| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,632 Views) | |
| Baldo | Oct 23 2014, 04:43 PM Post #1096 |
|
The one thing I know personally for sure is that generic drug prices are increasing. Why would generic drug prices rise? |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 24 2014, 08:42 AM Post #1097 |
|
Notice that on cost sharing, only 40-50% understood what was going on. The deductibles and other out-of-pocket may put the plans under for a great many. It was not good to identify "minorities" as if that is a reason for lack of knowledge! Edited by kbp, Oct 24 2014, 08:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 24 2014, 03:06 PM Post #1098 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_gyWLp---U Dick Morris Obamacare Gave Insurance to Just 2.3 Million Uninsured...THAT’S IT!!! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT! He hits on the federal control objective, that new right many believe they now have. This is not all new news, but refreshing it is good. A link I'm fairly certain I had on this topic was: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/04/01/how-well-is-obamacare-covering-the-uninsured-a-glass-half-empty-moment/ |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 24 2014, 03:46 PM Post #1099 |
|
Now I'm curious as to what the cost per person is for all those newly insured? That seems like a campaign issue. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Oct 26 2014, 06:20 PM Post #1100 |
|
Remember the ‘We’ll Lower Premiums by up to $2,500′ Promise? Take A Look at What’s Actually Happened Much has been made of the President’s promises that, under the Affordable Health Care Act, “nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have” – that neither a change in one’s coverage nor doctor would be required. He also promised that the plan would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.” Well, take a look at this graph about how that promise has been kept in 2014: ![]() So, unless you’re in all but a small handful of states, you’ve seen premiums increase from 10% to as much as 85%. One thing to note is that for New Jersey, which the graph shows as declining by 37.5 percent, the data is incomplete and the decrease is an estimate. Just ahead are two more significant events: Firstly, the 2015 premiums, which are expected to be even higher than 2014’s, will be released just after the November midterm elections. Secondly, the employer mandate kicks in at the first of the year and the ripple effect of that on existing plans, similar to the effect from last year’s individual mandate, is also yet to be known....snipped http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/192043-remember-well-lower-premiums-2500-promise-take-look-see-whats-actually-happened/ Data taken from (Note you have to pay to download it which I didn't) The Early Impact of the Affordable Care Act State-By-State Amanda E. Kowalski NBER Working Paper No. 20597 Issued in October 2014 NBER Program(s): AG HC PE I examine the impact of state policy decisions on the early impact of the ACA using data through the first half of 2014. I focus on the individual health insurance market, which includes plans purchased through exchanges as well as plans purchased directly from insurers. In this market, at least 13.2 million people were covered in the second quarter of 2014, representing an increase of at least 4.2 million beyond pre-ACA state-level trends. I use data on coverage, premiums, and costs and a model developed by Hackmann, Kolstad, and Kowalski (2013) to calculate changes in selection and markups, which allow me to estimate the welfare impact of the ACA on participants in the individual health insurance market in each state. I then focus on comparisons across groups of states. The estimates from my model imply that market participants in the five “direct enforcement” states that ceded all enforcement of the ACA to the federal government are experiencing welfare losses of approximately $245 per participant on an annualized basis, relative to participants in all other states. They also imply that the impact of setting up a state exchange depends meaningfully on how well it functions. Market participants in the six states that had severe exchange glitches are experiencing welfare losses of approximately $750 per participant on an annualized basis, relative to participants in other states with their own exchanges. Although the national impact of the ACA is likely to change over the course of 2014 as coverage, costs, and premiums evolve, I expect that the differential impacts that we observe across states will persist through the rest of 2014. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20597 |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Oct 26 2014, 06:24 PM Post #1101 |
|
