| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,631 Views) | |
| kbp | Oct 30 2014, 10:22 AM Post #1111 |
|
So the good news is an increase in Obamacare's head count through previously insured participants being subsidized by taxpayers? ...projected a five-year migration...now...will be compressed into two years Think national economic conditions subjected to increased costs from Obamacare regulations, a market trapped. |
 |
 
|
| Baldo | Oct 30 2014, 10:27 AM Post #1112 |
|
Obama is President for 2 more years. Even if the republicans gain control of the Senate he will veto any attempt to modify or cancel his legacy. The "fruits" of Obama-care are coming into play in 2015. Those Congressional Democrats drank the Kool-aid in 2010. Little did they think Obama will ride off in a fat pension & a speaking tour while the Dems get stuck with the ramifactions. In the final accounting it will come down to what does it cost Americans. What will they pay? What will be the quality of service? I suspect we will start to see results in 2015 & 2016. Don't forget the runaway National Debt that will come due. Then add the failures of Obama's Foreign Policy and it could be a brutal 2 years. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 30 2014, 11:11 AM Post #1113 |
|
Much more good data at the link. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 31 2014, 09:44 AM Post #1114 |
|
A good comment I saw about the Halbig case:
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 31 2014, 10:06 AM Post #1115 |
|
This will have you ROFLAO! http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_080130_nd_obama_hrc_healthcare_plan_forces_health_insurance2.pdf It is a copy of a 3 page mailer Barry's team sent out during the Democratic primary race (January 2008). He condemns Hillary's mandate, complains about forcing people to buy insurance they can't afford, and then TWICE promises the people his plan will save you $2,500/year! Wish I had the tools on this laptop to post the pics from this pdf! ADD: Recall that all the "factchecker" sites have since rewrote WTH Barry meant when he said that again and again! Edited by kbp, Oct 31 2014, 10:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 31 2014, 10:46 AM Post #1116 |
|
I suspect these politicians came out with this yesterday in desperation to help in the election. I'll just paste excerpts from it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/affordable-care-act-opponents-are-cherry-picking-their-history/2014/10/30/2199a04e-5fac-11e4-91f7-5d89b5e8c251_story.html Affordable Care Act opponents are cherry-picking their history By Tom Harkin, Ron Wyden, Sander M. Levin, George Miller and Henry A. Waxman - October 30 at 3:02 PM
[They failed on the affordability!] As the New England Journal of Medicine recently determined, an estimated 10 million Americans gained health insurance between September 2013 and this past April, and most of them received financial help to make their coverage affordable. [Bragging that "most" are paid for by taxpayers after bragging about affordability?] Despite this progress, the law’s opponents continue to try to undermine it. They seem unwilling to recognize the implications of their actions. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would take us back to the days when health care was reserved for the healthy and wealthy. In a series of legal challenges, opponents have inaccurately argued that Congress intended to provide financial help only to Americans living in the 14 states that directly run their own health insurance marketplaces, not in the 36 states that delegated administration of their marketplaces to the federal government. This interpretation is wrong. As members of Congress who shaped and debated the legislation, we want to set the record straight. ...None of us contemplated that the bill as enacted could be misconstrued to limit financial help only to people in states opting to directly run health insurance marketplaces. In fact, as chairs of the three House committees that collectively authored the health-care reform legislation (Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and the Workforce), three of us issued a joint fact sheet in March 2010 [their 2010 rewrite of 2009 law] reflecting our intention that financial help would be available to consumers in the state marketplaces, whether the state were to run it directly or via the federal government. [Okay, start by explaining hoe "members of Congress who shaped and debated the legislation" came to write subsidies come ”through an Exchange established by the State,” and then go to intent!] But the law expressly provides that low- and middle-income Americans and their families will receive financial help to make their coverage more affordable. In an attempt to make their case, the law’s opponents cherry-pick one four-word phrase — “established by the State” — from the formula used to determine how much financial help Americans are eligible to receive and use this phrase to argue that assistance isn’t available