The Affordable Care Act is Coming Home to Roost

[birdog1960]

They better hope the numbers are low because the real issue is going to be all the people who show up to doctors, hospitals and pharmacies this month with a piece of paper they were supposed to print out as proof of enrollement. (Not proof of payment, mind you...but just proof of enrollment, which is supposed to be enough to get covered.)

 

Will doctors, hospitals and pharmacies provide services without proof they'll get reimbursed? Or will they turn people away? And what is the certified proof of coverage and how hard is it to counterfeit?

 

Will doctors and hospitals and pharmacies go under when they realize they've been doling out services that will not get reimbursed? Or will people in dire need of these services die when Obamacare holds up approval of the services they need, simply because no one has actual proof of their coverage?

 

 

But I'm sure the Democrats thought all this through when they crafted and passed the law entirely on their own.

many doctors and hospitals already dole out care with no gaurantee of reimbursement. hospitals are required to in many instances. it's the law and has been for a long time. it's called EMTALA. Edited January 3, 2014 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

As Ed Mechmann writes:

 

Here

are just a few of

the exemptions that were incorporated in [the Affordable Care Act] itself

: people who can’t afford coverage, even with a subsidy; people with income levels too low to require filing a federal tax return; members of certain Indian tribes; people who can claim a hardship; people who will have a short gap in their coverage; members of certain religious groups that conscientiously oppose insurance benefit programs (e.g., the Amish); members of a “health care sharing ministry”; people in prison; and people who are not lawfully in the United States.

 

In the last few months, with all the mess associated with the new health exchange websites, and all the other chaos associated with the law,

the Administration has granted new exemptions

: people whose plans were cancelled can get a plan that is not compliant with the ACA; people who weren’t able to comply because of difficulties in signing up for a new plan won’t be penalized; and large businesses with over 50 employees will not be fined for failing to provide any health insurance.

 

Now, many of these exemptions make perfect sense, and reflect a healthy degree of flexibility in the implementation of a very complex law.

 

So, what does this have to do with ideology? Well,

despite all those other exemptions, waivers and extensions, one group has not been able to obtain an exemption, despite repeatedly asking for it, petitioning for it, and finally suing for it — religious organizations that have a moral objection to facilitating contraception, sterilization, and abortion, as would be required under the so-called HHS Mandate.

 

 

For these groups, there is no flexibility at all. There is instead an adamant insistence that they will have to cooperate, regardless of their deeply-held religious beliefs. The Amish get out of the law entirely, but when it comes to Catholic dioceses, schools and charities agencies, the government offers nothing except artificial and unsatisfactory “accommodations”.

Consider the absurdity of the government’s position. As pointed out by

Archbishop Kurtz

, the president of the U.S. Bishops, under the Administration’s current policies, large businesses will be able to completely eliminate any health insurance for their employees, with no fine at all, but religious organizations that refuse to cooperate with moral evil will be subject to crippling fines of $100 per day per employee. The government won’t even grant temporary respite while legal challenges are working their way through the courts. They can’t even bring themselves to give a break to the

Little Sisters of the Poor

, who spend their entire lives caring for needy elderly people.

 

Why is this? It’s not that hard to understand. The current Administration is entirely beholden to an ideology of sexual liberationism that considers contraception, sterilization and abortion to be “

sacred ground

”. They consider this ideology to be so central to life that they will brook no opposition, and will do whatever it takes to bring to heel anyone who opposes them.

That is an ideological obsession. It is dangerous to the souls of those who suffer from it, and it is dangerous to any society in which they wield power.

 

.

[Nanker]

Just exactly how many healthy young people were expected to sign up for coverage in order to keep this leaky dirigible aloft? We know for a fact that the push in premiums that the Insurance companies received for covering kids up to 26 is already in their coffers. So what's the cutoff age and how many people are in that particular demographic? I think there are a lot more people in the Boomer generation than are in the 26 to 30, or is it 40, or is it 50? These geniuses of social experimentation in the party of no choices but to obey must have a really good idea about how many of these folks are there.

Of course there are 30 million irregular immigrants in the country. Shirley they couldn't be counting on them to contribute anything to the premium pool. Es la ley!

[IDBillzFan]

the moral: much of what you're hearing described as terrible failings of the aca is exagerrated, incomplete and biased based on preconceived opposition to the ideals inherent in the bill.

 

We have a few cancer patients here in California who think you're full of crap.

