Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[Junior]

I'll leave this here.

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/19/371202059/when-a-hospital-bill-becomes-a-decade-long-pay-cut

 

 

Back in 2005, Keith Herie was working as a truck driver making about $30,000 a year. His wife, Kathleen, was a stay-at-home mom with their two kids. The couple says they couldn't afford health insurance and Keith's employer didn't offer it.

 

But sometimes you have to go to the hospital anyway. That's what happened when Kathleen doubled over with a burst appendix and needed an emergency operation. "I felt sharp pains, I was vomiting, I was running a fever," she says. "It was bad."

 

That operation meant upwards of $14,000 in medical bills. It was a staggering debt for the Heries. They say the hospital told them they could apply for financial aid, but when he went to inquire about that, Keith says, "they basically told me I made too much."

 

Just a few months after the operation, the hospital expanded its charity care policy. The Heries, given their income, would have qualified under the new policy. But the hospital didn't make the change retroactive.

 

In 2006, the hospital sued the Heries and got a court judgment against them for the full bill plus legal fees — more than $18,000 in total. Ever since, the hospital has been taking 10 percent out of Keith Herie's paychecks.

 

He says that has also hurt his credit score. "Where I should be making a $250-a-month car payment, I'm making $368 in payments," he says. Likewise, the mar on his credit has prevented him from refinancing his mortgage to take advantage of lower interest rates. "It affects everything," Keith says.

 

To make some more money, Kathleen Herie got a low-wage retail job at Sam's Club. But then Heartland hospital began seizing 25 percent of her paychecks after taxes — meaning both she and her husband were now getting their pay docked at the maximum level allowed under state and federal law. On top of that, the hospital placed a lien against their home — which also prevents them from refinancing.

 

According to a Heartland operations memo, this is done in all cases in which the company has won a judgment exceeding $1,000.

 

"They're greedy," Kathleen says. "I owe more in interest on those bills than I do the bill alone."

 

Court records show that the couple has now paid more than $15,000 on this debt. But because the hospital has been charging them 9 percent interest on that large bill for going on 10 years now, the interest has added up — so the couple still owes $10,000 more.

 

 

[Marf]

 

I'll leave this here.

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/19/371202059/when-a-hospital-bill-becomes-a-decade-long-pay-cut

 

 

Back in 2005, Keith Herie was working as a truck driver making about $30,000 a year. His wife, Kathleen, was a stay-at-home mom with their two kids. The couple says they couldn't afford health insurance and Keith's employer didn't offer it.

 

But sometimes you have to go to the hospital anyway. That's what happened when Kathleen doubled over with a burst appendix and needed an emergency operation. "I felt sharp pains, I was vomiting, I was running a fever," she says. "It was bad."

 

That operation meant upwards of $14,000 in medical bills. It was a staggering debt for the Heries. They say the hospital told them they could apply for financial aid, but when he went to inquire about that, Keith says, "they basically told me I made too much."

 

Just a few months after the operation, the hospital expanded its charity care policy. The Heries, given their income, would have qualified under the new policy. But the hospital didn't make the change retroactive.

 

In 2006, the hospital sued the Heries and got a court judgment against them for the full bill plus legal fees — more than $18,000 in total. Ever since, the hospital has been taking 10 percent out of Keith Herie's paychecks.

 

He says that has also hurt his credit score. "Where I should be making a $250-a-month car payment, I'm making $368 in payments," he says. Likewise, the mar on his credit has prevented him from refinancing his mortgage to take advantage of lower interest rates. "It affects everything," Keith says.

 

To make some more money, Kathleen Herie got a low-wage retail job at Sam's Club. But then Heartland hospital began seizing 25 percent of her paychecks after taxes — meaning both she and her husband were now getting their pay docked at the maximum level allowed under state and federal law. On top of that, the hospital placed a lien against their home — which also prevents them from refinancing.

 

According to a Heartland operations memo, this is done in all cases in which the company has won a judgment exceeding $1,000.

 

"They're greedy," Kathleen says. "I owe more in interest on those bills than I do the bill alone."

 

Court records show that the couple has now paid more than $15,000 on this debt. But because the hospital has been charging them 9 percent interest on that large bill for going on 10 years now, the interest has added up — so the couple still owes $10,000 more.

