Baldo

Mar 7 2015, 12:09 PM

Just a little guessing and in no way scientific or proven

How many people still don't have health insurance?

It is a hard number to compute, but it was claimed 45 million or so didn't have health insurance prior to Obamacare. Data I believe was taken of the 2010 census. The Obama Administration claim is 10 million have signed up for Obamacare, I don't have any idea whether true or not as they lie too often with statistics.

Another aspect, the USA has grown since those original Obama numbers. What is the actual number today after Obamacare? It is estimate we have 325,000,000 people today. In 2010 we had 308,000,00. We have grown by 16,000,000

Pre Obamacare Percentage of people without Health Insurance
45 million/308,000,000 = 14.6

2015 Obamacare Percentage of people without Health Insurance
35,000,000/325,000,000 = 10.6

Seems like a huge upset & cost for just a 4% reduction, if indeed they are being honest.

I will also note the Obamacare stats estimates of 10 million enrolled include 25% who were added to parents policy & around 40% who were added to Medicaid, leaving 35%, of which as high as 80% receive partial subsides.

Magically just how many did Obamacare actually force into buying Healthcare all by themselves? Probably around 1 million

All this just a guess to see proportions.

Quote:

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-channels-orwell/article/2561075

Obamacare channels Orwell

Toward the end of Wednesday's oral arguments in the latest Obamacare case to make it to the Supreme Court, Donald Verrilli, U.S. Solicitor General, argued that the administration's interpretation of the healthcare law was the most deferential to states. The argument, apart from coming from an administration that has consistently asserted a robust role for the federal government, was a bid to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote, who raised concerns about the federalism implications of the suit.

[...]

Verrilli argued that the law's text "is designed to afford state flexibility" and that the challengers' interpretation would contradict this. He added, "It would be an Orwellian sense of the word 'flexibility' to use it in the manner that petitioners say the statute uses it, because it's the polar opposite of flexibility." The implication was that this would be preposterous.

In truth, Orwellian semantics are a standard aspect of Obamacare, a law that's named the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" even though in reality it has triggered the cancellation of individual health insurance plans, narrowed choices of doctors and hospitals, and jacked up the sticker price of insurance.

If you want to get a sense of how Orwellian the law actually is, just look at the section cited by Verrilli — 1321. It promises "state flexibility," as he noted, but starts by instructing the secretary of Health and Human Services (a federal official) to "issue regulations setting the standards for meeting the requirements" for states creating exchanges, offering health insurance through the exchanges and managing risk in the insurance market. It also says the federal government can impose "such other requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate." So any state that sets up an exchange must abide by a mountain of federal regulations and that it can only offer insurance policies that meet the federal definition.

Any state that acts under this section to create an exchange, must do so "at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe." States, the law specifies, must meet federal standards and pass a state law "that the Secretary determines implements" those standards. Is that what passes for "flexibility" these days?

This is just a small taste of the Orwellian language used in Obamacare, particularly when it comes to the role of states. Another section advertises a "Waiver for State Innovation," which in plain English, one might think would be a way for states to avoid the mandates of Obamacare, and instead develop creative healthcare policies that best serve the unique needs of their populations. For instance, some states might prefer to focus on reducing costs by encouraging the adoption of cheaper catastrophic plans attached to health savings accounts — providing individuals more control over their healthcare dollars while still protecting them against financial ruin in case of major medical setbacks. But that sort of innovation isn't possible under Obamacare. The "waiver" option doesn't even kick in until 2017 and it comes with many strings attached. All insurance offered in the states must be "at least as comprehensive as the coverage" defined by Obamacare. That coverage must be offered on an exchange, and states must prove their proposals would cover as many people as Obamacare.

Given this history of twisting language, it comes as no surprise that the administration spent Wednesday arguing that when the authors of Obamacare made subsidies available to an "exchange established by the state" they really meant, "established by the state or the federal government."

• 
  
• ...instructing the secretary of HHS (a federal official) to "issue regulations setting the standards for meeting the requirements"
  
  
• ...[HHS] managing risk in the insurance market
  
  
• ...[creating whatever] "requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate"
  
  
• ...[establishing an exchange] "at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe"

Quote:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/07/federalism-arguments-in-king-v-burwell/

Federalism arguments in King v. Burwell

Defenders of the administration’s position in King v. Burwell have recently emphasized two federalism-based arguments in support of their claim that the Affordable Care Act must be interpreted to allow federal subsidies for health insurance purchased in federal government exchanges, as well as in those established by states.

