Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare
Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,664 Views)
kbp

http://washingtonexaminer.com/most-important-casualty-of-veterans-affairs-scandal-could-be-obamacare/article/2548916

Most important casualty of Veterans Affairs scandal could be Obamacare

There may be something on the horizon more damaging to Obamacare's future than the Veterans Affairs scandal, but it's impossible to see at the moment.

Unpredictable consequences always come about with big scandals in government, however, so the VA uproar is proving true to form. But maybe that will change in the days ahead.

In any case, Memorial Day media coverage is usually dominated by somber reminders of fallen heroes and stirring descriptions of uncommon bravery and self-sacrifice under fire.

Not this year

But it was all but impossible in 2014 to talk about Memorial Day without also talking about the VA scandal. There is simply no reconciling the contrast between the nation's love and respect for its veterans and the bureaucratic incompetence and abuse being inflicted on them by their government-run health care system.

Dr. Ben Carson, the world-famous neurosurgeon and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, may have best captured the dilemma posed by the VA scandal for President Obama and congressional Democrats.

Bureaucrats for doctors

During an interview on Fox News over the weekend, Carson laid it out on these terms:

"I think what’s happening with the veterans is a gift from God, to show us what happens when you take layers and layers of bureaucracy and place them between the patients and the health care provider.

"And if we can’t get it right, with the relatively small number of veterans, how in the world are you going to do it with the entire population? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out."

Or a political scientist

The stark political reality is that every new revelation of veterans suffering and dying due to delays in treatment or bureaucratic coverups of inefficiency bolsters Republican claims that government-run health care can't work.

No surprise then that, as the Washington Examiner's Susan Ferrechio reports today, momentum is growing in some quarters of Congress to "privatize" VA.

That could mean no more than forcing VA to cover private care the government system is unable to provide or as much as giving every discharged veteran a health care card that can be used for treatment wherever it is available as long as it is needed.

But no matter how Congress ultimately fixes VA, one thing seems all but certain — the biggest casualty of the VA scandal will be Obamacare.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

What the VA Scandal has shown so far is what happens when the Federal Govt gets involved in delivery of services.

Can Obama-care be stopped? I really don't know. We have spent billions & businesses have spent billions. The total cost will be in the hundreds of billions in fundamental changes that have to be reverse.

It simply boggles my mind that this Community Organizer from Chicago foisted this plan off on the USA. A man with No, None, Zero, Nada, Zilch business experience. Yet here we have a fundamental aspect of our economy changed by detached bureaucrats.

IMHO we haven't ready gotten to the meat & potatoes of what Obama-care is supposed to be about. The delivery of Health-care services. The VA Scandal portends what our future will be like.

I hope the Dems rot in political hell for what they have done. I just hope we can elected decent politicians who won't be Rinos or bought off. That might be just as hard a task.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
kbp
May 28 2014, 11:41 PM
Mason
May 28 2014, 09:31 PM
It's his living law!
The democrats consider 0bamacare to be a living breathing document just like the constitution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/28/report-employee-health-care-premiums-boosted-under-obamacare/?advD=1248,153371?print=1?print=1

Report: Employee Health Care Premiums Boosted Under Obamacare

American workers are feeling the brunt of higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs from their employer health plans, according to a new report released Wednesday.

In the first year that the health care law’s regulations and coverage are active, 86 percent of workers expect their personal medical costs to increase, according to the annual Aflac WorkForces Report, which has studied the landscape of employer-provided health coverage since Obamacare was passed in 2010.

That’s in line with employers’ projections as well. In 2013, 56 percent of companies increased their employees’ share of health care premiums or co-pays; another 59 percent plan to do the same by the end of 2014.

Employers and insurance companies have both markedly shifted towards a new model where consumers pay higher out-of-pocket costs every time they actually use health services — in addition to rising premiums.

A vast majority of workers still feel insecure about medical costs, however: The report found that the average American worker is just one serious medical event away from financial hardship.

Sixty-six percent fear that they wouldn’t be able to handle the large costs of a serious illness or injury. When it comes to paying unexpected out-of-pocket medical costs, 49 percent of workers have less than $1,000 on hand; 27 percent of employees have less than $500.

Employees’ consistent worries about handling health-care costs were supposed to be alleviated by the health-care law, but even insured employees remain largely unprepared to deal with typical out-of-pocket costs.

The threat of bankruptcy due to unexpected medical costs was a key talking point for the Affordable Care Act’s supporters. Obamacare limits insurers’ ability to cap annual and lifetime payments for essential health benefits, but with many workers unable to pay over $1,000 out-of-pocket, financial hardships will arise for more routine health services.

While workers continue to struggle with health-care costs, employers are scrambling to lower their own ballooning health-care costs, naming it their top business concern. In 2013, 21 percent of companies surveyed converted full-time workers to part time, avoiding health-insurance costs; and 22 percent eliminated or reduced offered employee benefits.