 

Here's the simple truth: America hates the ACA, and its failings will continue for years upon years...if for no other reason than because it was sold by the entire Democratic party on a lie to the American people.

 

The ACA can start giving out free blowjobs and America will always remember the blatant lies every Democrat owns in order to force something on the American people they couldn't sell with the truth.

 

Obamacare may somehow survive, but the ability to trust the Democratic party is dead.

Edited January 3, 2014 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

much of what you're hearing described as terrible failings of the aca is exagerrated, incomplete and biased based on preconceived opposition to the ideals inherent in the bill.

 

There ARE NO IDEALS inherent in the bill. That's kind-of the point...it's such a coked-up, hashed mickey mouse piece of **** compromise of ideals that the administration has taken to defining the ACA as a hardship under the ACA.

[IDBillzFan]

There ARE NO IDEALS inherent in the bill. That's kind-of the point...it's such a coked-up, hashed mickey mouse piece of **** compromise of ideals that the administration has taken to defining the ACA as a hardship under the ACA.

 

When people are dropping dead in hospitals because no one could verify their coverage, the birddogs of the world will insist someone in the ER exaggerated what happened just to make Obamacare look bad.

 

As I've said before...you're hard pressed to find a better way to identify a dead dog progressive than Obamacare.

[birdog1960]

When people are dropping dead in hospitals because no one could verify their coverage, the birddogs of the world will insist someone in the ER exaggerated what happened just to make Obamacare look bad.

 

As I've said before...you're hard pressed to find a better way to identify a dead dog progressive than Obamacare.

look up EMTALA...please. unstable patients can't now or for the last 10 years or so be dumped...for any reason but especially for ability to pay.

 

There ARE NO IDEALS inherent in the bill. That's kind-of the point...it's such a coked-up, hashed mickey mouse piece of **** compromise of ideals that the administration has taken to defining the ACA as a hardship under the ACA.

seems a few conservatives are convinced it's wolflike socialism in sheeps hospital gowns. i agree. they're wrong. that would be single payer and would be a much better option.

[Nanker]

look up EMTALA...please. unstable patients can't now or for the last 10 years or so be dumped...for any reason but especially for ability to pay.

 

seems a few conservatives are convinced it's wolflike socialism in sheeps hospital gowns. i agree. they're wrong. that would be single payer and would be a much better option.

It's already been referred to at least twice in this hideous thread about this ongoing abortion... by me. Es la ley! Signs are in ER rooms across the nation in both el bastardo Inglés and native español.

 

Single payer is your wet dream. It's most of the rest of the nation's nightmare.

[IDBillzFan]

look up EMTALA...please. unstable patients can't now or for the last 10 years or so be dumped...for any reason but especially for ability to pay.

 

 

 

Who said the hospital was dumping them? Ever wait in an ER when you didn't appear to need emergency care? You get better attention at a DMV.

 

Again, the law is a mess. I can hardly wait until it turns into single payer in two years so you'll have nothing left to defend when that abortion takes root.

[birdog1960]

Who said the hospital was dumping them? Ever wait in an ER when you didn't appear to need emergency care? You get better attention at a DMV.

 

Again, the law is a mess. I can hardly wait until it turns into single payer in two years so you'll have nothing left to defend when that abortion takes root.

fortunately, so far i've been pretty healthy. last er visit was in residency after spraining my ankle in a softball game playing for the hospital team. got great care. almost no wait. wait times in the er in my current hospital are almost always less than 1 hour. wait times like those you mentioned in poor urban areas should improve somewhat with more universal access to primary care. Edited January 3, 2014 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

seems a few conservatives are convinced it's wolflike socialism in sheeps hospital gowns. i agree. they're wrong. that would be single payer and would be a much better option.

 

You really are a !@#$ing idiot. You're ready to defend the ACA by criticizing conservatives for being conservative, insurance companies for being corporations, the predecessor system being ****, and the ACA being closer to your preferred socialized medical industry (which it emphatically is not). But point out just one flaw in the ACA - for example, that IT ALREADY HAS BEEN CHANGED THREE TIMES IN AS MANY MONTHS BECAUSE DOESN'T WORK AS INTENDED - and you stick your head up your ass and pretend it's perfect.

 

Admit it: you're just a partisan shill who's constitutionally incapable of judging any part of the ACA on actual fact and merit, but only second-hand on the stated praise and criticism of third-parties.

[John Adams]

 

 

And herein lies the problem with your argument: virtually no one here able to complete a full sentence has argued that there is no benefit of the ACA without a high cost. Anyone thinking for themselves knows there are not only some good benefits to the law, but that many of those benefits (pre-existing conditions, keeping your 26-year-old adult child on your plan) could have EASILY been provided WITHOUT passing this abortion of a law...let alone forcing you to purchase a product simply because you exist in this country.

 

What you don't want to do is pit your happy anecdotes against the unhappy ones because they will get crushed in very short order. All you need to do is read about the millions in California who have lost their coverage and are now paying more for less coverage and higher deductibles and you'll realize your stories are the exception and not the rule.

 

My point, and I will keep making it, is not to use my situation to defend the ACA. It's to let people who pay for their own health insurance that the exchange may help them...personally.

 

Based on most of the "The ACA is an abject failure in every capacity" posts in this thread, some might not even try the exchanges. Maybe CA is having trouble because there was good provider competition pre ACA...I don't know.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

My point, and I will keep making it, is not to use my situation to defend the ACA. It's to let people who pay for their own health insurance that the exchange may help them...personally.

 

Based on most of the "The ACA is an abject failure in every capacity" posts in this thread, some might not even try the exchanges. Maybe CA is having trouble because there was good provider competition pre ACA...I don't know.

 

It's simple, all insurance is based on "The Law Of Large Numbers". Obamacare messes with that. It has no chance of succeeding. Your particular experience is anectodal and will not hold true. It's as if you signed up for DirecTV for $19.99 a month and expect it not to jump 400% in a year.

Edited January 4, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[B-Man]

The Obama Administration’s Shockingly Unnecessary ‘War’ on Nuns Who Serve the Elderly Poor

by Kathryn Jean Lopez

 

Speaking at a fundraiser for NARAL Pro-Choice America in October 2011, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebeliusdeclared that those of us arguing for conscience rights in the face of Obamacare were not only backward but belligerent:

They don’t just want to go after the last 18 months, they want to roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America.

We’ve come a long way in women’s health over the last few decades, but we are in a war.

 

Her word, not mine.

 

The president, around the same time, bragged about it.

 

Earlier this afternoon, I was on a media phone call held by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Little Sisters of the Poor in their case against the HHS abortion-drug, contraception, sterilization mandate. Overwhelmingly clear was the reminder that the strategy of obfuscation on this issue has been a winning one – not for freedom but the administration’s stubborn insistence that women like the Little Sisters who run elderly-care homes have to provide or otherwise grant permission for the coverage of products and procedures that are not morally licit in the teachings of the Church they have devoted their lives to in a most countercultural way.

 

Much commentary today — and many of the reporter’s questions — insist, as the administration has for a while now, that the Sisters have no religious-liberty problem: sign a form, all’s well. Except it’s not, and the Sisters won’t. Being told it has to green-light insurance coverage is not religious freedom in America. This accommodation/arbitrary exemption/exception business is for the birds. And yet, it is a brilliant, confusing strategy! It helped win the president another term as he and his principles insisted there was nothing to look at in Americans going to court over the Obamacare “contraception” regulation.

 

“We just want to take care of the elderly poor without being forced to violate the faith that animates our work,” Sister Constance Veit, L.S.P. told me this fall. Is that seriously too much to ask in the United States of America anymore? It is, of course, their right, and our obligation to protect and defend as a matter of good civil stewardship as the president drives a radical secular agenda instead.

 

 

 

 

Here’s the government’s brief:

 

Applicants cannot establish that it is indisputably clear that such a RFRA claim would succeed. Indeed, that reading of RFRA, if accepted, would seemingly invalidate any scheme in which an individual or entity with religious objections is required to complete a certification of entitlement to an opt-out in order to secure the opt-out. That cannot be correct.

 

 

But here’s the problem: The certification is not an “opt out,” it’s a document that actually empowers a third party to provide free abortion pills. In that way, it’s more like a voucher than an opt-out. Imagine if the government said to a religious employer, “We’re not going to require you to pay for abortions, but we will require you to provide employees with a document that entitles them to a free abortion at the Planned Parenthood clinic down the street.”

 

Would anyone think for a moment that respected religious liberty? Yet that’s the essence of the government “accommodation” here.

 

So, no, this is not an argument about a form. After all, religious entities (including the Little Sisters of the Poor) fill out forms without objection all the time.

 

It’s about power — whether the Obama administration can force a Catholic charity to empower a third-party to provide free medical services that indisputably and gravely violate the deeply-held religious principles of nuns who are doing good works for the “least of these.”

