Obamacare Saves Consumers $2.1 Billion Since 2011
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
How does one person type so much and say nothing?
You waste a lot of court time? Congratulations, I guess. Have you changed the laws on auto insurance in Michigan due to your efforts? Stopped the ACA in Michigan due to your efforts? But it's your time and your money, spend it how you will.
Sorry, I thought you said the opposite. People will be fine.
If you think markets were unchecked before the Depression, then research Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and how the Fed reduced the supply of money 25%. You can think of it as a coincidence that the unemployment then reach 25% as well. This country has has never been free or had free markets.
I think people are fundamentally good and will take care of people that have a physical and moral commonality with them. They'll still be instinctually xenophobic, which is where the physical commonality will come into play. Overall, no matter how society sections itself, empirical evidence says people will actively work to alleviate suffering in others.
The proof is in the government programs that exist today. The government didn't issue it's mandates, then people started caring about their fellow man. The concern was there first, and I'm asserting the means were already there before the federalization of welfare.
Maybe you need to re-read what I said.
I think I asked -- HAD GOVERNMENT NOT INTERCEDED, what would have been the fate of those suffering from disease. Government did intercede (whether it be state or federal), hence, public dollars were expended for public health care.
The point being, when the government interceded, it was Taxpayers who paid for that treatment. Unless we are going to absolutely prohibit treatment of those who are without health insurance and without means to pay, the public will continue to pay. Instead of simply passing the cost of treating those who could otherwise purchase or contribute towards the purchase of their own health insurance to the taxpayers, why the objection when at least some of that burden is shifted back to those who can afford or contribute towards their own insurance to actually acquire it -- or face a penalty for having failed to do so ???
The proof is the existence of government programs (agreed) but you're against the government program that declares that people have to have the means to pay for their inevitable health care instead of passing it on to someone else?
The overall objection is no one is on this earth to work for the sake of someone else in any capacity. No matter how much you think they already have. It amazes me how desensitized black people are to that principle and are often the main opposition against that argument.
More specifically, the polio issue can be complicated, since I believe polio is contagious, it can be considered a public health issue which is a pubic good to solve. I not sure how deadly it was for the overall populace. In general, I would dispute how much you credit the government in solving the problem. Are you giving all the credit to them like a government agency spearheaded and made the breakthroughs on the vaccine?
Okay but that's exactly what happens when people show up at emergency rooms with no means to pay. The doctor is going to be paid, the nurses and staff and costs will be paid, just by someone else.
I think I see the issue between us. I'm not against the principle that people pay for what they consume. It's the consequence that the cost is passed along to everyone else. That only comes from a government dictate saying we will pay if the person can't/won't.The proof is the existence of government programs (agreed) but you're against the government program that declares that people have to have the means to pay for their inevitable health care instead of passing it on to someone else?
What will happen to society if people are forced to pay for everything they consume? I say it would be a good change. You think it will be bad. I think the sheer number of goods available to the average person in this country shows that people are able to afford a wide range of services. If a person has to cut back on a discretionary good to pay for his insurance, then great.
One of the things I struggle with on this board is the implicit premise that people only have what they need and can't afford something, and it makes sense that the government provides it. People aren't living off bread and water in this country.
But, isn't that exactly what I am saying ??? Generally, people should not work for the sake of someone else (I'm not offering any freebies here; but I am recognizing that some need help and where possible, contrary to what many may think, that IS a responsibility of government -- its within the notion of providing for the general welfare of the state). Therefore, place the burden of paying on those who could, but refuse to obtain insurance and those who could at least contribute towards the purchase of their own insurance ????
In the face of what I am saying, I'm not getting/understanding your "desensiteized black people" arugument.
It doesn't matter the complication. The point is simply this: had government not help to pay for the treatment of those who could not afford it; and, had government not help pay for the massive public vaccination campaigns -- we would have had an even larger public health emergency on our hands.
But, who is the government, except the people (especially when it comes to "FUNDING" the government). Hence, if it is the public that is paying for health care, why not cause those who can afford it to either purchase or contribute towards the purchase of health insurance ??? - shifting that burden away from taxpayers.
That's the choice we've made as a society. There's no natural sociological or economic law that leads to such a thing. Its a political choice.
Greed, every since man emerged from the state of nature, he has (according to Locke) by contract agreed to the acceptance of political choices. NO ???
I don't disagree with the principle but I know that on many things, being strictly principled works fine in the micro but is disastrous on a large scale.
We're not talking about the government providing people with their own tvs or Air Jordans, we're talking about the government providing health care for the poor and making those who can afford health insurance to purchase it (which I would think you would agree with since we both think people should pay for what they consume).
The alternative to that was people dying, far more often than not, horribly and in pain of things that could be routinely treated.
We could undo all of this if hospitals weren't required to treat everyone that comes in the door. But what kind of first world society is that?
It IS the responsibility by choice. General welfare is a subjective term that changes often, usually in the politician's favor, which is why we have a government that spends 4$ trillion dollars a year. That is no criteria other than what keeps the politician in office.
Obviously our respective views on government differs. I think the responsibility of government is protect freedom. Freedom from the initiation of force or fraud by another person. I don't think being forced to do something by the government changes the morality of it's initiation.
Black people are the only group of people in this country that has had to work 100% for someone else's benefit. However, out of everyone, they are the most tolerant to idea of some people providing for others. I would have hoped the history of slavery would have left black people as the greatest advocates of freedom. No matter who it involves.
I don't know the details of polio. Like I said if it was a public health crisis, then it falls into the realm of a public good, which is proper for the government to handle. If it wasn't then they shouldn't have devoted someone else's money to it.
Now once again, I would question the amount of credit you're given. If it was a high profile issue, then I don't think there would be a shortage of resources going towards it and not all for-profit.
Right now we live in a world of subsidized behavior. This wasn't always the case. America used to be a place where the vast majority of people had to live by the principle of consuming what you could afford, or you would be force to rely on the good will of others. Relying on the goodwill of others was supposed to be an extreme situation. Now we've codified it and made it a dictate instead of goodwill.
The consumption of insurance is without choice and from a government mandate. There's no value in force. It's another market distortion. They keep heaping them on one another. Distortion begets distortion. Mandate begets mandate. They never reduce the distortions, just create a new one to offset the deficiencies in the old one.
Once again, we have a different idea of the history of this country. Remember, during this timeframe, that you find less than ideal, poor people most likely to suffer that fate were the people coming to this country in droves. There's a disconnect between your image of America and the people who lived it and went through alot of hardship to get over here, stay, and become better off.
I agree that Locke said it. Nothing more.
Implicitly everyone who disagrees with ACA in this thread has already accepted the political choice because the government has more guns, and that's the only place your government is drawing it's moral authority. The threat of force in the form of a loss of freedom or confiscation of property.
That remind me, this is something to listen to in the background while you're doing other things. I've gotten through 10 of 27 so far. Its just the lecture portion of course. A lot of interesting courses online.
http://www.academicearth.org/courses/the-moral-foundations-of-politics
I think it's because you don't know what a fact is.
and I presented ONE FACT: that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about
You sound like those dumb white judges, right before I expose their asses in court.
You had better back up what you're saying with some FACTS, or you are the one looking clueless.
I know. The same kind of exposing that you're doing in this thread. The sad thing is, you don't realize you're naked.
I know. The same kind of exposing that you're doing in this thread. The sad thing is, you don't realize you're naked.
Now he exposes judges.
Understood. Its just a theory and I didn't offer it for the truth -- but when one thinks about it, it has some possible merit. Of course, people never suddenly sat down one day and decided to become civil and be bound be a system of laws but, arguably, thats the essential reality.
But, isn't it the case that one side or the other always has to accept a state of affairs not exactly of its liking? (and isn't that "acceptance" the social contract at work?). Civil society has provided a number of ways to object or resist or to seek a peaceful and orderly change of the state of affiars. But, unfortunately, there are those whose resistance drives them to extremes and to take action completely outside (and in breach) of the social contract, i.e., Timothy McVeigh.
I certainly can't answer why some resistance is moved to exceed acceptable protest and means for change, but I believe it is rooted, at least in part, in intolerance. Intolerance of different views, ethnicities, you name it. What I fear is that intolerance is a product of an increasingly intolerant politico - which encourages violent actions (knowingly or unknowingly) among its adherents when decisions don't go a certain way.
Thank you. I took a quick peep at the webpage and found it rather interesting, indeed. For a minute I thought I was reading a partial syllabus of all those western philosophy courses from my undergrad days at my old Jesuit college.
Now he exposes judges.
LOL. I know a lot of judges that give a lot of leeway to pro se litigants. But I know of none that would tolerate that B.S. Cruise is talking. He'd be running off at the mouth from a jail cell (but telling the peeps on BGOL how he got that Judge straight !!!!!
Now he exposes judges.
You're a sad, pathetic, weak, soon-to-be irrelevant nobody.
You won't survive kissing Obama's ass. The whole generation of you Obama ass-kissers will be like those Reagan nuts, or Nixon clowns, or Clinton-lovers.
Your whole world is built around some half-white politician, and you spend all your time holding his water rather than fighting your own battles.
Obama will save me! Obama will save me!
The government will tell me what to do!
LOL. I know a lot of judges that give a lot of leeway to pro se litigants. But I know of none that would tolerate that B.S. Cruise is talking. He'd be running off at the mouth from a jail cell (but telling the peeps on BGOL how he got that Judge straight !!!!!
