Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

If we're going to cherry pick a certain insurer . . . well . . .

. . . premiums sold by Coventry Health Care Nebraska will drop next year by an average of 3.4 percent.

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local/insurance-premiums-to-jump-for-some-in/article_080d2938-a01f-5b17-85b4-58a4d1d4905a.html

 

But that was probably an accidental omission.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

If we're going to cherry pick a certain insurer . . . well . . .

 

. . . premiums sold by Coventry Health Care Nebraska will drop next year by an average of 3.4 percent. [/size]

 

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local/insurance-premiums-to-jump-for-some-in/article_080d2938-a01f-5b17-85b4-58a4d1d4905a.html

 

But that was probably an accidental omission.

 

Rates are expected to go up 11% in Nebraska overall.

 

Premiums for Obamacare health insurance plans sold in Nebraska will go up nearly 11 percent next year — one of the biggest hikes in the nation— according to preliminary rates released by the state Insurance Department.

[knapplc]

Maybe Nebraska should revisit the decision to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. We're paying for it through federal tax dollars, but not receiving the benefits from what we pay for because our governor is Republican.

“No state would experience a positive flow of funds by choosing to reject the Medicaid expansion. Because the federal share of the Medicaid expansion is so much greater than the state share, taxpayers in non-­participating states will nonetheless bear a significant share of the overall cost of the expansion through federal tax payments—and not enjoy any of the benefits,” the report concludes.

 

 

 

LINK

[carlfense]

Rates are expected to go up 11% in Nebraska overall.

Right. And it's purely coincidental that the only example that you included was the insurer whose rates are going up the most.

[carlfense]

Maybe Nebraska should revisit the decision to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. We're paying for it through federal tax dollars, but not receiving the benefits from what we pay for because our governor is Republican.

 

“No state would experience a positive flow of funds by choosing to reject the Medicaid expansion. Because the federal share of the Medicaid expansion is so much greater than the state share, taxpayers in non-­participating states will nonetheless bear a significant share of the overall cost of the expansion through federal tax payments—and not enjoy any of the benefits,” the report concludes.

 

LINK

 

Nebraska's government isn't immune to putting ideology before reality.

[BigRedBuster]

LINK

 

Health insurance premiums are eating American workers' raises

 

Premiums for employer-sponsored coverage rose a modest 3 percent in 2014, new research from the Kaiser Family Foundation and HRET shows.

That's a much smaller increase than the double-digit hikes that were regular in the 1990s and 2000s. But that doesn't necessarily mean workers are feeling relief: while premiums are growing slowly, insurance deductibles have grown by nearly 50 percent next year placing a different type of burden on workers. And even with this years slow growth, the long term trend doesn't look great: premiums growth has hugely outpaced workers' raises since 1999.

 

I'm not saying this necessarily is a problem because of Obamacare. But, it is a problem and it doesn't seem to be fixed by Obamacare.

[knapplc]

That is the biggest problem with healthcare, and something Obamacare does not address. I'm not sure it needs to, but something should.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

I actually tried to post that 11% paragraph first but something in this thread crashes Huskerboard on my phone each time I try to post so I said hell with and pasted what I had.

[carlfense]

 

 

This news is not, as I write this on Tuesday evening, being carried on the home pages of Fox Business, HotAir.com, or the Heritage Foundation. (In case you're wondering, the most recent Obamacare article on FoxBusiness.com is "Obamacare website still not secure?"; on Hot Air.com, it's "How many people are poised to lose 2014 Obamacare coverage?"; at Heritage, it's "Why you can't keep your plan under Obamacare, explained in 3 minutes.")

This is the problem in the debate about Obamacare. The two sides live in different informational universes. A few days ago, the New Republic's Danny Vinik tweeted a picture of the headlines he was receiving from the conservative YG Network . . .

On the whole, though, costs are lower than expected, enrollment is higher than expected, the number of insurers participating in the exchanges is increasing, and more states are joining the Medicaid expansion. Millions of people have insurance who didn't have it before. The law is working. But a lot of the people who are convinced Obamacare is a disaster will never know that, because the voices they trust will never tell them.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/6836181/in-conservative-media-obamacare-is-a-disaster-in-the-real-world-it-s

[TGHusker]

The ends justify the means governance as revealed by the ACA architech

Paraphrase, we have to confuse everyone about ACA being a tax : "this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scores the mandates as taxes, the bill dies."