In other words. If you like your plan too bad If you want to keep your doctor, well maybe, but we can't guarantee it If you think you will save $2500/year, SUCKER! ' Yep I agree with Joe Biden. "It's a big F*cking" Deal" Too bad he was describing it as a verb & what was going to happen to a majority of Americans Edited by Baldo, Oct 26 2014, 06:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 27 2014, 06:42 AM Post #1102 |
|
The main focus of her study is the costs to consumers based on how they cooperated with the federal government in establishing exchanges to provide subsidies and expansion of Medicaid, which is like a rating of how well they did obtaining FREE MONEY... so if the state avoided shifting the cost to the general taxpayer, she notes it as a loss. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 27 2014, 09:20 AM Post #1103 |
|
The time spanning Nov 6, 2014 thru Jan 1, 2015 might be very revealing as to which states will jump on board the Obamacare wagon. The HHS had an open hand in providing huge grants for states to use in establishing an exchange, no written limits really to how much they could give states (more proof that there were incentives for states to cooperate!). This HHS grant authority expires on December 31, 2014. A real deal sweetener is that the HHS decided the grants could be spent for an extended period of time of FIVE YEARS after receiving the grant. That pops the question of what some states are doing with the extra money now! Anyway, the opportunity to get that extra money will end about 55 days AFTER the election. Who will voluntarily miss the cutoff date for all that FREE MONEY? ADD: Another factor is States may have a concern with Halbig type cases pending and the fact they could lose out on all that FREE MONEY if they believe they may need premium subsidies for residents within their States... Edited by kbp, Oct 27 2014, 09:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 27 2014, 11:37 AM Post #1104 |
|
A trend to raise costs?
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 27 2014, 11:40 AM Post #1105 |
|
It's awful hard for politicians to pass up on FREE MONEY, even harder to take it away later! |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 28 2014, 11:22 AM Post #1106 |
|
Government solutions...when Oatman needs to see a doctor in a hurry, she drives to the nearest emergency room Government cures often are the cause of the next problem taxpayers must pay for! Reid's state, Nevada, had almost a 100% increase in enrollees. How much you want to bet that Reid was a part of the plan to hold off on any expansion by the state until AFTER Obamacare came out to shift the cost to the federal taxpayers (100% now, 90% later)? |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 28 2014, 11:57 AM Post #1107 |
|
Problems: Too low pay for providers, Dr's shoulder too much of costs overall, and newly insured have too much out-of-pocket expense (if they can't pay premiums, how can they pay deductible?) Anyway, we had close to 300 million covered prior to Obamacare, and now have maybe 7+ million throughout the entire nation covered under Obamacare. That just about 2% increase, so where or how are they finding all these plan holders to point out these problems? I'm starting to suspect this is some kind of a planned complaint rally in the news. The initial impression is that Obamacare is not working great, but... First we're getting a new right to healthcare, so is this part of a plan to move towards EQUAL healthcare, a hidden campaign? We often read that many want to fix it instead of repealing it. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Oct 29 2014, 10:09 PM Post #1108 |
|
Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out of Obamacare Exchanges Over 214,000 doctors won't participate in the new plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA,) analysis of a new survey by Medical Group Management Association shows. That number of 214,524, estimated by American Action Forum, is through May 2014, but appears to be growing due to plans that force doctors to take on burdensome costs. It's also about a quarter of the total number of 893,851 active professional physicians reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation. In January, an estimated 70% of California's physicians were not participating in Covered California plans. Here are some of the reasons why: 1. Reimbursements under Obamacare are at bottom-dollar - they are even lower than Medicare reimbursements, which are already significantly below market rates. "It is estimated that where private plans pay $1.00 for a service, Medicare pays $0.80, and ACA exchange plans are now paying about $0.60," a study by the think-tank American Action Forum finds. "For example, Covered California plans are setting their plan fee schedules in line with that of Medi-Cal-California's Medicaid Program-which means exchange plans are cutting provider reimbursement by up to 40 percent." 2. Doctors are expected to take on more patients to make up for the lost revenue, but that's not happening, because primary care doctors already have more patients than they can handle. "Furthermore, physicians are worried that exchange plan patients will be sicker than the average patient because they may have been without insurance for extended periods of time, and therefore will require more of the PCPs time at lower pay," says the study. The study also points to two reasons that doctors might not get paid at all: 3. An MGMA study indicates that 75% of ACA patients that had seen doctors had chosen plans with high deductibles. Given that most of the patients are low-income, doctors are concerned that the patients cannot meet the deductibles and they will get stuck with the bill. 4. HHS requires that insurers cover customers for an additional 90 days after they have stopped paying their premiums: the insurer covers the first 30 - but, it's up to the doctor to recoup payment for the last 60 days. This is the number one reason providers are opting to not participate in the exchange plans. Currently, about a million people have failed to pay their premiums and had their plans canceled. So, Obamacare is asking doctors to take on sicker patients for less money, with the risk of not getting paid at all? No wonder doctors are running from these plans! http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/over-214000-doctors-opt-out-obamacare-exchanges |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 30 2014, 09:43 AM Post #1109 |
|
When the sources for reports in any way associated with Kaiser come out, think of it as news resembling that from the WH. You must research it to figure out WTH is going on in the reporting. Since all the issues cited have already been out there, I have a fair sense what they mean. They start with the "Opt Out" in the headline and then toss in "won't participate,", as they add "about a quarter of the total number of 893,851." That could leave a reader thinking 679,327 (893,851 - 214,524) doctors are in on the wonderful Obamacare plans. They do report that 70% of the California doctors are out on the Obamacare networks, so a reader should get a clue that not all 75% of the doctors in the balance above are participating in Obamacare. Why did they NOT report the EXACT number of doctors participating in Obamacare???? Recall all the complaints about finding doctors, how some said the doctors were listed but would NOT take them. That resulted from insurance companies just listing all in network agreements for other policies they had with pay schedules similar to those used in the Exchange plans. The difference though is in the ADDED terms from the HHS regulations (and overloading schedules), so the prior network pricing agreements did not bind the doctors to taking Obamacare policy holders, as it changed the payment terms (or so that is what some lawsuits are claiming). The "Opt Out" includes providers that had network agreements with insurance companies which those insurers tried to just include in the Exchange policies without notifying the doctors/providers. The real number of providers participating in Obamacare networks is closer to only 25% of all throughout the nation and the "Opt Out" number identifies providers that had been listed and have since notified insurers they "Opt Out" of the networks. To me, that shows there was a huge number of insurers playing games with the providers in their networks! This setup is such an upside down plan with deductibles and out-of-pocket expense as it is. You have 80% of Obamacare plan holders getting premium subsidies, and even with the out-of-pocket subsidies they are subject to at least a $2,000+ cost above the low part of the premium they must pay. It seems like the only insurance customers that will stay with this type of program are those that already managed to pay for insurance and those that must somehow pay for it to survive (ADD: and the healthy folks that never use it). It's more like a plan to plant the idea it is one's right to be covered than it is to actually cover many more people with affordable healthcare. Now that they have the upside down plan, they want to fix it and keep that new right . Edited by kbp, Oct 30 2014, 09:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Oct 30 2014, 10:10 AM Post #1110 |
|
For any not aware of the Kaiser news strategies, here is a narrative avoiding what the facts tell us... You have to read this entire column! “’You tellin’ me if I get a hospital bill for $100,000, I gotta pay $40,000?’ And she said, ‘Yes, ma’am.’” Never mind that the Magnolia worker was wrong — her out-of-pocket costs were legally capped at $6,350 So after a six day tour, Sarah determined the problem with Obamacare there was action by the racist, conservative Tea Party, that without them the sweet ol' waitress serving the "shrimp and cheese grits" could have afforded the out-of-pocket. She mentions the Tea Party 14 times, 9 of which were in lower case as if it were an adjective used to identify racists conservatives. I suspect Sarah is working on a book! . |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |









11:54 AM Jul 13