"Obamacare"

[Emo EMAW]

What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?

If the answer is "less than a doctor that doesn't work on medicaid patients" then there's a potential problem.

only if there's a shortage of doctors.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/health/obamacare-doctor-shortage/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323393804578555741780608174

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Hopefully Obama lied about the death panel, too. Maybe at least some good will come out of this bill.

There will be "death panels". Even Thomas Friedman admitted that it won't work without them. They call it "end of life care" as they decide to cut off medical treatments. I'm not passing judgement at this point, but it was just another lie that they knew had to be true.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Hopefully Obama lied about the death panel, too. Maybe at least some good will come out of this bill.

There will be "death panels". Even Thomas Friedman admitted that it won't work without them. They call it "end of life care" as they decide to cut off medical treatments. I'm not passing judgement at this point, but it was just another lie that they knew had to be true.

Well, that's good. Maybe we can work on getting rid of everything else but still keeping the death panels.

[sys]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/health/obamacare-doctor-shortage/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323393804578555741780608174

yeah, i know.

[Emo EMAW]

   (my bad)

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/for-consumers-whose-health-premiums-will-go-up-under-new-law-sticker-shock-leads-to-anger/2013/11/03/d858dd28-44a9-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story_1.html

Americans who face higher ­insurance costs under President Obama’s health-care law are angrily complaining about “sticker shock,” threatening to become a new political force opposing the law even as the White House struggles to convince other consumers that they will benefit from it.

The growing backlash involves people whose plans are being discontinued because the policies don’t meet the law’s more-stringent standards. They’re finding that many alternative policies come with higher premiums and deductibles.

After receiving a letter from her insurer that her plan was being discontinued, Deborah Persico, a 58-year-old lawyer in the District, found a comparable plan on the city’s new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.

That means she could end up paying at least $5,000 more a year than she does now. “That’s just not fair,” said Persico, who represents indigent criminal defendants. “This is ridiculous.”

If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners under the Affordable Care Act, the losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.

Others are upset because they don’t want coverage for services they’ll never need or their doctors don’t participate in any of their new insurance options.

...

The disruptions being caused by the new law have been especially jolting for those who support the ideals of the health-care overhaul.

Marlys Dietrick, a 60-year-old artist from San Antonio, said she had high hopes that the new law would help many of her friends who are chefs, actors or photographers get insured. But she said they have been turned off by high premiums and deductibles and would rather pay the fine.

“I am one of those Democrats who wanted it to be better than this,” she said.

Her insurer, Humana, informed her that her plan was being canceled and that the rate for herself and her 21-year-old son for a plan compliant with the new law would rise from $300 to $705. On the federal Web site, she found a comparable plan for $623 a month. Because her annual income is about $80,000, she doesn’t qualify for subsidies.

A cheaper alternative on the federal exchange, she said, had a premium of $490 a month — but it was an HMO plan rather than the PPO plan she currently has. “I wouldn’t be able to go to the doctor I’ve been going to for years,” she said. “That is not a deal.”

And both the HMO and PPO exchange plans she examined had family deductibles of $12,700, compared with her current $7,000.

Robert Laszewski, an industry consultant, said he thinks the rise in rates was inevitable. The new law, he said, has resulted in an estimated 30 to 50 percent increase in baseline costs for insurers.

“We’ve got increased access for sick people and an increase in the span of benefits, so something’s got to give,” he said.

Beginning Jan. 1, the new plans must cover 10 essential benefits including pediatric care, prescription drugs, mental-health services and maternity care. In general, policies that don’t offer those can’t be sold after 2013. (Plans that were in place before March 2010 and essentially ­haven’t changed are “grandfathered” and allowed to continue.) Critics, such as Obama, say that the discontinued policies are too skimpy to offer real protections, but some consumers contend the plans meet their needs.

David Prestin, 48, who operates a gas station and diner at a truck stop in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, was unhappy to learn recently that his premiums are slated to rise from $923 to $1,283 next year under Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The insurer said it needed to add maternity care to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

The issue of maternity coverage is a sensitive one for Prestin and his wife, Kathie. They had one child seven years ago, but after she had five miscarriages, they discovered she had an immune issue that prevented her from successfully completing a pregnancy.

