Obamacare Autopsy

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered



gettyimages-97969576.jpg



Unfortunately, Obamacare will be the first casualty of the election. Here I would like to analyze what went wrong with its implementation.

1. It failed to unify the employer and exchange markets together. Obamacare should have banned employers from providing coverage to any of its employees. This seems radical but it makes sense since this is naturally how single payer works, an employer does not have any say in what coverage you get. An employer could be mandated to provide a pretax amount to its employees to purchase a policy on the exchanges.

This would have done two things, it would tie the fate of premium prices with other businesses whose profitability would have been affected. If Walmart negotiates a good deal with an insurance company, that benefit is not transferred to everybody. Now, any deal Walmart achieves would be available to all of us.

Before Obamacare, the employer market which covered a substantial portion of the population, preexisting conditions played a role and was the only way to get coverage. Insurance companies relied on the fact that employers would naturally filter out those who may have medical problem. Now preexisting conditions has no factor in what you pay and you no longer need your employer to provide it.

Health insurance companies provided a favorable low rate to companies and crapped all over people on the exchanges with high deductible and premium prices. Now the insurance companies would be dealing with people and other businesses with more leverage to reduce prices.

2. The ACA penalties for not getting coverage was weak, allowing healthy people to game the system. It should have factor the number of months that you have continuous coverage into premiums based on you age. If you are young and healthy, choosing to forgo coverage would hurt you in the long run. You need to begin saving for your eventual healthcare costs since birth through your parents and eventually as a young adult. Obamacare never stressed this important detail to people.

Single payer systems does this naturally through taxes and is the reason its cost are cheaper. Private insurer have people that only get coverage when they are older, causing a sticker shock. They have a shorter time period to recover your health costs.

It should have been more restrictive in allowing people to get low deductible gold plans, through medical history evaluation and other measures. By default, everybody would have been covered through a high deductible plan bronze plan, but as an incentive to move up, you need to have continuous coverage and disclose medical history.

131002191139-tsr-moos-obamacare-sign-up-glitches-00000812-story-top.jpg


Yes medical history which was gutted by Obamacare could have been used as a tool to keep people from gaming the system, however, they will be stuck with a high deductible plan rather than being denied outright. All of these measures would have brought healthy people into the marketplace and drove down premiums.

3. Health Investment Accounts not Health Saving Accounts.

Another option if the insurance companies decide to go crazy with their premiums is Health Investment Accounts, that convert into unrestricted retirement money when you reach the age for Medicare. Instead of paying a premium, you can create these accounts starting with young adults. If you take your premium and factor in a modest return, it could become a substantial amount. The interest alone could cover all of your medical needs in the future. The health insurance companies would only come in for catastrophic illnesses. If you remain relatively healthy, you could easily have $500,000+ for retirement. If you get sick. than you lose what you would have paid in premiums.

The money your employer provides plus your contribution could go towards this account. This will allow people to build a healthcare asset.

4. Failed to recognize that being able to walk away from the health insurance market is a powerful tool to control price increases. Maintaining the option of suspending the mandate if prices get out of hand would tamp down on greed and collusion.

The HIA is another tool, the government could just mandate that an employer only has to provide a minimum amount towards a HIA rather than buy an inflated policy.
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

Is there a link or an author willing to claim ownership of the disingenuous bullshit posted above at the first post in this thread??.

Anytime you see a reference to Health Investment Accounts/ Health Saving Accounts then you immediately know the author is either a complete buffoon or more likely a reich-wing ayn rand cult worshiping propagandist, laughing his-ass-off as they spew out completely discredited talking points. They are following the George W. BuShit model of Catapultung The Propaganda

50% of all Americans who have a (on the books) job in America
(a job the collects taxes from your paycheck)
make $27,459 or less a year.
We know this simply by looking at the U.S. Government data
tinylogo.gif
Go HERE

The idea that people earning 2.3 times the $11,770 official U.S. poverty income barometer would have extra money to put into a Health Investment Accounts/ Health Saving Accounts is beyond ludicrous. These people can barely afford their vinyl plastic Chinese made shoes that they bought at Walmart.

The Affordable Care Act has saved thousands of peoples lives. One example is contained in the article below.
https://web.archive.org/web/2016012...1_1_health-plan-obamacare-life-saving-surgery

The RepubliKlans admit that people will die if the Affordable Care Act is removed. Oh, you didn't hear about that did you. Of course you didn't hear about this; the corporate television media of mass distraction, the "news"?:o:confused: was too busy covering the ever expanding plastic ass of Kim Kardashian; even venerable CBS 60 minutes did a Kardashian story.


The piece-of-shit & waste of DNA RepubliKlan troll who admits that people will die if the ACA is removed from law tries to justify his inhumanity by saying: "In a world of scarce resources, a slightly higher mortality rate is an acceptable price to pay"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...36df30-a1c4-11e4-903f-9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html
Let's see, the American empire military is spending more than $2,000,000,000 per week in a 16 year old "war" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria but this republiklan troll talks about "scarce resources".

What the "Health Care Mafia" CEO's want is to go back to the recent time before the ACA when they could sell junk health insurance policies and pocket 25% to 40% of the monthly premium consumers pay right off of the top. The ACA limits them to a 15% skim off the top.
If you really, really, really don't understand that the "Health Care Mafia" Aetna, United Health Care, etc, are just $$$$$$ financially incentivized pimps between you and your doctor then READ this post from 5 Years Ago
http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?posts/10070985/


The 20 million Americans who have health care insurance due to Obamacare and the U.S. government provided $$$$$$ subsidies are of no concern to the RepubliKlans. They don't care if thousands of people die. They want to go back to the old system of a few years ago when a "Health Care Mafia" company could tell the parents of a girl with sick eyes that they will cover the surgical cost for one eye only because all she needs is one good eye. RepubliKlans lie, lie, lie to their clueless acolytes and the Democratic Party can not "message" to safe their own lifes. The corporate Democrats assume that everyone reads The New Yorker, Harpers, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, The L.A. Times, New York Magazine, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone etc. The RepubliKlans know that most Americans don't read at all, they watch television & if they are older listen to talk radio in their cars and trucks.

Here is what the conservative Rand Corp. and the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund said about the ACA:

“A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund and Rand Corp. finds that without repeal, an individual ACA policy would cost you $3,200 a year on average in 2018, but repeal would pump up the cost of a replacement policy to $4,700,” MONEY reported. Commonwealth also found that repealing the law would increase the deficit in the long-run.
http://time.com/money/4564243/trump-obamacare-repeal-outcome/

Finally one can not ignore the pure unbridled racism that is behind the repeal the ACA movement. A high percentage of the people who were helped by the ACA and the government subsidies are 'people-of-color'. If you look at the States that refused to set up State run ACA exchanges you are looking primarily at the old Southern confederate slave states, that have large Black & brown populations. These States have refused the federal Medicaid expansion despite the Federal government giving the States 90% of the money. Here is something the corporate television media of mass distraction didn't put on your screen.
In the state of Tennessee if you are poor and are trying to get medicaid YOU HAVE TWO DAYS ONLY each year to dial a phone number and hope you get through. It's a telephone lottery for medical care. Un-Fucking-Believable:angry:
READ- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/us/tennessee-holds-health-care-lottery-for-the-poor.html



state-expansion-map-feb-2015.png


KKK_for_Trump.jpg

First_Ladies.jpg




 
Last edited:

VAiz4hustlaz

Proud ADOS and not afraid to step to da mic!
BGOL Investor
Is there a link or an author willing to claim ownership of the disingenuous bullshit posted above at the first post in this thread??.

