(06-12-2014 09:45 PM)tigerjaws Wrote:  Even low IQ people/voters sense that Obamacare is nuts and cannot work

Yes...but...you did not have to make it personal....

(06-12-2014 10:41 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  On ehealth 71023 zip code Bossier County here is what I found. These are all BCBS plans but there were other companies offering as well. You can get a half way decent plan for yourself for $219.02 a month. It is a bronze plan with a $4,500 deductible and you pay 30% for office visits after your deductible. There is a silver plan with $40 office visits and a $2,500 deductible for $311.19. For $334.67 you can get a gold plan with $40 office visits and a $1,000 deductible, or one for $366.98 with $35 office visits and just a $500 deductible.

DO you have any idea how sh*tty of a plan that is compared to what most of us received in the private market? $219 a month? Thats what my current premium is for me and my wife. I have a $15 co-pay, without having to shell out $4,500 in deductibles first. And 30% of office visits? Damn.

So basically, get under an ACA plan, and pray you or one of your family members dont actually need healthcare.

(06-13-2014 09:50 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 10:41 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  On ehealth 71023 zip code Bossier County here is what I found. These are all BCBS plans but there were other companies offering as well. You can get a half way decent plan for yourself for $219.02 a month. It is a bronze plan with a $4,500 deductible and you pay 30% for office visits after your deductible. There is a silver plan with $40 office visits and a $2,500 deductible for $311.19. For $334.67 you can get a gold plan with $40 office visits and a $1,000 deductible, or one for $366.98 with $35 office visits and just a $500 deductible.

DO you have any idea how sh*tty of a plan that is compared to what most of us received in the private market? $219 a month? Thats what my current premium is for me and my wife. I have a $15 co-pay, without having to shell out $4,500 in deductibles first. And 30% of office visits? Damn.

So basically, get under an ACA plan, and pray you or one of your family members dont actually need healthcare.

Do you pay for your own policy or do you buy it through your employer?

(06-12-2014 10:07 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:26 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:23 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  From a study by the University of Minnesota:

Quote:By 2024..... estimate that there will be more than 40 million uninsured, roughly 10% more than today.

Quote:But the steepest price increases will not occur until 2017 and after, when three things happen.

First will be the Affordable Care Act's "essential benefits" requirements.

The law's "reinsurance" program will also expire in 2017. Health insurers will no longer be able to bill the government for 80% of a patient's health-care costs...

Employer-sponsored coverage will also come under pressure. The data show that an increasing number of businesses are likely to cancel their plans in favor of letting employees get coverage on the exchanges

Not gona be pretty!!!

Link

We have not begun to scratch the surface of the unintended consequences of this debacle.

These are certainly issues that need to be address going forward. We have always been aware that the ACA is a work in progress.

no, we weren't aware of that until the wheels fell of. this sounds pretty "final to me".

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.
September 9, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
ON HEALTH CARE

(06-12-2014 09:58 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:49 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I've been waiting for you to post this week old story. if there was an unbiased bone in your body -- or even an honest one -- you would have included this in your periodic "everything you ever wanted to know about ACA, and then some" posts.

I'm convinced that when people start dropping dead, you and your sinister socialist cohorts will chalk it up to an improving risk pool in terms of health. "healthier enrollees! sunshine and happiness".

so -- I'm flat calling you out as dishonest, and utterly untrustworthy on this subject.

Quote:Obamacare Sign-Up Errors Put Some of 2 Million Enrollees in Jeopardy

The Obamacare enrollment flap is far from over.

Some of the more than 2 million Americans who signed up for insurance through HealthCare.gov could be at risk of losing their coverage or be forced to repay part of all of their premium subsidy because of discrepancies with their applications, according to a government document obtained by the Associated Press and confirmed to ABC News by an administration official.

That’s roughly one in four applicants overall.

In many cases consumers provided identity and income information that conflicts with what the government has on record, the Department of Health and Human Services said today.

The result: some Americans may have received greater subsidies than merited or were allowed to purchase plans for which they were ineligible. HHS says it’s now “double- and triple-checking” with applicants to verify their information.

“Those consumers were still able to enroll in Marketplace coverage — as provided for in the law — but, when they enrolled, they received a notice instructing them to submit a little bit more information,” HHS spokeswoman Julie Bataille explained today in a blog post.

Linky

Why the hostility Eagle? I saw the story a while back. I'm not sure what you are calling me out on? There is some conflicting data that needs to be cleared up.

it's not hostility. it's the truth, and that just seems hostile. you are selling yourself as an unbiased source of unquestionably accurate information on this monstrosity.

I'm simply pointing out that this is demonstrably untrue.

(06-13-2014 09:58 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:58 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:49 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I've been waiting for you to post this week old story. if there was an unbiased bone in your body -- or even an honest one -- you would have included this in your periodic "everything you ever wanted to know about ACA, and then some" posts.

I'm convinced that when people start dropping dead, you and your sinister socialist cohorts will chalk it up to an improving risk pool in terms of health. "healthier enrollees! sunshine and happiness".

so -- I'm flat calling you out as dishonest, and utterly untrustworthy on this subject.

Quote:Obamacare Sign-Up Errors Put Some of 2 Million Enrollees in Jeopardy

The Obamacare enrollment flap is far from over.

Some of the more than 2 million Americans who signed up for insurance through HealthCare.gov could be at risk of losing their coverage or be forced to repay part of all of their premium subsidy because of discrepancies with their applications, according to a government document obtained by the Associated Press and confirmed to ABC News by an administration official.

That’s roughly one in four applicants overall.

In many cases consumers provided identity and income information that conflicts with what the government has on record, the Department of Health and Human Services said today.

The result: some Americans may have received greater subsidies than merited or were allowed to purchase plans for which they were ineligible. HHS says it’s now “double- and triple-checking” with applicants to verify their information.

“Those consumers were still able to enroll in Marketplace coverage — as provided for in the law — but, when they enrolled, they received a notice instructing them to submit a little bit more information,” HHS spokeswoman Julie Bataille explained today in a blog post.

Linky

Why the hostility Eagle? I saw the story a while back. I'm not sure what you are calling me out on? There is some conflicting data that needs to be cleared up.

it's not hostility. it's the truth, and that just seems hostile. you are selling yourself as an unbiased source of unquestionably accurate information on this monstrosity.

I'm simply pointing out that this is demonstrably untrue.

Yes it is hostility. We can disagree without that, or at least I can. There are more than enough people on this board that can and do offer a counterpoint to anything I post. Most of them do so without resorting to personal attacks. Some seem unable to do so.

(06-13-2014 09:50 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 10:41 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  On ehealth 71023 zip code Bossier County here is what I found. These are all BCBS plans but there were other companies offering as well. You can get a half way decent plan for yourself for $219.02 a month. It is a bronze plan with a $4,500 deductible and you pay 30% for office visits after your deductible. There is a silver plan with $40 office visits and a $2,500 deductible for $311.19. For $334.67 you can get a gold plan with $40 office visits and a $1,000 deductible, or one for $366.98 with $35 office visits and just a $500 deductible.

DO you have any idea how sh*tty of a plan that is compared to what most of us received in the private market? $219 a month? Thats what my current premium is for me and my wife. I have a $15 co-pay, without having to shell out $4,500 in deductibles first. And 30% of office visits? Damn.

So basically, get under an ACA plan, and pray you or one of your family members dont actually need healthcare.

I don't have any idea what individual market policies in that Parish were running in 2013. I was simply trying to help him find out what policies were running now as he isn't covered currently. You do realize that policy costs vary greatly from location to location and age makes a big difference as well. That has always been the case so you can't really compare what you pay without taking into consideration age and location.

(06-13-2014 05:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 09:58 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:58 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:49 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I've been waiting for you to post this week old story. if there was an unbiased bone in your body -- or even an honest one -- you would have included this in your periodic "everything you ever wanted to know about ACA, and then some" posts.

I'm convinced that when people start dropping dead, you and your sinister socialist cohorts will chalk it up to an improving risk pool in terms of health. "healthier enrollees! sunshine and happiness".

so -- I'm flat calling you out as dishonest, and utterly untrustworthy on this subject.

Quote:Obamacare Sign-Up Errors Put Some of 2 Million Enrollees in Jeopardy

The Obamacare enrollment flap is far from over.

Some of the more than 2 million Americans who signed up for insurance through HealthCare.gov could be at risk of losing their coverage or be forced to repay part of all of their premium subsidy because of discrepancies with their applications, according to a government document obtained by the Associated Press and confirmed to ABC News by an administration official.

That’s roughly one in four applicants overall.

In many cases consumers provided identity and income information that conflicts with what the government has on record, the Department of Health and Human Services said today.

The result: some Americans may have received greater subsidies than merited or were allowed to purchase plans for which they were ineligible. HHS says it’s now “double- and triple-checking” with applicants to verify their information.

“Those consumers were still able to enroll in Marketplace coverage — as provided for in the law — but, when they enrolled, they received a notice instructing them to submit a little bit more information,” HHS spokeswoman Julie Bataille explained today in a blog post.

Linky

Why the hostility Eagle? I saw the story a while back. I'm not sure what you are calling me out on? There is some conflicting data that needs to be cleared up.

it's not hostility. it's the truth, and that just seems hostile. you are selling yourself as an unbiased source of unquestionably accurate information on this monstrosity.

I'm simply pointing out that this is demonstrably untrue.

Yes it is hostility. We can disagree without that, or at least I can. There are more than enough people on this board that can and do offer a counterpoint to anything I post. Most of them do so without resorting to personal attacks. Some seem unable to do so.

you don't even understand what the disagreement is about. we can start there. I do not, and will not look the other way in response to rampant dishonesty that helps to deprive me of my fundamental liberty to make my own damn decisions with regards to my health care.

if you want to call that "hostility", so be it. I really don't give a damn.

I resent government taking away my liberty to make my own choices with respect to my own healthcare. I resent nancy pelosi deciding for me that I must have coverage for pap smears.

So try stating your concerns without attacking someone that you disagree with. I've pretty much posted information about people signing up, qualifying for Medicaid, percents of people without insurance and other things related to the ACA. I haven't spent much space on the ideological, constitutional, political aspects. The fact is that the law is in place and we are moving forward despite the differences we have. Doesn't it make sense, isn't there a place for, a nuts and bolts discussion without coming at me with your claws out?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-14-2014 07:56 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So try stating your concerns without attacking someone that you disagree with. I've pretty much posted information about people signing up, qualifying for Medicaid, percents of people without insurance and other things related to the ACA. I haven't spent much space on the ideological, constitutional, political aspects. The fact is that the law is in place and we are moving forward despite the differences we have. Doesn't it make sense, isn't there a place for, a nuts and bolts discussion without coming at me with your claws out?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

probably not. this is probably the approach you're going to get. if you consider this hostile, then hostility is probably what you're going to get out of me.

perhaps I just don't consider liberty to be susceptible to a "nuts and bolts" discussion.

(06-14-2014 09:29 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 07:56 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So try stating your concerns without attacking someone that you disagree with. I've pretty much posted information about people signing up, qualifying for Medicaid, percents of people without insurance and other things related to the ACA. I haven't spent much space on the ideological, constitutional, political aspects. The fact is that the law is in place and we are moving forward despite the differences we have. Doesn't it make sense, isn't there a place for, a nuts and bolts discussion without coming at me with your claws out?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

probably not. this is probably the approach you're going to get. if you consider this hostile, then hostility is probably what you're going to get out of me.

perhaps I just don't consider liberty to be susceptible to a "nuts and bolts" discussion.

Okay, so ignore it is.

