(05-13-2014 12:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 07:41 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:04 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  wasn't the point of the ACA to bring coverage to the uninsured?

nope.

The real point of Obamacare was to hook more takers up to the government trough, thus insuring only that they'll vote D for the rest of their days to keep the gravy train rolling.

funny we haven't seen a number for the percentage of the Obamacre policy holders who are actually paying 100% of their insurance freight with no government subsidies.

In NC about 91% of these that gained coverage through the exchange qualified for a subsidy.

So a whopping 9% are actually paying 100% of the cost of their health insurance coverage themselves and the American taxpayer is picking up all or part of the tab for the other 91%.

Why would you buy off the exchange if you weren't going to qualify for a subsidy?

Is the bold point not disturbing to you? 91% are getting insurance subsidized somehow.

(05-13-2014 12:40 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 12:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 07:41 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:04 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  nope.

The real point of Obamacare was to hook more takers up to the government trough, thus insuring only that they'll vote D for the rest of their days to keep the gravy train rolling.

funny we haven't seen a number for the percentage of the Obamacre policy holders who are actually paying 100% of their insurance freight with no government subsidies.

In NC about 91% of these that gained coverage through the exchange qualified for a subsidy.

So a whopping 9% are actually paying 100% of the cost of their health insurance coverage themselves and the American taxpayer is picking up all or part of the tab for the other 91%.

Why would you buy off the exchange if you weren't going to qualify for a subsidy?

Even if I could qualify for a subsidy I couldn't get it because my company offers health insurance. BC/BS, and it's an arm of obamacare. Since I pay my mortgage, auto loan, insurance, cell phone, and utilities by myself, along with food to eat and gas to get to work, I would have to pay almost what I pay for my mortgage for the cheapest plan, and then on top of that, I would be paying $5,000.00 OOP each year.

That's a freaking joke, so since I can't afford any of it, or qualify for a subsidy, I'm ******. Get it?

How much are your employer based premiums, individual and family? How much of it is paid by your employer and how much is your responsibility?

(05-13-2014 05:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 12:40 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 12:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 07:41 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  In NC about 91% of these that gained coverage through the exchange qualified for a subsidy.

So a whopping 9% are actually paying 100% of the cost of their health insurance coverage themselves and the American taxpayer is picking up all or part of the tab for the other 91%.

Why would you buy off the exchange if you weren't going to qualify for a subsidy?

Even if I could qualify for a subsidy I couldn't get it because my company offers health insurance. BC/BS, and it's an arm of obamacare. Since I pay my mortgage, auto loan, insurance, cell phone, and utilities by myself, along with food to eat and gas to get to work, I would have to pay almost what I pay for my mortgage for the cheapest plan, and then on top of that, I would be paying $5,000.00 OOP each year.

That's a freaking joke, so since I can't afford any of it, or qualify for a subsidy, I'm ******. Get it?

How much are your employer based premiums, individual and family? How much of it is paid by your employer and how much is your responsibility?

So you to justify the subsidies you think the government (aka taxpayers) out of "fairness" should offer the equivalent of what employers provide to their employees in the form of their benefits with regard to health insurance?

Notice: I work for the portion of my health insurance premiums that are paid by my employer. It is part of my compensation package that I EARN. It's not a gift from my employer.

Why is someone entitled to have that same amount covered by the government just for breathing? They are doing no work nor providing a service for the portion the government is covering. It's welfare.

(05-13-2014 07:06 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 05:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 12:40 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 12:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 07:41 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  So a whopping 9% are actually paying 100% of the cost of their health insurance coverage themselves and the American taxpayer is picking up all or part of the tab for the other 91%.

Why would you buy off the exchange if you weren't going to qualify for a subsidy?

Even if I could qualify for a subsidy I couldn't get it because my company offers health insurance. BC/BS, and it's an arm of obamacare. Since I pay my mortgage, auto loan, insurance, cell phone, and utilities by myself, along with food to eat and gas to get to work, I would have to pay almost what I pay for my mortgage for the cheapest plan, and then on top of that, I would be paying $5,000.00 OOP each year.