So, now you are an expert on Michigan courts, with absolutely ZERO experience in Michigan courts (and a Detroit expert too, with the same experience)!
I guess it is that same level of experience that leads you to be such an informed Obama expert too!
Unaffordable Cost Seen for Some Under Affordable Care Act
Unaffordable Cost Seen for Some Under Affordable Care Act
By Brian Faler - Nov 29, 2012
To Megan Hildebrandt, President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act means she can no longer be denied health insurance because of her lymphatic cancer.
There’s a big catch: Coverage for the 28-year-old artist and many other Americans without insurance will come at a potentially unaffordable cost.
Hildebrandt, who relies on hospital charity, will face more than $1,000 in annual premiums, by one estimate, and probably more in out-of-pocket expenses even with new federal subsidies. She and her husband have a combined income of $25,000.
“It’s great that I’m not going to have to pay some hugely impossible amount,” said Hildebrandt, who lives in Austin, Texas. “Though now I’m in the health-care system and still have to pay money that we can’t really afford.”
The landmark health-care law, which survived the threats of repeal and a Supreme Court review, now confronts another hurdle: living up to expectations. As the administration spells out the details, many uninsured will be surprised at how much they will have to pay. It may involve “very substantial amounts,” and “there still will be a significant number of people who can’t afford health coverage,” said Ron Pollack, head of Families USA, a consumer group that backs the law.
A family of four earning $75,000 will pay $7,125 in annual premiums and as much as $8,333 in co-pays and deductibles, according to a preliminary estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation. A single 40-year-old earning $30,000 will pay $2,509 in premiums and as much as $3,125 in cost sharing. For a 60- year-old making $40,000, the amount will be $3,800 in premiums and up to $4,167 in out-of-pocket costs, according to Kaiser.
New Rules
Those costs will come even as the government spends about $1.16 trillion over the next decade to expand coverage to 30 million uninsured people.
“People are often surprised at how expensive health insurance is once they have to pay for their own,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at Kaiser Family Foundation. “The subsidies will make that better, but they won’t make the cost disappear.”
The administration last week unveiled regulations to implement the ban on discriminating against those with preexisting conditions. Insurers would be limited to varying premiums by age, family size, geography and tobacco use.
‘We All Pay’
To be sure, the costs will be far less than what many with preexisting conditions would pay in the absence of the overhaul. The law is also designed to reduce expenses for those who already have insurance because hospitals providing charitable care make up those costs by charging others more.
“While we’re only dimly aware of it, we all pay,” said former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert Reischauer. “There shouldn’t be free-riders.”
What’s more, there are provisions in the law capping the financial burden the requirements will impose on the uninsured. If costs exceed 8 percent of their income, they are exempt from the individual mandate to buy insurance. And people can choose to pay a penalty instead of buying insurance. The fine would be $695, or 2.5 percent of a person’s income, whichever is greater.
Offering Subsidies
The law, enacted in March 2010, requires virtually all Americans to have insurance by 2014. It will expand coverage to the uninsured by offering them subsidies to buy policies on newly established health-insurance exchanges and making it easier for lower-income people to qualify for Medicaid, the federal- and state-funded insurance system for the poor.
Consumers’ expenses may climb because of a cost-cutting provision inserted in the law that will reduce federal aid to the uninsured if the subsidies exceed a certain threshold -- defined as 0.504 percent of the gross domestic product. The Congressional Budget Office says it expects that will happen.
In 2019, some families could see their premiums climb four times as quickly as the help they receive from the government, according to CBO. That means they will have to bear a larger share of the burden of purchasing coverage.
“That will be a major challenge,” said John McDonough, a public-health professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “It makes the affordability picture far worse.”
The subsidies will be offered on a sliding scale, with those earning the least getting the most help. Those at the bottom of the income ladder, earning less than 138 percent of the poverty line -- about $33,000 for a family of four -- will get care through Medicaid. They will face minimal costs because the program has strict limits on co-pays -- if their states decide to opt in to the Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the government can’t compel states to do so, even as the justices upheld the law.
Sliding Scale
Those earning up to 400 percent of the poverty line -- about $92,000 for a family of four -- will receive tax subsidies to buy private insurance on a sliding scale.
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s second- ranking Democrat who was instrumental in pushing through the law, said there’s “legitimate concern” that care will remain unaffordable for some.
Lawmakers sought to “protect the poorest” yet weren’t able to offer as much help to others as they would have liked because of budgetary constraints, said Durbin. “We did all that we could do,” he said.
‘Work With It’
“If we find out that it doesn’t reach our goal then we’re going to have to sit down and work with it,” he said.
He said Republicans have “no response” to the question of how to expand coverage to the uninsured.
