President Obama announces health law fix

[thaibeachlovers]

There are a couple of things which make it different. Hope I don't bore you to death:

Most things in life you consume cause you want them. You generally have a good idea of what you want, how much you want to pay, and who you'll buy it from. Can't afford a Merc, buy a Toyota. Don't like this Toyata dealers price, go up the road. We have genuine choice in that situation both on the demand side (the type of car) and the supply side (which dealer I work with).

Health care flips all that on its head.

- As I said earlier. We don't know when we are going to get sick, we don't choose what you are going to get, you don't know how long you'll be sick for. Thats the demand side. You have no choice when you get sick or how much you are going to pay.

- On the supply side, you have very few options for who provides the services. Doctors are relatively few and far between. Specialists, as the name implies, are ever rarer. So as much as we say we like to choose our doctor, if you need a brain surgeon or a particular type of patiented cancer drug, your choices are limited. And you need to pay the price ((there are no-inbeweens like walking, catching a bus if you can't afford the Toyota like in the car example I used...)

So basic supply/demand economics that everyone likes to apply to this argument are actually no-applicable.

Given this, it is really hard to say, well I need 'x type of insurance'. As show, the insurance coverage might have limits, so then your are screwed, despite your best intentions.

Which is why I said in reality there only a binary decision, you either opt out, and get nothing, or you get insurance, and it covers everything. In betweens give us the illusion of choice, but the reality is, they are only differing levels of under-insurance.

Nah. I exercise daily, eat right, sleep well, drink sparingly, don't smoke or snort or shoot up, and have tons of hot monkey sex often.

i.e., I take care of myself. It was a reasonable bet that I would only need major catastrophic coverage, which is what I chose. I was right.

I am tired of a "state" that demands I pay for others transgressions: groping my testicles at airports, snooping my emails and phone conversations to stop a few terrorists; and I am equally fed up with the crappy drivers, and with the drunks and the obese, lazy $hits who make my car insurance and health care premiums go up.

I say, be one of those, be uninsurable.

I'm secure in my knowledge that someday I must die. Doesn't scare me. I'd rather go without insurance, than to pay for that of others.

Let Darwin off the bench, back in the game.

That's what a lot of people think right up until they or a loved one is in the hospital staring down years of chemo and surgeries for millions of dollars.

Having been there, but on the NHS, I decided after it all that if I had a recurrence I'd rather die than go through that again. Worst decision I ever made to have treatment.

Still, I guess everyone has to go through it to make a choice.

What made it a difficult decision for me at the time was that I was quite young and possibly had many years ahead. Had I been older, it wouldn't have been difficult to say no. Nursed a lot of people with cancer before my personal involvement.

[NeverSure]

...

Subsidized Obamacare is just more Medicaid. Since all of these providers already won't accept it, what makes you think they will accept it if millions more people show up with Medicaid? No, they won't.

...

This BLATANTLY FALSE statement demands a clear correction. That is just wrong. 100 percent factually WRONG. There is the Medicaid expansion PART of it, which is optional state by state because of the supreme court ruling. That is ONLY for people in a defined VERY LOW income level. In the states not participating, those people there are being shafted big time but that is NOT Obama's fault, rather that's the fault of their GOVERNORS. Then there is core of the program which is based on PRIVATE health insurance policies. The VAST majority of Americans (excepting already defined MEDICARE people, etc.) will continue to get that supplied from employers. Those buying private plans not eligible for Medicaid or expanded Medicaid receive SUBSIDIES based on their income. I am no fan of the Obamacare system but I am LESS of a fan of the pre-Obamacare status quo and I believe when all this right wing hysteria plays out, the majority of Americans WILL feel the same way.

I do agree with your focus in one degree. Health INSURANCE (of whatever flavor) is not a guarantee of actually receiving health care services. The USA does indeed to have serious systematic issues in both access and costs that Obamacare certainly does not solve. I can't see any solution but a fully nationalized system so that's something for the younger generation to look forward to in however long it takes, maybe 50 years.

As I have been saying, most people who like Obamacare don't understand it.

In first month, the vast majority of Obamacare sign-ups are in Medicaid Washington Post.

And many doctors and hospital don't accept Medicaid, and many have said they won't accept this new deal. Simple Google search

Obama has had to apologize, and now he's trying to delay past next year's elections (illegally I think).

How can you keep defending the indefensible????

[Jingthing]

You're joking, right?

It's just STARTED!

The sharks are attacking from every angle. You can't know jack about the total eventual percentages and where they will fit in for SEVERAL months. Duh!

[NeverSure]

...

And, medical care is no different than any other product.

...

Your opinion. An opinion NOT shared by the U.S. SUPREME COURT.

The website will be fixed. A website is not Obamacare. It is an important mechanical tool which WILL be fixed but it is not in any way the LAW itself.

Yes I think the right wing and especially Fox News and Ted Cruz have been extremely hysterical.

Arguments in the supreme court case argued that access to health care was not the same as any typical product, and that side MOSTLY won, excepting the Medicaid option for the states. So I stand by my assertion.

You don't understand the Supreme Court ruling. All they said was that requiring people to buy Obamacare was a tax, and that the federal government had the power to levy a tax.

They stated no opinion about what the product was.

Edited November 15, 2013 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

I don't think you quite understand. Last night on TV I was watching a very smart and articulate man being interviewed about his canceled insurance.

He was obviously well-off and self-employed, and bought insurance for himself and his wife. He had opted for much the same thing I used to have - a high deductible policy. He said he and his wife had a $6,000 per year deductible, meaning that they had to pay for the first $6,000 of their health care every year. But after they paid $6,000 (which they had never needed) the full-blown insurance kicked in and covered everything with no lifetime limit.

So he was insuring against the catastrophic, and willing to pay up to $6,000 out of his own pocket if necessary.

By doing this, it cut his premium by 1/2 and he said he was paying about $400 a month, or $200 per person. His policy was canceled because that's not legal any more. That high deductible doesn't meet the Obamacare standards so he lost his freedom of choice.

His new policy's premium was going to double and he had no choice and he wasn't happy. If you do the math, his added premiums for his Obamacare policy will be an enforced additional $4,800 per year, or not far from the "maybe" $6,000 deductible he had, but never paid.

It's easy to look at the one side of the equation: $2400 per head more for insurance than last year. And that sucks.

The other side of the coin is that they're no longer subject to as large a deductible. Given that the average health care spending per capita in the USA is over $8,000- they seem to fall under the "I'm healthy, so why should I pay for insurance I don't need" crowd. So far, they have dodged the bullet- but then, so do most of the folks who will be bankrupted by next years' cancer.

Maybe having the lower deductible will make it less costly to get preventive care they seem to be forgoing if they've never hit their deductible as they claim.

Let's talk to the same guy in 3-5 or in 10 years and see how he has really fared for his insurance dollar. The reality may be a lot different than the fear..

To your statement: They don't/won't grasp the fact that so many doctors and hospitals have said they won't accept it.

The medical profession may not like it. But they've had their way for too many years and the cost of healthcare has spiraled out of control. When every man, woman and child is required to be covered under a policy acceptable to these rules, the medical profession will either accept it, or they'll go out of business or they'll move to Thailand to retire. And when they're gone (doubtful), a new batch will take their place with the understanding that it's a different ballgame.

Like I said, the people who like this program don't understand it. The US needs to make many changes in health care, but this isn't it.

As for the couple which has been saving $4,800 per year with a $6,000 deductible, if they've been doing that for ten years they've saved $48,000. When they reach age 65 they can switch to Medicare. He looked to be about 50. Who knows how many years he's been saving money on premiums? He looked like he could pay $6,000 a year and never miss it if someone got sick. He lost his choice to manage his own affairs.

Maybe they saved $2400 a year for each of them on the insurance. But you're completely neglecting the fact that they will get more back in reimbursement.

And you're forgetting the fact that their insurance company can cancel their policies if they get sick and really need the coverage. Or at the very least, put them into a higher risk pool and massively increase their monthly premiums.

And you're forgetting that we, as a society, have said some things are so important that we aren't going to give you a choice. You have to do them. And if you can't afford it, we'll help.

That's why I paid tens of thousands of $$$ in school district taxes to educate kids that weren't mine. I never had kids, yet I paid every year, renting or owning.

That's why we have to send kids to school through a certain age. You as a parent have no choice. Educate your kids or go to jail and/or we'll take them away and do it for you. Lots of people kicked and screamed because they couldn't enjoy the income their kids were making working in sweat shops, but it seems to have worked out fine.

And I now pay extra for lead free paint IN MY OWN HOME. Because we as a society decided that nobody is allowed to use lead paint.

If the wealthiest country in the history of the world can't decide that the life and death and health of our neighbors isn't important enough to make sure every one of us can get health care when we need it, that's a sad statement. I pray that we're collectively better than that.

Five million people have had their insurance canceled due to Obamacare. About 100,000 people have signed up for Obamacare.

Premiums have gone way up and many doctors and hospitals have flat-out stated that they won't accept Obamacare.

