Obamacare Saves Consumers $2.1 Billion Since 2011

Greed

Star
Registered
Obamacare and your wallet

Obamacare and your wallet
by The Economist | NEW YORK
Dec 10th 2013, 19:24

MORE than two months after Barack Obama’s health exchanges opened, most are working, up to a point. Shoppers on Healthcare.gov, the federal website for 36 states, can now compare insurance with greater ease. Some, however, do not like what they find.

They have two complaints. First, many health plans offered on the exchanges come with high co-payments and deductibles (the money a patient must spend before his insurance kicks in). Second, many plans offer only a narrow choice of doctors and hospitals. Unlike the software gremlins that have made the exchanges so hard to use, these features were intended.

Obamacare’s design all but guaranteed limited choice and high out-of-pocket expenses. The insurance sold on the exchanges must comply with many rules: plans must cover a long list of “essential health benefits”, must not charge more to sick patients and must have a set “actuarial value”. (An actuarial value of 60% means that, for an average person, the health plan will cover 60% of health costs. The patient will have to cover the rest from his own pocket.) Obamacare plans are classified as bronze (60% actuarial value), silver (70%), gold (80%) or platinum (90%).

These standards make it easier to compare one plan with another. But they also give insurers relatively little room to differentiate their products. To compete on sticker price, they have to cut costs. They typically do this by restricting choice. Out-of-pocket costs are limited by Obamacare's actuarial rules—patients who buy bronze plans, by definition, can expect to pay for more care with cash. But insurers can also compete by trying different assortments of co-pays and deductibles.

A limited network of doctors is not inherently bad. McKinsey and Company, a consultancy, reported in October that nearly 60% of health plans on the exchanges have elements of “managed care”, a technique used by health-maintenance organisations (HMOs) in the 1990s that involves paying for care at only some clinics, rather than wherever the patient likes. Many such plans have proven effective at curbing costs, even if they are not always popular. They are common among customers of Medicare Advantage (private health insurance for the elderly). They may catch on among younger shoppers, too.

High deductibles also have merits. Democrats are keen to attract healthy people to the exchanges, to balance the cost of insuring the sick. The young and fit are more likely to sign up for insurance if premiums are low and deductibles are high. Because they have few health problems, they probably will not end up paying out much, though they could pay a high deductible if they suffer an unexpected catastrophe.

However there are drawbacks, particularly for the sick and the poor. Obamacare limits out-of-pocket spending, with caps on a sliding scale based on income. Even so, individuals with chronic ailments will likely shell out thousands of dollars, according to Avalere Health, a consultancy. A man earning just $23,000 will have to pay $5,200 in deductibles and co-pays before reaching Obamacare’s cap on out-of-pocket costs. That is a whopping one-quarter of his income.

In the long term, this may prompt Democrats to rethink the rules for the exchanges. In the short term, shoppers have only a few days left to decide what to buy. If they want insurance to begin in January, they must sign up by December 23rd.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/12/health-reform
 

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Only in America is increasing accessibility to health care regarded as something undesirable. Our country is fucked.
^^This

Bottom line, its a republican plan and they are too stupid to see it.
Whack job wing nuts at the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea that everybody should pay for health care, promoted by Bob Dole and then handed it to Mitt. Mitt Romney, a "severely conservative" whack job, implemented it in Massachusetts and fox didn't say shit. Then, it was upheld by the right wing supreme court.
The down side is all this effort cost Americans a government shut down, an estimated 24 Billion dollar loss, plus the cost of sequester cuts. These crackers have no business in government.

-VG
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Obamacare and your wallet


‘Junk insurance’ comes back to haunt its policyholders​


9YZJx.AuSt.91.jpeg

Mike Adams of Ramona, Ca., a 61-year-old restaurant owner and self-employed guidance counselor,
is suing his old health insurance company for fraud and breach of contract over $193,000 in unpaid
medical bills. Adams' suit claims his insurance agent and the Mid-West National Life Insurance
Company of Tennessee, a subsidiary of HealthMarkets, Inc. used deceptive marketing to misrepresent
the terms of his coverage and improperly deny his medical claims. Adams said his wife, Theresa
(right), didn't realize the coverage limitations until he was about to undergo open heart surgery
in 2011. ROBERT BENSON — MCT


McClatchy Washington Bureau
By Tony Pugh
December 19, 2013



WASHINGTON — April Capil has mixed feelings about the national outcry over canceled health insurance policies.

Five years free of the stage III breast cancer that nearly claimed her life, the Boulder, Colo., resident is once again healthy, but she’s still struggling to put her life back together.

Like millions of Americans, Capil thought she had solid individual health insurance. Then she got sick and found that her coverage was woefully inadequate.

The financial problems that followed would aggravate Capil’s health struggles, force her into bankruptcy and trigger a fraud lawsuit over $230,000 in unpaid medical bills against HealthMarkets Inc., the parent company of her former insurer.

The litigation is nothing new for HealthMarkets. The North Richland Hills, Texas, insurer, formerly known as UICI, has a long history of battles with state regulators trying to root out “junk insurance” in the individual market. But numerous sanctions and a host of consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act have put a financial squeeze on the company and forced it to change its business model.

Beginning in January 2014, the health care law prohibits the kind of limitations, exclusions and benefit spending caps that made Capil’s coverage so problematic.

But after falsely promising that Americans could keep their health insurance if they liked it, President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure in November and OK’d a one-year extension on 2013 individual policies – even those facing cancellation next year because they don’t meet the health law’s new minimum standards.

Now Capil, a software project manager, wonders how many Americans will use the president’s canceled-policy “fix” to unwittingly renew another year of “junk insurance” like she used to have.

“It’s sad that there are people who have this insurance who don’t know that they’re going to end up like me if they ever get sick,” she said. “I feel like people are upset that they’re losing these plans and they’re upset because they think their plans are comprehensive. But they aren’t. These insurance companies have been selling Americans coverage that will bankrupt them if they ever have a serious illness.”​

It’s a concern others share as well.

“As those policies are grandfathered in, people have to be aware they may be exposed,” said Mark Rukavina, a health care consultant in Massachusetts and an expert on medical debt. “It’s something to think about as these people stay with these plans that seem like a good deal.”

Capil thought her plan was a good deal. She said her insurance agent told her it was full, comprehensive coverage and if she ever got cancer, Capil would never pay more than a deductible or co-insurance.

What she got instead was a “limited benefit plan,” which is “commonly seen as inadequate because it tends to pay for routine care and leave you without coverage fairly soon if something major costing tens of thousands of dollars kicks in,” said Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow for health policy at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank.


Donna Ledbetter, HealthMarkets’ director of external communications, declined an interview request for this story, citing Capil’s pending lawsuit. She also declined to answer questions not involving that litigation.

Capil’s experience is cautionary. Most people don’t realize their policies have coverage limitations until they actually need the coverage.

Of the 16 million Americans with individual coverage, only 725,000 people had limited benefit policies in 2012, Haislmaier said, citing industry data. Of these, he said roughly 132,000 were enrolled in HealthMarkets limited benefit plans, which are sometimes called “scheduled benefit” plans.

