Key Provisions Of "Obama Care" Tale Effect Today September 23

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
I understand you wouldn't know this since Limbaugh or Faux Snooze won't mention it. Where are the death panels Wing Nuts/Republicans/Libertarians?...Silence!

source: CNN Money

Big Changes To Your Health Insurance

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- September 23 marks the six-month anniversary of health reform. It's also the date when several key insurance changes come into effect.

Here's what you need to know about how your insurance is affected.

If you get insurance through your boss: Many people who are insured through work won't notice immediate changes to their health plans until their health plans renew, which is tied to companies' open enrollment periods. Health plans offered through large employers usually get renewed on Jan. 1.

But the mandates could kick in sooner for health plans sold to new entities or individuals after Sept. 23.

Here are some key changes coming into effect:

Coverage expansion for adult dependents until age 26. Employers will have to provide coverage for dependents of workers who don't have access to other employer-based health care coverage 'till age 26. Some states already mandate this coverage until age 28 or 29.

This new provision could also push companies to look for ways to restrict the number of new people added to their health plans. [Employers get tough on insuring 'family']

Children no longer denied coverage for pre-existing conditions: Insurance plans can't deny coverage due to a pre-existing condition to children under age 19. For adults, the same provision goes into effect in 2014.

Prohibit insurers from rescinding coverage: It's illegal for insurers to drop a customer when they become sick or search for an error on a customer's insurance application and then deny payment for service when the person gets sick.

Free Preventive Care: All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. If individuals keep their existing plans or if a group plan doesn't make major changes, the provisions won't kick in until the plans get changed. [Health reform: What you're not getting]

No lifetime limits on coverage: Insurers no longer can impose lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays or expensive treatments.

Unrestricted doctor choice: Plans must allow pediatricians and obstetrician/gynecologists to get primary care physician status. This eliminates the requirement for patients to get prior-authorization from their insurer or a doctor's referral to see a pediatrician or OB/GYN.

Level charges for emergency services: Insurers must remove prior authorizations for ER services. Also, insurers can't charge higher co-payments or co-insurance for out-of-network ER providers.

Patient-friendly appeals process: Insurers will have to establish new internal and external appeals processes for claims. This means that while a claim is under appeal, your insurer has to continue to pay your claims, and continue paying for subsequent treatment, until the matter is resolved.

Small business impact: The changes that kick in on Sept. 23 also apply to small businesses with 50 employees or more that already offered insurance coverage prior to reform.

Companies that didn't offer coverage pre-reform and have no more than 25 workers will be given incentives such as tax credits and grants to encourage them to offer insurance coverage, said Dorothy Miraglia, director of benefits with AlphaStaff, a firm that manages employee benefits programs for small businesses.[Tax change for small businesses]

The government estimates that 4 million small businesses will be eligible for health insurance tax credits. These include a credit of up to 35% of the premiums employers pay on worker plans. For small non-profit companies, the credit is up to a 25%.

Also, the 35% maximum credit is given to employers with 10 or fewer full-time employees, said Miraglia.

If you buy insurance yourself: For consumers who buy health insurance directly from insurers, some of the same key changes go into effect this month.

Most importantly, insurers can't drop you when you get sick or because you made a mistake on your coverage application. Insurers also can't set annual or lifetime limits.

If you have children under age 26, you can insure them if your policy allows for dependent coverage. Individual plans can't deny or exclude coverage to any child under age 19 for pre-existing conditions.

If you're a senior citizen: If you have Medicare prescription drug coverage and are affected by the donut hole, this year you will get a one-time tax-free $250 rebate to help pay for prescriptions.

The prescription drug coverage gap that develops when Medicare stops paying for drug coverage and patients can't afford to pay for drugs out-of-pocket is called the "donut hole."

In 2011, if high prescription drug costs put you in the donut hole, you'll get a 50% discount on covered brand-name drugs while you're in the donut hole.

Also in 2011, Medicare will cover certain preventive services without charging you Medicare Part B (coverage for doctors' services, outpatient care, home health services) coinsurance or deductible.
 
Obamacare Is Even Worse Than Critics Thought

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
 
Obamacare Is Even Worse Than Critics Thought

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.

Great post I saw this earlier today. The minute the feds come knocking at his door he will blame Bush. What good is a minimum wage increase, when employers are forced to lay off a quarter of their employees?
 
