The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: O-care Participation

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,865

    Default O-care Participation

    At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, on Tuesday, Marilyn Tavenner, who runs the agency most directly involved in implementing the health care law, said that nearly 700,000 applications have been submitted at federal and state marketplaces in the law's first month of operation.

    She said technicians are making improvements that have already made the website faster.

    She encouraged consumers to log onto the site and check it out, and said the administration had estimated that enrollments will total 800,000 by the end of November.
    However, the website is promised to function properly by Nov. 30.

    There appears to be a difference between "applications submitted" and "enrollments". If they have 700,000 applications from the first month; one would presume that those 700,000 would actually be enrolled by Nov. 15. Does that mean that only an additional 100,000 will "apply" between Oct. 30-Nov 15? That will also be a huge undertaking if the leaked memo of 6 enrollees is even close to accurate.

    Does the 800,000 include the numbers who have been processed through the state exchanges + Federal exchange? Did the applicants through the state exchanges actually get "enrolled"? Or maybe they are also still among the 700,000 "applications"?

    Then, they will have until 2/15 (3 mos.) to enroll another 6 million to be able to sustain the program. Or will they need more than the projected 7 million to offset the unanticipated numbers who are enrolling for Medicaid?

    If they are temporarily "waiving" actually verifying Medicaid eligibility (ostensibly to be "fixed" later), then the enrollment issues would likely not be ironed out for quite some time. What will it take to "fix" removing those ineligible individuals from Medicaid and having them enroll for ACA? How much will it cost to implement that? How many who are found to be ineligible will find themselves uninsured?

    It will be interesting to note how many of the enrollments are for Medicaid and how many for insurance that is actually paid for by the enrollees. Reports thus far would indicate that Medicaid enrollments are much more numerous than anticipated.

    While we can look at the website issue as being "just a website", the costs of the bungled website can balloon due to the fact that the website failings will have other additional longer-term repercussions.

    Math challenged: The WH, through Carney, considers 5% of the population who might become uninsured (15 million w/private insurance) as "insignificant"; yet they tore the whole system apart to "fix" a problem of 30 million uninsured (10% of the population). In the end, it might be that all this havoc was wreaked on 300 million to fix 10%, and the final number of remaining uninsured could remain little changed.

    This should become much worse when the employer mandate kicks in as many of the plans there are likely to find that they don't meet O-care "essential" standards.

    Interesting aside, not much publicized. As Obama blames the insurance companies for raising their rates, and calls them greedy ... there has also been a tax imposed on health insurors. They would naturally have to raise rates just to compensate for the additional tax.

    It never matters exactly upon whom a tax is levied, the end result is always that the individual consumer will pay it. If the govt runs an industry, the consumers pay for it directly by higher taxes. If the industry is in the private sector, the consumers pay higher prices. If the private sector cannot raise prices, then they close up. If the product/service is an important one, then the govt might step in to "save" that industry. In the case of health care/insurance, Reid, Hillary, Obama have openly said that the goal is exactly that: single-payer.

    Is it really any better for the govt to make health care decisions than insurance companies? If corporations are greedy, have we seen any lack of greed (for both money and power) in our politicians or bureaucrats? The worse situation, though, is that at least occasionally a private sector corporation is held accountable for its unfair practices. Bureaucrats, we are finding, are simply "retired", or worse, "re-assigned".
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    They did test the website on Sept. 30. They found that it could handle 1100 users before it stopped functioning. I didn't say "crash" because Sebelius said it didn't crash.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #3
    Senior Member JDogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MRGV New Mexico
    Posts
    3,316

    Default

    The in's and out's of the ACA will continue until the fix is realized as universal single payer HC here in the USA, as it is in many other countries. Call it creeping socialism. It surely is. It is as sure as creeping captalism will happen in former socialist and communist countries. It advances everyday. Globalization is a force we wished upon ourselves and continue to do so. The world as we know it is evolving, and all the pissing and moaning is not going to change it.

    I could quote and cite references, some would agree, some dispute.

    Mini-poodles now can run AKC HT's.

    All one can say is, "it is what it is" Que no?

    JD
    One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

  4. #4
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    I wonder how they are going to classify those that had private insurance and the policy is cancelled.
    These are people who had insurance, but if they get a new policy are they considered an enrollee?
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    I wonder how they are going to classify those that had private insurance and the policy is cancelled.
    These are people who had insurance, but if they get a new policy are they considered an enrollee?
    Yes, I think it works that way.

    So, we wouldn't know for a long while whether we end up "fixing" the uninsured problem. Some of those who get cancelled in private insurance may remain uninsured for a year or two before they become insured again. They might wait until they qualify for a subsidy, or Medicaid, or get sick.

    This is actually part of the problem. We get sick or older people who have high motivation to enroll, and young, healthy people who would be able to delay. Meanwhile, those who can get into Medicare or large subsidies also are motivated to enroll. That's why Medicaid enrollments are dwarfing paying enrollees on the state exchanges.

    We could easily end up with just as many uninsured in the end ... just that exactly who is uninsured will have shifted from one group to another. In fact, some are predicting that there will still be 30 million uninsured when the dust settles. More low-income people may become insured, while many mid-income people may not be insured, at least until the penalties become too onerous.

    So, if all this hassle results in still having 30 million uninsured, what will be the solution proposed? It will depend on who we vote for in 2014 and 2016.

    Once the powers that be figure out that the penalties aren't large enough to incentivize sufficient enrollment, do we doubt that they will increase those penalties? Can Sebelius (or whatever HHS Secty) do that unilaterally; or the POTUS? Why not? POTUS has already made changes without legislation.

    If we get more part-time workers in the work force ... going from 40 hrs/week to 28, is 25% cut in income. That could make someone qualify for Medicaid or subsidy. Or they will get a 2nd part-time job, which might preclude qualifying for Medicaid or subsidy. If most of the income from the 2nd job would go toward health insurance (due to lack of subsidy), what would you do?

    I think we will see an "underground" economy where more people will seek out jobs that pay cash. This is VERY common during periods of extended unemployment. It is going on right now.

    If a restaurant employs 50 waitresses working 35 hrs/wk, and they cut them down to 28 hrs. How many of those waitresses might be willing to work an extra 5-7 hours/wk (just 1 to 1-/2 hr longer each day) for cash compensation? How many such restaurants (or farms, or machine shops, or retail stores, or ??? ) are there in the US? How would ANYone ever find them all?

    Only end result is single payer ... or a less intrusive way to fix the problem of the uninsured as Mike suggests.

    In the title insurance business, there are only about 5 companies left in the US. There used to be more. There is a law that if one of the companies goes out of business, the others remaining have the liabilities of the "dead" company distributed among the remaining companies.

    So, if one takes all the high-risk, pre-existing conditions and spreads the risk out among ALL the health insurors, and provides a pool of $ for subsidizing the premium of those people, that should be a whole lot easier to manage without a huge govt bureaucracy.

    The pre-existing condition situation is the one that most people point to as a major flaw of our current system. Once that can be managed and made sustainable, then other issues can be addressed. This would also not preclude addressing tort reform at the same time
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    The in's and out's of the ACA will continue until the fix is realized as universal single payer HC here in the USA, as it is in many other countries. Call it creeping socialism. It surely is. It is as sure as creeping captalism will happen in former socialist and communist countries. It advances everyday. Globalization is a force we wished upon ourselves and continue to do so. The world as we know it is evolving, and all the pissing and moaning is not going to change it.

    I could quote and cite references, some would agree, some dispute.

    Mini-poodles now can run AKC HT's.

    All one can say is, "it is what it is" Que no?

    JD
    It FINALLY come out. Why not call it a single EMPLOYER system? Certainly more accurate because in TRUTH ALL taxpayers are paying. The gov. would in FACT be the only employer. You, like most others who advocate a SINGLE EMPLOYER system choose to use properganda rather than the true facts.

    I do not know what your prfession is but you think it is reasonable to pick only one particular group of people and require that they and they only MUST work for the gov. and CANNOT WORK for any other that the gov.? How about plumbing, carpentry, accoounting, engineering, and auto manufacturing also? I do not know what your profession is but do you not cherish the freedom to work for who you choose?

    I wonder is those who support such a system are so stupid that those that you take freedom away will be just a callous when it comes to your freedoms? We are n the verge of destroying a wonderful profession, and I wonder how it will feel when it's attitude is that it NO LONGER works for the sorry ass patient, it works for the government.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    The in's and out's of the ACA will continue until the fix is realized as universal single payer HC here in the USA, as it is in many other countries. Call it creeping socialism. It surely is. It is as sure as creeping captalism will happen in former socialist and communist countries. It advances everyday. Globalization is a force we wished upon ourselves and continue to do so. The world as we know it is evolving, and all the pissing and moaning is not going to change it.

    I could quote and cite references, some would agree, some dispute.

    Mini-poodles now can run AKC HT's.

    All one can say is, "it is what it is" Que no?

    JD
    It FINALLY comes out. Why not call it a single EMPLOYER system? Certainly more accurate because in TRUTH ALL taxpayers are paying. The gov. would in FACT be the only employer. You, like most others who advocate a SINGLE EMPLOYER system choose to use proparganda rather than the true facts.

    I do not know what your profession is but you think it is reasonable to pick only one particular group of people and require that they and they only MUST work for the gov. and CANNOT WORK for any other that the gov.? How about plumbing, carpentry, accoounting, engineering, and auto manufacturing also? I do not know what your profession is but do you not cherish the freedom to work for who you choose?

    I wonder is those who support such a system are so stupid that those that you take freedom away will be just a callous when it comes to your freedoms? We are on the verge of destroying a wonderful profession, and I wonder how it will feel when it's attitude is that it NO LONGER works for the sorry ass patient, it works for the government.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    Hey, but at least Obama is sorry ...
    An excerpt of the interview was posted on NBC News’ website Thursday afternoon.


    “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” Obama said to NBC News. “We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and that we’re going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #9
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    He is not sorry at all. The intent is to force healthy people who currently have good insurance, don't get credits etc into the exchanges. That is the group where the real money is by forcing them to give up a medically underwritten policy with a low rate and go with this new "community" rating.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/1...in-three-days/
    Now THIS is REALLY cool ... some young programmers have set up a free website to present health care plans available (by zip code) and even compute subsidies. Once you see what's available, you can just go directly to the insurance companies & don't even have to use healthcare.gov!

    They did this ... 3 of them ... in 3 days! (The govt took $643 million and 3 years to make a website that doesn't work).

    In fairness, this site can't verify the subsidies that might be available to someone, but that could be something that could be validated when the insurance company processes the application. Actually, thought, why does anybody need more than an SS#, household size, and last year's AGI to determine eligibility? Also, to be fair, they may have used some of the code from the healthcare.gov website to make their "fix". OTOH, the govt will have taken two full months (60 days, or 20X as long) to come up with a working site by Nov. 30 (if it's working by then).

    Even trying to be fair, I can't see why the govt should spend so much $ to end up with such a debacle of a website.

    Maybe this post should have gone in the big govt thread?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •