Look it up for yourself, I gave you a link and you ignored it because you didn't want to admit your own error of FACTS.

My FACT are no myth, or opinion and verifiable.

Okay nice guy that I am, here is the link... AGAIN!!

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas)


•Mechanisms to improve quality.
◦(Sources: H.R. 4529, “Roadmap for America's Future Act;” S. 1099, “Patients' Choice Act;” H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, “Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act” (Enzi bill))

Okay nice guy that I am, here is the link... AGAIN!!

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas)


•Mechanisms to improve quality.
◦(Sources: H.R. 4529, “Roadmap for America's Future Act;” S. 1099, “Patients' Choice Act;” H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, “Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act” (Enzi bill))

Doing nothing as republicans have done since they retook the house in 2010 is no longer a good option (and never was.).

Try and keep up, you have had 3 years to read the law.

Um, wow that's some list. Undoubtedly the Dems were extremely open to Republican input.

So the Dems cherry-picked a few things that weren't enough to get even ONE Republican vote. Strangely though you can't see the disconnect between arguing in one post that Republicans have no ideas and then arguing they did in the next. Meanwhile, it is still a 100 percent Democrat disaster, own it.

Have you just realised that US too politics is a good ploy, when you don't know what to do let the opposition tell you what they would do, then cherry pick the best parts. If it fails you can always say, it was your idea

Like that disaster stimulus package the guys voted against until a camera and a big fat check showed up. Then it was "See what I did!".

of course, we have a good example of it here at the moment with a boosted education program that last week the goverment said was a shambles put in place by the former government

Ted Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Universal Health Care | Everyday Citizen (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/09/ted_kennedy_richard_nixon_and.html)


After Nixon won the elections, Kennedy began secret negotiations with the White House that almost led to an agreement on a health care plan. Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974. It would've built upon existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would've provided government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. Sadly, the Watergate scandal derailed Nixon and Kennedy's efforts at health care reform...............Thirty five years after Nixon made his proposals for universal health care reform, President Obama is making similar proposals for reform on our health care system. Like Nixon, Obama would build upon the present health care system to provide universal access to health care. Obama would agree with Nixon statement on February 5, 1974, which Nixon stated that he did not want to see "other families of modest means... driven, basically to bankruptcy because of the inability to handle medical care problems of a catastrophic type."

Nixon's and Obama's reform proposals are not radical changes to the current health care system, and neither are socialist. As Steve Pearlstein notes, the past 30 years has seen the political center to the right after the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, and proposals that would be moderate in Nixon's time seem more radical today. Obama and today's progressives need to push the political center more to the left again, to be able to define the debate on progressive reforms on more fair terms. I'm not a fan of Richard Nixon, but his advocacy of health care reform is something that many people can support. If someone like Nixon has advocated universal health care proposals that are similar to Obama's, then it should show people that those proposals aren't socialist, but work to improve the capitalist system of its flaws.

George W. Bush on Health Care (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Health_Care.htm#Insurance_coverage)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/magazine/the-president-wants-you-to-get-rich-on-obamacare.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Another asked if Scully was worried about Congressional repeal. “It's just not going to happen,” he said. “Don't pay attention to Rush Limbaugh.” When Scully finally began his speech, he noted that the prevailing narrative among Republicans — assuming that many in the room were, like him, Republican — was incorrect. “It's not a government takeover of medicine,” he told the crowd. “It's the privatization of health care.” In fact, Obamacare, he said, was largely based on past Republican initiatives. “If you took George H. W. Bush's health plan and removed the label, you'd think it was Obamacare.”

Republican presidents have been wanting ACA for decades, but the democrat finally got it. And its conservatives that are mad. I was right, modern right wingers have lost their friggin mind.

Debate over!!

I was right, modern right wingers have lost their friggin mind.

it would seem so

CORRECTION

Went back and checked, they have always been loony. Not sure how long but as far back as I can remember.

They got louder though.

Of course we got louder. Its because we can not accept your revisionist view of history. What Obamacare is doing is involving the government by threat of arrest into the healthcare system. That has nothing to do with what was proposed by Nixon or Bush. Its amazing how far the fog has sunk in to the brains of the sheeple that they would rather live the lie then accept the truth.

Show me the threat of arrest then tell me who the revision it is.

Is this what you are referring to Tal


ObamaCare Myth: You Will Go to Jail If You Don't Pay the Fee for Not Buying Health Insurance
The only way for the IRS to collect the fee for not having health insurance, if you choose not to pay it, is for them to withhold the money you would get back from the IRS after filing your income tax returns. The IRS cannot enforce the Individual Shared Responsibility provision with jail time, liens, or any other of typical methods of collection.

Thank you Clete and just to add the fines don't even start until 2015, 3 months of 2014 are excluded from compliance. So you don't even have to have insurance until March of 2014, later if you have you had insurance for the beginning of the year.

And yet you have no issue with fining people for not buying a product?

Hello again, Steve:

And yet you have no issue with fining people for not buying a product?Yeah... I'd much rather pay for Obamacare by limiting how much a medical provider can make.

In fact, I'd much rather pay for it by NATIONALIZING the entire industry... That way our financial/medical crisis would be OVER. I don't use that word lightly.. It would be OVER in ONE FELL SWOOP!!! Wouldn't that be good?? We'd EVEN have money left over to buy 3, maybe 4 aircraft carriers...

Why do you righty's want to SAVE the medical industry at the EXPENSE of our country... Makes NO sense to a fellow like me.

Now, you DO, of course, realize that I'm NOT a socialist.. I'd RATHER the medical industry worked for US, like it used to. But, it doesn't. The ENTIRE industry is interested in PROFITS more than SERVICE... No, it wouldn't bother me a BIT to nationalize them.. What have they done for ME, except to BANKRUPT my country?????

excon

A product only because its sold on the free market by private companies that protects you and your health issues from the rest of us, and mine from you. Like seat belts, you get fined for not wearing them.

The old seat belt straw man, that was to be expected. Driving is a privilege, you shouldn't get fined for existing, dude.

By the way, I just learned this morning that our "affordable" health insurance is getting considerably more expensive and we're losing dental. That's your idea of "fairness," screwing people over who have been responsible and did nothing to deserve you making us poorer.

Hello again, Steve:

You're losing the argument one family at a time. Here's another FOX lie (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/05/cornelius-kelly-fox-obamacare-baby/) that you probably believe.

You saw THE BABY IS NOT COVERED hysteria over on FOX, didn't you?? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Step away from the TV, Steve. It's rotting your brain.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

You're losing the argument one family at a time. Here's another FOX lie (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/05/cornelius-kelly-fox-obamacare-baby/) that you probably believe.

You saw THE BABY IS NOT COVERED hysteria over on FOX, didn't you?? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Step away from the TV, Steve. It's rotting your brain.

excon

I don't recall ever mentioning that horror story so save that for someone else. That seems to be a real problem with you and Tal, you keep arguing based on stuff we've never said or positions we've never taken. What I DID say was this:


By the way, I just learned this morning that our "affordable" health insurance is getting considerably more expensive and we're losing dental. That's your idea of "fairness," screwing people over who have been responsible and did nothing to deserve you making us poorer.

The fines won't get paid , nor will they be enough to prevent the death spiral . Kids aint stupid .They are not going to sign up in droves for this plunder of their scarce resources ..Right now the ratio is about 50:1 for people being dropped from their coverage because of the Obamacare mandates ,compared to new enrollees (mostly Medicaid ) .

Yeah I was pissed when my employee contributions for health insurance went up way before Obama care. I didn't blame Reagan though, I blamed the boss, and my union since we only got a .05 cent hourly wage increase.

Hmmm I also remember Reagan waving a paper showing all the new jobs he had created which turned out to be low paying fast food jobs. I also remember paying big bucks out of my pocket that took 3 years to pay off because the company provided insurance went bankrupt. I didn't blame Reagan I blamed the boss, and thanked the union for much needed support during a lousy time.

In time though I understood the boss was catching his own hell because of a recession, or economic downturn if you will. Back then the minimum wage was less than 4 bucks, but it bought a lot more.

Hello again, Steve:

That seems to be a real problem with you and Tal, you keep arguing based on stuff we've never said or positions we've never taken.

Let's put this "poor misjudged ME" crap to rest.. It's called EUPHEMISM. When we say "you", it's NOT you personally, Steve. We LIKE you. It's the right wingers who actually DID say it that we hate.

What??? You don't do it TOO???? Come on, Man!

excon

Yeah I was pissed when my employee contributions for health insurance went up way before Obama care. I didn't blame Reagan though, I blamed the boss, and my union since we only got a .05 cent hourly wage increase.

It's not the boss' fault, your guy was emphatically clear that we could keep our insurance and the cost would go DOWN, in spite of the bullsh*t lies still being spewed by the regime and idiots like Harry Reid (http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/15821-harry-reids-confused-double-down-on-obamas-broken-health-plan-promise), who by the way will be the only Senator to keep that promise for his staffers.

This is a DIRECT result of this crap sandwich called "affordable care" and it's ANYTHING but fair.

Did you read where I came to understand the bosses perspective? Just as I understand yours.

I fail to see how that helps me pay the bills next year.

Hello again, Steve:
I fail to see how that helps me pay the bills next year.If you have insurance provided by your employer, you can keep it. Of course, that doesn't mean the insurance company, or your employer are required to keep YOU.

Having said that, if you're employed, you're NOT gonna lose your health care. If you do, you'll PROBABLY be able to get on on the exchange, and buy a policy for LESS money. Of course, if your employer drops you, HE'S the one cutting your income - NOT Obama. Talk to him...

Your costs should only got up if you're a high income earner. I don't wanna know how much you make, but you're the one who uses YOU and your family as examples...

So, irrespective of what FOX news says, DID you lose your own personal insurance?? If you did, did you shop for one at the exchange??? Why are YOUR bills going up??? Mine aren't going up.

excon

PS> (edited) You should excuse me if you've already TOLD us that you LOST your insurance. I can't keep up..

I also remember paying big bucks out of my pocket that took 3 years to pay off because the company provided insurance went bankrupt. I didn't blame Reagan I blamed the boss, and thanked the union for much needed support during a lousy time.

I have negotiated more than a few deals to get by until things got better. Survive until you can thrive. Life is what it is. I am in the same boat you are.

Just reporting the facts, I didn't stutter and I said it twice.

So the law was designed to protect the uninsured and the people with pre-existing conditions . However ,the law of the land before Obamacare ,and dating back to 1996 prevented employer based plans ,Medicare ,and Medicaid from dropping people with pre existing conditions . For the people who had preexisting conditions and no employer plan ,there were subsidized high risk pools established in most states .
Obamacare mandates that these close at the end of the month .

These patients must now enroll in the exchanges. The problem is that many of the plan on the exchanges exclude doctors, specialty cancer centers, and hospitals where these patients are being treated . State commissions across the country are trying desperately to delay the closure of the high risk pools.
Texas postpones closure of high-risk health insurance pool - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/health-care/article/Texas-postpones-closure-of-high-risk-health-5003936.php)

These are patients who face a situation where even the slightest delay in treatment could be deadly . Yet to my knowledge ,the emperor has not addressed this issue. He has some fantasy that they can just get on the web ;sign up and get the same quality treatment that could be the difference between life and death on the exchanges .

There is no law to excuse a doctor or care provider from delaying any treatment. Its an easier accommodation than people think. Hospitals and doctors are and have always pushed hard to maximize there own pay agreements and that's where all this in network, and out of network crap started, and where it will end.

The whole point of the law is to expand the networks and bring a uniform standard of payments and cost controls. That's a part of bending the curve down but insurance companies have to compete with each other instead of sticking to their own self controlled territories. I think you had it right with the eliminating the anti trust exemption for insurance companies.

States that didn't take the Medicaid expansion are now hard pressed to come up with a plan to fund those high risk pools and I did provide a link where the Texas hospitals were pushing their own regional cost sharing plans.

Seems to me you previously argued it was the evil insurance companies that brought us all this network stuff. Regardless, Obamacare is shrinking networks, not expanding them.

bottom line is that in a few weeks critically ill people are going to be denied their doctors and the hospitals where they get life saving treatment . Haven't heard the emperor address this at all.

you had it right with the eliminating the anti trust exemption for insurance companies.
thanks I think so too . Will you also join me in opposition to the insurance company bailout that was written into the law ( "risk corridor program"),and is set to kick in when they realize they can't enroll enough invincibles ?

I will admit Tom my concern over this transitional program is who bear the final cost because I think the insurance companies affected should, not the states or the feds. Yeah cuts into profits, but even without young people jumping on board I still see a lot of money being made by the insurance companies and so far I have to admit I am against it as it is written.

Still studying it though. Thoughts?

Tal the insurers have to accept the changed environment, it's actually called soveriegn risk. They may incurr lower profits but they have a unique opportunity to prosper so they need to take a long term view

now individuals are subject to soveriegn risk too, the government has moved the gaol posts, that is what governments do, it is consequence of electoral outcomes.

it is the consequences of big statist government thinking it can micromanage an industry .This thing is in it's infancy and still there are more unintended consequences than can be listed .

There are always unintended consequences Tom when we implemented something similiar, pathology services went mad as the entreprenuer medical practitioner sought to profit. It is a continual battle by government to contain costs from pressures from various service sectors, but you have to have the will to do it despite the various lobbies. I suspect you do not have the will to contain these voracious profit takers

More on how obamacare is "expanding" the provider networks. Did someone say unintended consequences?

Doctors boycotting California's Obamacare exchange | Mobile Washington Examiner (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/doctors-boycotting-californias-obamacare-exchange/article/2540272)


An estimated seven out of every 10 physicians in deep-blue California are rebelling against the state's Obamacare health insurance exchange and won't participate, the head of the state's largest medical association said.

“It doesn't surprise me that there's a high rate of nonparticipation,” said Dr. Richard Thorp, president of theCalifornia Medical Association.

”Thorp has been a primary care doctor for 38 years in a small town 90 miles north of Sacramento. The CMA represents 38,000 of the roughly 104,000 doctors in California.“We need some recognition that we’re doing a service to the community. But we can’t do it for free. And we can’t do it at a loss. No other business would do that,” he said.

California offers one of the lowest government reimbursement rates in the country -- 30 percent lower than federalMedicare payments. And reimbursement rates for some procedures are even lower.

Now you have insurance, shame you don't have a doctor. On the other hand I also heard reported this morning that the exchanges are sharing your personal data so you can be harassed by insurance companies. Yep, this is working out real well.

Next they'll be mandating doctors work for these slave wages to solve the participation rate and quality of care will necessarily skyrocket.

From what I read this risk corridor has a shelf life of 3 years, and is funded by the insurers through a narrow and defined window. The purpose is to make sure premium prices can be monitored and adjusted, be they too high, or to low as more data trends become available.

http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Files/Downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf


Section 1341 of the Affordable Care Act provides that:
–
A transitional reinsurance program must be established in each State to help stabilize premiums for coverage in the individual market from 2014 through 2016
–
All health insurance issuers and third party administrators on behalf of self-insured group health plans, must make contributions to support reinsurance payments that cover high-cost individuals in non-grandfathered plans in the individual market
•
Reinsurance is a critical element in helping to ensure a stabilized individual market in the first years of Exchange operation.

Next they'll be mandating doctors work for these slave wages to solve the participation rate and quality of care will necessarily skyrocket.

That's a stretch. More customers, more profits. Prices going down, and we have been needing more doctors anyway.

Talk about a stretch. More customers, fewer providers, lower reimbursements, less interest in making medicine a career (which is odd that you argue for higher wages while thinking lower wages will encourage making it a career) - not sure how your math works.

I thought you libs were big science guys. You know, evidence based? Amazing how you keep dismissing the evidence of a disaster unfolding before our eyes. I think you're more faith based than we are, you govern by wishful thinking.

Hello again, Steve:

You know, evidence based? Amazing how you keep dismissing the evidence of a disaster unfolding before our eyes.Evidence??? I dunno.. Insurance works.. What more evidence do you need? Unfolding disaster??? Nahhh, a few bumps along the way to a kinder and BETTER country.

Take the chart below.. Even if it's off a couple MILLION, it STILL shows that we'd PROSPER under universal health care. What??? Even though you LIKE the old system, it's BANKRUPTING us.

I wonder, when you speak of "evidence", you don't get perplexed at your OWN party's INABILITY or UNWILLINGNESS to offer LEGISLATION encompassing THEIR ideas..

All you're saying is NO, and that AIN'T enough.

I live by facing challenges, and overcoming obstacles and solving problems. I concede the need for more doctors, and the aging population of doctors and society at large. Your link points out the fact that older doctors want to do less and get paid more and that's understandable for people our age.

Surprised you don't recognize the two tiered compensation structure as its been adapted by MANY private industries as a cost cutting measure separating older workers from newer ones. The free market fills in it's own gaps as you and Tom have so highly touted as the answer.

When it fails government has to step in, and it is has failed. Supply side economics has always failed a large segment of the American population, as well as global economics. Of course it will never be acknowledged by the few beneficiaries of this broken business model.

Hello again, Steve:
Evidence??? I dunno.. Insurance works.. What more evidence do you need? Unfolding disaster??? Nahhh, a few bumps along the way to a kinder and BETTER country.

Take the chart below.. Even if it's off a couple MILLION, it STILL shows that we'd PROSPER under universal health care. What??? Even though you LIKE the old system, it's BANKRUPTING us.

I wonder, when you speak of "evidence", you don't get perplexed at your OWN party's INABILITY or UNWILLINGNESS to offer LEGISLATION encompassing THEIR ideas..

All you're saying is NO, and that AIN'T enough.

Dude, I gave you the list of GOP options pages ago and you still post that drivel? As I was saying about your evidence based thinking...

Hello again, Dude:

Dude, I gave you the list of GOP options pages ago Options are like a$$holes. Writing down your options and PROPOSING them in a bill, is what we pay congressmen to do... If these so called "options" are sooooo good, where the BILL????

Right now, ALL we got, is right wingers flapping their gums. But, we're USED to that.

excon

I gave you the list of adopted GOP amendments in the ACA, you ignored that fact too!

As I was saying. You both just keep affirming my point.

If your point is you hate everything liberal, I already got your point.

Nope, just saying you still have an aversion to reality. We both want things fixed, but only one side is acknowledging how much you've made things worse as is typical for big government solutions.

Governing 50 states is a huge challenge. We have states bigger than countries. It's a huge country.

One you can't micromanage to your liking.

Governing 50 states is a huge challenge. We have states bigger than countries. Its a huge country.

Yes it is, having less states and less politicians would be more productive. The states formed long before the efficient communications, etc we have today and that local government was necessary then but superflous now, in fact you are over governed at a local level and this means you have 50 different approaches to a common problem, subtle differences maybe but it makes for problems. We solved this by our government insisting on uniform legislation in return for government funding. you want to suck at the government teat you play by the government rules

The best hospitals in the country are being excluded by plans on the exchanges
New Affordable Care US health plans will exclude top hospitals - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/994951f8-5e71-11e3-8621-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2myqe721C)
Can't get the best cancer treatments ..... But at least contraceptives are now covered.

Hello again, tom:

You link wouldn't let me read the article unless I REGISTERED.. It seems to be a right wing site. If I COULD have read the article, I'd probably tell them to SHOW ME THE MONEY instead of FLAPPING their gums.

excon

I read your article, and the bean counters are arguing over how much money they can charge, and how much they will pay. Let 'em argue. There should be one network in the US any way.

So what's really been changed by the new law? Insurers and providers have always dictated who was in or out of their network. Its always been a deal cut between the two, and quiet as its kept, any doctor or hospital can still cut a deal and be IN network.

Hell the first thing all hospitals do is call your insurance company before they do anything else. All of them do that. Even the emergency rooms if you are conscious.

You keep saying that as if it's a sin to get paid for your services after spending thousand upon thousands for years to learn your very specialized trade, pay for very expensive equipment needed to run your practice and paying exorbitant malpractice insurance, all while demanding people who squirt industrial mayo on a bun be paid $15.00 and hour. The disconnect is amazing.

But nice spin anyway. as the article said the best hospitals are expensive because of what they do, innovative treatments for the sickest of the sick.

P.S. Obamacare architect and brother of Rahmbo had this (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/12/08/zeke-emanuel-fox-you-can-keep-your-doctor-you-may-just-be-fully-responsi) to say yesterday:


The president never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want… But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. It's a matter of choice. … The issue isn't the selective networks… People are going to have a choice of whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network, or pay more for a broader network. They get that choice.

Amazing the shameless lying and spin taking place to excuse thie crap sandwich called Obamacare, a term which even Obama has distanced himself from. What he did say was this and it's unequivocal:


So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.

Hello again, Steve:

The disconnect is amazing.I'm a capitalist. I make as much as I can... The reason has NOTHING to do with how much I spent learning HOW to BE a capitalist. If THAT was the barometer, I spent NOTHING. I'm a high school dropout...

Nahhh... Liberals use a different measure.

When does somebody making as much as he can, DAMAGE society??? As a committed right winger, you'd probably say NEVER. I don't even think you ADMIT that health care costs are BANKRUPTING the entire nation.

Liberals, of course, don't HAVE that aversion to reality. The health care INDUSTRY is bankrupting us, and it WON'T stop until the government STOPS it.

So, we're trying.

excon

Hello again, tom:

You link wouldn't let me read the article unless I REGISTERED.. It seems to be a right wing site. If I COULD have read the article, I'd probably tell them to SHOW ME THE MONEY instead of FLAPPING their gums.

excon
see below




New Affordable Care US health plans will exclude top hospitals

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

Americans who are buying insurance plans over online exchanges, under what is known as Obamacare, will have limited access to some of the nation's leading hospitals, including two world-renowned cancer centres.

Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the new healthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and California, for example, will not offer patients' access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the top research and teaching hospitals in the country.


Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers' choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare law.