“They do cover a wide range of things,” Haislmaier said, “but with very low benefit levels. So they wouldn’t turn you away saying, ‘You have a heart condition. We only cover cancer.’ They turn you away saying, ‘You exceeded your $50,000’” coverage limit.



That’s what happened to Mike Adams, a 61-year-old restaurant owner and career guidance counselor in Ramona, Calif.

Only three days after complaining of chest pains in late 2011, Adams was preparing to undergo quadruple heart bypass surgery with his wife, Theresa, by his side. As she followed his gurney into the operating room area, a frantic hospital clerk came running up the hallway in hot pursuit.

“They chased down Theresa, following me into the operating room, pulled her aside, and she’s scared to death already, and then they just hollered out, ‘Mrs. Adams! Mrs. Adams! You have terrible insurance. We’re going to have to get a check from you right now.’ They wanted the entire deductible right there,” Adams said.

Unable to come up with $3,600 on the spot, Theresa Adams convinced the staff to go ahead with her husband’s surgery. She paid the deductible with a credit card the next day.

After 11 days in the hospital, Adams had racked up about $240,000 in medical bills. But his insurance from Mid-West National Life Insurance Co. of Tennessee, a subsidiary of HealthMarkets, wouldn’t cover roughly $193,000 of the charges.

Adams thought his insurance provided comprehensive catastrophic coverage with generous benefits for major medical episodes. Like Capil, he, too, said his insurance agent assured him that it did. But Adams’ plan capped payment for “miscellaneous” hospital inpatient charges at $18,000 – and most of his costly care had been lumped into that vague category.

“That’s the kind of gaming that state insurance departments exist to regulate,” Haislmaier said.

Adams’ realization that he had junk coverage was a complete shock. He said he had paid his premiums for seven years and had never filed a major claim.

“And then all of a sudden you find out, ‘Oh crud. They don’t cover any of this stuff?’” Adams said. “And to have them chase Theresa down in the hospital like that? That stuff makes me mad when I think about it. It’s not right. Full disclosure, that’s all any of us ask for.”

Ledbetter, the HealthMarkets spokeswoman, wouldn’t comment on Adams’ claims, citing his pending lawsuit against Mid-West National Life over his unpaid medical bills.



If you exclude the fly-by-night insurers that set up bank accounts, collect premiums and skip with the cash, HealthMarkets and its subsidiary insurance companies hold a rare distinction, said Capil’s attorney, Antony Stuart of Los Angeles.

“They’re the worst health insurance company that is actually trying to operate within the law,” Stuart said. “I can’t imagine that there has ever been any worse.”



Along with improperly denying benefits, Capil and Adams accuse HealthMarkets and its agents of deceptive marketing by misrepresenting the terms of their policies and obscuring the policies’ coverage limitations in confusing contract language.

“Their claim is ‘Oh, you should have read all of the fine print and understood it,’” Adams said. “I’m supposed to understand that? You have to be a doctor and an attorney to understand it. And by the way, you have to be an insurance underwriter also because you can’t understand the legalese. You can’t understand the medical terminology. And you can’t understand the insurance industry. And that’s what they expect you to do.”

Adams is not alone, said Rukavina, the Massachusetts health care consultant who spent more than 20 years in the nonprofit health sector helping people who were let down by their coverage.

“These junk policies have been crafted pretty carefully,” he said. “When I talked to people and they shared their contracts with me, the language can be very confusing, even for somebody like me.”



The complaints are a familiar refrain for HealthMarkets, which is owned by three prominent Wall Street private equity firms: Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, The Blackstone Group and Credit-Suisse-DLJ Merchant Banking Partners.

Consumer lawsuits and state insurance regulators across the country have targeted the company for years over its market conduct and sales and marketing practices.

In 2008, HealthMarkets and its subsidiary insurance companies agreed to pay $20 million to 28 states over numerous violations that state insurance regulators uncovered in a three-year, multi-state examination of the company.

Spurred by numerous consumer complaints and individual state investigations, the examination found problems with HealthMarkets’ handling of claims, their cancellation policies, their training and oversight of agents and their policy disclosures for consumers.

In 2009, the Massachusetts attorney general fined the company $17 million for unfair and deceptive marketing practices and barred HealthMarkets from selling policies in the state for five years.

Last year, state insurance regulators slapped the company with a $325,000 penalty for not meeting five of 95 performance measures that were part of the $20 million 2008 settlement agreement. The unmet measures dealt with training and oversight of agents.

In a press release from July 2012, HealthMarkets’ president and CEO, Kenneth J. Fasola, said the company is “vastly different” than it was when the multi-state examination began in 2005. Fasola said the company used the settlement agreement with the states as a “blueprint for transforming our organization.”



As part of that transformation, HealthMarkets stopped selling “scheduled benefit” plans in 2010 and stopped marketing all individually underwritten plans “in all but a limited number of states,” according to recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The moves have put a financial squeeze on the company, causing agent commissions, underwriting profits and premium revenue to decline. HealthMarkets’ premium revenue has fallen from $737 million in 2010 to $459 million in 2012.

Provisions of the Affordable Care Act also have affected the company’s bottom line, including the health law’s elimination of benefit caps for individual policies and a 2011 rule that requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premium payments on medical care or plan improvements. Companies that don’t meet that threshold have to pay rebates to consumers. The rule has forced HealthMarkets to pay $25.5 million in rebates thus far, federal filings show.

The multi-state probe of HealthMarkets found problems with the company’s financial ties to membership associations that marketed their products, which is how Capil obtained her policy.

About 3.2 million people get individual coverage through professional associations, said Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation. Capil bought hers through the National Association for the Self-Employed, which her lawsuit alleges was little more than a marketing vehicle for HealthMarkets policies.

Health plan sales through associations have become a familiar insurance scam, where the insurer often owns or controls the association that markets its products. Capil’s lawsuit makes those very claims against HealthMarkets and the National Association for the Self-Employed.

HealthMarkets’ SEC filings show that the company’s plans “are now offered to the individual market directly and not through the associations.”



Both Adams and Capil claim their agents misled them about their HealthMarkets coverage. Although healthy when he bought his policy in 2004, Adams said he told his agent he wanted comprehensive catastrophic coverage for major medical crises. He said the agent assured him that his “California Covered America Plan” from Mid-West was just that.

Adams thought the policy provided $1 million in coverage because a plan brochure described it as “$1,000,000 basic hospital medical-surgical insurance coverage.”

That’s not surprising, said Wendell Potter, a senior health care analyst at the Center for Public Integrity, a research and investigative news organization. Potter is also a former insurance industry executive who left the business in 2008 because of concerns over junk insurance and other industry practices.

“If you look at the marketing materials for these kinds of plans, they’re pretty slick and attractive and people don’t realize, I think, in many cases what they’re buying offers inadequate coverage because it’s not in the bold print,” Potter said. “It’s often in the fine print. And it’s certainly not in the promotional material in any way that’s conspicuous, so a lot of people are just not aware.”



