In order for ACA to work, uninsured should get no treatment.

[werepossum]

What is the point of making a post like this ?

I swear, my 3 year old granddaughter can have a more interesting conversation..

Well, yeah, because you share the same understanding of economics. ZING!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I do want it better. And of course I'd support such a plan, it already exists.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. What do you refer to?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Now, the one point I want to understand. What monies does the ACA cut? I don't know shit about our healthcare system so I need you to explain it to me. You mentioned a traumatic brain injury study that was cut. How is that linked to the ACA?

Hospitals aren't monolithic organizations which are designed to take in money for profit. They are also instruments of education and research and some of the monies that come in are used for research. Because of the reductions in payments it was cut. It was an unintended consequence. I wonder how many times that will happen?

It would be wise to ask "what happens next" in any given scenario, and with something as complicated as health care it's vital. Can that be fixed? Yes, but the woman I know who was involved has moved on as did the rest of them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You are projecting. My post had one point, that Republicans had no interest in helping Democrats craft meaningful healthcare reform. Tell me why you think this is wrong.

Although open to addressing issues like portability, lifting interstate competition barriers, among other things (things that you and most Democrats apparently didn't find "meaningful"), Republicans were vehemently against the mandate from Day One. It was also clear from the very beginning that Democrats were going to use every ounce of political capital available to push their mandate down the collective throats of America. Democrats weren't interested in any help from Republicans if it meant compromise on their precious mandate....so I find the way you frame this in the quote above to be twisted with a good bit with your typical partisan slant.

If Obamacare and the mandate is your idea of "meaningful" reform, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I would only ask that you remember your support for this "signature legislation" a couple years from now when the reality of the mandate hits those who can afford it least.

 

[shady28]

All this talk about pro-obamacare anti-obamacare is etc etc etc is becoming a moot point.

People need to wake up and smell the roses, because this is just simple fourth-grade math at this point.

The failure isn't really even about the website or the software.


Oregon :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-success-no-one-has-bought-private-insurance/

"The state had, in the course of 17 days, signed up 56,000 people for the health law's Medicaid expansion. In one fell swoop, the state had cut its uninsured rate by 10 percent.
That is, however, only part of the story from Oregon. When it comes to private insurance, spokeswoman Amy Fauver said that it has not yet had any sign-ups."

Connecticut :

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...are-rollout-is-remarkably-breakdown-free.html
"... 10,678 applications were opened, and the state processed 2,372 applications for policyholders. "
"About half of those processed were for Medicaid. The other half of enrollees purchased policies"
"About 29 percent of the enrollees are under the age of 35, but most of those gaining coverage through the exchange are between the ages of 55 and 64."


So what we have is a bunch of extremely poor 20-35 yr olds going on Medicaid, at states expense. Then we have 55-64 year olds getting insurance they could never have gotten before.

What's missing is the people who were supposedly going to enroll and pay for it all.

So the highest reports I've seen are around 52,000 people enrolled through the federal exchanges so far.

Meanwhile, the numbers of those who LOST healthcare :

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323893004579059393251153348

International Business Machines Corp. IBM -0.60% plans to move about 110,000 retirees off its company-sponsored health plan and instead give them a payment to buy coverage on a health-insurance exchange


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...g-20-000-part-timers-to-health-exchanges.html

Home Depot Inc. (HD), the world’s largest home improvement retailer, plans to end medical coverage for about 20,000 part-time employees


http://www.syracuse.com/news/index....ms_for_more_than_22000_poor_and_disabled.html

Excellus BlueCross BlueShield is dropping out of public health insurance programs for the poor and the disabled in a move that will affect more than 22,000 Central New Yorkers.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/thousands-get-health-insurance-cancellation-notices-8C11417913

Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage



This whole picture is starting to become clear.

Some of the largest health insurance companies, including Aetna, Cigna, and United HealthCare, only participated in a small number of states. For example, none of the 3 are available in California under the ACA exchanges.

Cigna, for example, is only participating in 5 state exchanges.

So, if the above trends continue, what we're going to see will be very simple.

The smaller insurance companies who participated in this are going to get tens of thousands of previously uninsurables that they are covering, and cannot deny coverage.

The states who expanded Medicare/Medicaid will wind up paying to cover tens of thousands they did not previously cover.

The states will raise taxes. The smaller insurance companies will go bust.

Meanwhile potentially hundreds of thousands of *paying workers* who had employer based coverage will wind up uninsured.

And to top it off, the federal Gov't payments to hospitals in order to compensate for the 'Uninsured ER cases' are being slashed. The result being that hospitals are cutting staff and costs.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/13/hospital-job-cuts/2947929/

""While the rest of the U.S. economy is stabilizing or improving, health care is entering into a recession," says John Howser, assistant vice chancellor of Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Health care providers announced more layoffs than any other industry last month — 8,128 — largely because of reductions by hospitals, according to outplacement firm Challenger Gray and Christmas. So far this year, the health care sector has announced 41,085 layoffs, the third-most behind financial and industrial companies."


It's always possible this will reverse itself, but in my book that's waiting for a 'Hail Mary pass' (for those not in the USA, that's a long forward pass in football to turn a game in the final moments, where completion is considered unlikely).

As far as the website goes - sure, that may be why the absolute number of enrollees is low.

But even if the website gets fixed, it's unlikely to affect the 'type' of enrollees. In other words, you will wind up with hundreds of thousands of 55-64 year olds on the exchanges, and hundreds of thousands of 20-35 year olds in state medicare.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people who had employer based insurance will do without.

This all just adds up to EPIC FAIL.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No doubt about it the boomers and the poor will be supported by Gen Yers. If Gen Y says no to the ACA it will fail.

 

[boomerang]

Are these fatal flaws the result of negligence and poor planning or are they in there by design? It's tough to believe that what seemed obvious to a layperson right after its passing was overlooked by its creators.

 

[HeXen]

I'm sure for those of you who have kids, if your kid say turned 18 and without discussion with you decided to not pay, then was later turned away for treatment and died, I think some of those hard ass attitudes would turn soft at the funeral.

 

[dank69]

Hospitals aren't monolithic organizations which are designed to take in money for profit. They are also instruments of education and research and some of the monies that come in are used for research. Because of the reductions in payments it was cut. It was an unintended consequence. I wonder how many times that will happen?

It would be wise to ask "what happens next" in any given scenario, and with something as complicated as health care it's vital. Can that be fixed? Yes, but the woman I know who was involved has moved on as did the rest of them.

I need you to be WAY more specific. What reductions in what payments?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm sure for those of you who have kids, if your kid say turned 18 and without discussion with you decided to not pay, then was later turned away for treatment and died, I think some of those hard ass attitudes would turn soft at the funeral.

I suspect most 18 to 26 year olds will continue to be covered by their parents insurance.

 

[dank69]

Although open to addressing issues like portability, lifting interstate competition barriers, among other things (things that you and most Democrats apparently didn't find "meaningful"), Republicans were vehemently against the mandate from Day One. It was also clear from the very beginning that Democrats were going to use every ounce of political capital available to push their mandate down the collective throats of America. Democrats weren't interested in any help from Republicans if it meant compromise on their precious mandate....so I find the way you frame this in the quote above to be twisted with a good bit with your typical partisan slant.

If Obamacare and the mandate is your idea of "meaningful" reform, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I would only ask that you remember your support for this "signature legislation" a couple years from now when the reality of the mandate hits those who can afford it least.

Right. Republicans were vehemently against the mandate that their own think tank conceived and Romney the hardcore liberal implemented successfully at the state level. Carrying a minimum level of health insurance is the classic definition of personal responsibility. Which of the two parties touts personal responsibility as one of its central tenets? Like I said, if Obama had proposed that we cut corporate taxes, Republicans would have been vehemently against it.

Obamacare is only meaningful reform to me in as much as its ability to get people with pre-existing conditions affordable coverage. The only way to do that short of SP/UHC is to implement the individual mandate. Maybe if everyone demonstrated that personal responsibility that conservatives DEMAND of everyone the government wouldn't have to force it. Frankly, the mandate should have been packaged with the Reagan deal that guaranteed ER treatment for everyone. Maybe healthcare wouldn't be in quite such bad shape as it is today.

 

[dank69]

All this talk about pro-obamacare anti-obamacare is etc etc etc is becoming a moot point.

People need to wake up and smell the roses, because this is just simple fourth-grade math at this point.

The failure isn't really even about the website or the software.


Oregon :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-success-no-one-has-bought-private-insurance/

"The state had, in the course of 17 days, signed up 56,000 people for the health law's Medicaid expansion. In one fell swoop, the state had cut its uninsured rate by 10 percent.
That is, however, only part of the story from Oregon. When it comes to private insurance, spokeswoman Amy Fauver said that it has not yet had any sign-ups."

Connecticut :

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...are-rollout-is-remarkably-breakdown-free.html
"... 10,678 applications were opened, and the state processed 2,372 applications for policyholders. "
"About half of those processed were for Medicaid. The other half of enrollees purchased policies"
"About 29 percent of the enrollees are under the age of 35, but most of those gaining coverage through the exchange are between the ages of 55 and 64."


