Why are unions, organizations, and the politicians we sent to Washington allowed to Opt-Out?
you too can opt out, OP, if you are happy with your present insurance plan.
What a wonderful, agenda-free question!
The plan mustn't be as wonderful as Obama promised or no one would want to opt out. Time will tell.
Businesses are cutting back on employees and hours to save money on insurance by forcing staff into the new plan.
[quote] The plan mustn't be as wonderful as Obama promised or no one would want to opt out. Time will tell.
Why would I want to go with a plan through an exchange that will likely cost me $400-$500 (or more) a month, when I pay $60 a month for the plan that I have via my employer?
.... because they would cause a political stink if they were forced to deal with the shit that they are forcing on everyone else.
r8, Obama said "you can keep the plan you have," but didn't tell you the $60 will be double or more when the dust settles.
Why is it so difficult for the US to provide universal health care when it was so easy for other countries to do so?
R10..... or that employers will simply stop offering their health insurance so that employees will have no choice but to look elsewhere.
I just saw something interesting on the news. By mail, a man was informed of his new Hunana(sp?) health insurance premium for his family of 4.
It went from $330 to over 900 a month.
Right, r3. particularly when OP leads with UNIONS...
R12 I call bullshit. Nobody in this country could get insurance for a family of 4 for 330 a month.
Not even with a 100k deductible.
[quote]Why is it so difficult for the US to provide universal health care when it was so easy for other countries to do so?
Other nations aren't being robbed blind by the Military Industrial Complex.
Excuse me r14.... The man showed his premium letter from Humana on the news.
It's not bullshit. Humana also gave a long list of reasons for the sharp increase and Obamacare was one of them.
Humana also said it won't be the only ins. co. doing this.
The people that wrote it don't want it. Should tell you all you need to know.
[quote] or that employers will simply stop offering their health insurance so that employees will have no choice but to look elsewhere.
They're not allowed to do that lest they be fined.
R18, which is cheaper than offering plans.
Op. shut up. If Republicans could think of anybody but their own selfish asses, we could have had health care reform back with Clinton. Instead we have the most expensive, least healthy system in the world.
Republicans would rather crash the country then work with Obama for the people's good.
If Obama's plan was to provide coverage for the 13 million currently uninsured, coverage through our employers would not be affected.
AARP who claims to represent seniors told members ObamaCare was the way to go. Because of changes in Medicare Advantage, AARP will make billions selling insurance. When this was revealed 20,000 people cancelled their membership.
What R20 said. The ones squawking about increased rates are the very ones who stand to lose some of the outrageous $$ that is already being paid to them. Anti-Obamacare people are all about greed. Period.
If you're going to socialize health care, why not go single payer? I wish Obama had gone for it, but I guess it never would have passed. The concept of insurance is no different than gambling.
[quote][R12] I call bullshit. Nobody in this country could get insurance for a family of 4 for 330 a month.
He probably went on COBRA after leaving or losing his job.
That sounds more likely. Employer's contribution ended and cost skyrocketed.
OK, this is really simple.
1) People didn't want healthcare reform to mean that those of us who have satisfactory coverage had to change it.
2) Therfore, it doesn't.
3) If it did, you would see huge numbers of people being vehemently against it; far moreso than you do now. For the simple reason that those of us who have good coverage want to keep it.
Therefore, why the fuck would anyone want it to be any different than it is as concerns the fact that people can, rather than going into the marketplace to purchase insurance plans, simply keep the coverage they have now?
Let's move on.
From a society wide standpoint, it will benefit us all and therefore the greater good. On an individual level, some of you who didn't pay, will have to pay, so it might sting a bit. But buy fewer cheetos and mimosas and you should make it okay.
r3, Exactly how is this not a legitimate question? It's a very fair question that deserves an answer.
The bill was written by lawyers for the insurance industry. The IRS is in charge of enforcement. What's not to like?
They're opting out just like Congress. As that fucking cunt Pelosi said...We have to pass the bill before we know what's in it. Well when people are finding out about it, they don't want it.
[quote]I call bullshit. Nobody in this country could get insurance for a family of 4 for 330 a month.
[quote]He probably went on COBRA after leaving or losing his job. That sounds more likely. Employer's contribution ended and cost skyrocketed.
I'm a healthy 48 year old non-smoking male. The cheapest insurance I can find for ONE is 500 a month. How does someone cover a family of 4 for 330? Even with Employer contribution which would run about 50%, that's still 660 for 4 people.
Your full of shit and you know it r30, that's faux noise, that comment has been taken entirely out of context.
If you are happy with your current insurance, there will be no change. However, you should check the exchanges, because you'll likely find a better policy for the same money.
[quote] I wish Obama had gone for it
Obama was a proponent of single-payer when he was running. I think he shifted because he knew it would never happen.
This is not a joke America. For the very first time in American history, health care can be YOURS. All you have to do is enroll. Sign up. Read the information provided here and get educated. 9 days left to get all the information you will need about ObamaCARES.
First lets start with some Facts & Truth……These links range in dates from 2011 to Yesterday. ALL you have to do, to become educated on The Affordable Health Care Act is R.E.A.D.
Put down the gaming controller. Turn off reality TV for an hour.
Get informed & educated on ObamaCARES. October 1st, 2013, in just 9 days, open enrollment for ObamaCARES begins.
Please don’t believe the negative hype by elected racist politicians WHO ALREADY HAVE GOVERNMENT FUNDED HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
THESE ELECTED GOVERNMENT POLITICIANS WANT TO REPEAL your GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE, BUT KEEP THEIR HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
WAKE UP AMERICAN VOTERS.
Thanks for your insight, R33. Too bad you are dumb as fuck. Most people have insurance thru work. ( I'm guessing R33 doesn't work). Companies will save money by dropping their insurance, thereby forcing employees into a government plan. Maybe your doctor will accept that...maybe not. I hope you're SOL!
No one is opting out.
If you have an employer plan you're not eligible for a subsidy. I have no idea what organizations OP is talking about - but elected officials have an employer based plan. If they prefer to get coverage on an exchange, they can. They just won't get a subsidy.
Unions aren't opposed to Obamacare, There exists a health insurance plan - Taft-Hartley Plans - that cover employees who work in industries where it is common to move back and forth between employers. The plans are administered by the employers and the unions. So several employers would administer a plan with a union.
Because the plans are partly administered by the union they tend to be like other union negotiated plans - low price high benefit.
The unions involved don't want the plans to be considered employer based - that way workers would be eligible for subsidies. They claim since the plans are non-profit they shouldn't be considered employer based.
The Obama Administration claims they should be treated like employer based plans and therefore employees are not eligible for the subsidies.
So in reality the issue is not one of wanting to opt out, but rather one of being allowed to opt in with a subsidy.
In short OP's question is bogus.
For the record Obama was not for a single player plan when he was running for President or when he was running for the nomination. Both Obama and Clinton had very similar plans - neither of which came close to single payer.
The ignorance of the naysayers is mind boggling.
Republicans screamed that having universal healthcare was the same as communism, which of course their mouth-breathing base bought hook, line and sinker
[quote]Well when people are finding out about it, they don't want it.
Actually, the opposite is true. The more people know about it, the more they want it. There has never been such an organized campaign against the implementation of a law, a law which has actually been remarkably successful, especially when considering that opposition (see the link for details).
Whatever the problem is - I'm sure voting left or right will solve it.
[quote]It's not bullshit.
Yes, actually, it is.
[quote]Humana also gave a long list of reasons for the sharp increase and Obamacare was one of them.
And you believed them? Wow, you really are gullible. Meanwhile, out here in the real world, away from insurance companies who routinely lie, the rate of inflation for health care costs is the lowest it's been in 50 years and the early insurance premium estimates for the exchanges are coming in well below what the CBO predicted.
In short, if Humana wrote that, it's full of shit.
[quote]Why are unions, organizations, and the politicians we sent to Washington allowed to Opt-Out?
What's interesting about the OP's question is that it's flatly incorrect. No "unions, organization, and politicians" are allowed to "Opt-Out" [sic] of the ACA. In fact, Congress is *required* to purchase insurance on the exchanges. Congressional Republicans proposed this thinking that Democrats would balk. They didn't.
As for unions, R37 has it exactly right. What the OP very carefully failed to tell you is that the Obama administration refused to go along with the union position, refused to grant the exception, despite the fact that there is a very reasonable case to be made there.
In short, this whole thread was started on a bullshit first post.
As Congress and Staffers Try to Weasel Out of Obamacare, Americans Smell a Rat.
Anyone who has coverage can opt out.
Why would a politician (senators, congressment) want to opt out? They have the best medical plan in the whole entire world. Do you know what is covered on their plan? EVERYTHING. Do you know what their deductible is? NOTHING. Do you know what their co-pays are? NOTHING
Would you opt out of that and purchase your own insurance? NO you wouldn't
As for the unions. All union employees are insured. Would you pay for your own insurance if you had coverage through your employer? NO, you wouldn't.
Theoretically in 2014 the insurance companies can only increase your rates by a certain percentage of the company's net income which cannot exceed a certain amount. So if Blue Cross shows a profit of say 20% then they can't increase your premium too.
Did the GOP make such a fuss when Social Security and Medicare were introduced? The GOP hatred of "Obamacare" seems excessive.
[bold] Obamacare premium rates lower than expected [/bold]
The Obamacare premiums will cost less than predicted, according to data released Wednesday by the Obama administration.
The national average premium for the benchmark plan will be $328 a month before subsidies, 16% less than projected by the Congressional Budget Office. The benchmark is the second-lowest cost "silver" policy for 48 states, upon which federal subsidies are based.
The data also provided the first look for consumers into rates on the 36 federally run insurance exchanges. Prices vary widely based on one's age, income and state.
For instance, a 27-year-old living in Dallas making $25,000 could pay as little as $74 a month for the cheapest "bronze" plan after subsidies, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
But a 60-year-old in Wyoming who makes more than $46,000 a year -- too much to get a tax credit -- could pay as much as $758 for a similar plan.
The majority of people uninsured today will be able to find a policy for $100 or less a month, taking into account subsidies and Medicaid eligibility, the administration said.
Consumers will be able to start enrolling in the exchanges on Oct. 1, with coverage beginning in January. Starting in 2014, nearly everyone must have insurance -- either through their jobs, government programs or the individual market -- or face a penalty.
Americans with incomes up to 400% of poverty are eligible for federal subsidies. So a 27-year-old making $25,000 a year will pay only $145 a month for the benchmark plan in all states other than Alaska and Hawaii, while a family of four earning $50,000 will have a $282 monthly tab.
Additional information, including the names of insurers offering plans on the federal exchanges and the deductibles and co-pays associated with the policies, has yet to be unveiled. The department just said that the number of plans ranges from 6 to 169, depending on the area. Consumers will have a choice of as few as one insurer and as many as 13, based on where they live.
In states where there are only a handful insurers, premiums are much higher, said Gary Claxton, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. In the three most expensive states, Wyoming, Alaska and Mississippi, residents will only have a choice of two insurers.
Most people who sign up for coverage in the exchange, however, will be eligible for subsidies. The lower your income, the larger your subsidy. For instance, those making $17,235 a year will pay no more than 4% of income, or $57 a month, while those with incomes between $34,470 and $45,960 will pay a maximum of 9.5% of income, or $364 a month. The federal government will cover the rest.
Anyone earning more than $45,960 would be responsible for the entire tab on the Obamacare health plan of his choice.
Check out Kaiser's calculator to estimate your subsidy.
While the administration's report looks only at premiums, a health care advisory firm issued a report Wednesday saying that consumers in the exchange will face high out-of-pocket costs in the bronze- and silver-level plans. These policies have lower deductibles than gold and platinum plans, but carry higher cost sharing burdens.
The average silver plan will carry a $2,550 deductible and $30 primary care co-pay, while the typical bronze plan will have a $5,150 deductible and $39 co-pay, according to Avelere Health. The firm looked at policies in six states that have released detailed data.
"They're not allowed to do that lest they be fined."
So nothing stops them from just exiting the program the way hundreds of other insurance companies have?
Nearly 2M people have been forced off their employer health care.
Obama's health care plan is so good all the Democrats in Washington are cancelling their government benefits and signing up for it....Oh wait a minute...
[quote]Did the GOP make such a fuss when Social Security and Medicare were introduced?
Dunno about Social Security but they definitely did with Medicare, although they weren't quite as adamantly opposed to the rollout and openly trying to sabotage it.
[quote]Obama's health care plan is so good all the Democrats in Washington are cancelling their government benefits and signing up for it....Oh wait a minute...
Sigh... Moron, that's *exactly* what they did when they passed the law! They signed themselves and their staff up for Obamacare. Can we get some smarter monkeys, please?
Thanks, R37, I learned something.
because the care and coverage will be sub-par
Here in Massachusetts we have Romneycare, which was the model for
Obama, more or less. I'm thrilled with it. We have almost no people uninsured now. My taxes didn't go up, as far as I could tell.
I had great insurance at three different employers for decades. Then I lost my job, and subsequently found another with a healthcare Insurance company. I thought they'd offer great heath insurance, but they offered the crappiest insurance that I think can exist. When I left them, instead of keeping their crappy insurance on COBRA, I chose instead to drop it and pay more for a good plan on Romneycare. I was thrilled I had that option. I could have selected a plan for less money, but after fighting with my last insurance company over practically everything, I wanted a plan which I expected to be less fussy (and was), even it cost me a little more.
Most of the arguments I hear against Obammacare are based in some nonsense someone heard from some buffoon on FoxNews or other equally reliable media outlet. OMG, "death panels!" After Obamacare is implemented, and nobody comes to shoot grandma in the next 6 months, the only people fighting this will be the same people who are still fighting social security & Medicare.
[quote]Why is it so difficult for the US to provide universal health care when it was so easy for other countries to do so?
Those other countries have shitty health care services. That's why. People fly to the US to seek treatment. They also fly to the US to get their medical degrees. Government fucks up at an astronomical rate.
[quote]I wish Obama had gone for it, but I guess it never would have passed.
Democrats controlled congress, so yes, it would have.
[quote]Too bad you are dumb as fuck. Most people have insurance thru work.
In other words simply not affordable after rent for anyone making under 85k in an expensive city.
Why did congress "opt out" of the ACA?
It is because of all the opt-outs that people have become cynical about the so-called Affordable Health Care Plan. If it's so good, why all the opt-outs? As a matter of fact, why are opt-outs allowed? If it is the savior of the American health system, why would opt-outs even be in the equation?
You are a lying sack of shit.
The government has "opted out" of Obamacare 100%.
R53 replied to this...
[quote]Obama's health care plan is so good all the Democrats in Washington are cancelling their government benefits and signing up for it....Oh wait a minute...
[quote]Sigh... Moron, that's *exactly* what they did when they passed the law! They signed themselves and their staff up for Obamacare. Can we get some smarter monkeys, please?
No, you retarded monkey, the Dems decided to pass a bill exempting them (and their staff) from Obamacare. Why should we allow them to force US into a system that is not good enough for THEM?
They opted out because they knew it was bullshit!
[quote]As for unions, [R37] has it exactly right. What the OP very carefully failed to tell you is that the Obama administration refused to go along with the union position, refused to grant the exception, despite the fact that there is a very reasonable case to be made there.
I get insurance through my union and the insurance I have won't change. So, yes, we are excluded from AHC.
The unions, congresscritters and their staff know that the ACA will make health care worse.
so my doctor sends me a notice in the mail that due to Obamacare coming and all it's attendant changes, he is going to start charging an annual fee. It doesn't say how much but that more info is forthcoming. When I saw him Thurs. he said Obamacare will reduce by 30% the amount he can charge. And older docs will retire early, fewer people will decide to become doctors, quality will decline, and blah, blah blah.
Anyone else's doctor doing something like this?
My Primary physician retired last month. He said he wouldn't be making enough to offset the cost of an office. He is about 100 years old, so it would have happened soon anyway, but AHC just made it happen now.
The great thing about capitalism is that when those idiotic doctors retire because they are "losing money," there will be plenty more people waiting in the wings, willing to take their place. If you seriously think that the ACA is going to discourage people from going to med school and making good money as doctors, you are delusional. If you don't think there is still good money to made being a doctor because of the ACA you are just an idiot.
It's too bad the doctors are changing their procedures, or closing down, before they actually see what Obamacare will actually change. These threads here on DL have shown me that many people are misinformed about at least part of what is changing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the doctors were likewise.
That ancient doctor referenced by R69 was probably just looking for an excuse to retire, so he blamed it on the black man, or on something Fox News lied to him about.
[quote]Why did congress "opt out" of the ACA?
They didn't, moron. You're simply lying.
[quote]No, you retarded monkey, the Dems decided to pass a bill exempting them (and their staff) from Obamacare.
Q.E.D. Are you really this stupid? Congressmen and their staffs will be purchasing insurance on the ACA-mandated health care exchanges just as will millions of other Americans.
Perhaps you should actually learn to read before you start spewing ignorant drivel?
R72 is right, just heard it on the news. The right is spreading the lie that congress has opted out, it's not true.
r64, r65, r67 et al is the poster who is now trying to say that Harry Reid hates kids with cancer.
CLEARLY a PAID TROLL.
Nah, R74, he's just our resident libertarian/anarchist/Ron Paul acolyte/paranoid/anti-Fed/gold bug/conspiracy theorist troll. He's hilariously ignorant, so just read his posts and laugh.
Another day, another round of FUD* Trolling from some wingnut fool.
*FUD = (attempting to sow) Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt
More and more people are figuring out what Obamacare is (government setting up a system where you get competitive/affordable health *insurance*, from companies in the market, partially subsidized by government funds) and what it isn't (government taking over your actual *healthcare*).
Retard at R14, I have a family of 4, a 218$ per month premium and $500 deductible. Suck it.
My current health plan carrier notified me by mail the other day that they are terminating my coverage effective 12/31/13.
I am self employed.
r78, do your have Aetna? My 72-year-old aunt who's been them for 26 years received a similar notice.
If you wonder why Americans tolerate paying double the world average for health care, with worse results, this thread is exhibit A. So many don't understand insurance, health care, or economics - they just spout off fear-based talking points.
Plenty of people's rates have skyrocketed in the past, but insurance companies never had Obamacare to blame. Isn't it interesting that they would do so in years where health care and insurance rates have slowed in growth?
People have been dropped from insurance in the past, but no one ever pointed the finger until the ACA showed up.
Americans prefer to feel fearful and find scapegoats than to address the real problem - profit-driven healthcare.
OP is SUCH a troll!!!
"allowed to Opt-Out" = straight from those creepy Uncle Sam as puppet-head gynecologist ads!
If a wage earner makes $75k for a family of four and has a catastrophic/minimal medical insurance policy that covers the family for $300/month with an incredible deductible, then hell yes their premium is going to increase to NORMAL premiums for REGULAR coverage. The maximum is just under 10% of adjusted gross income.
The vast majority of people will pay a reduced premium for increased coverage.
Just that simple.
However, the fucker that makes $75k a year also has ways to knock down their adjusted gross income which means cheaper insurance premiums.
Why isn't anyone complaining about the lack of links in this thread? I really am tired of carring the water.
That's how we do it here. Post a damn link or it never happened.
Freep arguments are always about what's going to happen in the future, slippery slope bullshit that never comes true.
Try arguing about something based in present times. Always either the future or the past ( biblical references.) What about present times?
Insurance compiles needed a damn law, and now they have one. Shut up or move.
Really, 80 posts and no request for a link. You deserve the trolls.
OP's been schooled up one side and down the other, r84. I think you need to reserve your frustration for one of the other anti-ACA troll threads.
[quote]The great thing about capitalism is that when those idiotic doctors retire because they are "losing money," there will be plenty more people waiting in the wings, willing to take their place.
No, because the government (in collusion with the AMA) strictly limits the number of new docs, there is no "free market" at work. Many young docs are looking at jobs that don't require actual "practice" or in private "concierge" practices.
[quote]If you seriously think that the ACA is going to discourage people from going to med school and making good money as doctors, you are delusional.
No, you are delusional- decisions are made at the margin, and if someone considering Med School decides that a 1%, or 5%, or 25% drop in monetary compensation (plus numerous other "unquantifiable" aspects- more regulation, less time with patients, more paperwork---whatever they THINK will impede their future practice) then many potential physicians will pursue other work.
If you wanted to work as an accountant, but found out that new rules were going to reduce your future pay and impact your enjoyment of your job, you would factor that into your future plans.
[quote]If you don't think there is still good money to made being a doctor because of the ACA you are just an idiot.
The difference between making $150k/yr and $175k/yr may seem trivial to you, but that difference WILL cause some potential physicians to seek alternatives. That's just the nature of economic behavior.
those are the doctors we can all do without, so good riddance.
The problem with your theories, R86, is that they were also touted when we added Medicare and Medicaid. The theories didn't come to pass when those programs were added; there really isn't any reason to believe they will this time, either.
A doctor called into a Talk Show. He said under the Obama plan their is no flat rate per visit. The more patient he sees, he will get less for each visit.
r83, when a link was posted, the response was from people who claimed the source was biased. No way to tell who's telling us the truth. In a few years we may know if Obamacare is working,
For that reason alone I think Obamacare WILL fail and WILL NOT work! thanks for sharing!
You want some links?
CBS News reports:
Bedeviled by technology glitches that frustrated millions of consumers, the Obama administration is taking down its health overhaul website for repairs this weekend.
Enrollment functions of the healthcare.gov site will be unavailable during off-peak hours, the Health and Human Services Department said Friday. The department did not release a schedule for hours of operation, but an HHS spokeswoman said the site would be taken down at 1 a.m. EDT each night for a few hours.
By Ilana Mercer
The message that greeted future Obamacare patients who logged on to Healthcare.gov was as follows: “Please wait. We have a lot of visitors on our site right now and we’re working to make your experience here better. Please wait here until we send you to the login page. Thanks for your patience.”
Healthcare.gov is the deluxe version of Obamacare.
The interminable waits on Healthcare.gov are a harbinger of things to come under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This so-called "Health Insurance Marketplace" is using the good name of the marketplace in vain. A healthcare cauldron of Obama's creation, government-run exchanges constitute a planned economy, not a market economy. As such, they will result in long lines precipitated by the inevitable inability of central planners to bring demand and supply into balance.
Like Canadian, Cuban and British nationalized healthcare, Obamacare’s motto will become, “We have boatloads of patients, too few doctors, supplies and equipment and not nearly enough of your money. Don't like it? Go jump in the lake.”
Like me, you must know Obama-heads (doctors included) who shrugged off the idea that a further centralization of healthcare by Obama’s politburo of proctologists—a modest expansion totaling $2 trillion—would cost them anything at all. (Doctors for Obamacare ought to revel in the 140,000 added codes into which they’ll have to categorize care rendered. These include nine new codes for injuries sustained from the common macaw! You’re more likely to be felled by an Obama-guided drone than by that gentle hook bill.)
I’m already feeling the care. How about you?
Mitt Romney was not “lying” when he told stupid voters that the cost of their healthcare would rise under Obamacare by about $2000 to $3000 annually. Before Obamacare, this household enjoyed 100 percent coverage. Shortly after Obamacare became law, we were notified, like millions around the country, that healthcare experts were hard at work hammering out the details of how to continue caring for us under current conditions (and keep operating).
Our healthcare plan has since altered for the first time ever. The complete coverage we were previously afforded is now a high-deductible, cost-sharing plan with a health-savings account. It has already cost us over 2000 additional dollars in 2013.
Perhaps like Michelle Malkin, I too will lose my coverage. It is not impossible that even a mammoth like Microsoft, whose chairman trumpets Big Government at every turn, will see the benefits to the bottom line of dropping spouses like myself. In this case, Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute has more bad news. On the individual-market, “Obamacare will increase average ... insurance premiums by 99% for men, 62% for Women.” Middle-class Americans Obamacare subsidies will not protect. They "face the double-whammy of higher insurance premiums, and higher taxes to pay for other people’s subsidies."
Well before Roy, a healthcare expert had warned John Stossel's viewers that the employer mandate forces every employer of more than 50 workers (insurers are employers) to provide them with a one-size fits all government-designed plan.
The costs of the employer mandate are such that it’s economically more viable for a proprietor to deny coverage and pay a penalty, considering that compliance will add about $1.75 per hour to the cost of a worker and may see a business go under.
Who does this onerous mandate hurt? Entry level hires. An additional $1.75 an hour doesn’t much matter when one is hiring a neurosurgeon. However, 2000 additional dollars a year for a relatively unskilled worker whose productivity—output per unit of labor—is not that high; this is a proposition only government can entertain, given that it derives its revenue from taxing, borrowing and minting money.
Not even CNN's resident physician, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, can doctor the reports any longer. Sad to say, but across the country people have been reporting what Gupta admitted only yesterday. Those who had full-time employment and healthcare insurance may now find themselves downgraded to part-time employees with no insurance, or to the ranks of the unemployed bereft of a job and insurance.
Our staggeringly pompous president is incapable of comprehending that a businessman cannot pay a worker in excess of his productivity and hope to stay solvent.
This same belief plagues the simple-minded pinkos at Politico.com, where two female reporters gushed that "[d]espite the unceasing GOP campaign to sink the law, Obamacare has exceeded expectations in some significant ways.” The gush and tosh was over the fact that the central planner had instructed insurers on how to “better” allocate resources, forcing them "to issue more than $500 million in rebate checks to consumers because they failed to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care."
Another tenet of this prevailing worldview is that an act of force—a law—is all it takes to make medical manna fall from the heavens.
In April came news that Big Brother will be appointing “navigators” to show the beneficiaries of the bankrupting Affordable Care Act the way: 21,000 navigators in California alone translates into 140,000 of them nationwide, a bureaucratic army that will swell the already swollen federal oink sector. By Pat Buchanan's telling, navigator pay will run from $20 to $48 an hour, almost $100,000 a year for one federal oinker, for a total of between $5 and 10 billion.
In California alone navigators will cost between $871 million and $2 billion a year.
These navigators will likely be members if the entrenched minorities who speak the languages of the welfariat for which Obamacare has been sculpted. Since the chosen workers will be Obama’s pepes—community organizers, union folks and Planned Parenthood advisers—recruiting new Democrats will be part of their job description.
Despotism is upon us when, as one wag put it, “government officials write laws that apply only to us and not to them.” Lawmakers and staff were supposed to have lost their generous Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, to be replaced by health insurance purchased at the comically calamitous Healthcare.gov.
The proctologist-in-chief caved to the squealing quislings. The 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of their Capitol Hill staff will still retain the subsidies provided by taxpayer largess. Obamacare for thee, but not for me.
That's what you call the law of rule, not the rule of law.
ILANA Mercer is a classical liberal writer, based in the United States. She pens WND's longest-standing paleolibertarian column. ILANA is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is the author of "Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa." ILANA's website is WWW.IlanaMercer.com . She blogs at www.barelyablog.com
Copyright 2013 Ilana Mercer
Business Insider Henry Blodget writes:
A Staunch Republican Tries Obamacare ... And Discovers That It's Actually Pretty Awesome
One mystery of the government shutdown is why Republicans are so apoplectic about the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation that aims to make health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans.
One theory is that the Republican leadership is scared that Obamacare actually won't be as bad as they have been saying it will be — that, in fact, Americans (including Republican constituents) will quite like it.
If Americans like Obamacare, the theory goes, this will be a big blow to the Republicans' big sales pitch over the past 30 years, which is that more government is always bad. (This despite the popularity of Medicare, Social Security, and other programs that even many Republicans support.) And this, in turn, the theory goes, will be a big blow to the Republican Party.
Well, it seems at least one Republican is pleasantly surprised by the reality of Obamacare.
Sy Mukherjee of ThinkProgress caught up with Butch Matthews, a 61-year old former small business owner from Little Rock, Arkansas. Matthews, a diehard Republican, was skeptical of Obamacare. But the new law has already allowed him to buy insurance that is both much better, and much cheaper, than the astronomically expensive pre-Obamacare plan he was clinging to from Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Matthews' old Blue Cross plan cost $1,069 a month and had a $10,000 deductible.
The plan he just bought on the Arkansas state exchange has a $0 premium (after the government subsidy he gets because of his low income level) and only a $750 deductible. It's also a "Silver" plan, which has much better benefits than the vastly more expensive "Bronze" plan he ditched.
What Blodget fails to mention is that the advantage Matthews is getting is because his subsidy is the result of government taxing others to provide Matthews the subsidy. Further, Blodget fails to note that perfectly healthy youth are being coerced into joining Obamacare to create distortions that favor the elderly. Obamacare is a big socialist program that will favor some at the expense of others who don't want anything to do with Obamacare but are forced to participate, when it comes down to it, at the barrel of a gun. And this is just the sign up process!
Basic economics teaches us that bureaucratic programs are inefficient and lead to poor quality, shortages and long lines. In the years, down the road, when Obamacare wreaks its havoc on the US healthcare system, don't expect Blodget to concede his error about viewing Obamacare as "pretty awesome." No doubt, he will be calling for more controls on the medical system, including controls on physicians, which will result in more healthcare problems and a disincentive for the best and the brightest to enter the medical sector.
We are in the very early stages of a major disaster promoted by insiders that will benefit and promoted by pathological altruists, who prefer distorted happy talk over reality.
It seems as if every policy reporter in the nation spent the last four days trying to log in and browse policies on Healthcare.gov, yet was stymied by glitches. Many of us have also been on the lookout for people who had actually bought insurance policies under Obamacare. Over the first day, reports trickled in of various successes -- most of them in Kentucky, funnily enough. (As I tweeted at the time, who had Kentucky in the office pool for “most successful exchange rollout”? Yeah, me neither.)
But no one could find anyone who had enrolled in one of the 36 exchanges being run by the Federal government, and people were beginning to doubt that anyone had, despite the White House’s assurances. Then finally, finally, Enroll America, a nonprofit ally of the White House run by a former White House communications staffer, came up with someone who had managed to get past all the glitches: Chad Henderson, a student and part-time day-care worker in Georgia who managed to enroll himself and his father in “bronze” plans (the tier with the lowest premium cost and highest cost-sharing). The Federal exchange websites might not be working well, but here at least was proof that they were working at all. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of Health and Human Services, and @Obamacare both retweeted Henderson about getting enrolled:
Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas write:
[T]he Obama administration doesn't have a basically working product that would be improved by a software update. They have a Web site that almost nobody has been able to successfully use[...]
The early word from insurers is that basically no one was able to sign up during the first two days, though successful applications began to "trickle" in on day three.
Since March 2010, when President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and its companion Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), the administration has published in the Federal Register 109 final regulations governing how Obamacare will be implemented.
These regulations add up to 10,516 pages in the Federal Register.
No wonder it is failing out of the gate.
President Obama is bracing Americans for inevitable problems as the Affordable Care Act rolls out this week, but what he calls "glitches" are hardly routine. Information technology is ObamaCare's Achilles' heel. The faulty IT will expose Americans to lost data, attempts to enroll online that fail and the risk of fraud.
There are two key technological flaws in ObamaCare. First is the "hub"—the software to link servers at the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, Homeland Security and state agencies to verify the income and health-insurance status of enrollees and ensure that they are eligible for subsidies. The other flaw is the "portal"—the federally run IT platform that is supposed to let consumers compare health plans and select one that best suits their needs.
In planning ObamaCare's IT infrastructure, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) dawdled for more than a year under Administrator Donald Berwick until Marilyn Tavenner took over in December 2011. Even then the agency was slow to outsource key contracts and turned to what insiders say were not top-quality programmers. CMS did not sign a contract for a backstop system to process paper verifications and do paper verifications of online applications until July.
The Health and Human Services Department did not begin testing the chief pieces of this IT system until August. The testing found that states couldn't consistently link to the federal portal (a problem that persists in some states), and that the hub couldn't reliably verify if a person is eligible for a subsidy, or accurately calculate how much the applicant is eligible to receive. HHS prevented independent watchdogs, including its own inspector general, from examining the systems before they go live on Oct. 1. The result is a host of troublesome gaps and dangers.
The biggest risk involves data security. The Obama administration created unnecessary opportunities for fraud with the White House's pork-minded insistence on funding favored community groups to employ "navigators" to solicit applicants and help them input their personal information, such as income and Social Security numbers. The navigators were hastily hired and trained (they are still being hired) and were not given extensive background checks. The personal data for millions of people will be entrusted to these navigators—and to a computerized system that has been rushed into operation.
Another technological hurdle involves health-insurance subsidies. At least a half-dozen states, including Colorado and Oregon, have said that they won't offer full online enrollment through their exchanges because the federal hub that is supposed to link to help them determine the subsidies people are eligible for isn't working properly. A link to Medicaid agencies also isn't functioning. This link is necessary to ensure that someone applying for a subsidy under a health plan is not Medicaid-eligible under his state's rules.
If the hub can't verify this, the individual will get booted from the ObamaCare enrollment system and shifted to a call center for confirmation by an ObamaCare agent who is likely to be fielding a deluge of complaints. Some people will end up getting subsidies they weren't qualified for. Washington eventually will have to try to claw back the money. This will create a massive pay-and-chase challenge as people move in and out of the exchanges and get subsidies that many of them won't even know they didn't deserve.
The subsidies will likely present other woes. For example, separate cost-sharing subsidies intended to reduce a person's out-of pocket costs are subject to the budget sequester. As a result, some of the reductions in co-insurance won't materialize. Patients won't know what they will owe for doctor visits, prescriptions or hospital stays. The Obama administration hasn't begun to address the issue.
As for medical care, the current ObamaCare software doesn't even try to take a serious stab at letting consumers match the health plans on the exchanges with their particular medical needs, or with their providers, at the point of enrollment. In some cases—but not necessarily all—they can click through to the plans to ferret out the information they need.
On Friday, HHS finally awarded a $380 million, four-year contract to manage appeals from consumers fighting for benefits that the insurance plans have denied. If it was hard to appeal medical claims through your current insurance plan, wait until you have to call a remote federal contractor.
The technology and privacy problems presented by ObamaCare aren't likely to be mere rough patches that can be easily smoothed over. The provision of health care is an inherently local endeavor, and it increasingly appears that so is applying for health insurance. ObamaCare is an attempt to federalize the entire system, but the IT backbone appears unable to support this political ambition.
In September, the Minnesota state health-insurance exchange inadvertently disclosed several thousand Social Security numbers before the exchange even opened for business. Once the entire, gargantuan system is fired up nationwide, data leaks are almost a certainty.
That's the thing about technology: Glitches happen. Usually they're annoyances. Now, more than ever, they're going to involve the government and your health.
Dr. Gottlieb is a physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the Republican appointee on the HHS Federal Health IT Policy Committee that works on electronic health record guidelines for doctors' offices but has nothing to do with the rollout of the ObamaCare exchanges. Mr. Astrue was the Commissioner of Social Security until earlier this year.
An overview of skeptics---
Things don't look good for Obamacare. I fully expected problems down the road when the inevitable rigidity of a centrally planned operation bucked up against the complexity of human activity, but it appears that the problems will begin immediately when the program is launched on October 1.
It does not appear that Obamacare even has the sign up applications and pricing platforms properly constructed.
I reported exclusively yesterday ( here and here):
The SHOP exchange for small businesses to purchase insurance for their employees will require employers to sign up using paper forms. The ability to sign up using an electronic or web-based form will not likely be ready until January 2014 at best. The industry was informed of this limitation one week ago.
Politco has now confirmed this report.
Think about this for a minute. How can you possibly process manual forms to determine prices for insurance based upon the many individual health details on the forms that are hand written? Not going to happen. The SHOP part of the exchange, in other words, will not be working at a functional level on October 1.
Many serious, in the know people, have concerns about other parts of the Obamacare launch.
During an Iowa Association of Health Underwriters conference, according to the Des Moines Register, John Forsyth, chairman of Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield said "This isn't going to work well initially, in my opinion." That's part of the reason why Wellmark opted not to participate in Iowa's exchange.
Forsyth said that the exchanges are more complicated than the Medicare prescription drug program that saw several technical problems when it launched in 2006. And the feds were more prepared then than they are now. "I hope we're wrong. I hope it's a smooth experience at the beginning of the year," he added. "But I would say it's highly unlikely."
WaPo reported in August:
Last Friday, the Inspector General's Office at Health and Human Services released a report titled "Observations noted during the OIG review of CMS' implementation of the health insurance exchange-data services hub."
The most important observation: The federal government is months behind where it hoped to be in testing security features of a crucial health law component.
So what should Americans expect on October 1. Perhaps Joel Ario, the former Director of Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight put it best:
Nobody is going to say we’re not starting on October 1, but in some situations, you may see a redefinition of what ‘start’ means.
Who really knows how bad things will get? Obamacare was a bad idea in the first place. It is a centrally planned program, rigged to get youth to pay for the medical care of the elderly BUT government determined care. It is a totalitarian medical system that will causes shortages, result in poorer care and destroy incentive in the medical care sector.
The best thing that could occur is for it to collapse right out of the gate. Let's hope there are more glitches, many of them, that highlight the problems, early, of centrally planned healthcare.
Curiously, Mitch McConnell appears to think it will collapse. The Hill quotes him as saying:
I don't believe that even if we are unable to defund it here in the next few days that we're necessarily stuck with it.
I think it's pretty safe to conclude: The things that can't work don't stick, don't last.
I don't think this law can possibly stand. It's pretty hard to predict exactly the day upon which it ends, but it's cracking.
Re @ R95-
Don't forget to read the link- it turns out that Henderson lied, and had NOT actually signed up for insurance, and that his dad has contradicted his story. The fact that the K Sebelius actually latched onto his story, and then tweeted it to millions and touted it to the media before they found out it was false...well, that shows what a clusterfuck this socialist nightmare is, and shows how much worse it will be once we actually give the IRS control of our medical system.
So, 6 days in, not one single person has been able to sign up for Obamacare, despite the fact that millions of people have TRIED TO sign up.
That defines EPIC FAIL in my book.
That should read "...The fact that the SECRETARY OF HHS K Sebelius actually latched..."
no but nice try r100.
Fuck off, fairy boots
Wow, round up a series of critiques from radical rightwing "news" sites, from the likes of Avik Roy, Ilana Mercer and Henry Blodget and wow, we're all just going to believe you... not.
And really, if Michelle Malkin lost her insurance, so much the better. If there was ever a candidate for a demise by grease fire, it's anchor-baby Malkin.
Lets be clear, trolls: no one said the rollout was going to be as smooth as silk. No one expected the rollout would be without glitches. In the real world, when we have such problems, we fix them. Or, do you live a technological utopian existence where every time you boot up your computer, it launches perfectly, takes you right to the program you were thinking about using (without, of course, hitting a button), and then, magically and with no input from you, or help from anyone, give you the complete answer to your problem? As the President said the other day, even when Apple rolled out IOS 7, there were problems, and no one suggested that Apple stop selling iPhones and iPads until they got it perfect. Or that Apple should be shut down, for that matter.
As for being six days in and no one being able to sign up for Obamacare, I'll be the first to call you a liar. I signed up for it, so I should know. Oh wait, healthcare.gov was slow on Oct. 1st, so I came back on the 2nd and finished the process. Oh, it's a failure! I've made a horrible mistake! How have I lived for these, lo, four days?
it's not that they're allowed to opt out, it's that they don't need the affordable health care plan since they already have the best of the best so they can just keep their existing plan. no one has to switch plans, they can keep their current one if they wish.
Over the course of Obamacare’s first week, 9.5 million people visited healthcare.gov, the federal government’s official healthcare website and the de facto exchange for residents of two thirds of the states. In addition, the 16 operational state-run exchanges combined to attract over 3.1 million visitors during the same period. In total, 11.3 million consumers visited the federal and state exchanges during their first week of operation. Unfortunately, what started as a fire hose of interest, resulted in only a small trickle of actual healthcare enrollments.
In the end, just 36,000 consumers, or 1% of all those who attempted to register for the federal exchange, successfully enrolled in Obamacare.
There was a DOS attack on the servers, which inflated the total number of visitors and prevented people who were actually interested from signing up.