Even on top of rising premiums, the cost outlook for employer-provided health insurance, which cover approximately 157 million Americans, remains bleak. Already, a long list of taxes will be passed from insurers to employers to workers, and more are due to hit in the next several years.

The employer mandate to provide health insurance will hit all companies that don’t provide health plans in 2016; and in 2018, the “Cadillac tax,” a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health plans, will hit employers as well.

...out-of-pocket medical costs, 49 percent of workers have less than $1,000 on hand; 27 percent of employees have less than $500 ...many workers unable to pay over $1,000 out-of-pocket, financial hardships will arise for more routine health services.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

Medicare coverage ban on sex-change surgery lifted

http://news.yahoo.com/medicare-coverage-ban-sex-change-surgery-lifted-165659894.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wingedwheel
Member Avatar
Not Pictured Above
Concerned
May 30 2014, 03:48 PM
I don't even know what to say.

:bump:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

wingedwheel
May 30 2014, 03:55 PM
Concerned
May 30 2014, 03:48 PM
I don't even know what to say.

:bump:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Transgender people receiving Medicare may no longer be automatically denied coverage for sex reassignment surgeries, a U.S. Department of Health and Services review board ruled Friday in a groundbreaking decision that recognizes the procedures as a medically necessary and effective treatment for individuals who do not identify with their biological sex.

Ruling in favor of a 74-year-old Army veteran whose request to have Medicare pay for her genital reconstruction was denied two years ago, the agency's Departmental Appeals Board ruled that a three-decade-old HHS rule excluding such surgeries from the procedures covered by the national health program for the elderly and disabled was unjustified.

"Sometimes I am asked aren't I too old to have surgery. My answer is how old is too old?" the veteran, Denee Mallon, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an email interview before the board issued its decision. "When people ask if I am too old, it feels like they are implying that it's a 'waste of money' to operate at my age. But I could have an active life ahead of me for another 20 years. And I want to spend those years in congruence and not distress."..snipped


Ok Folks, what the hell are we paying for anybody who is over 65 to have a sex change? If they put up with it for 65 years its a little late.

Of course old grandpa who needs a hip surgery will be told to take some pain killers and go home & die, but we will cut off your penis, give you breast implants, & shoot you full of estrogen if you wish.

I am telling you DC is Corrupt, psychotic, and is a cesspool!
Edited by Baldo, May 30 2014, 04:47 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Young(er) people can get medicare, I beleive, if they have a disability. Maybe being transgender is a disability.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

chatham
May 30 2014, 06:00 PM
Young(er) people can get medicare, I beleive, if they have a disability. Maybe being transgender is a disability.
Oh boy! That would be a good debate to follow.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

In 2010, Medicare provided health insurance to 48 million Americans—40 million people age 65 and older and eight million younger people with disabilities.

ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act rules.

Under ADA, Gender Identity Disorder(GID) is expressly acknowledged to be a disability and expressly called out that it is a disability. Moreover it is a disability that is expressly excluded from benefits. See Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 511, codified at 42 U.S.C. 12211(b)(1). http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm

SSI benefits for SEVERE depression is possible. But NOT if the depression is connected to any of transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders; compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs.
http://www.psychforums.com/gender-identity-disorder/topic53990.html


So it makes me wonder if the ADA law passed by Congress says it excluded, how can bureaucrats say it is now covered?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genny6348
Genny6348
Baldo
May 31 2014, 10:10 AM
So it makes me wonder if the ADA law passed by Congress says it excluded, how can bureaucrats say it is now covered?
Because no one will do a da*m thing about it. This admin has been given
carte blanche by the GOP, who are all hat, no cattle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

On the Journal Editorial TV Report they discussed Big Labor’s Big Regret. Namely the Unions are balking at high cost of Obamacare. This applies to not government workers but unions in the private sector. It will however eventually apply to govt workers also.

Contract negotiations are underway on a number of large union contracts that will be coming up for years into 2018 and beyond. The problem is the healthcare costs are higher than was originally thought. Those increases are now turning out to be 10% per year until 2018 & then the Cadillac tax kicks in with even higher yearly increases.

Obamacare was sold on it would lower costs. Of course any fool that believe that deserves a swift kick in the butt.. Apparently there are a lot of Union Leaders lining up.

Excise Tax on High-Cost Coverage (Cadillac Tax)

Summary
Beginning in 2018, a 40 percent excise tax will be imposed on the value of health insurance benefits exceeding a certain threshold. The thresholds are $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage (indexed to inflation). The thresholds increase for individuals in high-risk professions and for employers that have a disproportionately older population….snipped
The tax applies to both fully insured and self-funded plans. In the case of fully insured coverage that exceeds the applicable threshold, the issuer is responsible for paying the 40 percent excise tax.
In the case of self-funded coverage, the plan administrator (normally the employer) is responsible for paying the excise tax.

http://www.uhc.com/united_for_reform_resource_center/health_reform_provisions/excise_tax_on_high_cost_coverage.htm

You can see what will happen. Businesses are saying our costs is going to soar and we can’t pay for it and are demanding concessions elsewhere or less perks to not qualify under the Cadillac Tax thresholds. So Contract negotiations are going nowhere fast and the Unions are realizing what it means.

