• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

ObamaCare Gutted

Traveler

Well-known member
Just another example of bleeding heart socialists making a total mess. I don't remember Republicans ever coming up with something that was such an underhanded POS that they had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. And the Democraps defecate themselves at the thought of anything carrying some personal responsibility, like medical saving accounts.

Yep, being enrolled in Obamacare sounds wonderful. :roll:

Proponents of the Affordable Care Act insist the law will extend health insurance to millions, expand access to healthcare, and improve Americans' overall health. But, as The New York Times recently reported, at least 20 percent of the new enrollees have not paid their premiums. They therefore do not really have insurance.

But even for those enrollees paying premiums, having health insurance is not the same thing as getting good healthcare, or any healthcare. In fact, it doesn't matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician.

Many Americans could lose their employer-provided insurance if firms decide that paying the ACA penalty — and maybe giving small raises to their employees — is cheaper than offering health insurance as a benefit of employment or reduce workers' hours (the ACA does not mandate coverage for part-time employees). These newly uninsured workers will either have to enroll in Medicaid, if their income is low enough, or purchase a plan on one of the state and federal insurance exchanges. Those eligible for exchange subsidies may end up better off economically as their premiums will be so low, but both the exchange and Medicaid options are fraught with problems.

States already are struggling under huge budget deficits from their existing Medicaid programs. Since states lose federal funding if they adjust their Medicaid eligibility guidelines, their only option for reducing deficits is to cut already-low Medicaid reimbursement rates.



Physicians already are reluctant to treat Medicaid patients under current rates that are a fraction of private and Medicare rates. Cutting reimbursements will exacerbate the physician-access problem and could lead to closures of so-called "safety-net" hospitals that care for many of the poor and uninsured. These hospitals have long depended on federal Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments to offset the cost of caring for the uninsured. But the ACA severely cuts DSH payments on the assumption that the uninsured will gain either Medicaid or private insurance. If large numbers of patients remain uninsured, the financial difficulties of safety-net hospitals will be compounded by their obligation to provide uncompensated care.

Those who do get coverage through the exchanges and pay their premiums will also struggle to get medical care. The ACA requires insurers to accept every patient regardless of risk, provide expansive benefits packages, and eliminate caps on lifetime benefits. Looking to control costs, most insurers are offering exchange plans that severely limit the number of doctors and hospitals patients can visit. Some state exchanges — including New York's — don't offer a single plan that covers visits to out-of-network doctors or hospitals.

Many people will not be able to see the physicians who have treated them for years, use facilities providing the most appropriate treatment, or access care within a reasonable time and distance from their homes. Some specialty hospitals have been excluded from all exchange plans.

If this scenario sounds familiar, it's because we've seen it before, during the failed managed-care experiment of the 1990s. Patients and physicians quickly became disenchanted with the restrictions and bureaucratic complexity of Health Maintenance Organizations. At least patients had options then. They could avoid HMO restrictions by buying broader, more expensive insurance plans. Many plans available now on the state exchanges are highly restrictive, HMO-like networks.

Patient choice has been further compromised by the haphazard implementation of the exchanges. Patients have reported trouble determining which physicians will participate in which plans. Doctors, too, are often unaware whether they're listed in particular insurance networks and what the reimbursement rates are. Many find themselves arbitrarily excluded from plans in which they had previously participated; others are getting listed on plans without their knowledge.

Worst of all, insurance coverage under the ACA is unlikely to improve health outcomes. The much-noted Oregon Medicaid-expansion study found that new Medicaid enrollees showed no improvement in health outcomes compared with the uninsured. Other studies have shown that Medicaid patients have worse outcomes compared with privately insured patients (though why this happens is not well understood). The health outcomes of many exchange patients will suffer as a result of not being able to see their regular physicians or access the most appropriate specialists and hospitals.

The drafters of the ACA presumably had noble intentions, but the law is failing in all of its intended goals. Unless the ACA is redrafted to provide insurance coverage that most physicians and hospitals will accept, many patients will find that when they need medical care, the doctor is not in.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-insurance-preferred-doctor/2014/04/15/id/565752#ixzz38FF6MXZL
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Take oldtimers word for it??? or from those that really know????

But even for those enrollees paying premiums, having health insurance is not the same thing as getting good healthcare, or any healthcare. In fact, it doesn't matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician.
\
Patient choice has been further compromised by the haphazard implementation of the exchanges. Patients have reported trouble determining which physicians will participate in which plans. Doctors, too, are often unaware whether they're listed in particular insurance networks and what the reimbursement rates are. Many find themselves arbitrarily excluded from plans in which they had previously participated; others are getting listed on plans without their knowleWorst of all, insurance coverage under the ACA is unlikely to improve health outcomes. The much-noted Oregon Medicaid-expansion study found that new Medicaid enrollees showed no improvement in health outcomes compared with the uninsured. Other studies have shown that Medicaid patients have worse outcomes compared with privately insured patients (though why this happens is not well understood). The health outcomes of many exchange patients will suffer as a result of not being able to see their regular physicians or access the most appropriate specialists and hospitals
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The legal argument involves a provision in the health care law that says people who obtained coverage through state-run exchanges can get federal subsidies such as tax credits. It doesn't specifically say that those signing up on the federal exchange also are eligible.

