The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[DC Tom]

Okay, yes, that's pretty bad, but remember, if we only insure one person child, it'll be worth the untold trillions spent.

 

Fixed.

[birdog1960]

umh hummm..health care spending is going down: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/precisely-crushed-gdp-131412713.html

[OCinBuffalo]

umh hummm..health care spending is going down: http://finance.yahoo...-131412713.html

So.....

 

 

We're supposed to disregard, and "roll our eyes" at the macro GDP #s, but accept as Holy Writ the Health Care spending decrease detail, AND, disregard that the latter is dependent on the former, as well?

 

"Fox Butterfield, Is that you?"

 

Hmmm. If I was given the task of "Take these #s and put them in the best net positive light for the Obama Administration. Just get it done, it doesn't matter how you do it."? That's exactly the article I would write.

 

Yeah, the 3% GDP shrinkage is nothing. In fact, "roll your eyes", cause that's the "headline number". But, the decrease in health care spending that makes up 1.17 of the 3%? No. That's meaningful? :lol: WTF?!

 

What in the Sam Hell is the author of this piece even trying to say? The 1st quarter doesn't matter? "Recent data" has been +? IF so, then "recent data" must reflect an increase in health care spending? How can it not...if it "has been positive"?

 

Doesn't the opposite of positive mean "negative"? Well then, following this tenuous exercise in logic as best we can, "positive", "recent" data says the opposite of decreased health care spending.

 

Or, put simply: stable, or increased health care spending.

 

 

 

birdog, how in the F is anyone supposed to take you seriously, when you link to obvious bunk like this?

Edited June 25, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

ObamaCare’s Prognosis Grows Dimmer. ....................................Ya think ?

A nightmare for Affordable Care Act supporters has been the possibility that only the sick would be left to purchase insurance through its exchanges, driving premiums up and insurers out. While the law’s boosters have been quick to dismiss the possibility that such a so-called death spiral could occur, data published in the Wall Street Journal suggest that this chain of events may not be so far-fetched after all.

 

The findings are significant not just for what they say about how Obamacare is working now, but also for their impact on the political debate over its future.

 

At its base, the data show that people insured through the law’s exchanges have higher rates of serious medical conditions. Of the enrollees who have seen a doctor or other health-care provider in the first quarter of this year, 27 percent have significant medical problems, including diabetes, cancer, heart trouble and psychiatric conditions. That rate is substantially higher than that for patients in nonexchange market plans over the same period. And it’s more than double the rate of those who were able to hold onto their existing individual market insurance plans after President Barack Obama was forced to allow them to keep them.

 

This outcome should not surprise anyone. The law’s one-size-fits-all regulatory regime, which requires insurers to offer coverage to all comers and prohibits pricing of coverage based on an applicant’s health status, was bound to increase the number of relatively sicker people purchasing insurance through the exchanges. Moreover, Obama’s executive action, which effectively allowed many people who had individual market plans to remain in them through at least 2016, bifurcated the insurance markets such that healthier people remained in the plans they already had, while relatively sicker patients were left to acquire coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges.

 

 

 

 

 

Related: Why ObamaCare Can’t Be “Fixed.”

 

 

.

[Keukasmallies]

Independent appeal? We don't need no stinkin' independent appeal!

 

The ACA, the gift that just keeps on giving. Currently it appears to be giving heartburn to the Dem's in Washington state where the definition of independent means do what the boss told you to do.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/28/obamacare-whistleblower/

 

Sail on, Oh ship of state!

[B-Man]

85 percent of ObamaCare ‘inconsistencies’ can’t be fixed

By Geoff Earle

 

WASHINGTON — Federal officials can’t resolve 85 percent of 2.9 million “inconsistencies” on applications for ObamaCare even after nine months of trying, according to new data provided by the administration.

 

Most of the problems involve certifying citizenship and income, key components of the national health plan.

But some of the problems are downright nutty.

 

One unidentified state-run marketplace cited situations in which infants and young children were “erroneously identified as incarcerated, according to federal data,” the inspector general for the Health and Human Services Department revealed Tuesday.

 

Just 425,000 problematic applications have been resolved out of 2.9 million that states and the federal exchange reported, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told The Post.

 

 

More at link:

.

[Tiberius]

If a Republican becomes president in 2017 there will be millions of people literally throw off their health insurance with the repeal of Obamacare.

 

 

Forward?

[FireChan]

If a Republican becomes president in 2017 there will be millions of people literally throw off their health insurance with the repeal of Obamacare.

 

 

Forward?

 

Yes. Quite a little bind to implement a faulty system with the justification of the moral high ground.

 

What will all those people do without health insurance? The same thing they do now, not be able to see a doctor.

[keepthefaith]

If a Republican becomes president in 2017 there will be millions of people literally throw off their health insurance with the repeal of Obamacare.

 

 

Forward?

 

There is nothing that prevents people from buying their own health insurance or getting it free from Medicaid if they are very low income with or without Obamacare. We don't need Obamacare to solve pre-existing condition or for keeping 26 year olds from mommy and daddy's policy. People and employers want choice. Obamacare limits that and it also limits personal responsibility. Dump it. It sucks.

Edited July 6, 2014 by keepthefaith

[Koko78]

If a Republican becomes president in 2017 there will be millions of people literally throw off their health insurance with the repeal of Obamacare.

