|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 23, 2013 1:44:12 GMT
Well here it is. Hate to say "I told you so," but Republicans have been telling people since 2008/09 what would happen....and the Obama lovers just didn't believe it.
Because of Obamacare....300,000 Floridians just lost their health insurance. Wonder how many voted for Obama?
"President Obama promised that, “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” But one insurance provider, Florida Blue, is ending about 300,000 policies by sending out cancellation notices to customers. This is about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state, NBC News reports.
About 14 million people buy their own coverage because they can’t get it at work. Many have sent notices, according to calls to insurers in several states.
Kaiser Permanente in California has sent out cancellation notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.
Following the launch of ObamaCare on Oct. 1, many people are terminating their health insurance plans because ObamaCare mandates the kind of coverage you are now required to purchase. Coverage includes mental health and substance abuse, maternity care, dental and vision care – millions do not need or want this coverage. If your current plan falls short of the requirements of Obamacare....it is being canceled and your new plan will mandate you pay for this coverage, according to NBC News."
www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/thousands-people-lose-healthcare-insurance-under-obamacare#
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 23, 2013 3:43:07 GMT
Apparently the CEO's of some major health insurance companies has called for a meeting with Obama in the White House tomorrow. Serious stuff. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on that wall???
"The White House is meeting with CEOs of health plans on Wednesday, according to two insurance industry sources.
The insurance executives are meeting with Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett and chief of staff Denis McDonough, the sources told POLITICO on Tuesday evening. The White House didn’t immediately confirm the meeting."
Read more: www.politico.com/story/2013/10/white-house-meeting-with-insurance-chiefs-98711.html#ixzz2iVres89J
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 23, 2013 3:45:56 GMT
And for at least the second time in the past few days.....WH Press Secretary Jay Carney walks out of the middle of a Press Conference.
White House spokesman Jay Carney today abruptly walked out of the briefing room after struggling to answer questions related to Obamacare. As he walks out, frustrated reporters can be heard asking questions, including:
“Have White House officials watched anyone without insurance go through the website, trying to help the situation?”
“Couldn’t we have a [HHS] rep just come to the press briefing?”
Since the Oct. 1 launch of HealthCare.Gov, Carney has repeatedly ducked uncomfortable questions by referring reporters to HHS, where they are met with silence.
Read more: atr.org/carney-ducks-obamacare-questions-walks-press-a7947#ixzz2iVsr5fCz
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter
|
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 23, 2013 12:00:35 GMT
FLA blue is dropping their individual plans because they cannot compete with the exchanges & still keep their profit margins. that would be a big duh.... those SAME people can now go on the exchange & get policies without worry of a pre existing CONdition (not an industry standard regulation offered by the status quo FLA blue) & will most likely be paying less because of tax subsidies AND 80-85% of premiums will go towards actual healthcare instead of overhead & the denying pencil pusher's pockets (not offered by standard regualtions by FLA blue) & will NOW be able to get covered services(that IS a standard industry regulation on the exchange) that they once had to pay completely outa pocket to keep the for profit FLA blue's bottom line in the black.
tsk tsk tsk...
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 23, 2013 12:46:15 GMT
LOL - Can anyone cite even one politician that hasn't mislead the people or outright lied to the American people in the history of the United States.
From "Read my lips, no new taxes" to "I didn't have sexual relations with 'that' woman" to "we'll cut taxes and still deduce the national debt" it's easy to cite examples of half-truths and outright lies by presidents to the American People.
President Obama's statement about people being able to keep their own insurance always contained the caveat that the insurance plan had to meet the new requirements imposed by the ACA and never implied that private insurance companies had to continue to offer all of the insurance plans they had. Every intelligent person in America knew that many of the private insurance plans did not meet the criteria established in the ACA for "qualified" insurance plans and Republicans, more so that any other group I'm aware of, would have objected to a mandate in the ACA that private insurance provides MUST continue to renew existing insurance policies that couldn't compete with the subsidized insurance policies created by the ACA.