It could become another source of political controversy for the Obama administration next year, when the plans take effect. Frustrated consumers could then begin to realise what is not always evident when buying a product as complicated as healthcare insurance: that their new plans do not cover many facilities or doctors “in network”. In other words, the facilities and doctors are not among the list of approved providers in a certain plan.

Under some US health insurance plans, consumers can elect to visit medical facilities that are “out of network”, but they would probably incur high out of pocket costs and may need referrals to prove that such care is medically necessary.

The development is worrying some hospital administrators who see the change as an unintended consequence of the ACA.

“We're very concerned. [Insurers] know patients that are sick come to places like ours. What this is trying to do is redirect those patients elsewhere, but there is a reason why they come here. These patients need what it is that we are capable of providing,” says Thomas Priselac, president and chief executive officer of Cedars-Sinai Health System in California.

One of the biggest goals of “Obamacare” was to make subsidised healthcare plans that are being sold on the new exchanges as affordable as possible, while also mandating that certain benefits, like maternity care, were covered and that people with pre-existing medical conditions could not be denied access.

Amid these new regulatory restrictions, says Tim Jost, a health policy expert, insurance companies have had to come up with new ways to cut the cost of their products. In this new era, limiting the availability of certain facilities that are seen as too expensive – in part because they may attract the sickest patients or offer the most cutting edge medical care – is seen as the best way to control costs.

“It's like buying a Mercedes-Benz or a Chevy. You have to decide whether you want to pay for the highest product out there, which is probably pretty good quality, or the less expensive product,” Mr Jost says. “Everyone is in favour of competition until they see what it looks like. Then they think, maybe it's better for someone else just to pay for the whole thing.”

Kathleen Harrington, who heads government relations for the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, says that access to the famous clinic was initially limited in the Rochester, Minnesota area until officials at the healthcare exchange board in the state encouraged insurers to expand their network options.

While the Mayo Clinic will now be available on seven different plans offered by two different insurance carriers in Rochester, Ms Harrington says the long-term concern for the hospital is that intense focus on bringing down costs will hurt “centres of excellence” like Mayo that attract the most complicated medical cases in the country.

“I don't think there is any doubt that a significant portion of the Mayo base are very sick patients. You don't come here for primary care. We do treat the sickest of the sick. We do experimental treatment. This is where you come for innovative treatments for life threatening illnesses,” she says.

“If healthcare, the full spectrum from primary to top speciality care, becomes commoditised, it becomes a concern for the American healthcare system,” she adds.

When the Obama administration was asked whether the new healthcare exchanges were offering adequate network options to new consumers, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) emphasised that the new exchanges would “vastly increase” the access to medical providers to millions of uninsured Americans.

“Decisions about which private health insurance plans cover which doctors is a decision currently made by insurers and providers and will continue that way,” said an HHS spokeswoman.

The top lobby group for US health insurance plans, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the new healthcare law brought “new costs” to the industry and that selecting hospitals and physicians that meet “quality standards” was one way of making health plans more affordable for consumers.

But Mr Priselac at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles says the creation of ever more narrow provider networks by insurers is being driven by price alone, and not by quality. He says the hospitals that are being excluded are leaders in innovation, which saves billions of dollars for the healthcare system in the long run.

“There is confusion between price and efficiency,” he says. “The major teaching and research hospitals are more expensive not because they are inefficient but because of what they do.”

Btw ,'Financial Times' is one of the leading economic publications in the world.

Hello again, Steve:
I'm a capitalist. I make as much as I can... The reason has NOTHING to do with how much I spent learning HOW to BE a capitalist. If THAT was the barometer, I spent NOTHING. I'm a high school dropout...

Nahhh... Liberals use a different measure.

So you were a high school dropout, I want doctors who like most have gone deep into debt to learn their craft.

We have improved with the ACA because now providers and injurers are haggling among themselves and ordinary folks aren't caught in the middle and kicked to the curb to save the bottom line. Hell those expensive hospitals weren't taking me anyway. I mean why is the price the same whether they cure me or NOT!

That's your free market at work, setting prices for effective service. Let 'em haggle.

Borrowing for higher education is an investment, and you may not get a return on that investment in a year or two. Or 5.

BS . My mom was treated at MD Anderson as a Medicare patient . The Mayo Clinic did too until it took a loss of $840 million in a year from treating Medicare patients.
You think they should work for nothing; or at a rate of compensation that the government decides .

Hello again, tom:

You think they should work for nothing; or at a rate of compensation that the government decides .Nothing is a little cheap, but I'm for the government making those decisions... Clearly, when the INDUSTRY makes them, it's BANKRUPTING us..

Although price controls are an anathema, BANKRUPTING the country is WORSE.

excon

ah yes ,the Milhouse solution ! Nixonomics !

Hello again, tom:

Well, you've got the Randian solution. Going broke BUILDS character!

excon

If people can work and be broke all the time, then why can't hospitals? Why can't corporations? I thought they were people too? Kick people off welfare, and kick corporations off too.

Maybe I got my Americas mixed up. I thought there was one but I see there are two.

So you want to go to a hospital that relies heavily on bloodletting, leeches and homemade tonics.

What an untapped market, selling leeches to hospitals. Hmmmmmmmm!

Maybe I got my Americas mixed up. I thought there was one but I see there are two.


I think you are right and so did Romney. he was aware of the other 47%

Already tapped, tal.

"The leech is invaluable in microsurgery when faced with the difficulties of reattaching minute veins. Ears have such tiny veins that, in the past, no one was able to successfully reattach them. Then, in 1985, a Harvard physician was having great difficulty in reattaching the ear of a five-year-old child; the tiny veins kept clotting. He decided to use leeches and the ear was saved. This success established leeches in the modern medical world. Since then, leeches have saved lives and limbs, reducing severe and dangerous venous engorgement post-surgery in fingers, toes, ear, and scalp reattachments; limb transplants; skin flap surgery; and breast reconstruction. "
NATURE. Bloody Suckers. Leech Therapy | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/bloodysuckers/leech.html)

everything has a purpose

Yes leeches are useful but I prefer hospitals equipped with cutting edge equipment over those equipped with snake oil.

Hospitals never have menus or price lists.

Menus? Why yes, "I think I'll have a frontal lobotomy today. What's that run"

With or without leeches?

With or without leeches?

The question now is with or without drugs?

No, You Can't Keep Your Drugs Either Under Obamacare (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/12/09/no-you-cant-keep-your-drugs-either-under-obamacare/)

Hello again,

So, you can't keep your policy. You can't keep your doctor. You can't keep your hospital, and now you can't keep your drugs. The deductibles are out of sight. The premiums are unaffordable, the co-pays are wayyyy too high, and the caps are wayyy to low. Plus, Obamacare DOESN'T cover babies!

Hmmmm... Now I know what those FEMA death camps are for.

excon

I did not know Obamacare wouldn't cover babies, I don't recall having used that one do you? Feel free to rebut the Forbes column though. Meanwhile, from your state...

Guest: I like my insurance plan but I can't keep it under Obamacare | Opinion | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022405105_andrewredingopedobamacare06xml.html)

The burden is between regulators, insurances, and drug companies and there are 50 different approaches. There is no universal standard. Except when you turn 62/65. One reason that makes buying insurance across state lines impossible.

If you're smart you investigate global drug markets online for drugs, or talk to your doctor, and let them deal with each other. My doctor has a great staff in that regard. But of course you may not be aware that doctors and hospitals are forming their own regional cost sharing groups to get around state restrictions that limit federal dollars for drugs and care access.

I think your article specifically applies to the private insurance market, and how some states are still scrambling to finalize regulations that save them all a few bucks. That's often what market solutions are about. Even the employer reporting exemption only affected a very narrow group of larger employers.

Hello again, Steve:

I did not know Obamacare wouldn't cover babies, That was a FOX Noise scare for a few days, until their crack reporters revealed that the guy who MADE that claim, forgot to put his youngest kid on the application..

excon

He still blamed Obama. But that's not unusual, that's what they have been doing for a long time. This is an old story, but the tactic is the same still.

Revealed: Letters From Republicans Seeking Obamacare Money | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/174669/revealed-letters-republicans-seeking-obamacare-money#)


Whether cutting a ribbon or signing a letter, no Republicans have acknowledged that the health programs they are endorsing are provided by Obamacare.


If these grant letters—sent since the ACA's implementation in 2010—are any guide, GOP opposition to the law will be seriously tested when the open enrollment period for ACA exchanges begins this fall. What will these Republican lawmakers say to their uninsured constituents who want to sign up?

To the extent that the law is successful, it places its Republican critics in a bind, which is why they're working so hard to undermine it. “The thing about reading these letters is that they're well-drafted. If you were to read them as stand-alone, you would say, 'Gosh, the Affordable Care Act is great,' not 'Let's repeal the bill,'” says Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, a pro-reform advocacy group. Rome points out that Republican lawmakers are not “holding press conferences in front of a community health center saying, 'I'm here to get this defunded.'” He adds, “Now that would be political courage.”

Facts don't matter just blame Obama.

Facts don't matter just blame Obama.

Congressmen looking out for their districts? Quelle horreur!

If you are going to holler, throw rocks, and call names, at least be honest.

You are so busy looking for someone to blame, you have forgotten the game you are playing. It's not about wealth distribution or redistribution, it is about public health. The more sick people you have who are untreated for whatever reason the bigger the pool of potential disease. there is a cost, and because the system has degenerated the costs are bigger than they should be. Studying medicine should not mean acquiring a license to print money. the ACA has tried to address the access problem, no person should be excluded from medical assistance by reason of income or relationship with an insurer

Nice try Clete, but this is about power and redistribution.

No it is about access, they shouldn't have included a tax the way they did, but the whole idea is imperfect anyway, you can't have half a public system

Obamacare Wealth Redistribution: Health Reform To Add $52,000 To 1 Percenters Tax Bill To Pay For Benefits For Poorest Americans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/government-wealth-distribution_n_1928973.html)

How Did the 1 Percent Get Ahead So Fast? - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-10/how-did-the-1-percent-get-ahead-so-fast-.html)


A disturbing implication is that if the top earners experience big income growth while everyone else gets stuck, there will be growing disparities in the opportunities of rich children and poor children.

A lot of work needs to be done to specify the reasons for the post-1970s increases in economic inequality. But one point is clear: Through 2012, the gains from the current recovery were concentrated among the top 1 percent, and that pattern, extreme though it is, fits with a general surge in economic inequality over the last 40 years.

.95 cents of a dollars goes to 1% of the people and you say that's fair? So its okay to redistribute the wealth upward and nothing trickles down? That's hoarding.

Hello Steve:

Obamacare Wealth Redistribution: Health Reform To Add $52,000 To 1 Percenters Tax Bill To Pay For Benefits For Poorest AmericansThis is supposed to elicit what from a liberal like me???

Look, wingers... Any tax that ISN'T flat, ISN'T going to appeal to you.

Personally, MY interests are with the POOR. Yours are with the rich.. I DON'T understand that.. I've NEVER understood that. I NEVER will understand that, and I'm GLAD I don't.

excon

If you have health insurance how does your tax bill increase? Last time I looked tax can increase two ways, you earn more or the tax rate changes. The tax rate needs to change on the 1% to make up for the free ride they have been having, but guess who won't let that happen?

Hello Steve:
This is supposed to elicit what from a liberal like me???

Look, wingers... Any tax that ISN'T flat, ISN'T going to appeal to you.

Personally, MY interests are with the POOR. Yours are with the rich.. I DON'T understand that.. I've NEVER understood that. I NEVER will understand that, and I'm GLAD I don't.

excon

It isn't supposed to elicit anything from you, that was for Clete. And until you can dispense with this BS that we love the rich and hate the poor we will never come to an understanding. Only one side is being honest about it and it isn't you. I don't understand the need to continually paint me as someone I clearly and emphatically am not.

Meanwhile, this sort of crap ought to have you angry, too.

Man with Critically Ill Son Gives Up on HealthCare.gov After More Than 50 Tries | National Review Online (http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/366102/man-critically-ill-son-gives-healthcaregov-after-more-50-tries-andrew-johnson)

Please Pray for Me… I Am Losing My Insurance | The Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/please-pray-for-me-i-am-losing-my-insurance/)

"Why is our government doing this to us?"

Of course Speech I have to supply the rest of the story that you seem to have missed.

Obamacare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/obamacares-biggest-losers/)


Gisler in Utah has filed an appeal with the federal exchange and is hoping to eventually gain coverage through the marketplace. For his son, he sees the health-care law as a mixed bag. For the first time, he was able to gain coverage in the individual market despite having a serious medical condition. And his new premium is half of what he paid in the state program, which was about $700 per month.

But technical difficulties have prevented Gisler's son from accessing the tax credit he believes he should receive. That would knock an additional $250 each month off his premium bill.

“It's a net gain for us, that preexisting conditions no longer preclude coverage,” Gisler says. “But in terms of the government's ability to process us through the system, they're still working on that. We've given up. We don't even try anymore.”

I will also point out the Utah governor is not co operating at all with the new law.

Utah Seeks Obama Approval For Health Insurance Exchange (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/utah-obama-health-insurance-exchange_n_2279455.html)

You're welcome.

You should really stop assuming so much and start laying the blame where it belongs instead of blaming everyone but the morons that passed the dang thing without reading it.

What does that have to do with your factually incomplete post? Or the fact that every horror story you come up with, the ACA has a solution for? This wouldn't be an issue if you dug deeper than a headline and gotten the whole story.

There's nothing factually incomplete about my post. I assume you can read, but obviously you can't find that compassion you're so famous for when it comes to real lives being screwed by Obamacare. Without fail you jump to defend this crap sandwich instead of the people negatively affected by it. We should not have to jump through hoops or go broke because you screwed us out of our insurance while lying through your teeth about it. You ought to be ashamed.

So you are going to stick to your BS and ignore the guy you holler about saved money by finding better options than what he had and is waiting for further confirmation of tax credits?

And he though he liked what he had, many do, but more will find out they like what they can get even better. I can see where you don't want to admit you were wrong and adjust your thinking accordingly, but not blame me when you ignore verifiable facts, in favor of rhetoric.

Sorry I am not ashamed of dragging you off the track of your own inconsistency in order to move us forward. Even Paul Ryan recognizes the folly of resisting compromise. Why can't you? But I would be mad too if my elected officials lost the power to control the money, and failed repeatedly to get it back.

The real shame, if one so choose to view it this way. Its conservatives who will reap the same benefits as liberals while they holler against liberal ideas and policy. Sort of like you hating unions, but benefiting from their fight for prevailing wages in YOUR region and vocation.

You could have told the boss you didn't want what the unions have. You didn't, and you never will. Go ahead keep disparaging your benefactors, while enjoying the benefits. That's utter hypocrisy and its you who should be ashamed of yourself.

I want MO" MONEY, and I want you to have more too!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right on cue. As I was saying...

The regime is no longer even pretending the ACA is actually relevant or that they can fix it.


During the Obamacare rollout, stories have spread about millions of Americans losing their current health insurance coverage, preferred doctors and hospitals as plans restrict networks to comply with the law, and losing their prescription drug coverage.

On Thursday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services said it was “strongly encouraging” insurers to help the department fix a raft of problems created by the rocky rollout of President Obama’s health care law.

Among the guidance the HHS announced:

- It is requiring insurers to accept payments until Dec. 31 for coverage starting on Jan. 1. It is also “urging” insurers to give individuals more time beyond that to pay for coverage. In other words, if somebody pays for coverage in the middle of January, HHS is asking insurers to retroactively make that person's coverage effective as of Jan. 1. HHS is also asking insurers to cover individuals who offer a "down payment," even if that payment only covers part of the first month's premiums.

— In a press release, HHS said it was also "strongly encouraging insurers to treat out-of-network providers as in-network to ensure continuity of care for acute episodes or if the provider was listed in their plan’s provider directory as of the date of an enrollee’s enrollment."

— HHS is also "strongly encouraging insurers to refill prescriptions covered under previous plans during January."

On a conference call, an HHS spokeswoman emphasized: “We are just proposing it as an option and we’re encouraging issuers. There is no requirement.”

Translation: HHS has a huge mess on its hands and it hopes that by getting ahead of this news, it can foist the blame for the problems on insurers.

Of course, for insurers who have spent years designing plans to comply with the law, this would present huge and unreasonable logistical hurdles.

HHS also announced there would be a "special enrollment period" for people who tried to purchase insurance by Dec. 23 but couldn't because of a "system error."

HHS 'encourages' insurers to fix problems created by Obamacare | Mobile Washington Examiner (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/hhs-encourages-insurers-to-fix-problems-created-by-obamacare/article/2540658)


As Philip Klein said, "At this point HHS may as well ask insurers to simply declare everybody in America covered."

'embrace the suck '...

Somebody has to be for consumers because you guys sure ain't.

Nice spin, but as I was saying you're always ready to jump to the defense of this crap sandwich no matter how screwed up it is. Get a clue, Tal, this has nothing to do with protecting consumers, it's a shameless CYA job by the regime. Forcing us out of our policies and costing us more than we can afford is not protection.

Besides, I thought you were all about "the law is the law." It is not something the emperor can bend to his will and make up as he goes.

P.S. You also forget if the evil insurance companies end up losing money because of this taxpayers will bail them out, and we the people get hit again.

No they won't read the conditions of the transition period.

Hello again, Steve:

P.S. You also forget if the evil insurance companies end up losing money because of this taxpayers will bail them out, and we the people get hit again.Many times, on these pages, I've spoken about the health care industry being out of control.

Making a deal with THEM, and hoping its gonna work out, was Obama's folly. Single payer is the ONLY system that will SAVE this country.

Look. As a committed capitalist, I LAMENT my conclusions. But, my capitalism is NOT unfettered, and when an industry puts ITS health above that of the NATIONS health, it's time for government to step in.

Intellectually, I HATE that. A for profit industry will be destroyed. However, I take comfort in the knowledge that with the money we'll SAVE, we'll be able to fund ALL of our needs, forever - even right wing ones..

What's not to like?

excon

Insurers Could Get Multi-Millions in Obamacare Bailout - Yahoo Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/insurers-could-multi-millions-obamacare-111500000.html)

As I was saying.

http://www.actuary.org/files/Risk_Adjustment_IB_FINAL_060811.pdf


Even with the three risk mitigation programs, total adjusted loss ratios are projected to remain above the 78% to 80% targets for Scenarios 1A and 1B. This is due to the cost-sharing formula of the risk corridor program and the high loss ratios during the 2014 to 2016 period: while the federal government provides risk corridor payments when loss ratios are at least 3% greater than target, the health plan must share any excess below its target. A health plan that cannot implement adequate rates and rate increases on a timely basis may have difficulty attaining its target loss ratio, especially with the one-sided nature of the ACA MLR rebate formula (health insurers are required to provide rebates to consumers if their MLRs fall below 80%, but are not compensated if their MLRs exceed 80%).

Transitional Reinsurance Program

The reinsurance program will be funded by large group (including self-funded plans), small group, and individual markets through an assessment. The ACA requires total funding of $10 billion in 2014, $6 billion in 2015, and $4 billion in 20164. Reinsurance benefits are only available to health plans covering individual market members. The details of the program are described in Attachment A.

Section 1341 of ACA also requires additional payments totaling $5 billion be made by health plans that do not benefit the individual market, but are paid directly to the federal government. States may also choose to levy other assessments related to the reinsurance program. The impact of these additional federal and state levies on premium rates is not reflected in our analysis.

Lots of data I know.

You guys hold the fort down and solve all the problems, I must go bid my father a fond farewell.

good luck speech

Take the prayers of my family with you.

Hello again,

I've been asking our right wing friends WHAT their plan is, but I'm rebuffed. I'm told there's PLENTY of plans, yet the Republicans have made NO proposals.

Today, on Meet the Press, Paul Ryan SAID that NOBODY wants to go back to the old way where insurance companies decided what health care you get. Essentially, he acknowledges the BENEFITS of Obamacare. He just offered NO way to pay for it.

That IS the question for you righty's, isn't it?? How to PAY for it.

Oh, I know I'll hear the same old crap about if I paid attention, I'd KNOW what the Republican plan is.. But, I DO pay attention, and there's NO plan. There's CERTAINLY no legislation.. Who CARES about the "plans", that reside in the heads of right wingers, unless they put 'em in a BILL????

excon

They did Ex, their plan is cut rich guy taxes and make workers pay more for what they buy. Trickle down economics but with no trickle. Increase profits and make labor cheaper.

You heard of RINO's? Well they have moved to being JCINO! Job Creators In Name Only!! Easy profits without working for them. Fat lazy greedy rich guys. Keep workers poor and on the public dole and talk about 'em like dogs.

Thought a liberal like you knew that.

They did Ex, their plan is cut rich guy taxes and make workers pay more for what they buy. Trickle down economics but with no trickle. Increase profits and make labor cheaper.

Thought a liberal like you knew that.



This is exactly the plan under Obamacare. To wipe out any remaining remnants of the middle class in this country. You have seen it but you just keep ignoring it. Be prepared for what you wished for as its going to turn this country upside down.

Making minimum wage, so called "entry level jobs", middle class jobs hurts the middle class?

What is currently happening to the middle class right now is that they are seeing a steep decline in buying power of the dollars that they earn and with Obamacare in place it has added yet another layer of expense. Not everyone is going to get a subsidy and those that may need it most are going to be denied. Some that have already had thier plans modified have seen huge rate hikes and less coverage of medicines that were previously covered making an already expensive world cost even more. Deductables have risen to a point where going to a ER for treatment is almost out of the question unless your about to die. Thanks Obamacare.

To wipe out any remaining remnants of the middle class in this country. How do they benefit by doing this?

They can benefit from it by creating a permanent dependent class of citizens and fracturing the govenment to change the status to a social government rather then a republic.

Poverty and lack of opportunity and options creates the permanent second class citizen. Talking about them just adds to the myth they deserve no more value as humans, or citizens. And transfers to their kids.

The whole notion of lumping the working poor with welfare queens, cheats, and lazy bums is a despicable tactic and political lie. But its been used since Nixon.

yeah Ryan talks a good game and then is part of a budget deal that allows more government spending on the very thing he says he wants to repeal and replace. This week Harry Reid and Pelosi praised Ryan . That's all you need to know .

That was a very small budget deal, and basically changes very little except stop the TParty from shutting down government... AGAIN in January, but down the line who knows what the loony's will do.

They can benefit from it by creating a permanent dependent class of citizensWhy would all american citizens want to be dependent?
We have socialized health care and it could easily be argued that we are a freer society than you are.

Hello NK:

Why would all american citizens want to be dependent?You hear it all the time. They think, that we think, that'll be good. I dunno why. I don't understand ANYTHING they think.

excon

It is not that they "want" to be dependent. But Obamacare is trying to force people to be dependent.

Hello again, dad:

I didn't mean we, as in we poor people. I meant we, as in liberals.. What does Obama or the Democrats gain by having LOTS of people unemployed and dependent on them? If you say it's cause poor people vote for him, I wouldn't argue. They do. But, the poor didn't ELECT him. The middle did. Obama already HAS their votes. Why would he need to impoverish them??

excon

A chance to be healthy and responsible is making people dependent? Giving workers a chance to buy stuff with a higher wage and getting them less dependent on government is a bad thing for the economy?

Tal, where are you getting this stuff? The fact is that with Obamacare many that could afford insurance before can not now afford it and have to rely on a subsidy. Are you trying to argue that fact?

No argument, I agree. Its too high to really afford. The subsidies are tied to taxes, and adjusted for income. How else should the working poor get health insurance. Are you saying they don't need it? Or don't deserve it?

What Im saying is that they are putting on another layer of government by giving a subsidy that before all this wasnt needed. The people that now have to take it so they can keep insurance and never had the intention of taking anything from the government in the way of a handout. Forcing them to do so is just wrong. Its making more and more dependent on the government.

cdad don't let pride blind you, The ACA recognised increased cost in some sectors and offsets that cost as well as giving people who weren't subsidised incentive to acquire health insurance through subsidy. What it doesn't recognise is that if you couldn't afford health insurance before you probably can't afford it now and an apparent side effect might be that some find it more expensive

You do have a better way of doing it right?

Tal for thirty years our system has worked to provide access to health care to all. No one asks about your income level. The essential feature is a levy collected as part of the tax system with rebates for health care expenditures and a public hospital system with a parallel private insurance system for those who want it and can afford it. If you have health insurance you don't pay the levy. If you are too poor to pay tax you don't pay the levy. A large number of doctors participate directly meaning no cost to the patient. It doesn't have this heavy handed front end that the ACA has apparently put in place. You choose your doctor, your relationship with your doctor is not dictated by your health insurance unless you wnat to be in the private system

The point is, it is simple, it is effective, there is no punative tax, there is no question of coverage

Define your use of the phrase heavy handed front end .

Ok. every one has to go through the process again, there are penalties for non compliance, it's all linked to your income

layer upon layer of administrative complexity

There is nothing complex in regulating an industry that was gouging people and government for decades. Now all of a sudden the no regulation crowd is hollering about how unfair Obama is.

Not the question Tal regulation is necessary in many industries and self regulation has been proven not to work. The free market has proven that it isn't free. You have to stop insurers and others opportunistically gouging the public.

You have two aspects of the ACA

regulating the existing market
providing access to the disadvantaged

What I have been saying is what was done is unnecessarily complex

How so?

What I have been saying is what was done is unnecessarily complex

What does one expect when the plan was to pass it before knowing what was in it and hoping people would "embrace the suck" as tom keeps reminding us?

Well, people aren't embracing the suck (http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-health-law-seen-eroding-coverage-131710274.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory)


WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans who already have health insurance are blaming President Barack Obama's health care overhaul for their rising premiums and deductibles, and overall 3 in 4 say the rollout of coverage for the uninsured has gone poorly

An Associated Press-GfK poll finds that health care remains politically charged going into next year's congressional elections. Keeping the refurbished HealthCare.gov website running smoothly is just one of Obama's challenges, maybe not the biggest.

The poll found a striking level of unease about the law among people who have health insurance and aren't looking for any more government help. Those are the 85 percent of Americans who the White House says don't have to be worried about the president's historic push to expand coverage for the uninsured.

In the survey, nearly half of those with job-based or other private coverage say their policies will be changing next year — mostly for the worse. Nearly 4 in 5 (77 percent) blame the changes on the Affordable Care Act, even though the trend toward leaner coverage predates the law's passage.

Sixty-nine percent say their premiums will be going up, while 59 percent say annual deductibles or copayments are increasing.

Nearly 4 in 5 (77 percent) blame the changes on the Affordable Care Act, even though the trend toward leaner coverage predates the law's passage.

Be interesting to know who they blamed before the ACA came into law.

What matters is who they're blaming now.

Hello again, Steve:

What matters is who they're blaming now.Nahhh... What matters is who they'll blame (IF anybody) AFTER the benefits kick in.

NOW, there's just right wingers flapping their gums.

excon

Decision made in fear and anger often come back to bite you. This time next year, the ACA may not be the whipping boy of the right. Likely it will be red state citizens wonder why they can't get what the blue states are getting.

Can't wait until Paul, and McConnell have to explain why they are against their own rising number of citizens having health care insurance, and trying to take it away.

I can't wait until you libs get honest about it. No one wants to deny people health care, but obviously you're struggling to defend this crap sandwich.

Hello again, Steve:

but obviously you're struggling to defend this crap sandwich.It's NOT yet a crap sandwich. It MAY be, but its crappyness is NOT a foregone conclusion...

One needs to see how the law works in its ENTIRETY before one could come to such a conclusion... Until THEN, there's ONLY right wingers flapping their gums.

When you go to a restaurant, do you decide that you DON'T like your dinner BEFORE it's served??? I don't think you do.

excon

Speaking of that truth issue you were mentioning, the facts will show the majority of my sources on this disaster since its rollout have not been right wingers flapping their gums. I must have missed when the AP became a bunch of right wingers, but I haven't missed how you guys refuse to acknowledge the reality unfolding.

Hello again, Steve:

I haven't missed how you guys refuse to acknowledge the reality unfolding.Here's the reality from MY perspective... Since the get go, the noise coming from the right hasn't changed a bit. It was NEVER based on fact, and it's NOT based on fact now...

I KNOW that, because ALL the facts aren't in yet.. It's NOT a difficult concept to grasp.

excon

In other words, I should just like the fact that Obamacare is making it harder for me to pay my bills in spite of the president's lies that I could keep my insurance and it would get cheaper and just trust him that the plan no one read and America didn't want will work just great.

I quit believing fairy tales decades ago, ex. Shame you haven't, I refuse to "embrace the suck" and have ZERO reasons to trust this regime, you're a fool if you do.

How is Obama Care making it harder for you to pay your bills? Not your friends with private or no insurance... YOU. You have employer based insurance like I do, so why does the ACA affect you, and NOT me?

Hello again, Steve:

ZERO reasons to trust this regimeWaiting to see how things work out has NOTHING to do with trust. You MAY be right. It MIGHT be a crap sandwich. But, it might NOT be.

So, how much IS your new policy gonna cost as opposed to the one that got taken away? I asked you before if you lost yours, and you didn't reply. I also asked about your NEW policy that you got from the exchange.. Clearly, you BOUGHT one, and it's MORE expensive...

I wanna know the details. Show me the money!

excon

I don't know the details yet, we were busy burying my dad during my wife's insurance meeting. I know it's going to cost more and we lose dental, which is going to be a big hit.

But yes, if there is no reason to trust the people in charge of this mess we would be absolute fools to sit on our a$$es and hope for the best. I doubt that's how you run your business.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know the details yet, we were busy burying my dad during my wife's insurance meeting. I know it's going to cost more and we lose dental, which is going to be a big hit.
So, this is your wife's EMPLOYER cancelling her insurance, and FORCING her to buy a new one? Are you saying she has no CHOICE in the policy she buys??

Was it cancelled because the old policy didn't meet the requirements of Obamacare?? If that's so, and it PROBABLY is, then aren't the brand spanking new benefits you're gonna get worth paying more for?

They'll NEVER be able to cancel you if you get sick. There are NO caps. They WON'T be able to DENY you for some pre-existing condition.. I dunno how old your disabled daughter is, but MAYBE she'll be covered too. There's PREVENTATIVE care that wasn't in her last policy.. And, there's MORE than that.

I dunno.. If it was me, and I just got a whole lot of government benefits, I wouldn't mind paying for them. Some people just take.

excon

Sorry for your loss, speech.

Hello s:

Thanks for reminding me of my bad manners..

My condolences, Steve.

excon

Thanks.

So far we're out over $1000 a year more JUST in premiums. And no, I can't afford it.

My condolences for your loss.

So far we're out over $1000 a year more JUST in premiums. And no, I can't afford it.


Ok now we are at the nub of the problem, there has been a snakeoil salesman loose. Lot's of false promises and rhumatiz medicine. Look I advocate going to the witchdoctor, you have as much chance of being cured of common ailments. if there were fewer visits to doctors and houch remedies perscribed then reality might prevail

Thanks cdad.

My heart goes out to you Speech, all I got are prayers for you and your family.

Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it.
They are part of an unusual, informal health insurance system that has developed in New York, in which independent practitioners were able to get lower insurance rates through group plans, typically set up by their professional associations or chambers of commerce. That allowed them to avoid the sky-high rates in New York’s individual insurance market, historically among the most expensive in the country.

But under the Affordable Care Act, they will be treated as individuals, responsible for their own insurance policies. For many of them, that is likely to mean they will no longer have access to a wide network of doctors and a range of plans tailored to their needs. And many of them are finding that if they want to keep their premiums from rising, they will have to accept higher deductible and co-pay costs or inferior coverage. “I couldn’t sleep because of it,” said Barbara Meinwald, a solo practitioner lawyer in Manhattan.

Ms. Meinwald, 61, has been paying $10,000 a year for her insurance through the New York City Bar. A broker told her that a new temporary plan with fewer doctors would cost $5,000 more, after factoring in the cost of her medications.

Ms. Meinwald also looked on the state’s health insurance exchange. But she said she found that those plans did not have a good choice of doctors, and that it was hard to even find out who the doctors were, and which hospitals were covered. “It’s like you’re blindfolded and you’re told that you have to buy something,” she said.

The people affected include not just writers, artists, doctors and the like, but also independent tradespeople, like home builders or carpenters, who work on their own.

Some have received notices already; others, whose plans have not yet expired, will soon receive letters in the mail. It is unclear exactly how many New Yorkers are affected; according to state health officials, as many as 400,000 independent practitioners get health insurance through job-related group plans, but that number also includes people who receive coverage through their spouses’ employers.