Now that is a credibly publication. Lamarr, I have no idea why you defend wealthy right wing conservative's point of view. Are you Black?


source: Politico


Phil Anschutz's conservative agenda

091015_anschutz_ap_297.jpg

Famously reclusive, the 69-year-old Anschutz has never discussed how he ended up owning two money-losing publications or what he wants to do with them.​



One night last week at The Dubliner, an Irish bar near the Capitol, an unassuming Denver billionaire who has quietly made himself a player in Washington’s relatively small media world, had dinner with his editors.


It was a rare D.C. visit by Philip Anschutz, ranked by Forbes as the 37th richest man in America. But Anschutz’s ownership of The Washington Examiner, a daily tabloid, and The Weekly Standard, probably the nation’s most influential conservative magazine, has given him a megaphone for his right-wing views on taxes, national security and President Barack Obama that the 130 or so companies he owns have not provided him.


Characteristically, for someone who’s flown under the radar for much of his career, no one would talk about the dinner’s agenda. Examiner Executive Editor Stephen G. Smith said that Anschutz’s visit to the office that day was “routine” and that the “relaxing” dinner for the two publications’ managers was over by 8 p.m. “We weren’t painting the town red,” he added.


Famously reclusive — he has given only two interviews in the past 30 years — the 69-year-old Anschutz has never discussed how he ended up owning two money-losing publications or what he wants to do with them, but his intentions seem clear.

Founded in 1995, the Standard provided its first owner, Rupert Murdoch, with a Washington platform that bashed the White House during the Clinton years and enjoyed a privileged position during the presidency of George W. Bush, when it became one of the most aggressive champions of the war in Iraq. Anschutz acquired it last spring, reportedly for the bargain price of $1 million.


He started the Examiner in early 2005 as local competition to The Washington Post, but with a clear ideological stamp. When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he “wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,” said one former employee.

And recently the paper’s politics have become more pronounced while adding a stable of writers plucked from conservative outlets and think tanks, including chief political correspondent Byron York (National Review), senior political analyst Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News) and investigative reporter David Freddoso (National Review, author of “The Case Against Barack Obama”).


Asked why his friend of 20 years is investing in publications that have never made money (the Standard) or have little hope of making any (the Examiner), Dean Singleton, chief executive of MediaNews, replied: “I really don’t know.”


Those who work with Anschutz say he has the same objective in everything he does — a profit. “There’s an expectation that all our assets will be good enterprises and profitable,” said Ryan McKibben, chief executive of Clarity Media Group, part of Anschutz’s empire that oversees his media companies. “There’s no charity involved. “


Not everyone is convinced.


“You have to look at what he’s doing as partly a reflection of some of his political convictions,” said newspaper analyst John Morton. “It was no accident it was The Weekly Standard he bought and not The Nation.”


As for the Examiner, Morton said, “Clearly, I don’t think that any rational person — and you’d have to include him among the rational — would view, right now, the newspaper business [as] an investment that would promise a good return.”


The Examiner’s distribution figures in the Washington metro area are 100,000 on Monday through Wednesday and 135,000 on Friday. On Thursday and Sunday — the two days the newspaper is delivered to upper-income neighborhoods — the circulation is 300,000 and 250,000 respectively. Anschutz’s company is privately held, and longtime aide Jim Monaghan declined to comment on whether the newspapers are profitable and if there is a business plan in place for that to happen.

But it could be a steep climb — The Washington Post, the region’s dominant paper, made $12 million in the second quarter of this year, with print advertising dropping 20 percent. And that was a huge improvement from the first quarter, when the newspaper division alone lost nearly $54 million.


At any rate, the Examiner doesn’t even have a distinct niche. If it is aiming to fill a conservative void in Washington, The Washington Times long ago got there first. Founded in 1982, and owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, the Times has never turned a profit, and the Post in 2002 estimated that the church had pumped $1.7 billion into its paper.


Tony Blankley, former editorial page editor and currently a columnist for The Washington Times, is also dubious that Anschutz is looking for a profit from the Examiner and the Standard. For a fabulously wealthy man, Blankley said, an opinion magazine that suddenly increased its circulation from 30,000 to 300,000 “wouldn’t even be a rounding error in his monthly miscellaneous account. The idea that a person of that immense wealth would see The Weekly Standard as a profit center strikes me as improbable.”