That's a freaking joke, so since I can't afford any of it, or qualify for a subsidy, I'm ******. Get it?

How much are your employer based premiums, individual and family? How much of it is paid by your employer and how much is your responsibility?

So you to justify the subsidies you think the government (aka taxpayers) out of "fairness" should offer the equivalent of what employers provide to their employees in the form of their benefits with regard to health insurance?

Notice: I work for the portion of my health insurance premiums that are paid by my employer. It is part of my compensation package that I EARN. It's not a gift from my employer.

Why is someone entitled to have that same amount covered by the government just for breathing? They are doing no work nor providing a service for the portion the government is covering. It's welfare.

No I was curious as to what the policy costs. Talk about jumping to conclusions. Good grief.

(05-13-2014 11:36 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are confusing private insurance signups on the exchanges with expanded medicaid signups. There are are about 8.14 signups from the exchanges and that will probably end up being about 7-7.3 after we see how many duplicates and nonpayments there are. Then there are are over 6 million that have gained coverage through the expanded medicaid program that about half the states are offering. Most of the people that didn't get a renewal of their 2013 plan because it didn't meet ACA standards probably didn't get their new policies off the exchange, but simply took another policy offered by their agent, but I'm sure some did use the exchange, especially if the qualified for a subsidy.

And you are confusing this with success.

Many of the people 'signing up' are people who present to emergency rooms without insurance. In the past, the hospital would send their information to the state and seek reimbursement through the state programs. Now, they submit their information to the exchanges to seek coverage for them and thus reimbursement. In other words, you're only changing the method of registering and not actually creating any new registrations.... and counting this as a success.

The myth of this leading to better reimbursement and thus better care is clearly debunked in the experience of DMC San Pablo near San Francisco. It is the only hospital in the area that primarily caters to the uninsured and though they struggled prior to the ACA, the ACA SHOULD be a boon to them, right? Unfortunately, no. They are about to close. As the only heart center within about 40 miles, this means some people will die.

Isn't this precisely the sort of place that should be doing BETTER because of the ACA?

(05-14-2014 04:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:36 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are confusing private insurance signups on the exchanges with expanded medicaid signups. There are are about 8.14 signups from the exchanges and that will probably end up being about 7-7.3 after we see how many duplicates and nonpayments there are. Then there are are over 6 million that have gained coverage through the expanded medicaid program that about half the states are offering. Most of the people that didn't get a renewal of their 2013 plan because it didn't meet ACA standards probably didn't get their new policies off the exchange, but simply took another policy offered by their agent, but I'm sure some did use the exchange, especially if the qualified for a subsidy.

And you are confusing this with success.

Many of the people 'signing up' are people who present to emergency rooms without insurance. In the past, the hospital would send their information to the state and seek reimbursement through the state programs. Now, they submit their information to the exchanges to seek coverage for them and thus reimbursement. In other words, you're only changing the method of registering and not actually creating any new registrations.... and counting this as a success.

The myth of this leading to better reimbursement and thus better care is clearly debunked in the experience of DMC San Pablo near San Francisco. It is the only hospital in the area that primarily caters to the uninsured and though they struggled prior to the ACA, the ACA SHOULD be a boon to them, right? Unfortunately, no. They are about to close. As the only heart center within about 40 miles, this means some people will die.

Isn't this precisely the sort of place that should be doing BETTER because of the ACA?

Well DMC San Pablo has been on a downward spiral since the 1990s. The parts of the ACA that would benefit a hospital in their situation have only been in place for four and a half months, that hardly seems like enough time to turn around their situation.

We have similar problems here in NC. Our rural hospitals serve a disproportionally large number of indigent patients and struggle to keep their financial head above water. NC did not expand Medicaid and thus 318,000 that could be covered are not. The compensation hospitals would receive from Medicaid, while not as high as from private insurance would certainly have a significant impact on the bottom line.

