are used. Just wait for it.

Close to 100% of the pro-Obamacare crowd either don't use it, or getting a subsidy. They just parrot what the Democrats tell them to say and think. I thought it was hilarious when a friend of a friend was saying how great Obamacare was when he had great employer coverage and didn't use Obamacare. A year down the road he changes jobs (he is a nurse) and decides against any benefits just taking the highest hourly pay possible. He goes to use Obamacare, signs up and hasn't stopped complaining about it since.

[Dave Schwartz]

Not sure if anyone reads my posts on this topic, but I have been a defender of the ACA because of the wonderful-but-expensive coverage we've had. (Not actually a fan of the program itself because I don't see how the country pays for it.)

This year's update would not be so wonderful.

During the first two years we had the Platinum Plan, a 90-10, $100 deductible. Cost for the 2 of us was $1,553 and $1,901, respectively. (Note that we are not subsidized.) Fantastic coverage. Beth had a knee replacement that cost her $269. (Thank you, fellow taxpayers.)

This year that all changed. Aside from me going on Medicare, which made me ineligible, the platinum coverages went down drastically, despite the premiums going up again. (BTW, if you handle it right, Medicare is FAR BETTER than ACA ever was. I have 100-0 plan, with zero deductible. I literally pay nothing. And it is cheap coverage.)

This year the only value to be found in the ACA plans was in the cheapest tier, which is what Beth selected. Her premium is about $600 per month with better health coverage than we ever had before the ACA came along. Strangest thing is that after month 3 all of her meds have been free. We don't quite get that, and fear that at some point CVS is going to call and say, "You owe us a lot of money," but we'll take that risk.

On the topic of Medicare, if you're not doing well on that experience, find an expert in Medi-Gap coverage, or, better yet, become one yourself. It is just the greatest thing since popcorn.

[Tom]

My enrollment period for MC starts June 1.
Apparently, I have to sign up?

I kind of ignored all the mail I have been getting all year........good thing it is a 3 day weekend and I have a lot of beer!

I feel a giant CF coming my way.

[hyipro]

If you sign up for Medicare, it only pays 80% of your medical-hospital bill, you are responsible for the other 20% unless you have additional coverage with another company for the 20% which is AARP (best for this type) cost
$260.00 a month plus the premium for Medicare, also has some drug benefits as well.

[Tom]

I have coverage at work - I am not planning on retiring. Got to see how that plays out.

I suspect by next weekend, I will looking for some drug benefits! :cool: :faint:

[Dave Schwartz]

If you sign up for Medicare, it only pays 80% of your medical-hospital bill, you are responsible for the other 20% unless you have additional coverage with another company for the 20% which is AARP (best for this type) cost
$260.00 a month plus the premium for Medicare, also has some drug benefits as well.

Exactly. AARP is one of the companies. What you want is what is known as "Medi-Gap, column F." All column F programs are the same: no deductible and no co-pay. Whatever Medicare does not pay, the company pays.

Amazingly, the premiums are different from different companies. For example, in my area/age, the cheapest was Mutual of Omaha at $65 and the most expensive was Anthem at $279! There were like 4 other companies in between. I took AARP because they had such a great reputation in my area for handling claims.

I believe my premium is $147 or thereabouts.

Logically, one would ask, "Why would anyone pay for Anthem?"

[Tom]

I believe my premium is $147 or thereabouts.

Monthly?

[forced89]

Exactly. AARP is one of the companies. What you want is what is known as "Medi-Gap, column F." All column F programs are the same: no deductible and no co-pay. Whatever Medicare does not pay, the company pays.

I have a High Deductible Plan F. Regular Plan F around here is about $370 per month; High Deductible Plan F, around here is about $70 per month. The deductible is something like $1,870.00. Multiply the $300.00 monthly saving by 12 and you get $3,600.00 versus the maximum annual deductible of $1,870.00 which depending on usage you may not pay.

[forced89]

My enrollment period for MC starts June 1.
Apparently, I have to sign up?

I kind of ignored all the mail I have been getting all year.........

Be careful when you make a decision. Some will try to talk you into a Medicare Advantage Plan which may cost you nothing or next to nothing and will eliminate the need for Medigap and Prescription (Medicare Part D) coverage.

Why be careful of Medicare Advantage? The reason is when you have one you need a Primary Care Physician and referrals from your PCP every time you want to see a specialist. In addition you have to stay in their Networks which most of the time are very limited.

Let me tell you a story. I have a friend who recently came down with cancer and has a Medicare Advantage Plan. He lives within walking distance of a cancer "Center of Excellence" but can't go there because it is not in the Medicare Advantage Plan's Network.

Think it through. A few dollars saved my end up costing you your life!

[Parkview_Pirate]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2e1d5fe5385d461f9db65e1faa47cc61/report-new-evidence-rising-obamacare-premiums

[/QUOTE]Medicare and Medicaid administrator Andy Slavitt, whose agency also oversees the health law, said in a speech last week that the health insurance markets are still in an early trial-and-error stage. He estimated that could go on for another couple of years, or well into the next president's term.[/QUOTE]

I got a few more years before I'm eligible for Medicare, so it'll be tricky for me. I quit my job last month, and have to decide on COBRA or other coverage, where the premium is almost double what a was a few years ago when I took some time off.

I'm sure if I expend a little effort, I can figure out the best way to game the system, which appears to be the national sport nowadays.

[Dave Schwartz]

I have a High Deductible Plan F. Regular Plan F around here is about $370 per month; High Deductible Plan F, around here is about $70 per month. The deductible is something like $1,870.00. Multiply the $300.00 monthly saving by 12 and you get $3,600.00 versus the maximum annual deductible of $1,870.00 which depending on usage you may not pay.


Wow! Mine just went up to $142 per month, but that is zero deductible and zero copay.

I didn't know they could do that mid-year.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Is there anyone out there who has not seen their insurance premiums go UP since Obamacare became the law of the land.

I'm just sayin'

I'm also not saying that the Republicans are saints, because if you have something negative to say about them, I will probably agree. They just look saintly if you compare them to the Democrats.

The Democrats never said one bad thing about allowing insurance companies to do business in all states. The Democrats never said one thing about tort reform, although some lawyers obfuscated the issue by making it seem that tort reform would disallow your ability to sue. But those are just typical lawyer lies.

So the Dems never said anything bad about doing things to make your health care costs go down -- but they blocked it because they knew that health care costs would continue to skyrocket which would open the door for them to sell socialized medicine -- which they did -- and now we are living that nightmare.

I'm just sayin'

[Tom]

I'm also not saying that the Republicans are saints, because if you have something negative to say about them, I will probably agree. They just look saintly if you compare them to the Democrats.

:lol: Great observation. If you want to look thin hang out with fat people.
If you want to look smart, hang out with democrats. :lol:

[Clocker]

ObamaCare rates are facing more large increases for 2017 in virtually all states according to Kaiser Health News.

Next year’s premiums for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act could rise more than in past years in most markets and declines might be rare, according to a preliminary analysis of insurers’ plans.

Overall, premiums for a popular type of plan — the second-lowest silver plan — could rise 10 percent on average next year in 14 major metropolitan areas, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser based its projections on insurers’ preliminary rates filed with state regulators, which remain subject to state or federal review. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)



Obama to the rescue. In most states, insurance rate increases must be approved by a state agency. The administration is giving states $22 million to aid them in investigating and reducing requests for rate increases.

The White House is urging states to be more aggressive against health insurance companies as it looks to prevent expected and widespread premium hikes of 10 percent or more this year.

The federal health department announced Wednesday that it will dole out about $22 million to boost state-level "rate reviews," considered one of the strongest weapons against premium increases.

Under the system, health insurers are required to justify rate increases to state insurance departments, some of which have the power to reject “unreasonable” increases. With the new funding, federal health officials hope states can hire outside insurance experts to dig deeper into the proposed rates and prove the hikes are unjustified.

Memo to Obama: insurance companies that are not allowed to set rates high enough to cover their costs can, and have, pulled out of those markets. You can deny a rate hike, but you can't make the company continue to offer the insurance.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/283617-states-receive-22m-to-help-control-obamacare-premium-hikes (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/283617-states-receive-22m-to-help-control-obamacare-premium-hikes)

[Tom]

The administration is giving states $22 million to aid them in investigating and reducing requests for rate increases.

So, the way to cut spending is to spend more.

OK, I feel liberish..

[Clocker]

Blue Cross Blue Shield has announced that it is pulling out of the individual health insurance market in Minnesota.

Based on current medical claim trends, Blue Cross is projecting a total loss of more than $500 million in the individual [health plan] segment over three years," BCBSM said in a statement.

The Blues reported a loss of $265 million on insurance operations from individual market plans in 2015. The insurer said claims for medical care far exceeded premium revenue for those plans.