So what we have is a bunch of extremely poor 20-35 yr olds going on Medicaid, at states expense. Then we have 55-64 year olds getting insurance they could never have gotten before.

What's missing is the people who were supposedly going to enroll and pay for it all.

So the highest reports I've seen are around 52,000 people enrolled through the federal exchanges so far.

Meanwhile, the numbers of those who LOST healthcare :

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323893004579059393251153348

International Business Machines Corp. IBM -0.60% plans to move about 110,000 retirees off its company-sponsored health plan and instead give them a payment to buy coverage on a health-insurance exchange


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...g-20-000-part-timers-to-health-exchanges.html

Home Depot Inc. (HD), the world’s largest home improvement retailer, plans to end medical coverage for about 20,000 part-time employees


http://www.syracuse.com/news/index....ms_for_more_than_22000_poor_and_disabled.html

Excellus BlueCross BlueShield is dropping out of public health insurance programs for the poor and the disabled in a move that will affect more than 22,000 Central New Yorkers.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/thousands-get-health-insurance-cancellation-notices-8C11417913

Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage



This whole picture is starting to become clear.

Some of the largest health insurance companies, including Aetna, Cigna, and United HealthCare, only participated in a small number of states. For example, none of the 3 are available in California under the ACA exchanges.

Cigna, for example, is only participating in 5 state exchanges.

So, if the above trends continue, what we're going to see will be very simple.

The smaller insurance companies who participated in this are going to get tens of thousands of previously uninsurables that they are covering, and cannot deny coverage.

The states who expanded Medicare/Medicaid will wind up paying to cover tens of thousands they did not previously cover.

The states will raise taxes. The smaller insurance companies will go bust.

Meanwhile potentially hundreds of thousands of *paying workers* who had employer based coverage will wind up uninsured.

And to top it off, the federal Gov't payments to hospitals in order to compensate for the 'Uninsured ER cases' are being slashed. The result being that hospitals are cutting staff and costs.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/13/hospital-job-cuts/2947929/

""While the rest of the U.S. economy is stabilizing or improving, health care is entering into a recession," says John Howser, assistant vice chancellor of Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Health care providers announced more layoffs than any other industry last month — 8,128 — largely because of reductions by hospitals, according to outplacement firm Challenger Gray and Christmas. So far this year, the health care sector has announced 41,085 layoffs, the third-most behind financial and industrial companies."


It's always possible this will reverse itself, but in my book that's waiting for a 'Hail Mary pass' (for those not in the USA, that's a long forward pass in football to turn a game in the final moments, where completion is considered unlikely).

As far as the website goes - sure, that may be why the absolute number of enrollees is low.

But even if the website gets fixed, it's unlikely to affect the 'type' of enrollees. In other words, you will wind up with hundreds of thousands of 55-64 year olds on the exchanges, and hundreds of thousands of 20-35 year olds in state medicare.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people who had employer based insurance will do without.

This all just adds up to EPIC FAIL.

You are a retard gobbling GOP diarrhea. People have something like 3 months(?) to sign up for private coverage. Why don't you wait until the 3 months are up before you prematurely ejaculate all over our forums again?

Over the line, even for P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Tom]

All this talk about pro-obamacare anti-obamacare is etc etc etc is becoming a moot point.

People need to wake up and smell the roses, because this is just simple fourth-grade math at this point.



This whole picture is starting to become clear.


Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people who had employer based insurance will do without.

This all just adds up to EPIC FAIL.

The exchanges have been open for what, two weeks ? Two weeks when the government was shut down, btw.

There are 20 something states who's Republican governors and legislators are doing their best to sabotage the ACA.

There's absolutely no way a fair person would say there's enough evidence of anything to properly evaluate the ACA.

 

[Tom]

I suspect most 18 to 26 year olds will continue to be covered by their parents insurance.

That might be statistically accurate, I don't know.

But I do know there are millions of young people that have no insurance.

I think a lot of us, myself included, tend to think of young males whose primary need for healthcare comes from injury.

But remember, half of young people are women. Many with young children. The "old" way of doing things created an incentive for some young mothers to not work, so their children could be covered by Medicaid.

Under ACA, at least in the states that aren't trying to destroy it, this disincentive to work is lessened.

Just one way the ACA is potentially good for the economy, and society.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You are a retard gobbling GOP diarrhea. People have something like 3 months(?) to sign up for private coverage. Why don't you wait until the 3 months are up before you prematurely ejaculate all over our forums again?

So rather than trying to refute the data, attack the poster.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That might be statistically accurate, I don't know.

Currently most insurance companies allow parents to insure full time students up to the age of 24 and this will allow parents to continue to help their children get on their feet though this will also result in higher premiums due to the additional coverage.

But I do know there are millions of young people that have no insurance.

How many of those young people have chose not to purchase insurance? How many will choose to pay the fine rather than purchase insurance?

I think a lot of us, myself included, tend to think of young males whose primary need for healthcare comes from injury.

Which is why most choose to get catastrophic coverage or no insurance at all

But remember, half of young people are women. Many with young children. The "old" way of doing things created an incentive for some young mothers to not work, so their children could be covered by Medicaid.

Unless these women are making more than $10/hour (2 family household) themselves and their child will be placed on Medicaid.

Under ACA, at least in the states that aren't trying to destroy it, this disincentive to work is lessened.

Has nothing to do with states as it's determined on their income, those making less than 138% of the poverty level will be placed on Medicaid.

Just one way the ACA is potentially good for the economy, and society.

Okay, if you say so.

See bolded above

 

[nextJin]

I just can't wait until we get averages across all the different states, so far the only ones I have heard of where the averages were lower are NY, CA, NJ and Vermont. Everywhere else saw an average increase in costs, and some where actually really high. It's likely affected by how each state is handling the new law, but nonetheless that what I have noticed.

Also, Tom you keep saying there is no negatives to the law. I'd beg to differ, Health Care industry is seeing some serious restructuring (layoffs), and while you see some people with lower rates you WILL have people with higher rates. I know my family is either seeing the same or higher averages atm and my wife just dropped her insurance to go on Tricare (under me) because her insurance while she worked with General Dynamics literally skyrocketed to something ridiculous.

We did a poll here a few weeks ago which showed a fairly even spread but favored increased costs.

I've mentioned it before but my dad took a 600 dollar a month paycut due to Moses Cone restructuring under Obamacare (yes they used it as the primary reason) and two other family members were completely let go. He is in maintenance and was making about 38k(?) but since he is so close to retirement he is sticking with it for a few more months.

 

[dank69]

So rather than trying to refute the data, attack the poster.

The fact that he is prematurely analyzing the data was my refutation. Is that too difficult to understand?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The fact that he is prematurely analyzing the data was my refutation. Is that too difficult to understand?

So what excuses the vitriol?

 

[HeXen]

I suspect most 18 to 26 year olds will continue to be covered by their parents insurance.

But in this hypothetical situation where those without insurance don't get medical treatment, I'm just saying that the sgt. slaughter attitudes given here would always be far different when it's one of your own for whatever reason. Anything can happen in life that would put the OP or anyone like them in a situation where he/she can't provide insurance for their hypothetical child over 18 and now wouldn't it suck that the SOL idealism put forth would turn out to be a situation where they are burying their kid cause they didn't have insurance.

Just be careful what you guys wish for is all I'm sayn. Life can turn on a dime.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

But in this hypothetical situation where those without insurance don't get medical treatment, I'm just saying that the sgt. slaughter attitudes given here would always be far different when it's one of your own for whatever reason. Anything can happen in life that would put the OP or anyone like them in a situation where he/she can't provide insurance for their hypothetical child over 18 and now wouldn't it suck that the SOL idealism put forth would turn out to be a situation where they are burying their kid cause they didn't have insurance.

Just be careful what you guys wish for is all I'm sayn. Life can turn on a dime.

I agree most of those in here that would refuse treatment to someone who didn't purchase insurance would feel differently if it was their child or family member.

In the past few weeks we're seeing that the party of the tolerant aren't very tolerant at all. In fact they're showing their angry, evil side. Many of these people oppose the death penalty yet would force a person without health insurance to potentially face death due to being refused treatment.

 

[dank69]

So what excuses the vitriol?

Because fuck you. Both of you. You want to play nice start with being honest.

 

[dank69]

I agree most of those in here that would refuse treatment to someone who didn't purchase insurance would feel differently if it was their child or family member.

In the past few weeks we're seeing that the party of the tolerant aren't very tolerant at all. In fact they're showing their angry, evil side. Many of these people oppose the death penalty yet would force a person without health insurance to potentially face death due to being refused treatment.

Oh good, going full cybrsage with the old tolerance is binary. You don't tolerate rapists, therefore you're intolerant. No? That's not how it works? We don't tolerate dishonesty or willful ignorance, guess we're intolerant.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Because fuck you. Both of you. You want to play nice start with being honest.

Thank you for making my point. You on the left are some of the most hateful people in the US, I think the appropriate name for your ilk is Libhadist.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Oh good, going full cybrsage with the old tolerance is binary. You don't tolerate rapists, therefore you're intolerant. No? That's not how it works? We don't tolerate dishonesty or willful ignorance, guess we're intolerant.

Wow, nice strawman you got there.