Obama has had to apologize to the people for not being able to keep their policies as he repeatedly promised they could, and is trying hard right now to cover his ass by delaying the train wreck for a year.

Are we "collectively better than that?"

[NeverSure]

No.

Actually, people do have much control over their health. If I go to the effort to take good care of my health, why should I pay as much for insurance as someone who doesn't?

Why should men, or women over 60, pay for maternity care coverage?

Mostly because of unhelpful gov't interference in the marketplace.

Think Wal-Mart and other discount stores.

Merely because the gov't and various lobbies haven't allowed normal economics to work.

Medical care could be plentiful and fairly cheap if sold freely and competitively like any other commodity. For example, where's the advertising? Insurance sold across state lines? Tort reform? Cut-rate shops? Diagnoses via internet, including from accredited foreign doctors in, say China or India? Choices of accepting care from nurse practioners rather than doctors?

Same with prescription drugs . . . .

It goes on and on.

The USA certainly needed healthcare reform, but Obamacare, as is becoming abundantly clear, ain't it. Lack of previous reform led to the opportunity for this debacle.

Staggering. Total denial of basic economic principals.

i guess it should be expected from flat earthers.

So the president who first had to apologize to Americans for having their health care policies canceled after he promised they wouldn't, and who now is running from his own Democrat party because he led them into this mess, and is trying to get it delayed for a year is the "flat earther" you are referring to?

[NeverSure]

You're joking, right?

It's just STARTED!

The sharks are attacking from every angle. You can't know jack about the total eventual percentages and where they will fit in for SEVERAL months. Duh!

The "sharks" who are attacking are the Democrats who voted it in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are all over Obama's butt because the American people don't like it and they want to get re-elected!!!!!!!!!!

Obama had to apologize for lying about people being able to keep their existing health care, Democrats are panicking and wanting to delay this mess, and there are no fixes to the mess without totally changing the Obamacare law. It's a disaster.

The "sharks" are now the Democrats who see the mess they created. Nothing about people losing their health care and finding premiums on new health care to be unaffordable will magically change in a few months.

[chuckd]

What a lot of members seem not to realize is the only people ready for the start of Obamacare were the insurance providers.

Their lawyers read the law and discovered what was actually in it, unlike Congress and the administration, and then the companies spent the next three years tailoring their actions to what the law required them to do.

Now here comes Obama after rolling out this mess, hat in hand, asking the insurance providers and state insurance commissions to give him a mulligan and do it all over in about a year. He is asking for the impossible.

If the finest minds of our government coudn't get it right in three plus years, how can Obama possibly believe the insurance companies can undo three years of work to comply with his law and become non-compliant in less than two months.

Let me say if I was CEO of an insurance provider, I wouldn't even consider his request to break existing federal law with anything short of either Congressional legislation or a Supeme Court opinion that Obama has the power to selectively waive enforcement of federal law. Without some sort of guarantee from both the Legislative and Judicial branches, his actions at any time could be deemed to have been unconstitutional and his guarantees to the providers could be declared null and void, hanging them out to dry and swing in the wind.

Free enterprise did what they were supposed to do. It was the finest minds in our government that failed

Edited November 15, 2013 by chuckd

[Jingthing]

Back to reality:

The VAST MAJORITY of Americans have insurance as follows, before and after Obamacare:

-- Medicaid for the extremely poor

-- Medicare over age 65

-- Through EMPLOYER including military, etc.

Those in the PRIVATE MARKET, there are MANY MANY more millions who were not eligible to purchase insurance before Obamacare. A HUGE portion of older people over 40 have preexisting conditions meaning REJECTION from purchase. Also insurance firms could legally and DID kick off people just for making a claim in the previous year! Now they can't. Thank you Obamacare.

The ENTIRE POOL of private market people are now relieved of this issue of preexisting conditions exclusions.

These people supposedly "kicked off" are eligible to purchase new plans with no worries about preexisting conditions, being booted for making a claim, and also eligible for SUBSIDIES which didn't exist before.

Economically there are winners and losers but statistically there are going to be MANY more winners.

Obamacare also of course greatly EXPANDS Medicaid for the poor in the states which are cooperating with that (sadly optional which means many millions will be totally left out in the cold, not Obama's fault).

The Fox News groupies are focusing on this one group inconvenienced as they indeed are (who had some kind of private insurance), but the vast majority of this group are going to be easily insurable, with exceptions of course like those who SHOULD be getting expanded Medicaid but don't live in a state opting in that.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[Trouble]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

I don't think you quite understand. Last night on TV I was watching a very smart and articulate man being interviewed about his canceled insurance.

