Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

The House just took legislative action, did they not?

They sure did . . . still trying to burn down the house.

[krill]

All the gerrymandering and tea party bucks in the world won't be enough to save congressional Republicans from this fiasco. I think most people, even most that are skeptical of Obamacare, are totally sick of the seasonal threats of a government shutdown and economic catastrophe if we default on our debt obligations.

[Mavric]

The House just took legislative action, did they not?

They sure did . . . still trying to burn down the house.

Just depends on if the house is worth saving.

[Mavric]

10 Ways Obamacare Isn't Working:

 

1. WAIVERS: ... a legally questionable program of temporary waivers ...

 

2. ILLEGAL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR CONGRESS: ... the Administration had no legal basis on which to make this ruling.

 

3. EMPLOYER MANDATE: In July, the Administration announced it would not enforce Obamacare’s employer mandate until 2015, ...

 

4. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: ... insurersstopped offering child-only plans in 17 states, fearing that only parents of sick children would apply for insurance coverage.

 

5. OUT-OF-POCKET CAPS: ... the Administration delayed these new caps from taking effect as scheduled. ...

 

6. BASIC HEALTH PLAN: ... the Administration unilaterally delayed it for one year. ...

 

7. TAX DISCLOSURES: ... the Administration unilaterally delayed this requirement, and employers did not have to report these data until after the 2012 presidential election.

 

8. HONOR SYSTEM: ... gives many Americans a strong incentive to “game the system” and obtain more in taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies than they should actually receive.

 

9. PRIVACY: ... “an absurdly broad interpretation of the Privacy Act’s ‘routine use’ exemption.”

 

10. TOBACCO PENALTIES: ... due to a “computer glitch,” those penalties will be limited for “at least a year”—meaning non-smokers may have to pay more as a result.

 

In the end,

was wrong. Congress passed the bill, but we still don’t know what’s in it—because the Obama Administration keeps changing rules and ignoring the law.

So which one of these can't be fixed by legislative action? I know that when I've got a leaky faucet I always burn the house to the ground and start over.

I'm not sure how much of it can be fixed legislatively as half of those are the administration ignoring the law as written and doing what they want.

[Junior]

http://www.heraldtri...TICLE/130919851

 

The levels to which the right will stoop to "stop" the ACA never ceases to surprise me.

 

The Florida Department of Health has barred outreach workers known as “navigators” from trying to help people sign up for federally subsidized health insurance while at county health departments. But the move will not likely affect the Sarasota County Health Department as much because of its special designation.

 

The navigators are part of the implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which Florida Republican leaders have resisted for more than three years.

 

On Monday, C. Meade Grigg, the Florida Department of Health deputy secretary for statewide services, sent an order to 60 local health department directors. Grigg said staff may accept informational materials from the navigators to hand out upon request.

 

“However, Navigators will not conduct activities on the grounds of the health departments,” Grigg wrote.

[HuskerLuke]

Here's a nasty little nugget from the NYT about how the ACA attempts to control premiums:

 

From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.......Consumers should be prepared for “much tighter, narrower networks” of doctors and hospitals, said Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at the North Carolina Justice Center, a statewide advocacy group.

 

The end result, is that even for those whose premiums are lower (which isn't everyone), their health care could easily cost them more:

 

“Doing so enables health plans to offer lower premiums,” the study said. “But the use of narrow networks may also lead to higher out-of-pocket expenses, especially if a patient has a complex medical problem that’s being treated at a hospital that has been excluded from their health plan."

 

If you like your doctor or hospital, it looks like you've got about a coin flip of whether or not you'll be able to keep him/her:

 

Juan Carlos Davila, an executive vice president of Blue Shield of California, said the network for its exchange plans had 30,000 doctors, or 53 percent of the 57,000 doctors in its broadest commercial network, and 235 hospitals, or 78 percent of the 302 hospitals in its broadest network.

 

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands nationwide are being forced into Obamacare:

 

Walgreen Co. WAG +1.68% is set to become one of the largest employers yet to make sweeping changes to company-backed health programs. On Wednesday, the drugstore giant disclosed a plan to provide payments to eligible employees for the subsidized purchase of insurance starting in 2014. The plan will affect roughly 160,000 employees, and will require them to shop for coverage on a private health-insurance marketplace. Aside from rising health-care costs, the company cited compliance-related expenses associated with the new law as a reason for the switch.

 

Home Depot Inc. (HD), the world’s largest home improvement retailer, plans to end medical coverage for about 20,000 part-time employees and direct them to government-sponsored exchanges scheduled to open next month as companies revamp benefits to fit the U.S.

Affordable Care Act.

[HuskerLuke]

Too many quote tags:

 

In an undated memo to employees, UPS (UPS, Fortune 500) said it will discontinue coverage for all working spouses who are eligible for insurance with their own employer. That applies to about 15,000 spouses covered by UPS today.......UPS blamed the move on several aspects of Obamacare, including mandatory coverage for dependent children up to age 26 and new government fees. "We are making these changes to offset cost increases due to the [Affordable Care Act]," the memo states.

 

After extending health care coverage to many of its part-time employees for years, Trader Joe's has told workers who log fewer than 30 hours a week that they will need to find insurance on the Obamacare exchanges next year, according to a confidential memo from the grocer's chief executive.

 

And because we need to be reminded of this once in a

:

 

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." - Barack Obama, August 11, 2009

 

We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it. - Nancy Pelosi

[carlfense]

The levels to which the right will stoop to "stop" the ACA never ceases to surprise me.

They don't have a whole lot of other options at the moment.

 

Defeating the ACA through legislation? Failure.

Defeating the ACA through the court system? Failure.

Defeating the ACA through electoral victories? Huge failure.

 

Sabotage is basically the only remaining option. GOP leadership absolutely cannot (and will not) admit to their crazy base that they have lost. It's over.

[krill]

...[many quotes alluding to some vague point]

 

I wonder how many of the doom and gloomers that will be seeing changes to their health insurance have actually read up on the information their insurer has probably sent them multiple times.

 

BCBS of Nebraska sent me the big packet a few weeks ago explaining changes and yes, my coverage will be slightly more expensive and I won't qualify for a federal subsidy, but the coverage is much better all around with co-pays for routine care and lower overall out-of-pocket expenses should I need major medical care. Nothing else changes.

 

What truly is shameful is that the the health care industry has spent tens of billions of dollars and uncountable numbers of hours preparing for regulatory compliance, while Republican governors in many states have done everything possible to stonewall functional health care exchanges. Meanwhile Republican congressman have acted like they can put the brakes on a train that stopped years ago by threatening the entire nation with economic catastrophe. Why? So a few lazy, stupid politicians can get campaign donations from groups that are effectively money laundering under the facade of the tea party. They all know there's no going back, they don't have an alternative plan, they never offered one, and it's their plan plan from two decades ago to begin with. When is enough, enough?

[HuskerLuke]

[many quotes alluding to some vague point]

 

It's not vague at all. Hundreds of thousands - soon to be millions - of Americans are losing their health coverage and being forced into Obamacare exchanges that in roughly 50% of cases won't work with their current care providers. It's now clear that President Obama shamelessly lied --- repeatedly --- to get support for this legislative catastrophe, and now people are paying the price.

 

What truly is shameful is that the the health care industry has spent tens of billions of dollars and uncountable numbers of hours preparing for regulatory compliance, while Republican governors in many states have done everything possible to stonewall functional health care exchanges.

 

Basic economics: don't throw good money after bad (also: hilarious to hear a liberal cry over lost money for the health care industry. Political desperation will make strange bedfellows...) The implementation of this law has been a disaster because the law itself is a disaster. Max Baucus, a primary author of the plan, has called the roll out a trainwreck. The Obama Administration itself has delayed implementation of several key components of the law including the employer mandate, Medicare cuts (which were part of why the bill was supposedly budget neutral), and subsidy eligibility verification (but I'm sure fraud won't be a problem at all). None of that is even remotely the Republicans' fault, it lies entirely with this Administration and the Democrats who wrote the law in the first place.

 

Meanwhile Republican congressman have acted like they can put the brakes on a train that stopped years ago by threatening the entire nation with economic catastrophe. Why? So a few lazy, stupid politicians can get campaign donations from groups that are effectively money laundering under the facade of the tea party. They all know there's no going back.

 

There won't be a default. As for the bolded part, you might want to take off your partisan glasses. This law is extremely unpopular, opposing it is a political winner for the Republicans.

 

As for no going back, we're already on our way. Several parts of the health care law, including the small business paperwork mandate, the CO-OP program, and CLASS programs were repealed, gutted, and repealed, at the House Republicans' initiative and signed into law by President Obama! Why would Obama undo parts of his own law? They're unworkable. As the system continues to break down, we'll see more and more bipartisan votes to dismantle various aspects of the law.

