|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 26, 2013 2:16:20 GMT
So....what I'm wondering is were these people who are signing up for Medicaid....paying for some insurance BEFORE Obamacare, but now qualify for Medicaid and be getting their healthcare free?? Why does Obamacare suddenly make them Medicaid qualified???
While virtually all the ObamaCare focus is trained on the program's dysfunctional website, another problem could be emerging -- in states where individuals are able to sign up, far more are enrolling in Medicaid than private plans.
They need LOTS of healthy people...and young people to sign up.....or else this thing blows up.
For now, the statistics are spotty. The Obama administration still hasn't provided figures on how many people have successfully enrolled through the federally run exchanges. Some, but not all, states have provided their own relatively up-to-date figures.
But for those that have, the lopsided numbers show Medicaid is getting the lion's share of enrollees.
"In Washington state, more than 35,000 people have signed up for coverage since Oct. 1. Of them, just 4,500 went into private plans. Roughly 31,000 signed up for Medicaid -- with coverage kicking in sometime between now and Jan. 1.
The director of the state's Health Care Authority said they were "pleased by the strong response of Medicaid-eligible residents."
But the imbalance -- if it does not even out in the months to come -- could create problems for private insurance companies which are relying on a major influx of new and healthy customers to make the system hum.
"There are a lot of elements of this law that have to work, that must work -- otherwise the whole thing collapses," the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon said. "They need -- need -- lots of healthy people to sign up for insurance through the exchanges."
The fact that people are flocking to Medicaid isn't necessarily a problem -- but a lack of healthy enrollees on private plans would be."The main reason the Affordable Care Act mandated that individuals buy insurance was so that private insurers would get enough young, healthy people in the system who could offset the costs of covering older and sicker patients. Otherwise, at the very least, costs will skyrocket for those in the system.
"You need to have a good balance of people purchasing coverage or these reforms won't work," Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, told FoxNews.com."
www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/rush-on-medicaid-could-spell-trouble-for-obamacares-health/
"
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 28, 2013 13:14:31 GMT
So....what I'm wondering is were these people who are signing up for Medicaid....paying for some insurance BEFORE Obamacare, but now qualify for Medicaid and be getting their healthcare free?? Why does Obamacare suddenly make them Medicaid qualified???
While virtually all the ObamaCare focus is trained on the program's dysfunctional website, another problem could be emerging -- in states where individuals are able to sign up, far more are enrolling in Medicaid than private plans.
They need LOTS of healthy people...and young people to sign up.....or else this thing blows up.
For now, the statistics are spotty. The Obama administration still hasn't provided figures on how many people have successfully enrolled through the federally run exchanges. Some, but not all, states have provided their own relatively up-to-date figures.
But for those that have, the lopsided numbers show Medicaid is getting the lion's share of enrollees.
"In Washington state, more than 35,000 people have signed up for coverage since Oct. 1. Of them, just 4,500 went into private plans. Roughly 31,000 signed up for Medicaid -- with coverage kicking in sometime between now and Jan. 1.
The director of the state's Health Care Authority said they were "pleased by the strong response of Medicaid-eligible residents."
But the imbalance -- if it does not even out in the months to come -- could create problems for private insurance companies which are relying on a major influx of new and healthy customers to make the system hum.
"There are a lot of elements of this law that have to work, that must work -- otherwise the whole thing collapses," the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon said. "They need -- need -- lots of healthy people to sign up for insurance through the exchanges."
The fact that people are flocking to Medicaid isn't necessarily a problem -- but a lack of healthy enrollees on private plans would be."The main reason the Affordable Care Act mandated that individuals buy insurance was so that private insurers would get enough young, healthy people in the system who could offset the costs of covering older and sicker patients. Otherwise, at the very least, costs will skyrocket for those in the system.
"You need to have a good balance of people purchasing coverage or these reforms won't work," Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, told FoxNews.com."
www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/rush-on-medicaid-could-spell-trouble-for-obamacares-health/
Those signing up for the expanded Medicaid program DID NOT previously have private health insurance. They were a part of the 1 million uninsured in WA.
The qualification requirements for Medicaid were to provide health insurance for those that had incomes so low that the federal government would have had to fund the purchase of private insurance with a 100% subsidy of the costs of the insurance because of the low income level of those that were above the prior qualifications for Medicaid but didn't have enough income to pay anything towards private insurance. Many "Republicans" states have opted out of the expanded Medicaid provisions and will continue to treat the health care needs of these people in their hospital emergency room at four-times the cost with inferior medical services because emergency rooms are not designed to treat non-emergency medical conditions.
