0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeed
Quote from: sys on March 01, 2014, 01:21:49 PMhttp://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeedMaybe I'm not understanding this, but are the two choices (1) Obamacare will be repealed outright, or (2) at least some aspects of Obamacare will remain, in some form?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?"
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 01, 2014, 02:12:58 PMQuote from: sys on March 01, 2014, 01:21:49 PMhttp://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeedMaybe I'm not understanding this, but are the two choices (1) Obamacare will be repealed outright, or (2) at least some aspects of Obamacare will remain, in some form?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?" Serious question: Do you live on Mars?
The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats.As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements.Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber.
Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare. It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law. Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essential. Some of the services are popular, such as prescription drug coverage, but others, such as maternity and pediatric care, have been criticized as expensive as well as being unnecessary for many policyholders, such as older people.Nonetheless, the White House has consistently argued its requirements improve health insurance standards and shield consumers from unexpected costs associated with bare-bones policies.“There are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident,” Obama said in Boston in October.“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or use minor preexisting conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy. So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage, and it turned out not to be so good.” The new standards have also created a political mess for the White House by forcing insurance companies to cancel policies that do not comply.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning. They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.
They will delay it until after the elections in 2016...
Furthermore, I'm guessing that a good 75% of that 4 million already had insurance before
The new health insurance marketplaces appear to be making little headway so far in signing up Americans who lack health insurance, the Affordable Care Act’s central goal.A pair of surveys released on Thursday suggest that just one in 10 uninsured people who qualify for private health plans through the new marketplace have signed up for one — and that about half of uninsured adults has looked for information on the online exchanges or plans to look.One of the surveys, by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., shows that, of people who had signed up for coverage through the marketplaces by last month, just one-fourth described themselves as having been without insurance for most of the past year.
With just over three weeks remaining in a six-month sign-up period, the question of how many uninsured people are gaining coverage so far is eluding both Obama administration officials and most of the private health plans being sold through the new marketplaces.Inside the Department of Health and Human Services, staff analysts who have been producing monthly enrollment updates are confronted with a major hindrance to examining the question of people’s prior insurance status: the wording of the HealthCare.gov applications themselves.The paper versions of applications, used by a small fraction of people who are signing up contain a multiple-choice question asking whether people in a household currently have insurance. “No” is one of the boxes people can checkHowever, the online application, used by most people to enroll, asks whether people want to apply for coverage but does not give them a place to indicate whether they have insurance now or have had it in the past. As a result, HHS analysts have no way of assessing how many of the online enrollees were uninsured in the past.
The House of Representatives passed legislation Wednesday afternoon to make the fine/“tax” for violating Obamacare’s individual mandate $0 for this year, and it did so by the wide margin of 90 votes (250 to 160). That’s 83 more than the 7-vote margin (219 to 212) by which Obamacare passed the House four Marches ago. Moreover, 27 Democrats voted for today’s legislation—27 more than the number of Republicans who voted for Obamacare when it passed. In all, 223 Republicans voted for today’s bill, while only one—Paul Broun of Georgia—voted against it. Here’s the member-by-member tally for the vote.Earlier today, the Obama White House released a 3-paragraph statement on the legislation, noting that Obamacare “helps millions of Americans stay on their parents’ plans until age 26”—which, of course, has nothing to do with the individual mandate or the fine/“tax” for violating it—and saying that if President Obama were presented with the legislation, “he would veto it.” Given the wide margin by which the legislation passed the House, along with the significant level of bipartisan support with which it passed, perhaps the Senate will actually take a vote, pass the bill, and give Obama that chance. That would provide a welcome reminder to the American people of the extent to which Obama’s centerpiece legislation relies upon coercion.
Union head Donald "D." Taylor, in a note also being sent to Congress, demands changes and admits to being reluctant to bash a president his union supported.“Believe me; I enter this entire debate about the consequences of the ACA with a deep reluctance,” he wrote. “Unite Here was the first union to endorse then-Senator Obama. We support the addition of health care to millions of Americans. Yet facts are facts, and Obamacare will cost our members the equivalent of a significant pay cut to keep their hard-won benefits.”Taylor and other union leaders have criticized Obamacare before. His union's report was uploaded by Ralston Reports.Unite Here's document charges that the administration is putting union health care into a "death spiral." It endorsed criticism that employers will move workers to part-time status to avoid the requirement that those working 30 hours or more a week be provided health insurance -- or else the company pays a penalty. And it says the Affordable Care Act will shift workers from union insurance to the more expensive Obamacare health exchanges, costing them up to half of their pay to cover premiums.“The information addresses the very unfortunate irony of Obamacare,” Taylor said in his letter about the report. “Namely, that it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep. And, as a result, it will lead to greater income inequality for the very segment of the population Obamacare should want to help most.”Taylor also suggested that Democrats in Washington are telling unions to stop griping about the impact of Obamacare on their members. He quoted a Senate aide saying, “Labor needs to regress to the mean.” Said Taylor: “In other words, roll back what you have and take one for the team. Ironic, given that Congress and the president carved out an exemption for staffers on the ACA. We cannot sit idly by as the politicians carve up our health plans while they carve out exceptions for themselves and every special interest feeding at the trough in Washington.”
I just don't understand why some employers feel the need to dictate how their employees are able to use their compensation.
Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on March 17, 2014, 09:56:53 AMI just don't understand why some employers feel the need to dictate how their employees are able to use their compensation.To what, specifically, are you referring?
Quote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 17, 2014, 12:59:13 PMQuote from: Rage Against the McKee on March 17, 2014, 09:56:53 AMI just don't understand why some employers feel the need to dictate how their employees are able to use their compensation.To what, specifically, are you referring?The Hobby Lobby story. I posted this in the wrong thread.
an employer has the right to say "the insurance we offer doesn't cover abortion."
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)
In reality, the administration is just continuing a long pattern of delays. They’re all designed to show flexibility and help the law work better, but they also fuel a public perception that Obamacare deadlines never really mean anything.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obamacare-affordable-care-act-105036.html#ixzz2x5n7cxJb
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the fault of struggling to sign up on the Obamacare exchanges didn’t lie with the faulty website, but with the people who weren’t “educated on how to use the Internet.”Explaining the reasoning behind the latest Obamacare delay, Reid said too many people just didn’t know to use their computer properly and needed more time. Apparently, it had nothing to do with the well-documented failings of the website that have embarrassed the White House for months.
