"Obamacare"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.

What a pathetic excuse. You realize you're essentially whining "well, they shoulda done a better job telling me why Obamacare sucked so bad!" Waa Waa Waa.

Here's an idea: how about you do a little reading and, better yet, use some common sense?

And don't tell me you're just talking about the masses of uninformed dumshits. You voted for Obama. You are one of those uninformed dumbshits.

If the guy running for election doesn't know more about the law he is promising to repeal, he isn't getting voted in.  That should be pretty fundamental.  I don't have time to read the ACA cover to cover.

The Republicans shoulda done a better job convincing me!

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.

What a pathetic excuse. You realize you're essentially whining "well, they shoulda done a better job telling me why Obamacare sucked so bad!" Waa Waa Waa.

Here's an idea: how about you do a little reading and, better yet, use some common sense?

And don't tell me you're just talking about the masses of uninformed dumshits. You voted for Obama. You are one of those uninformed dumbshits.

If the guy running for election doesn't know more about the law he is promising to repeal, he isn't getting voted in.  That should be pretty fundamental.  I don't have time to read the ACA cover to cover.

The fact that nobody knows how it will affect the entire economy should be enough reason to repeal it and start over in smaller steps.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.

What a pathetic excuse. You realize you're essentially whining "well, they shoulda done a better job telling me why Obamacare sucked so bad!" Waa Waa Waa.

Here's an idea: how about you do a little reading and, better yet, use some common sense?

And don't tell me you're just talking about the masses of uninformed dumshits. You voted for Obama. You are one of those uninformed dumbshits.

I didn't vote for Obama, actually. I voted for change. You voted for the guy who wrote Obamacare.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

There are people who don't think major media is left-biased???

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Well, the government isn't collecting this information (surprise, surprise), but insurers are figuring it themselves by conducting surveys. Apparently, of the roughly 1-2 million people who have purchased insurance on the exchanges, only about 1/3 were previously uninsured. So much for expanding coverage.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/moodys-slashes-outlook-on-insurers-cites-obamacare-uncertainty/article/2542744

Makes sense.

[Stupid Fitz]

Lost my Dr. last week.  Pretty  .  They are going to an all monthly payment plan and are going to stop taking insurance all together.  Pretty good deal if I didn't have elite insurance. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Lost my Dr. last week.  Pretty  .  They are going to an all monthly payment plan and are going to stop taking insurance all together.  Pretty good deal if I didn't have elite insurance.

This will probably be the model for good doctors in private practice.  People with insurance will be seeing nurse practitioners, and then possibly a doctor if the nurse decides they should.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Children's hospitals already getting denials or no response on requests for specialized treatment for children.

Some of those hospitals are doing the procedures anyway, but say they can't continue at the current pace.

Well yeah, Obama hates all children.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yup, makes sense. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/cbo-obamacare-push-2m-workers-out-labor-market/

Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

That’s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency’s projections and it suggests the health care law’s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.

“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.

[06wildcat]

Yup, makes sense. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/cbo-obamacare-push-2m-workers-out-labor-market/

Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.

That’s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency’s projections and it suggests the health care law’s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.

“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.

People leaving the workforce voluntarily is actually a good thing.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Folks, I give you the Democrat Party. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/09/Rep-Ellison-On-Obamacare-Related-Job-Losses-Americans-Work-Too-Much-Anyway

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

What a dolt!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Delayed again. It's a like watching a slow motion train wreck that keeps slowing down, while all the while the conductor keeps saying that everything is fine!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-delays-health-insurance-mandate-for-medium-sized-employers-until-2016/2014/02/10/ade6b344-9279-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

The Obama administration announced Monday it would give medium-sized employers an extra year, until 2016, before they must offer health insurance to their full-time workers. Firms with at least 100 employees will have to start offering this coverage in 2015.

By offering an unexpected grace period to businesses with between 50 and 99 employees, administration officials are hoping to defuse another potential controversy involving the 2010 health-care law, which has become central to Republicans’ campaign to make political gains in this year’s midterm election.

Even the nation’s largest employers got a significant concession: They can avoid a fine by offering coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent starting in 2016. Under an earlier proposal, employers with at least 50 employees would have been required to offer insurance, beginning 2015, to 95 percent of those who work 30 hours or more a week, along with their dependents.

The regulation finalized by the Treasury Department involves one of the biggest issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act: how the law’s employer mandate plays out in practice. The mandate has enormous ramifications for how businesses classify their employees and how much these men and women work.

