The NY Post tells us that the news for Obamacare is not good:
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far.
The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.
Medicaid is already America’s third-largest government program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid. That’s more than $265 billion per year.
Indeed, already Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for 48% of federal spending. Within the next few years, those three programs will eat up more than half of federal expenditures.
And it’s going to get worse.
According the ACA Sign-up site, the numbers are a little different. They list about 400,000 private enrollees against 1.6 million Medicaid enrollees. That’s a 1:4 ratio, but it doesn’t break down by age so we don’t know how many of the Millennials are enrolled.
The stated goal of the administration was to have 7 million signed up by the end of March.
Not gonna happen.
But that’s fine, blubbers Ezra Klein. No problemo.
The 7 million number isn’t a goal so much as it’s an estimate. It comes from the Congressional Budget Office’s May 2013 projection of how many people would sign up for insurance under Obamacare. But that projection didn’t foresee two months of a non-functional federal health exchange. Or, to put it simply, that estimate is already wrong. It should be thrown out entirely.
OK, let’s throw that out. You see, the important thing is the ratio.
Back in July, when Sarah Kliff and I asked the White House how they defined “success” in 2014, they always defined it as a function of the mix of people in the exchanges — the “ratio” — rather than the number of people in the exchanges. On this, the administration was clear: More wasn’t necessarily better. Twenty million enrollees would be a disaster if only 1 million of them were young and healthy.
It all came down to the ratio. If 7 million people signed up for the exchanges — as CBO predicted — the Obama administration believed success meant ensuring about 2.7 million of them were young and healthy. If they got 10 million people to sign up, about 3.9 million had to be young and healthy. If they got 4 million to sign up, success would mean making sure 1.5 million were young and healthy.
The reason the ratio matters so much was that it is crucial to keeping premiums low.
They need about one third of the enrollees to be young and healthy.
Washington, we have a problem.
Only about 29% of young people plan on signing up. In CT the population is skewed to the older:
The people who have enrolled so far skew to the older end of the spectrum: 40 percent are between the ages of 55 and 64; 22 percent are between 45 and 54; 11 percent are between 35 and 44; 11 percent are between 26 and 34; 8 percent are between 18 and 25; 7 percent are younger than 18.
Never fear, Ezekiel is here.
The administration’s Dr. Deathpanel has a solution for this obstacle- brainwashing, and if that fails, ostracization and ridicule!
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the good Doctor prescribes three ways in which this could be accomplished:
1. President Obama and his appointees need to give speeches to young people about signing up for Obamacare. (“Every commencement address by an administration official should encourage young graduates to get health insurance.”) Because if there’s one thing young people respond well to, it’s lectures from older people.
2. We need to attack, ostracize, and humiliate the “free riders” who don’t buy insurance until they are sick. (“Second, we need to make clear as a society that buying insurance is part of individual responsibility.”)
3. We need to spend more public money on advertising the Obamacare exchanges on television and at sporting events so that young people are made aware of “affordable policies available.” Any $695 policies on offer?
The administration has been pitching health care to the young with different angles, among them the embarrassing “Bros and Hos”.
Obama has said that young people will melt when they come to understand how great Obamacare is:
President Obama on Thursday urged young people to sign up for Obamacare, telling them they would realize the benefits are “priceless.”
In an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” the president said he understood why young people have been hesitant to enroll in the new law’s insurance exchanges after the botched rollout. But he insisted that once young people become aware of the benefits from the health law, they will sign up.
“For young people to recognize that it is in their financial interest and their health interest to be able to get on-going preventive care, to be able to get free contraception and, you know, benefits like mammograms that allow them to maintain their health throughout their lives, without fear of going bankrupt or making their family bankrupt if they get sick, that’s something that’s priceless,” Obama said.
Young people 18-34 aren’t buying it. They’re not particularly interested in paying $3000 per year for a free $100 mammogram, especially since
“…studies to date have not shown a benefit from regular screening mammography in women under age 40 or from baseline screening mammograms (mammograms used for comparison) taken before age 40.”
They’re probably even less motivated to pay $3000 a year to provide Sandra Flucke free contraceptives so she can frolic in Spain with her wealthy boyfriend.
If young people opt out…..(sound of airplane in death spin)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1LFYNf1ROA[/youtube]
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
How to ”Opt-Out” of ObamaCare:
http://thefederalist.com/2013/12/04/opt-obamacare/
1. Join a health care sharing ministry.
OR
2. Buy a short-term health insurance policy.
OR
3. Buy alternative insurance products like fixed-benefit, critical illness, or accident insurance.
ALSO:
Opt-Out Obamacare Penalty Can’t Be Enforced — Unless You Get a Tax Refund
The law says that the IRS cannot collect a fine or penalty from you unless you are owed a refund and they can take it out of that.
If you’re not owed a refund, they can’t fine you or penalize you or tax you.
They can’t issue a lien.
They can’t garnish your wages.
They can’t use any of the normal procedures available to them if you owe them money, even though the Supreme Court has said it’s a tax.
Structure your taxes so that you do not get a refund.
There are many ways.
@Nanny G:
I’m very curious just what these “cheaper, better options for young people” might be. As in, Name one that isn’t an example of personal and social irresponsibility. Can they do it?
There are LIES, and then there are GODDAMN LIES that cause harm to the people they’re told to. This is an example of the latter, and there should be consequences for the people who are telling it.
I’m wondering if the jackasses funding the Opt Out of Obamacare website can be sued for promoting a lie that can leave young people who believe it without the means to pay for medical care following a serious accident or injury. Because—unless there’s really a “cheaper, better option for young people” that provides them with such protection, and isn’t just some goofy cover-your-ass suggestion that’s of no real use—that’s exactly what this website is doing.
@Greg:
Easy, Greggie. Catastrophic insurance that covers someone if they contract a serious illness, or have a serious accident. Young adults who generally don’t see a doctor more than once a year are quite capable of paying for that visit, and any subsequent blood work as required in a normal annual physical, themselves without having to pay thousands of dollars a year in health insurance premiums.
But because Obama needs those young adults to cover the cost of people with pre-existing conditions and the elderly, they will now have those insurance policies cancelled. So Obamascare screws young adults the most. And they are reacting adversely to Obama with their approval of him plummeting.
Not too bright, are you?
@Greg:
Better yet………………….can Obama, and all the Democrat politicians, who told the American public “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” be sued for promoting a lie? Seems to me that would only be fair.
Surely that’s not what they have in mind when they speak of “cheaper, better options for young people,” since catastrophic insurance plans for anyone under age 30—and for people over 30 who meet any of 12 exemption requirements—are available under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and are discussed on the HealthCare.gov website. If you’re getting one of those, you’re not opting out of Obamacare as the Opt out of Obamacare website advocates. They’re available under Obamacare.
If younger people choose such a plan they’ll have lower premiums, but won’t be eligible for an income-based premium subsidy from the government. They’ll pay the regular market prices for what they buy.
I was aware of the above information. You don’t seem to have been.
@retire05, #4:
I think republicans have ridden that particular horse until it has finally dropped dead of exhaustion. Feel free to keep on whipping it, however.
Obama’s objective has been to get millions of formerly uninsured Americans insured. The republican objective has been to stop that from happening. Few things are more revealing of their priorities than the fact that Affordable Care Act opponents are effectively counseling young people to forego getting health insurance. They’re attempting to kill the program by encouraging circumstances that they believe will lead to it’s failure.
You can spin it however you like. You’re not likely to change my mind about which is the more honorable intention.
Nanny G
THAT IS A GOOD INFO, AS ALWAYS,
IT’S CLEAR AND NOT COMPLICATED FOR THE YOUNG,
BYE
@Greg:
Yeah obama’s doing it, it’s called MEDICAID. The one with the worst health outcomes for people. That’s the one people are flocking to.
Lest we forget, ObamaCare allows one to sign up whenever they get sick and show up at the ER.
Also, one only needs to pay premiums for 9 months in any one year.
Then one can stop paying, no penalties, no lack of care.
So, young people can sign up IF and/or WHEN they need to.
Had it been these rules when I was a new married, I wouldn’t have signed up until about age 47 when menopause hit.
I could have save thousands by simply getting a physical and vaccinations on my own dime.
@Greg:
Greg
Did you just use the words “personal and social irresponsibility”?????
@Greg:
“There are LIES, and then there are GODDAMN LIES that cause harm to the people they’re told to.”
Which catagory would “vote for ME and you can keep your docotor, keep your insurance, your premiums will go down by $2500 and I will be the most transparent administration ever”?
@Nanny G:
I understand there is a yearly window for signing up, so you can’t just sign up during the ambulance ride to the hospital. It would be kind of crowded in there with the EMT’s and the obamacare navigator along to sign you up. However if you move to another state the window opens up for you since policies don’t migrate with you.
@Greg:
Are you denying that Obama said, many times “If you like your insurance, if you like your doctor, you can keep them. PERIOD.” ?
I hope your health insurance carrier provides mental health benefits. You need them.
aaaaaaaaaah
unnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ah that was funny,
@Greg:
No one is going to be able to change your mind, Greg, because all that matters to you is the feeling of belonging to the grandiose leftist delusion that you are somehow helping people – when in fact you are doing the exact opposite.
You don’t care that Obama and his leftist minions repeatedly lied about the effects of obamacare. You can be dismissive of the fact that we KNOW he lied and will keep repeating it from the rooftops through the next election all you want – because you don’t care about truth as a leftist. You are addicted to the false idea that your intentions to help people matter more than the actual outcome of your leftist scams.
You don’t care that 85% of people were happy with their medical insurance coverage before obamacare. You leftists do not care that 5 to 7 million people have already had their insurance cancelled precisely because of obamacare coverage mandates for care they do not need or want and have disgustingly tried to blame the insurance companies for following the obamacare law. You do not care that Obama unconstitutionally delayed the employer mandate – without any required legislative changes to the already signed obamacare law – until after the 2014 elections.
You leftists do not care that Obama promised during his campaign propaganda for obamacare that people who make less than $250,000/yr would not have their taxes raised a single dime. You do not care that he and his democrat minions insisted obamacare fees were not taxes before the 2012 election – then had the DOJ argue in multiple court cases that obamacare was constitutional as a federal tax exactly the opposite of what pre-election democrats argued. That was, and continues to be, leftist deception on a breathtaking scale. Leftists simply cannot ever be trusted.
See, Greg, you leftists do not care about truth. You do not care about actual outcomes. You don’t care about leftist politicians lying about anything – so long as you can have the feeling that you are some progressive hero fighting doggedly for the poor and downtrodden – completely and purposely oblivious to the actual damage and increased burdens your actions place upon those you claim to want to help, as well as the middle class getting crushed under socialist insanity.
But we agree on one thing, Greg. We will not be able to change your mind, because you cannot beat your emotional addiction to the need to FEEL like you are somehow helping people – whether or not they want the kind of “help” you and your leftist ilk keep forcing on us all.
@DrJohn, #10:
Yes, I did. Declining to carry health insurance when it’s available demonstrates a lack of both. It’s a decision not to guard oneself from a known financial risk, which is personally irresponsible; it’s also a decision to shift that financial risk to others, which is socially irresponsible.
This is the behavior that Opt Out of Obamacare is actively promoting.
@Mully, #8:
Actually, the worst health outcomes result from the lack any insurance at all and a consequent lack of access to medical care. That situation also leads to a worse outcome for society as a whole. When such people finally wind up in the ER or as hospital inpatients, their medical conditions will have frequently progressed into far more serious and expensive situations. Instead of a hypertension or diabetes patient requiring an examination and medications, you’ll have a stroke patient or a patient with renal failure and amputations. Instead of someone controlling their asthma, you’ll have someone in intensive care at a public cost of $4,000 per day.
@retire05, #13:
You totally blew off #5, didn’t you?
@Greg:
Isn’t it racist to demand social responsibility?
@Greg:
What are examination medications? Which ones prevent stroke or renal failure and asthma?
What is the incidence of people not getting examination medications reaching those stages? Got a link?
@Pete, #15:
That would be 85 percent of the 83 percent who had insurance as of 2010, correct? So, around 70 percent of the population was content with the current situation, while 30 percent were not. And the number of uninsured was rapidly rising with each passing year before the Affordable Care Act, you’ll recall.
Those who were content with their own situations weren’t necessarily happy with the overall situation, either. Healthcare costs were one of the most rapidly rising portions of family budgets. Health insurance premiums had been rapidly increasing for a decade. The medical costs of uninsured patients were being passed on to all other healthcare consumers, and what couldn’t be recaptured that way inflated public sector costs.
@DrJohn, #20:
Examination medications is a typo, which I have now corrected. Please insert and between the two words.
Relatively inexpensive medications can control hypertension and reduce the incidence of stroke, cardiovascular problems, and renal problems. Diabetes that is properly managed reduces the incidence of similar complications, which are far more expensive to deal with after the fact than to prevent. Both regular examinations and medications are part of this management protocol. I have no doubt that you know far more about the particulars than I do.
@Greg:
What is the incidence of this scenario? What exactly is the magnitude of the problem you want remedied?