Anytime you see a reference to Health Investment Accounts/ Health Saving Accounts then you immediately know the author is either a complete buffoon or more likely a reich-wing ayn rand cult worshiping propagandist, laughing his-ass-off as they spew out completely discredited talking points. They are following the George W. BuShit model of Catapultung The Propaganda

50% of all Americans who have a (on the books) job in America
(a job the collects taxes from your paycheck)
make $27,459 or less a year.
We know this simply by looking at the U.S. Government data
tinylogo.gif
Go HERE

The idea that people earning 2.3 times the $11,770 official U.S. poverty income barometer would have extra money to put into a Health Investment Accounts/ Health Saving Accounts is beyond ludicrous. These people can barely afford their vinyl plastic Chinese made shoes that they bought at Walmart.

The Affordable Care Act has saved thousands of peoples lives. One example is contained in the article below.
https://web.archive.org/web/2016012...1_1_health-plan-obamacare-life-saving-surgery

The RepubliKlans admit that people will die if the Affordable Care Act is removed. Oh, you didn't hear about that did you. Of course you didn't hear about this; the corporate television media of mass distraction, the "news"?:o:confused: was too busy covering the ever expanding plastic ass of Kim Kardashian; even venerable CBS 60 minutes did a Kardashian story.


The piece-of-shit & waste of DNA RepubliKlan troll who admits that people will die if the ACA is removed from law tries to justify his inhumanity by saying: "In a world of scarce resources, a slightly higher mortality rate is an acceptable price to pay"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...36df30-a1c4-11e4-903f-9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html
Let's see, the American empire military is spending more than $2,000,000,000 per week in a 16 year old "war" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria but this republiklan troll talks about "scarce resources".

What the "Health Care Mafia" CEO's want is to go back to the recent time before the ACA when they could sell junk health insurance policies and pocket 25% to 40% of the monthly premium consumers pay right off of the top. The ACA limits them to a 15% skim off the top.
If you really, really, really don't understand that the "Health Care Mafia" Aetna, United Health Care, etc, are just $$$$$$ financially incentivized pimps between you and your doctor then READ this post from 5 Years Ago
http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?posts/10070985/


The 20 million Americans who have health care insurance due to Obamacare and the U.S. government provided $$$$$$ subsidies are of no concern to the RepubliKlans. They don't care if thousands of people die. They want to go back to the old system of a few years ago when a "Health Care Mafia" company could tell the parents of a girl with sick eyes that they will cover the surgical cost for one eye only because all she needs is one good eye. RepubliKlans lie, lie, lie to their clueless acolytes and the Democratic Party can not "message" to safe their own lifes. The corporate Democrats assume that everyone reads The New Yorker, Harpers, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, The L.A. Times, New York Magazine, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone etc. The RepubliKlans know that most Americans don't read at all, they watch television & if they are older listen to talk radio in their cars and trucks.

Here is what the conservative Rand Corp. and the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund said about the ACA:

“A recent study by the Commonwealth Fund and Rand Corp. finds that without repeal, an individual ACA policy would cost you $3,200 a year on average in 2018, but repeal would pump up the cost of a replacement policy to $4,700,” MONEY reported. Commonwealth also found that repealing the law would increase the deficit in the long-run.
http://time.com/money/4564243/trump-obamacare-repeal-outcome/

Finally one can not ignore the pure unbridled racism that is behind the repeal the ACA movement. A high percentage of the people who were helped by the ACA and the government subsidies are 'people-of-color'. If you look at the States that refused to set up State run ACA exchanges you are looking primarily at the old Southern confederate slave states, that have large Black & brown populations. These States have refused the federal Medicaid expansion despite the Federal government giving the States 90% of the money. Here is something the corporate television media of mass distraction didn't put on your screen.
In the state of Tennessee if you are poor and are trying to get medicaid YOU HAVE TWO DAYS ONLY each year to dial a phone number and hope you get through. It's a telephone lottery for medical care. Un-Fucking-Believable:angry:
READ- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/us/tennessee-holds-health-care-lottery-for-the-poor.html



state-expansion-map-feb-2015.png


KKK_for_Trump.jpg

First_Ladies.jpg






Great response!!
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Is there a link or an author willing to claim ownership of the disingenuous bullshit posted above at the first post in this thread??.

Anytime you see a reference to Health Investment Accounts/ Health Saving Accounts then you immediately know the author is either a complete buffoon or more likely a reich-wing ayn rand cult worshiping propagandist, laughing his-ass-off as they spew out completely discredited talking points. They are following the George W. BuShit model of Catapultung The Propaganda
It will be killed off on day one and led to Hillary Clinton loss, I am just pointing out its problems. The ACA is like the Iraq War was to President Bush.

You don't need to buy insurance just like you don't need to rent. You can buy a house or have a substantial amount in a HIA by the time you hit 40+. Your employer could be dumping money into this account rather than handing it to an insurance company.

I mentioned a couple of things that could be used to control premium prices.
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
It will be killed off on day one and led to Hillary Clinton loss, I am just pointing out its problems. The ACA is like the Iraq War was to President Bush.

Didn't the email/server, Comey, and merely being Hillary Clinton/spouse of Bill outweigh any affect the ACA may have had upon her campaign ???

.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
3-yx7blsd0yw02nkgbnsga.png

  • Uninsured rate reaches nine-year low
  • Rate down 6.2 points since individual mandate took effect
  • Uninsured rate has dropped most among low-income households, Hispanics

The ACA (Affordable Care Act) had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton not receiving enough votes in the 'Electoral College' to become POTUS; she won the popular vote nationwide.

Hillary lost because she had NO compelling message; all she did was point at Trump and say, I'm not him, vote for me.
She also had the baggage of all the 25 years of Billary drama. Bill's sexual escapades, the self-enriching machinations of the Clinton Foundation, her duplicitous neo-liberal Wall St. friendly financial policies, her extremely late opposition to the TPP and acknowledgement that NAFTA destroyed millions of peoples lives. Voter suppression of Black & brown votes also hurt her; in North Carolina the Black vote was down 8% from 2012 levels. All of the above was not enough to cause her to lose the POTUS if she had carried the white blue collar vote in the key states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan that Obama won twice.

The voters that the Hillary made NO attempt to reach, rejecting the advice of her husband (total stupidity) were the white male voters (so-called blue collar) who have lost their manufacturing jobs over the past 20 years due to corporate greed and globalization. You have $$$$$ profitable companies sending factories overseas for one reason only — they can make even more money because the foreign workers make $10 dollars per day instead of $20 bucks an hour.



The Democrats have to reach these blue collar white male voters. Obama won a plurality of their vote in 2008 and 2012.
Hillary lost them anywhere from 12% to 34% to Trump. In Michigan 90,000 voters voted for everyone except Hillary. They left her box blank and they DID NOT vote for Trump.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/watch-michael-moore-drops-some-hard-truths-about-how-democrats-have-ignored-the-midwest/

The blue-collar "Bubba" vote DID NOT majority vote for McCain or RMoney, they went for a Black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. Bill Clinton also won the "Bubba" vote in 1992 and 1996. Jesse Jackson won the "Bubba" vote when he ran in the Democratic party primaries in the 1980's. Guys making base hourly pay of $15 to $50 an hour should not be voting 66% for RepubliKlans as they do when a Democratic candidate literally ignores them as Hillary did. "Bubba's" are called Reagan democrats for a reason; they are traditionally Democratic voters from union households. They got conned by RayGun in 1980 and voted for him, who then decimated unions nationwide. Then reich-wing RepubliKlan talk radio & FOX FAKE news started in the 1990's (Rush, Savage, Levine, Hannity, O'Really, etc.) and the 24/7 Joseph Goebbels style propaganda broadcast began. The Democratic party had no effective response to the 24/7 digital brownshirts that the RepubliKlan unleashed. They had no spine, no backbone; they were afraid to even call the digital brownshits like Rush, O'Really, etc. the fucking liars that they were. Remember when on FAKE it used to be Hannity & Colmes and Colmes who was supposed to be the Democrat surrogate just sat there like an idiot as Hannity spewed out demonstrably false lie after lie. That whole thing was a premeditated set up by FAKE boss Roger Ailes to make Liberals look like buffoons. Colmes made millions. When they didn't need him anymore they cut him from the program. So to sum up, Democrats should compete for the "Bubba" vote, not just give it to the RepubliKlans. If Bernie Sanders was the Democratic candidate, he would of carried the "Bubba" vote in a landslide.