Gee, how come no one saw that coming? :faint:

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2016/06/24/your-obamacare-fail-of-the-day-420/ (https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2016/06/24/your-obamacare-fail-of-the-day-420/)

[Parkview_Pirate]

We all know the ACA has been a colossal failure in terms of cost, with another few million getting insurance at the expense of the producers. But I knew early that other fallout from the program was also something to worry about. Health care data breaches is one thing that's occurring more frequently now (HIPPA is a joke, not enforced), and the wellness programs is another.

I quit my job six weeks ago, partly due to this aspect of my company's wellness program. Starting today, it would be $50 more per month to opt out it.

Be well, Komrade!


https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/wellness-v-privacy?utm_term=.ijWwkBNb1#.qrxzajQ5w


Sometime next year, you may hear about a new way to save money on your health insurance. To get the discount, you and your spouse have to join your company’s voluntary “wellness program,” the kind that typically promotes exercising more or losing weight. As part of signing up, you’re both asked to share your blood pressure, weight, diseases you’ve had or have, and your medical records, which may include the results of any genetic tests.

But if you don’t want to fill out a questionnaire or get medically screened? You won’t qualify for the discount. Or your premiums could go up by hundreds or thousands of dollars.

It's doesn't take Sherlock to connect the dots here. It's not just death panels - it's the fact people that have no business knowing anything about your personal health issues are going to have access to your data - and something tells me that those not "conforming" will have this held against them....

[Tom]

"Wellness" is demo-speak for another way we get to take total control of your life. Like that tumor who is mayor of NYC, a once great city.

[Clocker]

A federal court has struck down the ObamaCare ban on non-qualified insurance policies.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has ruled that consumers must be allowed to buy certain types of health insurance that do not meet the stringent standards of the Affordable Care Act, deciding that the administration had gone beyond the terms of federal law.

The court struck down a rule issued by the Obama administration that barred the sale of such insurance as a separate stand-alone product.

“Disagreeing with Congress’s expressly codified policy choices isn’t a luxury administrative agencies enjoy,” the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said on Friday in a decision that criticized “administrative overreach” by the Department of Health and Human Services.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/court-strikes-down-obama-health-care-rule-on-insurance-standards.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/court-strikes-down-obama-health-care-rule-on-insurance-standards.html?_r=0)

[JustRalph]

Two more exchanges shutting down in 2017

18 of 23 now failed

[Clocker]

Two more exchanges shutting down in 2017

18 of 23 now failed

Last I heard, only one of them was currently economically viable. Probably 22 of 23 gone by the end of next year.

Obama doesn't care. He will be gone by then. It was great for him while it lasted, and the whole thing will keep getting worse on someone else's watch.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Last I heard, only one of them was currently economically viable. Probably 22 of 23 gone by the end of next year.

Obama doesn't care. He will be gone by then. It was great for him while it lasted, and the whole thing will keep getting worse on someone else's watch.

One thing is certain - Obamacare was never designed to be successful.

[mostpost]

Two more exchanges shutting down in 2017

18 of 23 now failed
This is false, because you guys don't know the difference between an exchange and a co-op. An exchange is where you go to find coverage which you purchase from private insurance companies. An exchange would be something like Get Covered Illinois and Covered California. A number of states run their own exchanges. The Federal government runs exchanges for those states that do not have their own. Every one of those exchanges is still operational.

What have been failing are the insurance co-ops set up by the states. These co-ops are authorized but not required by the Affordable Care Act. Their purpose was to provide competition among the providers involved.

Even though these co-ops are authorized by the ACA, they are not a part of the ACA. They are separate entities run by their Boards of Directors and/or Executives. There could be a number of reasons for their failure. It could be a bad business model in terms of risk assessment or premium levels. It could be the fact that Congress did not appropriate the risk corridor funds authorized in the ACA, which would have reduced some of the losses suffered. There could have been other factors.

The important thing is that no exchanges have failed. What have failed are the Co-ops. They are a very small part of what has overall been a successful law.

[NJ Stinks]

If you sign up for Medicare, it only pays 80% of your medical-hospital bill, you are responsible for the other 20% unless you have additional coverage with another company for the 20% which is AARP (best for this type) cost
$260.00 a month plus the premium for Medicare, also has some drug benefits as well.

My understanding is that Medicare will pay 100% of a hospital stay (Medicare Part A). Medicare Part B includes doctor's visits (and stuff like X-rays) and those visits are 80% covered by Medicare. That's where you need secondary insurance by somebody like AARP to pay the other 20%.