to people living in states that decided to use the federal marketplace. But the language on which the law’s opponents rely means no such thing. Every state is required to have a marketplace to help Americans shop for affordable coverage. While states can set up a marketplace themselves, the law directs the federal government to set up “such” exchanges in states that do not. The law requires the federally facilitated marketplace to be functionally the same as marketplaces established by states — making clear that an exchange created by the federal government is, as a matter of law, “an Exchange established by the State” — and people are entitled to financial assistance regardless of which type of marketplace they use. [The text of the law that "expressly provides" subsidies has many more words that lead up to the FOUR he points out. Why did the law NOT expressly define that a Fed exchange is one "established by States" if that is what they wanted ...oh yeah, they could not pass it if they defined such! ] They forgot to tell us which of them helped to write HELP and FINANCE bills they borrowed the wording from. Those bills fully explained that the federal exchanges would not get subsidies! |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Oct 31 2014, 10:49 AM Post #1117 |
|
  
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 31 2014, 11:20 AM Post #1118 |
|
Irony at its best! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Oct 31 2014, 03:44 PM Post #1119 |
|
“We believe that access to affordable health care isn’t a privilege – it’s a right” Barry - Oct. 28, 2014 - At rally for Burke / candidate for Wisc governor |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 2 2014, 07:37 AM Post #1120 |
|
So to give away FREE MONEY, they're spending about $1,000 per participant for a broken system necessary to give it away! |
|
|
|
| dsl | Nov 2 2014, 11:35 AM Post #1121 |
|
If the RNC had any sense they would be running ads like this in every state where hotly-contested Senate race is an issue. The Dems regularly hand opponents enough material to defeat themselves, and the Republicans regularly seize defeat out of the jaws of victory. 
|
|
|
| Baldo | Nov 3 2014, 12:24 AM Post #1122 |
|
Obamacare's Shocking Effect on Premium Prices The Affordable Care Act, which is best known in its shorthand form as Obamacare, was developed with a couple of goals in mind. One was obviously to reduce the number of uninsured people in the U.S. The idea here is that if more people are insured they're liable to go the doctor more often for preventative care and live healthier, longer lives. If that's the case, it's possible health care costs could drop over the long run since health concerns, which can become very costly later in life, could be caught sooner. More importantly, however, Obamacare was implemented to help spread medical costs across a greater swath of the American population in order to control medical cost inflation. To be clear, Obamacare was never intended to make health care premiums lower. Instead, it was designed to spread the extremely high costs of caring for elderly and sick patients across a younger, healthier population, sort of how the working population subsidizes retirees through Social Security. But how well Obamacare is controlling insurance premiums has always been up to interpretation. We've witnessed studies that suggest a number of states will see premiums fall in 2015. Other examples suggest premium price hikes in excess of 50%. Yet, most of these studies fail to tackle some key point or they're incomplete since not all data is in as of publication. Would this latest study (link opens PDF) from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which was conducted by Amanda Kowalski of the Brookings Institution, prove different? Obamacare did what to premium prices?! Utilizing data collected by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that was compiled by SNL Financial, Kowalski was able to determine that enrollment-weighted insurance premiums have risen in the post-Obamacare environment by a shocking 24.4% more than they would have risen had they "followed state-level seasonally adjusted trends." What makes this study so unique is that most studies specifically target exchange-only premium movements. Brookings' study focused on a combination of enrollments by state and federally run exchanges, as well as non-market transactions where consumers purchased directly from an insurer. This is particularly notable because even though a significant chunk of exchange-based enrollees qualified for a subsidy, persons outside of Obamacare's health exchanges didn't receive any subsidies, and were therefore required to make up for this boost in premium on their own. According to Forbes this totaled 6.2 million out of the 13.2 million enrollees. Furthermore, based on Brookings' data just six states (and Washington D.C.) witnessed their premium pricing fall under Obamacare, while states like Florida, Georgia, and Texas saw non-group coverage skyrocket by more than 35% over what seasonally adjusted increases would have occurred had Obamacare not been implemented. You'll still want to consider this We certainly haven't seen any studies of this magnitude yet, so to say it's a bit shocking could be an understatement. It's certainly more encompassing than merely looking at the exchanges as it gives us a better idea of what premiums really do look like for the majority of the public. But even this study isn't without flaws. One primary factor that can't be included with any certainty in predictive models like this is the "feeling out" period from insurers. Keep in mind when you have a transformative health reform law like Obamacare that it can take time for experienced insurers to get their pricing correct....snipped http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/11/02/obamacares-shocking-effect-on-premium-prices.aspx So Obama Lied when he said people would save. They knew it couldn't be that way. |
|
|
|
| chatham | Nov 3 2014, 07:02 AM Post #1123 |
|
Proves that all of the people can be fooled some of the time. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 3 2014, 11:59 AM Post #1124 |
|
My take is that the method chosen to spread the costs indicated that premiums would decrease, as the added pool was young and healthier, along with the Medicare Expansion removing the non-paying ER visits that was a cost passed along to paying customers (patients). The basic idea they started with would reduce costs for many through adding that cost to the budgets of others. They just made the positive assumption that the ER usage would drop, access to preventive or early care would reduce high illness costs resulting from being left unattended until you're on your death bed, and that the insurance companies would immediately pass along the projected future cost savings because they'd be certain nobody would abuse the coverage by going to the ER for a runny nose. Their financial forecast was so perfect in their minds that they then got greedy, added more and more regulations, came up with more taxes to cover more management for the people, used it for political gains (free pills!), and soon transformed the idea into a very costly law. As government is, the monster grew. SOP's for centralized bureaucratic control. My favorite remark the fed's made was when they claimed the insurance companies would pay for the FREE PILL because it would save money. I had looked up data that told me about 50 million women used BC. So we'd need to figure out the increase in birth prevention from increased BC usage that is used to justify a savings from giving 50+/- million women the FREE PILL. I think the insurance companies would need to get subsidies from the single-parent entitlement savings to justify that FREE PILL cost without passing it along in premiums. Looks like an example of the math used to grow the Obamacare plan from where it originally started! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Nov 3 2014, 12:37 PM Post #1125 |
|
Cross your fingers! http://www.yalejreg.com/blog/what-the-supreme-courts-inaction-in-king-v-burwell-obamacare-reg-challenge-means-by-chris-walker What the Supreme Court's Inaction in King v. Burwell (Obamacare Reg Challenge) Means, by Chris Walker This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from its October 31st Conference. At this Conference the Court considered the cert petition in King v. Burwell, the challenge to a critical Obamacare regulation that "extend[s) tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (to borrow from the SCOTUSblog issue statement). Yet, the Court took no action in King v. Burwell. What does this mean? The short answer is that no action was the best possible outcome from today's orders list for the challengers of the regulation. As John Elwood has chronicled in his terrific Relist Watch Series at SCOTUSblog, the Court appears to have adopted a new practice of waiting ("relisting") a week after voting to hear the case before actually deciding and publicly announcing that it will hear the case ("granting cert"). John Elwood has explained that this new practice "may be akin to a 'stop, look, and listen' after a provisional decision to grant – intended to give the Justices and their clerks additional time to review grant candidates for vehicle problems or other concerns. Maybe the Justices decided after dismissing three cases as improvidently granted this Term that they need one last check before giving a case the nod...." In other words, the only other action that the Court would have taken today was to have refused to hear the case ("denied the cert petition"). Of course, there are a number of alternative explanations for the Court's inaction today in King v. Burwell. Here are a few plausible explanations in rough order of likelihood (likelihood = my speculation based on following the Court's docket and not much else):
Edited by kbp, Nov 3 2014, 12:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 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