In 2008 Obama received 43% of the total white vote. Obama got the highest percentage of ALL white votes--43%--of any Democrat candidate since Bill Clinton managed to get 44% in 1996. John Kerry (2004) and Al Gore (2000) managed just 41% and 42% respectively. Obama won 39% of ALL the white vote in 2012

Below from: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html

The truth was that Democrats were far more dependent on white working-class ("Bubba") voters than many believed.

In the end, the bastions of industrial-era Democratic strength among white working-class voters fell to Mr. Trump. So did many of the areas where Mr. Obama fared best in 2008 and 2012. In the end, the linchpin of Mr. Obama’s winning coalition broke hard to the Republicans.

The Wyoming River Valley of Pennsylvania — which includes Scranton and Wilkes-Barre — voted for Mr. Trump. It had voted for Mr. Obama by double digits.

Youngstown, Ohio, where Mr. Obama won by more than 20 points in 2012, was basically a draw. Mr. Trump swept the string of traditionally Democratic and old industrial towns along Lake Erie. Counties that supported Mr. Obama in 2012 voted for Mr. Trump by 20 points.

Hillary also COULD NOT generate the excitement and buzz that Obama created with voters in 2008 and 2012.

Obama_Oct_2012_Crowd_Reelection_Wisconson.jpg

Obama Re-Election rally, Sept. 2012, Madison WI



 
Last edited:

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
It felt like President Obama was running for a third term. I heard more ads with his wife and him than Hillary.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
It felt like President Obama was running for a third term. I heard more ads with his wife and him than Hillary.
That could have had something to do with where you live, no?

On the other hand, the statement above doesn't appear to add any support to your original post :confused::confused::confused:
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Screen-Shot-2016-09-28-at-8.54.36-AM-480x234.png


The ACA could have made HSA more robust and allowed people to divert premium payments from their employer.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
view.image


Obamacare Repeal Is Doomed

Obama_Care_insured_charts2_630.jpg


by Kevin Drum | Dec. 5, 2016 | http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/obamacare-repeal-doomed-pre-existing-conditions


The current hotness in Republican circles is "repeal and delay." That is, they want to pass legislation that repeals Obamacare in, say, 2019, but doesn't replace it with anything. Then they can spend the next couple of years figuring out what should take its place. There's only one problem with this:


Republicans. Can't. Repeal. Obamacare.

Oh, they can repeal big parts of it. Anything related to the budget, like taxes and subsidies, can be repealed via the Senate procedure called reconciliation, which needs only 51 votes to pass. But all the other parts can be filibustered, and it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Republicans don't have 60 votes in the Senate.1

This leaves quite a few elements of Obamacare that can't be repealed via reconciliation, but I think Democrats should focus on one: pre-existing conditions. This is the provision of Obamacare that bans insurers from turning down customers or charging them extra for coverage, no matter what kind of pre-existing conditions they have. I tell the whole story here,but there are several reasons this is the best provision to focus on:


  • It's an easy thing to understand.
  • It's very popular.
  • Republicans say they favor keeping it.
  • Donald Trump says he favors keeping it.
  • It's not a minor regulation. It is absolutely essential to any health care plan.
  • It's fairly easy to explain why repealing Obamacare but leaving in place the pre-existing-conditions ban2 would destroy the individual insurance market and leave tens of millions of people with no way to buy insurance.
The last point is the most important. Take me. I'm currently being kept alive by about $100,000 worth of prescriptions drugs each year. If I can go to any insurer and demand that they cover me for $10,000, that's a certain loss of $90,000. If millions of people like me do this, insurance companies will lose billions of dollars. In the employer market, which covers people who work for large companies, this is workable because insurers have lots and lots of healthy, profitable people at each company to make up these losses. In the individual market—after you've repealed the individual mandate and the subsidies—they don't. They will bear huge losses and they know it.

What this means is not just that Obamacare would collapse. It means the entire individual market would collapse. Every insurance company in America would simply stop selling individual policies. It would be political suicide to make this happen, and this means that Democrats have tremendous leverage if they're willing to use it. It all depends on how well they play their hand.

"It all depends on how well [Dems] play their hand."

Translation: Everyone be very worried.
.@kdrum https://t.co/jIGizuXxY2

— Douglas Barricklow (@DeepCoffee) December 5, 2016


The current Republican hope is that they can repeal parts of Obamacare and then hold Democrats hostage: Vote for our replacement plan or else the individual insurance market dies. There's no reason Democrats should do anything but laugh at this. Republicans now control all three branches of government. They've been lying to their base about Obamacare repeal for years. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and they're responsible for whatever happens next. If the Democratic Party is even marginally competent, they can make this stick.

Plenty of Republicans already know this. Some have only recently figured it out. Some are still probably living in denial. It doesn't matter. Pre-existing conditions is the hammer Democrats can use to either save Obamacare or else demand that any replacement be equally generous. They just have to use it.

1) Of course, Republicans do have the alternative of either (a) getting rid of the filibuster or (b) firing the Senate parliamentarian and hiring one who will let them do anything they want. If they do either of those things, then they can repeal all of Obamacare and replace it with anything they want. I don't think they'll do either one, but your mileage may vary on this question.

2) Just for the record, it's worth noting that Republicans can't modify the pre-existing-conditions ban either. Democrats can filibuster that too.

cb16-159_uninsured_map.jpg



gazette-logo-half.png

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than privately insured counterparts

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/


Medical_Debt.jpg

 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

The GOP'S Obamacare Repeal Body Count:
Estimated Death Toll by State




gop_obamacare_repeal_death_toll_120716_1.png





perrspectives1.png


GOP Obamacare Repeal Will Be a Death Sentence for Thousands Annually

December 12, 2016 | http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/003407.htm

The ink from President Obama's signature on the Affordable Care Act wasn't even dry when then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled the Republican mantra for the upcoming midterm elections. As he put it on March 23, 2010, "I think the slogan will be "repeal and replace", "repeal and replace."

Now, almost seven years later, McConnell and his Republican allies are finding out just how difficult their simplistic Obamacare proposition will really be. With Donald Trump weeks away from defiling the Oval Office, Congressional Republicans are no closer to a replacement plan for the roughly 25 million people they will soon add to the ranks of the uninsured. "Repeal and replace" has become "repeal and delay."

Meanwhile, worried House and Senate Republicans are getting an earful from almost every corner of the American health care industry. Having an already asked a federal judge to postpone action on the House GOP lawsuit challenging cost-sharing payments for 7 million Americans, Republicans have received dire warnings from health insurers about the death spiral their individual market will experience if no Obamacare replacement is immediately forthcoming. Hospitals have also alerted President-elect Trump and Congress that many of them will face financial ruin as millions of newly uninsured Americans once again require uncompensated care. While American Medical Association (AMA) President Andrew Gorman declared "a core principle is that any new reform proposal should not cause individuals currently covered to become uninsured," new assessments this week from ACASignups.net and the Urban Institute forecast that will be the fate for up to 29 million people who obtained coverage thanks to Obamacare. It's no wonder even Republican voters are losing their appetite for repeal.

Oh, and one other thing. Recent research suggests that the Republican repeal of President Obama's landmark health care law will result in tens of thousands of Americans needlessly dying every year.

