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

[GG]

Medicaid expansion was an integral part of the ACA. it was always considered part of the solution to insuring the uninsured. i'm not conflating anything. the ACA incentivized states to expand Medicaid. those 10 million newly insured lives don't happen without the ACA

 

it compares the actual numbers 20 million, to his projections of 23 million but carry on with your obfuscation. i'm sure the rubes here are impressed.

 

How about going to the source of Elmendorf's comments? Like here. The first 10 million he's referring to is a projected number by the end of 2016, and good luck getting there with dropped coverage.

 

If you want real data, take a look at the total uninsured. I'm sure you and your buddies will crow that the uninsured dropped to below 13% because of ACA, but completely ignore that this number is not a huge difference from the number of uninsured before the financial crisis. The biggest change came from the prior years, but that's solely because small employers didn't want to provide coverage ahead of ACA.

 

And it goes back to what was said at the outset. ACA will be a start of a behemoth government program that will give the simpleminded something to pat themselves on the back, but in the end will result in a far worse outcome for the majority of the population in helping out 2% of the population.

 

Good job liberals.

[Doc]

Medicaid expansion was an integral part of the ACA. it was always considered part of the solution to insuring the uninsured. i'm not conflating anything. the ACA incentivized states to expand Medicaid. those 10 million newly insured lives don't happen without the ACA

 

Again, this is something that could have been done without a massive(ly flawed) law.

[B-Man]

The debate over Medicaid expansion began in earnest in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- otherwise known as Obamacare -- became law. The ACA incentivized states to expand their Medicaid programs by offering to cover 100 percent of the increased cost for the first three years -- and then 90 percent in subsequent years.

 

Originally, this was an offer of the "can't be refused" variety. The ACA threatened to punish states that didn't expand by rescinding federal Medicaid funds for which they were already eligible.

 

But in June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the feds' threat was unconstitutional. States could forego Medicaid expansion without jeopardizing existing federal funding.

Fully 21 states have taken up this option and refused to expand their Medicaid operations.

There's good reason for their refusal.

 

For starters, Medicaid patients often suffer from constrained access to care. Technically, they're "insured" -- but they can't find anyone to treat them.

 

That's because fewer and fewer doctors are participating in the program. Between 2010 and 2011, a staggering 33 percent of doctors decided not to accept new Medicaid patients, chiefly because the program's reimbursement rates are incredibly low -- and often don't cover the cost of treatment.

 

Last year, less than 70 percent of American doctors participated in Medicaid

 

It won't work. Medicaid already suffers from serious problems, including perpetual cost overruns, doctors who increasingly refuse to accept patients covered by the program, and low quality of care. Expanding Medicaid will only exacerbate these issues -- while doing little to improve the health of the people it covers.

[3rdnlng]

 

How about going to the source of Elmendorf's comments? Like here. The first 10 million he's referring to is a projected number by the end of 2016, and good luck getting there with dropped coverage.

 

If you want real data, take a look at the total uninsured. I'm sure you and your buddies will crow that the uninsured dropped to below 13% because of ACA, but completely ignore that this number is not a huge difference from the number of uninsured before the financial crisis. The biggest change came from the prior years, but that's solely because small employers didn't want to provide coverage ahead of ACA.

 

And it goes back to what was said at the outset. ACA will be a start of a behemoth government program that will give the simpleminded something to pat themselves on the back, but in the end will result in a far worse outcome for the majority of the population in helping out 2% of the population.

 

Good job liberals.

The uninsured dropped to under 13% because the Census Bureau changed the way it calculates the insured. They now consider anyone having insurance in the last year as being covered.

[DC Tom]

 

Not to mention providers not getting paid when exchanges go belly up.

 

And birddog is conveniently conflating coverage with medical care. Most of it through Medicaid expansion, which didn't need a massive and expensive health care overhaul.

 

He also didn't read the story. But that's nothing new.

[birdog1960]

 

How about going to the source of Elmendorf's comments? Like here. The first 10 million he's referring to is a projected number by the end of 2016, and good luck getting there with dropped coverage.

 

If you want real data, take a look at the total uninsured. I'm sure you and your buddies will crow that the uninsured dropped to below 13% because of ACA, but completely ignore that this number is not a huge difference from the number of uninsured before the financial crisis. The biggest change came from the prior years, but that's solely because small employers didn't want to provide coverage ahead of ACA.

 

And it goes back to what was said at the outset. ACA will be a start of a behemoth government program that will give the simpleminded something to pat themselves on the back, but in the end will result in a far worse outcome for the majority of the population in helping out 2% of the population.

 

Good job liberals.

this 10million solely addresses "marketplace" insurance. it doesn't include subsidized insured lives outside of this marketplace. and even if you look solely at that group it is 9.3 million newly insured lives. then add in 10 million more newly insured Medicaid lives. discounting anything outside the marketplace, that's a profound increase in the number of insured americans that previously had no insurance and that's the point you originally questioned. unsurprising that you attempted to confuse the issue in order to make the facts less clear. it's standard con strategy these days.

 

oh and how do you figure that 20 million is 2% of the population? or 19.3 million if you insist on being a jerk. 50 times 20 million = 1 billion, non? are we at 1 billion population now?

Edited December 15, 2015 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

The debate over Medicaid expansion began in earnest in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- otherwise known as Obamacare -- became law. The ACA incentivized states to expand their Medicaid programs by offering to cover 100 percent of the increased cost for the first three years -- and then 90 percent in subsequent years.

 

Originally, this was an offer of the "can't be refused" variety. The ACA threatened to punish states that didn't expand by rescinding federal Medicaid funds for which they were already eligible.

 

But in June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the feds' threat was unconstitutional. States could forego Medicaid expansion without jeopardizing existing federal funding.

 

Fully 21 states have taken up this option and refused to expand their Medicaid operations.

There's good reason for their refusal.

 

For starters, Medicaid patients often suffer from constrained access to care. Technically, they're "insured" -- but they can't find anyone to treat them.

 

That's because fewer and fewer doctors are participating in the program. Between 2010 and 2011, a staggering 33 percent of doctors decided not to accept new Medicaid patients, chiefly because the program's reimbursement rates are incredibly low -- and often don't cover the cost of treatment.

 

Last year, less than 70 percent of American doctors participated in Medicaid

 

It won't work. Medicaid already suffers from serious problems, including perpetual cost overruns, doctors who increasingly refuse to accept patients covered by the program, and low quality of care. Expanding Medicaid will only exacerbate these issues -- while doing little to improve the health of the people it covers.

so, 67% of docs take new Medicaid (yup, the ones with healthy consciences) and somehow that's a disaster. hell, there are a significant percentage of doctors not taking any new patients because they're too busy. does that mean that no new insurance policies should be written to anyone? no, it means alternatively delivery systems need to be utilized such as midlevels for simple problems (get them out of specialists offices doing scribe and clerical work and use them to see mundane, simple conditions). how you draw the conclusion that quality of care is low for Medicaid patients from the premises presented is a mystery. from what I've seen over a long medical career, those that accept Medicaid are generally more compassionate and caring than those refusing and often provide better care.

[unbillievable]

Easy fix:

-mandate that doctors must take medicaid patients

-mandate that universities must graduate more doctors

-mandate that entrance exams be easier

-mandate that at least 25% are non-white students, to promote diversity

-mandate classes to include eastern remedy alternatives, to promote multi-culturalism

[Tiberius]

so, 67% of docs take new Medicaid (yup, the ones with healthy consciences) and somehow that's a disaster. hell, there are a significant percentage of doctors not taking any new patients because they're too busy. does that mean that no new insurance policies should be written to anyone? no, it means alternatively delivery systems need to be utilized such as midlevels for simple problems (get them out of specialists offices doing scribe and clerical work and use them to see mundane, simple conditions). how you draw the conclusion that quality of care is low for Medicaid patients from the premises presented is a mystery. from what I've seen over a long medical career, those that accept Medicaid are generally more compassionate and caring than those refusing and often provide better care.

+1

[Tiberius]

The Obama administration has extended the deadline to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act by two days because of a extremely high demand, according to a statement on HealthCare.gov.

"Because of the unprecedented demand and volume of consumers contacting our call center or visiting HealthCare.gov, we are extending the deadline to sign-up for January 1 coverage until 11:59pm PST December 17," Kevin Counihan, CEO of the Health Insurance Marketplaces, said in an emailed statement.

The final days heading into the December 15 deadline were the busiest the site had ever seen, with hundreds of thousands of people electing plans, officials said. This clogged the federal government's exchange, forcing another million people to leave their contact information in order to hold their place in line.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-deadline-extended-due-to-high-demand/

[B-Man]

looks like CBS is on the mailing list.....................

 

 

White House now sending out “It’s never been a better time to buy Obamacare!” spam.

 

 

 

 

I’m not joking: that’s the email that Healthcare.gov is sending out at the moment. “The December 15th deadline has been extended to December 17th at 11:59 pm PST due to unprecedented consumer demand. That means you have more time to get coverage that starts on January 1st.”

 

Call now! Operators are standing by!

 

Well, they almost have to be. As I understand it, the system went down again today. So, it’s not like the operators can do any work right now anyway.

 

 

…Meanwhile, in the real world? Estimated Obamacare signups for 2015 were revised downward by this administration back in October; and this decision to extend the registration deadline suggests that an earlier promise from the White House to not extend next January’s open enrollment deadline is not really a reliable promise.

 

Yes, I know that nobody reading this is shocked to discover that the Obama administration might go back on a promise. It’s newsworthy when the administration does keep its word, in fact. But this still does not suggest that Obamacare is doing all that well, considering that they apparently need to keep the phones running for a couple of days.

 

Yes. Nobody reading this is shocked to discover that, either.

 

 

and more amusingly relevant: the Kaiser Family Foundation looked at the 11 million or so liable for the Obamacare tax and found that “for 7.1 million of the 11 million uninsured, paying the penalty will cost less than buying the least expensive Obamacare plan available to them.”

 

 

…Now, I understand many people have a poor view of our educational system, and goodness knows that they have reason. Still, it’s been my experience that the average American’s mathematical ability goes up to a remarkable degree when it comes to important things, like money. Our fellow citizens are perfectly capable of recognizing a situation where paying a penalty is still going to be cheaper than buying the insurance that they don’t actually want. Would that the people running the country right now were likewise capable of such an intellectual feat.

[Tiberius]

looks like CBS is on the mailing list.....................

 

 

White House now sending out “It’s never been a better time to buy Obamacare!” spam.

 

 

 

 

I’m not joking: that’s the email that Healthcare.gov is sending out at the moment. “The December 15th deadline has been extended to December 17th at 11:59 pm PST due to unprecedented consumer demand. That means you have more time to get coverage that starts on January 1st.”

 

Call now! Operators are standing by!

 

Well, they almost have to be. As I understand it, the system went down again today. So, it’s not like the operators can do any work right now anyway.

 

 

…Meanwhile, in the real world? Estimated Obamacare signups for 2015 were revised downward by this administration back in October; and this decision to extend the registration deadline suggests that an earlier promise from the White House to not extend next January’s open enrollment deadline is not really a reliable promise.

 

Yes, I know that nobody reading this is shocked to discover that the Obama administration might go back on a promise. It’s newsworthy when the administration does keep its word, in fact. But this still does not suggest that Obamacare is doing all that well, considering that they apparently need to keep the phones running for a couple of days.

 

Yes. Nobody reading this is shocked to discover that, either.

 

 

and more amusingly relevant: the Kaiser Family Foundation looked at the 11 million or so liable for the Obamacare tax and found that “for 7.1 million of the 11 million uninsured, paying the penalty will cost less than buying the least expensive Obamacare plan available to them.”

 

 

…Now, I understand many people have a poor view of our educational system, and goodness knows that they have reason. Still, it’s been my experience that the average American’s mathematical ability goes up to a remarkable degree when it comes to important things, like money. Our fellow citizens are perfectly capable of recognizing a situation where paying a penalty is still going to be cheaper than buying the insurance that they don’t actually want. Would that the people running the country right now were likewise capable of such an intellectual feat.

Where did this cut and paste nonsense come from?

[keepthefaith]

I know people who have not had health insurance for years and have no intention of buying it. Are we fining anyone that doesn't comply? Doubt it. I spoke to one of these people yesterday who is so defiant he says he may not even file a tax return. He has skipped doing that in the past some years he says. Nobody bothers him about it. He's self employed. He doesn't give a ****. Talking to him is pretty funny.

Edited December 17, 2015 by keepthefaith

[B-Man]

Deserves another post.

 

 

 

 

I can see why they try and keep Hillary under wraps. Every once in a while she accidently tells the truth.

 

Of course, there are countless videos of her telling us how it helps employment................lol

 

 

 

 

HillaryClinton: Obamacare is Forcing Americans Into Part-Time Work http://goo.gl/xr8nnU

 

 

 

At a town hall meeting in Iowa City, Iowa Hillary Clinton was asked by a supporter about companies moving to a mostly part-time workforce and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Clinton said that companies are going to a mostly part-time workforce because of restrictions in Obamacare.

 

“Well that’s why they’re going to part-time. That and the Affordable Care Act. You know, we’ve got to change that because we have built in some unfortunate incentives that discourage full-time employment,” Clinton said.

[DC Tom]

Deserves another post.

 

 

 

 

I can see why they try and keep Hillary under wraps. Every once in a while she accidently tells the truth.

 

Of course, there are countless videos of her telling us how it helps employment................lol

 

 

 

 

HillaryClinton: Obamacare is Forcing Americans Into Part-Time Work http://goo.gl/xr8nnU

 

 

 

At a town hall meeting in Iowa City, Iowa Hillary Clinton was asked by a supporter about companies moving to a mostly part-time workforce and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Clinton said that companies are going to a mostly part-time workforce because of restrictions in Obamacare.

 

“Well that’s why they’re going to part-time. That and the Affordable Care Act. You know, we’ve got to change that because we have built in some unfortunate incentives that discourage full-time employment,” Clinton said.

 

Now wait a minute...not even two years ago, the shift to part-time employment was portrayed as a good thing, because it eliminated "job lock" and let people not work if they didn't want to. Before that, of course, it was called "underemployment," and was a bad thing.

 

So now it's a bad thing again?

[B-Man]

OBAMACARE LOSES THE BET, Charlie Martin writes:

 

Not long ago, I pointed out that the insurance that was available from the exchanges, for individuals, was excessively expensive and had poor coverage.

 

Since then, about half of the Obamacare co-ops — nonprofit insurance companies created with startup funds from the government to provide insurance on the exchanges — have failed and either have gone out of business, or are in the process of doing so. What’s killing these co-ops? Oh, there’s some fraud, and there’s some Democratic Party cronies who made some big money, but what’s really killing the co-ops is something much more unrelenting than fraud, much more insidious than cronyism.

 

What’s killing the co-ops?

Arithmetic.

 

 

 

Read the whole thing.

[TPS]

Just in case anyone is interested, some new numbers...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/obamacare-heals-hospital-stocks-as-6-million-sign-up-for-plans

[DC Tom]

Just in case anyone is interested, some new numbers...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/obamacare-heals-hospital-stocks-as-6-million-sign-up-for-plans

 

Of course, if you parse those numbers more closely...that's 6m signed up, but on the federal exchange alone, and excluding those who have automatic renewal (which they don't give numbers for), and including only those that have a plan beginning Jan 1, and oh-by-the-way even though it's a third more than last year, a bunch of states have closed down their state exchanges and moved to the federal exchange, which accounts for at least part of that increase, but what part it doesn't say.

 

So "six million" is a really useless number.

[TPS]

 

Of course, if you parse those numbers more closely...that's 6m signed up, but on the federal exchange alone, and excluding those who have automatic renewal (which they don't give numbers for), and including only those that have a plan beginning Jan 1, and oh-by-the-way even though it's a third more than last year, a bunch of states have closed down their state exchanges and moved to the federal exchange, which accounts for at least part of that increase, but what part it doesn't say.

 

So "six million" is a really useless number.

The first couple issues underestimate the numbers and your point suggests an over-estimation. If the latter is greater, then it suggests maybe shorting those stocks that went up....

[DC Tom]

The first couple issues underestimate the numbers and your point suggests an over-estimation. If the latter is greater, then it suggests maybe shorting those stocks that went up....

 

My point was that there's so many unaccounted-for variances in that number that it's largely meaningless.