FOX (FAUX) News outright lied in the Oct 25th reporting related to sign-up in WA when they stated:
FALSE. As reported here in WA on Oct 7th:
seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021988457_apwahealthoverhaul1stldwritethru.html
That's almost 20,000 sign-up for INSURANCE the first week alone (we know that because 10,000 of them were pending based upon payment of the initial enrollment fees, not premiums that don't begin until January, for the insurance and Medicaid doesn't require any enrollment fees). As noted in my first citation we expect 130,000 to signup for private health insurance alone in 2014 and the 20,000 that signed up in the first week represents about 15% of those required to meet projections. There is no doubt that we'll reach the projected enrollments and are likely to exceed it by tens of thousands of enrollees based upon early statistics.
There are about 325,000 that will qualify for the expanded Medicaid provisions but like those that qualify for subsidized private insurance the number of those qualified will be far less than the number that sign up for 2014. In fact, if FOX News is reporting "accurately" then the 31,000 that signed up for Medicaid by three weeks into the program (and many could pre-register for Medicaid benefits unlike the insurance) is only about 10% of those eligible which is a very low percentage. We need to get all of the 315,000 to signup.
While Republicans and FOX (FAUX) News might want to paint a different picture the facts are that the State Exchange is working fairly well (unlike the federal exchange) and our signup for insurance are ahead of schedule. If anything our Medicaid signups may not be enough to cover those that should be covered under the provisions of the expansion because these are the people that need health care the most and are the least able to afford it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 28, 2013 13:29:45 GMT
BTW I believe that those that think "Obamacare" will blow up if not enough young people signup is misguided. They we be slapped with a penalty for not signing up and that will offset their non-enrollment. Admittedly the first years the tax penalty isn't all that much and there could be a funding shortfall but that penalty increases every year thereafter and it would, in the years do come, actually over compensate the program if young people continue to refuse to signup. Of note though there have also been news reports that the young are actually enrolling especially young married couples with children that believe that "Obamacare" will be very beneficial for them.
Also remember that the insurance companies raised their rates after "Obamacare" was passed to dramatically increase their financial reserves to cover any initial shortfalls related to enrollment. Private insurers aren't quit as stupid as our government and their financial planning to build hundreds of billions of dollars in reserves prior to implementation reflected that.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 28, 2013 16:55:57 GMT
Seems to be some confusion. Even this very liberal CNBC article touting Washington state and a couple other states have different numbers:
"Washington state said 9,452 people have fully enrolled in coverage set to begin Jan. 1. Most of them, about 8,500, are going to be covered by Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income people, with the remaining 916 covered by health plans sold by private insurers through the online state marketplace.
Another 10,000 people have completed applications for coverage from private health insurers through the exchange but have not yet paid for it. Exchange officials said they believe that many, if not all, of those people are waiting until December to make their initial premium payments, as Dec. 15 is the deadline for payment receipt for coverage to begin Jan. 1.
"The number of applications we've received is a strong start to our six-month open enrollment period," said Richard Onizuka, CEO for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange. "While we've seen a high level of initial interest, we know that individuals will continue to shop and wait to purchase a health plan until much closer to the effective start of coverage on Jan. 1, 2014."
www.cnbc.com/id/101096445
It doesn't give the breakdown of the other 10,000 who they claim have signed up but haven't paid.
And remember.....this is CNBC, who desperately wants Obamacare to work because they are in love with Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 28, 2013 18:16:51 GMT
While I cited a news story from Oct 7th how about one more closely aligned with the date of the FOX News story.
So we have 11,000 enrollees in Medicaid that had nothing really to do with the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare. Additionally we have 19,000 and not 31,000 to 35,000 as cited by FAUX News that signed up under the expansion provisions of "Obamacare". Additionally we have about 5,000 that have signed up and made their initial payment for private insurance under "Obamacare" PLUS and additional 56,000 people that have signed up and not paid yet because their initial payment isn't due yet which is over ten-times greater than the 4,500 that FAUX news reported as signing up for private insurance.
Yes, my story is a few days more recent than the FAUX News story but the numbers didn't change that much in a couple of days. 19,000 signing up under the expansion of Medicaid under "Obamacare" and over 61,000 signing up for private insurance under "Obamacare" is one hell of a lot different than what FAUX News was reporting with 31,000 to 35,000 signing up for Medicaid under "Obamacare" and only 4,500 signing up for private insurance under "Obamacare."
To take an old phrase and bring it up to date, "There are LIARS, there are DAMN LIARS, and then there is FOX NEWS." And conservatives wonder why everyone except conservatives refers to Fox News as Faux News. It's calle Faux News because it doesn't report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in it's news reporting. It will go out to even lie about the facts if the lie supports their political opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 28, 2013 20:36:53 GMT
What specifically was a lie? And why would they LIE knowing someone else would print what you claim is the truth?
But I think you're missing the bigger point here. And that is that Medicaid recipients are signing up......and those who didn't have health insurance are signing up....but where are the young and the healthy? You do know, don't you, that Obamacare doesn't work unless MILLIONS of healthy people sign up.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 29, 2013 14:45:21 GMT
But I think you're missing the bigger point here. And that is that Medicaid recipients are signing up......and those who didn't have health insurance are signing up....but where are the young and the healthy? You do know, don't you, that Obamacare doesn't work unless MILLIONS of healthy people sign up.