Initially, these requirements — which affect firms employing 72 percent of all Americans — were supposed to take effect this year, at the same time that most individuals faced a new obligation to obtain health insurance or risk a tax penalty. Last July, the administration announced it would delay the regulation for a year after many employers and some unions complained about the law’s reporting requirements and classification system for workers.

[The1BigWillie]

They will delay it until after the elections in 2016...

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Lotta great gifs here. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/02/11/which-product-was-more-dishonestly-marketed-amazing-live-sea-monkeys-or-barack-obama/

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

So, since B.O. seems to thinks its okay to unilaterally delay the effective dates of Obamacare and also selectively enforces other laws (illegal aliens) couldn't a Republican president ostensibly "repeal" the law by refusing to enforce it?

Seems like a perverse use of the executive.

[Stupid Fitz]

have a bro that is an eyeball poker/dr.  Just had a con ed class and the last day was about new regs coming soon.  He basically is going to have to hire someone to enter all of the additional codes required.  Even then, he knows that there are so many, the orders will get rejected anyway and he will end up getting paid less because of how long everything took.  He's pretty happy he is 200k in debt for eyeball Dr. school and now he will have to pay someone a lot of what he makes just to process insurance. 

[raquetcat]

have a bro that is an eyeball poker/dr.  Just had a con ed class and the last day was about new regs coming soon.  He basically is going to have to hire someone to enter all of the additional codes required.  Even then, he knows that there are so many, the orders will get rejected anyway and he will end up getting paid less because of how long everything took.  He's pretty happy he is 200k in debt for eyeball Dr. school and now he will have to pay someone a lot of what he makes just to process insurance.

Are you talking about ICD-10 codes? Yeah there are a lot more codes, but it will be more accurate billing for everyone. Also I doubt your bro would be doing his own coding whether or not these codes were put into place. It doesn't make sense to have a Dr do work that you can pay someone $20/hour to do

[Cire]

doctors sound very lazy.

[Headinjun]

 

have a bro that is an eyeball poker/dr.  Just had a con ed class and the last day was about new regs coming soon.  He basically is going to have to hire someone to enter all of the additional codes required.  Even then, he knows that there are so many, the orders will get rejected anyway and he will end up getting paid less because of how long everything took.  He's pretty happy he is 200k in debt for eyeball Dr. school and now he will have to pay someone a lot of what he makes just to process insurance.

Maybe he should just set up shop in Canada where he could just send his invoices in and get full payment back without all the overhead and headache

[CatsNShocks]

Reid basically calls everyone liars:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/27/reid-hammered-by-gop-after-claiming-all-obamacare-horror-stories-untrue/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/harry-reid-all-obamacare-horror-stories-are-untrue/

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Reid basically calls everyone liars:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/27/reid-hammered-by-gop-after-claiming-all-obamacare-horror-stories-untrue/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/harry-reid-all-obamacare-horror-stories-are-untrue/

JFC, how the eff this guy hasn't been chased out of the senate is beyond me.  Really says a lot about the dems that they continue to elect this guy majority leader.

[sys]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeed

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeed

Maybe I'm not understanding this, but are the two choices (1) Obamacare will be repealed outright, or (2) at least some aspects of Obamacare will remain, in some form? I'd bet heavily on the latter, too, but how does that indicate "success?" How is "success" measured?

By the end of open enrollment for this year (supposedly at end of March, but I'm betting Obama will unilaterally extend that deadline, too), I predict there will be about 5.5 million enrollees in an exchange policy, about 4 million of which will be real (the rest being duplicates or other "enrollments" that were never actually purchased by paying the premium). This will be a little over half the number that the CBO predicted the exchanges would need to be fiscally viable.

But it will actually be worse, because of that 4 million, probably only about 20% of enrollees will be the key "under 30" demographic - while the CBO predicted the exchanges need about twice that number for the exchanges to remain viable.  Furthermore, I'm guessing that a good 75% of that 4 million already had insurance before, so that means that, best case scenario, Obamacare just gave those people a slightly cheaper, more comprehensive plan at taxpayer expense. In many cases however (most?), these policies are actually more "expensive" due to the ridiculous deductibles of the "bronze" and "silver" level plans many of these folks are buying.

So, we'll use the "risk corridors" and other Obamacare slush funds to funnel tax dollars to bail out the insurers, for a while.

Meanwhile, over 5 million people had their private policies cancelled (err, "not renewed") due to Obamacare, and Obama has unilaterally pushed back the employer mandate back another year, past the elections. I wonder why? Numerous hospitals and doctors are refusing Obamacare policies. I wonder why?

So "success?"