PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare ... more of what's in it



Gerry Clinchy
01-26-2013, 12:57 AM
Nearly one of every five U.S. adults smokes. That share is higher among lower-income people, who also are more likely to work in jobs that don't come with health insurance and would therefore depend on the new federal health care law. Smoking increases the risk of developing heart disease, lung problems and cancer, contributing to nearly 450,000 deaths a year.

Insurers won't be allowed to charge more under the overhaul for people who are overweight, or have a health condition like a bad back or a heart that skips beats — but they can charge more if a person smokes.

Starting next Jan. 1, the federal health care law will make it possible for people who can't get coverage now to buy private policies, providing tax credits to keep the premiums affordable. Although the law prohibits insurance companies from turning away the sick, the penalties for smokers could have the same effect in many cases, keeping out potentially costly patients.

"We don't want to create barriers for people to get health care coverage," said California state Assemblyman Richard Pan, who is working on a law in his state that would limit insurers' ability to charge smokers more. The federal law allows states to limit or change the smoking penalty.

"We want people who are smoking to get smoking cessation treatment," added Pan, a pediatrician who represents the Sacramento area.

Obama administration officials declined to be interviewed for this article, but a former consumer protection regulator for the government is raising questions.

"If you are an insurer and there is a group of smokers you don't want in your pool, the ones you really don't want are the ones who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years," said Karen Pollitz, an expert on individual health insurance markets with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "You would have the flexibility to discourage them."

Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options, said Pollitz, formerly deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the federal Health and Human Services Department.

First, the law allows insurers to charge older adults up to three times as much as their youngest customers.

Second, the law allows insurers to levy the the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones.

Obama administration officials declined to be interviewed for this article, but a former consumer protection regulator for the government is raising questions.

"If you are an insurer and there is a group of smokers you don't want in your pool, the ones you really don't want are the ones who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years," said Karen Pollitz, an expert on individual health insurance markets with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "You would have the flexibility to discourage them."

And finally, government tax credits that will be available to help pay premiums cannot be used to offset the cost of penalties for smokers.

20% of adults are smokers ... thus if population is 300,000,000 & 1/2 are adults, that might be about 30,000,000 who will not be able to afford health insurance? Whatever happened to, "If you like your health insurance plan, you'll be able to keep it."?

Does that mean that the new law actually will be getting health insurance to 30,000,000 and quite possibly putting it out of reach for another group of 30,000,000? What about Medicaid? No smokers' exclusion or penalty there?

So, I guess all those smokers wait until they get sick ... and then purchase health insurance? And if they can't afford it, they end up with Medicaid? or they just die & solve the problem that way?

Of course, the sales taxes on tobacco often are used to subsidize health care for children. Since smokers will gradually be eliminated, one way or the other, that funding will have to come from some other form of taxation.

Thus far the law does not allow higher premiums for obesity. However, we know that obesity can be a contributing cause to Type II diabetes, and diabetes can cause other health issues. Do we really believe that obesity or overweight will not become a penalty in the future?

As more states legalize marijuana, will the smoker penalty apply only to tobacco?


Take a hypothetical 60-year-old smoker making $35,000 a year. Estimated premiums for coverage in the new private health insurance markets under Obama's law would total $10,172. That person would be eligible for a tax credit that brings the cost down to $3,325.

But the smoking penalty could add $5,086 to the cost. And since federal tax credits can't be used to offset the penalty, the smoker's total cost for health insurance would be $8,411, or 24 percent of income. That's considered unaffordable under the federal law. The numbers were estimated using the online Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator.

"The effect of the smoking (penalty) allowed under the law would be that lower-income smokers could not afford health insurance," said Richard Curtis, president of the Institute for Health Policy Solutions, a nonpartisan research group that called attention to the issue with a study about the potential impact in California. (Of course, higher income workers would be able to afford the insurance premiums.)

In today's world, insurers can simply turn down a smoker. Under Obama's overhaul, would they actually charge the full 50 percent? After all, workplace anti-smoking programs that use penalties usually charge far less, maybe $75 or $100 a month.

Robert Laszewski, a consultant who previously worked in the insurance industry, says there's a good reason to charge the maximum.

"If you don't charge the 50 percent, your competitor is going to do it, and you are going to get a disproportionate share of the less-healthy older smokers," said Laszewski. "They are going to have to play defense."

It would appear that this part of the law makes this a windfall for the insurors ... at least until the smoking population is eradicated.


Workers covered on the job would be able to avoid tobacco penalties by joining smoking cessation programs, because employer plans operate under different rules. But experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually.


This last item would certainly be impactful to employees of small businesses.

Gerry Clinchy
02-11-2013, 01:32 PM
The unaffordable Affordable Care Act ... this is such a mess ...

Advocates for the poor are now suddenly concerned about a new oxymoron, the so-called “affordability glitch,” where your employer can no longer afford to cover you and your family, and you will be forced to go to the state exchanges for your health insurance only to discover that you can’t afford the rising premiums there and don’t qualify for a federal subsidy. The only “good news” about this glitch is that new IRS regulations may exempt you from paying the 2.5% tax for non-compliance, which is hardly a consolation when you still lack insurance.

Employers simply can’t afford to pay these health insurance premiums, especially for family plans, and remain in business. And you are no longer allowed to pick up the slack. Consider that ObamaCare will allow you to pay only 9.5% of your income towards an employer plan.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/11/could-obamacare-affordability-glitch-leave-your-family-without-health-care/#ixzz2KcW5Bqb6

Twenty-three million of us will go to the state exchanges, according to the CBO, leaving 30 million non-elderly people still lacking health insurance by 2023.

How ironic are these estimates when you consider that ObamaCare’s stated purpose is to provide affordable insurance for all. So why the glitch? The answer is that premiums are rising to the point of unaffordability, something that the new law should have anticipated given its taste for comprehensive plans with low co-pays and limited deductibles ($2000 for an individual, $4000 per family maximum).

Consider the state exchanges, where beginning this October ObamaCare will offer four basic types of plans; Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum. Bronze is considered a basic, catastrophic-type plan, but this is simply false advertising by the Obama administration when you consider what the plan must cover; ambulatory and emergency patient services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse services, prescription drugs, rehabilitation, laboratory, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, and pediatric services including oral and vision care.

Sounds great until you consider the cost of all these non-catastrophic services. Traditionally, high deductibles have kept premiums down by promoting cost-sharing; you pay out of pocket for basic well care and utilize a health savings accounts to provide you with a tax deduction for most or all of these payments. ObamaCare doesn’t believe in this kind of common-sense cost sharing and is trying to decrease out of pocket payments. When you take away these proven disincentives for overuse, you are left with an entitlement behemoth.

Rising premiums automatically accompany comprehensive insurance plans in an age of expensive medical technology. Insurers transfer costs to the consumer. The bronze and silver plans on the state exchanges will limit the amount you can pay for premiums to 9.5% of your income if your income is 300-400% of the poverty line, but on average, the IRS estimates that a family of 5 will be paying $20,000 for a bronze plan. This is simply unaffordable to most families.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/11/could-obamacare-affordability-glitch-leave-your-family-without-health-care/#ixzz2KcWZsRkC

Are these gloomy predictions correct? We'll find out in not too long. If this kind of spit hits the fan, I think that workers for companies and unions who didn't get a "waiver", are not going to be too happy with the D party. The D party will have to "own" this one ... or the spin on how it is really Bush's fault will be fascinating to watch.

Raymond Little
02-11-2013, 02:26 PM
Went to a healthcare round table in Louisiana last week put on by an insurer I have placed the majority of my accounts with the past 13 years. Health care providers made a deal with the devil and supported the ACA and now can't figure out how long they will be in business past 2016. It was evident from the discussion that the ACA wants the majority of Americans to fall into Medicade thus the reason to expand it so quickly and the penalties for the states who don't. Louisiana health care providers will be taxed 36.4 million per year beginning in 2014 or 2.5 % per policy holder statewide. In 2016 and beyond the increase is 3.5% and 4.5% but those are just actuarial numbers based on hypotheticals right now. I left when the CEO said group plans would probably see a 40% increase in rates beginning in 2014.

road kill
02-11-2013, 02:30 PM
It's about SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!!!


Even the most ardent KOOL-AIDE sippers are understanding what a terrible boondoggle this is.
Of course the low information voters are getting free insurance from Obama's "stash!!!"
How "just!"

Gawthorpe
02-11-2013, 09:24 PM
I don't often post here, but let the roast begin.
I am also employed in the benefits industry. I personally feel if you smoke and you are over weight you should be forced to pay more for insurance from the gov or private industry. Our citizens have forgotten about personal responsibility of their health. My family and I do our best to stay healthy. We make individual choices to do so.

Doctors can longer say "you are obese and you need to do something about it" If you want to see what my good health is paying for take a minute to visit a hospital or chemo treatment center. America has had to make extra wide sturdy chairs. Our Medicare pays for chemo after chemo after chemo after chemo until the smoker dies.

Lack of personal responsibility is costing everyone too much heartache and money.

Gerry Clinchy
02-12-2013, 12:20 AM
Is it kind of interesting that Obamacare wants to make sure that women can get free contraception and abortions, but nobody has yet felt it necessary to give free smoking cessation and weight-loss/maintenance aids? How about alcohol cessation? It would seem that the latter would be as instrumental in cost savings as the former?

When it comes to health care we will all end up with expensive end-of-life treatments for something (unless the govt starts stipulating how much $ will be spent). The obese and smokers may die sooner, but it just means that those end-of-life expenses would come sooner, rather than later.

It also occurs to me that the same people who are in favor of legalizing marijuana, may become annoyed with all the no-smoking regs, as in restaurants, eventually :-) Wouldn't surprise me if they come up with statutes permitting "smoking permitted" places for those who favor marijuana as their apertif :-)

Brad Turner
02-12-2013, 09:25 AM
A conglomerate that owns hospitals in this region will no longer hire people that smoke. Current employees are "exempt," but I wonder how long it will be before they are fired for some other reason. When this was first reported, my first thought was about the cost of their insurance.

Gerry Clinchy
02-14-2013, 10:54 AM
This is kind of interesting ... didn't realize that workers who had union or employer health care would not be eligible for premum subsidies; that subsidies would only apply to workers who had to purchase their coverage themselves. Can see why the unions are pretty upset! Even though the union plans may have waivers for certain rules of ACA, their premiums will be affected as well.


A number of provisions in the health care law threaten to raise the cost of coverage, including the elimination of caps on benefits. The unions, echoing statements by employers across the country, voiced concern that the increase in up-front coverage costs could lead unionized employers to drop health coverage.

But the senators said workers with an employer-based plan simply cannot, under the law, receive subsidies intended for those who don't get insurance through their jobs.

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not ambiguous, in fact it is explicit, on this point," the lawmakers wrote. "Any consideration of expanding access to subsidies therefore is not subject to regulation, but a change in the law."
They cited one Congressional Research Service report that said employer-sponsored coverage would "generally" make an employee "ineligible to receive a premium subsidy."

The subsidies, along with most major provisions of the health care law, are set to go into effect next year.

According to the Journal, 20 million people are covered in plans run by unions and employers.
Those signing the letter to Obama included Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah., and Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

"Concerns about rising premiums are driven by policies in (the health care law)," they wrote. "Rather than considering a diversion of subsidies not remotely contemplated in the statute, perhaps the concerns being raised by union plans should be cause to revisit the taxes, fees and other policies that drive premium increases."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/08/senators-urge-obama-not-to-accept-union-demands-to-expand-obamacare-aid/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2KtRsurtQ


Thirty-one Republican senators are urging the White House to reject union "demands" that ObamaCare subsidies be extended to some workers that already have coverage through their jobs, saying this is blatantly prohibited under the law.

The senators fired off a letter to President Obama Thursday following a newspaper report that unions -- worried that the law's other requirements would drive up the price of health care plans -- want lower-paid workers to have access to federal subsidies.

According to The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323854904578260313912570432.html)h ttp://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png, the Obama administration dismissed the idea early on of giving aid to workers in union-sponsored policies.

But a Treasury official, in the same article, said the issue is "the subject of pending regulations."

This raised a red flag for senators.


"We respectfully, but strongly, disagree," the senators wrote. "The statement made by Treasury simply ignores the letter of the law."

GoldenSail
02-18-2013, 07:13 PM
Is it kind of interesting that Obamacare wants to make sure that women can get free contraception and abortions, but nobody has yet felt it necessary to give free smoking cessation and weight-loss/maintenance aids? How about alcohol cessation? It would seem that the latter would be as instrumental in cost savings as the former?

Actually the law is requiring better coverage for smoking cessation products. And I think it is about time. We need to focus on prevention rather than treatment in this country.

GoldenSail
02-18-2013, 07:19 PM
I don't often post here, but let the roast begin.
I am also employed in the benefits industry. I personally feel if you smoke and you are over weight you should be forced to pay more for insurance from the gov or private industry. Our citizens have forgotten about personal responsibility of their health. My family and I do our best to stay healthy. We make individual choices to do so.

Doctors can longer say "you are obese and you need to do something about it" If you want to see what my good health is paying for take a minute to visit a hospital or chemo treatment center. America has had to make extra wide sturdy chairs. Our Medicare pays for chemo after chemo after chemo after chemo until the smoker dies.

Lack of personal responsibility is costing everyone too much heartache and money.

I agree 100%. As a woman I already have to pay higher premiums for my gender--something I have no control over. I have no problem with smokers being required to pay more for choosing to damage themselves. Smoking is horrible, horrible, horrible to your health and a contributing factor to many health problems. I also agree with obesity and I think they should also have higher premiums for that. At my job we actually have health screenings for employees and if you are within healthy parameters (BMI, cholesterol, BP, blood sugar) they pay you money to go toward your deductible. It actually has encouraged people to take better control of their lives.

I work hard to keep myself healthy. I go to the gym five days a week and I try to make good choices in my diet.

Marvin S
02-18-2013, 07:40 PM
I don't often post here, but let the roast begin.
I am also employed in the benefits industry. I personally feel if you smoke and you are over weight you should be forced to pay more for insurance from the gov or private industry. Our citizens have forgotten about personal responsibility of their health. My family and I do our best to stay healthy. We make individual choices to do so.

Doctors can longer say "you are obese and you need to do something about it" If you want to see what my good health is paying for take a minute to visit a hospital or chemo treatment center. America has had to make extra wide sturdy chairs. Our Medicare pays for chemo after chemo after chemo after chemo until the smoker dies.

Lack of personal responsibility is costing everyone too much heartache and money.

Erik, I don't disagree - but doctors are not always right, they have the stats but some folks don't fit the stats. As for someone abusing themselves, plant them.

Don't you mean Medicaid?

Pete
02-18-2013, 08:01 PM
Is it kind of interesting that Obamacare wants to make sure that women can get free contraception and abortions, but nobody has yet felt it necessary to give free smoking cessation and weight-loss/maintenance aids? How about alcohol cessation? It would seem that the latter would be as instrumental in cost savings as the former?[/COLOR]
]

Population control is a main objective.

Buzz
02-18-2013, 08:54 PM
This is kind of interesting ... didn't realize that workers who had union or employer health care would not be eligible for premum subsidies; that subsidies would only apply to workers who had to purchase their coverage themselves. Can see why the unions are pretty upset! Even though the union plans may have waivers for certain rules of ACA, their premiums will be affected as well.



I have been aware of these pro idioms all along. If your employer or union is providing the coverage, why do you need the premium support. If an employer pays below some average salary, they get a credit. I think that is a disincentive for an employer to pay good wages. We will receive no credits because on average we pay too much...

Buzz
02-18-2013, 08:56 PM
I have been aware of these pro idioms all along. If your employer or union is providing the coverage, why do you need the premium support. If an employer pays below some average salary, they get a credit. I think that is a disincentive for an employer to pay good wages. We will receive no credits because on average we pay too much...

Damn phone spell checker. I was trying to type "provisions."

Gerry Clinchy
02-18-2013, 10:05 PM
I have been aware of these pro idioms all along. If your employer or union is providing the coverage, why do you need the premium support. If an employer pays below some average salary, they get a credit. I think that is a disincentive for an employer to pay good wages. We will receive no credits because on average we pay too much...
I'm guessing the reason is that not all employer plans pay for the entire family premium. Some pay only for the employee, and the employee pays the additional to cover the rest of his family. So, if premiums go up, the employer will be paying more for his portion of the premium, and the employee will be paying more for his portion, too.

If the business happens to be a restaurant, where low-skilled workers are the norm, and turnover of employees high, then it is likely that the wages would be lower than for a civil engineering firm. One could not really expect wages to be equal from one business to another.

Jason Glavich
02-19-2013, 07:03 AM
I don't often post here, but let the roast begin.
I am also employed in the benefits industry. I personally feel if you smoke and you are over weight you should be forced to pay more for insurance from the gov or private industry. Our citizens have forgotten about personal responsibility of their health. My family and I do our best to stay healthy. We make individual choices to do so.

Doctors can longer say "you are obese and you need to do something about it" If you want to see what my good health is paying for take a minute to visit a hospital or chemo treatment center. America has had to make extra wide sturdy chairs. Our Medicare pays for chemo after chemo after chemo after chemo until the smoker dies.

Lack of personal responsibility is costing everyone too much heartache and money.

I should not be forced to buy anything regardless of the cost. I could say that people who live an active lifestyle have too many joint problems, or hypochondriacs are a drain on the system, or diabetics should fix their diet to completely control their insulin.

HAD THEY NOT FORCED ME INTO THEIR SYSTEM IT WOULD NOT BE THEIR CONCERN. Now it is, now every citizen(who actually works and pays for insurance without tax credits) will pay for everything.

Buzz
02-19-2013, 04:06 PM
I should not be forced to buy anything regardless of the cost. I could say that people who live an active lifestyle have too many joint problems, or hypochondriacs are a drain on the system, or diabetics should fix their diet to completely control their insulin.

HAD THEY NOT FORCED ME INTO THEIR SYSTEM IT WOULD NOT BE THEIR CONCERN. Now it is, now every citizen(who actually works and pays for insurance without tax credits) will pay for everything.

So, who is paying in our current system???

Buzz
02-19-2013, 04:14 PM
I'm guessing the reason is that not all employer plans pay for the entire family premium. Some pay only for the employee, and the employee pays the additional to cover the rest of his family. So, if premiums go up, the employer will be paying more for his portion of the premium, and the employee will be paying more for his portion, too.

If the business happens to be a restaurant, where low-skilled workers are the norm, and turnover of employees high, then it is likely that the wages would be lower than for a civil engineering firm. One could not really expect wages to be equal from one business to another.




Gerry, I'm not sure you got my point. I think the cut off for getting credits is that you can't be paying your employees any more than $50k on average. Say I'm an employer and I'm paying on average $49k. I want to give my employees a cost of living raise of 3% which will bring them on average up to $50.5k. So, I'm going to an extra $1500/employee on average, plus my credit is gone - however much that credit is. I wonder how many business owners are going to be announcing that, "well you all were going to get a cost of living raise but Obama made it too expensive for me so I changed my mind...

Gerry Clinchy
02-21-2013, 06:18 PM
Gerry, I'm not sure you got my point. I think the cut off for getting credits is that you can't be paying your employees any more than $50k on average. Say I'm an employer and I'm paying on average $49k. I want to give my employees a cost of living raise of 3% which will bring them on average up to $50.5k. So, I'm going to an extra $1500/employee on average, plus my credit is gone - however much that credit is. I wonder how many business owners are going to be announcing that, "well you all were going to get a cost of living raise but Obama made it too expensive for me so I changed my mind...
It seems the employers would be correct in their math.

And is the law indexed for COL increases? If not, the worker gets a worse "shaft" ... no raise & cost of health insurance continues to increase.

It seems inevitable that any law this complex was bound to have multiple instances of unintended consequences ... much like the Federal Tax Code.

Gerry Clinchy
02-21-2013, 06:21 PM
Found this on American Thinker:

We start our story with the Bristol (England) Royal Infirmary, which enjoyed a reputation as a world-class surgery center for children with heart problems. When someone began to question that reputation and asked for outcomes data, a cover-up started, just like Watergate.Patient results were fabricated. Potential whistleblowers were intimidated. There were public distortions and denials. Eventually, the British government empaneled a "Commission" (their term for blue-ribbon panel), which released its Bristol Report (http://www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/final_report/index.htm) in June 2001.
After confirming the terrible patient outcomes, the Commission did the unexpected. Instead of blaming specific individuals, the Commission identified the root cause: the system and its culture, one of intolerance and corruption. The system that was supposed to protect the patients protected itself instead, at the patients' expense, literally to their deaths.
A few years later, similar events (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-21393729) were made public at the Stafford (England) Trust Hospitals. "Trust" is the word the NHS uses for a division, like the old Cook County Hospital System. Despite outcries over Stafford and reminders of Bristol, there was no change in the system -- just in the names of some players.
In 2010, the chief of the United Lincolnshire (England again) Hospitals Trust was concerned about needless deaths in his hospitals. When he tried to move these concerns up the NHS corporate chain, he was gagged (legally) and then fired. A new cover-up started, which took over two years to see the light of day.
A 14 Feb 2013 headline (http://rt.com/news/hospital-cover-up-uk-190/) read, "Deaths, lies and the NHS: Shocking new healthcare scandals emerge in UK." As previously documented in other NHS hospitals, there is evidence of "filthy wards ... understaffing ... excess deaths ... [and] avoidable deaths." The NHS chief, Sir David Nicholson, clearly wanted to protect the system's reputation more than protect sick Britons.
Obvious "insanity" in England, but maybe it is just a British problem? Let's look at a different government-controlled healthcare system to our north: Canada.
In 2010, Dr. Ciaran McNamee, formerly a surgeon in Alberta, now at Harvard, sued the Alberta Provincial Government for similar reasons as at Bristol, Stafford, and Lincolnshire: inadequate allocation of resources, too few doctors and other providers, not enough beds and equipment. Canadians died needlessly (http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110311/%20CGY_health_care_110311/20110311/?hub=CalgaryHome) and avoidably. Treatments that would have worked were either Not Approved or Approved for some time in the distant future, rather than when the patients needed care. In my new book, Not Right! - Conversations with We The Patients, I call the former death-by-bureaucracy and the latter death-by-queueing.
The recurring pattern is clear. When the government is in control, the budget and rule-following are more important than patient outcomes. When a bureaucrat decides your health care, you lose. The root cause of needless patient deaths is the system, not the individuals.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/is_the_us_clinically_insane.html#ixzz2LaA6pbiu
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

The byline for the author:

Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA gave up practicing clinical medicine after the 2012 election, saying, "I cannot practice ethical medicine under ObamaCare." He is the author of Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA gave up practicing clinical medicine after the 2012 election, saying, "I cannot practice ethical medicine under ObamaCare." He is the author of Uproot US Healthcare and Not Right! - Conversations with We The Patients (June 2013) as well as adjunct scholar for the Rio Grande Foundation in New Mexico.

Gerry Clinchy
03-05-2013, 12:09 AM
Geez! It just keeps getting better ... The IRS has announced that it will be writing the regulations to implement the excise tax on health insurors, which will cost those entities about $8 billion in 2014, and about $11 billion in 2015. They are trying to write the regulation in such a way that the health insurors will be limited in recouping this additional tax from the insureds. Fat chance of that being the ultimate reality.

To write the reg that way is like saying: "We're going to take some of your profit, and you're not allowed to charge any more for your product; you just have to suck it up because the govt needs the money for Obamacare more than you need that profit. You have no right to have such a big profit. People have a right to health care."

I think there might be another lawsuit lurking there. The govt has a right to levy a tax, (as SCOTUS declared), but do they have a right to tell the insurors how much profit they can make?

No question that there are few people who have any love lost for the insurance companies, but if the govt can do this to one type of company, can't they carry the premise further. For example, require auto makers to improve mileage, but not allow them to pass along their extra costs to the consumer? Was the same restriction put on the medical device companies for their excise tax?

Of course, if the insurors go broke, or leave the health care insurance business, that brings single-payer closer to reality. Then single-provider (as in UK) ... and then wait 50 years for that system to develop the leaks it's developing now in the UK.

charly_t
03-05-2013, 11:00 AM
" This is a one-sentence editorial that appeared in the February 21 Peoria (IL) Journal Star....speaks volumes:"


"A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens."


"Release Date: 02/27/13"

Just an e-mail that I received this morning ( from a relative ) and found "very interesting". I have not snoped it.

Raymond Little
03-05-2013, 11:04 AM
Geez! It just keeps getting better ... The IRS has announced that it will be writing the regulations to implement the excise tax on health insurors, which will cost those entities about $8 billion in 2014, and about $11 billion in 2015. They are trying to write the regulation in such a way that the health insurors will be limited in recouping this additional tax from the insureds. Fat chance of that being the ultimate reality.

To write the reg that way is like saying: "We're going to take some of your profit, and you're not allowed to charge any more for your product; you just have to suck it up because the govt needs the money for Obamacare more than you need that profit. You have no right to have such a big profit. People have a right to health care."

I think there might be another lawsuit lurking there. The govt has a right to levy a tax, (as SCOTUS declared), but do they have a right to tell the insurors how much profit they can make?

No question that there are few people who have any love lost for the insurance companies, but if the govt can do this to one type of company, can't they carry the premise further. For example, require auto makers to improve mileage, but not allow them to pass along their extra costs to the consumer? Was the same restriction put on the medical device companies for their excise tax?

Of course, if the insurors go broke, or leave the health care insurance business, that brings single-payer closer to reality. Then single-provider (as in UK) ... and then wait 50 years for that system to develop the leaks it's developing now in the UK.

With 300 + million people in America, it won't take 5 years before the whole system implodes. I can only hope when it does anarchy will follow and those on the top and bottom who brought our country down suffer greatly.

Bitter Clinger Regards,;)

Gerry Clinchy
03-05-2013, 02:26 PM
I just found this from the NY Post. Talk about "war on women" ... Obamacare is a "war on children" ...

Start with the IRS’s new estimate for what the cheapest family plan will cost by 2016: $20,000 a year to cover two adults and three kids. And that will only cover 60 percent of medical bills, so add hefty out-of-pocket costs, too.
The next surprise is for parents who thought their kids would be covered by an employer. Sloppy wording in the law left that unclear until last week, when the IRS ruled that kids won’t be covered.
Starting in 2014, the law will require employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer coverage or pay a penalty. “Affordable” coverage, that is — meaning the employee can’t be told to contribute more than 9.5 percent of his salary. For example, a worker earning $40,000 a year cannot be required to pay more than $3.800.
But the law doesn’t specifically mandate family coverage — and now the administration says that won’t be required.
You can see why: If the lowest-cost family plan (again, two adults and three kids) is to run a whopping $20,000, and if the employee’s contribution is limited to $3,800, the employer’s tab would be $16,200 — adding about $7.40 an hour to the cost of that employee. Wisely, the IRS announced on Jan. 30 that employers won’t have to pay for dependents.
But the Congressional Budget Office’s much-cited prediction that ObamaCare would leave only 30 million people uninsured by 2016 was based on the assumption that kids would be covered by employers. At the very least, employers insuring their workers for the first time to avoid the penalty are unlikely to do that.
So how will the kids be covered? They won’t. The IRS shocked the law’s advocates by announcing that the insurance exchanges won’t provide subsidies for a child whose parent is covered at work.
Nor will these parents be penalized for not insuring their children — the IRS will kindly consider the kids exempt from the mandate.
Also exempt are millions of people who’ll stay uninsured because their state is wisely choosing not to loosen Medicaid eligibility.
Some background: Despite President Obama’s promises to help solve the problem of the uninsured by making private health plans more affordable, the law expands coverage mainly by forcing states to loosen their Medicaid eligibility rules. But the Supreme Court ruled that the feds can’t command states in this way.
At first, the CBO said that ruling would only prevent 4 million people from gaining coverage — but more states than it expected are refusing to go along; it could well be 8 million more without coverage.
Oh, and the CBO last week also doubled its previous estimate on how many people will lose the health coverage they now get through work, upping the figure to 8 million by 2016 and 12 million by 2019. Several top consulting firms put the figures even higher.
Yet the biggest setback is that most states are refusing to set up insurance exchanges. The exchanges are supposed to sell the government-mandated plans and hand out taxpayer-funded subsidies to most enrollees.
Here’s the glitch. The law says that in states that refuse, the federal government can set up an exchange. But the law empowers only state exchanges, not federal ones, to hand out subsidies. The Obama administration says it will disregard the law and offer subsidies in all 50 states anyway, but the case will likely go to the Supreme Court.
If the courts uphold the clear language of the law, then some 8 million people in the affected states won’t be eligible for subsidies to cover that $20,000 (or more) insurance bill. That’s another 8 million without coverage.
All in all, at least 40 million people could be uninsured in 2016, only 9 million fewer than before the law was passed.
Expect the momentum for repealing this law to grow as its flaws, perverse incentives and faulty predictions come to light.
So ... women will get free contraception, which is a good thing since children are not mandated to have health insurance coverage.

huntinman
03-05-2013, 03:17 PM
" This is a one-sentence editorial that appeared in the February 21 Peoria (IL) Journal Star....speaks volumes:"


"A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens."


"Release Date: 02/27/13"

Just an e-mail that I received this morning ( from a relative ) and found "very interesting". I have not snoped it.

Doesn't need to be Snoped... It's true.

Gerry Clinchy
03-05-2013, 07:28 PM
Interesting ... a tax that cannot be collected?

If having provisions for enforcement is necessary for a "tax" to really be a tax, then the RobertsTax isn't a tax at all -- it's a suggestion. That's because ObamaCare expressly forbids the IRS (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/the_tax_you_need_not_pay.html)from prosecution for nonpayment of the RobertsTax. However, the IRS can deny the taxpayer his income tax refund if he owes the RobertsTax. (This has been addressed at The American (http://www.american.com/archive/2012/july/if-you-dont-buy-insurance-will-you-really-pay-the-tax), Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/07/03/some-tax-few-will-face-obamacare-uninsured-penalty-and-irs-hamstrung-to-collect/), Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/10/why-would-anyone-pay-the-penalty-for-bei), NPR (http://www.npr.org/2012/06/29/156005219/how-health-laws-taxes-penalties-will-be-enforced), Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-05/policing-obamacare-americas-newest-tax)and elsewhere.) But if denial of one's income tax refund is the only mechanism available to the IRS to enforce the RobertsTax, then the RobertsTax can be easily avoided by simply not overpaying one's income tax throughout the tax year.For those Americans just emerging from the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes into the 53 percent who do, ObamaCare becomes an issue. If they have a federal income tax bill of even a single dollar, they become subject to the RobertsTax.
Line 40 of Form 1040 (http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf)shows that the Standard Deduction for an unmarried person is $5,950 and Line 42 shows the exemption as $3,800. In the Tax Table on page 79 of the 1040 instructions booklet (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf), we see that if one has a Taxable Income of $5 (the threshold of taxability) that one owes $1 in federal income tax. So unless I'm missing something, an income of $9,755 would have made one subject to the RobertsTax had it been in effect in 2012. One's last penny of income can come at a rather steep price if it triggers the RobertsTax, which starts at $695.
It seems every time that tax rates go up, it's hailed as the largest tax hike in history. But when a $1 tax bill becomes a $696 tax bill, it's safe to say we have a new all-time winner. The RobertsTax may not only be the largest tax hike in history, it may also be the most regressive tax hike in history, as it's much more likely to hurt low-income earners. (That's what happens when the judiciary starts writing tax law.)


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/obamacare_and_the_robertstax.html#ixzz2MicbhlNo
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

andrewm
03-05-2013, 10:47 PM
"At my job we actually have health screenings for employees and if you are within healthy parameters (BMI, cholesterol, BP, blood sugar) they pay you money to go toward your deductible. It actually has encouraged people to take better control of their lives."

That's how every employer should do it

Gerry Clinchy
03-08-2013, 01:25 AM
Here's a gem about just how good the Fed govt will be at running exchanges:

The most recent revelation concerns health insurance exec Sara Horowitz, who recently won a tax-free $340 million federal loan (http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurer-with-nys-worst-record-of-complaints-gets-340m-obamacare-loan/article/2522229)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png to set up insurance co-ops in three states as part of the ObamaCare program. This, despite the fact that her company, Freelancers Insurance, has earned distinction as the “worst” insurer two years in a row in her home state of New York and that the firm has been pummeled with unusually high consumer complaints.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/27/obama-not-playing-by-rules/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2MvjrgrKB


Why would such a dismal performance find favor with the feds? Maybe because Ms. Horowitz and President Obama go way back – back to before the latter was a player on the national scene. Back to when she and Obama together launched liberal think tank Demos along with George Soros, jointly joined that outfit’s board, and before Obama’s caretakers managed to get the record of that alliance scrubbed from Demos’ website. Ms. Horowitz and Mr. Obama are long-time cronies.

Pete
03-08-2013, 06:50 AM
And he is just getting started. Hey does any body know where I can buy a box of 22 shells. I have looked every where and they are all out. They are out of most pistol rounds too.
Pete

huntinman
03-08-2013, 07:35 AM
And he is just getting started. Hey does any body know where I can buy a box of 22 shells. I have looked every where and they are all out. They are out of most pistol rounds too.
Pete

Call the US Dept of Ag, the Dep of Labor, the Dep Of Education, TSA, IRS, Park Service etc... Seems they have plenty:rolleyes:

Uncle Bill
03-09-2013, 11:35 AM
Here's a gem about just how good the Fed govt will be at running exchanges:


Thank you so much for keeping us in the 'knowledge' loop on this boondoggle of all time, Gerry. I appreciate your efforts very much. Lord knows we need someone with the intelligence to seperate the wheat from the chaffe. But come to think of it, there's very little 'wheat' involved, eh?:rolleyes:

But with your posts and threads on this matter, even the most ardent Nancy Pelosi fools have to be opening their eyes to what this ineptocracy is foisting on the American people. Even thise that 'think' their insurance is coming to them as a freebie, will eventually wake up and discove it;s just another fed corrupt program to get their votes. The sheeple will have been sheared.

UB

charly_t
03-09-2013, 12:30 PM
Thank you so much for keeping us in the 'knowledge' loop on this boondoggle of all time, Gerry. I appreciate your efforts very much. Lord knows we need someone with the intelligence to seperate the wheat from the chaffe. But come to think of it, there's very little 'wheat' involved, eh?:rolleyes:

But with your posts and threads on this matter, even the most ardent Nancy Pelosi fools have to be opening their eyes to what this ineptocracy is foisting on the American people. Even thise that 'think' their insurance is coming to them as a freebie, will eventually wake up and discove it;s just another fed corrupt program to get their votes. The sheeple will have been sheared.

UB

Agree with UB 100%, Gerry.

UB, I been wondering when some people would admit their mistake in voting for Obama. I think they must be related to moles not sheep though..............bring something out in the light and they can't seem to see it. Maybe we got a cross between those two animals running around loose and producing more and more of them. Of course I always thought that moles had pretty good noses but these people ( ? ) can't seem to smell the rotten stuff going on.

Gerry Clinchy
03-09-2013, 01:36 PM
More unions finding out about what is NOT in the law:


"When we backed Obamacare, we were told that if we had good health insurance and wanted to keep it, we could. What happened to that?" -- Rick Charette (http://trackometry.com/link.htm?camp=6491&i=15&r=176821&orig=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FWMv9J8), who leads a coalition of five unions representing grocery workers, responding to the grocers plan to drop coverage and send these low-income workers to the government Exchange, Working In These Times, March 1, 2013.

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]From a labor union publication: "Union leaders and grocery chain managers are back at the negotiating table in New England today in a bitter and messy attempt to adapt existing health insurance programs to the new realities of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. ... Standing in the way of an agreement at this point are certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act set to go into effect in 2014. "It's a nightmare' that has been created not by corporate pressure to cut labor costs, but by the fumbling bureaucratic requirements of federal health law," says a labor union leader. Due to Obamacare eliminating medical benefit caps, health insurance increases over the next three years for Stop & Shop grocery will be $250 million (http://trackometry.com/link.htm?camp=6491&i=5&r=176821&orig=http%3A%2F%2Finthesetimes.com%2Fworking%2Fent ry%2F14662%2Fnew_england_grocery_unions_face_gruel ing_obamacare_test%2F).

Enrolling the Masses

The Unaffordable Care Act will fail unless Obama's troops conduct nationwide "search and enroll" missions. The missions begin this July through open enrollment on October 1, 2013. His "Organizing for America" election campaign has been recommissioned to "Organizing for Action." OFA is raising millions to send "Enroll America" troops to hold enrollment events, run phone banks to enroll people and descend on towns going door to door to enroll Americans into Obamacare. The administration has just released a 60-page list of the questions (http://trackometry.com/link.htm?camp=6491&i=11&r=176821&orig=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FXM31T1) people will be asked to enroll in the Exchange (consent agreement for data sharing not yet released - p. 4), and the 21-page application. (http://trackometry.com/link.htm?camp=6491&i=12&r=176821&orig=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FWNld23) To make enrollment into federal subsidies easy, the Act requires states to accept telephonic signatures. (http://trackometry.com/link.htm?camp=6491&i=13&r=176821&orig=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FWHoKJw)
I can't even begin to imagine the amount of fraud this can lead to! Suppose you could sign up for welfare or unemployment with a "telephonic signature"?

Initially, many small employers facing Obamacare penalties, taxes and sticker shock will self-insure, says John Torinus. Going self-insured means employers become insurers. But the future may look very different. The company uses its own bankroll to pay for employee medical costs, and uses a "third party administrator" to process the payments. Mr. Torinus , CEO of Serigraph Inc, and former business editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, also shares this colorful prediction: (http://trackometry.com/link.htm?camp=6491&i=6&r=176821&orig=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FXR3N2a)
"The AON/Hewitt survey high-lighted the continuing financial pain from rising health costs. They predicted hyper-inflationary increases of 8% to 10% over the next three to five years and a doubling of costs over the next five. Ouch! ... The $2000 fine per employee under ObamaCare for dropping coverage will prove to be a pittance compared to costs that double in five years. Many companies will take the fine and offer a defined contribution to their employees for purchase of individual policies. They will say: "Here's $5000 for you and your family; go to the exchange and buy your own policy; and use whatever subsidies the government has to offer as well. We're done with managing health care. We can't stand it any more."
Many of us have discussed that employer-sponsored health insurance may not have been the best way to handle it in the past, but for those insureds who will now be cut loose into the exchanges, it will be a traumatic experience, for sure.

Gerry Clinchy
03-12-2013, 01:22 PM
Interesting ... Gov. Scott of FL decided to set up a state exchange for FL & accept the Fed funds (via Obamacare). That could not be accomplished without the FL legislature agreeing to do it. The legislature voted "no".

charly_t
03-12-2013, 01:41 PM
Interesting ... Gov. Scott of FL decided to set up a state exchange for FL & accept the Fed funds (via Obamacare). That could not be accomplished without the FL legislature agreeing to do it. The legislature voted "no".

That is very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Gerry Clinchy
03-13-2013, 05:45 PM
Just worth mentioning here ... originally Obamacare was "supposed" to cost $900B. The latest estimate is that the cost will be $1.6 Trillion. Just about 100% under-estimated. Yup, Mrs. Pelosi, we just HAD to pass it to find that out! Most of us could have guessed based on the history of Medicare. Now what?

The regulations for Obamacare, thus far, total 20,000 pages, and it hasn't fully begun yet. Seems like it will give the Tax Code some competition.

mngundog
03-13-2013, 06:16 PM
Just worth mentioning here ... originally Obamacare was "supposed" to cost $900B. The latest estimate is that the cost will be $1.6 Trillion. Just about 100% under-estimated. Yup, Mrs. Pelosi, we just HAD to pass it to find that out! Most of us could have guessed based on the history of Medicare. Now what?

The regulations for Obamacare, thus far, total 20,000 pages, and it hasn't fully begun yet. Seems like it will give the Tax Code some competition.
Almost sounds like Pelosi was using Lawrence Lindsey as an adviser. :D

Gerry Clinchy
03-23-2013, 05:47 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/were_all_cvs_employees_now.html

This could be one of the scariest things in this law. It's one thing to have an electronic health record to treat you effectively. It seems quite another to use that record to deny you treatment. You'll be forced to pay for health care insurance, but simultaneously could be denied treatment for many ailments. At least the healthy people will no longer be able to complain that the people with unhealthy lifestyles are responsible for all the costs ... since those with unhealthy lifestyles won't get any piece of the pie. The situation will be reversed, you might say.

We keep talking about the privacy issue of not telling parents if a minor wants an abortion; but there is no privacy for other health issues in this law? Would the next step be requiring mandatory sterilization if you are deemed genetically unfit to reproduce?

What happens if it is determined that a gay lifestyle is deemed unhealthy due to high risk of STDs and AIDS? Will gays be denied treatment? Oops, no, they are a "protected" class, so you couldn't discriminate against them. Or could you?

We talk about de-criminalizing marijuana, while we are approaching the point of criminalizing the use of tobacco products and sugar! Alcohol is high in sugars. They tried criminalizing that once, and it didn't work out too well. Maybe drug abuse will also come to be considered unhealthy?

Here are just a few quotes in the posting:

In the U.K., overweight patients or those who smoke are branded "undeserving (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2111109/NHS-patients-refused-treatment-unless-change-lifestyles.html)" and denied treatments like cataract surgery (without which they could eventually go blind) and knee and hip surgery, leaving some who don't qualify for the surgery in agonizing pain. Some of the U.K.'s "trusts," which regulate the national health care system for various zones of the country, go farther, denying all operations to those who don't meet the government's weight dictates except for lifesaving surgery on their hearts, brains or to remove cancer. (Wonder if the "undeserving) patients are also denied meds after the surgery?)


A recent study shows that a majority (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese) of the U.K.'s doctors think the national health system should go farther still and deny all non-emergency care to patients who don't meet certain weight and health criteria. By law, they still must pay for their health care, of course, even though they are denied the ability to get treatment.(Why did they become doctors? This sounds like bureaucrats speaking.)


Given all of this, it is chilling that the collection of each patient's BMI was so important to U.S. Health and Human Services that it was one of the first directives the department issued after ObamaCare passed in 2009. There is a reason for that.
It is clear that liberal elites and the Obama administration intend to take Americans down the same path as Europe. The apparatus to handle federally mandated "health interventions" into people's lives is already being put in place.


Given all of this, you can also begin to see the reasons behind the obsessive push from the White House to demonize not just obesity, but the food that causes it. This new obsession with dividing America into classes by weight and health will manifest itself in other ways outside the doctor's office, where the costs of obesity will be the justification for regulation and punitive taxation of foods government disapproves of. In a recent Reuters story, doctors were already calling for (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/us-usa-health-diabetes-idUSBRE85K05Z20120621) bans on certain foods, restrictions on food portions, and taxation not just of fattening foods, but of "empty-calorie" foods that don't contain nutrients or protein.

Nobody wants to advocate for an unhealthy lifestyle, but is there any limit to which the govt can intrude on privacy to decide and dictate so many facets of your life? I have to imagine that there are still some chubby, cigar-smoking bureaucrats in the UK and Canada that still get their health care just fine :-)

Julie R.
03-24-2013, 12:03 PM
The more I learn of this nightmare foisted on the unsuspecting American public, the scarier it is. The reasons health care costs have gone up so much in the past decade were never even addressed. In fact, all Obamacare has done to date is to increase costs and as more provisions go into effect, the increases appear to be exponential. A shame Congress and the executive branch all have their little golden parachute of benefits--if they were all forced to abide by the same rules as the rest of us, Obamacare would never have become law.

Eric Johnson
03-27-2013, 01:31 PM
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/27/hhs-secretary-finally-admits-obamacare-is-raising-insurance-costs/

http://tinyurl.com/c48o4md

By: John Hayward
3/27/2013 07:46 AM

A watershed moment in the ongoing disaster of ObamaCare, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally admits that health insurance premiums are rising because of the President’s health insurance takeover, per the Wall Street Journal:

Ms. Sebelius’s remarks come weeks before insurers are expected to begin releasing rates for plans that start on Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of the health law kick in. Premiums have been a sensitive subject for the Obama administration, which is counting on elements in the health law designed to increase competition among insurers to keep rates in check. The administration has pointed to subsidies that will be available for many lower-income Americans to help them with the cost of coverage.

- more -

sick lids
03-27-2013, 05:18 PM
I heard that premiums in WI will possibly go up 80% next year. so much for prices going down. Just might have to start bartering for health care.

road kill
03-28-2013, 05:54 AM
Is there anyone that believes that the "Affordable Healthcare Act" benefits anyone??

Is there any way to STOP this insanity??

Gerry Clinchy
03-30-2013, 05:18 PM
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2013/03/30/report-card-on-obamacare-n1552872

This article is a pretty good overview of what problems there are with the ACA. I still wonder who the heck wrote this law. Whoever it was surely didn't know much about the healthcare business.

Gerry Clinchy
04-03-2013, 02:38 PM
The medical device tax will also impact veterinary care ...

The tax will even be applied to sutures used on pets that Theragenics developed for the veterinary market.

She sought FDA approval to demonstrate the quality of her products. But now she said "it's hard for me not to get frosted on this one" -- she explained that whoever wrote the regulations said "if you have FDA approval, you will be taxed."


President Obama has vowed to veto any repeal of the tax, but Bayh notes that 79 votes in the Senate would be more than enough to override any veto.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/03/obamacare-in-trouble-exchange-provision-delayed-as-lawmakers-push-to-repeal/?test=latestnews#ixzz2PQi5z93P

Earlier in the article, it was disputed whether many of the device mfrs would actually have increased usage ... when it comes to a lot of devices, they are provided for a large number of people already receiving Medicare, so there would be no appreciable increase in usage in the largest portion of their market.

On that score, I begin to wonder, if those devices used heavily by Medicare participants, and with over $500 billion removed from Medicare to go to Obamacare, if Medicare will not increase their disbursement fee for those devices, that should definitely decrease the companies' profits. Obviously, the device tax was put in there to help offset the costs involved with Obamacare. If the smaller companies close, then there might be a scarcity of those devices for those who need them? Can those companies who survive choose to devote more of their products to ones that do not have to rely on Medicare's more restrictive reimbursement schedule? If so, would that also result in fewer of these devises, more often needed by the elderly, to become more and more scarce?

I'm sure there's quite a generous mark-up on these devices, but if it does cause companies to reduce their R&D budgets to compensate, then the end result could also be a negative one.

Uncle Bill
04-03-2013, 02:49 PM
More to be 'concerned' about, but then how could anyone not know this was going to be a scam? UB

The ObamaCare tax credit trapBy: John Hayward (http://www.retrievertraining.net/users/jhayward13/) | April 2nd, 2013


Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi encouraged us to pass ObamaCare to find out what was in it. Here’s the latest grisly surprise, courtesy of the Associated Press (http://bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/2013/04/obamacare_credits_could_trigger_surprise_tax_bills ):




Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don’t accurately project their income.


President Barack Obama’s new health care law will offer subsidies to help people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don’t already get coverage through their employers. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy.
But the government doesn’t know how much money you’re going to make next year. And when you apply for the subsidy, this fall, it won’t even know how much you’re making this year. So, unless you tell the government otherwise, it will rely on the best information it has: your 2012 tax return, filed this spring.


What happens if you or your spouse gets a raise and your family income goes up in 2014? You could end up with a bigger subsidy than you are entitled to. If that happens, the law says you have to pay back at least part of the money when you file your tax return in the spring of 2015.
That could result in smaller tax refunds or surprise tax bills for millions of middle-income families.


Funny, I seem to recall Barack Obama swearing that he’d never raise taxes on the Sainted Middle Class. Just wait until they get their surprise tax bills in 2015! I’m sure everyone will have a good laugh about the whole crazy situation.


Let’s see if I’ve got this straight: when you fill out the 15-page form to apply for the subsidy needed to buy Barack Obama’s ridiculously expensive health insurance, you’ve got to estimate what you’re going to make in the coming year, and hope to God you don’t get a raise, or find a more lucrative job. No, sorry, back up: you’ve got to estimate what you and your spouse will be making. If you get it wrong, or leave the ObamaCare commissars to estimate your subsidy based on last year’s tax returns, you may well end up with a “surprise tax bill” to recover the subsidies you didn’t deserve for the health insurance you can’t really afford.


And you’ll be spending those tax subsidies in “state exchanges” that most likely won’t be ready when you need them (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100606206), because the data processing infrastructure isn’t there, and the Department of Health and Human Services is still frantically scribbling new regulations.


The 15-page ObamaCare form drafted by the IRS does not warn of the tax credit trap, but fear not, the Administration and its allies will be launching “a multi-million dollar campaign using social media, paid advertising, and grass-roots organizing” to educate us. Great! More millions wasted on this pile of ObamaCare garbage.


And none of the tax-hungry, regulation-happy Big Government geniuses who dreamed up ObamaCare saw this coming. Nobody saw this coming.



“That’s scary,” says Joan Baird of Springfield, Va. “I had no idea, and I work in health care.”
Baird, a health care information management worker, is far from alone. Health care providers, advocates and tax experts say the vast majority of Americans know very little about the new health care law, let alone the kind of detailed information many will need to navigate its system of subsidies and penalties.


“They know it’s out there,” said Mark Cummings, who manages the H&R Block office where Baird was getting her own taxes done. “But in general, they don’t know anything about it.”


[...] “It’s potentially going to come as a shock to individuals who meet that criteria where their income hits a point where they owe money back,” said Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. “The fact is, with variations in income, people could end up owing money back and that will create consternation and problems for them.”


How much money are we talking about? Of course, none of the clowns running the ObamaCare circus can answer that question with authority, but the AP tells us Congress has already raised the repayment caps by a cool $40 billion over the next decade.


$4 billion a year, taken straight from the hides of what used to be known as the “middle class.” Congratulations, America. Bet you can’t wait until the next “surprise” lunges from this fetid swamp of legislative failure and sinks its teeth into your throat.

Gerry Clinchy
04-03-2013, 05:36 PM
One of the most worrisome aspects is, I think, that people who have employer-health insurance available, will not be entitled to ANY subsidy at all. If they cannot afford the extra amount for their family coverage, millions of children will be without health insurance. And I really don't know if those children would qualify for the state CHIP programs either.

There may be a net increase in the numbers insured, but there will be others who are not insured. The irony may be that those who become insured will be heavily subsidized, while those who lose their coverage will be many who were intended to help support the overall program of subsidies.

Raymond Little
04-03-2013, 08:38 PM
Is there anyone that believes that the "Affordable Healthcare Act" benefits anyone??

Is there any way to STOP this insanity??

Nope, that's why I believe" it's got to crash before we can rebuild it". A la pelousey
Single payer is the end game boys and gurls but will he people believe Jug Ears and his idiots one Mo time?

Gerry Clinchy
04-29-2013, 12:54 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/another-missed-deadline-ahead-for-obamacare/?intcmp=HPBucket
Hmm ... so the advisory board that has been the subject of some controversy, is unlikely to be in place when it's supposed to be. Then the job of approving or denying treatments will rest with Ms. Sebelius. That should be interesting. This was the entity that Palin called a "death panel".

Evidently, the members of this board have to be approved by Congress. The author of the piece seems to feel that the Ds aren't ready to start this conversation too close to the 2014 mid-term elections. He thinks it might even be kind of hard for them to find 15 people who want to be on such a board.

We may not get to find out if this law can work after all, since the Ds can't seem to even get it up and running to begin with. You may recall, they've also missed the deadline on the state exchanges; and the Federal exchange that is supposed to be set up if the states don't do so.

Julie R.
04-29-2013, 02:46 PM
We may not get to find out if this law can work after all, since the Ds can't seem to even get it up and running to begin with. You may recall, they've also missed the deadline on the state exchanges; and the Federal exchange that is supposed to be set up if the states don't do so.

And yet, all the myriad tax increases have gone into effect and the cost of obtaining health insurance has skyrocketed for all but Congress, the executive branch and all their little pets & special interests. Mr. Little may be onto something: the Obamacare Unaffordable HCA is proving to be such a fiasco that it's going to implode, which is what it's going to take to get people to open their eyes.

Bubba
04-29-2013, 03:11 PM
Ran across this today- pretty scary stuff.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/22/how-government-killed-the-medical-profes

Bubba

twall
04-29-2013, 05:34 PM
Ran across this today- pretty scary stuff.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/22/how-government-killed-the-medical-profes

Bubba

Bubba,

Thanks for the link, great article. Anyone who cares about where our healthcare system is headed should read this, especially those who think Obamacare/single payor system is the way to go.

Tom

caryalsobrook
04-29-2013, 08:10 PM
Bubba,

Thanks for the link, great article. Anyone who cares about where our healthcare system is headed should read this, especially those who think Obamacare/single payor system is the way to go.

TomThe liberals like to all it "single payor". I call it SINGLE EMPLOYER system. That speaks more to the loss of individual freedoms of both doctors and patients.

Eric Johnson
04-30-2013, 11:53 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html

http://tinyurl.com/boxlw52

The Coming ObamaCare Shock

By DANIEL P. KESSLER
In recent weeks, there have been increasing expressions of concern from surprising quarters about the implementation of ObamaCare. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, called it a "train wreck." A Democratic colleague, West Virginia's Sen. Jay Rockefeller, described the massive Affordable Care Act as "beyond comprehension." Henry Chao, the government's chief technical officer in charge of putting in place the insurance exchanges mandated by the law, was quoted in the Congressional Quarterly as saying "I'm pretty nervous . . . Let's just make sure it's not a third-world experience."

These individuals are worried for good reason. The unpopular health-care law's rollout is going to be rough. It will also administer several price (and other) shocks to tens of millions of Americans

- more -

Julie R.
04-30-2013, 12:00 PM
Henry Chao, the government's chief technical officer in charge of putting in place the insurance exchanges mandated by the law, was quoted in the Congressional Quarterly as saying "I'm pretty nervous . . . Let's just make sure it's not a third-world experience."


We're already sliding into Third World status; Obamacare is simply hastening the slide.

Raymond Little
04-30-2013, 01:10 PM
We're already sliding into Third World status; Obamacare is simply hastening the slide.

Better watch out, when I said the same the LT's called me down.;)

Franco
04-30-2013, 04:58 PM
Looks like there will be another major court battle over Obamacare.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13513-obamacare-gets-another-court-challenge

Since the SCOTUS ruled it a tax, all tax bills must originate in the House. Obamacare came out of the Senate.

menmon
04-30-2013, 05:07 PM
Ran across this today- pretty scary stuff.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/22/how-government-killed-the-medical-profes

Bubba

That is what its intention is to be scary. Is it true...I question that since every medicare elgible individual I know loved their medicare the last 30 years.

Quit reading crap....more attempts at making public opinion oppose the change. Why do they want you mad, so they can keep hoodwinking you.

huntinman
04-30-2013, 07:14 PM
That is what its intention is to be scary. Is it true...I question that since every medicare elgible individual I know loved their medicare the last 30 years.

Quit reading crap....more attempts at making public opinion oppose the change. Why do they want you mad, so they can keep hoodwinking you.

Yeah, don't read... Just be a kool aid drinking zombie and do whatever the powers that be tell you to do... That makes a lot of sense.

menmon
05-01-2013, 06:20 AM
Yeah, don't read... Just be a kool aid drinking zombie and do whatever the powers that be tell you to do... That makes a lot of sense.

I read but I limit my fiction to mystery and thrillers. I don't try to find it in the news.

Bubba
05-01-2013, 07:55 AM
I read but I limit my fiction to mystery and thrillers. I don't try to find it in the news.

I have a Benjamin that says when you do read- you move your lips.

Bubba

Gerry Clinchy
05-01-2013, 12:17 PM
From an editorial by John Stossel:


Our old health care system was already a bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare. It had 16,000 different codes for different ailments. Under our new, “improved” system, there will be more than a 100,000.


Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250.


There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost -- depending on how often you’ve walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/01/obamacare-vs-neglect-what-better-for-your-health/#ixzz2S3tjiYZa

menmon
05-01-2013, 01:31 PM
I have a Benjamin that says when you do read- you move your lips.

Bubba

You want my address to send me that Benjamin? I'll make it easy, give it too your local fire or police department.

Bubba
05-01-2013, 07:33 PM
Dood in this trailerhood I am the POPO AND the fire department.

Guess what would happen when you call.

Roasting marshmallows on your Michelien Man looking ass regards
Bubba

Gerry Clinchy
05-04-2013, 10:05 PM
Oops ... got another glitch with the pre-existing condition people. While there are only 100,000 people enrolled in this program (remember, they shut down applications because they were running low on money), they are turning out to be more costly than anticipated. (Maybe they shoulda checked with the insurance companies about these costs?). So now, they are running out of money for these 100,000 people, too. They are telling the states that the Fed will reimburse the states for the cost over-runs ... up to a ceiling.

I'd guess that the states that did set up state exchanges are beginning to feel a little queasy about now; and the states that decided not to set up exchanges are waiting to see how this all unfolds.

The administration has given the state-based plans until next Wednesday to respond to proposed contract terms for the program's remaining seven months.
Delivered last Friday, the new contract stipulated that states will be reimbursed "up to a ceiling.


"The `ceiling' part is the issue for us," Keough said in an interview. "They are shifting the risk from the federal government, for a program that has experienced huge cost overruns on a per-member basis, to states. And that's a tall order."


State officials say one likely consequence of the money crunch will be a cost shift to people in the program, resulting in sudden increases in premiums and copayments. Many might just drop out, said Keough.


If a state and HHS can't come to an agreement, the federal government will take over that state's program for the rest of this year. Amie Goldman, director of the Wisconsin program, said that would be an unneeded and possibly risky disruption for patients who'll have to change insurance next year anyway, when the pre-existing conditions plan formally ends.


Goldman said in her state, for example, the University of Wisconsin hospital isn't part of the federal government's provider network. "My colleagues in other states have similar concerns about holes in the network," she said. "I think it puts people at medical risk."


At his news conference this week, Obama acknowledged the rollout of his health care law wouldn't be perfect. There will be "glitches and bumps" he said, and his team is committed to working through them. However, it's unclear how the pre-existing conditions plan could get more money without the cooperation of Republicans in Congress.


The program got off to a slow start, partly because insurance isn't cheap. It offers policies at market rates, and that can mean premiums of $500 a month for someone in their 50s. The first inkling of financial problems came in February, when HHS announced a freeze on new applications.


The plan was intended only as a stopgap until the law's main push to cover the uninsured starts next year. Subsidized private insurance will be available through new state-based markets, as well as an expanded version of Medicaid for low-income people. At the same time, virtually all Americans will be required to carry a policy, or pay a fine.
States are free to accept or reject the Medicaid expansion, and the new problems with the stopgap insurance plan could well have a bearing on their decisions.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/states-blindsided-by-plan-to-shift-costs-un-insurable-to-them-under-obamacare/#ixzz2SNnDYKVB

charly_t
05-05-2013, 11:55 PM
"It seems like Mary Fallin and the State Chamber are up to their old tricks again with Obamacare.

First the Governor wanted to accept the $54 million to set up the State Exchanges. The grassroots mobilized and said “NO” and she relented. Then she tried again with Exchanges 2.0 and once again the grassroots stood up and said “NO” and Gov. Fallin and the State Chamber relented again.

Now it’s the Medicaid dollars for the Obamacare portion. Fallin said no last fall, but the State Chamber has been wielding a statewide media campaign trying to convince the public that taking Obamacare dollars is a good thing.

And well, Mary is scared to death of her re-election campaign next year and when the State Chamber said, ”if you want us to give to your campaign, then you better accept the Medicaid dollars,” Gov. Fallin changed her tune.

So now that leads us the their third attempt to get Oklahomans to accept Obamacare… SB 640. Click here to read more about their attempt to accept Obamacare funds.

Now Gov. Fallin has gotten the most liberal GOP Senator and House member, Brian Crain and Doug Cox, to sponsor the bill for her. And by the way, we have no idea what language is actually in this bill because they plan to formulate in the conference committee process, which means it can be voted on in secret.

What better way to implement a Nancy Pelosi bill than to emulate her style.. Vote for the bill and then we’ll tell you what is in it.

The bottom line is this - SB 640 will accept Obamacare funds in order to expand Medicaid. And unfortunately, while it’s 100% of the amount in the first couple years, it will drop down to where Oklahoma will be responsible for up the vast majority of the expansion. Meaning millions of dollars that is being spent on education and public safety will have to be shifted to pay for Obamacare here in Oklahoma.

Gov. Fallin is trying her best to keep a safe distance between this latest proposal and the State Chamber is spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to convince Oklahomans that Obamacare is good for Oklahoma.

Oklahomans have led the way in every step to block Obamacare and it has been working! They are already talking about since the states didn’t set up exchanges that the federal government will probably put off implementing Obamacare for at least a year if not longer.

Let’s continue the bold stand to reject ANY Obamacare funds and that includes calling your state legislators and telling them to vote NO on SB 640. Click here to find your State Representative.

Gov. Fallin and the State Chamber are trying once again to put lipstick on the Obamacare pig... But you, the grassroots, are much smarter than that. Call your legislators and call Gov. Fallin (405-521-2342) and tell them that we don’t want ANY part of Obamacare… and that includes SB 640!

As always if you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to email me at darren@libertyok.com.
Darren Gantz

Oklahomans for Liberty



| follow on Twitter | forward to a friend


unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences "

Gerry Clinchy
05-25-2013, 07:30 PM
Oops! another unintended consequence. Health insurance has usually been an attractive benefit to unions for workers; especially in lower income groups where employment may be part-time and/or seasonal. When present contracts expire, the costs may change the playing field entirely.

If employers can no longer afford the cushier plans of previous union benefits, everybody ends up with lesser plans (though still possibly also costing more than those plans cost today). It's one less reason for someone to be a member of a union. Bon mentioned that was his ONLY reason for joining.

Over the past few days, I've read some similar statements from some other unions' leaders. Wonder if the Ds are making such an effort for the immigrant vote because they are anticipating losing union votes as their agenda progresses.


"In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act's provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it," Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, said last month. “I am therefore calling for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”The Associated Press contributed to this story.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/25/unions-reliable-democratic-supporters-split-from-president-on-obamacare/#ixzz2ULtr9wr5

luvalab
05-25-2013, 09:44 PM
A friend and I, different insurance companies, different workplaces, but the same GP, have recently received "important calls about our health and benefits" from our "case nurses" (??????) at our insurance companies.

The nurses were not selling anything, and seemed only marginally interested in our health, and even less interested in talking about available benefits--but they were very, very interested in our blood test results and any specific chronic illness diagnoses. They knew our medications--but not necessarily why we were taking them.

Both of us had our Conspiracy Theory hats on when we took these calls, and so we didn't give much information (at least intentionally).