This discussion of the American health care system's body count isn't a new one. In a 2002 study, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they lacked health insurance. In January 2008, a study by the Urban Institute ("Uninsured and Dying Because of It") didn't just conclude that "the absence of health insurance creates a range of consequences, including lower quality of life, increased morbidity and mortality, and higher financial burdens." The national death toll, it found, was rising: "137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 people in 2006." By 2012, Families USA ("Dying for Coverage: The Deadly Consequences of Being Uninsured") concluded that "uninsured adults are at least 25 percent more likely to die prematurely than adults who have private insurance" and found that "26,100 people between the ages of 25 and 64 who died prematurely due to a lack of health insurance in 2010." A 2009 analysis by Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Medical Alliance was gloomier still, warning "uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than privately insured counterparts." All told, the Harvard study lamented, each year "nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance." That kind of horrifying data, along with a dramatic shift of health costs to individuals and families as employers curtailed or dropped coverage, helped propel the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010. (Nevertheless, that didn't stop Republicans from George W. Bush, Tom Delay and Mitch McConnell to Mitt Romney and Phil Bryant to complain before and after Obamacare became law that "no one goes without health care" because "you just go to an emergency room.")

But with the Supreme Court ruling in the 2012 case of NFIB v. Sebelius, the issue of death by lack of insurance resurfaced. States, the Roberts Court declared, could refuse to expand Medicaid coverage as Obamacare originally required. Without the mandate to extend the joint federal/state insurance program to those earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), 19 states decided to opt out. The predictable result, beginning in 2014, was a "coverage gap" which left millions of people uninsured. As the New York Times reminded readers again this week, those stuck in the gap in the non-expanding states earned too much to qualify for free Medicaid and too little to qualify for subsidies to purchase private insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. As Janet Foy, a Missouri resident caught in the GOP coverage gap put it this week:

"I'll take my chances with dying, if that's what it comes down to. We have no money."
In 2014, another team of researchers from Harvard Medical School warned in Health Affairs that lot of Americans--almost 7.8 million--would find themselves in Ms. Foy's situation. The authors of "Opting Out Of Medicaid Expansion: The Health And Financial Impacts" tallied up the coming body count in the Republican states that rejected the ACA's extension of Medicaid to millions of their residents:

Nationwide, 47,950,687 people were uninsured in 2012; the number of uninsured is expected to decrease by about 16 million after implementation of the ACA, leaving 32,202,633 uninsured. Nearly 8 million of these remaining uninsured would have gotten coverage had their state opted in. States opting in to Medicaid expansion will experience a decrease of 48.9 percent in their uninsured population versus an 18.1 percent decrease in opt-out states...
We estimate the number of deaths attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states at between 7,115 and 17,104. Medicaid expansion in opt-out states would have resulted in 712,037 fewer persons screening positive for depression and 240,700 fewer individuals suffering catastrophic medical expenditures. Medicaid expansion in these states would have resulted in 422,553 more diabetics receiving medication for their illness, 195,492 more mammograms among women age 50-64 years and 443,677 more pap smears among women age 21-64. Expansion would have resulted in an additional 658,888 women in need of mammograms gaining insurance, as well as 3.1 million women who should receive regular pap smears.




The Republicans' killer math netted out this way. Of the 7,781,829 left uninsured, the authors estimated between 7,115 (0.091 percent) and 17,104 (0.220 percent)) would die for no reason other than political spite.

But Sam Dickman, David Himmelstein, Danny McCormick, and Steffie Woolhandler weren't the only researchers trying to understand the carnage from policymakers' failure to enable health insurance coverage. As Ian Milhiser wrote in February 2015, another study counted up the bodies by reverse engineering the 2006 health care reform law in Massachusetts. During the 2015 King v. Burwell case that tried (and failed) to end insurance subsidies for those obtaining coverage in states with federal Obamacare exchanges, ACA supporters pointed to a 2014 study titled, "Changes in Mortality after Massachusetts Health Care Reform: A Quasi-experimental Study":

A brief filed on behalf of multiple public health scholars and the American Public Health Association, estimates that "over 9,800 additional Americans" will die if the justices side with the King plaintiffs. It reaches this conclusion by starting with an Urban Institute study showing that 8.2 million people will become uninsured in this scenario. As other research examining Obamacare-like reforms in the state of Massachusetts found that "for every 830 adults gaining insurance coverage there was one fewer death per year," that translates to between 9,800 and 9,900 deaths if the justices back the plaintiffs in King.
That 0.120 percent ratio--one unnecessary death for each 830 adults losing insurance--represents a middle ground in forecasting the lives wasted by killing Obamacare. While actuarial tables will doubtless vary based on the ages of those losing insurance and their source of insurance (generally poorer and undertreated on Medicaid), we can nevertheless get some ballpark figures for the death toll among those to be denied coverage by the new Republican monolith in Washington.

According to Daily Kos' own Brainwrap, the newly uninsured in President Trump's America will be a gigantic group. All told, the real Charles Gaba estimates with his state-by-state breakdowns, 23.1 million--or 7.2 percent of the entire population--will lose insurance as a result of the complete. immediate repeal of Obamacare in the spring of 2017. That figure includes 12.3 million who gained coverage through the expansion of Medicaid and around 9 million receiving subsidies to purchase private insurance on the ACA marketplaces. Another 1.4 million young adults under age 26 would be left without coverage, as would 470,000 still purchasing "basic health plans" grandfathered under Obamacare.

As the table at the top shows, the Grim Reaper Republicans would sentence thousands of Americans to death every year. Applying the low (0.091 percent), medium (0.120 percent) and high (0.220 percent) mortality rates from the 2012 and 2014 studies, the needless deaths among Gaba's 23.1 million newly uninsured would range between 21,148 and 50,852.

As shocking as those numbers are, the body count is even higher if Republicans choose to repeal Obamacare, but delay its implementation. That's the conclusion of a new analysis released this week by the Urban Institute. In "Implications of Partial Repeal of the ACA through Reconciliation," Linda J. Blumberg, Matthew Buettgens and John Holahan compared "future health care coverage and government health care spending under the ACA and under passage of a reconciliation bill similar to one vetoed in January 2016." Their top line findings:

The number of uninsured people would rise from 28.9 million to 58.7 million in 2019, an increase of 29.8 million people (103 percent). The share of nonelderly people without insurance would increase from 11 percent to 21 percent, a higher rate of uninsurance than before the ACA because of the disruption to the nongroup insurance market.
Of the 29.8 million newly uninsured, 22.5 million people become uninsured as a result of eliminating the premium tax credits, the Medicaid expansion, and the individual mandate. The additional 7.3 million people become uninsured because of the near collapse of the nongroup insurance market.




"This scenario does not just move the country back to the situation before the ACA," they concluded, "It moves the country to a situation with higher uninsurance rates than was the case before the ACA's reforms."

urban_institute_gop_obamacare_repeal.png


That grotesque outcome would be perverse result of the path Republicans in Congress are now plotting to pursue in their "repeal and delay" approach to Obamacare. As Ian Milhiser explains, gutting the regulatory aspects of the 2010 Affordable Care, such as the requirement that insurers cover people with preexisting health conditions, are subject to filibuster and thus effectively require 60 votes in the Senate.

Meanwhile, legislation repealing the law's fiscal provisions -- including the Medicaid expansion, tax credits that help people pay their health premiums, and the law's individual mandate (which charges higher income taxes to people without insurance) -- can be enacted by a simple majority through a process known as 'reconciliation." For this reason, Senate Republicans are considering repeal of just the fiscal provisions in order to overcome a Democratic filibuster.
Repealing only these provisions, however, would actually be worse for Americans in the individual health insurance market than a total repeal of the law. That's because the law's provisions protecting people with preexisting health conditions cannot operate without the tax credits and the individual mandate.

The mandate, in particular, is essential because it encourages people to purchase health insurance before they become sick. Without it, many healthy individuals will wait until they are sick to buy insurance, effectively draining all the money out of an insurance pool they haven't paid into. Eventually, many insurance pools would simply collapse.