(06-13-2014 09:53 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 09:50 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 10:41 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  On ehealth 71023 zip code Bossier County here is what I found. These are all BCBS plans but there were other companies offering as well. You can get a half way decent plan for yourself for $219.02 a month. It is a bronze plan with a $4,500 deductible and you pay 30% for office visits after your deductible. There is a silver plan with $40 office visits and a $2,500 deductible for $311.19. For $334.67 you can get a gold plan with $40 office visits and a $1,000 deductible, or one for $366.98 with $35 office visits and just a $500 deductible.

DO you have any idea how sh*tty of a plan that is compared to what most of us received in the private market? $219 a month? Thats what my current premium is for me and my wife. I have a $15 co-pay, without having to shell out $4,500 in deductibles first. And 30% of office visits? Damn.

So basically, get under an ACA plan, and pray you or one of your family members dont actually need healthcare.

Do you pay for your own policy or do you buy it through your employer?

I am the employer.


The current obamacare plans are nothing more than extremely expensive catastrophic coverage plans that have free yearly wellness check ups.

(06-14-2014 07:56 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So try stating your concerns without attacking someone that you disagree with. I've pretty much posted information about people signing up, qualifying for Medicaid, percents of people without insurance and other things related to the ACA. I haven't spent much space on the ideological, constitutional, political aspects. The fact is that the law is in place and we are moving forward despite the differences we have. Doesn't it make sense, isn't there a place for, a nuts and bolts discussion without coming at me with your claws out?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I can explain it to you, and I have,,, but I can't understand it for you.

'Qualifying for Medicaid' is actually a meaningless term. Hospitals can't deny you services and there were all sorts of Medicaid funded 'free' clinics... all this does is allow you somewhat greater choice in places to go... which is good for you, but since there aren't exactly a bunch of docs out there struggling to fill their waiting rooms, much like the income redistribution noted by others whose premiums went up and/or coverage went down to offset those whose premiums went down and/or coverage went up... this is merely a redistribution of the existing amount of care.... and we already had a shortage, so while there are anecdotal instances of 'success', they are mere reallocations.

My hospitals and clinics serve a population where only 30% of people have private insurance... and over 80% of the 'new enrollees' in Obamacare are merely people who previously would have been submitted by the hospital to Medicaid are now counted among your 'new enrolees'. Now I'm not saying my experience is widespread, but it is just as true as the anecdotes that you tout as 'successes'. Once again, this is merely a redistribution of the existing healthcare assets. Of course there are more FINANCIAL assets now to distribute, because there is been a MASSIVE tax increase on the way (by design... this is not a 'fear'). The funds are being spent now and the taxes will be collected later.... but NONE of it is going to increase the amount of healthcare available... and few of these funds are going to the providers. WHERE DO YOU THINK ALL THIS MONEY IS GOING?? Yes, I suppose it IS now true that the unemployed person who now has 'insurance' doesn't have a $25,000 hospital bill... which is written off and thus 'paid' by the taxpayers... his bill now is only $5000 (his out of pocket max) plus a few hundred a month forever... with the difference being borne by, you guessed it... the taxpayer... only NOW by 'taxpayer' we mean anyone who makes more than about 50k and has to pay for insurance.

Once again the bottom line is that you and your 'side' is doing a very effective job of obfuscation. You've created an environment and an expectation where 'number of people signing up' is being viewed as a success...

So everyone who presents to the Hospital is counted as a 'success' of Obamacare.

You're not increasing the amount of available healthcare.

All you're doing is convincing stupid people that increasing the demand, and not supply of healthcare is your goal.

Unfortunately, the lies are far easier to sell than the truth... and you guys are winning at that.

(06-11-2014 07:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Gaba has updated his estimates so I thought I'd post what we are looking at as far as exchange signups and overall ACA insurance numbers. It is interesting as well that he estimates about 200,000 a month are signing up now as a result of qualifying life changing events, with probably about the same number going off each month for opposite reason.

Est. Exch. QHPs as of June 10, 2014: 7.50M (Paid) / 8.40M (Total)

Estimated Total, all sources: (17.8 M - 28.2 M)

Individual QHP Range: (9.7M - 16.4M) • Medicaid/CHIP (6.3M - 8.5M)

ESIs (154K confirmed; up to 8M more possible) • Sub26ers (1.63M - 3.13M)
http://acasignups.net/

Ok, so just who is this guy that purports to have numbers on the ACA? Because I see a huge "doesn't pass the smell test" in his numbers. I'm in the insurance business, and if you are trying to say that 7.5m out of 8.4m policies that are not linked to an employer are paid up to date, that is simply unrealistic. A knowledgable person on insurance would know this.

Now, if you are telling me that the these numbers are mostly made up of people who are nearly or wholly subsidized, then that is believable. It also means that we will soon see bailouts for the insurance companies.

So, if everything is as rosey as this phantom website purports it to be, then we shouldn't see any bailouts. Funny thing, Obama just clarified a piece of the ACA to allow just that.

Therefore, these numbers are bull****.

(06-15-2014 05:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 07:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Gaba has updated his estimates so I thought I'd post what we are looking at as far as exchange signups and overall ACA insurance numbers. It is interesting as well that he estimates about 200,000 a month are signing up now as a result of qualifying life changing events, with probably about the same number going off each month for opposite reason.

Est. Exch. QHPs as of June 10, 2014: 7.50M (Paid) / 8.40M (Total)

Estimated Total, all sources: (17.8 M - 28.2 M)

Individual QHP Range: (9.7M - 16.4M) • Medicaid/CHIP (6.3M - 8.5M)

ESIs (154K confirmed; up to 8M more possible) • Sub26ers (1.63M - 3.13M)
http://acasignups.net/

Ok, so just who is this guy that purports to have numbers on the ACA? Because I see a huge "doesn't pass the smell test" in his numbers. I'm in the insurance business, and if you are trying to say that 7.5m out of 8.4m policies that are not linked to an employer are paid up to date, that is simply unrealistic. A knowledgable person on insurance would know this.

Now, if you are telling me that the these numbers are mostly made up of people who are nearly or wholly subsidized, then that is believable. It also means that we will soon see bailouts for the insurance companies.

So, if everything is as rosey as this phantom website purports it to be, then we shouldn't see any bailouts. Funny thing, Obama just clarified a piece of the ACA to allow just that.

Therefore, these numbers are bull****.

If you visit his website you can find answers to all your questions.

It is my understanding that first premiums were paid up at an approximately 90% rate. Of course there will always be people getting on and off the exchanges. It looks like around 200k are signing up each month since the deadline, based on qualifying life changing events but in all likelihood about the same number will be withdrawing. It seems reasonable to expect the exchange number to be around 7 or 7.5 million when signups begin again for 2015.

It is also my understanding that about 85% of those that purchase private insurance using one of the state exchanges or the national exchange receive at least some subsidy. There really doesn't seem to me to be much reason to purchase using an exchange if you don't expect to qualify for a subsidy.

(06-15-2014 04:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 07:56 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So try stating your concerns without attacking someone that you disagree with. I've pretty much posted information about people signing up, qualifying for Medicaid, percents of people without insurance and other things related to the ACA. I haven't spent much space on the ideological, constitutional, political aspects. The fact is that the law is in place and we are moving forward despite the differences we have. Doesn't it make sense, isn't there a place for, a nuts and bolts discussion without coming at me with your claws out?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I can explain it to you, and I have,,, but I can't understand it for you.

'Qualifying for Medicaid' is actually a meaningless term. Hospitals can't deny you services and there were all sorts of Medicaid funded 'free' clinics... all this does is allow you somewhat greater choice in places to go... which is good for you, but since there aren't exactly a bunch of docs out there struggling to fill their waiting rooms, much like the income redistribution noted by others whose premiums went up and/or coverage went down to offset those whose premiums went down and/or coverage went up... this is merely a redistribution of the existing amount of care.... and we already had a shortage, so while there are anecdotal instances of 'success', they are mere reallocations.