But what gives? What were they looking for, and why?

Gerry Clinchy
06-01-2013, 09:58 AM
California rates as impacted by Obamacare:

If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (By “average,” I mean the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)
The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the median cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92.
In other words, for the typical 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.

It occurs to me that if the cost of being insured (as a 25 yr old) is going to be a minimum of $2200/year; and the penalty for no insurance is $750, we may not get the participation of these young, healthy people ... who are an essential element of providing coverage for pre-existing conditions, and other benefits required for Obamacare.

It also appears that those who need the coverage for pre-existing conditions may not be able to get it anyhow, since funding has already run out for that. So this benefit may have covered some of those people, but will not be able to cover all of them. We have only solved part of that problem, and at what cost to the rest of the system?

We might have been just as well off giving every citizen a tax credit for health insurance, and letting them shop for the plan that fit their needs.

Have you noticed that there will be higher rates for smokers and obesity? That seems actuarily reasonable in a free market system of private insurors. When the govt engages in the process, it becomes more tyranical in nature. If the rates get too high, will these high-risk individuals simply opt to pay the penalty for non-insurance.

Gerry Clinchy
06-01-2013, 10:06 PM
Seems the IRS is just going ahead without legal authorization:


In a Bloomberg article published on May 27, 2013, Ramesh Ponnuru details another example of the Obama administration’s contempt for the law:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the sweeping health-care law that Obama signed in 2010, asks state governments to set up health exchanges, and authorizes the federal government to provide tax credits to people who use those exchanges to get insurance. But most states have refused to establish the online marketplaces, and both the tax credits and many of the law’s penalties can’t go into effect until the states act.
Obama’s IRS has decided it’s going to apply the tax credits and penalties in states that refuse, even without statutory authorization.

caryalsobrook
06-07-2013, 01:16 PM
This is just heresay but a friend of mine who works an hourly wage(a fairly good one), with health ins. said that his paycheck has what he called an "insurance tax" as a deduction from his pay. I haven't seen the pay stub but he said that one week when he had about 90 hours, the medical tax was about $390.00 with insurance only for himself. At first I thought it was the 40% luxury insurance tax but he was told it was a percentage of his wages and had nothing to do with the company cost of his health ins. He was also told that the $390.00 was more that the cost paid by his company for his insurance.

In the beginning, I said that Nancy Pelossi's statement that you had to pass it to find what was in it, was the smarest thing I ever heard her say. I think many will see that she was EXACTLY RIGHT!!

My supplemantal Medicare policy has gone from $90-$95 to over $200 per month since Obamacare was passed. Let's see what happens after 2014:(

Gerry Clinchy
06-07-2013, 01:25 PM
Interesting ... that is something that has not been mentioned before. I wonder if your friend should inquire further about the guideline that requires that deduction? The law is so confusing that some smaller companies may have gotten it wrong.

caryalsobrook
06-07-2013, 05:47 PM
Interesting ... that is something that has not been mentioned before. I wonder if your friend should inquire further about the guideline that requires that deduction? The law is so confusing that some smaller companies may have gotten it wrong.

Its not the firm mking those decisions. It is the accountants. Obamacare reminds me of my son when he was 2 years ols and would play a game with his Grandmother. Sometimes they would change the rules to suit him and sometimes they would just make up the rules. Sort of like Obamacare. It was fun to watch my son and his Grandmother as hey rgued about the rules. Not so funny when it comes to healthcare.

Do you REALLY think that the IRS knows what the rules are. Don't you suspect thatthere has to be some coordination between HHS and the IRS? That should be a joke.

I do know that many doctors are combining their practices ceating giant practices with multiple specialties. Some are selling to hospitals also. You might think that doctors are getting in a position to bargain with the Gov. A few years ago the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix AR could not reach agreemant with HHS on reimbursement of Medicare. One day they gave notice that 7,000 residents of Phoenix no longer had doctors. HHS then reached agreement with them. By the way the Mayo Clinic also relies on charitable contributions in order to presently pay their doctors. Those who think that salaried is cheaper have a lot to learn. Wonder what will be said when doctors ask for overtime or refuse to work more than 40 hrs. It is going to be ineresting how this plays out in 2014. It just might be the biggest fiasco created by the Gov.

Thanks Gerry for all the info you bring to this forum. I really don't pay much attention since Dentistry is not affected. So far I think I may have enough clout to see that I am treated. Favors beget favors.:D

Gerry Clinchy
06-07-2013, 06:55 PM
Cary, maybe the fellow can have the accountants explain it to him then? I can't remember reading about any tax other than the "luxury" tax; or the tax for not being insured at all.

I also remember the Mayo Clinic incident.

I noticed recently that there is a "walk-in" clinic in one of the small strip malls that I drive by often. I saw the other day that they had a sign on the marquee of the mall that they offered treatment to those without insurance.

Also read recently about a group of hospitals (in Atlanta, I think) who started their own insurance company :-) I think the group included 7 to 10 hospitals in their regional area. Also wonder if hospitals may also form their own HMO's? This might be a way for them to get away from the Medicaid reimbursements?

Just also got an email about a Dr. who is gathering sigs for a petition to get on the primary ballot for the NJ Senate seat. If there is anyone from NJ on the forum who'd be interested, I can pass along the info for you. Since I'm in PA, I cannot help the dr. out.

Gerry Clinchy
06-20-2013, 10:57 PM
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/061813-660457-california-democrats-fund-left-wing-groups-with-taxpayer-dollars.htm
Obamacare would be enough of a financial disaster just by what it promises to give people in terms of health care. However, as it usually is with govt, a lot of money will also go into "the great abyss" of political cronyism as well.

Over $200 million in CA, alone, will be dumped into "outreach" grants. And who will be getting these grants? Read the article to find out.

Not to mention that CA passed a special law so that the people "outreaching" for the health care exchange will also be getting these people to register to vote. How handy; more bang for your buck. Do you suspect which party these people being outreached to will be registering with?

Don't miss this part ...

Amazingly, California legislators passed a law that the exchange could keep secret for a year who received the contracts and indefinitely how much they were paid. California's open-records laws would otherwise prohibit such secrecy.



Last week, Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and four other Republican senators on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee called for an investigation of California's concealing information on contracts awarded using federal taxpayer money.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/061813-660457-california-democrats-fund-left-wing-groups-with-taxpayer-dollars.htm#ixzz2WotWleUO

In addition to outreach, California's actual enrollment process is also outsourced to employees of community organizations, unions and health clinics. These enrollment "assisters" will be paid $58 for each enrollee they sign up. An additional $49 million is budgeted to pay them the first year, but in future years, assisters will be paid out of the premiums collected by the exchange.


The template is repeated in every state. The Obama health law creates a permanent stream of funding for unions and community activists by outsourcing insurance enrollment to them.


Assisters will also guide the uninsured to sign up for whatever non-health social services they may be eligible for, including welfare, food stamps and housing assistance, according to the manual prepared by the Community Health Councils for California's implementation.


Anyone who remembers the days of James Curley, Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall gets the picture. If you were poor or a newcomer to this country, you went to the local ward boss and got whatever you needed in exchange for your vote.


The difference is that back then, politics was local. Now the Obama health law is institutionalizing this corrupt style of politics across the country. Whether you live in California or New York, local community activists and unions will be recruiting people to enroll in ObamaCare and sign up to be part of the permanent, beholden Democratic voting majority.


This really begins to sound sinister.

Gerry Clinchy
06-24-2013, 07:48 PM
This sobering statement comes hard on the heels of calculations by Manhattan Institute analyst Avik Roy showing that premiums in California’s individual market are set to almost double next year.


According to Mr. Roy’s calculations, young, single, childless men and women who do not have employer-provided health insurance will be hit equally because California prohibits sex-based discrimination. If your income exceeds 183 percent of the federal poverty level, you are ineligible for either expanded Medicaid or any subsidies—and you’ll see your premiums almost double. With an annual income of as little at $21,000, a young childless adult could be shelling out $183 monthly, compared to the current rate of $74 for a plan with a large deductible and substantial co-pays, a far cry from the original promises of Obamacare.


Some of this increase is a result of so-called “community rating,” which means insurance companies can no longer fully take differences in health into account when pricing health insurance for residents of a geographical location. The Society of Actuaries, however, calculates that almost 60 percent of the increase is a result of factors other than the inclusion of coverage for high-risk individuals. A significant portion of the increase is driven by top-down mandates of benefits that must be included in insurance plans, and the costs are pushed to consumers in the form of higher premiums.


Obamacare was long on promises about helping the poor, but it’s delivering a regressive tax. Just before Obamacare was passed, Congress severely restricted payday loans under the Payday Loan Reform Act, limited interest-rate increases and penalties on credit cards under the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, and limited fees these companies could charge merchants under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act. Payday-loan users tend to be lower income. Limiting availability of such loans has driven cash-strapped borrowers to alternatives such as pawn shops that charge far higher interest rates. Limiting the supply does not reduce demand.
Many people have said that the intention is to have Obamacare fail so that single-payer can be ushered in.

The puzzling this is, if somewhat more govt control (Obamacare) made the previous system worse than it was (and more costly), then house is doubling down on more govt control going to make it any better?