Does the program itself have problems? Absolutely but the original Mission Statement that Medicaid was supposed to provide health care services for those that can't afford the health care services in America isn't the problem. Underfunding and underpayments are the primary problems with Medicaid today. I don't have any problem with the expansion of Medicaid based upon it's original Mission Statement which is what "Obamacare" did. Too bad so many States have refused the funding to expand Medicaid because the people being denied deserve to have medical services provided. They don't have a "Right" to them but the rest of us do have an "Obligation" to provide those services. It's the morally correct thing to do and only a basically immoral person would leave someone on the streets that needs medical services IMHO. There are some things that are more important than just money and this is one of those.
What does sadden me "politically" is that in the late 1960's and early 1970's I was highly active in establishing "Free Clinics" where basic medical services were provided by private charity. They failed over time because of a lack of donations to fund them even though the medical staff, doctors and nurses, that supported the clinics donated their time. They also had a problem in that the could only provide basic services and couldn't treat serious illnesses. We tried and it failed because of a lack of support and the limitations on services that were provided. That fact alone sort of argues against the "Libertarian" position that these services should be provided by charity because "charity" was tried already and failed.
What isn't acceptable, and shouldn't be acceptable, is to leave people standing on the corner when they need health care services but can't afford them. Medicaid and Medicare can certainly be improved and individual treatment costs reduced but to ensure that every person in America that needs medical service but can't afford them is going to cost more overall.
Ultimately this simply relates to prioritizing spending by government in America.
I've mentioned before that given the choice between playing World Cop and providing health care for Americans that can't afford it I'm going to choose providing health care for those that can't afford it in America every time.
We really can't afford to do both so which one would you choose?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 29, 2013 17:24:54 GMT
Obamacare is NOT about helping poor people. It's about control over the lives of the American people.
Just look at who is getting subsidies? Is it only the poor? NOPE. It's also the middle class who do NOT need it......examples below:
"The premium subsidies will go to anyone making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level—that is, single people earning up to $46,000 a year and families of four making up to $94,000. According to studies, around half of the adults buying Obamacare insurance on the state exchanges next year will be eligible for premium subsidies that, on average, will slash premiums by 66 percent.
The Henry J.Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, reports that a Vermont family of four headed by a 40-year-old making $60,000 would get a $751 a month subsidy, reducing a popular plan’s $1,161 monthly premium to a more reasonable $409 a month. And recently I interviewed a middle-class Connecticut man whose family premium would drop from today’s punishing $1,717 a month to less than $400."
A family of 4 making up to $94,000/yr getting a subsidy? A single person making up to $46,000/yr getting a subsidy? Who would have ever thought that this level of income needs subsidies? That's because they don't. Again.....it's all about federal gov't control of your life. And they are buying you off.....with taxpayer money.....in order to get you hooked and dependent on the federal gov't.
www.parade.com/169009/franklalli/does-obamacare-health-insurance-make-sense-for-me/
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 30, 2013 8:42:17 GMT
There are two parts of "Obamacare" and when a "complaint" was presented related to the expansion of Medicaid I addressed that.
Medicaid is exclusively about providing medical services for those that require them but can't afford them. Since it's inception it never achieved that goal because it was underfunded by the federal-state partnership in funding. "Obamacare" expanded Medicaid in an attempt to cover all of the poor that would basically require a 100% subsidy to purchase private health insurance (or that is the principle).
So does the "objection" still stand? Should Medicaid be expanded to cover those people that can't afford health services or insurance at all because they're just too poor? This is exclusively about the poor that need healthcare, can't afford it, and no one else.
Should poor people (and only poor people) be covered by Medicaid to ensure they receive medical services they need and that can potentially save their lives or not?
As for the government subsidies to individuals and families under "Obamacare" I'll also condemn them as being somewhat irrational, illogical, and unfair in many respects. I understand the principle behind them but the implementation under the law pretty much sucks IMHO. So I divide this into "Principle" and "Implementation" and I endorse for former and condemn the latter.
So we agree the "Implementation" sucks but what is your opinion on the "Principle" behind the subsidies? Got any ideas on this?
BTW I also condemn the "coverage" requirements being imposed. For example I believe a person can afford to pay for an annual physical out of their pocket in every case with the exception of the poor covered by Medicaid. Expenditures that can be "budgeted" should not be paid for with insurance as the use of insurance dramatically increases the cost of the service provided.
There are a lot of "Obamacare" provisions that "suck" and really need to be fixed or eventually replaced by a better health care plan.
|
|
A single person making up to $46,000/yr getting a subsidy? Who would have ever thought that this level of income needs subsidies? That's because they don't. Again.....it's all about federal gov't control of your life. And they are buying you off.....with taxpayer money.....in order to get you hooked and dependent on the federal gov't.