 

 

Forward?

 

You mean like the millions of people who were "literally throw off their health insurance" when Obamacare came into effect?

 

Hope & Change! Yes We Can!

[Doc]

Now they're looking at permanently scrapping the employer mandate (no link because I'm lazy) because it's politically disadvantageous. I'd bet that news comes in around the end of September.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Now they're looking at permanently scrapping the employer mandate (no link because I'm lazy) because it's politically disadvantageous. I'd bet that news comes in around the end of September.

Here you go, Sue.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-employer-mandate-108578.html

[Tiberius]

Here you go, Sue.

 

http://www.politico....ate-108578.html

Oh no! You mean they might change?!?! How dare they!

[DC Tom]

Oh no! You mean they might change?!?! How dare they!

 

They can't. It's the "law of the land."

[Doc]

 

Here you go, Sue.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-employer-mandate-108578.html

Not even close to Sue.

[B-Man]

Can we just follow the ones we want ? ?

 

 

HHS Releases 1,269 Pages of Obamacare Regulations

 

HHS releases 1,296 pages of regulations ahead of holiday ...

[boyst]

Oh no! You mean they might change?!?! How dare they!

18,494

[B-Man]

OUT: “Death Panels” Are A Lie Invented By Sarah Palin.

 

IN: Death Panels Are Good For You!

 

In his Politico piece calling for a revival of Obamacare’s original end-of-life-counseling provisions, Harold Pollack blames “Palin, Bachmann and McCaughey” for having “dragged comparative effectiveness research (CER) into the broader partisan knife-fight over health reform.” But of course the main person who dragged comparative effectiveness into the knife-fight was Barack Obama, expounding on red pills vs. blue pills to David Leonhardt in the NYT months before Palin’s “death panel” gibe (and doing it again in subsequent speeches and statements). …

 

Obama also put cost saving through “comparative effectiveness’ squarely in the context of end-of-life decisions when he questioned whether his terminally ill grandmother should have been given a hip operation. (While Pollack says end-of-life treatment is not one of the top targets for savings, Obama says it’s a “huge driver of costs.”) And Obama made it clear he favored a centralized effort to at least nudge doctors into dropping some treatments — and not such a democratic effort either . . .

 

Why did this discussion have to be part of the debate on extending coverage to the uninsured and security to the insured?

A: It didn’t. But that was Obama’s choice, not Palin’s. “The critics have said, you’re doing too much, you can’t do all this at once, Congress can’t digest everything. I just reject that,” he told Leonhardt. In this case — given Obama’s failure to sell voters on his cost-cutting, tough-choice-making ACA — it’s hard to say the critics weren’t right.

[B-Man]

Obamacare’s Big Legal Threat

In Halbig, the courts may finally force Obama to work with Congress if he wants to rewrite the law.

By John Fund

 

The legal positions of President Obama’s Justice Department have been slapped down unanimously a remarkable 13 times in the Supreme Court in the last two years. Over and over, even Obama’s own two appointees to the court — Sonia Sotomayor and ElenaKagan have held that the President has exceeded his authority and violated the Separation of Powers, This coming week we could see the second highest court in the land rule that the admistration broke the law in enforcing a key provision ofObamacare, calling into once again Obama's fidelity to the Constitution - ad further endangering his signature program.

 

The case of Halbig v. Sebelius (since renamed Halbig v. Burwell, for the current HHS secretary) was argued before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court in March. It attacks the central nervous system of Obamacare — the government exchanges that were set up to subsidize health insurance for low-income consumers. If the Supreme Court ultimately finds that the Obama administration violated the law in doling out those subsidies, it could force a wholesale revision of Obamacare. In January, The Hill quoted a key Obamacare supporter as saying that Halbig was “probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act.” Jonathan Turley, a noted liberal constitutional-law expert at George Washington Law School, recently agreed, writing in the Los Angeles Times that Halbig “could leave Obamacare on life support.”

[DC Tom]

Obamacare’s Big Legal Threat

In Halbig, the courts may finally force Obama to work with Congress if he wants to rewrite the law.

By John Fund

 

The legal positions of President Obama’s Justice Department have been slapped down unanimously a remarkable 13 times in the Supreme Court in the last two years. Over and over, even Obama’s own two appointees to the court — Sonia Sotomayor and ElenaKagan have held that the President has exceeded his authority and violated the Separation of Powers, This coming week we could see the second highest court in the land rule that the admistration broke the law in enforcing a key provision ofObamacare, calling into once again Obama's fidelity to the Constitution - ad further endangering his signature program.

 

The case of Halbig v. Sebelius (since renamed Halbig v. Burwell, for the current HHS secretary) was argued before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court in March. It attacks the central nervous system of Obamacare — the government exchanges that were set up to subsidize health insurance for low-income consumers. If the Supreme Court ultimately finds that the Obama administration violated the law in doling out those subsidies, it could force a wholesale revision of Obamacare. In January, The Hill quoted a key Obamacare supporter as saying that Halbig was “probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act.” Jonathan Turley, a noted liberal constitutional-law expert at George Washington Law School, recently agreed, writing in the Los Angeles Times that Halbig “could leave Obamacare on life support.”

 

One important fact omitted from that article is that every court that's heard the case has slapped down the plaintiffs hard in Halbig v. Burwell. Because it's not much of a challenge.