 

.

Edited January 4, 2014 by B-Man

[keepthefaith]

look up EMTALA...please. unstable patients can't now or for the last 10 years or so be dumped...for any reason but especially for ability to pay.

 

seems a few conservatives are convinced it's wolflike socialism in sheeps hospital gowns. i agree. they're wrong. that would be single payer and would be a much better option.

 

Single payer? What we all need is a post-office or IRS like health care system where the consumer has no choice and coverage decisions and coverage quality are made by a single governing body that rules with an iron fist and writes the rules of the game to suit their own agenda. Yup, that's exactly what we need. Medicaid and Medicare for all? No thank you.

[birdog1960]

You really are a !@#$ing idiot. You're ready to defend the ACA by criticizing conservatives for being conservative, insurance companies for being corporations, the predecessor system being ****, and the ACA being closer to your preferred socialized medical industry (which it emphatically is not). But point out just one flaw in the ACA - for example, that IT ALREADY HAS BEEN CHANGED THREE TIMES IN AS MANY MONTHS BECAUSE DOESN'T WORK AS INTENDED - and you stick your head up your ass and pretend it's perfect.

 

Admit it: you're just a partisan shill who's constitutionally incapable of judging any part of the ACA on actual fact and merit, but only second-hand on the stated praise and criticism of third-parties.

and you started off so very well...the aca is more like the ideal system i envision. it insures more people. it ends some off the truly immoral insurance policies that previously existed. it prioritizes primary care. but ideal and perfect almost never happen. so, you compromise and in this case there certainly are many flaws. the roll out mess was humiliating and totally unnecessary. the lack of flexibility with groups such as the sisters of the poor and parochial schools and hospitals is small minded, counter productive and petty (not to mention, just plain wrong). but in total, it's a step forward for a system that was unsustainable, unjust and ineeficient in it's previous iteration. fixing it is a huge job and the aca is a start. it will be amended and changed many, many more times.

[birdog1960]

Single payer? What we all need is a post-office or IRS like health care system where the consumer has no choice and coverage decisions and coverage quality are made by a single governing body that rules with an iron fist and writes the rules of the game to suit their own agenda. Yup, that's exactly what we need. Medicaid and Medicare for all? No thank you.

you mean like a private insurance company?

[John Adams]

 

 

It's simple, all insurance is based on "The Law Of Large Numbers". Obamacare messes with that. It has no chance of succeeding. Your particular experience is anectodal and will not hold true. It's as if you signed up for DirecTV for $19.99 a month and expect it not to jump 400% in a year.

 

Except that what I got on the exchange is a plan that is cheaper because of competition, not despite it. And it's 30% less than I paid before. Not 400% less.

 

The exchange may well work in people's favor.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Except that what I got on the exchange is a plan that is cheaper because of competition, not despite it. And it's 30% less than I paid before. Not 400% less.

 

The exchange may well work in people's favor.

 

I guess when critical thinking is taken out of the equation, anything is possible in a person's mind. Again, the ACA disregards "The Law Of Large Numbers". This is typical Obama. He thinks he can rule by fiat and is arrogant enough to believe that his proclamations can actually win out over proven theory. Good luck with your premiums. One way or another you will be paying more. It may not show up in your premiums because it will paid for by taxes or deficit spending, but you will pay more.

[keepthefaith]

you mean like a private insurance company?

 

If I don't like my insurance company, I can stop paying them and buy insurance somewhere else. I can also call them on the phone and scream bloody murder and get some results. I can put pressure on a private insurer in a number of ways if I don't like their service or way of doing business. If I don't like a decision by the government, there's very little I can do about it and if I make too much noise, I get punished further. Case in point: A couple years ago I had a beef with the Illinois Department of Employment regarding our unemployment insurance rate (which is paid to the government). We were right in that they were overcharging our business (and nearly all businesses in the state) for unemployment insurance. I made a complaint to my state representative. I was seriously considering going public with it. The representative responded to me that the calculation was correct (which it wasn't) and a couple weeks after that an auditor from that department showed up at our door and spent 2 days on site looking at years of our employment tax and other filings. The auditor left without a dime, but if you think this is a coincidence, you are an idiot as others have pointed out.

 

Did you happen to see the story of Doctor Ben Carson being audited by the IRS? Coincidence? I don' think so. Neither does he.

Edited January 4, 2014 by keepthefaith