That is why the Urban Institute warns that President Trump, Senate Minority Leader McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan are poised to make American health care worse than it was prior to President Obama's signing of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010. It's why the health insurance industry, the hospital industry and the AMA are all raising red flags. And the GOP's scorched-earth campaign destined to lay waste to American health care has led Brian Beutler to counsel Republicans that "the alternative to Obamacare is Obamacare." Kevin Drum's warning went a step further: "Obamacare repeal is doomed."

Alas, Kevin Drum is probably underestimating the depth of the almost bottomless well of Republican political spite. Despite the fact that Uncle Sam was picking up nearly the entire tab for Medicaid expansion, 19 GOP-controlled states still said no. They didn't just condemn thousands of their residents to early graves, but jeopardized state budgets and hospitals while doing it. Florida Senator Marco Rubio led Congressional Republicans in stripping billions of dollars in guaranteed risk adjustment funding for Obamacare insurers, despite the fact that Medicare (including Medicare Advantage for private insurers) has been using them for year. Almost nine-hundred thousand people lost their existing coverage as a result, as non-profit co-ops were wiped out and many insurers bailed on markets across the country (especially in rural areas). And even as they promise to repeal Obamacare "root and branch," the Republicans don't really mean it. The $879 billion in savings the Affordable Care Act extracted from Medicare insurers and providers between 2016 and 2025 isn't going away: Paul Ryan, Tom Price (R-GA) and friends as always are planning to redirect to massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

commfund_2015_scorecard.png


During the 2012 presidential campaign, RNC chairman and incoming Trump chief-of-staff Reince Priebus regurgitated a tried and untrue GOP talking point. President Obama, Priebus falsely charged, "stole $700 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare" before adding:

"If any person in this entire debate has blood on their hands in regard to Medicare, it's Barack Obama."
After all the Republicans' killer lies about "death panels" and a "government takeover of health care" and "pulling the plug on grandma," Priebus' "blood on their hands" slander is perhaps the most vicious of all. Barack Obama and his Democratic Party made it possible for some 25 million Americans to obtain health insurance. Now as Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office, GOP leaders are scheming to take it away from all of those people--and likely even more. Even if the grim math is overhyped, discussing a body count 60,000 or 40,000 or 20,000 dead Americans is an obscenity. Voting Republican, as Mitch McConnell once said of a public health insurance option for Obamacare, "may cost you your life." If Trump, McConnell and Ryan repeal Obamacare, let there be no doubt who had blood on their hands.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
If President Trump comes through on bringing jobs back to the U.S. which President Obama had no interest in doing, the repeal of Obamacare will not be that bad.

People think buying insurance is the only way to pay. When you are young, you need to start saving for your healthcare costs just like you do your retirement.

We need employers to fund their workers HIA through a number of ways which I have devised.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
meanwhile . . .


6.4 million sign up for Affordable Care Act plans, more than in previous years

More Americans have signed up to have health plans through the Affordable Care Act as of Jan. 1 than in previous years, despite spiking insurance prices and a pledge by President-elect Donald Trump to dismantle the law.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell announced on Wednesday that 6.4 million people had chosen Affordable Care Act health plans by the deadline this week for coverage starting New Year’s Day — an increase of 400,000 from a year ago, though fewer first-time customers enrolled.

Since shortly after last month’s election, think tank and university researchers have been downloading Affordable Care Act data, reports and regulatory guidance housed online at HHS
in case the new administration removes them as part of its efforts to wipe out the law.


At a Nov. 30 gathering of health policy researchers at the Urban Institute in Washington, Jeanne Lambrew, a domestic policy adviser to President Obama for health reform, encouraged participants to save the material while they still had access to it, according to a researcher who was present. “It wasn’t, ‘Strike the panic button,’ ” said the researcher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was confidential. “She did mention, “Oh, if you guys aren’t downloading documents and data, you probably should be.’ ”

The safeguarding of health-care records, first reported by Politico, coincides with an archiving campaign underway by environmental researchers who are trying to ensure that government climate measurements are not erased by the incoming administration. Trump’s Cabinet appointees include several figures who dispute the scientific consensus around global warming.



FULL ARTICLE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...c064d32a4bf_story.html?utm_term=.a23320903b7d


.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Obama_Care_insured_charts2_630.jpg


The fee for not having health insurance in 2016 & 2017
The fee is calculated 2 different ways – as a percentage of your household income, and per person. You’ll pay whichever is higher.

Percentage of income
  • 2.5% of household income
  • Maximum: Total yearly premium for the national average price of a Bronze plan sold through the Marketplace
Per person
  • $695 per adult
  • $347.50 per child under 18
  • Maximum: $2,085
To claim people are signing up because they have accepted Obamacare is a lie pushed out by the press. Many people would have choose no coverage and pocketed the money into their retirement. Because of the penalty, they are rushing out to get coverage into this high risk pool, heavily depending on government subsidy. The insurance companies are jacking up rates to offset the low profit margin in the employer market.

It is more ways to entangle you with the IRS, and abuse you by the government.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
People need health care.
The Emergency Rooms of U.S. hospitals are no substitute for health care.
RepubliKlan demigod Ronald Reagan in 1986 mandated that hospital emergency rooms accept & treat anyone who arrived; even if they had NO capacity to pay for treatment.
Ray-Gun signing the 1986 law prevented the spectacle of millions of Americans literally dying while sitting on the sidewalks of America from untreated wounds, infections, and other treatable ailments. Meanwhile the hospitals of America were left with billions-of-dollars of debt from emergency room patients that had NO insurance or any ability to pay their medical bills. Canada, Britain, France, Israel, Germany, et al.— all have single payer Health Care for their citizens, and have had it for decades. Hillary Clinton under her husband's presidency tried and failed to get America off of the "hospital emergency room" last resort heath care system. President Obama with NO RepubliKlan votes cobbled the Affordable Care Act (ACA) together and into law. The RepubliKlans have voted 54 times to end the ACA even though THEY HAVE NO REPLACEMENT BILL.

The RepubliKlans want to return to the "hospital emergency room" last resort heath care system.

People ARE NOT signing up for the ACA because of any IRS tax penalty. They are signing up because they need the Health Care Coverage. Their employer may not offer coverage ,or, they are self-employed or they suddenly realized that they could get medical insurance........
READ: https://web.archive.org/web/20160123192515/http://articles.philly.com/2014-04-28/news/49440051_1_health-plan-obamacare-life-saving-surgery
.....And/or they have a pre-existing condition that prior to Obamacare precluded them from getting medical coverage. The majority of Americans who have health insurance get it through their employer. That employer usually shares in the monthly cost of that medical insurance with the employee. If you lose your job then you lose your medical insurance. This is an idiotic system. It stifles productivity. How many people are working at a job they hate simply because they or a member of their family needs medical insurance coverage, such as a young child who frequents the Pediatrician? The ACA eliminates the lunacy of only job based medical insurance being affordable. The major beneficiaries of the ACA are the working poor. Affluent people have medical insurance either through their job or they have a health care policy that they have easily purchased. The working poor— not so much.
75% of all Americans who have a (on the books) job in America
(a job the collects taxes from your paycheck)
make $55,000 or less a year.
We know this simply by looking at the U.S. Government data
tinylogo.gif
Go HERE

The 'Libertarian' fantasy is that no one should be mandated to contribute $$$$ into the pool of money needed to insure health care for most Americans. They actually believe that a me, myself, and I — I'll go it alone, delusional position of "self-reliance" on health care works best for a nation-state's citizens. If you can't afford health care insurance, or get regular medical checkups so you can find out early if you are sick— Fuck You— go to the emergency room when you really get sick and are spitting up blood; it's the RepubliKlan American way.