Here's a link to Medicare (Part A) Impatient Hospital Care:

https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/hospital-care-inpatient.html

[delayjf]

The important thing is that no exchanges have failed. What have failed are the Co-ops. They are a very small part of what has overall been a successful law.

I'm not sure I would classify a loss of 5.4 billion dollars of tax payer money as a success. With out being able to print money to pay for the cost, how will the federal government be any better at running Obamacare than the states?

[Parkview_Pirate]

....They are a very small part of what has overall been a successful law.

This is false because you have an extremely flawed definition of "successful". Here's at least seven reasons for its failure.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-obamacare-failures-that-have-hurt-americans-2016-03-24

Insuring an additional 20 million people, in and of itself, does not constitute "successful". By almost any reasonable set of metrics, the ACA has been a colossal failure.

[Clocker]

This is false because you have an extremely flawed definition of "successful". Here's at least seven reasons for its failure.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-obamacare-failures-that-have-hurt-americans-2016-03-24

Insuring an additional 20 million people, in and of itself, does not constitute "successful". By almost any reasonable set of metrics, the ACA has been a colossal failure.

The numbers are phony. About 9 million of the newly 'covered' do not have insurance, they are people added to Medicaid. And a lot of those newly 'covered' by ObamaCare had employer based insurance and lost it because of new ObamaCare restrictions on employers. And just this year, about 13% of those who signed up for ObamaCare have already dropped out since the first of the year, most without ever making a premium payment, so they were never covered but were initially counted as such.

[Parkview_Pirate]

The numbers are phony. About 9 million of the newly 'covered' do not have insurance, they are people added to Medicaid. And a lot of those newly 'covered' by ObamaCare had employer based insurance and lost it because of new ObamaCare restrictions on employers. And just this year, about 13% of those who signed up for ObamaCare have already dropped out since the first of the year, most without ever making a premium payment, so they were never covered but were initially counted as such.

Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully Mostie will provide some justification for his definition of successful, though if memory serves not even suffering a premium hike for his own health insurance in the double digits swayed him from his kool-aid induced stupor.

[dartman51]

The numbers are phony. About 9 million of the newly 'covered' do not have insurance, they are people added to Medicaid. And a lot of those newly 'covered' by ObamaCare had employer based insurance and lost it because of new ObamaCare restrictions on employers. And just this year, about 13% of those who signed up for ObamaCare have already dropped out since the first of the year, most without ever making a premium payment, so they were never covered but were initially counted as such.


The same way with unemployment numbers. Someone's unemployment runs out, they drop off the rolls, well, gee, they must be employed, they're not drawing unemployment anymore. :faint:

Don't trust numbers, when they come from the Government.

[JustRalph]

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/09/oregon-fail-another-obamacare-co-op-collapses/

Another failure

[Clocker]

Same old story. Insurers leaving and rates going up. Who could have predicted that? :rolleyes:

Many insurers are shedding their Obamacare plans lately, and that now includes the largest health plan in New Mexico. Presbyterian Health Plan will no longer offer individual and family policies on the Affordable Care Act marketplace, starting next year, company officials said Monday.The decision will affect 10,000 exchange members, 80 percent of whom now receive federal subsidies, said Brandon Fryar, president of the health plan, a for-profit subsidiary of Presbyterian Healthcare Services.




Fryar said Presbyterian made the decision to stop offering exchange plans because patients who purchased there used medical services 30 percent more than other patient groups off the exchange. He did not provide a dollar figure.




Blue Cross, which is returning to the state’s health insurance exchange after taking a year off, has requested rates that are between 20 percent and 83 percent higher than its 2015 rates.



http://www.abqjournal.com/805999/presbyterian-pulls-out-of-obamacare-market.html

[JustRalph]

You can keep your plan

You can keep your Doctor

Average families are going to save $2500 a year

[davew]

You can keep your plan

You can keep your Doctor

Average families are going to save $2500 a year


He got elected didn't he? Reid and Pelosi were gatekeepers for a couple years blocking everything good in congress - too bad they didn't get all their crap through then...

[boxcar]

All this was planned obsolescence from the git go. They knew going in that the system would fall under its own weight. Obama now wants to push the single payer option. That has always been the goal and many of us knew this before Obamination Care became law.