Anschutz first ventured into the Washington market at a time when prospects for the industry were far brighter than today. In 2004, he bought the 139-year-old San Francisco Examiner from the Hearst Co. and announced that he was starting a paper with that borrowed name in Washington. The paper was a new publication but combined three suburban papers he had also bought, and it had a new kind of business model — it would be free.


Next, he launched a Baltimore Examiner but folded it after three years. Executives say that they expected more synergy and sharing of costs with the Washington paper, and when that didn’t happen, they pulled the plug. But the Examiner name is being used effectively online, where Clarity has a network of 109 hyperlocal Examiner sites, written by both journalists and community members. According to new figures from Nielsen Online, they had the highest growth rate last month of any news site.


The paper, no longer delivered every day to the affluent neighborhoods it originally targeted, has had a succession of editors and personality transplants but recently has morphed into a kind of New York Post, with headlines such as “Sex Scandal Hits D.C. Jail: Guard Probed After Hooker Sues.”


Smith, executive editor since 2007, said that despite having conservative columnists, the Examiner “plays is straight” when it comes to the day’s news. “If you’re a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, you’re probably not going to get up on your hind legs and applaud us,” Smith said. “If you are a centrist or a little bit right of center and feel frustrated with the Post — and we all know people who feel frustrated with the Post, as good as it is — I think we’re an appealing alternative.”


Still, many of those conservative staffers also write news stories, and the Examiner’s management comes with pretty clear political beliefs. Chris Stirewalt, the paper’s political editor, and Matthew Sheffield, managing editor for the website, are both conservatives — the latter also serving as executive editor of NewsBusters, a site that bills itself as “the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.”


Editorial Page Editor Mark Tapscott, who’s worked as newspaper journalist and was previously director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Media and Public Policy, said he doesn’t have day-to-day contact with Anschutz and has met him only a few times over the years. But while there’s no tinkering from the other end of the phone in Denver, the editorial policy is not hard to figure out. It’s “your basic conservative, limited-government, low taxes kind of perspective,” Tapscott said.

Smith, who comes from a mainstream media background — he was previously the Washington editor for The Houston Chronicle, and was a high-level editor at Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report — said Anschutz plays a very little role in the management of the paper.


“I have never received a phone call or a note asking for a story,” said Smith. “I have never received a phone call from Phil that he didn’t like a story. He is really at a macro level. I am at a micro level.”


When Anschutz visits the Examiner, he walks through the 15th Street newsroom without any great fanfare, and he has been known to befriend those handing out copies of the Examiner outside Metro stations, at times taking on the job himself.


How much he will be involved with the Standard is not yet clear. No one at the magazine even knew it was for sale, and the new owner is an unknown quantity. Terry Eastland, the Standard’s publisher, said he’s “happy to have an owner who sees the value of a small political magazine,” while noting that the product hasn’t changed: “Bill Kristol retains editorial autonomy.”


Kristol, for his part, is nothing but upbeat. “We had a great owner for 14 years in Rupert Murdoch. We have a great owner — I hope for at least the next 14 years — in Phil Anschutz,” Kristol wrote in an e-mail. “The magazine is (I’ll immodestly say) strong editorially, and circulation is going up. All is well.”


Anschutz spends most of his time in Denver, overseeing a diverse empire that includes sports franchises he owns completely (the Los Angeles Kings and Galaxy) or holds a stake in (the Los Angeles Lakers), as well as arenas like the Staples Center and Kodak Theatre. In addition, Anschutz owns Regal Cinemas, Qwest Communications and oil and gas companies, to name a few interests. Recently, he’s been looking to delve more into wind energy.


Over the years, Anschutz has given extensively to philanthropic causes, while also opening his wallet for Republicans, according to OpenSecrets.org. Anschutz and his wife, Nancy, have donated to dozens of candidates — many from Colorado, such as former Rep. Tom Tancredo — as well as state and county Republican committees. Since March 2008, Anschutz has given nearly $59,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and current and former individual members of Congress, such as Orrin Hatch, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Elizabeth Dole, Rick Santorum, Alfonse D’Amato and John Ensign. He’s also donated to GOP presidential candidates and primary contenders: That list includes George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain, Bob Dole and Mitt Romney.


He has also donated to Christian conservative causes, such as Colorado for Family Values, a group that pushed against gay rights in the 1990s. More recently, his Walden Media co-produced the first two “Chronicles of Narnia” movies — based on a fantasy book series with Christian themes — before a falling out with Disney.


Whatever he owns in Washington, friends don’t see Anschutz as being changed by the increased attention that comes with doing business in the nation’s capital. “I don’t think Phil wants to have a public persona,” Singleton said, adding: “Phil is a very private person.”
 
:confused:Are you Black?

Why is that relevant? So if you were giving an opinion in front of millions of people would you ask that question? Can you ever get through a post without debasing it to a 1960's civil rights march?
 
Now that is a credibly publication. Lamarr, I have no idea why you defend wealthy right wing conservative's point of view. Are you Black?

Wait a minute bruh, when the article says:
Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

Are you refuting this charge? The author is citing Medicare's actuary.

When the article says:
Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has.

Are you refuting this charge? The author suggests a logical explanation to a rise in premium increases.

When the article says:
Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan

Are you refuting that 16,000 IRS agents are being hired to oversee the mandate placed on Americans? Its in the bill, or did you not read it

State your issues with the charges made in this article and we'll hash it out from there. But if you can't refute any of the charges in the article, kick rocks!

Are you Black?

what the fuck u think? :cool:
 
Wait a minute bruh, when the article says:

ThoughtOne said:
Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

Are you refuting this charge? The author is citing Medicare's actuary.

The author didn't "cite" Medicare's actuary, he made reference to same. Big difference: "we" can follow a citation and read for ourselves; on the other hand, we have to take the author's word for the reference, which means, if you pass the authors words around as true, you vouch for his/her credibility.

QueEx
 
Wait a minute bruh, when the article says:

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.


Are you refuting that 16,000 IRS agents are being hired to oversee the mandate placed on Americans? Its in the bill, or did you not read it

<font size="3">I thought that fallacy had already been laid to rest way back in March of this year in the thread: Open Letter to Conservatives.

In fact, that rumor was started by your Librarian god, Ron Paul:

</font size>

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=8047296&postcount=37" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=8047296&postcount=37">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
These states filing lawsuits against this law...

Why aren't they filing suit against the federal law requiring hospitals to treat you, without having the means to pay? What other business can you show up, get thousands of dollars in services and not pay?

They should fight all of it, not pick and chose; Reagan was involved in passing that law.
 
<font size="3">I thought that fallacy had already been laid to rest way back in March of this year in the thread: Open Letter to Conservatives.

In fact, that rumor was started by your Librarian god, Ron Paul:

</font size>

So Factcheck says the IRS will inform small businesses of tax credits they can take advantage of, correct? And they will also issue subsidies to 'help' low-to-middle income people buy insurance? Maaaaan

Maybe, instead of this mandate being looked at as an intrusion, we must understand they are really 'helping' us stay current on our taxes. :D

QueEx, with all due respect, stop being naive! You're very good with words and how to manipulate opinions with verbage. Think about it; They are 'helping' me comply with a mandate, c'mon Que?

At the end of the day, it's still a tax (whether a business or individual is informed about a credit or not). And what does the IRS currently do, enforce tax collection
 
Last edited:
So Factcheck says the IRS will inform small businesses of tax credits they can take advantage of, correct? And they will also issue subsidies to 'help' low-to-middle income people buy insurance? Maaaaan

Maybe, instead of this mandate being looked at as an intrusion, we must understand they are really 'helping' us stay current on our taxes. :D

QueEx, with all due respect, stop being naive! You're very good with words and how to manipulate opinions with verbage. Think about it; They are 'helping' me comply with a mandate, c'mon Que?

At the end of the day, it's still a tax (whether a business or individual is informed about a credit or not). And what does the IRS currently do, enforce tax collection

QueEx, with all due respect, stop being naive! You're very good with words and how to manipulate opinions with verbage. Think about it; They are 'helping' me comply with a mandate, c'mon Que?
I've been warned, always beware of the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm not attempting to sway anyone; I didn't make the assertion that, "[t]he bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line." You did!

I simply posted an article which "Factually" disputes your assertion. Prove the FactCheck article wrong -- instead of focusing on me, :cool:

QueEx
 
I've been warned, always beware of the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm not attempting to sway anyone; I didn't make the assertion that, "[t]he bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line." You did!

I simply posted an article which "Factually" disputes your assertion. Prove the FactCheck article wrong -- instead of focusing on me, :cool:

QueEx

I will respond to Lamarr's post point by point shortly. Exaggerations, half truths and lies are duty of the right. Quoting from a notoriously right wing newspaper does nothing to sway most thinking people's opinions.
 
So Factcheck says the IRS will inform small businesses of tax credits they can take advantage of, correct? And they will also issue subsidies to 'help' low-to-middle income people buy insurance? Maaaaan

Maybe, instead of this mandate being looked at as an intrusion, we must understand they are really 'helping' us stay current on our taxes. :D

QueEx, with all due respect, stop being naive! You're very good with words and how to manipulate opinions with verbage. Think about it; They are 'helping' me comply with a mandate, c'mon Que?

At the end of the day, it's still a tax (whether a business or individual is informed about a credit or not). And what does the IRS currently do, enforce tax collection

==============================================================

Even Ron Paul said it is all about the corporations vs the American working/middle classes. All of these tax cuts benefit the super rich. That is why the Republicans are willing to let EVERYBODY'S tax cut go unless they keep the super rich's.

Most super rich file their taxes as an S corporation,thus report COMPANY EARNINGS AS PERSONAL INCOME. What a small business person running a small mom and pop operation would do. That's why they refer to tax increases hurting the "small businesses" That is why they are personally invested in this tax cut business.They can afford it, they are just being greedy. Most people think corporations file taxes as a corporation. Most do not.

They are masters of deceit and trick-knowleogy-all of them who peddle these ideologies..
 
==============================================================

Even Ron Paul said it is all about the corporations vs the American working/middle classes. All of these tax cuts benefit the super rich. That is why the Republicans are willing to let EVERYBODY'S tax cut go unless they keep the super rich's.

Most super rich file their taxes as an S corporation,thus report COMPANY EARNINGS AS PERSONAL INCOME. What a small business person running a small mom and pop operation would do. That's why they refer to tax increases hurting the "small businesses" That is why they are personally invested in this tax cut business.They can afford it, they are just being greedy. Most people think corporations file taxes as a corporation. Most do not.

They are masters of deceit and trick-knowleogy-all of them who peddle these ideologies..


Yep. Keith Olbermann just dedicated a whole show to that very thing.
As usual the cowardly Senate Democrats backed away from a winnable fight and won't hold the the vote until after the elections.
In a perfect world (for those of us on the left) the Democrats would retain Congress but Harry Reid would lose to Sharron Angle. He has got to go.
 
Yep. Keith Olbermann just dedicated a whole show to that very thing.
As usual the cowardly Senate Democrats backed away from a winnable fight and won't hold the the vote until after the elections.
In a perfect world (for those of us on the left) the Democrats would retain Congress but Harry Reid would lose to Sharron Angle. He has got to go.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I cannot understand about them. They stay snatching defeat out of the hands of victory.They are timid as heck.
 
I've been warned, always beware of the pot calling the kettle black.

touche, I get it.

I simply posted an article which "Factually" disputes your assertion. Prove the FactCheck article wrong -- instead of focusing on me, :cool:
QueEx

The Factcheck isn't wrong but what I did was articulate "the spin" they put on the article. Like I said: The new IRS guys are gonna "help" citizens comply with the mandate! Key word being "help"
 
lamarr you know how things are with thought. The ideas he agree with has the MOST credibility. I thought you knew that my libertarian friend!
 
lamarr you know how things are with thought. The ideas he agree with has the MOST credibility. I thought you knew that my libertarian friend!

now I see why you used to go off on dude.

With the elections around the corner, he's becoming "Mr. Unglued"
 
every dem president since fdr has either talked about or tried to inquire about getting the votes to make national healthcare a reality. president obama the ONLY one to make it happen.

and i'm so glad he did! :yes:
 
I understand you wouldn't know this since Limbaugh or Faux Snooze won't mention it. Where are the death panels Wing Nuts/Republicans/Libertarians?...Silence!

source: CNN Money

Big Changes To Your Health Insurance

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- September 23 marks the six-month anniversary of health reform. It's also the date when several key insurance changes come into effect.

Here's what you need to know about how your insurance is affected.

If you get insurance through your boss: Many people who are insured through work won't notice immediate changes to their health plans until their health plans renew, which is tied to companies' open enrollment periods. Health plans offered through large employers usually get renewed on Jan. 1.