The real problem here, from my perspective, are some of the provisions imposed by the ACA. Some are reasonable to me such as maternity care provisions because omitting that would have reflected gender discrimination while others are completely irrational like allowing exemptions to certain provisions because of the religious beliefs of church leaders that are often in conflict with the religious beliefs of the followers of the religion. Religious freedom is based upon the individual's religious beliefs and not on the beliefs of the leaders of religious organizations.
"Obamacare" is a nightmare in many regards and like all intelligent Americans I'm looking for an alternative plan to replace it. As I've noted though a bad plan to address a problem is still better than no plan at all. At least a bad plan can be improved which is what I hope America will do. Of course left to the politicians matters will probably get worse because the politicians rarely address the actual problems and instead focus on the symptoms of the problems.
I keep telling people that "Obamacare" isn't the actual problem. The problem is tens of thousands of people dying each year and millions of people going without necessary medical treatment because they don't have insurance and/or can't afford the medical services they need.
If we address the problem then "Obamacare" becomes unnecessary. It's very much like federal welfare assistance that mitigates the effects of poverty. If we want to end federal welfare assistance all we need to do is to end poverty because poverty is the problem that needs to be addressed. In a real sense "Obamacare" is also addressing poverty in America. If so many Americans weren't poor or if all employers provided health insurance then "Obamacare" wouldn't exist at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 23, 2013 15:50:31 GMT
FLA blue is dropping their individual plans because they cannot compete with the exchanges & still keep their profit margins. that would be a big duh.... those SAME people can now go on the exchange & get policies without worry of a pre existing CONdition (not an industry standard regulation offered by the status quo FLA blue) & will most likely be paying less because of tax subsidies AND 80-85% of premiums will go towards actual healthcare instead of overhead & the denying pencil pusher's pockets (not offered by standard regualtions by FLA blue) & will NOW be able to get covered services(that IS a standard industry regulation on the exchange) that they once had to pay completely outa pocket to keep the for profit FLA blue's bottom line in the black. tsk tsk tsk...
That 80% formula means that at least 80% of premium amounts will go to actual healthcare; but as a group; not individually. It will remain that the sickest get most of the money spent and the healthiest will pay for it; just as it is now. BTW, premiums don't begin to cover the real costs of healthcare...and Obamcare doesn't change that fact.
Here's hoping those 50+ year-olds under Obamacare ENJOY that maternity feature they MUST pay for in their One-size fits all plan!!  |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 23, 2013 16:54:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 23, 2013 17:46:58 GMT
While I'm one of those that "Obamacare" hasn't touched I would point out a problem with it as well.
When I was working for major corporations such as Lockheed, Northrop, and Boeing they gave us two choices for health insurance. One was typically an HMO while the other was an 80/20 plan like Blue Cross / Blue Shield. We had a choice and our "premium" cost for each was listed (not the actual cost of the insurance) It was simple where the employee was predominately covered by the company and then the spouse and any underage dependents each cost more to cover. Real easy to figure out what it would cost me and what the plan covered because there were only two plans.
"Obamacare" created "Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum" plans and each, as I understand it, has three sub-categories in them. I could be wrong but that is what I understand. That equals 16 different plans to compare. Who was the idiot that thought that 16 different plans were necessary? Additionally because the "subsidy" is variable based upon a complex formula a person doesn't even know what they'll pay until they fill out all of the complicated criteria being required. Of course that is just for the federal exchanges as the State exchanges can be and are different.
I have a relatively high IQ and this would be confusing for me to figure out and this is for people that at best have an average IQ of 100.
I've agreed with others that the plans should be presented without having to create an account but because of the complex subsidy criteria the premiums the people would be required to pay can't be tied to them. Knowing our government the formula for figuring out the subsidy is probably so complex that not even a table could be used. It even varies by State so it's impossible for any sort of table that would be understandable for the average person. The person really doesn't give a rat's ass what the total cost is, just like I didn't care under employer provide group health, but they do care what their premium would be and I believe "Obamacare" is way to complex for that information to be provided in a general sense.
Complexity is always a problem with our government which is why we have more laws, rules, codes, and regulations that a person could read if they lived to be 500 and spent 8 hours a day just reading them. "Obamacare" fits right into that category of being outrageously complex to the point that virtually no one even today knows what it really does or how it does it.