Opponents of the law contend that lack of specificity renders illegal the subsidies for anyone who enrolled through the federal exchange.

Only 14 states and the District of Columbia set up their own exchanges, meaning that the 4.7 million who signed up for subsidized health coverage through HealthCare.gov could be affected.

"It will kill Obamacare," Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said of an eventual Supreme Court ruling against the subsidies. "It would make it very difficult for Obamacare to continue because the cost of health care is going to go sky high for those who are not in the state exchange."



For now, the law remains unchanged and the subsidized policies are unaffected until the legal case plays out, Earnest told reporters. The Justice Department said the government would appeal the D.C. panel's decision.


Hatch was one of the original backers of the Mandate insurance plan- was also one of those that introduced the Republican mandate type insurance to challenge the Hillary universal care type insurance...
During the hearings leading up to a health care insurance plan Hatch was one of those that said "Doing nothing is no longer an Option"- explaining the catch-22 of the rising health care/health care insurance cost was so rapidly increasing that it was going to bankrupt the economy...



The deep irony of Republican disapproval of Obamacare


The Affordable Care Act has Republican roots: Nixon introduced a similar plan in 1974



October 30, 2013|By Robert B. Reich


House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says Republicans will seek to delay a requirement of the 2010 Affordable Care Act that all Americans obtain health insurance or face a tax penalty.

"With so many unanswered questions and the problems arising around this rollout, it doesn't make any sense to impose this 1 percent mandate tax on the American people," Mr. Cantor said.

While Republicans plot new ways to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, it's easy to forget that for years they've been arguing that any comprehensive health insurance system should be designed exactly like the one that officially began Oct. 1, glitches and all.

For as many years, Democrats tried to graft health care onto Social Security and Medicare, and pay for it through the payroll tax. But Republicans countered that any system must be based on private insurance and paid for with a combination of subsidies for low-income purchasers and a requirement that the younger and healthier sign up.

Not surprisingly, private health insurers cheered on the Republicans while doing whatever they could to block Democrats from creating a public insurance system.

In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today's Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon's plan, all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?

Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan, but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree.

More than 30 years later, a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, made President Nixon's plan the law in Massachusetts. Private insurers couldn't have been happier, although many Democrats in the state had hoped for a public system.

When today's Republicans rage against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it's useful to recall this was their idea as well.

In 1989, Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that would "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."

Insurance companies loved Mr. Butler's plan so much that it found its way into several bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993. Among the supporters were Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa (who now oppose the mandate under the Affordable Care Act). Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the House in 1995, was also a big proponent.

Gov. Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts included the same mandate to purchase private insurance. "We got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation," said Gov. Romney, who thought the mandate "essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need."


Now that the essential Republican plan for health care is being implemented nationally, health insurance companies are jubilant.

Last week, after the giant insurer WellPoint raised its earnings estimates, CEO Joseph Swedish pointed to "the long-term membership growth opportunity through exchanges." Other major health plans are equally bullish. "The emergence of public exchanges, private exchanges, Medicaid expansions ... have the potential to create new opportunities for us to grow and serve in new ways," UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen J. Hemsley effused.

So why are today's Republicans so upset with an act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it's the signature achievement of the Obama administration.

There's a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler and more widely accepted by the public. And Republicans would be hollering anyway.

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He blogs at www.robertreich.org.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Gee, a professor at Berkeley is in love with your boy's health care plan and also hates conservatives? Nooooo! Can't be. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
I want the $2,500.00 per year savings I was promised by Buckwheat. :roll:

As it is, it's costing me around $3,500.00 MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plus my out-of-pocket and deductible has risen to ridiculous proportions.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Travel to a third world country and spend a little time there. You'll get your eyes opened up.

Health insurance in the Philippines, more specifically in the countryside, aka the province, is basically nonexistent. The population of the Philippines essentially have three inalienable rights. They have the right to screw, to starve, and to die. Get sick? You pay the doctor BEFORE he sees you. In the hospital? You pay up every day you are there. Can't pay? You have to leave. Want food or sheets or blankets or a pillow while in the hospital? Better have a relative bring them, cause the hospital won't provide them. Need meds or a scrip filled? You pay up front.

Harsh? Yeah. But reality dictates that the country can't afford millions of deadbeats on the government tit. People and especially children & infants die. It's a fact of life. My wife had two older siblings who died as infants. My SIL lost her firstborn as an infant. But, the wife's one grandmother lived to 105 and never saw a doctor once in her life. The other one hit 90 recently and doctors some, but her surviving children foot the bill all that they can.

Bottom line, IMHO, health insurance is NOT an entitlement. If you can pay the premium, fine. If you can't, well...too bad.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
"but my admission was just a typo"

As all the world now knows, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber is on video explaining that under the ACA, tax subsidies will only be available to individuals who enroll in state-created exchanges, and will not be available to those who participate in the federal exchange. In other words, the limitation of subsidies to state exchanges was a deliberate policy, intended to give states a major incentive to create exchanges, and not a “typo” as liberals are now claiming. Which, in turn, means that the Halbig majority was right.

So Jonathan Cohn contacted Gruber to ask him for a reaction to the now-famous video. Ed Morrissey quotes Gruber’s response:

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.

During this era, at this time, the federal government was trying to encourage as many states as possible to set up their exchanges. …

At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn’t ready by 2014, and states hadn’t set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn’t get the tax credits right away. …

But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/hilarious-fail-of-the-week-gruber-claims-it-was-a-speak-o.php

:lol: :lol:
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
It's a mistake. Just like, you can keep your doctor, or millions of uninsured will get health care they couldn't get before, or you'll save $2500, or there won't be death panels.

Remember the old days when a lie was called a lie?

Now we have mistakes, flip flops, devil's advocates, presenting the other side of the argument, misquotes, what does it matter, I learned it watching the news, we had no knowledge of that, it was rogue agents...
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
OT...your post that is was Nixon's idea therefore it is a republican owned Obamacare. The Republican people are not cult people like your tribe. They can think for themselves and that is why it was never made into a law.
Just because it has a R after a guys name does not make him have to agree with all R people. Pretty much why the Tea Party people came into the picture, views from other people that might have some good ideas.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
OT...your post that is was Nixon's idea therefore it is a republican owned Obamacare. The Republican people are not cult people like your tribe. They can think for themselves and that is why it was never made into a law.
Just because it has a R after a guys name does not make him have to agree with all R people. Pretty much why the Tea Party people came into the picture, views from other people that might have some good ideas.

Since I don't follow any tribal footsteps- I agreed with the R's when they first brought it to light- later thru the years when they tried to sell it as an alternative to Hillarycare/Universal Health Care - and even later I supported the D's when they not only promoted it but passed it.. I support/follow the issues -- not the cults/cultists...

Well from the 1970's thru 2008 it was R's/Conservatives healthcare answer--some even had it put into their state (Romneycare)- and then as soon as Obama say's yep I'll go along with it all of a sudden it and any one who supports it is a pariah :shock: :???:
And since 2008- I have yet to see any (R) alternative that makes any sense.... Many of the common sense (R's) are starting to realize and rationalize that this is fairly close to what they wanted all along... Its just that partisan politics is now overriding statesmanship and what is best for the country...
 

Mike

Well-known member
The Dems ( Patrick Duval) "Gutted" Romney's plan before it got implemented. :roll:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/04/12/how-deval-patrick-gutted-romneycares-market-oriented-reforms/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Here's the solution. Let everybody pay for their own health insurance. It's not an entitlement.

Just so I have this clear---If they can't afford it- or they refuse to buy it- do you propose we throw them out on the streets like your in-laws third world country does... :???:
Does this include the kids of the dead beat parents too (might as well get rid of the nits too- eh ? )
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
loomixguy said:
Here's the solution. Let everybody pay for their own health insurance. It's not an entitlement.

Just so I have this clear---If they can't afford it- or they refuse to buy it- do you propose we throw them out on the streets like your in-laws third world country does... :???:
Does this include the kids of the dead beat parents too (might as well get rid of the nits too- eh ? )

No. We used to have charitable organizations that took care of things like this until Buckwheat's IRS got involved and don't want them to be tax exempt. :roll:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
The Philippines doesn't "throw them out in the street". The family does the best they can with what they have. Some are forced to sell property, if they have any, at below market prices, to get an infusion of quick cash. In some cases, their church is able to help, or other charitable organizations. People die. Happens every day. Happening right now. Isn't going to stop, there, here, or anywhere else.

Like Josey Wales says, "Dyin's easy. It's the livin' that's hard."

I still say that health insurance isn't an entitlement. How many drunk & disorderly's did you or your minions beat to the point you had to take them to the hospital on Valley county's dime? How many on welfare or medicaid abuse the system horribly, like going to the ER for a sliver or a cold?

You're a special kind of stupid.
 

Mike

Well-known member
How about all the Veterans who've been tossed to the street, waiting until they die under Buckwheat's watch? :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top