[Clocker]

All this was planned obsolescence from the git go. They knew going in that the system would fall under its own weight. Obama now wants to push the single payer option. That has always been the goal and many of us knew this before Obamination Care became law.

Hillary wants a public option, which even Pelosi was smart enough to know couldn't even get enough Democratic votes to pass. Hillary also wants to extend ObamaCare to illegals.

If she gets both, when they collapse under their own weight, the libs will say that the only alternative is single payer. Single payer can't fail, because it is funded by the taxpayers. All they have to do is get the millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

[mostpost]

You can keep your plan
You can keep your plan if your plan is good enough to qualify. And why would you want to keep it if it wasn't?

You can keep your Doctor
There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that requires anyone to change doctors. Any change in doctors is strictly caused by insurance companies. In any case, I wonder just how many patients have had to seek new doctors. I suspect the actual number is very small. I think it is more than balanced by the numbers of newly insured.

Average families are going to save $2500 a year
Of all the dumb things, this is the dumbest. This statement was made two years before Obama was president and three years before the ACA was passed. It was a goal. The political climate made it impossible to achieve that goal.

The fact is that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs have been increasing at a much lower rate than in the previous 20 years. Cherry picking outliers does not change that.

[JustRalph]

Of all the dumb things, this is the dumbest. This statement was made two years before Obama was president and three years before the ACA was passed. It was a goal. The political climate made it impossible to achieve that goal.

The fact is that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs have been increasing at a much lower rate than in the previous 20 years. Cherry picking outliers does not change that.

Did you put your tap shoes on before that post?

[Clocker]

There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that requires anyone to change doctors. Any change in doctors is strictly caused by insurance companies.

No, it is in the act, because the ACA has requirements for 'qualified plans' that price most people out of coverage that would allow them to keep their doctor. And the act was written and passed knowing that.

Knowing that and keeping silent on it is fraud. We always like to think that we should be able to expect better from our elected officials, all evidence to the contrary. Even calling it the Affordable Care Act is fraud. It is sleazier than anything Trump or Chancellor Clinton did with their 'universities'.

The administration knew that most people could not afford to keep their plan or their doctor, and Obama lied about it. He never said a word about the fact that keeping your plan and your doctor would be much more expensive than most people could afford. That is lying by omission.

Dr. Zeke Emanuel, Obama's medical adviser and brother of Obama hatchet man Rahm Emanuel, said it wasn't a lie. You can keep your plan and your doctor if you can afford it, said Emanuel. He went on to say that the part about being able to afford it was the small print, and you don't put the small print in a political speech.

The New York Times ran an editorial yesterday that was bad enough, because it laid the blame for the fiasco on the Republicans, but went on to compound its egregious error by insisting that President Obama had “misspoke” when (as the Times paraphrased him saying) “if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.” Even by Times’ standards, that’s a whopper.

For his part Dr. Emanuel continued to recycle one of the more ludicrous talking points. After Todd pointed out what Obama had failed to say (and therefore left a radically inaccurate impression), Emanuel shrieked, “This is a political ad. You don’t put fine print in a political speech, Chuck. Get serious!”



Zeke is more cynical and sleazier than Obama, but he is more honest.

[Clocker]

The fact is that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs have been increasing at a much lower rate than in the previous 20 years.

The ACA, despite its laughable name, is not about health care, it is about health insurance. Where is the evidence that it has made health insurance more affordable? Where is the evidence that the ACA has had anything to do with the growth rate of actual care costs?

[Clocker]

Illinois ObamaCare co-op will be liquidated, leaving 49,000 policy holders to find new policies.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/13/obamacare-co-op-in-illinois-will-be-liquidated/

[boxcar]

Of all the dumb things, this is the dumbest. This statement was made two years before Obama was president and three years before the ACA was passed. It was a goal. The political climate made it impossible to achieve that goal.

The fact is that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs have been increasing at a much lower rate than in the previous 20 years. Cherry picking outliers does not change that.

So, let me ask you something. Let's say, you come up with a genius handicapping system that you claim will make you money. (The operative phrase is "make you money". :rolleyes: ) But instead, your system falls short of your expectations. It does not put you in the black. You're still a losing player -- only now, instead of bleeding out at your your former rate, you're losing your pints more slowly at "only" a 3 to 4 % clip, let's say. In this scenario, would you still claim that your system is making you money? Likewise the GREAT PROMISE of Obamination Care is that it would make health care costs more affordable -- or let me rephrase this in case any cave dwellers are reading this -- more affordable can only mean reduce costs, not increase costs! More affordable does not mean that it now costs me only $100. more a opposed to to $500. more per month. The Great Promise was not that costs would not escalate as fast as in previous years. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

The fact is that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs have been increasing at a much lower rate than in the previous 20 years.