@DrJohn, #23:
This is from a CDC document published in 2009:
Given the number of uninsured Americans who haven’t had reliable access to healthcare services, common sense suggests that lack of medical intervention has been a significant contributor to rising provider costs and rising health insurance premiums. I would also expect it to inflate public Medicare and Medicaid expenses to an increasing degree as time passes. What isn’t tended to now becomes far more expensive to deal with later.
I think a similar common sense conclusion can be drawn regarding each of the chronic conditions covered in the document.
@Greg:
Thanks, but that isn’t what I requested.
@Greg:
This is true even in treated Type 1 cases.
@drjohn, #25:
Perhaps, but the point in life at which such unfortunate outcomes occur is relevant. The earlier they occur in life, the greater the cumulative costs of the patient’s care. A person can lose the ability to support both self and family, shifting more than the increased costs of medical care to others.
@Greg:
OK, so let me ask this again. What is the magnitude of the problem and where can we see it? Show us what you are trying to remedy.
@Greg:
This is EXACTLY what Obamacare does, Greg.
@Greg:
I see you follow.the leftist playbook Ezekiel Emmanuel uses with your absolute ignoring of the main point of my post.
What you are implicitly advocating for is the destruction of 83% (using your numbers) of American insurance policies that existed before obamacare in order to provide more costly and less effective insurance for all Americans. Your position that insurance costs were going up before obamacare is moot given that obamacare is increasing costs even higher, exacerbated by the increased taxes required to pay cor the subsidies. How on earth can you argue that obamacare makes the cost problem better?
I find it so entertaining to see wingnuts still trying to disparage a plan that is intended to help them. Keep it up though, it will keep the GOP out of the WH for the next 20 years. They’re always on the wrong side of history in favor of their corporate overlords.
@This one:
Right, idiot. Like Republicans were on the wrong side of slavery.
Peddle your childishly stupid drivel at Huffpo, you troll.
@This one:
Speaking of corporate overlords:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress
@Pete, #30:
@Pete, #30:
My Blue Cross insurance hasn’t been destroyed. I don’t personally know anyone whose health insurance has been destroyed. My monthly premiums aren’t increasing by any greater degree than they have in past years. I’ve examined my new benefit schedule and haven’t noticed any significant change in covered services. My deductible has increased slightly and my catastrophic limit has increased a bit.
I’ve seen claims that 100 million people are going to lose their insurance because of Obamacare. I consider such claims to be totally ridiculous. I believe time will clearly demonstrate this to be the case. I don’t think it’s even going to take much time.
Those UNINSURED are being REWARDED by ObamaCare, Greg.
They proved they were both personally irresponsible and socially irresponsible.
But you want them given free health coverage at the cost of enslaving doctors and impoverishing all of the middle class.
Think about the increased costs of deductibles under ObamaCare.
Some coverage quadruples them!
Most coverage under ObamaCare increases them a good deal.
But those people who, as you said, were ”[d]eclining to carry health insurance when it’s available,” are the ones getting the free ride.
@Greg:
So in other words, despite your multiple statements that we should be happy to have to pay more for our insurance to ensure everyone else has insurance you have not enrolled in the obamacare exchange, and have insurance through your employer. This makes everything ok? I work in medicine, Greg, and I personally know people who were dumped from insurance they were happy with who had their premiums doubled and their annual deductibles almost tripled.
But thanks for finally answering the question of whether or not you enrolled in obamacare. It will be interesting to see how you feel in Jan 2015 when the employer mandate kicks in.
@Pete, #36:
Correct. I already had health insurance. As someone pointed out, most people already had health insurance. The problem was those who didn’t buy it, or couldn’t buy it.
If you already have health insurance, there’s no need to go through the “obamacare exchange” or do anything else. The exchange is there to assist people who don’t already have insurance, or who are looking for different insurance. And no one is mandated to use it. Unless you happen to live in Vermont or Washington DC, you can buy health insurance through any alternate channel that’s available to you, just as before. There can be advantages to using the website, however. It displays competing exchange plans for each geographical area along with their costs. If you want to determine if you qualify for a subsidy under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and then apply for it, you’d need to use the website.
@Nanny G, #35:
It wasn’t necessarily a matter of irresponsibility. Millions of people couldn’t get insurance that addressed their needs because no company would sell it to them. This might have made perfect sense for the purpose of maximizing profits, but in human terms it was as nonsensical as a rule forbidding people who are too sick from checking into a hospital.