The predicament is similar to that of millions of Americans who discovered this fall that their existing policies were being canceled because of the Affordable Care Act. The crescendo of outrage led to Mr. Obama’s offer to restore their policies, though some states that have their own exchanges, like California and New York, have said they will not do so.

But while those policies, by and large, had been canceled because they did not meet the law’s requirements for minimum coverage, many of the New York policies being canceled meet and often exceed the standards, brokers say. The rationale for disqualifying those policies, said Larry Levitt, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, was to prevent associations from selling insurance to healthy members who are needed to keep the new health exchanges financially viable.
Siphoning those people, Mr. Levitt said, would leave the pool of health exchange customers “smaller and disproportionately sicker,” and would drive up rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregion/with-affordable-care-act-canceled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html?_r=2&

Glad to see it's happening to the liberal elite suck ups . As usual they are all for it if someone else is getting gored . As you see ,it is NOT a matter of getting better policies and it is not a matter of affordability . What they are being offered is inferior plans with less options at higher costs .
They were intentionally screwed.Their policies did meet the minimum coverage standards, and were still canceled as a way "to prevent associations from selling insurance to healthy members who are needed to keep the new health exchanges financially viable." Too bad this same scenario isn't happening to the toadies in the dinosaur media.

well the fix is in, big surprise, no? yes? maybe

This sounds more like the insurance companies antics to drive up prices than a result of the law. I would have no doubt that reporting this to state regulators would be the next course of actions. This would hardly be the first time insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law and walk a fine line to gain profit or market advantage.

We have seen what they have done in the past, and lets not believe they have gone from profit over people to fair brokers. Drug companies either for that matter.

Hello again, tom:

Glad to see it's happening to the liberal elite suck ups .This is SOOO wrong, on SOOO many levels.

If you're happy about the pain liberals are going through, you must be positively ORGASMIC over the pain repealing the ACA will inflict on the poor..

excon

This sounds more like the insurance companies antics to drive up prices than a result of the law. I would have no doubt that reporting this to state regulators would be the next course of actions. This would hardly be the first time insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law and walk a fine line to gain profit or market advantage.

We have seen what they have done in the past, and lets not believe they have gone from profit over people to fair brokers. Drug companies either for that matter.
Make no mistake about it .. What is happening is the inevitable consequences (if I'm being charitable ...I'll call them unintended consequences ) of poor policy and legislation.

Naw, policy and legislation have to have enforcement or a greedy b@st@d will just steal.

Enforcement? This regime is very selective in its "enforcement" of the law.

Hello again, Steve:
This regime is very selective in its "enforcement" of the law.

Selective enforcement of the law isn't just something Obama does.. Right wing sheriff's (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/17/colorado-sheriff-says-new-state-gun-laws-wont-be-enforced/)do it too..

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Above is an example where a blue state ;one of those foolish ones who went by the emperor's plan and set up their exchanges are struggling with this disaster called the ACA . It is not a matter of greedy insurance companies . It is all a matter of government incompetence .
Maryland ....... Gov O'Malley held a presser saying the exchanges work now when in truth it still sucks .

With so many people — and not just the tea party, but a lot of people — thinking that government is full of slothful boobs, that government is too costly and too often mismanaged, O'Malley can one day present himself to the nation as a competent executive, a man who gets it right.

Unless, of course, Maryland's health insurance exchange goes down as one of the worst in the nation.

Which is how it's still looking, despite O'Malley's claims that the system is "now functioning for most citizens."
O'Malley promise on health exchange don't help consumers - baltimoresun.com (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-rodricks-12017-20131216,0,5698080.column#ixzz2nk9W6b6N)

Romneycare was scrapped for the 'Health Connecter ' in Mass. It's a catastrophe !
Mass. may cancel payments for botched Obamacare website | Boston Herald (http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/12/mass_may_cancel_payments_for_botched_obamacare_web site)

Washington State is plagued with people getting error messages during sign ups, to the exchanges erroneously debiting people's bank accounts, to small businesses being battered because the state doesn't have a a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) .
These blue states are supposedly the states where Obamacare is working !

Hello again, Steve:

Selective enforcement of the law isn't just something Obama does.. Right wing sheriff's (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/17/colorado-sheriff-says-new-state-gun-laws-wont-be-enforced/)do it too..

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Obama is not enforcing his own laws.

The baby is not 3 months old, too late to abort though.

Here's a nice hidden consequence of Obamacare. If you have now qualify for Medicaid at and have any assets, the state is going to take them from you when you die to pay your medical bills. In effect, Medicaid at the age of 55 is a loan - and you're children could get screwed out of whatever it is you managed to acquire. I quote of all people, Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/17/1248425/-Medicaid-Estate-Recovery-ACA-Unintended-Consequences#)...hardly the right-wing noise machine you keep accusing us of sourcing.


I've been looking into this issue for the last couple of years, and here's something I think is very important that many people don't seem to be thinking about: Medicaid + ACA + Estate Recovery = a mechanism whereby a large number of people in the lower income brackets may be just about to find ourselves paying hugely disproportionate sums for the privilege of being covered by Medicaid, even briefly or intermittently. There's a nicely succinct explanation on this page:


Affordable Care Act of 2010. Estate recovery will be forced on millions of people who might have otherwise gone without insurance. Why? Because the plan is that millions more Americans have health insurance. That would be accomplished by expanding Medicaid and implementing premium assistance (subsidies). When a person is found to be eligible for Medicaid, they will be automatically enrolled into their state's Medicaid program. Those forced into Medicaid will, due to the federal law, also be forced into estate recovery. Their estates will be partly or fully taken over by the federal or state government when they die.

So here's the deal: since 1993 there has been a federal law requiring states to recover at least some of the costs of Medicaid-covered medical care for anyone 55 years old and up, from the estates of those covered.

States enforce this law, with their own laws and policies added in, differently in every state. But the general principle is there. Up until now the usual consequence has been things like this: Medicaid puts a lien on the house of someone in a nursing facility who has run out of money, and after they die, the heirs find they have to buy the house back from the state if they want it.

We haven't had lots of people younger than 65 on Medicaid, because in most states simply earning less than the Federal Poverty Level did not qualify one for Medicaid.

And we haven't had many people with lots of assets on Medicaid, because in most places you have to have less than around $2400 to your name before Medicaid will cover you. You can keep your house and your car, but Medicaid reserves the right to put liens on them and take them when you die.

But now we have the Affordable Care Act, and its expectation that everyone in the lower tier of income will end up in the Medicaid system. To accomplish this, they have dropped the asset test. So now we will have lots of people ages 55-64, who have assets but not a lot of income right now, for whatever reason, on Medicaid.

The kicker of it is, if you make the right amount to qualify for a subsidized health insurance plan, your costs are going to be shared and subsidized by the government. But if you go on Medicaid, you owe the entire amount that Medicaid spends on you from the day you turn 55.

And that amount is not just what is spent on your doctor visits and your treatments, whatever they may be. No, there is also something called a "capitation charge." For each enrollee, a base cost is assigned to the entity that administers the program. How much will that charge be? It varies by state, and as far as I can tell by other variables as well, but it could be hundreds of dollars per month, or more. (If you have specific information on this, please do share it!)

How will this play out? No one knows, as far as I can tell. But it is easy to see how this could become a real problem. If someone is low income and goes on Medicaid, will Medicaid put a lien on their house? If they need to sell their house and move, will they then lose all their equity in paying off the lien? Will people get hit with bills and liens for many thousands of dollars, even if they were healthy and hardly ever went to the doctor?

Why is it that Medicaid is pretty much cost free to use up to age 54 if you qualify, and suddenly becomes a collateral loan at age 55, for which a state agency will do its best to collect payment in full for every cost assigned? It seems clear that the Estate Recovery law did not anticipate the current circumstance with the ACA, and that putting the two laws together makes for a terribly unfair situation for some. What can we do to remedy this situation?

The fact that practically no one is talking about this makes me uneasy. (It has been mentioned a few times, for instance the comments section of the diary here.) At the very least what we are getting set up to do is implement an arbitrary, capricious, and regressive tax, that will only be paid by older, low income people. And we are putting this in motion at a time when there are lots of other difficulties to be worked out. I would like to make sure that we are not forgetting those who will find themselves stuck between their need for health coverage and the implications of the Medicaid Estate Recovery laws and programs.

I suspect this is part of that we have to pass it to find out what's in it fine print. Good to see Dems are really looking after the poor in this country.

Hello again, Steve:

I hear sniveling.. But, I don't see any bills..

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I hear sniveling.. But, I don't see any bills..

excon

Good to see you still don't give a sh*t about the people being affected. By the way, it was your paper that noticed.

Expanded Medicaids fine print holds surprise: payback; from estate after death | Local News | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022469957_medicaidrecoveryxml.html?fb_action_ids= 10201900205440969&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B369940796474962%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.recommends%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D)

Like your article says these policies have been in place since 1993.

Medicaid Estate Recovery (http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/estaterec.htm)

Medicaid Planning | ElderLawAnswers (http://www.elderlawanswers.com/medicaid-planning)

That was a great article Speech, and raises many good questions but the key I think is the proper legal advice to make good planning decisions as there are MANY legal options to make sure it doesn't cost you more in the end. It was complicated for me when I had challenges to face with my own elders. States have different laws, and every state treats this differently.

The money I paid in good legal counsel, was VERY well spent, and turned out to be a necessity, not a luxury. Sadly some of my elders didn't have there affairs in order in the first place and it was a helluva mess. Planning ahead is the whole key.

Wow, just wow. There is no consequence worthy of of either of you getting pi$$ed off about. I have to say I'm actually proud of someone at Daily Kos...


Why is it that Medicaid is pretty much cost free to use up to age 54 if you qualify, and suddenly becomes a collateral loan at age 55, for which a state agency will do its best to collect payment in full for every cost assigned? It seems clear that the Estate Recovery law did not anticipate the current circumstance with the ACA, and that putting the two laws together makes for a terribly unfair situation for some. What can we do to remedy this situation?

The fact that practically no one is talking about this makes me uneasy. (It has been mentioned a few times, for instance the comments section of the diary here.) At the very least what we are getting set up to do is implement an arbitrary, capricious, and regressive tax, that will only be paid by older, low income people. And we are putting this in motion at a time when there are lots of other difficulties to be worked out. I would like to make sure that we are not forgetting those who will find themselves stuck between their need for health coverage and the implications of the Medicaid Estate Recovery laws and programs.

If the government provides medical care or nursing home care to those with assets of $ 2,400 (not counting a home or car or certain other items such as prepaid funeral expenses etc), what is wrong with putting a lien on those assets to help offset the cost to the taxpayers?
Heirs can take their relatives into their own homes instead of requesting Medicaid to foot the nursing home bills or I assume they could supplement the income of those relatives to avoid them being forced into Medicaid healthcare. Those needing the care can sell their homes and other assets and reimburse their "sponsors" and never have to worry about liens.
Other folks over 62 can obtain reverse mortgages to finance nursing home or healthcare costs. The value of real estate, cars etc. should be used up before relying on the taxpayers. And if it isn't done upfront, why shouldn't it be reimbursed upon death?

Even your article points to states having the power to fix this glitch, if they so chose. My own research shows that all the governors are toying with a fix.

How many of these people aged 55 and over that suddenly qualify for Medicaid and have assets they intended to pass down to their heirs will understand this bit of fine print before signing on the dotted line? It need to be in big, bold letters that by accepting the government's "largesse" they intend to collect.

P.S. And for those not forced into Medicaid but qualify for a subsidy, will they come after that expense after you die?

Planning assumes that you aren't going to be compelled to go on the Obamacaid . Yeah I know lots of elderly who hide their assets from the government before they go in Medicaid . Generations of cheaters are created by government policy. Like Tal said ... keeps the lawyers and accountants employed .

Knowing the law isn't cheating, nor is it dishonest, and lawyers are experts at saving your ignorance of the law from biting you in the butt. That's why corporations, and governments employ the best lawyers money can buy.

Even your own religious institutions have legal council to protect their own interest, why shouldn't YOU (meaning all us ordinary people). Planning assumes anything can happen so you need to protect your own interest. The law has been on the books since 1993 so why not blame it on Obama?

Tom are you saying you know these tax cheats? no wonder your government enacted this draconian piece of legislation. You can't blame the government for the dishonesty of the people, rather you should blame the people for the dishonesty of the government.

Filing dishonest returns is theft by fraud

He isn't talking tax cheats, he is decrying the need for advanced estate planning. The wingers think it's a death panel, but it's a paid for benefit between you and your doctors, under the ACA, and even mitigates cost of those legal consultations if you are an executor of the estate of an elderly person.

Guess nobody read the links I provide previously. But that should be expected when you don't want to be fully informed and advised. I learned the hard way, but I did learn.

You're missing or, ignoring the point. Why should someone that makes too much money for Medicaid get subsidized health care, but the poorest who can only qualify for Medicaid get a loan they probably don't know they're signing up for?

These are exactly the kind of people your side is supposedly looking out for yet you're basically calling them, the POOR, idiots for not reading the fine print while excusing handouts for people that make more money. The irony is amazing.

Didn't you not provide a link where state governors and legislatures are working on this very problem, and are getting positive outcomes?

What are you doing about it?

I have already told you what I have done about it. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3600097-post423.html)

Right, you expect the people who probably didn't know it was a loan payable on death who can least afford it to hire a lawyer while those who have more get a government handout. As I was saying...

Good point, speech. The govt. will eventually have to deal with that disparity. Class action lawsuit maybe.
They would possibly have to either make everyone who receives a subsidy subject to recovery of costs at death, or eliminate cost recovery for all, and elimination for all is not feasible. The ACA contained a provision for a panel to investigate adding nursing home coverage to the ACA. That panel adjourned after a short time because they could find no acceptable way to pay for it.
Medicaid expends about $ 400 billion per year on nursing home costs now and I can't find out how much they recover yearly. But stopping recovery would come close to what that panel considered previously, a non-starter.
Nancy Pelosi knew that there had been no planning, analysis, engineering of the ACA. The only answer (and it is the answer the bill's writers had in mind 5 years ago) will continue to be Single payer (per plan) coming out of the chaos.

Most states are already dealing with this disparity, since the state and federal government share the enforcement/collection responsibility.

Each state does it differently no doubt. But they are all presently doing so with only Medicaid patients. Now, others (non-Medicaid) will be receiving subsidies toward their healthcare and no obligation to pay anything back. Those folks new to Medicaid most likely won't realize what they have gotten into unless they have dealt with a parent/relative who was funded for nursing home by Medicaid. And even if they are apprised of all those details in the enrollment process, they have no other choice anyhow. Except maybe, having no healthcare as an option.

Medicaid patients 55 or older. I learned the hard way about medical costs and insurance coverage, long before the new law. Learning your options and exploring your opportunities to mitigate losses is so crucial to making an informed decision regarding YOUR situation, based on facts, and NOT just feelings (it can be both confusing, and overwhelming, I know).

If you didn't know before, then you are about to be educated. There are no easy solutions or quick fixes, but planning ahead is something I highly recommend before the emotional events occur.


And even if they are apprised of all those details in the enrollment process, they have no other choice anyhow. Except maybe, having no healthcare as an option.

It's a difficult complicated process to navigate, but better than being swept away under circumstances beyond your control.

Latest health insurer tactic according to CNN.
Can't drop the costly patient, so drop the costly patient's Dr. from the plan and hope the patient follows.
Docs say insurers dropping them in hopes their costly patients follow - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/politics/obamacare-insurers-dumping-doctors/)

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period." -Barack Obama

Latest health insurer tactic according to CNN.
Can't drop the costly patient, so drop the costly patient's Dr. from the plan and hope the patient follows.
Docs say insurers dropping them in hopes their costly patients follow - CNN.com

What you didn't think they would figure out a way to save money and get around the law? That's why they pay lawyers and accountants the big bucks.


"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period." -Barack Obama

You may want to keep your doctor, but he may not want to keep your insurance. Drop your insurance and pay cash, or go with insurance he does take.

And once again there is no consequence of this crap sandwich worthy of Tal placing the blame where it belongs.

"You may want to keep your doctor, but he may not want to keep your insurance."
or your insurance may not want to keep your Dr.

Hey tal, why you always want to try and tell people what they think or should think?

Good question, but I know the answer.

Because your version of the truth is so inadequate to someone who has been through this crap long before Obama or the laws he passed. Why you don't remember or acknowledge it is beyond me.

I really don't care what others think, or whether you care what I think, you can take or leave my opinion, as I often reject yours, or others. You can do whatever you want because I always have. Always will. That's fair ain't it? :D

Dude, when I agree more with a Daily Kos blogger than you that should be time to step back and see who's really telling the true story.

Thriving and surviving no matter what the story, and who tells it, is my priority. That's my truth.

Hello again, Steve:

see who's really telling the true story.It's the 3rd inning, and nobody is saying that you AREN'T ahead..

But, the game has been rigged... You CAN'T win. EVERYBODY wants health insurance, and NOW they can get it. You gotta be bonkers to think they wouldn't.

Lemme ask you this. Your insurance is gonna cost you a grand more per year. But, you're GONNA pay it, aren't you??? That's because EVERYBODY wants health insurance.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
It's the 3rd inning, and nobody is saying that you AREN'T ahead..

But, the game has been rigged... You CAN'T win. EVERYBODY wants health insurance, and NOW they can get it. You gotta be bonkers to think they wouldn't.

Lemme ask you this. Your insurance is gonna cost you a grand more per year. But, you're GONNA pay it, aren't you??? That's because EVERYBODY wants health insurance.

excon

What part of I want people to have insurance too but we're pi$$ed off about being lied to repeatedly and being stuck with crappier insurance that costs us more when we already had bills to pay do you not get? Most people were quite satisfied before you guys came in and screwed it up for everyone instead of fixing it for the few.

Admit it the price of everything is bigger than your check, and one is going up, and the other ain't. Guess which is which?

The truth is we have all been getting screwed for YEARS, and DECADES. Even the price of Vaseline has gone up. But you probably never paid attention until it started to hurt your butt.

Admit it the price of everything is bigger than your check, and one is going up, and the other ain't. Guess which is which?

Vaseline doesn't cost me $1000 a year more. I can do without Vaseline, I can budget for a few bucks here and a few bucks there, a thousand dollar CHUNK is a problem. Admit it, you really don't givea crap about how it's affecting people, you only care about the agenda.

Even the price of Vaseline has gone up. But you probably never paid attention until it started to hurt your butt. What are you suggesting ?

Good question.

I think it was an anal sex joke.

I suggest vote in your own interest based on facts and not just ideology. My hardworking sore a$$ needs a helluva raise to afford enough Vaseline to make it stop hurting. ME! Not the boss, not the president... ME!!

The rest of that psycho babble is irrelevant... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

Hello again, Steve:

you really don't givea crap about how it's affecting people, you only care about the agenda.If the agenda includes getting health insurance to 30 million people who've NEVER had it before, then count me in...

Some people don't WANT the benefits Obamacare brings to them... I've mentioned them to you several time, and you ignore it. To me, the Obamacare PROMISE that they can NEVER throw me off, no matter HOW sick I get, or no matter HOW much my care costs, is a benefit WORTH paying for... That, and that alone is worth MORE than a $1,000 per year.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
If the agenda includes getting health insurance to 30 million people who've NEVER had it before, then count me in...

Some people don't WANT the benefits Obamacare brings to them... I've mentioned them to you several time, and you ignore it. To me, the Obamacare PROMISE that they can NEVER throw me off, no matter HOW sick I get, or no matter HOW much my care costs, is a benefit WORTH paying for... That, and that alone is worth MORE than a $1,000 per year.

excon

I think that could have been accomplished much better than the crap sandwich you guys keep defending at all cost.

I think that could have been accomplished much better than the crap sandwich you guys keep defending at all cost.


I think you are right, but there are certain idelogical barriers that perhaps it was too soon to overcome.

When you decide that "for the people" really means what it says, perhaps you will get there. 150 years ago the republicans were willing to fight a war to right a wrong, today they fight a war to preserve a wrong. What is so different about lifting people from slavery and lifting people from misery.

the implementation is a mess, perhaps if it had been approached from a bipartisan perspective you would have had a better outcome, if you hadn't taken certain options off the table and if you had reformed the whole system.. but some things are just too hard

There was no chance of bipartisanship on Obamacare, and the only reason the budget deal wad passed was because the Messiah's Temple was left out of the process.

well at least one part of government is working again

See my comment about the 'bipartisan ' agreement here.....
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Obama admits big government doesn't work (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3601427-post139.html)

Ezra Klein at the Compost reports :

Today, the Obama administration announced that people whose insurance plans were canceled this year will "temporarily" be exempted from the law's individual mandate. Here's how they're doing it -- and what it means for the law.
1. The individual mandate includes a "hardship exemption." People who qualify can either ignore the individual mandate altogether or purchase a cheap, bare-bones catastrophic insurance plan that's typically only available to people under 30.

2. According to HHS, the exemption covers people who "experienced financial or domestic circumstances, including an unexpected natural or human-caused event, such that he or she had a significant, unexpected increase in essential expenses that prevented him or her from obtaining coverage under a qualified health plan."
3. Today, the administration agreed with a group of senators, led by Mark Warner of Virginia, who argued that having your insurance plan canceled counted as "an unexpected natural or human-caused event." For these people, in other words, Obamacare itself is the hardship. You can read HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' full letter here. HHS's formal guidance is here.

4. How may people does this affect? No one quite knows. Republicans estimate that about 5 million people have seen their plans canceled. The Obama administration believes the number, at this point, is actually in the hundreds of thousands. But there's no truly reliable figure here.

5. The Obama administration argues that there's little reason to fear that these people won't purchase health insurance if they could otherwise afford to. After all, they were already buying health insurance on the individual market before there was any penalty at all. They clearly want health insurance. This just smooths their transition and, in the cases where there really is financial strain, gives them time to figure out a solution.