I'm sure the people paying the bills will be happy to hear that. Welcome to Obama's legacy. :rolleyes:

The nation’s health care tab this year is expected to surpass $10,000 per person for the first time, the government said Wednesday. The new peak means the Obama administration will pass the problem of high health care costs on to its successor.

The report from number crunchers at the Department of Health and Human Services projects that health care spending will grow at a faster rate than the national economy over the coming decade. That squeezes the ability of federal and state governments, not to mention employers and average citizens, to pay.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-peak-us-health-care-spending-10345-per-person/

[tucker6]

The fact is that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs have been increasing at a much lower rate than in the previous 20 years.
See, this is an abject lie hidden in plain view. Health care costs are NOT increasing at a lower rate. Premiums are. The reason? Health care plans today carry very high deductibles to make costs appear to be slowing more than before. However, actual health care costs are skyrocketing. They'll be coming home to roost soon enough.

[mostpost]

I'm sure the people paying the bills will be happy to hear that. Welcome to Obama's legacy. :rolleyes:



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-peak-us-health-care-spending-10345-per-person/
Maybe not happy, but happier than they would have been had the increases continued at the same rate.
From your link.
Growth is projected to average 5.8 percent from 2015 to 2025, below the pace before the 2007-2009 economic recession but faster than in recent years that saw health care spending moving in step with modest economic growth.

[dartman51]

So, let me ask you something. Let's say, you come up with a genius handicapping system that you claim will make you money. (The operative phrase is "make you money". :rolleyes: ) But instead, your system falls short of your expectations. It does not put you in the black. You're still a losing player -- only now, instead of bleeding out at your your former rate, you're losing your pints more slowly at "only" a 3 to 4 % clip, let's say. In this scenario, would you still claim that your system is making you money? Likewise the GREAT PROMISE of Obamination Care is that it would make health care costs more affordable -- or let me rephrase this in case any cave dwellers are reading this -- more affordable can only mean reduce costs, not increase costs! More affordable does not mean that it now costs me only $100. more a opposed to to $500. more per month. The Great Promise was not that costs would not escalate as fast as in previous years. :rolleyes:


Well, it certainly wouldn't be MoPo's fault. It's the horses' fault. They wouldn't cooperate with him, on the plan. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

See, this is an abject lie hidden in plain view. Health care costs are NOT increasing at a lower rate. Premiums are. The reason? Health care plans today carry very high deductibles to make costs appear to be slowing more than before. However, actual health care costs are skyrocketing. They'll be coming home to roost soon enough.
So you admit that premiums are not skyrocketing as has been claimed here many times? In fact premiums on average went up only 3.2% in 2015.

Your statement; "Health care plans today carry very high deductibles" is very misleading. Some health care plans carry very high deductibles; many do not. Several times, in various thread here, I have pointed out plans with zero or small deductibles to people who claimed the only coverage they could get was with a large deductible.

Let me ask you a question. Assume you have a health insurance policy for which the premium is $100 a month. It has a $6,000 deductible. During the year, you never go to the doctor. You take no medications. What is your annual cost for health care?

[tucker6]

In reality Mostie, my 6k deductible plan costs me $430/month. I spend about $400 out of pocket yearly. Problem is at 52, I can't afford a catastrophic illness without a catastrophic plan, which is what mine is. The plan used to be $150 just 3 years ago. So you go on telling me I'm winning the health care game, and I'll just continue to bend over.

[Clocker]

Maybe not happy, but happier than they would have been had the increases continued at the same rate.
From your link.
Growth is projected to average 5.8 percent from 2015 to 2025, below the pace before the 2007-2009 economic recession but faster than in recent years that saw health care spending moving in step with modest economic growth.

Oh, so under Obama, the rate of increase has been less than it was back when the economy was doing well. So we can thank the painfully slow recovery from the recession under Obama for slowing the growth of health care costs. :rolleyes:

Obama promised that ObamaCare would reduce health care costs.

Hawking the Affordable Care Act (ACA) six years ago, President Barack Obama said, “Every single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health care costs [is] in this bill.”

Team Obama projected that their version of health care reform—replete with the bells and whistles of “investments” in health information technology, health care delivery and payment reforms—would translate into big cost reductions for individuals, families and businesses. In his iconic health care “talking points”, the president said that the “typical” family would see a yearly $2500 savings in their health costs.

Results were quite the contrary, but you are proud as punch that costs are not going up as fast as they were back when the economy was growing at a normal rate.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/22/obamacare-was-going-to-lower-health-care-costs-what-actually-happened/

[mostpost]

In reality Mostie, my 6k deductible plan costs me $430/month. I spend about $400 out of pocket yearly. Problem is at 52, I can't afford a catastrophic illness without a catastrophic plan, which is what mine is. The plan used to be $150 just 3 years ago. So you go on telling me I'm winning the health care game, and I'll just continue to bend over.
You didn't really answer my question, but you did prove my point. That point was that you cannot count the cost of the deductible as a part of health care costs until you use that deductible.

In your case you spend $5560 a year on health care. [($430x12)+$400]=$5560.
It is my impression that a lot of people (maybe not You) think you spent
$11160. [($430 x 12) +$6000]=$11160.

[tucker6]

You didn't really answer my question, but you did prove my point. That point was that you cannot count the cost of the deductible as a part of health care costs until you use that deductible.

In your case you spend $5560 a year on health care. [($430x12)+$400]=$5560.
It is my impression that a lot of people (maybe not You) think you spent
$11160. [($430 x 12) +$6000]=$11160.
No, I'm paying over $5k a year for a shitty plan. That's the problem.

[Clocker]

No, I'm paying over $5k a year for a shitty plan. That's the problem.

Not so, all qualified plans are great plans. ObamaCare put an end to sleazy insurance companies selling worthless, crappy plans.

You just don't know what is good for you. :D

[tucker6]

You just don't know what is good for you. :D
Sure I do. Mostie tells me every day how lucky I am to be nearing 19 trillion in debt. Look what we got in return!! :faint:

[Clocker]

Sure I do. Mostie tells me every day how lucky I am to be nearing 19 trillion in debt. Look what we got in return!! :faint:

Hey, things could be worse.

And they will be for generations to come. Suck it up millennials, and enjoy the Obama Legacy! :cool:

[dartman51]

Sure I do. Mostie tells me every day how lucky I am to be nearing 19 trillion in debt. Look what we got in return!! :faint:


Oops.....;you passed the $19 Trillion already. :D

[Clocker]

The fact is that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, healthcare costs have been increasing at a much lower rate than in the previous 20 years.

The same thing has been happening in Europe and the rest of the developed world over the same time period. So ObamaCare helped reduce health care costs in the Euro Zone? :D

The fact that costs grew at a lower rate does not mean that happened because of ObamaCare. There is no explanation of a cause and effect linkage for that to happen. Even the CBO says ObamaCare has done little to cut costs.

On cost growth, the president engages in the usual post hoc fallacy. He says that recently costs have been growing less rapidly than in the past and that therefore the cause must be the enactment of the ACA in 2010 and, specifically, efforts to promote “delivery system reforms” through Medicare. This is nonsense. The savings from accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and other similar changes enacted in the ACA have been estimated by the CBO and others to be very small relative to the size of the Medicare program and national health spending. Most of the slowdown of recent years was due to the deep recession of 2007–09 and the slow recovery that followed. It is also noteworthy that there has been a slowdown in health spending throughout the developed world in recent years. Administration officials like to attribute every positive trend they can find to the ACA, but even they might find it hard to come up with a plausible explanation for why Obamacare led to a slowdown in health expenditures in Europe.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437876/obamacare-obama-journal-american-medical-association-government-run-health-care

[davew]

In reality Mostie, my 6k deductible plan costs me $430/month. I spend about $400 out of pocket yearly. Problem is at 52, I can't afford a catastrophic illness without a catastrophic plan, which is what mine is. The plan used to be $150 just 3 years ago. So you go on telling me I'm winning the health care game, and I'll just continue to bend over.

You must be wrong, because mosty says the rate increases are lowest ever.

I had mine go from 450 last year to 515 in Jan, then they figured out they were going to lose 150 million in the exchange and my rate went up to 640 in March - I also turned 55 then :(

[tucker6]

You must be wrong, because mosty says the rate increases are lowest ever.

I had mine go from 450 last year to 515 in Jan, then they figured out they were going to lose 150 million in the exchange and my rate went up to 640 in March - I also turned 55 then :(
Yeah, but at least you have maternity benefits if you need it. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Yeah, but at least you have maternity benefits if you need it. :rolleyes:

It was all well thought out ahead of time by the Dems, serving the future needs of the transgendered.