The first, emphasized by Marty Lederman, holds that any ambiguities in interpretation of the law should resolved in favor of the government in order to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rule that federal statutes must be construed to avoid interpretations that upset “the usual balance” between federal and state power.

The second – advanced in an amicus brief by state governments that support the ACA – claims that the plaintiffs’ interpretation might raise constitutional problems because it would result in possibly unconstitutional “coercion” of state governments, who would be pressured into setting up their own exchanges in order to avoid the loss of federal subsidies.

The two arguments suffer from the same common flaw: Both try to use doctrines developed to protect state governments against potentially excessive federal intrusion to justify an interpretation of the ACA that expands federal power rather than limits it.

[...]

Baldo

Mar 9 2015, 11:09 AM

[...]

The lower costs are at least in part due to fewer people gaining coverage. The CBO predicted 11 million people will be enrolled in insurance exchanges in 2015, rising to 21 million next year. Both of those are lower than initial projections...snipped Of those 11 million using the exchanges this year, about 8 million will be getting tax subsidies to help pay for their plans. The average subsidy is $3,960.

[...]

Mason

Mar 9 2015, 12:42 PM

.
How about all the people that have got little or no raises as their companies used the money to pay for the increases mandated in the Health Care law?

Some companies sent out letters saying that's precisely the case.

.

Quote:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/some-supreme-court-justices-cite-2012-argument-against-health-care-law-as-defense-for-it-now.html

Some Supreme Court Justices Cite 2012 Argument Against Health Care Law as Defense for It Now

In 2012, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had put “a gun to the head” of states by pressuring them to expand Medicaid, and it said that such “economic dragooning” of the states violated federalism principles embedded in the Constitution.

Now, in a separate case, comments by several justices indicate that they could uphold a pillar of the Affordable Care Act — insurance subsidies for millions of lower-income people — by invoking those same principles.

In 2012, the court said it would be unconstitutional for Congress to cut off all Medicaid payments to states that refused to expand eligibility, and this ruling instantly transformed the expansion of Medicaid into a state option.

That precedent echoed through oral arguments last week before the court; justices again expressed respect for federalism and state sovereignty.

Under the health care law, Congress gave states a choice: They could establish and operate their own competitive insurance marketplaces, or they could rely on one established by the federal government. It was, several justices said, inconceivable that Congress would then punish states that used the federal exchange by denying insurance subsidies to their residents.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested that such a choice could coerce states in a potentially unconstitutional way. Under the theory favored by critics of the health care law, Justice Kennedy said last week, “the states are being told either create your own exchange, or we’ll send your insurance market into a death spiral,” and “the cost of insurance will be sky high.”

Mark H. Gallant, a health lawyer at Cozen O’Connor in Philadelphia, said: “Justice Kennedy’s take on this case was a brilliant touch. He used the plaintiffs’ own argument against them to suggest that it would be unconstitutionally coercive if Congress made the subsidies depend on a state’s decision to establish an exchange.”

Plaintiffs in the case, King v. Burwell, say the Affordable Care Act authorizes subsidies only in states that created their own insurance exchanges.

Justice Antonin Scalia said it was “gobbledygook” for the Obama administration to suggest that an exchange set up by the federal government “qualifies as an exchange established by the state.” When the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, he said, the court cannot twist the words to avoid “untoward consequences.”

And Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the court could delay the impact of its ruling if the consequences were as disruptive as the administration said.

But the Obama administration argues that the subsidies are available in all states, including more than 30 that refused to establish exchanges and rely on the federal marketplace. Without the subsidies, it says, many people would be unable to afford insurance, and healthier consumers would go without coverage, leaving insurers with a sicker, more expensive pool of customers.

The Affordable Care Act has begun reducing the number of uninsured in two main ways: by expanding Medicaid and by providing tax credits to subsidize private insurance purchased through the public exchanges. The court, which focused on Medicaid three years ago, is now examining the subsidies.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Michael A. Carvin, that if the court accepted his argument, it would be “intruding on the federal-state relationship, because then the states are going to be coerced into establishing their own exchanges.”

And Justice Elena Kagan said Congress had not warned states of the consequences if they chose to use the federal exchange. In interpreting statutes, Justice Kagan said, the court presumes that “Congress does not mean to impose heavy burdens and draconian choices on states unless it says so awfully clearly.”

For decades, more conservative justices have emphasized respect for state sovereignty. The court often uses “basic principles of federalism embodied in the Constitution to resolve ambiguity in a federal statute,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his opinion for the court in an unrelated case nine months ago.

The oral arguments also showed how the court, in the digital age, could be influenced by a flood of research, analysis and commentary from bloggers, scholars and advocates forecasting dire consequences if insurance subsidies end. More than 20 legal briefs have conveyed those concerns to the court, citing studies by groups like the Commonwealth Fund, the Urban Institute, the Kaiser Family Foundation, the RAND Corporation and Families USA.

“In the last six weeks,” said Abbe R. Gluck, a law professor at Yale, “people finally woke up and became aware of the drastic real-world consequences.”

A typical study, from the Urban Institute, based on a computer model of the health care system, was titled: “Implications of a Supreme Court Finding for the Plaintiff in King v. Burwell: 8.2 Million More Uninsured and 35 Percent Higher Premiums.”

When ruling on appeals, judges typically make decisions by closely reading the law and applying it to the facts of a case, as revealed in a trial court. But in the subsidies case, supporters of the health care law found a way to bring their predictions to the Supreme Court justices’ attention.

The government argued that Congress could not have imposed such drastic consequences on states without discussing the impact and without giving clear, explicit notice to the states.

“If that was really the plan, then the consequence for the states would be in neon lights in this statute,” said Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

For decades, more conservative justices have emphasized respect for state sovereignty. The court often uses “basic principles of federalism embodied in the Constitution to resolve ambiguity in a federal statute,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his opinion for the court in an unrelated case nine months ago.

The oral arguments also showed how the court, in the digital age, could be influenced by a flood of research, analysis and commentary from bloggers, scholars and advocates forecasting dire consequences if insurance subsidies end. More than 20 legal briefs have conveyed those concerns to the court, citing studies by groups like the Commonwealth Fund, the Urban Institute, the Kaiser Family Foundation, the RAND Corporation and Families USA.

“In the last six weeks,” said Abbe R. Gluck, a law professor at Yale, “people finally woke up and became aware of the drastic real-world consequences.”

A typical study, from the Urban Institute, based on a computer model of the health care system, was titled: “Implications of a Supreme Court Finding for the Plaintiff in King v. Burwell: 8.2 Million More Uninsured and 35 Percent Higher Premiums.”

When ruling on appeals, judges typically make decisions by closely reading the law and applying it to the facts of a case, as revealed in a trial court. But in the subsidies case, supporters of the health care law found a way to bring their predictions to the Supreme Court justices’ attention.

The government argued that Congress could not have imposed such drastic consequences on states without discussing the impact and without giving clear, explicit notice to the states.

“If that was really the plan, then the consequence for the states would be in neon lights in this statute,” said Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

Justice Kennedy has long been a protector of the states. They need clear notice of the conditions attached to federal funds so they can “guard against excessive federal intrusion into state affairs and be vigilant in policing the boundaries of federal power,” he wrote in 1999.

The Affordable Care Act expanded federal power, but preserved a large role for states.

Mr. Carvin, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said the law had offered an irresistible incentive — “billions of free federal dollars” in subsidies — as an inducement for states to set up exchanges.

“That’s hardly invading state sovereignty,” Mr. Carvin said.

Baldo

Mar 10 2015, 12:26 PM

Report: Specialty drugs push prescription spending to highest increase in more than a decade

The nation's largest pharmacy benefits manager says prescription drugs spending rose 13 percent last year, the largest annual increase since 2003.

Express Scripts says the gains were fueled by pricey specialty drugs that accounted for about 31 cents of every dollar spent on prescriptions even though they represented only 1 percent of all U.S. prescriptions filled. Specialty drugs are advanced medications that treat complex or chronic conditions like hepatitis C and multiple sclerosis.

Express Scripts Holding Co. and several insurers have warned for more than a year about the growing financial impact from specialty drugs like Gilead Sciences' hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi. Express Scripts also says in an annual report on prescription spending that the specialty drug trend will slow to more sustainable levels over the next three years...snipped

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2015/03/10/report-specialty-drugs-push-prescription-spending-to-highest-increase-in-more/

Also pretty clear to me generic drug prices are soaring.

What did you think? Big Phrama signed up with Obama.