My hospitals and clinics serve a population where only 30% of people have private insurance... and over 80% of the 'new enrollees' in Obamacare are merely people who previously would have been submitted by the hospital to Medicaid are now counted among your 'new enrolees'. Now I'm not saying my experience is widespread, but it is just as true as the anecdotes that you tout as 'successes'. Once again, this is merely a redistribution of the existing healthcare assets. Of course there are more FINANCIAL assets now to distribute, because there is been a MASSIVE tax increase on the way (by design... this is not a 'fear'). The funds are being spent now and the taxes will be collected later.... but NONE of it is going to increase the amount of healthcare available... and few of these funds are going to the providers. WHERE DO YOU THINK ALL THIS MONEY IS GOING?? Yes, I suppose it IS now true that the unemployed person who now has 'insurance' doesn't have a $25,000 hospital bill... which is written off and thus 'paid' by the taxpayers... his bill now is only $5000 (his out of pocket max) plus a few hundred a month forever... with the difference being borne by, you guessed it... the taxpayer... only NOW by 'taxpayer' we mean anyone who makes more than about 50k and has to pay for insurance.

Once again the bottom line is that you and your 'side' is doing a very effective job of obfuscation. You've created an environment and an expectation where 'number of people signing up' is being viewed as a success...

So everyone who presents to the Hospital is counted as a 'success' of Obamacare.

You're not increasing the amount of available healthcare.

All you're doing is convincing stupid people that increasing the demand, and not supply of healthcare is your goal.

Unfortunately, the lies are far easier to sell than the truth... and you guys are winning at that.

I don't really see how you can say that qualifying for Medicaid is meaningless. Decreasing the number of people without some form of coverage, be it private or Medicaid not only improves those people's lives but it also could be the difference between the life and death of many of our rural hospitals. They constantly teeter on the financial edge while serving very high numbers of indigent patients. Reimbursements aren't equivalent to what Medicaid pays. If states like mine would approve expanded Medicaid our hospitals might have a fighting chance.

(06-15-2014 06:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 04:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 07:56 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So try stating your concerns without attacking someone that you disagree with. I've pretty much posted information about people signing up, qualifying for Medicaid, percents of people without insurance and other things related to the ACA. I haven't spent much space on the ideological, constitutional, political aspects. The fact is that the law is in place and we are moving forward despite the differences we have. Doesn't it make sense, isn't there a place for, a nuts and bolts discussion without coming at me with your claws out?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I can explain it to you, and I have,,, but I can't understand it for you.

'Qualifying for Medicaid' is actually a meaningless term. Hospitals can't deny you services and there were all sorts of Medicaid funded 'free' clinics... all this does is allow you somewhat greater choice in places to go... which is good for you, but since there aren't exactly a bunch of docs out there struggling to fill their waiting rooms, much like the income redistribution noted by others whose premiums went up and/or coverage went down to offset those whose premiums went down and/or coverage went up... this is merely a redistribution of the existing amount of care.... and we already had a shortage, so while there are anecdotal instances of 'success', they are mere reallocations.

My hospitals and clinics serve a population where only 30% of people have private insurance... and over 80% of the 'new enrollees' in Obamacare are merely people who previously would have been submitted by the hospital to Medicaid are now counted among your 'new enrolees'. Now I'm not saying my experience is widespread, but it is just as true as the anecdotes that you tout as 'successes'. Once again, this is merely a redistribution of the existing healthcare assets. Of course there are more FINANCIAL assets now to distribute, because there is been a MASSIVE tax increase on the way (by design... this is not a 'fear'). The funds are being spent now and the taxes will be collected later.... but NONE of it is going to increase the amount of healthcare available... and few of these funds are going to the providers. WHERE DO YOU THINK ALL THIS MONEY IS GOING?? Yes, I suppose it IS now true that the unemployed person who now has 'insurance' doesn't have a $25,000 hospital bill... which is written off and thus 'paid' by the taxpayers... his bill now is only $5000 (his out of pocket max) plus a few hundred a month forever... with the difference being borne by, you guessed it... the taxpayer... only NOW by 'taxpayer' we mean anyone who makes more than about 50k and has to pay for insurance.

