KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

Obamacare is sooooooo wonderful...

m4mpetcock · 2308

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #20 on: July 02, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Isn't it ironic that Obamacare is attempting to kick start market competition in the health insurance industry?

And the GOP is fighting it?

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline m4mpetcock

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 625
    • Woos/Boos: +26/-15
Reply #21 on: July 02, 2013, 03:24:33 PM
Obamacare at odds with state

As ‘extreme’ insurance costs loom, Senate pushes waiver.   Tuesday, July 2, 2013


http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2013/07/obamacare_at_odds_with_state



The Affordable Care Act is proving to be anything but in Massachusetts. The recent revelation that federal regulatory changes could jack up premiums over 50 percent for some small companies has resulted in resistance from an unexpected source: the senior Democratic leadership in the state Senate.

The Senate passed a bill that will force Gov. Deval Patrick and his administration, to seek a waiver from certain elements of the ACA. The House on Friday went along with the Senate language. The move could come to a head when the provision lands on the governor’s desk. Should he sign it, it would be an embarrassing political moment for the Obama administration. How is it that the ACA is forcing significant changes to the state law officials claim was their model?

Turns out, the conventional wisdom comparing Massachusetts reform and the ACA has proven to be overly simplistic. For a state that “inspired” the federal law there has been lots of effort spent to reconcile the two laws, as this is the third ACA-related bill being debated in the commonwealth. The latest is a sizable 100-section bill controversially set to write into law an abdication of insurance regulation to the federal government.

While state officials have known for some time that the ACA-required changes would result in “extreme premium increases” (their wording) and spike premiums for 60 percent of small companies (some as high as 50-plus percent) in the state, the best the Patrick administration could do was spread the increases out over three years under an agreement from the federal government.

Thankfully the Democratic leadership in the Senate saw this as a real problem and is attempting to do something about it.

The Senate language signals a sea change in the state and has even received support from the pro-ACA business group, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts.

A recently released Division of Insurance report lays out the impact going forward. The biggest losers will be the 60 percent of small employer members who will see premium increases due to the rating factor changes that are required by Obamacare, leaving 40 percent to see no increase or a decrease.

That translates into 181,000 small employer members experiencing premium increases of more than 10 percent, and over 45,757 will be hit by insurance increases of over 30 percent.

It is important to remember, these increases are separate from the billions in additional taxes and fees from the ACA that are unrelated to this one regulatory change.

This battle over federalism between Massachusetts and the federal government is of special interest not only because of the history of health reform in the commonwealth and the parochial local interests behind the outcome, but also because of the political landmines that lie ahead.

It will test the Obama administration’s willingness to engage with states that are set to experience rate shock. It will answer the question if they care more about state flexibility or federal control.




Josh Archambault is director of health care policy at Pioneer Institute in Boston. He is editor and co-author of “The Great Experiment: The States, The Feds, and Your Healthcare.”


I can resist anything but temptation.  - Oscar Wilde


Offline m4mpetcock

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 625
    • Woos/Boos: +26/-15
Reply #22 on: July 02, 2013, 03:37:35 PM
Isn't it ironic that Obamacare is attempting to kick start market competition in the health insurance industry?

And the GOP is fighting it?


Actually, if I recall correctly, part of the GOP's original argument was that insurance costs wouldn't be so high if the issue of interstate competition was addressed before considering Obamacare.  For instance, in RI, we have two insurance companies, Blue Cross and United Health Care.  Tufts has been able to get its foot in the door, but because of the stranglehold Blue Cross has been able to maintain due to regulation, the Tufts footprint is miniscule, thus they can't reasonably be considered competitive.

Another issue, which wasn't addressed, even in Obamacare, was tort reform.  Nowadays, doctors have to order all kinds of needless tests in order to avoid being sued for not detecting things that the patient never even complained about.  Thus, malpractice insurance is skyhigh because doctors get sued for millions.  So, in order to avoid being sued for millions, they order every test under the sun.  Thus, the vicious cycle.

Then again, because Congress is full of lawyers, there was no desire to deprive their brethren from the millions upon millions in tort awards.   

I can resist anything but temptation.  - Oscar Wilde


Offline redhatlover

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 2,842
    • Woos/Boos: +255/-3
    • Gender: Male
Reply #23 on: July 02, 2013, 04:22:15 PM
my over simplistic solution to health care

simply expand VA hospitals and funding.

1) let lower income people use them like a veterans. The added funding would also improve the care for our veterans, as well as adding locations.


Absolutely NOT!!  Our veterans deserve to have their medical issues taken care of without competition from others.  The biggest thing that VA care has going for it is the bond between the caregivers (mostly Veterans themselves) and their clients.  Do not destroy this!

I am like Charlie the Tuna.  I don't want women with good taste, I want women who taste good.


Offline Grm

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,413
    • Woos/Boos: +456/-117
  • Goodbye KB
Reply #24 on: July 02, 2013, 09:02:59 PM
Absolutely NOT!!  Our veterans deserve to have their medical issues taken care of without competition from others.  The biggest thing that VA care has going for it is the bond between the caregivers (mostly Veterans themselves) and their clients.  Do not destroy this!

« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 11:08:13 PM by Gia1978 »



Offline m4mpetcock

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 625
    • Woos/Boos: +26/-15
Reply #25 on: July 03, 2013, 03:42:56 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/02/obamacare-employer-mandate_n_3536695.html

Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed For One Year

Employers who don't provide health insurance will be spared penalties of up to $3,000 per worker until 2015, a one-year delay of a major component of President Barack Obama's health care reform law, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday.

Under Obamacare, companies with at least 50 full-time employees are required to provide qualifying health benefits to workers or face financial penalties called "shared responsibility payments." The provision of the law aims to shore up and strengthen the system that provides health benefits to most covered Americans. Under regulatory guidance to be published next week, the Obama administration will free companies from this mandate and from rules that they report information about their health benefits to the federal government next year.

"During this 2014 transition period, we strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage," Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy at the Treasury Department, said in a statement. The change does not affect people who will buy health insurance on their own or small businesses that will buy coverage through the law's health insurance exchanges.

More than half of Americans, 170 million people, are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance, according the census data. Of companies with at least 50 workers, 94 percent already offer health benefits, a survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation shows. The one-year delay of the penalties won't have a meaningful effect on jobs being the leading source of health care coverage, said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate with the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

"The fact is, employers have been offering coverage voluntarily for how many years now. They didn't drop it before the law was passed. They offered it for business reasons," Fronstin said. "I don't think you'll see a mass exodus because of this."

Postponing enforcement of the "employer responsibility" mandate also isn't likely to result in significantly fewer people gaining health coverage because of Obamacare next year, said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special initiatives at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

"The practical effect on how people will get covered is really small," Levitt said. "It might mean ever-so-slightly fewer people gaining insurance, but it'll be a very small number because the vast majority of larger employers already offer coverage." The Congressional Budget Office projected only a modest increase in job-based health benefits because of the law, he said.

Still, delaying enforcement of a policy designed in part to encourage companies to extend health benefits to workers not currently insured, such as part-time employees, does diminish the reach of Obamacare's coverage expansion, Fronstin said. "The question is, how many people would gain coverage anyway?" he said. "We don't know." Employees will still be subject to the law's individual mandate that most U.S. residents obtain health care coverage.

Putting off a major element of the 2010 health care reform law less than six months before the expansion of health insurance coverage to millions is supposed to take effect nevertheless stands as a setback for the administration and gives fodder to Obamacare critics to proclaim the law isn't ready for prime time.

"This announcement means even the Obama administration knows the 'train wreck' will only get worse," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "This is a clear acknowledgment that the law is unworkable, and it underscores the need to repeal the law and replace it with effective, patient-centered reforms.'

The administration's move on the employer penalties follows a recent Government Accountability Office report suggesting the law's health insurance exchanges for individuals who don't get coverage at work and for small companies may not be ready for the six-month enrollment period that begins Oct. 1. In April, the administration also delayed part of the law intended to provide small-business workers with more health insurance choices.

These negative developments for the implementation of the health care reform law shouldn't been viewed as major warning signs, however, Levitt said. "I don't think people should read too much into this in terms of how ready the administration is to implement the rest of the law, but I think some people will draw those conclusions. I think it's more of an issue of perception than an issue of reality."

The White House insisted the health insurance exchanges and other elements of the law will be in place on schedule. "We are on target to open the Health Insurance Marketplace on October 1 where small businesses and ordinary Americans will be able to go to one place to learn about their coverage options and make side-by-side comparisons of each plan’s price and benefits before they make their decision," Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama, wrote in a blog post on Tuesday.

Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- which largely opposed the health care law called the Affordable Care Act, or ACA -- have long sought a delay in the rules requiring them to report on their employees' health coverage and to pay penalties.

"They're not ready, we're not ready, and rather than plow ahead, they're going to take the right and wise approach," said Neil Trautwein, employee benefits policy counsel for the National Retail Federation. "The last thing the administration or the business community needs is for the ACA to come out of the gate sideways."

(end of story)



Long story short?   One of the worst parts of the law will be delayed until after the 2014 mid-term elections.


« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 03:46:01 AM by m4mpetcock »

I can resist anything but temptation.  - Oscar Wilde