(05-14-2014 07:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 04:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:36 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are confusing private insurance signups on the exchanges with expanded medicaid signups. There are are about 8.14 signups from the exchanges and that will probably end up being about 7-7.3 after we see how many duplicates and nonpayments there are. Then there are are over 6 million that have gained coverage through the expanded medicaid program that about half the states are offering. Most of the people that didn't get a renewal of their 2013 plan because it didn't meet ACA standards probably didn't get their new policies off the exchange, but simply took another policy offered by their agent, but I'm sure some did use the exchange, especially if the qualified for a subsidy.

And you are confusing this with success.

Many of the people 'signing up' are people who present to emergency rooms without insurance. In the past, the hospital would send their information to the state and seek reimbursement through the state programs. Now, they submit their information to the exchanges to seek coverage for them and thus reimbursement. In other words, you're only changing the method of registering and not actually creating any new registrations.... and counting this as a success.

The myth of this leading to better reimbursement and thus better care is clearly debunked in the experience of DMC San Pablo near San Francisco. It is the only hospital in the area that primarily caters to the uninsured and though they struggled prior to the ACA, the ACA SHOULD be a boon to them, right? Unfortunately, no. They are about to close. As the only heart center within about 40 miles, this means some people will die.

Isn't this precisely the sort of place that should be doing BETTER because of the ACA?

Well DMC San Pablo has been on a downward spiral since the 1990s. The parts of the ACA that would benefit a hospital in their situation have only been in place for four and a half months, that hardly seems like enough time to turn around their situation.

Spoken like a true defender. So they've been struggling since the 90's, but somehow they managed to survive until Obamacare 'fixed' their problem? Does it even make sense to you that a place that has struggled for 15 years couldn't manage to stay open for 6 months after things supposedly got BETTER for them by insuring all of their patients?

Look... I'm in this business and privy to information you aren't. This is a hospital, not a traditional business meaning there IS no 'spiral'. They are a charity hospital and they have struggled for a long time to care for all of the poor people. The 4.5 months would have been plenty of time for them to at least 'accrue' greater income (and certainly PROJECT higher income) if the ACA had resulted in increased reimbursements. Their census is up, not down.... but their reimbursements as a percentage of their costs are down even more. You can try and defend this any way you want, but the reality is right there in front of you. To deny it is to be purely playing politics with people's lives because it suits a political agenda. The CEO, while courting very liberal people in a very liberal county in a very liberal state where Obamacare is very popular specifically said that Obamacare contributed to the decline. The only people who deny this are those who want to politicize this.

Quote:We have similar problems here in NC. Our rural hospitals serve a disproportionally large number of indigent patients and struggle to keep their financial head above water. NC did not expand Medicaid and thus 318,000 that could be covered are not. The compensation hospitals would receive from Medicaid, while not as high as from private insurance would certainly have a significant impact on the bottom line.

San Pablo isn't rural. It's a few miles from San Francisco... north, not inland.

What you say would be true if the reimbursement were above the costs to deliver care, but in many instances it isn't. By codifying losses for most services and giving people who didn't have the option to travel for more elective (not elective per se, but things you can schedule and aren't urgent) who didn't have that option before... they've left these hospitals with the financially 'bad' procedures (primary care, palliative care, senior care) and allowed them to travel to a 'better' hospital for those procedures that pay better. ALL hospitals have to provide certain emergency care and that often comes with big overhead. DMC has the same overhead, but the theoretical advantage from people having insurance (the big claim of success by obamacare defenders) and thus supposedly able to pay for their care has already proven to be false... and doesn't offset the losses for services of 'choice'. Emergency, life saving healthcare has been compromised so that mothers having babies can go to a now overcrowded hospital with the same doctors and nurses, but a nicer waiting room.