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically call it the stupidity of the ave American voter. This (lack of transparency) was critical to get it to pass". This from the administration that said it would be the most transparent of them all (Mirror, Mirror on the wall...) No wonder Queen Nancy said at the time, "We have to pass it to know what is in it" -- and fool the 'stupid' voters as well. The bill would not have passed if the admin and the dems were transparent & they knew this to be the case.

 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/10/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

 

A constitutional republic is suppose to be open, not governed by behind closed door deals. This is not the stupidity of voters at work but deviousness of those who crafted the law - keeping the truth away from voters. Lies about us keeping our doctors and insurance plan, etc. This guy (who represents the admin) would rather have the law than to be open up front and truthful before the voters.

[carlfense]

Sheesh.

[TGHusker]

Carl, I expected nothing other than your response above on this topic. ACA is your baby - you believe in it - I understand that - that is fine. We can agree to disagree on its merits. But even the most avid believer has got to admit that the process was deceptive as acknowledged by the guy who was the ACA architect - the purpose of my post. Add to that the arm twisting deals wt senators from Neb, LA, and Penn all behind closed doors (yes closed doors deals are nothing new) but the pressure placed on dem senators and reps while no one really knew what was in the bill (Ms Pelosi) was extreme.

 

Thanks SCJ John Roberts

[carlfense]

ACA is your baby - you believe in it - I understand that - that is fine.

It isn't. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this: the ACA is better than the status quo. It's not the best option . . . but it's the one that was politically feasible.

 

Fortunately for all of us, it's working even better than anticipated.

[TGHusker]

 

ACA is your baby - you believe in it - I understand that - that is fine.

It isn't. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this: the ACA is better than the status quo. It's not the best option . . . but it's the one that was politically feasible.

 

Fortunately for all of us, it's working even better than anticipated.

 

Ok I can accept that. I respect your view Carl - don't mean to tie this around your neck as ACA = Carl - And yes, it is working better than the non-existent complete plans that the repubs have not presented. I think the jury is still out on if it is better than status quo - yes more insured but at what cost. Could there be more efficient means? Until the repubs present a viable alternative - we won't know.

 

Edit add on: Jonathan Grober's admission would be like Condi Rice coming out years later and stating "We had to have a lack of transparency on WMDs in Iraq because it is a huge political advantage and basically call it the stupidity of the ave American voter. This (lack of transparency) was critical to get Congress and the public to support the Iraq invasion"

 

Imagine the uproar. (which there should have been if this statement was made by Condi Rice)

 

Of course we all know that the GWB admin has been accused of this very thing -but has never admitted it was the case. However, we have the main guy behind ACA admitting to something similar - granted war is more troublesome on so many levels then health care -However, as Iraq was central to GWB's foreign policy, ACA is central to Obama's domestic policy. Neither one, as cornerstone events, should be brought to the public via shadows of deceit. Yet the news yawns. Tells me how far we've fallen as a society. Policy above integrity & principles.

[TGHusker]

I don't want to but just came across this. More fuel to the fire - the repubs are seizing on the remarks as can be expected.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/12/hearings-floated-as-hill-republicans-seize-on-gruber-obamacare-comments/

 

Jeff Sessions:

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who is slated to become chairman of the powerful Senate budget committee, also threw his support behind possible hearings. In a furious gaggle with reporters, Sessions said Gruber's comments could make dealings with the White House more difficult, days after Republican leaders said they would seek areas of common ground.

"The strategy was to hide the truth from the American people," Sessions said. "I'm not into this post-modern world where you can say whatever you want to in order to achieve your agenda. That is a threat to the American republic... This is far deeper and more significant than the fact that he just spoke."

 

Leave it to my Senator to add a little reality to the hoopla:

Heading into a party luncheon on Wednesday, retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said the health care law "is going to still be there regardless because we don't have the votes" to undo it.

"We can talk all we want but he is going to veto whatever we send him," Coburn said. "That's the reality."