A November 2009 analysis by CBO of a draft of the program provides a rough indication of how quickly the subsidies will ramp down. It shows the government covering 77 percent of the premium costs for single persons earning about $20,600, 42 percent for those earning around $32,400 and 13 percent of the premium costs for those making about $44,200.
That means many with modest incomes will be responsible for covering the bulk of their premium costs. About 5 million people required to buy coverage won’t receive any help from the government because they earn too much, CBO projects.
“There may not be sufficient management of expectations,” said Lynn Quincy, a health-policy analyst at Consumers Union, a Yonkers, New York-based advocacy group. Lawmakers should have been telling the public the law promises “lower-cost” -- not “affordable” -- coverage, she said. “Everybody interprets ‘affordable’ differently -- it’s in the eye of the beholder.”
‘Substantial Steps’
The Obama administration defended the law.
“Independent, nonpartisan experts have said the health- care law will help cover 30 million people who don’t have insurance today,” White House spokesman Nick Papas said in a statement. “The law takes substantial steps to control costs and will save money for millions of Americans.”
Still, the federal subsidies face another danger. While Republicans have given up trying to rescind the law, they’re targeting it in budget negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff, the combination of automatic spending cuts and tax increases scheduled to begin taking effect in January.
Cutting the overhaul’s cost could yield savings that most people wouldn’t notice because the overhaul doesn’t begin in earnest until 2014. Yet it would force the uninsured to shoulder an even greater share of health-care costs.
Republicans are willing to consider tax increases in the form of closing individual breaks, yet House Speaker John Boehner signaled they aren’t yielding on cuts to so-called Obamacare.
“The tactics of our repeal efforts will have to change,” Boehner wrote last week in the Cincinnati Enquirer. “The law has to stay on the table as both parties discuss ways to solve our nation’s massive debt challenge” because “we can’t afford to leave it intact.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-seen-for-some-under-affordable-care-act.html
Unaffordable Cost Seen for Some Under Affordable Care Act
By Brian Faler - Nov 29, 2012
To Megan Hildebrandt, President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act means she can no longer be denied health insurance because of her lymphatic cancer.
There’s a big catch: Coverage for the 28-year-old artist and many other Americans without insurance will come at a potentially unaffordable cost.
Hildebrandt, who relies on hospital charity, will face more than $1,000 in annual premiums, by one estimate, and probably more in out-of-pocket expenses even with new federal subsidies. She and her husband have a combined income of $25,000.
“It’s great that I’m not going to have to pay some hugely impossible amount,” said Hildebrandt, who lives in Austin, Texas. “Though now I’m in the health-care system and still have to pay money that we can’t really afford.”
The landmark health-care law, which survived the threats of repeal and a Supreme Court review, now confronts another hurdle: living up to expectations. As the administration spells out the details, many uninsured will be surprised at how much they will have to pay. It may involve “very substantial amounts,” and “there still will be a significant number of people who can’t afford health coverage,” said Ron Pollack, head of Families USA, a consumer group that backs the law.
A family of four earning $75,000 will pay $7,125 in annual premiums and as much as $8,333 in co-pays and deductibles, according to a preliminary estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation. A single 40-year-old earning $30,000 will pay $2,509 in premiums and as much as $3,125 in cost sharing. For a 60- year-old making $40,000, the amount will be $3,800 in premiums and up to $4,167 in out-of-pocket costs, according to Kaiser.
New Rules
Those costs will come even as the government spends about $1.16 trillion over the next decade to expand coverage to 30 million uninsured people.
“People are often surprised at how expensive health insurance is once they have to pay for their own,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at Kaiser Family Foundation. “The subsidies will make that better, but they won’t make the cost disappear.”
The administration last week unveiled regulations to implement the ban on discriminating against those with preexisting conditions. Insurers would be limited to varying premiums by age, family size, geography and tobacco use.
‘We All Pay’
To be sure, the costs will be far less than what many with preexisting conditions would pay in the absence of the overhaul. The law is also designed to reduce expenses for those who already have insurance because hospitals providing charitable care make up those costs by charging others more.
“While we’re only dimly aware of it, we all pay,” said former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert Reischauer. “There shouldn’t be free-riders.”
What’s more, there are provisions in the law capping the financial burden the requirements will impose on the uninsured. If costs exceed 8 percent of their income, they are exempt from the individual mandate to buy insurance. And people can choose to pay a penalty instead of buying insurance. The fine would be $695, or 2.5 percent of a person’s income, whichever is greater.
Offering Subsidies
The law, enacted in March 2010, requires virtually all Americans to have insurance by 2014. It will expand coverage to the uninsured by offering them subsidies to buy policies on newly established health-insurance exchanges and making it easier for lower-income people to qualify for Medicaid, the federal- and state-funded insurance system for the poor.
Consumers’ expenses may climb because of a cost-cutting provision inserted in the law that will reduce federal aid to the uninsured if the subsidies exceed a certain threshold -- defined as 0.504 percent of the gross domestic product. The Congressional Budget Office says it expects that will happen.
In 2019, some families could see their premiums climb four times as quickly as the help they receive from the government, according to CBO. That means they will have to bear a larger share of the burden of purchasing coverage.
“That will be a major challenge,” said John McDonough, a public-health professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. “It makes the affordability picture far worse.”
The subsidies will be offered on a sliding scale, with those earning the least getting the most help. Those at the bottom of the income ladder, earning less than 138 percent of the poverty line -- about $33,000 for a family of four -- will get care through Medicaid. They will face minimal costs because the program has strict limits on co-pays -- if their states decide to opt in to the Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the government can’t compel states to do so, even as the justices upheld the law.
Sliding Scale
Those earning up to 400 percent of the poverty line -- about $92,000 for a family of four -- will receive tax subsidies to buy private insurance on a sliding scale.
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s second- ranking Democrat who was instrumental in pushing through the law, said there’s “legitimate concern” that care will remain unaffordable for some.
Lawmakers sought to “protect the poorest” yet weren’t able to offer as much help to others as they would have liked because of budgetary constraints, said Durbin. “We did all that we could do,” he said.
‘Work With It’
“If we find out that it doesn’t reach our goal then we’re going to have to sit down and work with it,” he said.
He said Republicans have “no response” to the question of how to expand coverage to the uninsured.
A November 2009 analysis by CBO of a draft of the program provides a rough indication of how quickly the subsidies will ramp down. It shows the government covering 77 percent of the premium costs for single persons earning about $20,600, 42 percent for those earning around $32,400 and 13 percent of the premium costs for those making about $44,200.
That means many with modest incomes will be responsible for covering the bulk of their premium costs. About 5 million people required to buy coverage won’t receive any help from the government because they earn too much, CBO projects.
“There may not be sufficient management of expectations,” said Lynn Quincy, a health-policy analyst at Consumers Union, a Yonkers, New York-based advocacy group. Lawmakers should have been telling the public the law promises “lower-cost” -- not “affordable” -- coverage, she said. “Everybody interprets ‘affordable’ differently -- it’s in the eye of the beholder.”
‘Substantial Steps’
The Obama administration defended the law.
“Independent, nonpartisan experts have said the health- care law will help cover 30 million people who don’t have insurance today,” White House spokesman Nick Papas said in a statement. “The law takes substantial steps to control costs and will save money for millions of Americans.”
Still, the federal subsidies face another danger. While Republicans have given up trying to rescind the law, they’re targeting it in budget negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff, the combination of automatic spending cuts and tax increases scheduled to begin taking effect in January.
Cutting the overhaul’s cost could yield savings that most people wouldn’t notice because the overhaul doesn’t begin in earnest until 2014. Yet it would force the uninsured to shoulder an even greater share of health-care costs.
Republicans are willing to consider tax increases in the form of closing individual breaks, yet House Speaker John Boehner signaled they aren’t yielding on cuts to so-called Obamacare.
“The tactics of our repeal efforts will have to change,” Boehner wrote last week in the Cincinnati Enquirer. “The law has to stay on the table as both parties discuss ways to solve our nation’s massive debt challenge” because “we can’t afford to leave it intact.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-seen-for-some-under-affordable-care-act.html
CBO Is Increasingly Skeptical About ObamaCare
CBO Is Increasingly Skeptical About ObamaCare
By Ben Domenech - February 7, 2013
The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office highlights a number of reasons why the CBO is concerned about the implementation of Obamacare. It boils down to this: Obamacare is going to be more expensive than the Obama administration thought, disrupt the marketplace more than they thought, and be tougher to implement than they thought.
First, more expensive: The CBO significantly hiked the amount of money needed to fund the subsidies available through Obamacare's exchanges, hiking them by $233 billion. IBD explains: “The CBO's new baseline estimate shows that ObamaCare subsidies offered through the insurance exchanges — which are supposed to be up and running by next January — will total more than $1 trillion through 2022, up from $814 billion over those same years in its budget forecast made a year ago. That's an increase of nearly 29%. The CBO upped the 10-year subsidy cost by $32 billion since just last August.” Part of that is expecting more people in the exchanges thanks to employer dumping and more limited Medicaid expansion, but “The rest is largely the result of the CBO's sharp increase in what it expects the average subsidy will be. Last year, the CBO said the average exchange subsidy for those getting federal help when ObamaCare goes into effect next year would be $4,780. Its latest estimate raised that to $5,510 — a 15% increase. All these numbers are up even more from the CBO's original forecast made in 2010, which had the first-year subsidy average at $3,970.”
Second, more disruptive: More employees will be dropped from their existing plans and fewer uninsured people will get coverage. The WSJ explains: “The CBO has long said it expects the new federal health law will prompt some companies to drop millions of employees from health plans because workers have new options to buy insurance on their own. In August, CBO put the number at four million over 10 years. Now it’s seven million. What changed? Nothing about the health law. Rather, the cliff deal that was enacted in January. When CBO crunched the numbers in August, it assumed that no cliff deal would be reached and higher tax rates would kick in. Economists typically assume that higher tax rates mean that more people are offered, and accept, employer-provided health benefits, says Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That’s because health benefits are tax-deductible for companies, and so are any premiums that the employee is required to contribute.”
Third, more difficult to implement: The CBO isn't buying the administration's repeated assurances that everything will be ready to go on time when it comes to the health insurance exchanges. From the report: “CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] have slightly reduced their estimates of the rates at which people will enroll in the insurance exchanges or Medicaid as the expansion of coverage is implemented—a process that had already been anticipated to occur gradually. That change reflects the agencies’ judgment about a combination of factors, including the readiness of exchanges to provide a broad array of new insurance options, the ability of state Medicaid programs to absorb new beneficiaries, and people’s responses to the availability of the new coverage.”
National Journal explains: “Publicly, administration officials have promised that the new exchanges will be ready on time… But the CBO report expresses skepticism… In plain language, that means CBO thinks the marketplaces won’t have many insurance choices, the Medicaid enrollment systems will not be ready for new people to enroll, and people will be less enthusiastic about signing up for new insurance options.”
Taken together, this is a report that shows how already, Obamacare is failing to match the hopes of its creators in many respects. Expect this trend to continue in future years. This is going to be a lot of political fractiousness and market disruption over a policy which may ultimately end up nudging the insured percentage up only slightly.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...asingly_skeptical_about_obamacare_116951.html
CBO Is Increasingly Skeptical About ObamaCare
By Ben Domenech - February 7, 2013
The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office highlights a number of reasons why the CBO is concerned about the implementation of Obamacare. It boils down to this: Obamacare is going to be more expensive than the Obama administration thought, disrupt the marketplace more than they thought, and be tougher to implement than they thought.
First, more expensive: The CBO significantly hiked the amount of money needed to fund the subsidies available through Obamacare's exchanges, hiking them by $233 billion. IBD explains: “The CBO's new baseline estimate shows that ObamaCare subsidies offered through the insurance exchanges — which are supposed to be up and running by next January — will total more than $1 trillion through 2022, up from $814 billion over those same years in its budget forecast made a year ago. That's an increase of nearly 29%. The CBO upped the 10-year subsidy cost by $32 billion since just last August.” Part of that is expecting more people in the exchanges thanks to employer dumping and more limited Medicaid expansion, but “The rest is largely the result of the CBO's sharp increase in what it expects the average subsidy will be. Last year, the CBO said the average exchange subsidy for those getting federal help when ObamaCare goes into effect next year would be $4,780. Its latest estimate raised that to $5,510 — a 15% increase. All these numbers are up even more from the CBO's original forecast made in 2010, which had the first-year subsidy average at $3,970.”
Second, more disruptive: More employees will be dropped from their existing plans and fewer uninsured people will get coverage. The WSJ explains: “The CBO has long said it expects the new federal health law will prompt some companies to drop millions of employees from health plans because workers have new options to buy insurance on their own. In August, CBO put the number at four million over 10 years. Now it’s seven million. What changed? Nothing about the health law. Rather, the cliff deal that was enacted in January. When CBO crunched the numbers in August, it assumed that no cliff deal would be reached and higher tax rates would kick in. Economists typically assume that higher tax rates mean that more people are offered, and accept, employer-provided health benefits, says Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That’s because health benefits are tax-deductible for companies, and so are any premiums that the employee is required to contribute.”
Third, more difficult to implement: The CBO isn't buying the administration's repeated assurances that everything will be ready to go on time when it comes to the health insurance exchanges. From the report: “CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] have slightly reduced their estimates of the rates at which people will enroll in the insurance exchanges or Medicaid as the expansion of coverage is implemented—a process that had already been anticipated to occur gradually. That change reflects the agencies’ judgment about a combination of factors, including the readiness of exchanges to provide a broad array of new insurance options, the ability of state Medicaid programs to absorb new beneficiaries, and people’s responses to the availability of the new coverage.”
National Journal explains: “Publicly, administration officials have promised that the new exchanges will be ready on time… But the CBO report expresses skepticism… In plain language, that means CBO thinks the marketplaces won’t have many insurance choices, the Medicaid enrollment systems will not be ready for new people to enroll, and people will be less enthusiastic about signing up for new insurance options.”
Taken together, this is a report that shows how already, Obamacare is failing to match the hopes of its creators in many respects. Expect this trend to continue in future years. This is going to be a lot of political fractiousness and market disruption over a policy which may ultimately end up nudging the insured percentage up only slightly.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...asingly_skeptical_about_obamacare_116951.html
How Obamacare Will Limit Abortion Access in 21 of the United States
How Obamacare Will Limit Abortion Access in 21 of the United States
Takepart.com – Wed, Feb 20, 2013
When “Amanda” was 30, a condom failure led to an unplanned pregnancy. Living with her husband had taught her that he wasn’t likely to be a great provider—an alcoholic, he was bringing home less and less pay as he missed work more and more due to his heavy drinking. And his untreated severe depression led to other erratic behavior. The couple relied largely on Amanda’s low salary to get by in their expensive city. She chose to have an abortion, as it was covered through private insurance in her home state.
As of 2014, women in 21 states may not be permitted to make the same decision Amanda did.
The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was intended to expand access to healthcare beginning in 2014. But anti-abortion activists have found a way to use the ACA to further restrict abortion access in the United States.
In complying with the ACA, every state in the nation is required to put together a health marketplace, or “exchange,” by October of this year (unless they want the federal government to just do it for them, which most states do not). State residents who don’t have healthcare coverage through the government (for example, Medicaid) or through their employer will be required to purchase a health insurance plan through their state exchange.
That’s where anti-abortion activists saw an opportunity.
As clinic owner Diane Derzis told TakePart, “Wealthy women have always had access to a safe abortion.”
While no federal money may be used to pay for abortions, the procedure has long been covered under most private health insurance plans. However, states are now permitted to impose rules governing the private insurers who participate in state exchanges.
In Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, those private insurers are expressly forbidden from covering abortions. Those are just the states that have passed such legislation since 2010; Kentucky, Missouri and North Dakota already had similar laws on the books.
Most of the states that ban “exchange” providers from paying for abortions do allow exceptions for when the mother’s life may be at risk, and some allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest. But that’s not true across the board—Missouri, for example, offers no exception if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault.
Mississippi is one of the states to enact a ban. Deirdra Harris Glover runs ProChoiceMississippi.org and is a volunteer member of Planned Parenthood of Mississippi’s Public Policy Board. She tells TakePart, “This ban leaves low-income women and families few options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.”
Glover’s observation is particularly true in Mississippi, where the state is attempting to shut down its last remaining abortion clinic. As clinic owner Diane Derzis told TakePart, “Wealthy women have always had access to a safe abortion.”
Of course, as Glover observed, the same does not apply to poor women.
California has yet to enact a ban on abortion coverage in its future health insurance exchange, but pro-choice activists there are keeping careful watch on this national trend.
Serena Josel, public affairs director at Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, tells TakePart, “The majority of private health insurance plans already cover abortion, and one of the key tenets of healthcare reform is that people would not lose the coverage they have today as a result of reform. These statewide abortion bans are unacceptable: They eliminate benefits and leave women worse off in terms of coverage.”
http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-limit-abortion-access-21-united-states-185532199.html
How Obamacare Will Limit Abortion Access in 21 of the United States
Takepart.com – Wed, Feb 20, 2013
When “Amanda” was 30, a condom failure led to an unplanned pregnancy. Living with her husband had taught her that he wasn’t likely to be a great provider—an alcoholic, he was bringing home less and less pay as he missed work more and more due to his heavy drinking. And his untreated severe depression led to other erratic behavior. The couple relied largely on Amanda’s low salary to get by in their expensive city. She chose to have an abortion, as it was covered through private insurance in her home state.
As of 2014, women in 21 states may not be permitted to make the same decision Amanda did.
The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was intended to expand access to healthcare beginning in 2014. But anti-abortion activists have found a way to use the ACA to further restrict abortion access in the United States.
In complying with the ACA, every state in the nation is required to put together a health marketplace, or “exchange,” by October of this year (unless they want the federal government to just do it for them, which most states do not). State residents who don’t have healthcare coverage through the government (for example, Medicaid) or through their employer will be required to purchase a health insurance plan through their state exchange.
That’s where anti-abortion activists saw an opportunity.
As clinic owner Diane Derzis told TakePart, “Wealthy women have always had access to a safe abortion.”
While no federal money may be used to pay for abortions, the procedure has long been covered under most private health insurance plans. However, states are now permitted to impose rules governing the private insurers who participate in state exchanges.
In Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, those private insurers are expressly forbidden from covering abortions. Those are just the states that have passed such legislation since 2010; Kentucky, Missouri and North Dakota already had similar laws on the books.
Most of the states that ban “exchange” providers from paying for abortions do allow exceptions for when the mother’s life may be at risk, and some allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest. But that’s not true across the board—Missouri, for example, offers no exception if the pregnancy is due to sexual assault.
Mississippi is one of the states to enact a ban. Deirdra Harris Glover runs ProChoiceMississippi.org and is a volunteer member of Planned Parenthood of Mississippi’s Public Policy Board. She tells TakePart, “This ban leaves low-income women and families few options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.”
Glover’s observation is particularly true in Mississippi, where the state is attempting to shut down its last remaining abortion clinic. As clinic owner Diane Derzis told TakePart, “Wealthy women have always had access to a safe abortion.”
Of course, as Glover observed, the same does not apply to poor women.
California has yet to enact a ban on abortion coverage in its future health insurance exchange, but pro-choice activists there are keeping careful watch on this national trend.
Serena Josel, public affairs director at Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, tells TakePart, “The majority of private health insurance plans already cover abortion, and one of the key tenets of healthcare reform is that people would not lose the coverage they have today as a result of reform. These statewide abortion bans are unacceptable: They eliminate benefits and leave women worse off in terms of coverage.”
http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-limit-abortion-access-21-united-states-185532199.html
One of the main reason why hospitals suck is because of the long wait times in the ER. And the reason why wait times are long is because a bunch of uninsured people go to the ER for non emergent issues. I work for an insurance company and even people with insurance go to the ER for head colds, migraines, prescription refills, ect. Obamcare will help hospitals because the more people that have access to a primary care provider the less people will go to the ER for bs.
Did it ever occur to you, that Obama (e.g. the "government") is just piling on "solution" after "solution" that caused this mess instead of just fixing it?
Get rid of HMOs, which Nixon brought in the 1970s, and all these problems with access to healthcare would disappear. It actually works instead of just blaming the public for shit they didn't cause.
Unfortunately, too many Obama ass-kissers like to solve simple problems, with complicated solutions, and then turn around and justify the stupidity with dumb rationalizations and irrational arguments without any facts or evidence to support anything their promoting.
Government will save us. Government will save us. Obama is the white Jesus. The politicians know all. It's the public's fault. The poor are the problem.
This country loves short-term thinking for long-term consequences. It is always worshipping at the altar of stupidity. A country can't last too long like that and keep its standard of living, as we are all witnessing.
There is no such animal as free health care. Obamacare is not saving money, rather it is causing excess spending by everyone. For some reason, people believe they are entitled to free health care, free food stamps, free housing, free graduate education, and free retirement (federal and state workers). Now, instead of agreeing with him because he is black, we should be analyzing his actions objectively; that is not happening.
There is nothing in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence regarding free health care, education, food or retirement. Physicians are not going to school, spending several $100K to give people free exams and to have their costs dictated by Obama. We can actually save Trillions of dollars by eliminating all entitlement programs going forward for those who have not contributed to the system as of today. No one has a right to live off of or raise a family on the taxes generated by the private sector. That scenario is basically theft of and from those who generate the taxes. We can save Trillions of dollars by eliminating all retirements for federal and state workers going forward from today. Federal and state workers do not pay taxes, they are tax users not tax payers. Their government jobs do not generate taxes. Those of us who work for private employers (non government) are tax payers. Our jobs generate the taxes used to pay the salaries of federal and state workers. Think about it, we tax payers have to contribute to our own retirement plan - there are NO pensions anymore in private industry. Now, we work our ass off so the government workers can have retirement payments in perpetuity...is that fair? Most government workers are lazy, sluggards, who steal our tax dollars. There are hard working government workers but they are the exception not the rule. While this may be hard to swallow for many, the facts are the facts. Eliminate entitlements, and that entitlement mentality (i gotta get my obama phone) and we are halfway there to everyone contributing equally to the economy.
There is nothing in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence regarding free health care, education, food or retirement. Physicians are not going to school, spending several $100K to give people free exams and to have their costs dictated by Obama. We can actually save Trillions of dollars by eliminating all entitlement programs going forward for those who have not contributed to the system as of today. No one has a right to live off of or raise a family on the taxes generated by the private sector. That scenario is basically theft of and from those who generate the taxes. We can save Trillions of dollars by eliminating all retirements for federal and state workers going forward from today. Federal and state workers do not pay taxes, they are tax users not tax payers. Their government jobs do not generate taxes. Those of us who work for private employers (non government) are tax payers. Our jobs generate the taxes used to pay the salaries of federal and state workers. Think about it, we tax payers have to contribute to our own retirement plan - there are NO pensions anymore in private industry. Now, we work our ass off so the government workers can have retirement payments in perpetuity...is that fair? Most government workers are lazy, sluggards, who steal our tax dollars. There are hard working government workers but they are the exception not the rule. While this may be hard to swallow for many, the facts are the facts. Eliminate entitlements, and that entitlement mentality (i gotta get my obama phone) and we are halfway there to everyone contributing equally to the economy.
" . . . and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
Similar threads