'back in the day', hospitals were reimbursed a portion of their costs, so they padded the bills. More recently, the business model went to 'fee for service' meaning you got paid for what you did, subject to limits on what that particular illness should cost... i.e. if someone presents with pna, they got paid $5,000. Their job was to cure the patient for less than that. Now, the business model is going to be more like Wal-Mart, where they take losses on much of their business, to cram more 'care' into the same employee cost (which drives down quality) and hope to make it up on a few other higher margin services. As you note, in areas with high concentrations of 'government' care, this will be a massive challenge. Of course, in 5 months, it is only the already struggling hospitals that will have already failed.... but no matter how you want to look at it, things should have been BETTER at DMC than they were, and obviously they aren't.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-14-2014 08:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 07:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 04:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 11:36 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You are confusing private insurance signups on the exchanges with expanded medicaid signups. There are are about 8.14 signups from the exchanges and that will probably end up being about 7-7.3 after we see how many duplicates and nonpayments there are. Then there are are over 6 million that have gained coverage through the expanded medicaid program that about half the states are offering. Most of the people that didn't get a renewal of their 2013 plan because it didn't meet ACA standards probably didn't get their new policies off the exchange, but simply took another policy offered by their agent, but I'm sure some did use the exchange, especially if the qualified for a subsidy.

And you are confusing this with success.

Many of the people 'signing up' are people who present to emergency rooms without insurance. In the past, the hospital would send their information to the state and seek reimbursement through the state programs. Now, they submit their information to the exchanges to seek coverage for them and thus reimbursement. In other words, you're only changing the method of registering and not actually creating any new registrations.... and counting this as a success.

The myth of this leading to better reimbursement and thus better care is clearly debunked in the experience of DMC San Pablo near San Francisco. It is the only hospital in the area that primarily caters to the uninsured and though they struggled prior to the ACA, the ACA SHOULD be a boon to them, right? Unfortunately, no. They are about to close. As the only heart center within about 40 miles, this means some people will die.

Isn't this precisely the sort of place that should be doing BETTER because of the ACA?

Well DMC San Pablo has been on a downward spiral since the 1990s. The parts of the ACA that would benefit a hospital in their situation have only been in place for four and a half months, that hardly seems like enough time to turn around their situation.

Spoken like a true defender. So they've been struggling since the 90's, but somehow they managed to survive until Obamacare 'fixed' their problem? Does it even make sense to you that a place that has struggled for 15 years couldn't manage to stay open for 6 months after things supposedly got BETTER for them by insuring all of their patients?

Look... I'm in this business and privy to information you aren't. This is a hospital, not a traditional business meaning there IS no 'spiral'. They are a charity hospital and they have struggled for a long time to care for all of the poor people. The 4.5 months would have been plenty of time for them to at least 'accrue' greater income (and certainly PROJECT higher income) if the ACA had resulted in increased reimbursements. Their census is up, not down.... but their reimbursements as a percentage of their costs are down even more. You can try and defend this any way you want, but the reality is right there in front of you. To deny it is to be purely playing politics with people's lives because it suits a political agenda. The CEO, while courting very liberal people in a very liberal county in a very liberal state where Obamacare is very popular specifically said that Obamacare contributed to the decline. The only people who deny this are those who want to politicize this.

Quote:We have similar problems here in NC. Our rural hospitals serve a disproportionally large number of indigent patients and struggle to keep their financial head above water. NC did not expand Medicaid and thus 318,000 that could be covered are not. The compensation hospitals would receive from Medicaid, while not as high as from private insurance would certainly have a significant impact on the bottom line.

San Pablo isn't rural. It's a few miles from San Francisco... north, not inland.