170104-republicans-promise-relief-from-obamacare_zpsd2wmv3ru.jpg




The IRS cannot pursue 'either civil or criminal remedies' for people who don’t purchase health insurance

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ce-odonnell-says-irs-cannot-pursue-either-ci/
tom-mostlytrue.gif
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
To claim people are signing up because they have accepted Obamacare is a lie pushed out by the press. Many people would have choose no coverage and pocketed the money into their retirement. Because of the penalty, they are rushing out to get coverage into this high risk pool, heavily depending on government subsidy. The insurance companies are jacking up rates to offset the low profit margin in the employer market.

People need health care.
The Emergency Rooms of U.S. hospitals are no substitute for health care.
RepubliKlan demigod Ronald Reagan in 1986 mandated that hospital emergency rooms accept & treat anyone who arrived; even if they had NO capacity to pay for treatment.
Ray-Gun signing the 1986 law prevented the spectacle of millions of Americans literally dying while sitting on the sidewalks of America from untreated wounds, infections, and other treatable ailments. Meanwhile the hospitals of America were left with billions-of-dollars of debt from emergency room patients that had NO insurance or any ability to pay their medical bills. Canada, Britain, France, Israel, Germany, et al.— all have single payer Health Care for their citizens, and have had it for decades. Hillary Clinton under her husband's presidency tried and failed to get America off of the "hospital emergency room" last resort heath care system. President Obama with NO RepubliKlan votes cobbled the Affordable Care Act (ACA) together and into law. The RepubliKlans have voted 54 times to end the ACA even though THEY HAVE NO REPLACEMENT BILL.


The RepubliKlans want to return to the "hospital emergency room" last resort heath care system.

People ARE NOT signing up for the ACA because of any IRS tax penalty. They are signing up because they need the Health Care Coverage. Their employer may not offer coverage ,or, they are self-employed or they suddenly realized that they could get medical insurance........
upload_2017-1-2_14-29-24.png
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
The IRS can sit on your refunds to get their money since a sizeable amount is withheld. If the government passes a law imposing a fee for women unless they have sex with me. Later I claim all these women wanted me when it was to avoid this fee

Instead of paying an exorbitant penalty to force you to buy a policy, it should have been a fee for uncompensated care.
Unless they unify the employer and exchanges, they should have created a pre existing/high risk pool to target these subsidies. This will allow people access to affordable healthcare without having to depend on a subsidy.

I believe the health insurance companies failed to come up with a solution causing this poorly designed government intervention
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
From a historical perspective, the insurance companies led a coup d'etat against the DNC by jacking up rates and leaving the exchanges upsetting voters deciding who to elect. Because there was a mandate to buy a policy instead of just having a uncompensated care fee this ties the fate of politician to these companies. By cherry picking healthy people, this used to be a lucrative market, now Obamacare made it unprofitable for many causing some to leave all together. Some sustain massive losses.

Just as the slave owners led a revolt against the monarchy to become the U.S., here we get a glimpse into what it was like.

Another issue was the subsidy which made the price, income based. Pre Obamacare, a health person making $70,000 would pay a low price regardless of their income. Now it is jacked up in this high risk pool with high deductibles and copays. It would similar to paying a low price for a car due to income while a high wage earner pays triple.

170104-republicans-promise-relief-from-obamacare_zpsd2wmv3ru.jpg


I talked generally about the reforms the private health industry needs to make to emulate what the government was trying to fix through Obamacare. Here is another chance for them do to it right.
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
When did health insurance companies place people over profit ???

The Health Care Mafia companies don't give a damn about supplying "affordable" health care to the American people. That is not their function. Their purpose is to make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for their shareholders. The Health Care Mafia companies ARE NOT charities or benevolence societies; their function is to extract as much cash from the American people as possible and then deliver AS LITTLE health care as possible. That is their business model. It is 2017. If you don't understand this basic fact now, after all the public debate about U.S. healthcare, then you are impervious to reality; you are living in a fantasy world cosseted in willful ignorance.

Health_Care_Mafia_Pay_2012.jpg


Health Care Mafia companies are ALL about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ over people. They don't give a shit about non-shareholders. Look at the CEO compensation above. Don't get fooled by the Health Care Mafia television commercials with the soft music that you see on television, those commercials are what is called image building. They want consumers to believe that they have the American people's health care as their priority; they don't, it's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Let us review how the Health Care Mafia really works, from a post that is SIX years old.



Below originally posted on June 11, 2011

http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?threads/ryan-vs-obamas-economic-plans.595460/



.......... — I’ll keep it less than 1,000 words. This health care issue, Medicare/ Medicaid; Paul Ryan’s buffoonery {Read: 1 & 2 } versus Obama’s flawed sincere attempt , is not very complex, but the corporate television media (ABC- CBS- NBC/MSNBC -FAKE- CNN -) all refuse to break-it-down in simple form for the majority of their viewers who only watch television as their only source of “news?” and information.

Why? It’s simple, $$$$$$$$$ money. Health care companies and pharmaceutical companies reliably spend billions of dollars on television commercials on these networks. That’s why you get bombarded with Viagra, Cialis & Levitra limp-dick fix drug commercials. You get these ‘image building’ commercials from Aetna, United HealthCare, Cigna and all the other “Health Care Mafia” companies.

Now in case you haven’t figured it out— what is the business model of the “Health Care Mafia”? It’s very simple; you don’t need a MBA to figure it out. The “Health Care Mafia” is in the business of denying as much health care as possible, they are the ultimate ‘cockblockers’ — they exist to deny as vigorously as possible your ability to receive medical care that will keep you alive.

How does it work? You pay monthly premiums to the “Health Care Mafia” usually with a percentage paid by your employer if you have a job where such ‘insurance’ is offered. Let’s make it simple; let’s assume medium size corporation XYZ has 1,000 employees who enroll in the “Health Care Mafia” insurance plan. The typical plan premium is $1,000 a month, multiply that by 1,000 employees and that’s $1,000,000 ( One Million Dollars) a month going to the “Health Care Mafia” . The “Health Care Mafia” gets that $1,000,000 and immediately puts 25% to 47% of that money into their vault. It’s like a mobster “paying tribute” to his Godfather. This “tribute” money pays for the “Health Care Mafia” companies private jets, stretch limos, 4**** Star private dining rooms, and the multimillion dollar executive compensation.

One health care mafia kingpin made so much money collecting “tribute” that he had to give back $620,000,000. (620 Million Dollars) The executives and senior officials at these “Health Care Mafia” companies are stacking serious paper — and they are not the doctors; they are just the middleman between you and your doctor. You can read all about how it works from an insider.


Oh what about health care you ask. Let’s say, god forbid, your doctor tells you that you have fulminant myocarditis a severe condition but one that can be treated successfully over time 93% of the time. The doctor ask you if you have ‘insurance’. You say yes and hand him your insurance card. He calls the “Health Care Mafia”representative and tells them about your condition. That representative is financially incentivized (earns bonus money) to basically tell your doctor to send you home with a bottle of Tylenol . Your doctor, if he’s ethical & empathetic will ‘push-back’ and fight to get a treatment regimen approved for you. The “Health Care Mafia” representative will also fight to give you as little coverage and the cheapest procedures available. It’s very simple, the majority of the major “Health Care Mafia” companies are for-profit entities whose stocks trade publically on the New York Stock Exchange. The less coverage they provide you, the more money the make, the higher the stock price goes up, the more value the executives stock options are worth. It’s not about your health and medical care, it’s about the money. They are the shot-caller between you and your doctor, and your life.