Why did the Union Leaders support Obama-care is the question? I guess they should have read the bill.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Chatham should appreciate this one...

Quote:
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/31/analysts-predict-most-employer-provided-insurance-will-disappear-as-obamacare/

Analysts predict most employer-provided insurance will disappear as ObamaCare takes hold

Across the political spectrum, analysts now say that 80 to 90 percent of employer-provided insurance, the mainstay of American health coverage for decades, will disappear as ObamaCare takes hold.

The research firm S&P IQ predicts less than 10 percent of those who get insurance at work will still get it there ten years from now.

"The companies will really be hard pressed to justify why they would continue to have to spend the kind of money they spend by offering insurance through corporate plans when there's an alternative that's subsidized by the government" said Michael Thompson, head of S&P IQ.

Even a former adviser to President Obama, Zeke Emanuel, predicted less than 20 percent who now get employer-provided insurance will still get it ten years from now. He wrote in his book "Reinventing American Health Care" that "By 2025 few private-sector employers will still be providing health insurance."

Emanuel told Fox News, “it's going to actually be better for people. They'll have more choice, most people who work for an employer and get their coverage through an employer do not have choice."

The reason analysts see this historic change in health coverage is because the tax penalty for not offering insurance -- $2,000 per worker-- is so much less than the cost of providing it.

John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis explained that, "for a worker making only $15 an hour, typical employer coverage for a family costs $15,000 or $16,000, that's more than half of that worker’s annual wage."

Thompson said, "it would be too compelling for companies to not put their employees into exchanges. It's just way too compelling."

To make it compelling to workers, as well, employers can bump up workers' pay to help cover the deductibles and other costs in ObamaCare.

Former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin said,"you could give them more, so after taxes they end up with the same and the math says you still come out ahead. And so employers have been doing this math ever since the law passed. I expect for them to get to the exits pretty quickly."

Employers would also get rid of the headache and uncertainty of providing insurance, he noted. "Most people are not in the health insurance business they are manufacturers, exporters, they are service providers. And they would rather stick to that than worry about health insurance."

Goodman added, "they don't want to be in the health insurance business. So if they see a low cost way to get out of it, many will jump at the chance."

So employers can offer more pay to workers, pay the fine and still come out ahead, while workers would still get health care.

The only losers in all this would be the federal deficit and taxpayers, since many workers going into ObamaCare would qualify for subsidies, driving up the cost.

...The reason analysts see this historic change in health coverage is because the tax penalty for not offering insurance -- $2,000 per worker-- is so much less than the cost of providing it.

This has been mentioned before, but I never read about how the transition would hit us.

The numbers (see 2nd link in my signature) were based on insuring the uninsured. Add the previously insured and you have astronomical changes. Just using rough numbers, the 25 million in the exchange is faced with about 150 million more that employers insured.

The expenditures sky rocket and the Obamacare exchange revenue source seems limited to an increase in Employer Penalties. The CBO peak is $20 billion there. I have no idea what the number of actual employees covered under the employer sponsored coverage is, as many policies cover FAMILY. Maybe 75 million employees, which at $2,000 penalty per would provide $150 billion per year (check my math!). I suppose incomes would increase so employees could afford coverage, but would the people accept taxation on that increase?

I suppose the $150 billion (if accurate!) is a big increase, but it's hard to tell how it would work out.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

There are all kids of rules and regulations. but in general….

WHAT DOES “DISABLED” MEAN FOR AN ADULT?
If you are age 18 or older we may consider you “disabled” if you have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment (including an emotional or learning problem) which:

results in the inability to do any substantial gainful activity; and

can be expected to result in death; or

has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.

SSA has an obligation to provide benefits quickly to applicants whose medical conditions are so serious that their conditions obviously meet disability standards. The Compassionate Allowances (CAL) initiative allows Social Security to target the most obviously disabled individuals for claims approval based on objective medical information that we can obtain quickly. Fifty medical conditions were initially selected for this initiative. Since that time we have added 150 conditions bringing the total number of conditions to 200. The list may expand over time. A complete list of CAL conditions may be viewed online at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/compassionateallowances/conditions.htm
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/05/31/Rand-On-ObamaCare-Next-Timebomb-Hospitals-Realizing-Subsidized-Patients-Cant-Pay-Deductibles
RAND PAUL: HOSPITALS REALIZING SUBSIDIZED OBAMACARE PATIENTS CAN'T PAY DEDUCTIBLES
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply