PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare ... unintended consequence?



Gerry Clinchy
07-27-2012, 11:01 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/nyregion/affordable-care-act-reduces-a-fund-for-the-uninsured.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120727

From the NY Times

Illegals are not covered by Obamacare ... but those 11 million are mostly uninsured; especially the poorest of them. Obamacare cuts the funding, by half, that helped doctors and hospital give these people health care ... who will make up the shortfall?

Interestingly even the NY Times is willing to print a statement that the cowardice of the politicians in addressing immigration law simultaneously with health care reform could essentially impair the health care available to those who now will have insurance ... the insured will have less access to the health care that the insurance would pay for?


No matter where they are, all hospitals are obliged (http://www.undocumentedpatients.org/issuebrief/health-policy-and-access-to-care/) under federal law to treat anyone who arrives at the emergency room, regardless of their immigration status.



The hospitals range from prominent public ones, like Bellevue Hospital Center (http://www.nyc.gov/html/hhc/bellevue/html/home/home.shtml) in Manhattan, to neighborhood mainstays like Lutheran Medical Center (http://www.lutheranmedicalcenter.com/) in Brooklyn and Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego. They include small rural outposts like Othello Community Hospital (https://www.othellocommunityhospital.org/) in Washington State, which receives a steady flow of farmworkers who live in the country illegally.


However, those hospitals that are situated in certain areas bear the brunt of the burden with poor illegal immigrants.


Lutheran Medical Center is in the Sunset Park neighborhood, where low-wage earning Chinese and Latino communities converge near an expressway. Hospitals are not allowed to record patients’ immigration status, but Ms. Goldstein estimated that 20 percent of its patients were what she called “the undocumented — not only uninsured, but uninsurable.”

She said Congressional staff members acknowledged that the health care law would scale back the money that helps pay for emergency care for such patients, but were reluctant to tackle the issue.
“I was told in Washington that they understand that this is a problem, but immigration is just too hot to touch,” she said.

The Affordable Care Act sets up state exchanges to reduce the cost of commercial health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), but people must prove citizenship or legal immigration status to take part. They must show similar documentation to apply for Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) benefits that are expanded under the law.

The act did call for increasing a little-known national network (http://bphc.hrsa.gov/about/) of 1,200 community health centers that provide primary care to the needy, regardless of their immigration status. But that plan, which could potentially steer more of the uninsured away from costly hospital care, was curtailed by Congressional budget cuts last year.

That leaves hospitals like Lutheran, which is nonprofit and has run a string of such primary care centers for 40 years, facing cuts at both ends.

On a recent weekday in Lutheran’s emergency room, a Chinese mother of two stared sadly through the porthole of an isolation unit. The woman had active tuberculosis and needed surgery to drain fluid from one lung, said Josh Liu, a patient liaison.

The disease had been discovered during a checkup at one of Lutheran’s primary care centers, where the sliding scale fee starts at $15. But the woman, an illegal immigrant, had no way to pay for the surgery.


In some states, including New York, hospitals caring for illegal immigrants in life-threatening situations can seek payment case by case, from a program known as emergency Medicaid. But the program has many restrictions and will not make up for the cuts in the $20 billion pool, hospital executives said.

Groups that favor more restrictive immigration policies said they agreed that the cuts in the $20 billion fund were a burden. They said hospitals obviously had a duty to provide emergency care for everybody, including illegal immigrants.

“I kind of like living in a society where we don’t let people die on the steps of the emergency room,” said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of one such group, the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

But he said the answer lay in enforcing laws, so that illegal immigrants leave the country, not in extending health coverage.

“There is no ideal resolution to the problem, other than reducing the illegal population,” he said. “Incorporating illegal immigrants into health exchanges or directly taxpayer-funded health care legitimizes their presence.”

The Obama administration said the Affordable Care Act supported safety-net hospitals in other ways, pointing to measures that raise payments for primary care and give bonuses for improvements in quality.

“We are taking important steps to make health care more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans,” Erin Shields Britt, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in an e-mail. “Health reform isn’t the place to fix our broken immigration system.”



The corporation runs New York City’s public hospitals, which treated 480,000 uninsured (http://www.nyc.gov/html/hhc/html/newsletter/201207-uninsured-patients.shtml) patients last year, an estimated 40 percent of them illegal immigrants. The same worries haunt tiny Othello Community Hospital, in Washington state’s rural Adams County, where it is the only hospital for miles around.

Last year, the state began requiring that participants in a basic health plan prove that they are citizens or legal residents.

As a consequence, 4,000 out of the 4,400 patients at the nearby primary care center, mostly immigrant farmworkers, lost their coverage, leaving Othello more financially vulnerable when those people need emergency care.

In Central California, Harry Foster, director of the Family HealthCare Network, another primary care center, called the Affordable Care Act “a double-edged sword.”

Many low-wage earning citizens now lack employer-sponsored health insurance, and the health care industry is already competing for those who will gain coverage through the law. But no one is competing to treat those it leaves out, he said.

“We will receive more and more of those patients,” he said, estimating that 40 percent of the area’s residents were illegal immigrant farmworkers. “But financially, we can’t take on all the uninsured patients in the area, to the exclusion of all the others, and survive.”

In many ways Lutheran, a century-old hospital that refurbished a defunct factory to serve as its hub in the 1960s, has been a prototype of the law’s new model: coordinating primary and preventive care to improve health outcomes while curbing costs. Yet it stands to lose $25 million from the cuts.

“This is an unintended consequence of the law,” said Ms. Goldstein, the hospital’s chief executive. “But so far, nobody is doing anything to resolve it.”

If the people who wrote the bill had asked the grass-roots providers for input, they might have noticed this glitch. If enough of the polliticians had truly read the bill carefully, in the context of the real world, they might have noticed this glitch?

I'm surprised Holder lets WA ask for proof of citizenship to join a health plan. Seems out of character for him.

So, by 2014, 2016, etc. we will finally find out what is really in this law. In that regard, Nancy Pelosi was correct, I guess.

road kill
07-27-2012, 11:08 AM
GEEE.....I guess the only solution is to make them citizens.

Unintended???

Perhaps not!!!!

menmon
07-27-2012, 02:00 PM
So what is it? Sounds like the Affordable Healthcare does not provide healthcare to illegals, but you are bashing it for not.

I thought caring for illegals was at the heart of your issues:confused:

road kill
07-27-2012, 02:05 PM
So what is it? Sounds like the Affordable Healthcare does not provide healthcare to illegals, but you are bashing it for not.

I thought caring for illegals was at the heart of your issues:confused:
Once again, an incredibly foolish comment void of any substance and vapid as it relates to the OP..

Of course illegals will be treated.
And my premise as using this as an excuse to make them "VOTING" citizens is relevant and valid.
This is just another, in a series of efforts, to create a dependant electorate (gladly suckling on the nipple of Govt.) guided to install a permanent ruling class by the secular progressives.
A blind man can see this..............

Try to keep up.:cool:

menmon
07-27-2012, 03:23 PM
So why is it any different if they have to treat them when they show up already....I think that has been the rule for a long time. If the lazy a>>es americans woould go to work there would be less illegals in your rual area taking up hospital beds.

I'm a step or two ahead...you just found some rheteric to bash the health plan (obama and the democrats). Oh yea, don't forget this is really Romneycare, too!

huntinman
07-27-2012, 04:56 PM
So why is it any different if they have to treat them when they show up already....I think that has been the rule for a long time. If the lazy a>>es americans woould go to work there would be less illegals in your rual area taking up hospital beds.

I'm a step or two ahead...you just found some rheteric to bash the health plan (obama and the democrats). Oh yea, don't forget this is really Romneycare, too!

Spoken like a true Obamaniac... "They didn't build that!"

paul young
07-27-2012, 05:24 PM
I guess i need to ask-

what is more offensive, an American on welfare ,medicaid and food stamps or an illegal immigrant and his or her family trying to work their way to respectability but lacking health care insurance?

Is there a real difference?

Illegals take a beating on this forum. I don't like them coming here undocumented either. But i don't think they deserve the level of contempt they get here. They are less than 1% of the population of this country. There is no way they have the ability to change our socio-economic landscape at this time on the scale some folks on here suggest is possible. What needs to happen is that there are severe penalties for hiring them. If there's no work, they won't be as quick to come here.

Our borders are HUGE! Sealing them completely is not an option. We have to remove the incentive to come here illegally to turn this around. Perhaps the fact that they won't be covered for health expenses by law is a good thing?-Paul

M&K's Retrievers
07-27-2012, 06:44 PM
We are only just finding out the intended unintended consequences of obamacare.

JDogger
07-27-2012, 07:12 PM
I don't understand why people are still so upset about a program that is yet to be. Come Nov. Romney will be elected, sworn-in in Jan. Control of the Senate will reverse and all chaos will disappear and the natural order restored. ...Right?

JD

Gerry Clinchy
07-27-2012, 07:14 PM
So why is it any different if they have to treat them when they show up already....I think that has been the rule for a long time. If the lazy a>>es americans woould go to work there would be less illegals in your rual area taking up hospital beds.

I'm a step or two ahead...you just found some rheteric to bash the health plan (obama and the democrats). Oh yea, don't forget this is really Romneycare, too!

The Federal govt was giving them aid to help treat these illegals; now that aid will be cut in half in a few years. I think you did not read the part about the hospitals not being viable without the Fed aid.

Those Fed funds are being moved to Obamacare, ostensibly to treat poor citizens who will now be insured. What good will that health insurance be if there is no hospital left to give the care?

I would agree that no one who is seriously ill should be turned away. I can't imagine any doctor doing so. How to fund all of this is the problem. While Fed funding of health care for illegals may not be a Fed responsibility ... enforcing immigration laws is its responsibility. So by fulfilling their constitutional responsibility ... they would solve the other problem as well.

Down East Labs 217
07-27-2012, 08:03 PM
The Federal govt was giving them aid to help treat these illegals; now that aid will be cut in half in a few years. I think you did not read the part about the hospitals not being viable without the Fed aid.

Those Fed funds are being moved to Obamacare, ostensibly to treat poor citizens who will now be insured. What good will that health insurance be if there is no hospital left to give the care?

I would agree that no one who is seriously ill should be turned away. I can't imagine any doctor doing so. How to fund all of this is the problem. While Fed funding of health care for illegals may not be a Fed responsibility ... enforcing immigration laws is its responsibility. So by fulfilling their constitutional responsibility ... they would solve the other problem as well.

Can't see that happening in the current regime. They would loose votes.

Richard

Gerry Clinchy
07-27-2012, 08:23 PM
I guess i need to ask-

what is more offensive, an American on welfare ,medicaid and food stamps or an illegal immigrant and his or her family trying to work their way to respectability but lacking health care insurance?

Is there a real difference?

Illegals take a beating on this forum. I don't like them coming here undocumented either. But i don't think they deserve the level of contempt they get here. They are less than 1% of the population of this country. There is no way they have the ability to change our socio-economic landscape at this time on the scale some folks on here suggest is possible. What needs to happen is that there are severe penalties for hiring them. If there's no work, they won't be as quick to come here.

Our borders are HUGE! Sealing them completely is not an option. We have to remove the incentive to come here illegally to turn this around. Perhaps the fact that they won't be covered for health expenses by law is a good thing?-Paul
Paul, I don't think it's the illegals, in and of themselves, it's the fact that the immigration laws are not being enforced.

And I don't disagree with you at all that the best solution would be to remove incentives by working with the employers. Yet, I think I just read somewhere that because of the new "Dreamer" policy, the govt will not expand the e-Verify system that many employers already use.

While the total %-age of the population may be small, certain areas like AZ, TX, NM, FL carry most of the burden.

charly_t
07-27-2012, 10:55 PM
I don't understand why people are still so upset about a program that is yet to be. Come Nov. Romney will be elected, sworn-in in Jan. Control of the Senate will reverse and all chaos will disappear and the natural order restored. ...Right?

JD

I have seen many things passed into law but very few done away with. Once they are on "the books" it is very difficult to get them repealed etc.

On another note that is sort of on track but has nothing to do with JD's post here. If you lose your current doctor and you are on medicare try finding one who will take you ! It' like finding hens' teeth. Guess how busy the hospital emergency room is going to be with all us old people having to get medical care that way.
And the COST !!!!

Gerry Clinchy
07-28-2012, 08:26 AM
Another unintended consequence: Cook Medical a medical device manufacturer in Indiana, as a result of the 2.3% tax on medical devices, says it will cancel plans for 5 new plants here in the U.S.

Everyone, including myself, figured the tax would simply be passed onto consumers as increased cost of the devices then increased cost from the doctors or hospitals using the devices (increase in cost of the procedures using the devices).

OTOH, as with Medicare, the govt determines what will be paid for certain procedures. Would have to imagine that Obamacare will have the same payment regulations ... so the doctors/hospitals might not be able to raise their prices to offset an increase in costs. That means that device mfr won't be able to recover the cost of the new tax without losing business to some company (outside of the US) that could make the device for 2.3% less.

Duh? I hadn't thought of that.

The net result in this case turns out to be that the mfr does not build new plants; does not create those new jobs. The $ they would have spent on expansion is used to pay the device tax instead.


If the Indiana company sells its devices outside the U.S., then those sales will not be subject to the tax. However, if there is a larger market for their devices in the U.S., then that won't really be offset by foreign sales. They may already be making sales to foreign countries anyhow. Maybe they'll simply try to sell more of the devices they make outside of the US, if that can be done?

If there is a shortage of Indiana devices in the US, will be have to import cheaper devices from somewhere else?

HPL
07-28-2012, 10:50 AM
I guess i need to ask-

what is more offensive, an American on welfare ,medicaid and food stamps or an illegal immigrant and his or her family trying to work their way to respectability but lacking health care insurance?

Is there a real difference?

Illegals take a beating on this forum. I don't like them coming here undocumented either. But i don't think they deserve the level of contempt they get here. They are less than 1% of the population of this country. There is no way they have the ability to change our socio-economic landscape at this time on the scale some folks on here suggest is possible. What needs to happen is that there are severe penalties for hiring them. If there's no work, they won't be as quick to come here.

Our borders are HUGE! Sealing them completely is not an option. We have to remove the incentive to come here illegally to turn this around. Perhaps the fact that they won't be covered for health expenses by law is a good thing?-Paul

Paul, you're from Connecticut for crying out loud!!! You saying that the influx of illegals isn't REALLY that big a problem is sort of like me telling someone from Minnesota that snow can't really be that big a problem, after all it's just a little frozen water that will go away all by itself as soon as they get a little warm weather. You have no idea what the situation is like in the states that are ACTUALLY ON THE BORDER!! Perhaps the illegals are too small a cohort to completely change the socio-economic landscape of the entire country by themselves, but you also have to count the liberal sympathizers and "one world" nut cases who see them as needing to be a "protected class". You also need to spend some time in the areas where they are actually a significant percentage of the populace to see how much strain they place on social services in these often less affluent, already struggling communities. Sure, many illegals are here to work in honest jobs in order to improve the lot of their families, but there are also many that are involved in criminal activity, everything from petty theft to drug running and murder. You should see the check point that we have to go through every time we leave the "frontier" heading north. About 100 miles north of the border all traffic passes through one of these checkpoints. I have been going through the one on Tx Hwy 77 for about 50 years now. Originally it was a little travel trailer parked under an oak tree on the side of the road with a couple of border patrol agents. By the mid 70's it had become a house trailer with a slightly larger contingent. Currently it is a large permanent building with offices and holding cells built under a larger metal building that spans the entire width of 4 lanes of north bound traffic. I believe that there are about 250 agents based there. A few hundred yards before you reach the checkpoint you drive through a battery of sensors that are perhaps photographing you and scanning for who knows what. Then as you creep ahead in line at the checkpoint you again go through a matching battery of these sensors. At the checkpoint, there will be at least 6-10 border patrol agents, some with dogs, checking all vehicles. Not exactly check point Charlie at the Berlin wall, but still not what one would expect when traveling freely through this great free nation of ours. So far there are no machine gun posts, and the agents are only carrying side arms, but things are constantly changing and the day may be here soon.

charly_t
07-28-2012, 12:57 PM
Our local paper prints the arrests almost every day. For a while a large percentage were hispanic sounding names. Many of those hispanics had no car insurance and no driver's license. Some did not stop for stop signs. We had a lot of rapes reported where the perp had a hispanic sounding name. This changed some after that law got passed here in OK. We were getting the bad apples from other countries.

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2012, 10:21 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/25/report-obamacare-penalty-regressive-will-cost-most-uninsured-at-least-1000/

These unintended consequences just keep piling up ...

Since the SCOTUS ruled that the Fed govt couldn't pull Medicaid funds from the states if the state decided not to expand its Medicaid program, that sort of messed things up for the low-income folks who would have gotten their health insurance that way.


The Action Forum estimates (http://americanactionforum.org/topic/congressional-budget-office-revision-affordable-care-act-baseline) that there are potentially 1.2 million people who would be subject to the tax if only six states decide to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. This is in addition to the 3.9 million the CBO estimated in 2010.

“The CBO estimates that by 2016 about half of the roughly 55 million currently uninsured will gain insurance either through Medicaid or private insurance exchanges,” writes McBride. “As such, ACA represents, in the main, a massive transfer of wealth from the uninsured, who are largely low- and middle-income earners, to insurance companies and the larger healthcare industry.”



So the end result is that the low- and middle-income earners are worse off than they were before?

We know that legislators don't actually write these bills. They have "staff" that do that kind of thing. Obviously, the 2000 pages were too convoluted for even these people to figure out what they were creating.

M&K's Retrievers
07-29-2012, 11:18 PM
As more and more of the "unintended consequences" pop up, the Federal Government will look like the guy on the Ed Sullivan show that spun plates on sticks. A cluster waiting to happen.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhoos1oY404

Except the government won't make the recovery.

Gerry Clinchy
07-30-2012, 02:53 PM
Oops ... another oversight ...

No Exchange; NO Penalties
The administration and Democrats in Congress call it a "drafting error" but Cato Institute calls it a deliberate choice. The ACA only authorizes tax credits and subsidies to be issued by government exchanges built by states. They are not authorized in the Federal Exchange.

Thus, state legislatures that do not establish a state exchange will protect their employers from $3,000 per-employee penalties that face employers if even one employee buys insurance on the exchange and gets a subsidy or tax credit.

Cato's Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler have written a well-researched paper opposing the IRS regulation that the administration is using to attempt to authorize tax credits and subsidies through a Federal Exchange (FE) even though Congress did not allow it. Likewise, Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia's attorney general, is urging states to do nothing to establish state exchanges.



ACO - The End of Insurance

The author of "Seeking Alpha" calls Obamacare's Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) an "insurmountable" risk to health insurance companies. The ACO is an organization created when hospitals and doctors join together to receive a lump sum ("bundled") payment from insurers for the care of patients.

The author notes that today insurers collect a payment based on your risk and pay doctors, hospitals and other clinicians for services provided. But Obamacare ended the need for risk-based premium adjustments (no pre-existing exclusions) and eliminated payment for services based on individual claims for care received.

The author notes, "The consensus in the hospital industry is that payment will be for period of one year to three years. The hospital or doctor will get a fixed sum of money for each patient per year from the insurance company out of which to meet all the medical needs of the patient. There'll be no need to submit a claim to an insurance company...The insurance company becomes merely a shell transferring the collected premium from insured to the ACO."

As the author writes, "The insurance company will no longer need actuaries, risk analysts, claims processing, sales people, even executives and management...And since they would just be collecting and handing over the premiums to the ACO without doing anything further of value, there would be no need for health insurance companies to exist at all, and I predict that health insurance companies will cease to exist by 2017-2018 as the ACO model becomes widespread.

The ACO model means local hospital will become the insurance company and care provider in one." In other words, a major conflict of interest. On July 9, HHS announced 89 new ACOs, bringing the total to 154 ACOs, with 400 more organizations planning to apply for ACO status in August.

Gerry Clinchy
07-31-2012, 04:00 PM
It just keeps getting more complicated ...


CNSNews.com) - The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado--who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business--with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing (http://www.retrievertraining.net/sites/default/files/documents/NEWLAND%20V%20SEBELIUS-DOJ%20RESPONSE.pdf) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief (http://www.retrievertraining.net/sites/default/files/documents/NEWLAND%20V%20SEBELIUS-ADF%20RESPONSE%20TO%20DOJ.pdf): "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”



The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.

“Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the preventive services coverage regulations substantially burden their religious exercise,” the Justice Department told the court. “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is ‘an HVAC manufacturer.'

The Newlands' attorney(s) reply:

“The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” said the Newlands’ brief.

“Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” they argued.

If the Obama administration’s understanding of the First Amendment were accepted, argued the Alliance Defending Freedom’s brief, the media would have no rights either.

“The government’s exclusionary attitude would push religion out of every sphere of life except the four wall of a church,” they said in their brief. “If for-profit corporations have no First Amendment ‘purpose,’ newspapers and other media would have no rights.”


With 265 employees, a business like the Newlands' would need to pay the government $26,500 per day if they decided not to comply with Sebelius’s regulation and insured their employees anyway. Over 365 days that would amount to $9,672,500.


"Look at this fine mess you've gotten us into, Ollie."

Gerry Clinchy
08-06-2012, 09:11 PM
Hmmm ... nobody knows what the Federal health exchange will cost ...



Obamacare Written in Secret, Implemented in Secret

A feature article in yesterday’s New York Times profiled Obama Administration efforts to create a federal Obamacare exchange. The article explores the massive secrecy behind the federal Exchange, and contrasts the transparency requirements imposed on state-based Exchanges with the non-transparency of HHS officials creating a federal Exchange:Mr. Hash, the director of the federal Office of Health Reform, said the federal exchanges “will operate essentially in the same manner as the state-based exchanges.”

However, they differ in a significant way. States have done their work in public, but planning for the federal exchanges has been done almost entirely behind closed doors….The 2010 health care law says that if a state runs its own exchange, it must “consult with stakeholders,” including consumers and small businesses. Subsequent rules go further, requiring states to consult health care providers, insurers, agents and brokers. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has repeatedly emphasized that “states have to meet a standard of transparency and accountability.” A state exchange must have “a clearly defined governing board,” and the board must hold regular public meetings. States as diverse as California, Minnesota, Mississippi and Nevada have Web sites where they post documents laying the groundwork for exchanges. The documents include minutes of public meetings, cost estimates and information about contracts for goods and services.

By contrast, federal officials have disclosed little about their plans, are vague about the financing of the federal exchanges and have refused even to divulge the “request for proposals” circulated to advertising agencies. The federal government requires a state exchange to develop a budget, with “expected operating costs, revenues and expenditures.” States must explain how the revenue will be generated and how the exchange will address “any financial deficits.” Administration officials have not set forth a budget for the federal exchanges. They said they intended to charge “user fees” to the participating health insurance plans, but it is unclear whether the fees are subject to approval by Congress or whether insurers could pass the costs on to consumers.

Because the Obama Administration is once again using a “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” mentality with respect to transparency – imposing requirements on states that the federal government itself refuses to follow – business owners told the Times that “nobody has any idea what the federal exchange will look like.” This lack of transparency increases uncertainty for businesses, states, and individuals, which will only make the law that much less effective.

Candidate Obama said he would televise all health care negotiations on C-SPAN, but the process leading up to Obamacare was plagued with notorious backroom deals. Unfortunately, yesterday’s New York Times story highlights how, after using backroom deals to create Obamacare, the Administration is once again retreating behind closed doors to implement the 2700-page law.
Chris Jacobs
Senior Policy Analyst
Joint Economic Committee
Senate Republican Staff

gmhr1
08-09-2012, 09:02 PM
Isn't it funny when Obama ran against Hillary he said her Heath care was a mandate and his wasn't until he got elected.

Gerry Clinchy
08-12-2012, 06:56 PM
NY Times headline today:
Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many
By ROBERT PEAR
Rules proposed by the I.R.S. could leave millions of people in the lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress, which was to expand coverage.

Well, the bureaucratic "interpretation" of the law begin. Thank you, Mrs. Pelosi, we really needed this bill passed so we could find out what's in it.

Gerry Clinchy
09-19-2012, 12:42 AM
I have difficulty understanding this ... these young people were actually subject to deportation. Obama changed that and said, "Okay, you can stay, as long as you are in school, in the military, or have a job, and are responsible." Now, however, they learn that this does not include participating in Obamacare, and they're ticked off. They could still go home to their native country (whichever it might be, but most being from Mexico) if they wanted to ... which already has universal health care.

I do remember the concern during the proposal of this law that illegals would also be able to participate, Oh, no, this law will not permit that to happen. Sounds like it almost was about to happen back in June. Guess now they read the law again & found out it's not allowed?


In dozens of campaign stops, President Barack Obama has trumpeted young undocumented immigrants, known as DREAMers, as the country’s future and said he wants to do everything he can to help them.

But the latest news surrounding his Affordable Care Act has left many in the Latino community speechless.

A decision was made last month to disqualify young undocumented immigrants – many who will be allowed to stay in the United States as part of a new federal policy – from receiving health coverage under the president’s sweeping health care reform.

That decision was made quietly and only became public Tuesday, when an article about it was published in The New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/health/policy/limits-placed-on-immigrants-in-health-care-law.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png The secrecy surrounding the new rule prompted an outcry from immigration advocates who felt like the rug was pulled from under them.

“We had been working closely with the administration, so we were quite surprised and shocked by the new restrictions on health coverage,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group for low-income immigrants, told the [I]New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/health/policy/limits-placed-on-immigrants-in-health-care-law.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png. “This is a shortsighted, reactionary and bad public policy.”
Hispanic civil rights groups said they were unsure why the administration would try to integrate undocumented youth through immigration relief yet shut them out of the new health care system that is being created.

“We have tried to push for more understanding on why they took these steps,” Jennifer M. Ng’andu, a health policy specialist at Hispanic rights group the National Council of La Raza told Fox News Latino. “You can’t overcome politics by whittling away at the rights of legal immigrants.”


When Obama’s Deferred Action program was first announced in June, it seemed as though the individuals that met the requirements of the program would be eligible for the health care reform benefits. The requirements included being brought into the country before the age of 16, being currently enrolled in school or being a graduate, and being classified as “lawfully present” residents.

However in late August, the administration ruled that those benefiting from this immigration reform would be specifically excluded from the definition of “lawfully present.”

White House spokesman Nick Papas said the deferred-deportation program “was never intended” to give immigrants access to federal health benefits.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/09/18/change-to-obama-health-care-law-negative-sign-for-immigrants/#ixzz26tFS3Cwtt

mngundog
09-19-2012, 01:26 AM
Isn't it funny when Obama ran against Hillary he said her Heath care was a mandate and his wasn't until he got elected.
Isn't funny that Romney care had a mandate just like Obamas?

gmhr1
09-19-2012, 08:51 AM
Maybe Romneys wont cost us as much and at least provide a Dr when we need one. We know Obamas stinks some of us are already seeing it in action. We know he lied he said it wouldnt be a tax and surprise here it is. He lied and said we could keep our DR , keep our insurance more lies. You cant keep your Dr when he tells you he is no longer staying in business or your Dr is no longer taking your insurance. The only ones paying the dr will be us its like having no insurance.

Gerry Clinchy
09-26-2012, 10:30 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_achilles_heel_of_obamacare.html
This is quite an interesting article on Obamacare and state exchanges ... basically, "no state exchanges, no Obamacare."

If a state sets up a state insurance exchange, the insurance companies get a ton of subsidies to implement the exchange. If a state does not set up an exchange, the Federal govt will do so. However, if the Fed govt does so, there is no funding provided for the subsidies to the insurance companies in a Federal exchange scenario :-) Oops!


This, of course, assumes that the federal government can set up anything at all. They have no appropriation for establishing federal exchanges, and the GOP-controlled House of Representatives certainly isn't interested in bailing them out of that pickle.

Section 1311 of the ACA provides for premium subsidies to insurance companies in state exchanges only. No such funding mechanism exists for a federal exchange, leaving the feds unable to offer the billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded subsidies needed to purchase insurance company support.


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Obama administration decides to ignore the law (what a stretch!) and distribute subsidies on a federal exchange anyway. This would create an actionable breach of the law, and those affected by it (employers within the state) would have standing to sue. But that benefit is out the window if a state sets up an exchange.




Exchanges are the new government bureaucracies through which millions of Americans will be compelled to purchase ObamaCare's overpriced and overregulated health insurance. Through these bureaucracies, insurance companies will receive hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Without these bureaucracies, ObamaCare cannot work.
This statement from the Cato Institute lays bare the fiction that ObamaCare is inevitable. Indeed, the ACA perches precariously on a ledge, peering into an abyss of its own making. By relying on the states to do all the heavy lifting in setting the keystone of ObamaCare in place -- the exchange -- they neglected to devise a contingency plan in case the states rejected this mother of all unfunded mandates.

murral stark
09-26-2012, 10:40 PM
Maybe Romneys wont cost us as much and at least provide a Dr when we need one. We know Obamas stinks some of us are already seeing it in action. We know he lied he said it wouldnt be a tax and surprise here it is. He lied and said we could keep our DR , keep our insurance more lies. You cant keep your Dr when he tells you he is no longer staying in business or your Dr is no longer taking your insurance. The only ones paying the dr will be us its like having no insurance.

I don't think he ever guaranteed that your Dr. was going to stay in business nor did he tell you that your doctor was going to accept it. He just said if you like your Dr., keep him/her. If you like your insurance,keep it. Do you want the government to make your doctor stay in business and take your insurance? that goes against all conservative thinking. the govt would be running your life. Isn't that what the conservatives hate the most? too much government involved in your life?

gmhr1
09-27-2012, 09:32 AM
He didnt tell us most Dr's will be quitting Thanks to Obamacare and the ones that are still her are so swamped with medicaid patients they aren't taking on new patients This is happening in AZ , Wa and a couple other states right now. You can deny it all you want its a fact .

Obamacare Nightmare: 40 Percent Of All U.S. Doctors Plan To Bail Out Of The Profession Over The Next Three Years

America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.
By 2025 the shortage will balloon to over 130,000, Len Marquez, the director of government relations at the American Association of Medical Colleges, told The Daily Caller.

road kill
09-27-2012, 09:48 AM
I don't think he ever guaranteed that your Dr. was going to stay in business nor did he tell you that your doctor was going to accept it. He just said if you like your Dr., keep him/her. If you like your insurance,keep it. Do you want the government to make your doctor stay in business and take your insurance? that goes against all conservative thinking. the govt would be running your life. Isn't that what the conservatives hate the most? too much government involved in your life?
So.....by reading this, you are admitting that Obama was playing fast and loose with the truth???


Shocking.............

gmhr1
09-27-2012, 11:44 AM
ObamaCare could "result in a significant decline in the overall quality of medical care nationwide."10 Obama and his allies have refused to listen to the American people, who by wide margins continue to oppose their health reform plans. Will they also ignore our family doctors, almost half of whom warn that they would quit if forced to labor under the burdens of state-managed care?
Sadly, the answer is: Probably.

murral stark
09-27-2012, 09:17 PM
He didnt tell us most Dr's will be quitting Thanks to Obamacare and the ones that are still her are so swamped with medicaid patients they aren't taking on new patients This is happening in AZ , Wa and a couple other states right now. You can deny it all you want its a fact .

Obamacare Nightmare: 40 Percent Of All U.S. Doctors Plan To Bail Out Of The Profession Over The Next Three Years

America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.
By 2025 the shortage will balloon to over 130,000, Len Marquez, the director of government relations at the American Association of Medical Colleges, told The Daily Caller.

How in the world would any body be able to predict what doctors will stay in business and which ones will quit? If somebody can see into the future like that, we need their name, so we can put them on the ballot and get them elected as president. That person would be able to look into their crystal ball and foresee crises coming and stop them before they happen.

gmhr1
09-28-2012, 11:55 AM
The only people that like obamacare are you and obama

M&K's Retrievers
09-28-2012, 12:01 PM
How in the world would any body be able to predict what doctors will stay in business and which ones will quit? If somebody can see into the future like that, we need their name, so we can put them on the ballot and get them elected as president. That person would be able to look into their crystal ball and foresee crises coming and stop them before they happen.

I don't know what you do for a living but I suggest you stick to it. You don't know diddly squat about anything else.

murral stark
09-28-2012, 06:04 PM
I don't know what you do for a living but I suggest you stick to it. You don't know diddly squat about anything else.

You have no idea what I actually know about and what I don't know about. Can you predict the future sir? I was merely stating that nobody could tell you what doctors are going to stay in business and what doctors are going to quit. I am trying to not be disrespectful to you, or be a smart arse to you, but you make it very difficult. I am going to practice restraint here.

gmhr1
09-28-2012, 06:35 PM
They have a pretty good idea : Questions have been raised as to whether there will be a sufficient supply of physicians and other health professionals to serve the nation, especially in light of concerns that the nation was facing potentially significant shortages even before health care reform...[W]e project an overall shortage of 91,500 and 130,600 active patient care physicians in 2020 and 2025 respectively, and a primary care shortage of 45,400 and 65,800 physicians in 2020 and 2025...
These revised ESTIMATES are consistent with earlier estimates: they indicate the health care system is likely to be facing severe pressure as demand rises more rapidly than the supply."

Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) (http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=010189) https://www.procon.org/files/HealthCareReform/gstar.gif
"The Impact of Health Care Reform on the Future Supply and Demand for Physicians Updated Projections Through 2025," www.aamc.org (http://www.aamc.org),
This means that ObamaCare was responsible for anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of the 4 percentage point jump in insurance premiums this year.
June 2010

murral stark
09-28-2012, 06:47 PM
The only people that like obamacare are you and obama

Why are you so bitter? take life one day at a time and enjoy every moment you are alive. I am sorry that you have such a negative outlook on everything. In every situation in life, regardless of how bad things seem, you can find something positive to focus on. Look at the bright side, in November you get to go cast your vote and try to oust Obama. You should be looking forward to that, not focusing on the negative things. If you dwell on the negative, you will be an unhappy person.

gmhr1
09-28-2012, 06:50 PM
You think Obama care will not negatively affect each and every one of us? You should do a little research before you say how great it is? If you still think its great than Congratulations you and Obama think the same way...

murral stark
09-28-2012, 07:47 PM
You think Obama care will not negatively affect each and every one of us? You should do a little research before you say how great it is? If you still think its great than Congratulations you and Obama think the same way...

I have said it before and will say it again. I worry about the things that I can control. If I don't control those things that I have direct control of, then shame on me. But things that I have no control over, I don't sweat it because I am going to keep doing what I do.

gmhr1
09-28-2012, 08:01 PM
But you can control it by who you vote for its that simple...... Some of us look at the outcome of 4 more years under Obama while others will vote for him for a free phone or just because he's black. You have his supporters say we would be better off with smaller Gov but they just have to vote for him because he's black. All I say is look at obamacare dont believe the lies that were told to you to pass this bill it will be devastating to all of us even you. I hope one day when you need a Dr one will be there for you Don't be fooled by the lies or free phone;)

murral stark
09-28-2012, 08:39 PM
I honestly don't know which one I am going to vote for. Romney can't seem to figure out what he is supposed to be saying and who he's supposed to be saying it to. He seems to be spinning in circles in confusion. Obama sounds like a preacher, preaching hell fire and brimstone. Both parties are using scare tactics. If Romney would tell us what his "plan" is, it would help a lot. We are pretty sure what the current administration's plan is. Romney needs to tell us specifically what he intends to do, not "elect me then I will tell you what my plan is" Until he gets specific, he doesn't get my vote, because I feel that it will be the same old song and dance we have been getting over and over again. I see Paul Ryan, and he just comes across to me as phony. The smile that he puts on when he is on TV with Romney, is just fake looking to me. So that is strike 2 for Romney/Ryan. I guess I am still undecided which one I will vote for. Might not vote for either one, and if that is wasting my vote, so be it. If you folks haven't figured it out by now, I like to get people bristled up a bit. I mean no harm, I just think we all need to lighten up. As an old commercial once said,"Have a Coke and a smile." :p

gmhr1
09-28-2012, 08:51 PM
Best of luck to you in the future no matter who you vote for. I know what 4 more under Obama will be like Romney is the unknown He wasn't the one I wanted but I just cant vote for Obama he has lied to many times, this Libya attack will bite him in the rear before its over. No matter who wins we will all be in this together :(

murral stark
09-28-2012, 09:00 PM
Best of luck to you in the future no matter who you vote for. I know what 4 more under Obama will be like Romney is the unknown He wasn't the one I wanted but I just cant vote for Obama he has lied to many times, this Libya attack will bite him in the rear before its over. No matter who wins we will all be in this together :(
And when my friends, family, or neighbors stumble and fall, I will be right there to help them get back up. We are definitely all in this together.

M&K's Retrievers
09-28-2012, 11:17 PM
You have no idea what I actually know about and what I don't know about. Can you predict the future sir? I was merely stating that nobody could tell you what doctors are going to stay in business and what doctors are going to quit. I am trying to not be disrespectful to you, or be a smart arse to you, but you make it very difficult. I am going to practice restraint here.

Your correct. I don't know what you know . I just know what you post which is usually uninformed opinion stated as fact. No, I cannot predict the future. If I could, I wouldn't have spent the last 35 years in the health insurance business. Studies have shown that Docs are going to drop like flies rather than put up with new requirements. They have made theirs and don't need the grief. Also, new prospects will choose a different profession. But what do I know?

Anyway, I want to thank you for your classy PM's. The wife and I got a good chuckle. Did UB and Marvin get the same?

huntinman
09-29-2012, 08:57 AM
Why are you so bitter? take life one day at a time and enjoy every moment you are alive. I am sorry that you have such a negative outlook on everything. In every situation in life, regardless of how bad things seem, you can find something positive to focus on. Look at the bright side, in November you get to go cast your vote and try to oust Obama. You should be looking forward to that, not focusing on the negative things. If you dwell on the negative, you will be an unhappy person.

This from the guy that still hates all the "rich kids" from high school.

gmhr1
09-29-2012, 10:11 AM
I think obmamacare will be the worst thing that ever happened to us, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just hope people will look at the important issues & what 4 more yrs will end up costing all of us. Somethings has to change we are in the toilet and Obama hasnt a clue. Its only going to get worse under him if he had a plan something would be better by now. Health care premiums have gone from 13,375 in 09 to 15,745 today. Median income just fell again ot 50K gas 1.84 in 09 to 3.80 today I dont want to keep going down this path.

charly_t
09-29-2012, 12:51 PM
And when my friends, family, or neighbors stumble and fall, I will be right there to help them get back up. We are definitely all in this together.