Once again the bottom line is that you and your 'side' is doing a very effective job of obfuscation. You've created an environment and an expectation where 'number of people signing up' is being viewed as a success...

So everyone who presents to the Hospital is counted as a 'success' of Obamacare.

You're not increasing the amount of available healthcare.

All you're doing is convincing stupid people that increasing the demand, and not supply of healthcare is your goal.

Unfortunately, the lies are far easier to sell than the truth... and you guys are winning at that.

I don't really see how you can say that qualifying for Medicaid is meaningless. Decreasing the number of people without some form of coverage, be it private or Medicaid not only improves those people's lives but it also could be the difference between the life and death of many of our rural hospitals. They constantly teeter on the financial edge while serving very high numbers of indigent patients. Reimbursements aren't equivalent to what Medicaid pays. If states like mine would approve expanded Medicaid our hospitals might have a fighting chance.

So by expanding Medicaid you are essentially advocating that taxpayers pay for your rural hospitals.

(06-15-2014 05:50 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 05:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 07:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Gaba has updated his estimates so I thought I'd post what we are looking at as far as exchange signups and overall ACA insurance numbers. It is interesting as well that he estimates about 200,000 a month are signing up now as a result of qualifying life changing events, with probably about the same number going off each month for opposite reason.

Est. Exch. QHPs as of June 10, 2014: 7.50M (Paid) / 8.40M (Total)

Estimated Total, all sources: (17.8 M - 28.2 M)

Individual QHP Range: (9.7M - 16.4M) • Medicaid/CHIP (6.3M - 8.5M)

ESIs (154K confirmed; up to 8M more possible) • Sub26ers (1.63M - 3.13M)
http://acasignups.net/

Ok, so just who is this guy that purports to have numbers on the ACA? Because I see a huge "doesn't pass the smell test" in his numbers. I'm in the insurance business, and if you are trying to say that 7.5m out of 8.4m policies that are not linked to an employer are paid up to date, that is simply unrealistic. A knowledgable person on insurance would know this.

Now, if you are telling me that the these numbers are mostly made up of people who are nearly or wholly subsidized, then that is believable. It also means that we will soon see bailouts for the insurance companies.

So, if everything is as rosey as this phantom website purports it to be, then we shouldn't see any bailouts. Funny thing, Obama just clarified a piece of the ACA to allow just that.

Therefore, these numbers are bull****.

If you visit his website you can find answers to all your questions.

No, I can't. His website seems to be nothing more than a series of blog postings, pushing of unaudited hear say, and an attempt to be given money. Where on his site does he say where he gets his audited numbers from?

(06-15-2014 06:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't really see how you can say that qualifying for Medicaid is meaningless. Decreasing the number of people without some form of coverage, be it private or Medicaid not only improves those people's lives but it also could be the difference between the life and death of many of our rural hospitals. They constantly teeter on the financial edge while serving very high numbers of indigent patients. Reimbursements aren't equivalent to what Medicaid pays. If states like mine would approve expanded Medicaid our hospitals might have a fighting chance.

Geez...

Because more people having insurance doesn't create more doctors to deliver them healthcare.

Unlike any other industry, you can't simply hang a shingle and become a physician. You can't even merely graduate medical school to become a physician. You must pass a residency program... and Obamacare, despite him stating himself that we need more doctors, does not fund one single additional residency slot. More and more 'doctors' (med school graduates) are going into things like research, supplements and other things that don't require a residency and can't deliver healthcare.... because it pays better and/or has better hours... and Obamacare makes this worse, not better

There's far more to the point than this... where the reimbursement rate pushes many (the best) doctors to even further exclude these policies, but this alone should be enough to convince anyone with an open mind and any semblance of comprehension that when you're already working at capacity and you aren't increasing capacity, every person with MORE options merely reduces the options available to someone else.