 

 

 

 

14,000 for an appendicitis huh? But. But. Wait! The ACA prevents that, right?!?! So this lovely couple could have gotten a nice 'inexpensive' health insurance option through their state exchange with a 3k-and-quickly-rising deductible and unlimited loopholes regarding hospitalization limits and exclusions hidden in their disgusting policies.

 

14,000 for a surgery! But it was an emergency surgery. Was the hospital in-network? Was the surgeon in-network? Was the anesthesiologist in-network? Did the family have a choice of where to go in such an emergency to prevent excessive costs? What is the insurance mandated cap on this particular procedure? By comparison, what is the Medicaid rate for the procedure (Just so we can laugh at what a joke private insurances are)? What is this plan's hospitalization coverage limit? Is their antibiotic prescription coverage? Secondary surgery coverage? Rehabilitative care coverage? Is there a cap on these in relation to the hospitalization coverage limit? Is rehabilitative care medically necessary for such a procedure? If not, what is the process for proving medical necessity? Let's be real here; if you buy a cheap insurance policy, one that a family of that socioeconomic status could comfortably afford, that surgery is costing more than it should regardless. Much, much, much more.

 

The Affordable Care Act is great. Insurance is great. Wait. Just kidding. No. It is f'ing not. All the ACA has done is mandated that you buy into these cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sacks of monkey sh#t that pose as helpful, life-saving organizations to the American populous. Its disgusting, and it is a shame. What did the ACA do to control prices? What did the ACA do to SHACKLE these for-profit monstrosities that are f'ing America in the ass repeatedly? Nothing. It did absolutely nothing. It encouraged this and bent your right over, whether you wanted to or not.

 

How about we quit arguing the merits of a crap system that has discouraged the majority of providers and many citizens alike, and instead focus on addressing the actual problems in healthcare, instead of feeding the money monsters? That'd be super duper. Thanks. Where's the Tylenol?!?! f#*k.

[Junior]

 

 

I'll leave this here.

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/19/371202059/when-a-hospital-bill-becomes-a-decade-long-pay-cut

 

 

Back in 2005, Keith Herie was working as a truck driver making about $30,000 a year. His wife, Kathleen, was a stay-at-home mom with their two kids. The couple says they couldn't afford health insurance and Keith's employer didn't offer it.

 

But sometimes you have to go to the hospital anyway. That's what happened when Kathleen doubled over with a burst appendix and needed an emergency operation. "I felt sharp pains, I was vomiting, I was running a fever," she says. "It was bad."

 

That operation meant upwards of $14,000 in medical bills. It was a staggering debt for the Heries. They say the hospital told them they could apply for financial aid, but when he went to inquire about that, Keith says, "they basically told me I made too much."

 

Just a few months after the operation, the hospital expanded its charity care policy. The Heries, given their income, would have qualified under the new policy. But the hospital didn't make the change retroactive.

 

In 2006, the hospital sued the Heries and got a court judgment against them for the full bill plus legal fees — more than $18,000 in total. Ever since, the hospital has been taking 10 percent out of Keith Herie's paychecks.

 

He says that has also hurt his credit score. "Where I should be making a $250-a-month car payment, I'm making $368 in payments," he says. Likewise, the mar on his credit has prevented him from refinancing his mortgage to take advantage of lower interest rates. "It affects everything," Keith says.

 

To make some more money, Kathleen Herie got a low-wage retail job at Sam's Club. But then Heartland hospital began seizing 25 percent of her paychecks after taxes — meaning both she and her husband were now getting their pay docked at the maximum level allowed under state and federal law. On top of that, the hospital placed a lien against their home — which also prevents them from refinancing.

 

According to a Heartland operations memo, this is done in all cases in which the company has won a judgment exceeding $1,000.

 

"They're greedy," Kathleen says. "I owe more in interest on those bills than I do the bill alone."

 

Court records show that the couple has now paid more than $15,000 on this debt. But because the hospital has been charging them 9 percent interest on that large bill for going on 10 years now, the interest has added up — so the couple still owes $10,000 more.

 

 

 

 

14,000 for an appendicitis huh? But. But. Wait! The ACA prevents that, right?!?! So this lovely couple could have gotten a nice 'inexpensive' health insurance option through their state exchange with a 3k-and-quickly-rising deductible and unlimited loopholes regarding hospitalization limits and exclusions hidden in their disgusting policies.

 

14,000 for a surgery! But it was an emergency surgery. Was the hospital in-network? Was the surgeon in-network? Was the anesthesiologist in-network? Did the family have a choice of where to go in such an emergency to prevent excessive costs? What is the insurance mandated cap on this particular procedure? By comparison, what is the Medicaid rate for the procedure (Just so we can laugh at what a joke private insurances are)? What is this plan's hospitalization coverage limit? Is their antibiotic prescription coverage? Secondary surgery coverage? Rehabilitative care coverage? Is there a cap on these in relation to the hospitalization coverage limit? Is rehabilitative care medically necessary for such a procedure? If not, what is the process for proving medical necessity?

 

The Affordable Care Act is great. Insurance is great. Wait. Just kidding. No. It is f'ing not. All the ACA has done is mandated that you buy into these cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sacks of monkey sh#t that pose as helpful, life-saving organizations to the American populous. Its disgusting, and it is a shame. What did the ACA do to control prices? What did the ACA do to SHACKLE these for-profit monstrosities that are f'ing America in the ass repeatedly? Nothing. It did absolutely nothing. It encouraged this and bent your right over, whether you wanted to or not.

 

How about we quit arguing the merits of a crap system that has discouraged the majority of providers and many citizens alike, and instead focus on addressing the actual problems in healthcare, instead of feeding the money monsters? That'd be super duper. Thanks. Where's the Tylenol?!?! f#*k.

 

 

Read my post carefully. CAREFULLY. Then get back to me when you realize why your post is completely asinine. Take your time, I'll wait.

[Marf]

 

 

 

I'll leave this here.

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/19/371202059/when-a-hospital-bill-becomes-a-decade-long-pay-cut

 

 

Back in 2005, Keith Herie was working as a truck driver making about $30,000 a year. His wife, Kathleen, was a stay-at-home mom with their two kids. The couple says they couldn't afford health insurance and Keith's employer didn't offer it.

 

But sometimes you have to go to the hospital anyway. That's what happened when Kathleen doubled over with a burst appendix and needed an emergency operation. "I felt sharp pains, I was vomiting, I was running a fever," she says. "It was bad."

 

That operation meant upwards of $14,000 in medical bills. It was a staggering debt for the Heries. They say the hospital told them they could apply for financial aid, but when he went to inquire about that, Keith says, "they basically told me I made too much."

 

Just a few months after the operation, the hospital expanded its charity care policy. The Heries, given their income, would have qualified under the new policy. But the hospital didn't make the change retroactive.

 

In 2006, the hospital sued the Heries and got a court judgment against them for the full bill plus legal fees — more than $18,000 in total. Ever since, the hospital has been taking 10 percent out of Keith Herie's paychecks.

 

He says that has also hurt his credit score. "Where I should be making a $250-a-month car payment, I'm making $368 in payments," he says. Likewise, the mar on his credit has prevented him from refinancing his mortgage to take advantage of lower interest rates. "It affects everything," Keith says.

 

To make some more money, Kathleen Herie got a low-wage retail job at Sam's Club. But then Heartland hospital began seizing 25 percent of her paychecks after taxes — meaning both she and her husband were now getting their pay docked at the maximum level allowed under state and federal law. On top of that, the hospital placed a lien against their home — which also prevents them from refinancing.

 

According to a Heartland operations memo, this is done in all cases in which the company has won a judgment exceeding $1,000.

 

"They're greedy," Kathleen says. "I owe more in interest on those bills than I do the bill alone."

 

Court records show that the couple has now paid more than $15,000 on this debt. But because the hospital has been charging them 9 percent interest on that large bill for going on 10 years now, the interest has added up — so the couple still owes $10,000 more.

 

 

 

 

14,000 for an appendicitis huh? But. But. Wait! The ACA prevents that, right?!?! So this lovely couple could have gotten a nice 'inexpensive' health insurance option through their state exchange with a 3k-and-quickly-rising deductible and unlimited loopholes regarding hospitalization limits and exclusions hidden in their disgusting policies.

 

14,000 for a surgery! But it was an emergency surgery. Was the hospital in-network? Was the surgeon in-network? Was the anesthesiologist in-network? Did the family have a choice of where to go in such an emergency to prevent excessive costs? What is the insurance mandated cap on this particular procedure? By comparison, what is the Medicaid rate for the procedure (Just so we can laugh at what a joke private insurances are)? What is this plan's hospitalization coverage limit? Is their antibiotic prescription coverage? Secondary surgery coverage? Rehabilitative care coverage? Is there a cap on these in relation to the hospitalization coverage limit? Is rehabilitative care medically necessary for such a procedure? If not, what is the process for proving medical necessity?

 

The Affordable Care Act is great. Insurance is great. Wait. Just kidding. No. It is f'ing not. All the ACA has done is mandated that you buy into these cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sacks of monkey sh#t that pose as helpful, life-saving organizations to the American populous. Its disgusting, and it is a shame. What did the ACA do to control prices? What did the ACA do to SHACKLE these for-profit monstrosities that are f'ing America in the ass repeatedly? Nothing. It did absolutely nothing. It encouraged this and bent your right over, whether you wanted to or not.

 

How about we quit arguing the merits of a crap system that has discouraged the majority of providers and many citizens alike, and instead focus on addressing the actual problems in healthcare, instead of feeding the money monsters? That'd be super duper. Thanks. Where's the Tylenol?!?! f#*k.

 

 

Read my post carefully. CAREFULLY. Then get back to me when you realize why your post is completely asinine. Take your time, I'll wait.

 

 

Understand healthcare economics, CAREFULLY, and get back to me. If hospitals were more transparent (Insurance's fault) than there would be true competition in the market (Insurance's fault) and hospitals wouldn't have to go through such ridiculous measures (Insurance's fault) to ensure their equally ridiculous prices are upheld for all. The insurance company negotiates a rate of 10,000 for an appendectomy procedure. Super. Hypothetically the hospital puts their non-insured price of such a procedure at 8,000. What benefit is there to getting insurance? A whole lot of none. Insurance companies contract with hospitals, pay the big bucks to dictate the pricing they will pay hospitals for procedures, hospitals ensure their nice big book of procedure prices stay well above insurance rates, and here. we. go! Little bit of a vicious cycle huh? Did you even know such a big book of procedure prices exist? Probably not. Most don't. All hospitals have one. Such issues, in nonprofit hospitals, always go back to the insurances involved. The nonprofits can't help but make profit through the insurance payment rates. As for the 9% interest thing, some lawyers are just dicks. Big shocker there, huh?

[Junior]

 

 

Understand healthcare economics, CAREFULLY, and get back to me. If hospitals were more transparent (Insurance's fault) than there would be true competition in the market (Insurance's fault) and hospitals wouldn't have to go through such ridiculous measures (Insurance's fault) to ensure their equally ridiculous prices are upheld for all. The insurance company negotiates a rate of 10,000 for an appendectomy procedure. Super. Hypothetically the hospital puts their non-insured price of such a procedure at 8,000. What benefit is there to getting insurance? A whole lot of none. Insurance companies contract with hospitals, pay the big bucks to dictate the pricing they will pay hospitals for procedures, hospitals ensure their nice big book of procedure prices stay well above insurance rates, and here. we. go! Little bit of a vicious cycle huh? Did you even know such a big book of procedure prices exist? Probably not. Most don't. All hospitals have one. Such issues, in nonprofit hospitals, always go back to the insurances involved. The nonprofits can't help but make profit through the insurance payment rates. As for the 9% interest thing, some lawyers are just dicks. Big shocker there, huh?

 

 

Still not there yet. Keep trying. I can help you if you want.