In Capil’s case, she told her insurance agent that she wanted a comprehensive policy that would cover treatments for cancer. Although she was cancer-free when she bought the policy from the MEGA Life and Health Insurance Co., another HealthMarkets subsidiary, in April 2008, Capil had a lump on her breast for several years that previous mammograms and sonograms found to be non-cancerous.

But in November 2008, she developed a lump in her armpit and her breast lump had changed shape. Her breast cancer diagnosis forced her to leave her home in Hawaii and live with her sister in Pleasant Hill, Calif., where she began six months of chemotherapy treatment.

About three months into her treatment, Capil realized that her hospital bills were piling up. Then her insurance company denied payment for her lumpectomy surgery, claiming it was a pre-existing condition, even though the lump was non-cancerous when she bought the policy.

After receiving a letter from Mega explaining the company’s refusal to cover her bills, Capil said the reality of her situation had finally sunk in.

“After I read it, I realized this company has no intention of paying,” she said. “I’m like, ‘Oh my God, I have this garbage insurance and they’re just waiting for me to die so they can stop arguing with me about my bills.’”



As HealthMarkets resolves lingering lawsuits over its past practices, state regulators believe the company has turned a corner. In a statement from 2012, Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak said the company has “paid attention, implemented new controls and addressed virtually every problem identified in the (multi-state) examination. This turnaround is a regulatory success.”

“We have invested thousands of ‘people hours’ diligently developing or improving, implementing, documenting and monitoring sound business processes,” Fasola, the company CEO, said in the July 2012 press statement.

Mike Kreidler, the Washington state insurance commissioner whose office led the review of HealthMarkets compliance with the 2008 settlement agreement, issued his own statement at the time.

“Even though the settlement process is over, we’ll continue to watch these companies closely,” Kreidler said.


Email: tpugh@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @TonyPughDC

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/19/212069/junk-insurance-comes-back-to-haunt.html#storylink=cpy



 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Obamacare and your wallet


‘Junk insurance’ comes back to haunt its policyholders​
Stories like these were the kind that was primarily cited as evidence on why the health care system needed to be reformed. Unfortunately, with the timing of a super majority, your government didn't stop there.

“And then all of a sudden you find out, ‘Oh crud. They don’t cover any of this stuff?’” Adams said. “And to have them chase Theresa down in the hospital like that? That stuff makes me mad when I think about it. It’s not right. Full disclosure, that’s all any of us ask for.
Making this type of coverage illegal, even if full disclosure is provided, is part of what has made this such a bad law.

Your government kicking millions of people off their old plans then limiting options wasn't necessary to address fraud.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Obamacare and your wallet

Stories like these were the kind that was primarily cited as evidence on why the health care system needed to be reformed. Unfortunately, with the timing of a super majority, your government didn't stop there.

Citation please.

Making this type of coverage illegal, even if full disclosure is provided, is part of what has made this such a bad law.

Really? Your opinion; or shared by others outside of the right-wing-nut-community ?


Your government kicking millions of people off their old plans then limiting options wasn't necessary to address fraud.

Glad to hear you're interested in fraud. Too bad your interest doesn't extend to those without coverage. But if it really did, you'd see through your comment above.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Obamacare and your wallet

Citation please.
Well, if the board cared about non-Jesus related stories during that time, it would be easier to find. But since you don't give a shit anyway, I'll take a pass on looking. I know to you that's evidence of a right wing conspiracy, but oh well.

Really? Your opinion; or shared by others outside of the right-wing-nut-community ?
Both, go ask a Democrat how important it is to be pro-choice.

Glad to hear you're interested in fraud. Too bad your interest doesn't extend to those without coverage. But if it really did, you'd see through your comment above.
Your government kicking millions of people off their old plans then limiting options wasn't necessary to address "those without coverage."
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Obamacare and your wallet

Well, if the board cared about non-Jesus related stories during that time, it would be easier to find. But since you don't give a shit anyway, I'll take a pass on looking. I know to you that's evidence of a right wing conspiracy, but oh well.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You know, if you weren't such a right-wing-nut leaning revisionist (you know damn well the loudest cry is and always has been the "uninsured") -- perhaps you wouldn't have to lie to shape reality into your ideology and then attempt to change the subject when called on it.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Obamacare and your wallet

Your government kicking millions of people off their old plans then limiting options wasn't necessary to address "those without coverage."

Son, you're just looking for flaws in something that you're ideologically opposed to, but probably uninsured your damn self. Good look with that.

You're hoping against hope the whole thing fails. That's why you pick at little shit hoping it turns into something larger. :lol:
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Obamacare and your wallet

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You know, if you weren't such a right-wing-nut leaning revisionist (you know damn well the loudest cry is and always has been the "uninsured") -- perhaps you wouldn't have to lie to shape reality into your ideology and then attempt to change the subject when called on it.
Maybe you should learn to separate the choir's voice from everyone else.

The leftist dream was about the uninsured and achieving a single-payer system. That is very different from the propaganda use to sell the plan to the non-choir. The non-choir wasn't told they should support the ACA because of the poor people they didn't care about. It was about the horror stories of having insurance and not having claims honored by the insurance companies.

I would never have imagined you were so far gone that you think the ACA was sold as a primary benefit to the uninsured as opposed to what the middle class voters would get out of it.

You can look for yourself at the articles at that time. Articles directed at the liberal faithful focused in the uninsured. Articles aimed at the mainstream swing-voting centrist focused on issues that resonated with the middle class, namely getting fucked by the insurance companies.

Son, you're just looking for flaws in something that you're ideologically opposed to, but probably uninsured your damn self. Good look with that.

You're hoping against hope the whole thing fails. That's why you pick at little shit hoping it turns into something larger. :lol:
Looking for flaws? The flaws Democrats acknowledged the day after the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, and continued when the cancellation notices were sent out? Those are the flaws you pretend that only an anti-Christ can see?

I openly acknowledge that the ACA is a huge success. The goal was to create a new welfare entitlement and expand government. Mission Accomplished. The money is being transferred as we type and that ensures it will never stop. The victory and success is undeniable.

It is telling though how you consider people losing the coverage they are happy with as "little shit." Your own government estimated a mid-range number of cancellations in the tens of millions. To you it's little shit. But like I said earlier, the goal is new welfare. Obviously, everything after that is collateral damage for the greater good.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Obamacare and your wallet

Maybe you should learn to separate the choir's voice from everyone else.

The leftist dream was about the uninsured and achieving a single-payer system. That is very different from the propaganda use to sell the plan to the non-choir. The non-choir wasn't told they should support the ACA because of the poor people they didn't care about. It was about the horror stories of having insurance and not having claims honored by the insurance companies.

I would never have imagined you were so far gone that you think the ACA was sold as a primary benefit to the uninsured as opposed to what the middle class voters would get out of it.

You can look for yourself at the articles at that time. Articles directed at the liberal faithful focused in the uninsured. Articles aimed at the mainstream swing-voting centrist focused on issues that resonated with the middle class, namely getting fucked by the insurance companies.

These are YOUR spurious claims. Back them up or shut them up.


Looking for flaws? The flaws Democrats acknowledged the day after the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, and continued when the cancellation notices were sent out? Those are the flaws you pretend that only an anti-Christ can see?

So that we are all clear, who & what is this anti-Christ crap your invoking ??? Is this the new word in discourse from the far-right looneyville ???

Are all of us non-far-right-wingnuts the anti-Christ ??? If you guys aren't making spurious claims about women's bodies you're throwing-in religion :smh:


I openly acknowledge that the ACA is a huge success. The goal was to create a new welfare entitlement and expand government. Mission Accomplished. The money is being transferred as we type and that ensures it will never stop. The victory and success is undeniable.

Spoken like the true R-wing-nut ideologue that you are :lol:



It is telling though how you consider people losing the coverage they are happy with as "little shit."
I don't think that at all; as actinanass might say: "typical" - you're once again attributing words and thoughts to people they never used or had.

On the contrary, I feel for them, especially since your kind have lied to them for so long that they actually thought they had coverage when the right wingers were actively and consciously ripping them off. Poor fucks -- many of them are still listening to you.


Your own government estimated a mid-range number of cancellations in the tens of millions. To you it's little shit. But like I said earlier, the goal is new welfare. Obviously, everything after that is collateral damage for the greater good.

Blah, Blah, fucking blah. You spew the talking points out as well as the fat cats that spun them !!! You better not be one of those uninsured :hmm:
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Obamacare and your wallet

These are YOUR spurious claims. Back them up or shut them up.
That's fine, just remember my last paragraph when you eventually look into it yourself. The salespitch wasn't uniform between the faithful and non-faithful.

So that we are all clear, who & what is this anti-Christ crap your invoking ??? Is this the new word in discourse from the far-right looneyville ???

Are all of us non-far-right-wingnuts the anti-Christ ??? If you guys aren't making spurious claims about women's bodies you're throwing-in religion :smh:

Spoken like the true R-wing-nut ideologue that you are :lol:
Don't worry about it, just stay faithful that anyone against your Jesus is right-wing.

I don't think that at all; as actinanass might say: "typical" - you're once again attributing words and thoughts to people they never used or had.

On the contrary, I feel for them, especially since your kind have lied to them for so long that they actually thought they had coverage when the right wingers were actively and consciously ripping them off. Poor fucks -- many of them are still listening to you.
You are the one that described the things I "pick at" as little shit.

Glad to hear you're interested in the administration's fraud. Too bad your interest doesn't extend to reversing the problem or seeing it as a problem. But if it really did, you'd see through your comment above.

Also, thanks for your lesson on the makeup of the insurance companies ideology. It seems odd though how the administration was able to work so closely to deliver greater profits to those right-wingers in the insurance industry. But I trust you, they must be right-wingers since they've cheated people.

Blah, Blah, fucking blah. You spew the talking points out as well as the fat cats that spun them !!! You better not be one of those uninsured :hmm:
Why do you cling to your right-winger dismissals like a rural voter clings to his guns and religion?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Obamacare and your wallet

That's fine, just remember my last paragraph when you eventually look into it yourself. The salespitch wasn't uniform between the faithful and non-faithful.

Don't just say it; show it. If you say this is the case, back it up. I don't want to rely upon YOUR WORD. Show me. If that's too difficult for you, then I'll just ignore you henceforth.



Don't worry about it, just stay faithful that anyone against your Jesus is right-wing.
Sir, you have me mixed up with someone else. I rarely, if ever, speak in terms of things religious on the internet, with white folk and people I don't know. Whatever one believes, I BELIEVE that its personal. So I'm certain I've NEVER spoken to you from a biblical or religious standpoint.


IF I HAVE, SHOW ME. IF YOU CAN'T SHOW ME, be an adult and apologize. Otherwise, I'll just treat you as the LIAR you've become.

Is this some kind of debate you'd like to have?

Is this your way of starting conversation?

Or, are you just lie prone ???


You are the one that described the things I "pick at" as little shit.

I didn't lie.


Glad to hear you're interested in the administration's fraud. Too bad your interest doesn't extend to reversing the problem or seeing it as a problem. But if it really did, you'd see through your comment above.

I'm interested in people being insured, even if that requires some form of assistance for some -- because we're all paying dearly for it anyway. Uninsured people present to ER's everyday, coverageless. Someone other than the patient pays that bill. Those who require expensive treatment thinking their coverage is good and that turns out badly, are in the same bag.

Its Pennzoil to me: pay me now, or pay me later. Either way, there's a public price -- and that public tends not to include the less fortunate.




Also, thanks for your lesson on the makeup of the insurance companies ideology. It seems odd though how the administration was able to work so closely to deliver greater profits to those right-wingers in the insurance industry. But I trust you, they must be right-wingers since they've cheated people.

I didn't say anything about insurance ideology, etc. AGAIN, this is either your way :lol: of trying start a conversation about something that YOU really want to talk about; or you're fucking delusional. :hmm:


Why do you cling to your right-winger dismissals like a rural voter clings to his guns and religion?

I dismiss you far-right-wingers -- the same as I dismiss far-left-wingers. I'm a fan of neither.

Now, try to remember the things I've said in this thread or refer back to it frequently, that way, you can repeat something I've actually said -- instead of shit I haven't.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Re: Obamacare and your wallet


Don't just say it; show it. If you say this is the case, back it up. I don't want to rely upon YOUR WORD. Show me. If that's too difficult for you, then I'll just ignore you henceforth.
I didn't ask you to take my word. I said "remember my words" when you eventually look if up yourself. I used the assumption that you would give a shit whether you were right or wrong.

I don't want to argue your faith-filled belief that, at the depths of the recession in 2009, a new welfare program was sold to the middle-class as a primary benefit to the uninsured.

I don't like arguing about people's hopes and dreams.

Sir, you have me mixed up with someone else. I rarely, if ever, speak in terms of things religious on the internet, with white folk and people I don't know. Whatever one believes, I BELIEVE that its personal. So I'm certain I've NEVER spoken to you from a biblical or religious standpoint.


IF I HAVE, SHOW ME. IF YOU CAN'T SHOW ME, be an adult and apologize. Otherwise, I'll just treat you as the LIAR you've become.

Is this some kind of debate you'd like to have?

Is this your way of starting conversation?

Or, are you just lie prone ???
You're calling me a liar because I'm taking you at face value, on your faith, that America is better off than it was before the ACA.

I didn't lie.
And that's the reality if this exchange.

I post something about people losing coverage.

You quote it directly and say I'm looking for flaws and refer to it as little shit.

I point out you referred to it as little shit.

You say you don't feel that way at all.

I point again that you called what I pick at as little shit.

You say you didn't lie.

Quality stuff.

I'm interested in people being insured, even if that requires some form of assistance for some -- because we're all paying dearly for it anyway. Uninsured people present to ER's everyday, coverageless. Someone other than the patient pays that bill. Those who require expensive treatment thinking their coverage is good and that turns out badly, are in the same bag.

Its Pennzoil to me: pay me now, or pay me later. Either way, there's a public price -- and that public tends not to include the less fortunate.
Ok, the problem is you people keep suggesting the same solution that caused the problem in the first place. You never want to take away some of government's actions. You just promote a new law to fix a problem cause by the old law. It's never an option to get rid of the old law.

The concept of insurance has existed as long as humans have taken risk. It doesn't need your government helping it along. Especially when you look at the results. The solution, like many correct things in life, is counter-intuitive. Make less things covered by insurance not more. Treat health insurance like every other form of insurance. Treat health insurance as coverage for catastrophic, unpredictably timed, certain to happen within a certain risk-pool, and rare events. It's not rocket science or theory as you people like to say. You made health insurance the equivalent of filling up your gas tank being covered by your car insurance.

How insurance should work has already been figured out for hundreds of years before all of you got your grubby spread-the-wealth hands on it.

I didn't say anything about insurance ideology, etc. AGAIN, this is either your way :lol: of trying start a conversation about something that YOU really want to talk about; or you're fucking delusional. :hmm:
Here we go again.

You make a reference to right-wingers ripping off people.

I say thanks for letting me know the people ripping off people are right wingers.

You say you didn't say it.

Quality stuff.

I dismiss you far-right-wingers -- the same as I dismiss far-left-wingers. I'm a fan of neither.

Now, try to remember the things I've said in this thread or refer back to it frequently, that way, you can repeat something I've actually said -- instead of shit I haven't.
Yes, we know Que, No Labels and all that.

You should assess how low a standard you have to No Label something right wing, and how rarely you argue about something being too left-wing.
 

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Only in America is increasing accessibility to health care regarded as something undesirable. Our country is fucked.

shark posted this over a year ago and it's still valid.

This plan, if implemented fully, covers aims from both parties. It extends access (liberal goal) and lowers the federal deficit (conservative goal). It's market based like the Republican want and yet, they are the ones undercutting it at every turn.

Conservatives, even the ones that call themselves "libertarians", don't have a better alternative and it seems most refuse to even offer legitimate fixes where the current plans falls short.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

3 Big Obamacare Numbers to Start Off the New Year

Where things stand as the law goes into effect



7d9ea8a92.jpg


The big news from the Department of Health and Human Services and from Congress as 2013 drew to close is the number of people who are poised to benefit from coverage under the Affordable Care Act as the new year begins.

  1. More than 2.1 million have enrolled in private-sector health insurance through the state and federal exchanges. This is more than a million people short of projections for the first three months of open enrollment and doubtless reflects the fact that the federal Healthcare.gov website was only truly functional for about one of those three months. But it also represent an astonishing recovery by the program from its original disastrous launch, raising hopes that it might even make the original goal of enrolling 7 million by the end of March 2014. One caveat: It's still unknown how many of the enrollees were previously uninsured, as opposed to people who were already insured in the individual market and just used the exchanges to get new plans.

  2. 3.9 people were determined eligible for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program during just October and November, though it's unclear how many have enrolled yet. Still, that's a big number for only the first two months of determinations, before interest in enrollment had its big surge in December. That number would have been much, much bigger, if not for the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to opt out of expanding the federal health insurance program for the poor. Two of the states with the most uninsured, Texas and Florida, opted out of expanding Medicaid eligibility.

  3. Only 10,000 people whose individual-market plans have been cancelled or slotted for cancellation under the Affordable Care Act will be unable to get affordable insurance going forward, according to a new report from Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. That's "0.2 percent of the oft-cited 5 million cancellations statistic," The Plum Line noted. The vast majority should be eligible to stay on their existing plans, thanks to the administration's last-minute fix to permit this, or get subsidies through the exchanges, according to the report. The rest should be able to obtain affordable catastrophic-care plans, according to the congressional staffers. Still, there are bound to be enough people who previously had something better among the nearly one million people the report says could at least get catastrophic care plans that concerns and objections will continue into the new year. But the specter of a massive increase in uninsurance due to the Affordable Care Act seems unwarranted, the report makes clear, because that projection fails to take into account the variety of insurance options now available.




SOURCE

 

Greed

Star
Registered
White House credits ObamaCare for slow growth in healthcare spending

White House credits ObamaCare for slow growth in healthcare spending
By Elise Viebeck and Jonathan Easley
January 06, 2014, 08:32 pm

The White House on Monday said ObamaCare was partly responsible for slowing the growth of healthcare spending, even as the agency tasked with implementing the law said the impact was “minimal.”

The new report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found healthcare spending rose by 3.7 percent in 2012, the fourth year in a row that the increase was at a near-record low.

“For years, healthcare costs in America skyrocketed, with brutal consequences for our country,” wrote White House deputy assistant for health policy Jeanne Lambrew in a blog post.
“The Affordable Care Act, for the first time in decades, has helped to stop that trend.”

The White House acknowledges that a slow economy has played a role in keeping cost growth low, but it argues that the trend persisted in part because of ObamaCare as the economy improved.

Republicans immediately challenged this assertion and pointed to a section of the CMS report that described the law's impact on the healthcare spending slowdown as small.

“No matter how much bluster the White House puts behind these findings, the actuaries continue to show that ObamaCare's impact on slower growth is negligible. To suggest otherwise is nonsense,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) spokesman Brendan Buck said.

In response to the CMS report, Republican critics argued the law will eventually accelerate healthcare cost growth by imposing taxes and adding people to insurance rolls.

Supporters said the opposite, noting that parts of healthcare reform are designed to lower spending in both private and public health insurance.

The back-and-forth highlights a fiery and longstanding debate over ObamaCare's fiscal impact, as well as the White House's effort to find evidence that the law is functioning well.

The new statistics come at a critical time for President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats, who have been worried about losing their majority in the Senate amid an onslaught of bad news about ObamaCare's rollout.

When Congress left Washington for its holiday recess, ObamaCare's troubled federal enrollment site had started to turn a corner.

By Dec. 31, about 2.1 million people had signed up for private health insurance on state and federally facilitated marketplaces.

The number was seen as a step forward for an administration that had been mired in conflict since HealthCare.gov debuted with serious technical flaws on Oct. 1.

Now, as campaign season looms, Republicans are eager to return focus to the law's botched rollout and what they see as its negative fiscal impact.

The National Republican Congressional Committee signaled confidence on the issue Monday, urging Democrats to sign a tongue-in-cheek petition promising to campaign on ObamaCare.

And the House GOP will vote Friday on two ObamaCare measures, one of which would require the administration to notify consumers if there is a data breach on any of the new health exchanges.

Polling released Monday suggested that Republicans have benefited from problems with the rollout, gaining an 8-point advantage over Democrats on healthcare issues among likely, undecided voters.

The survey was released by The Morning Consult, a healthcare news website.

What's more, likely, undecided voters expressed disapproval of ObamaCare by more than 2-to-1.

Leading Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) have spurned warnings that the healthcare law could ultimately drag down their side in November.

“Any of our candidates will be able to run on ObamaCare,” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) told CNN's “Crossfire” last month.

Democrats have brought “peace of mind” to sick patients by passing the Affordable Care Act, she said, pointing to the law's benefits and protections.

Still, few vulnerable Dems are rushing to embrace the healthcare law without also proposing changes that would ease the plight of some consumers.

Republicans must gain six seats to control the Senate and defend 17 districts in the House to keep the majority in that chamber.

Seeking to bolster its argument Monday, the White House said that policies meant to lower costs in Medicare — reducing avoidable hospital readmissions, for example — are having a positive impact in the private sector.

Lambrew also praised part of the healthcare law that requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on patient care, thereby holding down companies' administrative costs.

In addition to reporting a fourth year of slow cost growth, the CMS found that the share of the economy pertaining to healthcare shrunk in 2012 for the first time in 15 years.

Still, it could prove difficult to convince the public that healthcare spending is slowing when many people are facing plans with higher out-of-pocket costs.

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in December found that just 5 percent of all Americans believe the rate of healthcare spending has decreased. Just 3 percent of uninsured people felt this way, according to the survey.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...macare-for-slow-growth-in-healthcare-spending
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Bailout Could Backfire on Insurers

Bailout Could Backfire on Insurers
By Megan McArdle
Jan 10, 2014 3:38 PM CT

As seems to be customary for a Friday, we have a lot of news out on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Barack Obama administration is firing CGI Group Inc., the company with one of the largest contracts for work on the troubled health-care exchanges. This was probably inevitable, but coming at this point, it suggests one of two things: that the exchanges are now stable enough that the administration can afford to claim a scalp, or that CGI’s work is so bad that it's better off being fired even if the exchanges are none too stable. The first option seems more likely to me, but the second is certainly not out of the question.

More interesting is what’s going on with the insurers. They are simultaneously asking the administration for more money and trying to stave off Republican efforts to curtail the backdoor bailouts they’re already getting. This has an understandable business logic, and even a hint of fairness: The administration changed the rules on them midstream, in a way that seems likely to impose heavy losses. It’s understandable that they would like the administration to make them whole. I take this post by insurance industry consultant Bob Laszewski to reflect the insurer perspective on what should happen -- and what they think will:

The reinsurance program has done and will continue to do what it was intended to do; help attract and keep more carriers in Obamacare than might have otherwise come. No matter who did health insurance reform, Democrats or Republicans, there was always going to be a transitionary period when those currently sick and unable to get coverage before would come flooding through the doors.

Does this mean that health plans would be happy to see their plans underpriced in the first year, as well as the second and third year? No, they will not have any incentive to see their products dramatically underpriced the first three years only to see their prices zoom in the fourth year and create havoc.

But, my sense is that health plans, because they are so insulated from big losses, will generally stand pat with their 2014 rate structures for 2015––no matter how bad the early claims experience looks. I expect that the health insurance industry will be content to give the Obama administration one more chance to reboot Obamacare in the fall of 2014, when the 2015 open enrollment takes place.

This is the plan that Republicans hope to cleverly foil by framing the risk-adjustment provisions as an insurer bailout and repealing them. As designed, the risk-adjustment mechanism was supposed to be revenue-neutral, and that is how the Congressional Budget Office scored it in their last estimate. But unless the demographics of the exchanges improve pretty quickly, the three temporary risk-adjustment programs are probably set to transfer a large hunk of cash to the insurance companies. That’s what the administration, and the insurers, want to happen; it’s how they are going to keep the insurers on board for 2015. Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner points out that Humana Inc.’s latest filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission warns of a “more adverse than previously expected” mix of customers enrolling through the exchange -- but it doesn’t change its earnings forecast for 2014. So either it thinks its losses will be trivial relative to overall earnings or Humana thinks the chances of a bailout from the administration are basically 100 percent.

But while the business logic is obvious, the political logic is considerably more dubious. I was initially skeptical that a repeal of the risk corridors had any chance of getting through a Democratic-controlled Senate, but I’ve heard a persuasive argument that this is just so politically toxic that Senate Democrats, and even the White House, may well go along. The optics of funneling money to the insurers through these programs is absolutely terrible. And now they are asking the administration for more money -- the insurers want the extra expenses that the exchange debacle has imposed excluded from calculating their “medical loss ratio” requirements, which mandate that at least 80 percent of their expenses go toward treatment, not administrative overhead. I think the requirements are pretty silly, as a policy, but they are extremely popular. Asking the administration for a break on this is almost begging members of both parties to beat the snot out of them. White House attempts to explain that it isn't a bailout will be complicated by the fact that it obviously kind of is.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the insurers are in a tough place. Unless the administration bails them out -- or enrollment starts going even better than it did in December -- they look set to lose quite a bit of money next year. But unless they really do have the administration in their pocket, this is probably the wrong time to be asking for yet another special administrative fix to funnel more cash to insurers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/bailout-could-backfire-on-insurers.html
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO

Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO
By David Morgan and David Lawder | Reuters
Tue, Feb 4, 2014

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's healthcare law will reduce American workforce participation by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs in 2017, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday, prompting Republicans to paint the law as bad medicine for the U.S. economy.

In its latest U.S. fiscal outlook, the nonpartisan CBO said the health law would lead some workers, particularly those with lower incomes, to limit their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies that Obamacare provides to help pay for health insurance and other healthcare costs.

The biggest impact would begin in 2017, CBO said, because major provisions of the law will be well under way by then. The CBO said there would be smaller declines in work hours that would occur before then.

Work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, said the agency, which earlier predicted 800,000 fewer fulltime jobs by 2021. The bottom line would be a slower rate of growth for employment and compensation in the coming decade, according to the report.

The link that the CBO drew between the health law and slower employment growth is likely to become fodder for partisan attacks in this year's congressional election battle, which will determine who controls Congress in the final years of the Obama presidency. Obamacare is unpopular with many voters and its botched October rollout was accompanied by a public outcry by millions of people who saw their health plans cancelled as a result of its implementation.

Republicans, who have already made Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) a top campaign issue for November, seized on the CBO report to press their argument that Obamacare is putting a damper on jobs growth and the economy.

"The president's healthcare law creates uncertainty for small businesses, hurts take-home pay, and makes it harder to invest in new workers. The middle class is getting squeezed in this economy, and this CBO report confirms that Obamacare is making it worse," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

But the White House pushed back on the argument that Obama's signature domestic policy achievement would mean an actual reduction in jobs.

"It's not that the businesses are cutting those jobs," said Jason Furman, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He said the CBO report showed an impact on labor supply rather than demand for workers from employers.

The CBO report offered some bright spots on the broader fiscal front, saying the U.S. budget deficit would be a smaller than expected $514 billion in the fiscal 2014 year ended September 30. That is down from a previous estimate of $560 billion and a fiscal 2013 deficit of $680 billion.

But it said sluggish economic growth and stubbornly high unemployment would cause the improvement to be short-lived.

The CBO also said Obamacare would enroll 1 million fewer uninsured Americans than initially expected as a result of technical glitches that largely paralyzed the federal website HealthCare.gov in the first two months of open enrollment.

In a fresh forecast for 2014, the CBO estimated that 6 million people would sign up for private coverage through new health insurance marketplaces, down from an earlier forecast of 7 million. But the report predicted that the program would eventually overcome the deficit, signing up 24 million people by 2017.

The Obama administration says the health insurance marketplaces now operating in all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enrolled about 3 million people in private coverage so far, with volumes increasing following major fixes to HealthCare.gov.

Despite claims from Obamacare critics about the law's potential effects on hiring, CBO said the expected drop in work hours between 2017 and 2024 would result largely from worker decisions not to participate in the labor force, rather than from higher unemployment or the inability of part-time workers to find full-time hours.

"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor," CBO said.

According to the report, federal subsidies can be substantial, particularly for lower-wage workers who receive more under the law's sliding income scale. But that also means the benefits can be phased out as a worker's income rises.

"The phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work," CBO said.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-cut-hours-equivalent-two-million-jobs-cbo-180413090--sector.html
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: msnbc

When facts ‘can’t be true’

2014-02-20_1146.jpg


Quite a few alleged horror stories about “Obamacare victims” have been debunked in recent months, but for some reason, the story of Michigan’s Julia Boonstra has taken on more significance than most.

To briefly recap, Boonstra is featured in a Michigan attack ad sponsored by the Koch-financed Americans for Prosperity, in which she talks about her fight against leukemia. In the commercial, Boonstra says she’s transitioned to a new coverage plan, which she criticized as “unaffordable.”

It wasn’t long before the claims started looking dubious. We soon learned that Boonstra, at worst, would break even, all while benefiting from more secure coverage.

But as the controversy surrounding the attack ad grew, Boonstra felt compelled to provide more information about her circumstances. The Detroit News that she’ll save “at least $1,200 compared with her former insurance plan.”

In other words, this “Obamacare victim” will, now know for certain, pay less money for better coverage and won’t have to change doctors.
When advised of the details of her Blues’ plan, Boonstra said the idea that it would be cheaper “can’t be true.”

“I personally do not believe that,” Boonstra said.​

Facts are not dependent on belief.

As for why this alleged horror story, in particular, became nationally significant, there are a few relevant angles to keep in mind. First, the pattern of attack ads featuring “victims” who aren’t victims at all has clearly reached a critical mass. Second, Boonstra seemed to go out of her way to give her story a national profile, participating in a Republican National Committee event and even appearing as a Republican guest at this year’s State of the Union address.

But Boonstra’s story is also the one in which the right decided en masse that misleading ACA attack ads shouldn’t be fact-checked at all because … it’s not nice. Boonstra is a private citizen facing a life-threatening ailment, so conservatives said her claims, deceptive or not, should be off limits to scrutiny.

The defense remains wildly unpersuasive. Boonstra sought public attention and asked the public to consider her perspective. She chose to try to influence the public discourse, condemning both the health care law that’s helping her and those who helped approve it. In effect, when she chose to enter the public arena and present her story to the country, Boonstra invited scrutiny.

And that’s exactly what happened. No one has pried into her personal life beyond the details she’s volunteered to share, and those details do not bolster the argument she asked the public to believe.

What we’re left with is an attack ad featuring a woman who’ll save a lot of money while receiving better coverage. The right may see her as a “victim,” and she may personally choose not to believe the available evidence, but this does not a horror story make.
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

Another Sign ObamaCare Works:​
Wellpoint Boosts Profit Forecast​



Wellpoint WLP +0.06% Inc. (WLP), one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, raised its full-year earnings forecast, citing more than 1 million new health plan members related in part to new business from the Affordable Care Act.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">When a company raises its earnings forecast, that means it will make more money than it originally thought</span>. In Wellpoint’s case, the company raised its 2014 “earnings outlook from greater than $8.00 per share to greater than $8.20 per share,” company chief executive officer Joseph Swedish said this morning. Swedish cited “growth of 1 to 1.3 million net new medical members and mid-single digit percent increases in both operating revenue and operating gain.”

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Wellpoint specifically cited its ability to successfully manage new business coming from Americans signing up for coverage via the state and federal marketplaces known as exchanges</SPAN>.

President Obama last week said that enough Americans have signed up to private health plans under the health law that it will work even though there could be up to two million fewer Americans covered than the White House had hoped.

Wellpoint is a major operator of Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, including those operated under the Anthem brand. In addition to selling health benefits to employers and individuals, Wellpoint is a major contractor to states and the federal government by providing coverage under Medicaid programs for the poor and the Medicare health insurance program for the elderly.

“While it is early in 2014, we are encouraged by results thus far across our businesses and we believe exchanges are tracking our general expectations,” Swedish said in a statement released this morning prior to addressing analysts and investors at a conference in New York. “We are building on the positive operating momentum we’ve achieved across the organization over last year.”

Wellpoint’s rhetoric is a continuation of positive financial projections that were issued in January and February during fourth-quarter earnings from insurers including Aetna AET +0.42% (AET), Cigna CI -0.91% (CI), Humana HUM -1.51% (HUM) and UnitedHealth Group UNH -0.23% (UNH).

Insurance companies for much of this quarter having been telling Wall Street that they are going to be able to manage the first year of risk from newly insured customers buying subsidized private health plans via government-run exchanges. Under the law, millions of Americans can get subsidies to purchase an array of health plan choices.

Swedish also indicated the business outlook for the insurance company wouldn’t be short-lived.

“Our outlook also remains prudent in light of the dynamic nature of the marketplace, and we believe this is a point from which we will grow in the future,” Swedish said. “We have entered a period of tremendous change across the health care system and are confident that WellPoint has the leadership, assets and strategy to drive profitable growth over the next several years.”


SOURCE: FORBES


 

Greed

Star
Registered
One of the most pathetic aspects of Obama's presidency is the rank-and-file Democrats citing corporate success as proof of American success.

What happened to liberals?
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
One of the most pathetic aspects of Obama's presidency is the rank-and-file Democrats citing corporate success as proof of American success.

What happened to liberals?


so despite all the articles posted in this thread you dont think bad spending habits are the real problems regarding disposable income?

or are you another believer in the "only single mother with 8 kids are in debt because they have to use their credit card to buy bread and water" train of thought?

Just sayin'
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Just sayin'


Record Share Of Economy Spent on Health Care
By Marc Kaufman and Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; A01

Rising health care costs, already threatening many basic industries, now consume 16 percent of the nation's economic output -- the highest proportion ever, the government said yesterday in its latest calculation.

The nation's health care bill continued to grow substantially faster than inflation and wages, increasing by almost 8 percent in 2004, the most recent year with near-final numbers.

Spending for physicians and hospitals shot up considerably faster than in recent years, while drug costs grew at a slower rate than over the past decade.

Even as health care costs continue to escalate, however, many Americans -- especially minorities and the poor -- still do not receive high-quality care, according to two other federal reports yesterday. The quality of health care is improving slowly and some racial disparities are narrowing, the reports found, but gaps persist and Hispanics appear to be falling even further behind.

"We can do better," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said at a Washington conference on racial and ethnic disparities in health care. "Disparities and inequities still exist. Outcomes vary. Treatments are not received equally."

Political, medical and economic leaders and experts have long warned that health care cost trends will gradually overwhelm the economy, and many companies now complain that employee and retiree health costs are making them less competitive. Yesterday's report added new reasons to worry.

The overall cost of health care -- everything from hospital and doctor bills to the cost of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, insurance and nursing home and home-health care -- doubled from 1993 to 2004, said the report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In 2004, the nation spent almost $140 billion more for health care than the year before.

In 1997, health care accounted for 13.6 percent of the gross domestic product.

"Americans rejected the tougher restrictions of managed care in the late 1990s, and yet they want all the latest advances in medical technology," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which researches health issues. "Since government regulation of prices and services is not in the cards, the inevitable result is higher costs."

The health care increase of 7.9 percent in 2004 was almost three times the overall national inflation rate, which was 2.7 percent. The average hourly wage for workers in private companies was essentially unchanged that year, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

After a sharp jump in health care costs earlier in the decade, the health inflation rate appears to be plateauing, officials added.

The best news involved spending on pharmaceutical drugs, which increased by less than 10 percent for the first time in more than a decade.

Cynthia Smith of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, lead author of the health spending report, attributed the slower increase in drug spending to greater use of generic drugs and mail-order pharmacies, a slowdown in the introduction of costly new medications, and the impact of higher drug co-pays. Mark Merritt, president of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents drug benefit managers, said the trend was also a result of their "work over the past decade to change the way consumers, clinicians and purchasers think about prescription drugs."

Although the fast rise in drug spending in the past decade attracted great attention from officials and health policy experts, it remains a relatively small part of the health care bill -- about 10 percent.

Defenders of increased drug spending have often argued that those added costs would keep people healthier and reduce the amount spent on hospitals and doctors. The 2004 statistics told a different story, however, with an increase in doctor costs of 9 percent from 2003 and an increase in hospital costs of 8.6 percent. The report's authors said the jumps appeared to be associated with higher Medicare reimbursement rates for some doctors and, anecdotally, to an upswing in construction of new hospitals.

"This is an alarming situation, but it's more like a creeping infection than a broken bone, and so people get used to it," said Edward Howard, executive vice president of the Alliance for Health Reform, a nonprofit education group chaired by Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). "Frankly, I don't see major change until people who have some sort of organized political influence start hurting a little more."

In addition to the report on costs, a different agency yesterday released two new annual reports mandated by Congress on the quality of health care and disparities in care. Officials called them the most comprehensive assessments of their kind.

For the report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, researchers compiled data from dozens of sources collected by the federal government and others to create 179 quality measures, including 46 "core" measures.

The researchers concluded that the overall quality of care in 2005 had improved at a rate of 2.8 percent from 2003. That was the same increase as the year before, and many measures showed no improvement or even decreases.

For example, there was improvement in the percentage of patients with high blood pressure whose condition was under control, but no improvement in providing speedy treatment to people having heart attacks.

In the second report, the National Healthcare Disparities Report, researchers found more measures on which the quality gap between whites and racial minorities was shrinking than widening. But the report found that major disparities remained for all groups and that the gap had widened for Hispanics.

Of disparities experienced by blacks, 58 percent were narrowing and 42 percent were widening, the researchers found. For Hispanics, 41 percent of disparities were narrowing, whereas 59 percent were becoming larger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901932.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
One of the most pathetic aspects of Obama's presidency is the rank-and-file Democrats citing corporate success as proof of American success.

What happened to liberals?

Perhaps they view matters broader than your ideologically-narrowed approach? If average Americans are benefitting from the ACA, naturally others in the national economy will as well, as predicted.

Your desire to see this Black guy fail is eerily similar to those who at the outset set out to ensure his failure. :eek:

Oh, BTW, I post a lot of O'Successes -- just to watch the vitriol roll off your finger tips onto the pages of this forum :lol:


. . . rarely do you let me down.


 

Greed

Star
Registered
Like I said, you posted a story of corporate success. Somehow it's turned into evidence of Democratic successes.

Tell me more about trickle down economics.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator


Perhaps, I would have indulged your summons for an argument about economics, but YOU failed to first admit the beneficial impact upon those heretofore insuranceless (whether those absent a policy or those whose policies were mere shams). As usual, you're more interested in advancing your ideological bent than anything else, so here goes:

What do you think of the BGOL Welfare tit that you've suckled for so long ???

 

Greed

Star
Registered


Perhaps, I would have indulged your summons for an argument about economics, but YOU failed to first admit the beneficial impact upon those heretofore insuranceless (whether those absent a policy or those whose policies were mere shams). As usual, you're more interested in advancing your ideological bent than anything else, so here goes:

What do you think of the BGOL Welfare tit that you've suckled for so long ???

I've acknowledged the previously uninsured a number of times because the effort to have them avoid paying what they should is the reason everyone else is paying more. But everyone else's sacrifice is what makes America what it is.

So now you can go ahead and tell me why corporate America's success is your success.
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Just sayin'
Those were some good times huh thoughtone? Back when I thought people wouldn't give bankers trillions.

Remember my follow up post to what you quoted from me?
yes, it is that simple.

you ever see an apartment building parking lot with dodge magnums, ugly ass chysler 300m's, and durangos? spending 30k on a car while you're renting? two money losing propositions.

you ever heard of people refinancing their houses, taking the equity out, and just spending it instead of reinvesting it in a more lucrative security?

i'm sure you have.

people make bad choices, not just the bottom 40% but people in general, but the bottom 40% can least afford to make those bad choices.

its like having a child when you cant afford it.

is that a decision people choose to make that will keep them in poverty longer.

at some point you have to stop making excuses and pretending that its official government policy to keep people poor.

at some point people have to start staying in on friday and saturdays, start IRAs and keep their damn legs closed.

avoiding poverty is not some harry potter magical secret.

it doesnt help when people like you promote that everybody is trying their best and still cant succeed.

we have class mobility in this country, stop pretending we dont.
Hilarious right? Ah, good times. Good times.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I've acknowledged the previously uninsured a number of times because the effort to have them avoid paying what they should is the reason everyone else is paying more. But everyone else's sacrifice is what makes America what it is.

So now you can go ahead and tell me why corporate America's success is your success.


You must have used that invisible font. I've seen no such acknowledgement. If its been so prominent, I'm certain you will have no problem providing the numerous citations.

Otherwise, as usual, you're attributing words to someone that must be your thinking, but not what was actually said.

I never said "corporate America's success is [my] success" though there are scenario's that could be true. The article speaks for itself. As I knew you would, you decided that since the article implied that President's ACA is meeting with success, you had to find a way to discredit it -- since that Black man cannot be allowed to succeed. That's so Rush of you.


 
Top