It's what we have but by god I hope someone figures out something to replace it soon. I'm waiting for someone, anyone, to make a better proposal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 19:49:26 GMT
It disgusts me that the media has done this. Reporting without bias seems to be a thing of the past. |
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 23, 2013 23:49:17 GMT
How do you think that FORCING people to purchase plans that offer things they don't need.....like maternity care, mental health, etc......is going to save health costs ultimately? It's not. It's the federal gov't "one size fits all mentality." People will no longer really have much of a choice. And we'll see just how many of them get lower cost plans with the same as they had before and NOT accompanied by large deductibles. Only the people who had nothing will see some improvement. But the masses inside the middle class will get worse.
That 80% formula means that at least 80% of premium amounts will go to actual healthcare; but as a group; not individually. It will remain that the sickest get most of the money spent and the healthiest will pay for it; just as it is now. BTW, premiums don't begin to cover the real costs of healthcare...and Obamcare doesn't change that fact.
Here's hoping those 50+ year-olds under Obamacare ENJOY that maternity feature they MUST pay for in their One-size fits all plan!! tell you what, let's go back to the good old days when we had 'drive by mastectomies'.... THAT'S what ya get when profiting off of healthcare was the name of the game. & don't know about you, i am 51 & i believe like real fiscal conservatives that it is more fiscally CONservative to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than hafta pay for anything that happens after CONception... but not with today's (R)...lol.... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 24, 2013 13:59:27 GMT
How do you think that FORCING people to purchase plans that offer things they don't need.....like maternity care, mental health, etc......is going to save health costs ultimately? It's not.
For example in a hypothetical example let's say that out of 100 people 1/2 are women and of those 50 women only five incur expenses related to maternity care equaling $5,000 each or $25,000 total. If only the five women pay for the costs then each has to pay $5,000 to equal the $25,000. If that cost is spread over the 50 women then each pays $500 for the maternity care being provided. If that cost is spread over the 100 total number of men and women then each pays $250 but the total cost of $25,000 has not changed one iota. It neither increased or decreased the costs of the medical services being provided.
At the same time if the medical service are not provided then costs could increase dramatically because of complications while preventative care can reduce the overall costs by preventing complications. It is the ensuring of the medical service that can reduce the costs overall.
It would be downright silly, for example, to not have someone pay for coverage until after the fact. We can't wait until a woman become pregnant before we charge them the insurance premium for maternity care. We spread the costs over all of the insured which is what insurance is supposed to do. As also noted we can't just assign the costs of maternity care to women anymore than we could only assign the costs of testicular cancer to just men. We lump it all together and split the costs across the board even though gender can influence different medical necessities.
To split it up based upon gender represents gender discrimination and gender discrimination is prohibited under the law.
This leads me to a real condemnation of "Obamacare" though and that is the "religious" exemption for birth control. The Catholic Church can take this exemption and not provide birth control but a study revealed that 95% of Catholic women use birth control at some time in their lives. That will force them to pay 100% of the cost because it's excluded from their insurance policy while every other woman in American has part of the costs paid for by insurance. That is flat out wrong. The coverage should be included in the policy and then if the Catholic woman chooses not to use birth control, which millions of Catholics as well as non-Catholics will choose not to do, then it is their choice. The "male" only leaders of the Catholic Church should not be able to deny Catholic women medical benefits offered to the rest of the women in America that we know the Catholic women will require based upon their personal choice.