He was obviously well-off and self-employed, and bought insurance for himself and his wife. He had opted for much the same thing I used to have - a high deductible policy. He said he and his wife had a $6,000 per year deductible, meaning that they had to pay for the first $6,000 of their health care every year. But after they paid $6,000 (which they had never needed) the full-blown insurance kicked in and covered everything with no lifetime limit.

So he was insuring against the catastrophic, and willing to pay up to $6,000 out of his own pocket if necessary.

By doing this, it cut his premium by 1/2 and he said he was paying about $400 a month, or $200 per person. His policy was canceled because that's not legal any more. That high deductible doesn't meet the Obamacare standards so he lost his freedom of choice.

His new policy's premium was going to double and he had no choice and he wasn't happy. If you do the math, his added premiums for his Obamacare policy will be an enforced additional $4,800 per year, or not far from the "maybe" $6,000 deductible he had, but never paid.

The only people I know who are "for" Obamacare don't understand it. They don't/won't grasp the fact that so many doctors and hospitals have said they won't accept it. They don't see how much it costs by mandating things that people don't need such as maternity care for a couple who are 60 years old and beyond the ability to have children. The list goes on.

I don't see how the Democrats weasel out of this one. I think they screwed the pooch.

Millions of Americans have had their plans cancelled and the administration knew this would happen. Obama's excuse in the press conference was so weak as to make him sound like an idiot. He lied during his last campaign and knew it. It was an attempt at that time to deflect the truth of the program so he could win reelection. Obama's "fix" is completely flawed and everyone knows it. The health insurance companies even put out a statement before Obama had finished his press conference.

the 716 billion that is being taken away from Medicare is achieved thru reductions in payments to medical care facilities, etc. My previous doctor decided to back away from Medicare and so will others as time goes on. While the idea of universal health care maybe admirable it only works when you have a population that is mostly working and gainfully employed. Look at the statistics:

Total number of Americans on welfare 12,800,000 Total number of Americans on food stamps 46,700,000 Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 5,600,000 Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 % Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion

No doubt that many of these people and even those working will get the subsidies to help pay for the insurance. What this act has really done is forced one part of the population to again support the other part of the population. And you might ask who gets hurt the most? It is not the well off. Sure they will pay more, but it is the middle class family that will now be paying more for health care and other items making it more and more difficult to get ahead.

Where Does the Money Come From? Besides the Individual Mandate penalty/tax, there are numerous NEW or INCREASED taxes and fees to fund all that is required by this law.

• +.9% Increase in Medicare Tax Rate (plus next item…)
• 3.8% New Tax on unearned income for high-income taxpayers= $210.2 billion ($200,000 for individual and $250,000 for joint filers)
• New Annual Fee on health insurance providers = $60 billion (For calculation - Sec 9010 ( of the PPACA.)[1]
• 40% New Tax on health insurance policies which cost more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, per year = $32 billion (inland tax as opposed to an importation tax)
• New Annual Fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs = $27 billion (For calculation - Sec 9008 ( of the PPACA)[2]
• 2.3% New Tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices = $20 billion
• +2.5% Increase (7.5% to 10%) in the Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction = $15.2 billion
• Limit annual contributions to $2,500 on flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans (plans that allow employees to choose between different types of benefits) = $13 billion
• All other revenue sources = $14.9 billion
  • 10% New Tax imposed on each individual for whom “indoor tanning services” are performed.
  • 3.8% New Tax on investment income. Includes: gross income from interest, dividends, royalties, rents, and net capital gains. Investment income does not include interest on tax-exempt bonds, veterans’ benefits, excluded gain from the sale of a principle residence, distributions from retirement plans, or amounts subject to self-employment taxes. (The lesser of net investment income or the excess of modified Adjusted Gross Income over a the dollar amount at which the highest income tax bracket, typically $250,000 for married filing jointly and $200,000 filing as an individual.

Forgive the cut and paste but the facts are there and no one seems to be able to grasp the facts. Why would a health care act aimed at helping people get "affordable" health care put taxes/fees on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs, medical devices, etc. This cost is only passed on to the end user the poor guy who needs the products OR the health insurer who will then need to raise premiums. Who thought this stuff up. The idiots in Congress of course. The poor guy that is sick no has to spend 10% of his adjusted gross income before he gets a deduction for keeping himself alive. Another interesting thing is the attempt to punish those who decide to contribute to a better plan by limiting deductions to $2500 for those plans.

So in the end the government will find that the actuary tables used to balance the books on this program will not work and there will be fallout in ways that haven't even occurred. What the Congress should have done was taken things in stages and see what works and what does not work. It is a known fact that the Medicare Trust Fund will be in trouble at some point in the future as more people will be in the system and less young people to pay in. Then they try to take 716 billion out by reducing fees to hospitals, etc. I guess what the Obama Administration does not realize is that all these hospitals, care facilities, doctors, etc. are running businesses and when they can't make a profit they government will either have to raise taxes to pay or they will fold up. Sure we all want people to be healthy and have good health care but my biggest concern about this health care program is that it won't pay for itself and the government will rob Peter to pay Paul. How high can the debt go before the US is just paying interest. God forbid the interest rates go up (and they will). It is the ability to pay for it all that concerns me when you can see that 65 million Americans are on Food Stamps, Welfare, or Unemployment Insurance and not contributing anything.

Don't take me as a heartless bastard because I am not. I can however read a balance sheet and I sure don't see how this is going to work. It is the liberal agenda and their pipe dream of equality for all. It is not difficult to see that Obama has pitted one group of people against the other. He did that in his campaign and it is being done through the liberal agenda in Congress. If you are successful you are the enemy. Ayn Rand was way ahead of her time. The Obama agenda is creating a welfare state. Why work when it is profitable to get health care, food stamps or welfare?

[Credo]

It seems like some of the rest of the country is finally learning what it is like for the thousands and thousands of us who can't get health insurance.

Insurance companies are not very nice people.

[Ulysses G.]

Why work when it is profitable to get health care, food stamps or welfare?

Because it is NOT profitable to get health care, food stamps and welfare. You get the absolute minimum of all of them and can barely exist. It pretty much forces poor people to do something illegal to suppliment their income. That is why I support Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich for expanding Medicaid in his state and am for universal health care, but Obamacare is not the answer. It is a mess

Edited November 16, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[HeijoshinCool]

...

And, medical care is no different than any other product.

...

Your opinion. An opinion NOT shared by the U.S. SUPREME COURT.

Well, sir, I handed down my opinion, and pissed you off.

The "supreme" court handed down theirs, and pissed off 200,000,000.

[Scott]

Stay on topic.

[samran]

There are a couple of things which make it different. Hope I don't bore you to death:

Most things in life you consume cause you want them. You generally have a good idea of what you want, how much you want to pay, and who you'll buy it from. Can't afford a Merc, buy a Toyota. Don't like this Toyata dealers price, go up the road. We have genuine choice in that situation both on the demand side (the type of car) and the supply side (which dealer I work with).

Health care flips all that on its head.

- As I said earlier. We don't know when we are going to get sick, we don't choose what you are going to get, you don't know how long you'll be sick for. Thats the demand side. You have no choice when you get sick or how much you are going to pay.

- On the supply side, you have very few options for who provides the services. Doctors are relatively few and far between. Specialists, as the name implies, are ever rarer. So as much as we say we like to choose our doctor, if you need a brain surgeon or a particular type of patiented cancer drug, your choices are limited. And you need to pay the price ((there are no-inbeweens like walking, catching a bus if you can't afford the Toyota like in the car example I used...)

So basic supply/demand economics that everyone likes to apply to this argument are actually no-applicable.

Given this, it is really hard to say, well I need 'x type of insurance'. As show, the insurance coverage might have limits, so then your are screwed, despite your best intentions.

Which is why I said in reality there only a binary decision, you either opt out, and get nothing, or you get insurance, and it covers everything. In betweens give us the illusion of choice, but the reality is, they are only differing levels of under-insurance.

Nah. I exercise daily, eat right, sleep well, drink sparingly, don't smoke or snort or shoot up, and have tons of hot monkey sex often.

i.e., I take care of myself. It was a reasonable bet that I would only need major catastrophic coverage, which is what I chose. I was right.

I am tired of a "state" that demands I pay for others transgressions: groping my testicles at airports, snooping my emails and phone conversations to stop a few terrorists; and I am equally fed up with the crappy drivers, and with the drunks and the obese, lazy $hits who make my car insurance and health care premiums go up.

I say, be one of those, be uninsurable.

I'm secure in my knowledge that someday I must die. Doesn't scare me. I'd rather go without insurance, than to pay for that of others.

Let Darwin off the bench, back in the game.

I'll give you this, at least you are being intellecutally consistent.

I just wonder what others would say if we'd applied the same 'stand on your own two feet' logic to say, the military? Surely everyone should be able to fend for themseves? You've got your clause in the consitution which allows for that. If you want your own warship, I guess you are going to have to buy your own right? Who needs government spending there...lets leave it to Bill Gates to buy a warship if he thinks he needs one.

So, no need for someone in say, Idaho, to pay and protect your strategic interests in Guam.