[carlfense]

It's now clear that President Obama shamelessly lied . . . Max Baucus, a primary author of the plan, has called the roll out a trainwreck.

Hmmmm.

 

As for the bolded part, you might want to take off your partisan glasses.

 

As for no going back, we're already on our way. Several parts of the health care law, including the small business paperwork mandate, the CO-OP program, and CLASS programs were repealed, gutted, and repealed, at the House Republicans' initiative and signed into law by President Obama! Why would Obama undo parts of his own law? They're unworkable. As the system continues to break down, we'll see more and more bipartisan votes to dismantle various aspects of the law.

[krill]

 

It's not vague at all. Hundreds of thousands - soon to be millions - of Americans are losing their health coverage and being forced into Obamacare exchanges that in roughly 50% of cases won't work with their current care providers. It's now clear that President Obama shamelessly lied --- repeatedly --- to get support for this legislative catastrophe, and now people are paying the price.

 

You word that as though the health care exchanges are going to offer nothing but crappy insurance, while employers offer nothing but good insurance. At a very base level, and I've probably already made a half dozen post about this, you have to wonder why employers are in the business of offering health insurance in the first place. In some cases, particularly in heavily unionized workplaces (like the auto industry) employers had / have come to manage all their employers health care and it's been a huge liability. On the other end of the spectrum, why should a small business owner have to spend any amount of time worrying about their employee's health care instead of operating and growing their business? This "benefit" has always cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money in tax subsidies, distorted delivery of health care, and in many cases, created a feudal-like system where people are afraid to lose or change jobs because of health care being tied to employment.

 

Max Baucus, a primary author of the plan, has called the roll out a trainwreck. The Obama Administration itself has delayed implementation of several key components of the law including the employer mandate, Medicare cuts (which were part of why the bill was supposedly budget neutral), and subsidy eligibility verification (but I'm sure fraud won't be a problem at all). None of that is even remotely the Republicans' fault, it lies entirely with this Administration and the Democrats who wrote the law in the first place.

 

Republican congressmen and governors have done absolutely nothing but stonewall efforts to implement the law. You're actually surprised? This is the base play in the playbook: loudly shout that government doesn't work, do everything possible to make sure it doesn't work, then present the examples of it not working as evidence that it doesn't work. It's hard to govern effectively and fix problems. It's not hard at all to be a drunk a-hole in the crowd yelling, which if you asked me, is about all the Republican party is good for these days.

 

This law is extremely unpopular, opposing it is a political winner for the Republicans.

 

Of course it's unpopular when all Republicans have done is obfuscate and scare people. As one of the post above showed, they won't even allow funding for efforts to explain how to the health care law affects individuals and what options they have. It's really great that instead of trying to be contributors, or even offer alternative legislative fixes, Republicans have chose to gorge themselves on campaign contributions that are largely coming from political slush funds.

[carlfense]

“I can tell you right now that in many states across the country, if you’re, say, a 27-year-old young woman, don’t have health insurance, you get on that exchange, you’re going to be able to purchase high-quality health insurance for less than the cost of your cellphone bill,” Mr. Obama said Tuesday, speaking at a health care forum in New York City with former President Bill Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/us/politics/officials-detail-premium-costs-of-health-plan.html?hp

[carlfense]

At 7:40 p.m. last night — so one of his few prime-time hours — Cruz read off a lengthy list of businesses that are, or might, cut worker hours because of the mandate. He returned to the theme again and again through the night. And he's right to. That part of the law really is badly designed.

But it's also been delayed for a year. So, as of now, it's not happening until 2015. And Republicans could probably get Democrats to agree that it shouldn't happen ever, at least not as currently designed.

 

If Republicans are really worried about these businesses and these workers, they could help them. Unlike defunding or delaying Obamacare, or even delaying the individual mandate, this is a concession Republicans really might be able to get the Obama administration to agree to. They'd be on the right side of both the policy and the public. The question is whether they actually want to help these workers or just grandstand against the law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/25/an-obamacare-concession-the-gop-could-actually-get/

 

Unfortunately, IMO, the answer to that question is clear.

[carlfense]

Heh.

Forty-six percent oppose Obamacare and 37 percent oppose ACA.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101064954