The "religious" exemption violates the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 24, 2013 21:04:51 GMT
more memories from the good old days... yaaaaaaaa....let's stay with that old (R) status quo.... Health Yale Hospital Plans to Halt Foreclosure for Bill Collection By ALISON LEIGH COWAN Published: May 09, 2003 Yale-New Haven Hospital announced today that it would stop using foreclosure on homes as a way of collecting patients' bills and would erase $84,000 owed by 170 patients with bills at least five years old. Officials also said the hospital would change other billing practices that have been criticized, saying it would stop adding court costs to patients' bills and would start requiring lawyers to seek the hospital's approval before attaching liens to patients' homes. Some of the hospital's critics applauded the concessions, although the changes stop short of addressing issues raised in a lawsuit by the Connecticut attorney general, Richard Blumenthal. In February, he sued the hospital, charging that it erected ''unreasonable and formidable barriers'' around funds that had been donated to the hospital specifically for charity care. The lawsuit accused the hospital of failing to inform patients of the funds' existence, making them exhaust other sources of reimbursement before they could apply for the funds, and restricting eligibility in ways that the donors had never requested. As a result, the lawsuit said, only about 55 patients applied each year, even as the funds grew to $37 million and the hospital became more aggressive about collection. www.nytimes.com/2003/05/09/nyregion/yale-hospital-plans-to-halt-foreclosure-for-bill-collection.html |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 25, 2013 10:55:02 GMT
more memories from the good old days... yaaaaaaaa....let's stay with that old (R) status quo.... Health Yale Hospital Plans to Halt Foreclosure for Bill Collection By ALISON LEIGH COWAN Published: May 09, 2003 Yale-New Haven Hospital announced today that it would stop using foreclosure on homes as a way of collecting patients' bills and would erase $84,000 owed by 170 patients with bills at least five years old. www.nytimes.com/2003/05/09/nyregion/yale-hospital-plans-to-halt-foreclosure-for-bill-collection.html
Next is the fact that had "Obamacare" been in place these outstanding bills would have, for the most part, been paid for by insurance or Medicaid. The fact that they weren't paid is going to require the hospital to raise rates for services to offset the financial loss and that in turn raises the cost of health insurance and services provided by the hospital. The failure to pay the financial obligation to the hospital because of a lack of insurance, as noted in this case, increases the costs to those that are insured or that pay cash for services because the hospital is forced to over-charge others to pay for the financial loss.
I wonder how many people believe that they weren't paying for the costs of the uninsured that required medical services in the past?
|
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 25, 2013 11:18:17 GMT
I wonder how many people believe that they weren't paying for the costs of the uninsured that required medical services in the past?
that's what's called paying thru the backdoor. all those people who go to the ER for treatment of a relitively minor affliction because they know they can get some attention & some medication because without ins they can't go to the dr...that cost is passed onto those with ins. that's more status quo. why does a single advil or tylenol pill cost $20? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 25, 2013 11:43:34 GMT
I wonder how many people believe that they weren't paying for the costs of the uninsured that required medical services in the past? that's what's called paying thru the backdoor. all those people who go to the ER for treatment of a relitively minor affliction because they know they can get some attention & some medication because without ins they can't go to the dr...that cost is passed onto those with ins. that's more status quo. why does a single advil or tylenol pill cost $20?
In that same study emergency room doctors were polled and they stated that 60% of the people they see don't require emergency room services. Many of those they saw might require medical services but they didn't require emergency room services that cost at least three times as much or more than seeing a doctor at a clinic.
We all have occasions to question whether we need to see a doctor or not and I'm fortunate that my insurance company has independent medical advisors, typically RN's but also doctors if required, that can advise me when this come up. I can explain the problems I have, they ask questions, and then advise me as to whether it's something I should see a doctor about and even if its something I should go the emergency room over. If in doubt they would always send me to the doctor but they have been able to diagnose my problem in some cases where a doctor could have done nothing to help me. For me, because my insurance company pays for this independent consultation, it's free but there online medical services that are similar that a person can use for very little cost.
These services are very cost effective for everyone. The cut down on unnecessary doctor visits saving both the individual and insurance company money. Even if the person uses a pay service online they still save money if they don't really need to see a doctor and, as noted, about 40% of the time they don't.
This is such a huge cost savings for medical expenditure that if I was crafting any health care law I would have created a national service that provided this for free to Americans where it could be contacted both online (preferred) or by phone. Cutting down the unnecessary medical service expenditures cause by people seeing either a primary care physician or going to an emergency room would have dramatically cut the total costs of medical services in America.
If this was related to "Obamacare" I would have mandated that a person get a referral from the service for a person in all except life threatening situations or serious injuries where going to an emergency rooms was an obvious necessity. Just because "Johnny has a runny nose doesn't mean that Johnny needs to see a doctor."
|
|
