"Obamacare"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

But Pelosi said it was a "surge in demand" as the deadline neared that was overwhelming the site (the same bullshit they were spouting the first couple of months). These guys need to get their lies coordinated.

[star seed 7]

someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Oval Office to GSA Procurment:  Can we get another truck load of dry erase boards and dry erase markers/erasers over here stat?   We're just kinda free handing this whole Obama Care thing.  Oh, and some more cheese dip.

This abuse of power is what happens when the venerable Fourth Estate would rather sleep with Obama than hold him to account.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on

A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).

[star seed 7]

someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on

A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).

so that means it's not lawless

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on

A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).

so that means it's not lawless

no, just the wrong people are suing.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on

A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).

so that means it's not lawless

You don't seem familiar with the Constitution.

[star seed 7]

someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on

A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).

so that means it's not lawless

no, just the wrong people are suing.

Well why don't those people sue?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on

A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).

so that means it's not lawless

no, just the wrong people are suing.

Well why don't those people sue?

busy working? 

[Panjandrum]

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

Theoretically, if he's an ambulatory physician (and if he's an ophthalmologist, I assume he is for the most part), he was doing his own billing.  Doctor's can do that on their own, but generally, they're very inaccurate and are leaving money on the table or open themselves up to audits.  I'd personally discourage it, but there are a lot of doctor's offices that do it this way.

ICD-10 was something that should have happened years ago, and we're one of the only developed countries that haven't moved to it yet.  It's going to have a very significant impact on provider productivity going forward, but folks will get around it.  Billing is just going to be a mess in Q4 of this year, and probably well into Q1 2015 after the 10/1 conversion date.

Technically, the ICD-10 conversion is not Obamacare.  It was apart of the ARRA passed in 2009.  I was supposed to go into effect in 2012, but physicians pushed back hard enough that the extended the deadline into 2013.

[chum1]

ICD-10 isn't going to change anything.  People only use a miniscule number of the 16,000 ICD-9 codes and they're going to use roughly the same number out of 70,000 ICD-10 codes.  It's the path of least resistance.  Why bother hunting for some highly specified code to fit each individual case when you can use the same small set over and over and get paid just the same? 

[Panjandrum]

ICD-10 isn't going to change anything.  People only use a miniscule number of the 16,000 ICD-9 codes and they're going to use roughly the same number out of 70,000 ICD-10 codes.  It's the path of least resistance.  Why bother hunting for some highly specified code to fit each individual case when you can use the same small set over and over and get paid just the same?

It depends on whether or not it shifts the DRG.  Also, procedure coding is much more difficult between 9 and 10.  Way more difficult.

[chum1]

ICD-10 isn't going to change anything.  People only use a miniscule number of the 16,000 ICD-9 codes and they're going to use roughly the same number out of 70,000 ICD-10 codes.  It's the path of least resistance.  Why bother hunting for some highly specified code to fit each individual case when you can use the same small set over and over and get paid just the same?

It depends on whether or not it shifts the DRG.  Also, procedure coding is much more difficult between 9 and 10.  Way more difficult.

Just about everything will be the same except with some new code names.

[Panjandrum]

ICD-10 isn't going to change anything.  People only use a miniscule number of the 16,000 ICD-9 codes and they're going to use roughly the same number out of 70,000 ICD-10 codes.  It's the path of least resistance.  Why bother hunting for some highly specified code to fit each individual case when you can use the same small set over and over and get paid just the same?

It depends on whether or not it shifts the DRG.  Also, procedure coding is much more difficult between 9 and 10.  Way more difficult.

Just about everything will be the same except with some new code names.

Doesn't look like it may matter in the short term.  Looks like it may get delayed to 2015.

[Headinjun]

I am friends with 3 doctors.   They're extremely frustrated and depressed right now.

Good doctors, seriously considering leaving the profession.

Sad

What a bunch of bitches..

If they're going to leave money on the table then someone else is going to take it.

[Panjandrum]

I am friends with 3 doctors.   They're extremely frustrated and depressed right now.

Good doctors, seriously considering leaving the profession.

Sad

If they work for smaller, physician owned practices, it will probably take a toll.  Some will survive, but others will not.

Most of them are being bought out by larger hospitals as it shares the risk and diversifies what the hospitals offer to patients in their integrated delivery networks.

It's not really all that sad.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Goldman Sachs seems to agree with my predictions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/03/11/how-many-people-did-obamacare-really-enroll/

Goldman Sachs is out with an analysis tonight that builds in some of these assumptions. They get at a final enrollment figure closer to my early estimates of 4-5 million people in the Obamacare exchanges.

The investment bank’s analysts project that the Obamacare exchanges will end up enrolling a total of 4 million people – including 1 million who were previously uninsured. To get to their numbers, they assume a further 1.3 million to 1.8 million enrollments in Obamacare, to arrive at a cumulative exchange enrollment figure of 5.5 million to 6.0 million. However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1

[Emo EMAW]

Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1

I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1

I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.

However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1

I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.

However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.

You realize there's a big difference between the "7 million signed up" figures being touted by the WH and the number of people who have actually bought coverage, right? Like, several million different?

So let's say, after you remove all the duplicates and people who "signed up" but never actually bought it, you've got 5 million. Of that number, I predict that many (probably most) already had insurance before, and are simply replacing a policy cancelled by Obamacare or replacing a policy they were formerly paying for with one that is taxpayer subsidized. Moreover, I'd predict that the overall pool skews heavily sick, which is fiscally unsustainable and will lead to higher premiums, particularly after the risk cooridor bailouts come to an end.

So, at the end if the day, we spent over a trillion dollars and mumped over millions of people just to insure 1 or 2 million new people in addition to putting millions more on Medicaid and shifting a few million from paying their own way to subsidized insurance? Sounds like exactly what I would expect.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1

I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.

However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.

You realize there's a big difference between the "7 million signed up" figures being touted by the WH and the number of people who have actually bought coverage, right? Like, several million different?

So let's say, after you remove all the duplicates and people who "signed up" but never actually bought it, you've got 5 million. Of that number, I predict that many (probably most) already had insurance before, and are simply replacing a policy cancelled by Obamacare or replacing a policy they were formerly paying for with one that is taxpayer subsidized. Moreover, I'd predict that the overall pool skews heavily sick, which is fiscally unsustainable and will lead to higher premiums, particularly after the risk cooridor bailouts come to an end.

So, at the end if the day, we spent over a trillion dollars and mumped over millions of people just to insure 1 or 2 million new people in addition to putting millions more on Medicaid and shifting a few million from paying their own way to subsidized insurance? Sounds like exactly what I would expect.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told an Oklahoma TV station on Monday that insurers were reporting that 80% to 90% had paid.

Sounds like a little less than 6 million have paid.

[chum1]

I'm unclear on how it's a foregone conclusion that greater numbers of uninsured won't have exchange plans in future years.  This is at odds with what insurance companies expect based on where they're putting their money.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1

I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.

However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.

You realize there's a big difference between the "7 million signed up" figures being touted by the WH and the number of people who have actually bought coverage, right? Like, several million different?

So let's say, after you remove all the duplicates and people who "signed up" but never actually bought it, you've got 5 million. Of that number, I predict that many (probably most) already had insurance before, and are simply replacing a policy cancelled by Obamacare or replacing a policy they were formerly paying for with one that is taxpayer subsidized. Moreover, I'd predict that the overall pool skews heavily sick, which is fiscally unsustainable and will lead to higher premiums, particularly after the risk cooridor bailouts come to an end.

So, at the end if the day, we spent over a trillion dollars and mumped over millions of people just to insure 1 or 2 million new people in addition to putting millions more on Medicaid and shifting a few million from paying their own way to subsidized insurance? Sounds like exactly what I would expect.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told an Oklahoma TV station on Monday that insurers were reporting that 80% to 90% had paid.

Sounds like a little less than 6 million have paid.

Oh, well if Obamacare Bob said it, it must be true, right?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm unclear on how it's a foregone conclusion that greater numbers of uninsured won't have exchange plans in future years.  This is at odds with what insurance companies expect based on where they're putting their money.

Insurance companies never would have bought into this if the government hadn't promised to bail them out for the foreseeable future. That, and the fact that Obama was offering them a law that required people to buy their product.