I've explained this to you, and you simply ignore it... because it doesn't fit with the narrative that 'insurance' = 'healthcare'.

(06-15-2014 06:23 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 06:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-15-2014 04:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 07:56 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  So try stating your concerns without attacking someone that you disagree with. I've pretty much posted information about people signing up, qualifying for Medicaid, percents of people without insurance and other things related to the ACA. I haven't spent much space on the ideological, constitutional, political aspects. The fact is that the law is in place and we are moving forward despite the differences we have. Doesn't it make sense, isn't there a place for, a nuts and bolts discussion without coming at me with your claws out?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I can explain it to you, and I have,,, but I can't understand it for you.

'Qualifying for Medicaid' is actually a meaningless term. Hospitals can't deny you services and there were all sorts of Medicaid funded 'free' clinics... all this does is allow you somewhat greater choice in places to go... which is good for you, but since there aren't exactly a bunch of docs out there struggling to fill their waiting rooms, much like the income redistribution noted by others whose premiums went up and/or coverage went down to offset those whose premiums went down and/or coverage went up... this is merely a redistribution of the existing amount of care.... and we already had a shortage, so while there are anecdotal instances of 'success', they are mere reallocations.

My hospitals and clinics serve a population where only 30% of people have private insurance... and over 80% of the 'new enrollees' in Obamacare are merely people who previously would have been submitted by the hospital to Medicaid are now counted among your 'new enrolees'. Now I'm not saying my experience is widespread, but it is just as true as the anecdotes that you tout as 'successes'. Once again, this is merely a redistribution of the existing healthcare assets. Of course there are more FINANCIAL assets now to distribute, because there is been a MASSIVE tax increase on the way (by design... this is not a 'fear'). The funds are being spent now and the taxes will be collected later.... but NONE of it is going to increase the amount of healthcare available... and few of these funds are going to the providers. WHERE DO YOU THINK ALL THIS MONEY IS GOING?? Yes, I suppose it IS now true that the unemployed person who now has 'insurance' doesn't have a $25,000 hospital bill... which is written off and thus 'paid' by the taxpayers... his bill now is only $5000 (his out of pocket max) plus a few hundred a month forever... with the difference being borne by, you guessed it... the taxpayer... only NOW by 'taxpayer' we mean anyone who makes more than about 50k and has to pay for insurance.

Once again the bottom line is that you and your 'side' is doing a very effective job of obfuscation. You've created an environment and an expectation where 'number of people signing up' is being viewed as a success...

So everyone who presents to the Hospital is counted as a 'success' of Obamacare.

You're not increasing the amount of available healthcare.

All you're doing is convincing stupid people that increasing the demand, and not supply of healthcare is your goal.

Unfortunately, the lies are far easier to sell than the truth... and you guys are winning at that.

I don't really see how you can say that qualifying for Medicaid is meaningless. Decreasing the number of people without some form of coverage, be it private or Medicaid not only improves those people's lives but it also could be the difference between the life and death of many of our rural hospitals. They constantly teeter on the financial edge while serving very high numbers of indigent patients. Reimbursements aren't equivalent to what Medicaid pays. If states like mine would approve expanded Medicaid our hospitals might have a fighting chance.

So by expanding Medicaid you are essentially advocating that taxpayers pay for your rural hospitals.

You might put it that way.

I think it is a good investment both for the local economy and community health. Now that the textile mills have all shutdown our hospital system is our largest private employer. I also kind of liked the fact that when my Father-in-law had his stroke he was half a mile from emergency care as opposed to the 30-45 miles he would have been had our rural hospital not been there. Then there was my old friend David's 79 year old mother that was hit head on. I don't know if she would have survived had the hospital not been there.