Sure, Guam would then be vunerable from the mightly tin boat navy from Tuvalau, and those Quebeckers will have those in Maine and Vermont speaking Francais in no time as they invade to take away those maple tree resources. But at least you'll be 'standing on your own two feet' and leaving things to the 'free market'.

Now, the usual suspects will be doing two things now:

- struggling to make the intellectual jump between the similarities between military spending and medical care (they are both to a large extent 'public goods' where government spending is more efficient).

- running around saying military spending is 'different', along with their medicare, social security, interstate highways budgets, and tax breaks for all the industries and everthing that benefits them, and their neck of the woods, but have been paid for to varying extents, by others.

Edited November 16, 2013 by samran

[Publicus]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Freedom of choice means freedom of choice. Even if it's a poor one.

At least, it did in the America I grew up in.

That's unrealistic, even delusional.

It's basic psychology and an emotive reality that there always are people who as adults want the world to be the way it was when they were growing up. In the main such people are called conservatives, sometimes they are deservedly called reactionaries. That's because this irrational longing has never been realistic.

The United States for instance didn't have a black man as president while I was growing up - I don't wish for an indefinite extension of those times. Neither do I expect or long for the present world to be the way it was while I was growing up. (People who grew up during the Great Depression and the Second World War are exceptions to the rule because who would want that again?)

Prez Obama is trying to improve life for Americans, the 45 million who do not have health security or medical care. While I was growing up and presently there always have been people who never had health or medical insurance. So the present is at long last different from the world the way it was while I was growing up, and that's excellent as far as I'm concerned.

The president has put the moral responsibility for the present challenges squarely on the insurance companies and on the nattering nabobs of negativism, the Republican Party.

Good for him.

[Publicus]

"Like Obama, Obamacare starts collapsing in Gallup poll: 40% approve, 55% disapprove."

@MarcACaputo

"Public approval of President Obama's signature healthcare law reached an all-time low since his reelection, with 40 percent of Americans approving Obamacare and 55 percent disapproving in Gallup's latest survey."

Miami Herald

Polls shmolls?!

Edited November 16, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Will people never get it that this isn't national health care, but rather a mandate to buy "Obamacare approved" health care or pay a fine?

Or you can look at it as "You must provide for the possibility that you'll need health care, or pay something into the system for the real possibility that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for your treatment because you couldn't"

I, for one, am tickled pink at the prospect of not having to depend on being a corporate employee to even be able to find health insurance. Last time I shopped for private health insurance, 90% of the policies wouldn't accept me, and those that would ruled out any treatment for the bits and pieces most likely to give me troubles. The cost was going to be in the neighborhood of $800-1000 per month with no confidence whatsoever that I'd be covered because 3 years earlier, a blood test showed my XXXX may have a pre-existing problem.

So I hopped back into corporate life, giving up any dream I may have had of self employment. Maybe the door to that aspiration is opening. I hope so, for me and millions of others who choose a life of "responsible" corporate misery.

I don't know how Obamacare is going to work out in the long term. But the status quo was a economic trainwreck in slow motion. Personally, I'd like to see the gov't get into competition with the private insurers, and give us all a choice between gov't insurance and private insurance, but I don't think that's feasible given the money tossed around DC by insurance lobbyists.

Is it great? No. Is it a step in the right direction? Probably.

Under the previous chaos, and by the definition of "pre-existing condition" created by the insurance companies, 1 of every 2 Americans were excluded from medical insurance because of they have the "pre-existing condition" caveat. The concocted definition alone was responsible for this deadly exclusion.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act eliminated this deadly restrictive clause absolutely. Now everyone can get medical insurance regardless of their health condition or medical care needs.

Prez Obama's announced changes are welcome because they are designed to preserve this sorely needed protection of all Americans' health and medical care, among the other positive provisions of ObamaCare, such as expanding Medicaid which is going exceedingly well..

Edited November 16, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

The "fix" is already in trouble. The Washington Insurance Commissioner has turned the White House down on their idea of a mulligan. (golf term)

With the requirements being placed on the insurance companies before they can re-start their cancelled policies, the Commissioner has said no deal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM

State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies

Posted by Amy Snow Landa

State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.

Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.

“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/healthcarecheckup/2013/11/14/state-insurance-commissioner-rejects-obamas-proposal-to-extend-canceled-policies/

FYI, Washington has a Democratic party legislature, governor and they voted for Obama...two times.

The situation is complex. It remains unclear, so it continues to be examined by state insurance commissioners. So jumping to conclusions is ill advised.