Remember the 25% to 47% of your premium money that “Health Care Mafia” puts in their vault right off the top as soon as they get it? President Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act which the corporate media calls ObamaCare limits the skim to 15%. The RepubliKlans are trying to repeal this part of the bill along with many other provisions since they can’t repeal the whole thing. The United States despite the fact that 59 million people have no health care coverage— (that’s right no Medicare/ Medicaid- just go to the emergency room) — spends more as a percentage of GDP than any other major country on the planet earth. (look below)

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg


The United States which is the world's wealthiest, spends by far the most on health care. The United States spends around $8,700 per capita each year on health care, more than double the OECD average and well more than second place Switzerland.
Despite the high spending, Americans are not anywhere near the world's healthiest. More than 35% of Americans are obese, one of the highest rate in the world, and exceptionally high compared with other countries spending the most on health. The United States is also the only top 10 country for health spending where the life expectancy does not exceed 80 years. Also, infant mortality has increased in the United States. While in 2000, the incidence of infant mortality in the United States was lower than the OECD average, today it is higher.




Meanwhile the “Health Care Mafia” during the cheney-bush regime, expending rapacious greed, raised their health care premiums 200% to 500% more than the rate of inflation. (look below)

Health_Care_Premium_Increases_2000_2009.jpg


The “Health Care Mafia” spent $1,500,000 per day 24/7 to Lobby Bribe the 535 members of the congress and the senate to make sure president Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act DID NOT contain a ‘public option’ or a Medicare option @ age 55, or anything that would break the “Health Care Mafia” oligopoly. Paul Ryan received more than $700,000 in bribes from the “Health Care Mafia” oligopoly. Ryan wants to end Medicare which has a 3% overhead, and collects premiums from everyone who gets a paycheck, during all those years before you reach age 65 and instead turn everything over to the rapacious “Health Care Mafia” and while were at this cut the top tax bracket down to 25% punching an additional $14,000,000,000,000 (14 Trillion Dollars) hole in the US budget deficit. Let me stop here. This is a porn board.






Paul Ryan is a con man. No this is not an ad hominem attack, it is an empirically based judgement based upon a "reality based" judgement of his written work. Any grade C- student in accounting can look at his self-proclaimed "path to prosperity budget" and quickly see that it is complete and total bullshit; it is beyond phantasmagorical. Despite the complete lie that the 'Ryan Budget' represents, the RepubliKlan members of the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously vote for the 'Ryan Budget' every year—and Ryan is presented on the television corporate media of mass distraction & deception as a "policy wonk".?
Watch the video above and read the article below and then ask yourself why Paul Ryan is not properly defined & presented in the media as a complete buffoon.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/09/call-that-a-budget


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


170104-republicans-promise-relief-from-obamacare_zpsd2wmv3ru.jpg

gfzVgP5BonGqrKCbnRdoyGNnGhpxm3gmJuFtJlUd8AAWi7Gb5qrgyvkzADPZx6Htxj9d5fTIhxu6XW3fR5JK-MaG3G6nldn3PrilLleFq27Q8w9vtC7ZVo-MefQleA

LuckovichObamacareReplacement_1000_590_429@2x.jpg

hc-serious.jpg
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

A new $1 TRILLION medical bill: Obamacare repeal fallout






Dan Mangan
@_DanMangan


Less insurance = a bigger bill for caring for uninsured people.

A new report finds there would be a huge spike in the cost of care sought by people who can't afford to pay for it if Obamacare is partially repealed by Congress.

The Urban Institute report found that the cost of so-called uncompensated care sought from hospitals and doctors would equal $1.7 trillion over a decade — $1.1 trillion more than if the Affordable Care Act was kept in place.


The estimate is based on an earlier finding by the group that almost 30 million Americans would lose health insurance under an Obamacare repeal scenario Congress voted on last year, but that had been vetoed by President Barack Obama.

Uncompensated care is care provided by hospitals and doctors that is not covered by insurers or patients themselves, either because the patient is completely uninsured or because they cannot cover their out-of-pocket medical costs.

These costs are ultimately passed along to consumers who can afford to pay for their own health care, as well as to state and local governments, or end up being eaten as a loss by health-care providers.


"You have a big problem, because there is nothing in the law that would increase the [amount] of federal payments" that offset the costs of providing uncompensated care, said John Holahan, institute fellow at the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center, a co-author of the report.

The report, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, noted that the $1.7 trillion estimate is based on "the amount of care the newly uninsured would seek, not the value of the uncompensated care they would actually receive."

The increase in uncompensated care would come as a consequence of lower overall health spending by insurers and households. The report estimates that there would be about $1.6 trillion less in such spending by insurers and households, according to the report.

Congress this week began laying the groundwork to repeal the ACA, as President-elect Donald Trump has planned, and which could lead to big increases in the number of uninsured people.

Since the ACA has been in effect, uncompensated care costs at hospitals have sharply fallen. The biggest drops, by far, have come in states that expanded their Medicaid eligibility standards to allow coverage of more poor adults, as allowed by Obamacare. Medicaid expansion has led to to biggest gains in coverage under the ACA.

A repeal scenario "being considered by Congress would create more uninsured people than would have been the case had the ACA never been passed," said Matthew Buettgens, senior research associate at the Health Policy Center.

"The increases in uncompensated care sought by the newly uninsured would be more than state and local governments and health providers could internalize, undoubtedly leading to substantially more unmet medical need."

It is not certain that the repeal sought by the Republican-led Congress will mirror last year's budget reconciliation package. And even if it did, the GOP might end up crafting and adopting a replacement for the ACA that could offset some if not all of the increases in uncompensated care costs estimated by the Urban Institute.

"If they put in a full replacement that covers the same number of people, then this paper's academic," Holahan said.

But no such replacement plan has been formally proposed. Health-care experts have warned that repealing Obamacare without adopting a replacement plan could wreak havoc in the individual insurance plan market.

On Tuesday, the American Medical Association, the leading professional organization for doctors, wrote congressional leaders and said, "It is essential that gains in the number of Americans with health insurance coverage be maintained" as legislators consider repeal.

"Consistent with this core principle, we believe that before any action is taken through reconciliation or other means that would potentially alter coverage, policymakers should lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what will replace current policies," wrote AMA President Dr. James Madara.

"Patients and other stakeholders should be able to clearly compare current policy to new proposals so they can make informed decisions about whether it represents a step forward in the ongoing process of health reform."


SOURCE: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/05/obam...e-uncompensated-care-by-trillion-dollars.html


.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Obama: Affordable Care Act Will Survive

President Barack Obama said he believes his signature legislative achievement,
the Affordable Care Act, will survive after he leaves office later this month. In an
interview with ABC News that aired Sunday, Obama implored Republicans to not
“undo things just because I did them,” and echoed his belief that millions of people
will suffer if Republicans move to repeal Obamacare.


“It is true theoretically that all that progress can be undone, and suddenly 20 million
people or more don’t have health insurance,” Obama said. “But, as I think Republicans
are now recognizing, that may not be what the American people, including even Trump
voters, are looking for.”



.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
I have reviewed the law and realize there is a lack of brain power in DC and health insurance companies. No wonder I am having problems in the U.S. and being unable to leave.

Pre existing conditions can be resolved by the private sector easily without the government or a high risk pool.

Low income access to care can be resolved by health insurance companies.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
What would the impact be if the
Affordable Care Act is repealed?


PolitiFact
By Louis Jacobson
Thursday, January 5th, 2017

:

Barack Obama signing the Affordable Care Act at the White House in 2010. (Wikimedia Commons)


The Republican Congress and the incoming Trump administration opened 2017 by trying to decide how -- and how quickly -- to repeal President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

What path lawmakers take on repealing and replacing the law will determine the impact on the American public. Here, we’ll offer a rundown of what the impact could be, based on analyses by independent organizations published in recent months.

Put simply, these groups agree that a repeal could lead to increases in the number of newly uninsured Americans, the number of people facing difficulties from pre-existing conditions, the size of the federal deficit, and how much money people will have to pay for their health care.

How many more uninsured Americans?

There appears to be broad agreement on this number.

Today, roughly 28 million Americans are uninsured, down from 41.3 million in 2013, due in large part to the Affordable Care Act, with its expansion of Medicaid, the creation of online health insurance marketplaces, the ability of young people to stay on their parents’ coverage through age 26, and the mandates that everyone purchase a health insurance plan.