[davew]

a few billion illegally dumped into program in attempt to keep sinking ship afloat

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/287906-panic-prompted-obamacare-lawlessness

[JustRalph]

More out and out lawlessness

We have no rule of law

[Clocker]

More out and out lawlessness

We have no rule of law

But the elites have to do that when the commoners are too stupid to know what is good for them. :rolleyes:

[tucker6]

How in the hell did we get here, and why can't the liberals see the dead end? Hell, the EU is about ten years ahead of us, and still the libs don't see that sinking ship. I'm at a complete loss to explain the fantasy the left is enjoying. Meanwhile on reality island, the world spirals into chaos.

[Clocker]

How in the hell did we get here, and why can't the liberals see the dead end?

They are true believers, drinking the magic Kool Aid and waiting for the pixie dust and unicorns. The dogma is the answer to everything.

If gun control laws don't work, we need more gun control laws. If stimulus spending doesn't create jobs, we need more stimulus spending. If government control of a large portion of the health care sector doesn't bring costs down, we need government control of all of the health care sector.

Europe is a little further ahead of our liberals on the liberal evolutionary cycle, and some of these things are starting to become apparent even to them. Like if you let a lot of unvetted misogynist terrorists into your country, you are going to have an occasional rape or mass killing.

Who could have predicted that? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

You said "libs" and "evolution" in the same sentence. :lol:

[Clocker]

Humana has announced that it will reduce its ObamaCare market from 1,351 counties across 19 states this year to 156 counties in 11 states next year. Sounds like cherry picking to me. :D

The announcement came after the DOJ moved to block a proposed merger between Humana and Aetna.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/humana-obamacare-markets-225963 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/humana-obamacare-markets-225963)

[JustRalph]

Don't forget the penalty coming up. Lots of people are going to be pissed

[Clocker]

Don't forget the penalty coming up. Lots of people are going to be pissed

It's not a penalty, it is the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment. :rolleyes:

Rumor has it that it is fairly easy to get a waiver, but the feds aren't exactly going out of their way to get that info out there.

[tucker6]

It's not a penalty, it is the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment. :rolleyes:

Rumor has it that it is fairly easy to get a waiver, but the feds aren't exactly going out of their way to get that info out there.
And as long as you ensure you never have a refund coming due, they won't be able to enforce the penalty.

[Parkview_Pirate]

And as long as you ensure you never have a refund coming due, they won't be able to enforce the penalty.

My problem is that I will have a refund coming for only working 4.5 months this year - otherwise I'd flip .GOV the bird and not bother getting any insurance.

Next year I'll see how much of the bill I can get subsidized. Otherwise I will flip .GOV the bird.

[Clocker]

My problem is that I will have a refund coming for only working 4.5 months this year - otherwise I'd flip .GOV the bird and not bother getting any insurance.

Next year I'll see how much of the bill I can get subsidized. Otherwise I will flip .GOV the bird.

Take a look at this link for exemptions.

https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/individuals-and-families/aca-individual-shared-responsibility-provision-exemptions (https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/individuals-and-families/aca-individual-shared-responsibility-provision-exemptions)

[JustRalph]

And as long as you ensure you never have a refund coming due, they won't be able to enforce the penalty.


I'm told it rolls over until it's paid

[garyscpa]

I'm told it rolls over until it's paid

That's why he said never.

[JustRalph]

That's why he said never.

I guess I missed that. 👍

I can imagine what a mess this could become

[Clocker]

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini says ObamaCare as designed can never work without major government subsidies of insurers. Given that, Aetna is looking at getting out of the market.


Tuesday’s announcement by health insurer Aetna that it had halted plans to expand its offerings on Obamacare exchanges and may instead reduce or eliminate its participation entirely, caused a shockwave among health-policy experts. The insurer that heretofore had acted as one of Obamacare’s biggest cheerleaders has now admitted that the law will not work without a massive new infusion of taxpayer cash.



In calling for the government to subsidize risk adjustment, Bertolini believes that for the foreseeable future insurers will continue to face a risk pool sicker than in the average employer plan. In other words, the exchanges won’t work as currently constituted, because healthy people are staying away from Obamacare plans in droves. Aetna’s proposed “solution,” as expected, is for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438678/aetna-obamacare-exchanges-health-insurance-government-bailout