What you say would be true if the reimbursement were above the costs to deliver care, but in many instances it isn't. By codifying losses for most services and giving people who didn't have the option to travel for more elective (not elective per se, but things you can schedule and aren't urgent) who didn't have that option before... they've left these hospitals with the financially 'bad' procedures (primary care, palliative care, senior care) and allowed them to travel to a 'better' hospital for those procedures that pay better. ALL hospitals have to provide certain emergency care and that often comes with big overhead. DMC has the same overhead, but the theoretical advantage from people having insurance (the big claim of success by obamacare defenders) and thus supposedly able to pay for their care has already proven to be false... and doesn't offset the losses for services of 'choice'. Emergency, life saving healthcare has been compromised so that mothers having babies can go to a now overcrowded hospital with the same doctors and nurses, but a nicer waiting room.

'back in the day', hospitals were reimbursed a portion of their costs, so they padded the bills. More recently, the business model went to 'fee for service' meaning you got paid for what you did, subject to limits on what that particular illness should cost... i.e. if someone presents with pna, they got paid $5,000. Their job was to cure the patient for less than that. Now, the business model is going to be more like Wal-Mart, where they take losses on much of their business, to cram more 'care' into the same employee cost (which drives down quality) and hope to make it up on a few other higher margin services. As you note, in areas with high concentrations of 'government' care, this will be a massive challenge. Of course, in 5 months, it is only the already struggling hospitals that will have already failed.... but no matter how you want to look at it, things should have been BETTER at DMC than they were, and obviously they aren't.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Thanks for the additional information. You appear to know a lot about the issue. It is certainly a changing landscape for the health care industry.

It is important to note that there was a recent vote in the hospital district that, had it passed (it had to pass with a 2/3 majority) would have allowed the hospital to remain open. It didn't pass.

There is also information coming in regarding hospital admissions in the first quarter. I will post it on a new thread and would be interested in your thoughts.

UPDATE

Not sure how many many is, but the latest report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner says the following:

Quote:"As of Aug. 15 this year, we have 7.3 million Americans enrolled in health insurance marketplace coverage and these are individuals who paid their premiums. We are encouraged by the number of consumers who paid their premiums and continue to enroll in the marketplace coverage every day through special enrollment periods,"

Not positive if this means they are up to date, or have just made any amount of payment, etc. but still, this amount exceeds estimates...and debunks the naysayers.

Almost All Obamacare Enrollees Are Paying For Coverage

(09-18-2014 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  UPDATE

Not sure how many many is, but the latest report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner says the following:

Quote:"As of Aug. 15 this year, we have 7.3 million Americans enrolled in health insurance marketplace coverage and these are individuals who paid their premiums. We are encouraged by the number of consumers who paid their premiums and continue to enroll in the marketplace coverage every day through special enrollment periods,"

Not positive if this means they are up to date, or have just made any amount of payment, etc. but still, this amount exceeds estimates...and debunks the naysayers.

Almost All Obamacare Enrollees Are Paying For Coverage

Kind of:

Quote:But the 7.3 million enrollment figure doesn't tell the whole story. The Department of Health and Human Services can't provide the total enrollment tally, including paid and unpaid, since April because the computer system that would process those records isn't fully operational, a department official said.

You'd figure they have that working by now.

(09-18-2014 03:57 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  UPDATE

Not sure how many many is, but the latest report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner says the following:

Quote:"As of Aug. 15 this year, we have 7.3 million Americans enrolled in health insurance marketplace coverage and these are individuals who paid their premiums. We are encouraged by the number of consumers who paid their premiums and continue to enroll in the marketplace coverage every day through special enrollment periods,"

Not positive if this means they are up to date, or have just made any amount of payment, etc. but still, this amount exceeds estimates...and debunks the naysayers.

Almost All Obamacare Enrollees Are Paying For Coverage

Kind of:

Quote:But the 7.3 million enrollment figure doesn't tell the whole story. The Department of Health and Human Services can't provide the total enrollment tally, including paid and unpaid, since April because the computer system that would process those records isn't fully operational, a department official said.

You'd figure they have that working by now.

Crashed hard drive?

(09-18-2014 03:58 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:57 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  UPDATE

Not sure how many many is, but the latest report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner says the following:

Quote:"As of Aug. 15 this year, we have 7.3 million Americans enrolled in health insurance marketplace coverage and these are individuals who paid their premiums. We are encouraged by the number of consumers who paid their premiums and continue to enroll in the marketplace coverage every day through special enrollment periods,"

Not positive if this means they are up to date, or have just made any amount of payment, etc. but still, this amount exceeds estimates...and debunks the naysayers.

Almost All Obamacare Enrollees Are Paying For Coverage

Kind of:

Quote:But the 7.3 million enrollment figure doesn't tell the whole story. The Department of Health and Human Services can't provide the total enrollment tally, including paid and unpaid, since April because the computer system that would process those records isn't fully operational, a department official said.

You'd figure they have that working by now.

Crashed hard drive?

It was all in one massive email that got deleted.

(09-18-2014 03:57 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  UPDATE

Not sure how many many is, but the latest report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner says the following:

Quote:"As of Aug. 15 this year, we have 7.3 million Americans enrolled in health insurance marketplace coverage and these are individuals who paid their premiums. We are encouraged by the number of consumers who paid their premiums and continue to enroll in the marketplace coverage every day through special enrollment periods,"

Not positive if this means they are up to date, or have just made any amount of payment, etc. but still, this amount exceeds estimates...and debunks the naysayers.

Almost All Obamacare Enrollees Are Paying For Coverage

Kind of:

Quote:But the 7.3 million enrollment figure doesn't tell the whole story. The Department of Health and Human Services can't provide the total enrollment tally, including paid and unpaid, since April because the computer system that would process those records isn't fully operational, a department official said.

You'd figure they have that working by now.

No, the 7.3 is a confirmed number. What you quoted indicates that the number is likely even higher than that.

And I'm guessing that system is working yet because it's not essential to enrolling folks, but sounds like a mechanism to crunch records numbers.

(05-10-2014 10:24 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Duplicate policies are one of many reasons there will not be 100% paid. No one ever said there would be 100% paid and duplicate policies along with other reasons were factored in.

Some people have tried arguing both sides on this, promoting the numbers (as if it would be maximum pay-in, which I will say I don't think you've believe. Dawg).

So let's just assume it's 7 figures lower in taking out the duplicate apps, let's just be generous and state that it's only 1 million on the dot.

So instead of 7.3M enrollees, it's now down to 6.3M ... do you still think that all that remain of those 6.3M will be full payment?

But all the budget numbers were based on that high-end 7.3M enrollees.

If not, where do we make up the budget money that was expected from those of the 6.3M that don't pay in? They're alreayd short the funds from the 1M missing applicants.. and now there will be more non-payees.

Bunch of Medicaid enrollments and extended enrollment period.

Not to mention all of the other smoke and mirrors.

(05-10-2014 10:12 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  We've been throwing cold water on the administration's so-called exchange "enrollment" figures for months, and for good reason: They're incomplete to the point of deception. The Washington Post reported back in November that official tabulations were including anyone who's "selected a plan," which is the equivalent of placing an item in a virtual shopping cart online, regardless of whether the check-out and payment steps ever took place. At Kathleen Sebelius' behest, the House Energy and Commerce Committee contacted every insurer listed as a participant in the federal exchange at Healthcare.gov in order to discern how many of these "sign ups" translated into paid enrollments. The initial batch of information, based on data through mid-April, revealed a paltry payment rate of 67 percent. When the official totals are finally revisited to include the state exchanges (whose performances are widely varying), and numbers from the late sign-up surge, the final payment statistics will likely shift. Some large insurers testified today that they've experienced payment rates in the low-80s range, which is closer to experts' estimated ballpark prior to the release of the committee's report -- problems with which we highlighted here. What is almost certainly the case is that the genuine enrollment figure is seven figures lower that the White House-touted one. Phil Kerpen catches yet another inflationary ingredient in HHS' propaganda brew, the extent of which we don't yet know:




Link

7.3 million paid and covered as we type.

(05-13-2014 07:41 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:04 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Yes, about 6 million. There are also the "woodworkers", people that qualified before expansion but for one reason or another never enrolled until the push began to sign people up for some form of coverage.

wasn't the point of the ACA to bring coverage to the uninsured?

nope.

The real point of Obamacare was to hook more takers up to the government trough, thus insuring only that they'll vote D for the rest of their days to keep the gravy train rolling.

funny we haven't seen a number for the percentage of the Obamacre policy holders who are actually paying 100% of their insurance freight with no government subsidies.

In NC about 91% of these that gained coverage through the exchange qualified for a subsidy.

So a whopping 9% are actually paying 100% of the cost of their health insurance coverage themselves and the American taxpayer is picking up all or part of the tab for the other 91%.

Yep...and a thanks would be nice. Mine increased 22% since the ACA to 6600 annually for the same schit I had.....While guys I work with pay almost a net zero. Socialism at its finest. At least I get to see where some of my money goes.

(09-18-2014 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 07:41 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:04 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:53 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  wasn't the point of the ACA to bring coverage to the uninsured?

nope.

The real point of Obamacare was to hook more takers up to the government trough, thus insuring only that they'll vote D for the rest of their days to keep the gravy train rolling.

funny we haven't seen a number for the percentage of the Obamacre policy holders who are actually paying 100% of their insurance freight with no government subsidies.

In NC about 91% of these that gained coverage through the exchange qualified for a subsidy.

So a whopping 9% are actually paying 100% of the cost of their health insurance coverage themselves and the American taxpayer is picking up all or part of the tab for the other 91%.

Yep...and a thanks would be nice. Mine increased 22% since the ACA to 6600 annually for the same schit I had.....While guys I work with pay almost a net zero. Socialism at its finest. At least I get to see where some of my money goes.

Not socialism, just the social contract. Don't be bitter and resentful. Be thankful that so many will have to opportunity for a healthy life and less risk of financial catastrophe. My group coverage costs have been going up and benefits down for the last two decades. Finally costs have stabilized and benefits improved over the last two years. While I don't benefit directly from the ACA in the form of a subsidized policy I can appreciate that many do and that it makes for a more stable health care system in the long run.

(09-19-2014 01:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 07:41 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 09:04 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  nope.

The real point of Obamacare was to hook more takers up to the government trough, thus insuring only that they'll vote D for the rest of their days to keep the gravy train rolling.

funny we haven't seen a number for the percentage of the Obamacre policy holders who are actually paying 100% of their insurance freight with no government subsidies.

In NC about 91% of these that gained coverage through the exchange qualified for a subsidy.

So a whopping 9% are actually paying 100% of the cost of their health insurance coverage themselves and the American taxpayer is picking up all or part of the tab for the other 91%.

Yep...and a thanks would be nice. Mine increased 22% since the ACA to 6600 annually for the same schit I had.....While guys I work with pay almost a net zero. Socialism at its finest. At least I get to see where some of my money goes.

Not socialism, just the social contract.

Not at all. I didn't sign this social contract. So go **** yourself.

Quote:Don't be bitter and resentful. Be thankful that so many will have to opportunity for a healthy life and less risk of financial catastrophe.

Because they've stolen from me and my family? Go **** yourself.

Quote: My group coverage costs have been going up and benefits down for the last two decades. Finally costs have stabilized and benefits improved over the last two years.

Lying.

Quote: While I don't benefit directly from the ACA in the form of a subsidized policy I can appreciate that many do and that it makes for a more stable health care system in the long run.

Consistently poor is stable, right?

(09-19-2014 01:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  While I don't benefit directly from the ACA in the form of a subsidized policy I can appreciate that many do and that it makes for a more stable health care system in the long run.

Not without more health CARE, it doesn't.