At the same time, Prestin said, the new plan would reduce coverage for things he and Kathie need, such as free annual checkups.

The Prestins explored HealthCare.gov. They are not eligible for subsidies, but they found a cheaper plan than the one being offered by their insurer. However, there was another problem: It would have required the couple to switch from the doctors they have seen for more than 16 years and travel more than 100 miles from their home to the nearest major hospital center for treatment — in Green Bay, Wis.

“I pay my taxes. I’m assistant chief of the volunteer fire department here in Cedar River and a first responder for Mid-County Rescue,” Prestin said. “You try to be personally accountable and play by the rules, but the more you play by the rules, the more you get beat up on.” [THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULDN'T ELECT LIBERALS]

[chum1]

So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it?  There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.

No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.

*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.

I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.

[Emo EMAW]

So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it?  There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.

No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.

*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.

I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.

9 million people is a lot of people

[chum1]

What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?

If the answer is "less than a doctor that doesn't work on medicaid patients" then there's a potential problem.

only if there's a shortage of doctors.

The assumption that doctors maximize is surely no better than the one that "rational" consumers maximize in economic theory.  If it was true, there would be zero Medicaid doctors, which is far from true.

[Emo EMAW]

What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?

If the answer is "less than a doctor that doesn't work on medicaid patients" then there's a potential problem.

only if there's a shortage of doctors.

The assumption that doctors maximize is surely no better than the one that "rational" consumers maximize in economic theory.  If it was true, there would be zero Medicaid doctors, which is far from true.

Some doctors live in areas where if they didn't take Medicaid they couldn't fill their day.  Rural America, basically.

[chum1]

So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it?  There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.

No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.

*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.

I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.

9 million people is a lot of people

To what degree are they affected, though?  The reasoning that their rates will go way up due to new mandates regarding benefits doesn't hold water because almost all of these mandates already went into effect.  In one of those links, there was a guy who said something like his premium is going from $200 to $1000.  That crap just doesn't make sense. 

[Emo EMAW]

So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it?  There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.

No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.

*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.

I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.

9 million people is a lot of people

To what degree are they affected, though?  The reasoning that their rates will go way up due to new mandates regarding benefits doesn't hold water because almost all of these mandates already went into effect.  In one of those links, there was a guy who said something like his premium is going from $200 to $1000.  That crap just doesn't make sense.

I really just care that he "misspoke" dozens of times. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it?  There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.

No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.

*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.

I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.

9 million people is a lot of people

To what degree are they affected, though?  The reasoning that their rates will go way up due to new mandates regarding benefits doesn't hold water because almost all of these mandates already went into effect.  In one of those links, there was a guy who said something like his premium is going from $200 to $1000.  That crap just doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, and I'm sorry you're still beating the drum about Obamacare not causing these increases and cancellations, regardless of the dozens of articles (from very reputable publications) I've linked to the contrary. Believe what you want. Also, the only reason we're "only" talking about a few million people getting screwed at this time is because the employer mandate has been delayed by a year. Stay tuned. Obamacare is a crap cornucopia.

[chum1]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

[chum1]

I have no doubt that guy sincerely thought his rates would necessarily increase that much and that the newspeople covering it quoted him correctly.  I'm just saying it makes about as much sense as someone testifying that McDonald's just charged them $50 for a cheeseburger.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

[chum1]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.

[chum1]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.

I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.

I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.

I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.

[chum1]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.

I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.

I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.

Even if you're not the one getting taxed?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.

I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.

I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.

Even if you're not the one getting taxed?

All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.

[chum1]

 

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.

I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.

I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.

Even if you're not the one getting taxed?

All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.

And you consider them all to be increases to the cost of your healthcare premiums? 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.

I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.

I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.

Even if you're not the one getting taxed?

All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.

And you consider them all to be increases to the cost of your healthcare premiums?

Yes. Any additional cost to me associated with this bill is an increase to my health care costs.

[chum1]

What's the employer mandate?  Never heard if it.

Google it.

Oh.  I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.

It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.

I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.

I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.

Even if you're not the one getting taxed?

All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.

And you consider them all to be increases to the cost of your healthcare premiums?

Yes. Any additional cost to me associated with this bill is an increase to my health care costs.

But only indirectly affects your pizza budget?