But the mandates could kick in sooner for health plans sold to new entities or individuals after Sept. 23.

Here are some key changes coming into effect:

Coverage expansion for adult dependents until age 26. Employers will have to provide coverage for dependents of workers who don't have access to other employer-based health care coverage 'till age 26. Some states already mandate this coverage until age 28 or 29.

This new provision could also push companies to look for ways to restrict the number of new people added to their health plans. [Employers get tough on insuring 'family']


Insurers: Lots of young adults
joining parents' health plans



Kaiser Health News
By Phil Galewitz
Wednesday, May 4, 2011


WASHINGTON — Hundreds of thousands of young adults are taking advantage of the 2010 health care law provision that allows people younger than 26 to remain on their parents' health plans, some of the nation's largest insurers are reporting. That pace appears to be faster than the government expected.

WellPoint, the nation's largest publicly traded health insurer, with 34 million customers, said the provision on dependents was responsible for adding 280,000 members. That was about one-third of its total enrollment growth in the first three months of this year.

Other large insurers said they'd also added tens of thousands of young adults.

Aetna, for example, added fewer than 100,000; Kaiser Permanente, about 90,000; Highmark Inc., about 72,000; Health Care Service Corp., about 82,000; Blue Shield of California, about 22,000; and United Healthcare, about 13,000.

The Health and Human Services Department estimated that about 1.2 million young adults would sign up for coverage in 2011. The early numbers from insurers show that it could be much more, said Aaron Smith, the executive director of the Young Invincibles, a Washington-based nonprofit group that advocates for young adults.

Insurers described the growth in young-adult enrollment as the industry began reporting first-quarter earnings that showed better-than-expected profits.

Carl McDonald, an analyst for Citigroup, said the higher profits weren't related to the new young-adult enrollees. That's because, he said, most of the increase in young people's enrollment has occurred among self-insured employers; in those firms, insurers act as administrators and don't assume financial risk.

McDonald attributed most of insurers' profit increases this year to their customers using fewer health services, especially hospital care.

Under the new health law, health plans and employers must offer coverage to enrollees' adult children until age 26 even if the young adults no longer live with their parents, aren't dependents on parents' tax returns or no longer are students.

The dependent coverage provision went into effect last Sept. 23. However, health plans didn't have to adopt the change until the start of the subsequent plan year, which for many companies was January. Dozens of insurers adopted the change earlier, soon after President Barack Obama signed the health overhaul law in March 2010.

That helped Alexander Lataille, 23, of Laurel, Md., who graduated from college last spring and was worried about being kicked off his parents' plan. But Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island adopted the provision early and that kept him insured, even as he took jobs that didn't offer health coverage. "It was a big relief," said Lataille, who has asthma.

While federal officials and consumer advocates are pleased that the demand for dependent coverage appears greater than projected, some employers are worried about the cost of the additional coverage.

Helen Darling, the CEO of the National Business Group on Health, which represents more than 300 large employers, said employers generally didn't like the idea of anything that would add to their health costs. "I don't think anyone is eager to spend more money," Darling said. "This is not something employers would have done on their own."

Darling questioned why employers should be required to cover adult children who no longer live with their parents and might be married themselves.

According to federal estimates, adding young adult coverage is likely to increase average family premiums by about 1 percent.

People in their 20s have the highest uninsured rate of any age group, about 30 percent, federal data show. Two factors are largely behind this: Young adults are most likely to work for employers that don't provide coverage, and young adults don't understand the need for health insurance.

Until 2014, health plans that existed before the new law was enacted don't have to provide dependent coverage if the adult children's employers offer any type of health coverage. The exception doesn't apply to new plans.

The federal government added 280,000 people to its insurance rolls because of the dependent coverage, a spokeswoman for the Office of Personnel Management said.

Before the federal law was passed, many insurers dropped coverage of enrollees' children at age 18 or 21, or when the children graduated from college. More than half the states required coverage to continue until at least age 25, but those laws often had several restrictions.

Federal health officials say they're happy with the response to the law.

"We are pleased to see the embrace of this key provision of the Affordable Care Act," said Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for HHS. "Young adults are more than twice as likely to be uninsured than older adults, making it harder to get the health care they need and putting them at risk of going into debt from high medical bills."

(Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy organization that isn't affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/...ults-join-parents.html#storylink=omni_popular
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Back
Top