Very good post !!!!!! :-)

murral stark
09-29-2012, 01:44 PM
This from the guy that still hates all the "rich kids" from high school.
You must be a boxer, because you have a very good jab.:p

gmhr1
10-05-2012, 09:39 PM
Nick balletta talk point CEO. Says our healthcare premiums will go up 19% next year thanks to obamacare

murral stark
10-05-2012, 09:55 PM
Nick balletta talk point CEO. Says our healthcare premiums will go up 19% next year thanks to obamacare

I personally believe that this is like the oil speculators. Every time somebody sneezes in the middle east, or a storm is brewing in the gulf. The sky is falling and they jack oil prices up. I personally believe this is the same tactic that the insurance companies are using, and gives them justification to jack your premiums up. I don't know how the insurance industry works, just seems a lot like the oil speculators to me. Maybe Mr. Whitworth and his 35 years in the insurance business will fill us in. Probably just get an AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGH!!!!! from him, but it's worth a shot. Or maybe he can post a link to one of the threads where he explained how the insurance works.

gmhr1
10-05-2012, 10:29 PM
This is what Obama care will do raise costs. Shortage of doctors, and control the care we can receive.

M&K's Retrievers
10-05-2012, 11:08 PM
I personally believe that this is like the oil speculators. Every time somebody sneezes in the middle east, or a storm is brewing in the gulf. The sky is falling and they jack oil prices up. I personally believe this is the same tactic that the insurance companies are using, and gives them justification to jack your premiums up. I don't know how the insurance industry works, just seems a lot like the oil speculators to me. Maybe Mr. Whitworth and his 35 years in the insurance business will fill us in. Probably just get an AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGH!!!!! from him, but it's worth a shot. Or maybe he can post a link to one of the threads where he explained how the insurance works.

Some folks are idiots. Some aren't. If you don't know how to search a subject, why would I want to teach you? If possible, learn how to do it yourself. Many of us here disagree and give each other the business but when it's all said and done, most would gladly share a blind together. Sadly, I can't say the same for you.

Don't bother to reply because we are done. Your rude and threatening PMs gave the little woman and me a chuckle but enough is enough.

Oh, AAARRRGGGHHH!, regards

Uncle Bill
10-06-2012, 11:37 AM
Some folks are idiots. Some aren't. If you don't know how to search a subject, why would I want to teach you? If possible, learn how to do it yourself. Many of us here disagree and give each other the business but when it's all said and done, most would gladly share a blind together. Sadly, I can't say the same for you.

Don't bother to reply because we are done. Your rude and threatening PMs gave the little woman and me a chuckle but enough is enough.

Oh, AAARRRGGGHHH!, regards


You have chosen wisely, Grasshopper. Remember the first rule in debate...never argue with an idiot; they will drag you down to their level, and beat you up with their experience. Or as Einstein once said, the primary difference between genius and idiocy, is that genius has limits.

Based on the Obama crowd, truth is now the new hate speech. As George Orwell proclaimed, " During the times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

Hang in there, Mike. In 30 days we'll know if we can rejoice in having a chance to get our great country back, or start preparing for anarchy and a Greek lifestyle. You and I know there's not enough money to appease this SFN crowd, and the way Obama goes through it, it will be a very short time before the 'lenders' will deny any more loans, and the defaults will begin.

If it wasn't such a huge detriment to my grandkids and their offspring, I'd welcome it, just for the opportunity to ridicule the fools that brought this on. They may have meant well, but they're stupidity will do them in. THEN we'll see how forgiving they are when their ox is being gored. It will finally be discovered that Obama's "hope and change" wasn't meant for the proletariat. What saps.

Buying into the Obama trap will be one of the greatest tricks ever perpetrated on the American public...maybe to all mankind. It will rank right up there with the Devil's greatest...convincing the world he didn't exist.

UB

Gerry Clinchy
10-06-2012, 09:48 PM
Interesting ... Each state could have a different "menu" of Essential Health Care benefits in their "benchmark" plan. But if insurance companies are supposed to NOT have lifetime limits or annual limits, then what's this about putting a limit on annual doctor visits?

Also, it is clear that since Obamacare is mandating that everybody get FREE contraception, sterilization and morning-after pills that will be calculated into the premiums by both insurors or govt-run plans.

I understand that NYC now gives out morning-after pills free already in schools.



As part of its “benchmark” health care plan to satisfy ObamaCare’s requirement of the establishment of Essential Health Benefits (EHB’s) in each state, the state of New York has requested that annual doctor visit limits be substituted for lifetime and annual dollar limits in health care plans.

States had until October 1, 2012 to choose an existing health care plan to serve as the minimum “benchmark” plan that would contain the EHB’s as required by ObamaCare. President Obama’s signature health care law gives HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sole authority to determine the EHB’s for the insurance plans in the state health insurance exchanges. The most controversial EHB to date is the “HHS Mandate,” which requires all employers to provide contraception, sterilization procedures, and abortion-inducing drugs, free of charge, to their employees.



Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/10/06/new-york-seeks-limit-doctor-visits-benchmark-obamacare-plan#ixzz28ZouM1qG

Chris Atkinson
10-07-2012, 08:38 AM
I don't know what you do for a living but I suggest you stick to it. You don't know diddly squat about anything else.


This whole thread was reported and one user has asked to be banned. This is personal attack number one. It is not civil and you are likely to be banned if you don't come clean and tell me how you're going to change your behavior.

Next.....

Chris Atkinson
10-07-2012, 08:40 AM
You have no idea what I actually know about and what I don't know about. Can you predict the future sir? I was merely stating that nobody could tell you what doctors are going to stay in business and what doctors are going to quit. I am trying to not be disrespectful to you, or be a smart arse to you, but you make it very difficult. I am going to practice restraint here.

I'm reading through this thread and I appreciate your response Murral. Since you are the one who asked to be banned, and since someone PM'd me an alleged copy/paste of what you wrote, I'm going to assume you chose not to practice the restraint you committed to.

Chris

Chris Atkinson
10-07-2012, 08:46 AM
OK guys...I read through it.

Murral, thanks for deleting your post. M&K, I'd ask that you make your non-personally attacking as well.

Guys...why do you enjoy being hateful to each other? Debate the issue and move on. This personal attack stuff is nonsense and it needs to stop.

Thanks, Chris