6. But this puts the administration on some very difficult-to-defend ground. Normally, the individual mandate applies to anyone who can purchase qualifying insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. The Obama administration is erasing that threshold for people whose insurance has been canceled. If they decide insurance costing 5 percent of their income is too expensive, then they can simply opt out. But if someone who's currently uninsured decides 5 percent of their income is more than they can pay, then they have to pay the individual mandate's penalty. What's the logic in that?

7. The same goes for the cheap catastrophic plans sold to customers under age 30 in the exchanges. A 45-year-old whose plan just got canceled can now purchase catastrophic coverage. A 45-year-old who didn't have insurance at all can't. The Obama administration argues that they're just giving a bit of extra help to people who lost what they already had. But why don't people who couldn't afford a plan in the first place deserve the same kind of help?

8. This puts the first crack in the individual mandate. The question is whether it's the last. If Democratic members of Congress see this as solving their political problem with people whose plans have been canceled, it could help them stand against Republican efforts to delay the individual mandate. But if congressional Democrats use this ruling as an excuse to delay or otherwise de-fang the individual mandate for anyone who doesn't want to pay for insurance under Obamacare, then it'll be a very big problem for the law.

The individual mandate no longer applies to people whose plans were canceled (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/19/the-obama-administration-just-delayed-the-individual-mandate-for-people-whose-plans-have-been-canceled/)

So let me get this straight . People's plans were cancelled because their plans were 'bare bone' plans that did not offer the same coverage that the cr@p sandwich comprehensive Obamacare provides. Now that they find Obamacare UNAFFORDABLE ,they will be allowed to apply for a bare bone plan ? Tell me again why those plans had to be cancelled in the 1st place ?

Incrediable, why didn't the ACA allow this coverage to everyone as the minimum and let the insurance companies sort out the otehr plans with thier cliems, Ismell a rat here somewhere

Obamacare is just like Calvinball, they make up the rules as they go. The school children are in charge of the country.

"Obamacare itself is the hardship."

You just can't make this stuff up.

So now you holler about trying to help people having trouble with the transition? How many people are you talking about this time?

Waiting for all those who defended the cancellations because they were inadequate 'bare bone' plans to defend this stunning reversal. Also waiting to hear them defend the emperor allowing exceptions for the purchase of what is technically ,an illegal plan under the rules of the ACA .

The hardship clause was already in the law. If you read it you would know that.

The hardship clause was already in the law. If you read it you would know that.
and evidently in the hands of the emperor ,it's as pliable as silly putty .

it really cracks me up . The Dems shut down the government over the threat of repeal. So now ,piecemeal ,they intend to administratively dismantle it ;an effective repeal,hoping we don't notice.

The Dems shut down the government over the threat of repeal.Hello smoothy, I mean tom:

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

The Dems shut down the government over the threat of repeal.

What Ex said,


Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

You know and I know that is exactly the scenario that the emperor and Reid constructed . It played out as they envisioned it would .They blame the Repubics,especially those radical TP . They get to keep Obamacare ,they use the shut down as a campaign issue in 2014 ;and the final icing on the cake is the end of sequester spending (thank you Bonehead and Ryan) .

Hello again, tom:

You know and I know that is exactly the scenario that the emperor and Reid constructed .If you mean, did the Dems step out of the way while the righty's self destructed, I'd agree.

excon

Shame the regime can't get out of their own way and quit d*cking around with our lives.


High security risk found after HealthCare.gov launch - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/high-security-risks-found-after-healthcaregov-launch/)

According to federal standards set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the potential impact of a high finding is “the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals.”

Details are not being made public for security reasons but Fryer testified that one vulnerability in the system was discovered during testing last week related to an incident reported in November. She says that as a result, the government has shut down functionality in the vulnerable part of the system. Fryer said the other high-risk finding was discovered Monday.

In another security bombshell, Fryer told congressional interviewers that she explicitly recommended denial of the website’s Authority to Operate (ATO), but was overruled by her superiors. The website was rolled out amid warnings Fryer said she gave both verbally and in a briefing that disclosed “high risks” and possible exposure to “attacks”.

Fryer also said that she refused to put her name on a letter recommending a temporary ATO be granted for six months while the issues were sorted out.

"My recommendation was a denial of ATO," Fryer told Democrats and Republicans who sat in on the day-long interview. According to Fryer, she first recommended denying the ATO to CMS chief information officer Tony Trenkle based on the many outstanding security concerns after pre-launch testing.

"I had discussions with him on this and told him that my evaluation of this was a high risk," Fryer told the committee. Trenkle retired from his CMS job on Nov. 13. He has not responded to CBS News interview requests.

This is the first time a government insider has gone on record challenging the administration's insistence that there were no worrisome security concerns. On Oct. 30, Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., asked Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in testimony to Congress whether "any senior department officials" advised delaying the rollout of HealthCare.gov.

"I can tell you that no senior official reporting to me ever advised me that we should delay," Sebelius answered. "We have testing that did not advise a delay. So not -- not to my knowledge."



It takes some kinda nerve to intentionally put the people they claim to be trying to help at such risk, and then lie about it.

Looks like the ACA will have the same problems as Target.

Target didn't put their website online with so many holes, someone made a sophisticated attack on their stores. The regime knowingly put up a website so full of holes you could drive a Hummer through it without regard to the security of American's personal information.

You are correct about target, it seems it was limited to retailers in stores and not the website. My apology for the misinformation. But the ACA has not seen the type of theft at this time and as a side note,

Chinese Hackers Attacked FEC During Government Shutdown (http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/hacking/318975-chinese-hackers-attacked-fec-during-government-shutdown)

without regard to the security of American's personal information.


How can you talk about security of information when the NSA controls your lives and probes every oriface

without regard to the security of American's personal information.Ha! That ship sailed long ago, during the Bush admin.

What they don't realise is they live in a police state, theSA is the modern version of the Gestapo

Ha! That ship sailed long ago, during the Bush admin.

And exploded under the emperor, but no you don't get to blame Bush for Obamacare. He had nothing to do with it and did not build a website with no security to protect our personal data. I suspect you know the difference.

Too bad that's not true Speech the truth is that you got part of the story that somebody (Issa?) leaked to the press. The rest of it was that the same witness also testified that the upgrades had fixed the problem and far exceeded expectations.

I will provide a link when I figure this new upgrade out :(

So apparently CBS is also a right-wing mouthpiece. The testimony is the testimony, no one seriously doubts it went live with huge security holes and now we know the regime perjured itself again by saying no one knew of the risks.

Re: the new site, Love the auto save, very helpful on a tablet. Miss a functional profile page and being taken to the last page after posting.

Question of the day, if the squeal and repeal crowd is so wrong and obamacare so great, why is Obama systematically repealing it himself?

My point was you didn't get the whole testimony. There was a lot more he didn't reveal. That was intention cherry picking to make his point, and mislead. I have already given links to the law that gives flexibility to make changes (tweaks) by the HHS, and the process and its hardly a repeal, and so far the delay is defined and clear and so are the reasons. To fix glitch as they go.


Re: the new site, Love the auto save, very helpful on a tablet. Miss a functional profile page and being taken to the last page after posting.

10-4

Dude, put the Koolaid down. Sebelius lied, period and you don't get to make it up as you go, especially without regard to the consequences. All obama is doing is covering his a$$ again for the current news cycle workout any thought to how it further complicates the situation. The sheer audacity of lying to us about keeping our doctors and insurance then telling us we can keep our plans after they've been canceled is breathtaking, not to mention unworkable.

The emperor symbolically signed up for Obamacare this week. He signed up for an individual bronze plan that he'll never need to use(As CIC ,his medical is covered by the military ) . His plan calls for him to shell out $400 a month without subsidies.
So how did he do it ? Did he sign up on the web ? Nah ;he couldn't navigate it . So he sent his staffers to the D.C. exchange to do it for him. Evidently they couldn't risk his personal information being compromised ;or the web couldn't verify his identity .(seen that show before ) .
The emperor has much in common with Kelly Weaver .

Kelly Weaver, a substitute teacher in Michigan, said her application has been stuck in the identity verification process since mid-October.

"I don't know what they're fixing," says Weaver, who considers herself a health-law supporter. "I'm definitely noticing different fonts but that doesn't really fix my situation."

Weaver has submitted identity verification information online and over the phone. She has uploaded copies of her driver's license to the Web site. When she's called the customer service center, she's twice been told she'll receive a call back in two to five business days. Both times, she never got a return phone call.

"I don't know what to do next," Weaver says. "When I talk to them on the phone, they say we'll have to get back to you. But its really, 'we're getting you off the phone because other people are waiting in the queue.' "

HealthCare.gov finally works — for some people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/02/healthcare-gov-finally-works-for-some-people/)
The difference is that Kelly doesn't have a personal staff to go to the exchange to 'symbolically' sign her up.

Hello again,

Yawwwwwn... The site WILL be fixed. People will BUY insurance. They want it. YOU have it. Game over. Next.

excon

Ah, if only it would blow over as simply as that. Dream on, the nightmare will continue.

The insurance companies will eventually process the applications. Like UPS, and FedEx are still delivering packages. The government ain't perfect, neither is the private sector.

At least UPS and Fedex can blame weather and strong demand unlike dysfunctional portals and changing the rules daily.

unlike dysfunctional portals and changing the rules dailyHello again, Steve:

First off, you complain about the site NOT working, and then you complain about the FIXES Obama does. You say he doesn't have the authority to "fix" it. He has to go back to congress. But, of course, YOUR method won't FIX anything.. It'll DESTROY it.

So, let's call a spade a spade.. You don't wanna fix it. You HATE it. You HATE everything about it (except the benefits). Oh, you'll TAKE them, alright, if you're forced.. But, EVEN you, after BENEFITING from these BENEFITS, won't wanna give 'em up either..

Yawwwwwwn... Next.

excon

You aren't even interested in hearing about any fix short of single payer so spare me the pious grandstanding. It is notable though how little concern you have over the president's unconstitutional power grabs. I bet the tune changes when a Republican follows his precedent.

SCOTUS has ruled, so have the people, get over it, and good luck on the next election.

Okie dokie. If you say so.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled on all aspects .They haven't as an example ruled on the 14th Amendment equal protection clause violations of the emperor's waivers .
They haven't ruled on all the 1st amendment religious freedom violations .They haven't ruled on the 2nd amendment violations of a defacto back door gun registry by doctors . They haven't ruled on the
4th and 5th amendment violations of the Fed Government having access to your bank accounts to make sure that you are paying your Obamacare premiums .They haven't ruled on the 8th amendment violation of excess fines. And I'm sure there's more if I think hard enough. Since there is this stupid 'standing' rule ;no cases can be heard until there is an injured person who has standing to bring a case. That means the law has to be enacted before many of the cases coming are filed .

Maybe you'll have insurance, maybe you won't.

Officials: 16,000 Iowans should reapply for health care | Local News - Home (http://m.kcci.com/news/officials-16000-iowans-should-reapply-for-health-care/-/16916438/23672966/-/t5anacz/-/index.html)