In 2015, the Congressional Budget Office -- the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress -- said that the number of additional Americans who would lose coverage or be unable to get it for the first time would start at 19 million in the first year and increase incrementally before leveling off to 24 million within a couple of years. (The incremental increases would stem from lags in when insurance options lapse as well as increases in the population from young people becoming old enough to secure insurance of their own.)

The major sources of losses would include people no longer able to obtain Medicaid coverage under the law’s expansion, and people who would be unable to afford health insurance without the help of federal subsidies currently provided under the law. In addition, the end of mandates would increase the number of uninsured Americans doing so voluntarily, making the personal calculation that they are young and healthy enough to be able to pay less for their own health care needs a la carte than if they bought an insurance policy.

Other groups have come up with similar estimates for the uninsured. This year, the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation published a report projecting that 24 million additional people by 2021 would have lost coverage or be unable to find it. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that seeks to lower the federal deficit, projected that the number would be 23 million.

Meanwhile, a 2016 study by the Commonwealth Fund and the Rand Corp. calculated that even the most successful replacement scenario produced an increase in 15.6 million uninsured people, while the most pessimistic would lead to an additional 25.1 million uninsured Americans.

The Urban Institute study further estimated that 66 percent of those losing coverage would have a high school education or less.



How many are at risk due to pre-existing conditions?

Prior to passage of the Affordable Care Act, Americans could in many cases be denied coverage from a new insurer if they had a pre-existing condition. The provision requiring insurers to cover everyone is one of the most popular elements of the law.

But keeping coverage for people with pre-existing conditions while repealing much of the rest of the law is not so easy. When insurers are forced to add patients with pre-existing conditions to their coverage rolls, it costs money. The law handled this by mandating that even young and healthy people who previously had no insurance obtain coverage. But these mandates for everyone to secure coverage are likely to be repealed since they were among the least popular elements of the law. To stay afloat, insurers might have to quit providing insurance or raise premiums for many or all of the people they insure.

The Kaiser Family Foundation projected that if the pre-existing conditions provision is repealed, 52 million Americans could be at risk of being denied coverage in the future.

The foundation concluded that in 11 states, at least three of every 10 non-elderly adults would have this type of pre-existing condition: West Virginia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Missouri, Indiana, and Kansas, states that all voted for Trump.



What would be the impact for people on Medicare?

A full repeal would definitely impact Medicare, the health care program for Americans 65 and over.

For instance, a repeal would restore higher payments for services performed under the managed-care portion of Medicare known as Medicare Advantage, according to the Kaiser analysis. This, in turn, would likely lead to increased premiums for people who are signed up for Medicare Advantage. And an end to the law’s guarantees that preventive services be provided free to patients could also raise premiums, out-of-pocket costs, or both.

Perhaps the most notable change would be to reverse efforts to close the "doughnut hole" for prescription drugs. One provision of the Affordable Care Act dramatically cut the amount that seniors on Medicare have to pay for their medicines. (This is known as "closing the doughnut hole" because prior to the law’s passage, beneficiaries got some coverage up to a certain dollar amount, and then none until high-dollar, catastrophic coverage provisions kicked in.)​



How much more will Americans have to pay out of pocket?


According to the Commonwealth Fund-Rand study, the current policyholder who purchased coverage on the marketplace spends, on average, $3,200 out of pocket annually for the premium and for other costs, such as copayments. It found that repealing the law alone without a replacement would increase out-of-pocket costs to $4,700 a year. Some replacement scenarios could produce a larger increase while some could produce a smaller one, the study said.​



What will be the impact on the federal budget?


One might think that repealing a law like the Affordable Care Act would save the federal government money. Actually, in many scenarios, it won’t. That’s because the law doesn’t just spend money -- it also raised revenue through taxes, and it implemented policies designed to keep costs in check. So getting rid of the law also gets rid of the revenue it produced.

While it acknowledged some uncertainty, the CBO estimated that over a 10-year period, repealing the law would increase federal budget deficits by $353 billion. A more recent estimate by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget mirrored what the CBO found -- $350 billion over 10 years.

According to the group’s calculations, the revenue losses would be driven by rolling back tax increases on the wealthy. About half of the $800 billion in revenue losses would come from payroll and investments surtaxes on wages and income above $200,000 -- a tax windfall that very few Americans could take advantage of after a repeal. Another quarter of the revenue losses would come from repealing fees on insurers, medical-device companies and drugmakers.


SOURCE: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ould-be-impact-if-affordable-care-act-repeal/


.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Shareblue


House GOP appallingly votes to conceal cost of Obamacare repeal to taxpayers
By Matthew Chapman | January 5, 2017

A line sneakily inserted into the new House rules package exempts the Congressional Budget Office from doing a standard 10-year cost analysis on a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, thus seeking to conceal the cost to taxpayers of taking away their health insurance.

AP_17005610254409-960x640.jpg

(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)


As House Republicans voted on the new congressional rules package for the 115th Congress, many passages drew controversy, including a provision to unconstitutionally fine legislators for taking video footage on the House floor, and an attempt to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics.

But one passage made it through without attention from the corporate media: A provision that distorts the analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for political gain.

On page 25 of the final rules package Republicans adopted this year, a subsection instructs the director of the Congressional Budget Office to perform a 10-year cost analysis of each bill reported by the House:

(1) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS.—The Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, prepare an estimate of whether a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations), or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, would cause, relative to current law, a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 in any of the 4 consecutive 10 fiscal year periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10 fiscal years after the current fiscal year.

But on the next page (emphasis added):

(4) LIMITATION.—This subsection shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon—

(A) repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;

(B) reforming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010; or

(C) for which the chair of the Committee on the Budget has made an adjustment to the allocations, levels, or limits contained in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.

In other words, the new Republican rules package specifically instructs the CBO not to say how much it would cost to repeal Obamacare.

It is worth pointing out that the last time the CBO did a cost analysis of repealing Obamacare, in 2015, they found that it would increase the deficit by $353 billion. That is important, because Republicans are hoping to repeal much of Obamacare using budget reconciliation, which requires any legislation that increases the deficit to expire after 10 years.

This is not the first time that Republicans have changed CBO analysis rules to support their partisan agenda. Two years ago, Republicans started requiring the CBO to “dynamically score” tax cuts to assume they will increase gross domestic product, making them look like they cost less than they actually do.

The CBO is meant to be a nonpartisan agency, using a balanced analysis to judge the cost of any proposed bill. But Republicans are subtly rigging the budget reports to omit inconvenient information. We cannot allow lawmakers to hide their own fiscal recklessness from the public.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Really? Would you be so kind as to explain ???

You need to go to your HR department and have their health insurance carrier provide you the right to coverage in the individual market for 5/7/10 years after you leave. COBRA does it but it is very limited. Underwrite it regardless of your health even if you have Stage 4 cancer. Obamacare concentrates these costs in the exchanges, this will spread this out over the 170 million people covered by their employer. If you want to start a business you will have access for a number of years and pay rates as a healthy person. This is a risk that we all face, don't wait until you need expensive chemo trying to get coverage, get that now while you are healthy with your employer.

A person with preexisting conditions 20 years from now under the ACA would more than likely have 20 years of premiums payments and pose less of a blow to the insurance companies. It would be the same dilemma in implementing Social Security, the government should have done more to cushion this blow to insurance companies. Now looking back at it, the subsidy wasn't to help the poor buy coverage, it was to offset the price increase from being in a quasi high risk pool.

Looking back, here is where they messed up which led to this disaster:

1. Uncompensated fee not a penalty.
2. Require insurance companies that offer employer plans to offer coverage on the exchanges.
3. Have some provision to equalize prices between the exchanges and employer market, limit the price difference for a comparable policy to no more than 10 percent.
 
Top