Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Redux

Your party fails...

And the electorate has noticed...

[TheMercenary]

Not that I didn't say this was going to happen or anything...

Prices jump for individual insurance premiums
77 percent of those who buy their own coverage have had cost increases

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37829862...h-health_care/

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not that I didn't say this was going to happen or anything...

Prices jump for individual insurance premiums
77 percent of those who buy their own coverage have had cost increases

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37829862...h-health_care/

A survey (poll) of 1,000 people? You dont accept polls of 1,000 people as valid, if I recall.

From your article:

Policy analysts say some aspects of the new law could slow premium growth, while others might increase it.

The law does not grant federal authority to reject premium increases. It does, however, call for insurers to justify any deemed “unreasonable.” Regulations that would define unreasonable are being developed. Federal regulators, working with the states, can also recommend barring insurers with a history of unreasonable increases from the new marketplaces for insurance sales, called exchanges, which are set to open in 2014.

Premiums could be affected by other provisions in the law, such as one barring insurers from charging higher premiums based on a person’s health, a rule that begins in 2014. That could mean lower premiums for those with health problems, but higher rates for those who are younger or healthier.

Insurers must also spend at least 80 percent of their premium revenue on direct medical care for individual policyholders — or pay rebates, starting next year. Rules about what counts as medical care are still being developed. The requirement could shed more light on what insurers pay out — and how much they keep for administrative costs and profits.

Until we have regulations...until the Exchange is created....until we know the level of subsidy for millions (up to 4x poverty level).....

We wont know how many of those currently not in a large group program will have lower costs (millions with the subsidies) or how many might face higher costs.

[TheMercenary]

Imagine this...

Doctors limit new Medicare patients

WASHINGTON — The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high, just six months before millions of Baby Boomers begin enrolling in the government health care program.
Recent surveys by national and state medical societies have found more doctors limiting Medicare patients, partly because Congress has failed to stop an automatic 21% cut in payments that doctors already regard as too low. The cut went into effect Friday, even as the Senate approved a six-month reprieve. The House has approved a different bill.

• The American Academy of Family Physicians says 13% of respondents didn't participate in Medicare last year, up from 8% in 2008 and 6% in 2004.

• The American Osteopathic Association says 15% of its members don't participate in Medicare and 19% don't accept new Medicare patients. If the cut is not reversed, it says, the numbers will double.

• The American Medical Association says 17% of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Among primary care physicians, the rate is 31%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...medicare_N.htm

[TheMercenary]

Interesting assessment. I wonder how it will play out between now and 2014?

Healthcare reform's high-risk insurance pools could end up excluding hundreds of thousands of Americans or costing three times more than what's budgeted now, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday. In a letter sent Monday to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee ranking Republican Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), CBO Director Doug Elmendorf laid out the stark choices facing a program that's meant to help cover sick Americans until the nation's healthcare system is overhauled in 2014.

The program's $5 billion budget will probably run out before 2013, Elmendorf writes. Extending it until 2014 to the 600,000 to 700,000 eligible Americans who are likely to enroll by then would cost an extra $5 to $10 billion, for a total of $10 to $15 billion. Several million people would be eligible for the program, he adds, but most are not likely to enroll.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also has the authority to cap enrollment.

"On that basis, CBO expects that the number of enrollees in the program will average about 200,000 over the 2011-2013 period," Elmendorf wrote. "If, instead, more people are allowed to sign up initially, the available funds will probably be exhausted prior to 2013, but total spending for the program will still be capped at $5 billion."

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch

[classicman]

"On that basis, CBO expects that the number of enrollees in the program will average about 200,000 over the 2011-2013 period," Elmendorf wrote. "If, instead, more people are allowed to sign up initially, the available funds will probably be exhausted prior to 2013, but total spending for the program will still be capped at $5 billion."

Are you/they implying that they will then refuse admission to the plan when the cap is reached?

[TheMercenary]

Bottom line. This administration and this Congress lied to the American people as to how much this was going to cost us in real dollars. To on the one hand sell it as giving us lower costs and now modifing the propaganda to now "how many might face higher costs is a far cry from what was being sold previous to the passage of the bill.

As I have stated numerous times, and now it's coming to a reality near you...

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bottom line. This administration and this Congress lied to the American people as to how much this was going to cost us in real dollars. To on the one hand sell it as giving us lower costs and now modifing the propaganda to now "how many might face higher costs is a far cry from what was being sold previous to the passage of the bill.

As I have stated numerous times, and now it's coming to a reality near you...

IMO, the first regs for the Affordable Care Act, being developed as a patient's bill of rights, lays out the reality of the law to most consumers:

http://healthreform.gov/newsroom/new...of_rights.html

Others will likely describe it as propaganda...so whats new.

[TheMercenary]

What's new is that the issues that many of us stated would come to be due to the passage of the bill have begun to occur. What's not new is that this Administration and esp this Congress lied to the American people to get the bill passed. And the costs to the American public are going to be much more than what was sold to the voters.

IMO, most objective people will withhold judgment until they facts....on costs....on whether it is all a lie... or how millions of those currently uninsured and those with employer-based insurance are likely to benefit...which wont happen until the law begins to be administered and people can see and feel the effect.

Those unwilling to wait have an agenda.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO, most objective people will withhold judgment until they facts....on costs....on whether it is all a lie or whether and how millions of those currently uninsured and those with employer-based insurance will benefit...which wont happen until the law begins to be administered and people can see and feel the effect.

Those unwilling to wait have an agenda.

At least you stated IMHO. That narrows it down pretty well. I have referenced all of my sources that support my view over the last year, whether you like them or not. I support the views of subject matter experts over an anon poster who holds himself out to be a hack of this Admin and the current Congress in power. But we have been through this before, haven't we....

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

At least you stated IMHO. That narrows it down pretty well. I have referenced all of my sources that support my view over the last year, whether you like them or not. I support the views of subject matter experts over an anon poster who holds himself out to be a hack of this Admin and the current Congress in power. But we have been through this before, haven't we....

There are subject matter experts on both sides....cherry picking the ones that support YOUR opinion by posting THEIR opinion is not objective.

In the end, only time will tell.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

There are subject matter experts on both sides....cherry picking the ones that support YOUR opinion by posting THEIR opinion is not objective.

And that makes you and your opinons differnt how?

In the end, only time will tell.

Given the whorish spending by this Administration and the current power in Congress I am not willing to allow this to continue. and hopefully come Nov there will be a lot more people who think like me and a whole hell of a lot less that think like you. You are right. Time will tell and it may be the death of this Nation as we currently know it. Another thought I am not willing to risk. If that is the case more radical actions will need to be taken by those in the minority.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And that makes you and your opinons differnt how?

Given the whorish spending by this Administration and the current power in Congress I am not willing to allow this to continue. and hopefully come Nov there will be a lot more people who think like me and a whole hell of a lot less that think like you. You are right. Time will tell and it may be the death of this Nation as we currently know it. Another thought I am not willing to risk. If that is the case more radical actions will need to be taken by those in the minority.

I never said it makes my opinion different or better.

I have said repeatedly that, IMO,it is a good (not perfect) bill, addresses nearly all the problems and wont cost most Americans more.

Just my opinion unlike repeatedly saying "told you so...I am right, and those admin suck-ups are wrong"

Nothing more to say to you on the subject...for now.

[classicman]

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan."

Throughout the long health care reform debate, that promise from President Obama was one of the few constants, made to reassure the bulk of Americans who already have insurance that the sweeping legislation would not have a downside.

But now that regulations about existing employer-sponsored plans have been issued, it's becoming clear that many of the 160 million Americans with job-based coverage will not, in fact, be able to keep what they currently have.

Republican critics of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act point to the Obama Administration's own estimates that by 2013, 39% to 69% of employer plans will be subject to new regulations and not grandfathered in, or exempted from the new rules. House minority leader John Boehner issued a press release about the new regulations with the headline "New ObamaCare Tagline Should Be 'If You Like Your Health Care Plan, Too Bad.' "

That partisan rhetoric may be heated, but it's not entirely off base. The truth is that employer-based plans, which many assumed would easily be categorized as grandfathered, will be subject to the full regulatory thrust of the new law if they are altered in ways that are standard practice in the industry. Plans that increase the percentage of costs patients must pay out of pocket - known as co-insurance - lose their grandfathered status. The same is true for plans that significantly decrease the percentage that employers contribute to premiums or those that significantly increase deductibles or co-payments. An employer that switches health-insurance providers also loses its grandfathered status. These kinds of changes are common year to year in the current marketplace, since employers are constantly looking for ways to limit their expenses in the face of rising costs.

Still, while many employer-based plans will be snared in the regulatory net of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of those with this coverage could actually stand to benefit.

It will be years before it's clear exactly how much the employer-based health-insurance system will be upended, and only then will consumers know precisely how costs will be affected. It's already apparent, however, that protecting the current system of private job-based insurance was not a mission of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, promises about keeping your plan notwithstanding.

Link