[carlfense]

Understand healthcare economics, CAREFULLY, and get back to me. If hospitals were more transparent (Insurance's fault) than there would be true competition in the market (Insurance's fault) and hospitals wouldn't have to go through such ridiculous measures (Insurance's fault) to ensure their equally ridiculous prices are upheld for all. The insurance company negotiates a rate of 10,000 for an appendectomy procedure. Super. Hypothetically the hospital puts their non-insured price of such a procedure at 8,000. What benefit is there to getting insurance? A whole lot of none. Insurance companies contract with hospitals, pay the big bucks to dictate the pricing they will pay hospitals for procedures, hospitals ensure their nice big book of procedure prices stay well above insurance rates, and here. we. go! Little bit of a vicious cycle huh? Did you even know such a big book of procedure prices exist? Probably not. Most don't. All hospitals have one. Such issues, in nonprofit hospitals, always go back to the insurances involved. The nonprofits can't help but make profit through the insurance payment rates. As for the 9% interest thing, some lawyers are just dicks. Big shocker there, huh?

Do you think that the ACA is an improvement over the status quo? I'm not asking if you think it is better than single payer (I think that even most people who support the ACA think that single payer would have been a better option if it were politically possible). Is it better than the status quo? If not, why not?

 

And doesn't almost everyone who actually reads about/works with this stuff know about charge masters?

 

[Marf]

 

Understand healthcare economics, CAREFULLY, and get back to me. If hospitals were more transparent (Insurance's fault) than there would be true competition in the market (Insurance's fault) and hospitals wouldn't have to go through such ridiculous measures (Insurance's fault) to ensure their equally ridiculous prices are upheld for all. The insurance company negotiates a rate of 10,000 for an appendectomy procedure. Super. Hypothetically the hospital puts their non-insured price of such a procedure at 8,000. What benefit is there to getting insurance? A whole lot of none. Insurance companies contract with hospitals, pay the big bucks to dictate the pricing they will pay hospitals for procedures, hospitals ensure their nice big book of procedure prices stay well above insurance rates, and here. we. go! Little bit of a vicious cycle huh? Did you even know such a big book of procedure prices exist? Probably not. Most don't. All hospitals have one. Such issues, in nonprofit hospitals, always go back to the insurances involved. The nonprofits can't help but make profit through the insurance payment rates. As for the 9% interest thing, some lawyers are just dicks. Big shocker there, huh?

Do you think that the ACA is an improvement over the status quo? I'm not asking if you think it is better than single payer (I think that even most people who support the ACA think that single payer would have been a better option if it were politically possible). Is it better than the status quo? If not, why not?

 

And doesn't almost everyone who actually reads about/works with this stuff know about charge masters?

 

 

 

No, I believe the ACA was a step in the wrong direction. Now that is not to say there were not positives that have come from the ACA. I feel the fact that this is being addressed so urgently is a positive step. It was a wide-sweeping policy that put band-aids over important issues, and threw in some other amendments and guidelines that don't seem very relevant to the situation at hand. The ACA was meant to appease the masses with promises of insurance, but ignore the giant issue of why insurance is so necessary in the first place. I am all-for widely available insurance in the present financial climate, and the ACA has allowed that to occur to an extent. But will this be helpful when looking at healthcare 10 years down the road? 20 years? I don't think so. Private insurance holds too many cards, and is too profit motivated to be trusted with the future care of America. The ACA catered to insurance companies who clearly lobbied for their position quite well, which is ultimately its biggest flaw. It's a very bizarre document.. If you sit down and read the whole thing it just kind of boggles the mind. The ambiguity behind it is impressive. The Alice in Wonderland of health policy. Does anyone know the statistic of politicians approving it who had actually read the thing? I would imagine it was very low.

 

I don't know. I work in healthcare admin. and half the people I work with didn't know it existed, or at least didn't know the extent of influence it has/the complete lack of rationality there is in its pricing. I think it gets swept under the rug because many executives and legal representatives see the prices displayed as flexible, but the flexibility is only available when a long list of complicated criteria is met. It's tough to navigate for the average citizen. Most of the ones I have seen haven't been updated for years, sometimes decades, with the only adjustments to pricing being inflation raises; medical technology advancements be damned. Complicated procedures from 10 years ago that would take 4-5 physician hours to complete are now being completed in an hour or less with tech available today. Unfortunately, the charge master price in many cases reflect the old procedures. People regard neglected charge masters more as a ghost story than an actual thing, but they are certainly there and are certainly not particularly helpful in this whole struggle.

[carlfense]

I don't know. I work in healthcare admin. and half the people I work with didn't know it existed, or at least didn't know the extent of influence it has/the complete lack of rationality there is in its pricing. I think it gets swept under the rug because many executives and legal representatives see the prices displayed as flexible, but the flexibility is only available when a long list of complicated criteria is met. It's tough to navigate for the average citizen. Most of the ones I have seen haven't been updated for years, sometimes decades, with the only adjustments to pricing being inflation raises; medical technology advancements be damned. Complicated procedures from 10 years ago that would take 4-5 physician hours to complete are now being completed in an hour or less with tech available today. Unfortunately, the charge master price in many cases reflect the old procedures. People regard neglected charge masters more as a ghost story than an actual thing, but they are certainly there and are certainly not particularly helpful in this whole struggle.

 

Well that's scary. My connection to the field isn't on the administrative side but the people that I know are quite familiar with charge masters. Huh.

 

Maybe I just have an unusual fascination with health care policy. Haha.

[HUSKER 37]

 

“We’re going to be gifted with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes … same sentence … with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect by the government, which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare — all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.”

“What the blank could go wrong?”

[TGHusker]

 

“We’re going to be gifted with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes … same sentence … with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect by the government, which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare — all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.”

“What the blank could go wrong?”

This should get interesting pretty soon

[BigRedBuster]

I usually don't click on links I see on Facebook, but this one caught my eye. I know this guy is way way out in far away la la land. But, I find it interesting that there are people in the world who think the way he does.

 

LINK

 

According to an article published Sunday by World Net Daily, a Princeton University professor has suggested that severely disabled infants be killed to cut health care costs and for moral reasons. In a radio interview Sunday with Aaron Klein, broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is "reasonable" for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.

 

Several times during the interview Singer argued the health-care system under Obamacare should openly acknowledge health-care rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of "intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants." Singer also repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as "it" during the interview.

 

[TGHusker]

 

I usually don't click on links I see on Facebook, but this one caught my eye. I know this guy is way way out in far away la la land. But, I find it interesting that there are people in the world who think the way he does.

 

LINK

 

According to an article published Sunday by World Net Daily, a Princeton University professor has suggested that severely disabled infants be killed to cut health care costs and for moral reasons. In a radio interview Sunday with Aaron Klein, broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is "reasonable" for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.

 

Several times during the interview Singer argued the health-care system under Obamacare should openly acknowledge health-care rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of "intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants." Singer also repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as "it" during the interview.

 

 

Singer is a nut job who has been talking this way for many years. He has said previously that a child shouldn't be declared a child until 3 days after birth. Kind of a buyer's remorse policy for kids (automobiles - kids what's the difference? Nothing in his world). The ultimate pro-abortion (pro-death) position one could take.

[BigRedBuster]

Had a very interesting conversation today with someone in the health insurance industry about ACA and the exchanges. He is of the opinion that in no way shape or form can it sustain itself the way it is right now. Here is his reasoning.

 

When someone goes to the exchange, the government decides if they are below a certain income level and if they are, they subsidies the premiums. So, let's say the premium is $600 and the government agrees to subsidies the premium by $400. The person buys the policy and starts paying $200 for the insurance.

 

Here's the problem, the government has not been paying the $400 to the insurance companies.

 

This person claimed that Blue Cross alone in Nebraska is owed $50,000,000 from the government and they have no clue if they are ever going to get paid. He claimed this is a major reason why you are starting to see some companies drop out of being involved in the exchange.

 

So, that's one company in a small state like Nebraska. If this is the case with every company selling on the exchange, how much do you think the government owes these insurance companies?

 

If this is true, this could be a major bomb shell for the Republicans to drop on the Dems in the general election.

 

Now, this is one guy telling me this but, like I said, he works within the insurance industry in Nebraska and I've gotten good information from him before on these issues.

I would be very interested if anyone has more information on this topic.

[BigRedBuster]

3 states are down to one Obamacare insurer. What if they fall to zero?

[TGHusker]

Obama's legacy is at risk!