@Greg: So when you are wrong again Greg, will you finally admit it like you promised?
Greg
you put your finger on a very important fact to make the obamacare not feaseble, IT ELUDED YOU,
HERE IT IS,
the STATES ARE ALL DIFFERENT IN MANY WAYS,you can name so many difference regarding so many subjects,
that is the answer to prevent what you want to set in, a universal obamacare , to fit all the USA,
it"s not feaseble, it must be the doing of the STATES, who know better to fit their care with their need
which you have forgotten to be individual, NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL, WHICH IS NOT GOOD,
hospitals won"t be all involved in it as we found< think of what happen with those and their employees,
because the federal refuse to pay for extra hospitals, or if they cannot comply with the regulation,
they are punish by obama his favorite mantra,
EACH STATES HAVE A PERSONALITY THEY ALONE KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THE CITIZENS,
BUT OBAMA DON;T KNOW IF HIS OBAMACARE WILL FIT ALL AND THAT ALONE IS A GOOD ARGUMENT TO REPEAL IT AND LET THE STATES FIGURE WHAT THEIR BUDGET NEED ARE,
THE FEDERAL IS LEFT WITH ALLOCATIONS OF MONEYS TO CHIP IN THE COST, THAT ALONE IS WHERE THEY BELONG,
NOT IN THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, IT YES IS DANGEROUS TO OVER REACH AND STEP ON THE LAWS OF THE LAND, THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS NOT HAPPY TO CUT ON THE FREEDOM OF THE STATES,
BY TAKING OVER INSTEAD OF CONTRIBUTING MONEYS THEY COLLECT FROM THE PEOPLE,
ALLOCATING IT FAIRLY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN THE OBAMACARE MINDSET SO FAR,
@Greg:
So the solution is to have millions of people who had health insurance have their policies, that they liked, canceled because obama knows better. They will get to shop in the new health care exchange that doesn’t work even after millions were spent to create it. The security is broken and it has no payment system built to the insurance companies. Yet they turned it on live in October for use. Obama says he didn’t know it was broken. He had ZERO curiosity to inquire how it was going or to see the beta tests of the program that bears his name prior to launch. He couldn’t be bothered to inquire or he is just too stupid.
He promised lower costs.
Better coverage.
Choice and competition.
It would not increase the deficit.
You can keep your coverage.
You can keep your doctor.
It’s only a world class sucker who keeps buying this load of bilge.
When he said “you” he meant all of us. Not just a few.
Now we see doctors and hospitals declining to participate in obamacare. The laws of supply and demand will win out. Many of us will lose. The mess is only getting started. You simply don’t fix a problem by creating more of them. Obama is a slow learner on that point.
I’m sure from you more excuses to follow.
Mully
hi,
Greg proclaim himself the aggressive protector of obamacare,
he”ll say anything to win the opinion of here F.A,
and the readers outside the blog,
he’s looking for rational brain deficient people to believe his words,
Greg, maybe SOME insurers wouldn’t sell to the 2 million people who had pre-existing conditions, but many other insurers would…..for a price commiserate with their risk.
So, a minor ”fix” of the old system could have ended that practice.
But Obama went with a revolutionary overhaul instead.
Ask yourself why.
Recall ObamaCare’s ”high-risk pool?”
That high risk pool seemed to be well-funded, but it enrolled very few people at much higher cost than projected. It quickly ran out of money.
It ran out of money days after it opened, leaving all the rest of those already sick with no help at all!
Obama doesn’t really care about poor people.
Obama doesn’t care about sick people.
ObamaCare takes care of paperpushers.
ObamaCare institutionalizes that a liberal-voting constituency stays poor via a subsidy system that neither helps them lift themselves out of poverty nor gives them medical care….only coverage.
You are proving to be one of the useful idiots of this president.
When he blows his dog whistle, you respond.
The lefties can feel better now. Old cobra face, James Carville said that Obamacare enrollment is getting better and better. I’m guessing that the steaming turd is producing less steam.
@oil guy from Alberta:
He’s not ”lying,” per se.
When something is as bad as the o’care web site was at its start, any improvement constitutes, ”getting better and better,” with it.
James is a careful spinner compared with some.
@Greg:
Boy you are the artless dodger, aren’t you? Classic leftist refusal to debate the actual point of discussion.
You keep wanting to focus on the fact that pre-obamacare medical costs for people who did not have insurance were being paased on to the public via rising medical care costs. Tell us then, other than making the costs rise at an even faster rate due to the addition of layers of inefficient government bureaucracy (159 new federal agencies according to the last report I saw) – none of which increases the actual supply of medical care – how do the effects of obamacare improve the existing situation at all? Let us recap, shall we?
1. People cannot keep their doctors.
2. People cannot keep their previous insurance plan.
3. The cost of obamacare premiums are higher (national avg 99% higher for men, and 67% higher for women) and the annual deductibles are 2-5 times higher than pre-obamacare.
4. Despite democrat pledges that taxes would not be raised for people making less than $250,000/yr, obamacare was accorded constitutionality as a TAX.
5. 70% of California physicians are refusing to accept the state obamacare insurance patients because it will pay even less than medicare payments.
6. Despite his party’s claims that obamacare would be good for businesses, Obama delayed, without any legislative authorization, the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections. This makes no sense at all if the leftists really believe obama are will positively affect businesses.
7. Despite having longer than the US fought WWII, tbe idiots responsible for setting up healthcare.gov have failed on a scale more massive than anything ever attempted by a federal agency in the history of our country.
8. Despite a requirement in obamacare that all members of congress and their staffers be required to participate in the obamacare exchanges, Harry Reid has managed to exempt his staffers from this requirement, while he insists average Americans be forced into the exchanges.
9. The IRS has targeted a cancer patient who spoke out against the effects of obamacare. In addition to this audit, the insurance agent who came to the cancer patient’s assistance in finding alternate insurance has been audited by the IRS.
10. Despite a national debt of $17 trillion dollars, obamacare is set up to pay subsidies with taxpayer dollars for those who alledgedly meet poverty criteria and cannot pay for insurance.
This is not an complete list of all that is wrong with obamacare socialism, but my flight to one of the three cities I work in to provide actual hands on medical care is about to board.
Obamacare is inherently evil. It is based on multiple lies. Continuing to support this
horrendous attack on medical care is evidence of boundless stupidity, or rank leftist evil.
Pete
WHAT KIND OF MINDSET DOES OBAMA HAS IN HIS HEAD?
HE IS KILLING TEN AND MORE, BUSINESS TO CREATE ONE SHAKY BUSINESS,
AND DON’T KID YOURSELF IT’S HAPPENING NOW AS WE SPEAK,
THE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ARE NOW STRESSED UP BY HIS OBAMACARE,
INTERFERING WITH THEIR WORK WHICH SAVE A LOT OF LIVES,
JUST ONE MORE OF MANY MORE,
THE WHOLE CITIZENS ARE STRESSED OUT WITH HIS MINSDSET.
AND HE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE ON NOTHING, WHAT IS THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR CALLED BY DOCTORS? NO WANDER THE DOCTORS DON’T WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM,
THEY ALREADY HAVE DIAGNOSE HIS PROBLEMS,
@Greg: I’m simple; explain again how kicking 10, 20, 30, 40 million (up to 100 millions) off the insurance they liked and paid for in order to insure 10 million or so is a smart idea?
OBAMA IS TALKING FOR HIS INTEREST IN AFRICA,
NOTHING IS DONE UNLESS ITS DONE
@Bill Burris, #48:
I need not explain that, because it’s a load of horse manure. No matter how many individual “examples” are trotted out of people who have tragically lost their health insurance because of Obamacare—generally some person with enormous medical costs, which we’re expected to believe had cheap insurance that would cover costs in perpetuity—it remains horse manure. The “examples” invariably leave out some significant parts of the story in order to create a usefully distorted impression. One significant part that’s commonly being left out is the fact that the discontinuation of a particular plan is not the same as losing insurance. If a replacement plan becomes immediately available, you only lose your health insurance as a result of the carriers cancellation if you refuse any of the new options that become available. It is not the case that all new options are enormously more expensive than what’s being discontinued—unless, perhaps, what you had before provided such limited coverage that it was hardly worth having in the first place.
Some insurance companies are discontinuing plans that don’t meet minimum requirements. New plans are being offered in their place that do meet those minimum standards. An option that remains available under the Affordable Care Act is the relatively low-cost catastrophic plan, that cost significantly less because a high deductible must be met before insurance kicks in. If that’s what healthy, younger people want to buy because they think they’re at a low risk for catastrophic health care cost, they still can do so. Plans similar to what they had before might be marginally more expensive, because even such plans now have to meet some basic requirements. They must pay for at least 3 routine office visits per year, for example. I don’t know how a policy that won’t do that could even be considered health insurance, but I suppose opinions vary.