I'd write a different headline to the story below, such as State Insurance Regulators Mixed On Obamacare Fix.

State insurance regulators hesitate to embrace Obamacare fix

Many U.S. states are hesitant to embrace President Barack Obama's fix to keep Americans from losing health insurance plans that do not comply with his healthcare reform, saying they need to figure out how to resurrect canceled policies and whether to allow insurers to raise prices.

California, Colorado, Florida, South Carolina, Ohio and Oregon said they would act on Obama's offer, announced on Thursday, to give a one-year extension to existing policies. Washington, Vermont and Rhode Island - all of which are running their own state-based insurance exchanges - said they would not.

But at least 16 insurance departments queried by Reuters from states as diverse as Alabama, Virginia, Minnesota, Maryland and Michigan said they did not have enough information and were still trying to decide how to proceed.

http://news.yahoo.com/state-insurance-regulators-hesitate-embrace-obamacare-fix-003456153--sector.html

[HeijoshinCool]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

Freedom of choice means freedom of choice. Even if it's a poor one.

At least, it did in the America I grew up in.

That's unrealistic, even delusional.

It's basic psychology and an emotive reality that there always are people who as adults want the world to be the way it was when they were growing up. In the main such people are called conservatives, sometimes they are deservedly called reactionaries. That's because this irrational longing has never been realistic.

The United States for instance didn't have a black man as president while I was growing up - I don't wish for an indefinite extension of those times. Neither do I expect or long for the present world to be the way it was while I was growing up. (People who grew up during the Great Depression and the Second World War are exceptions to the rule because who would want that again?)

Prez Obama is trying to improve life for Americans, the 45 million who do not have health security or medical care. While I was growing up and presently there always have been people who never had health or medical insurance. So the present is at long last different from the world the way it was while I was growing up, and that's excellent as far as I'm concerned.

The president has put the moral responsibility for the present challenges squarely on the insurance companies and on the nattering nabobs of negativism, the Republican Party.

Good for him.

I shoulda written it as one sentence.

Then you couldn't have read between the lines and taken everything out of context.

Oops, did it again!

[Publicus]

...

Subsidized Obamacare is just more Medicaid. Since all of these providers already won't accept it, what makes you think they will accept it if millions more people show up with Medicaid? No, they won't.

...

This BLATANTLY FALSE statement demands a clear correction. That is just wrong. 100 percent factually WRONG. There is the Medicaid expansion PART of it, which is optional state by state because of the supreme court ruling. That is ONLY for people in a defined VERY LOW income level. In the states not participating, those people there are being shafted big time but that is NOT Obama's fault, rather that's the fault of their GOVERNORS. Then there is core of the program which is based on PRIVATE health insurance policies. The VAST majority of Americans (excepting already defined MEDICARE people, etc.) will continue to get that supplied from employers. Those buying private plans not eligible for Medicaid or expanded Medicaid receive SUBSIDIES based on their income. I am no fan of the Obamacare system but I am LESS of a fan of the pre-Obamacare status quo and I believe when all this right wing hysteria plays out, the majority of Americans WILL feel the same way.

I do agree with your focus in one degree. Health INSURANCE (of whatever flavor) is not a guarantee of actually receiving health care services. The USA does indeed to have serious systematic issues in both access and costs that Obamacare certainly does not solve. I can't see any solution but a fully nationalized system so that's something for the younger generation to look forward to in however long it takes, maybe 50 years.

As I have been saying, most people who like Obamacare don't understand it.

In first month, the vast majority of Obamacare sign-ups are in Medicaid Washington Post.

And many doctors and hospital don't accept Medicaid, and many have said they won't accept this new deal. Simple Google search

Obama has had to apologize, and now he's trying to delay past next year's elections (illegally I think).

How can you keep defending the indefensible????

At this point in the enrollment processing, the Massachusetts RonmeyCare enrollment percentage was at 0.3% of the population.

At the same point for ObamaCare, the enrollment rate is 1.3% of the population.

So the experience in this kind of program is that in the early stages of enrollment the initial data are paltry (in the extreme).

The closer the enrollment deadline comes, the more are the people that enroll. The ACA enrollment deadline is next March.

See you then.

[Publicus]

...

And, medical care is no different than any other product.

...

Your opinion. An opinion NOT shared by the U.S. SUPREME COURT.

The website will be fixed. A website is not Obamacare. It is an important mechanical tool which WILL be fixed but it is not in any way the LAW itself.

Yes I think the right wing and especially Fox News and Ted Cruz have been extremely hysterical.

Arguments in the supreme court case argued that access to health care was not the same as any typical product, and that side MOSTLY won, excepting the Medicaid option for the states. So I stand by my assertion.

You don't understand the Supreme Court ruling. All they said was that requiring people to buy Obamacare was a tax, and that the federal government had the power to levy a tax.

They stated no opinion about what the product was.

Every justice on the Supreme Court knows and knew what the product was/is.

As do the rest of us.

[chuckd]

...

Subsidized Obamacare is just more Medicaid. Since all of these providers already won't accept it, what makes you think they will accept it if millions more people show up with Medicaid? No, they won't.

...

This BLATANTLY FALSE statement demands a clear correction. That is just wrong. 100 percent factually WRONG. There is the Medicaid expansion PART of it, which is optional state by state because of the supreme court ruling. That is ONLY for people in a defined VERY LOW income level. In the states not participating, those people there are being shafted big time but that is NOT Obama's fault, rather that's the fault of their GOVERNORS. Then there is core of the program which is based on PRIVATE health insurance policies. The VAST majority of Americans (excepting already defined MEDICARE people, etc.) will continue to get that supplied from employers. Those buying private plans not eligible for Medicaid or expanded Medicaid receive SUBSIDIES based on their income. I am no fan of the Obamacare system but I am LESS of a fan of the pre-Obamacare status quo and I believe when all this right wing hysteria plays out, the majority of Americans WILL feel the same way.

I do agree with your focus in one degree. Health INSURANCE (of whatever flavor) is not a guarantee of actually receiving health care services. The USA does indeed to have serious systematic issues in both access and costs that Obamacare certainly does not solve. I can't see any solution but a fully nationalized system so that's something for the younger generation to look forward to in however long it takes, maybe 50 years.

As I have been saying, most people who like Obamacare don't understand it.

In first month, the vast majority of Obamacare sign-ups are in Medicaid Washington Post.

And many doctors and hospital don't accept Medicaid, and many have said they won't accept this new deal. Simple Google search

Obama has had to apologize, and now he's trying to delay past next year's elections (illegally I think).

How can you keep defending the indefensible????

At this point in the enrollment processing, the Massachusetts RonmeyCare enrollment percentage was at 0.3% of the population.

At the same point for ObamaCare, the enrollment rate is 1.3% of the population.

So the experience in this kind of program is that in the early stages of enrollment the initial data are paltry (in the extreme).

The closer the enrollment deadline comes, the more are the people that enroll. The ACA enrollment deadline is next March.

See you then.

The current population of the US is 317,075,045 as this is written... http://www.census.gov/popclock/

1.3% of the population figure totals 3,170,750. Where did your number of enrolees come from?

The CBO estimated that 7,000,000 would enroll in Obamacare's private insurance by 31 March 2014.

The 106,185 enrolled in the first month constitutes .0152% of the March target figure.

[Credo]

I would assume that most people sign up as a family, not as an individual. Small children don't usually buy insurance on their own.

[Publicus]

As I have been saying, most people who like Obamacare don't understand it.

In first month, the vast majority of Obamacare sign-ups are in Medicaid Washington Post.

And many doctors and hospital don't accept Medicaid, and many have said they won't accept this new deal. Simple Google search

Obama has had to apologize, and now he's trying to delay past next year's elections (illegally I think).

How can you keep defending the indefensible????

At this point in the enrollment processing, the Massachusetts RonmeyCare enrollment percentage was at 0.3% of the population.

At the same point for ObamaCare, the enrollment rate is 1.3% of the population.

So the experience in this kind of program is that in the early stages of enrollment the initial data are paltry (in the extreme).

The closer the enrollment deadline comes, the more are the people that enroll. The ACA enrollment deadline is next March.

See you then.

The current population of the US is 317,075,045 as this is written... http://www.census.gov/popclock/

1.3% of the population figure totals 3,170,750. Where did your number of enrolees come from?

The CBO estimated that 7,000,000 would enroll in Obamacare's private insurance by 31 March 2014.

The 106,185 enrolled in the first month constitutes .0152% of the March target figure.

The anti-ACA people have their own simplified math but the professionals have the accurate and real math.

The valid math I cite comes from MIT Prof Jonathan Gruber who was the key person in helping Gov Romney develop RomneyCare in Massachusetts and a played a central role in developing ObamaCare.

Here's the full quote by Prof Gruber:

"Look, when we opened our system in Massachusetts the first month the people could pay premiums and enroll, 123 people enrolled. By the end of the year, it was 36,000. That meant we got .3 percent of the people the first month. By that standard the federal government did great, 1.3 percent of the people the first month. It’s too early to say anything useful. The real deadline we have to focus on is march of next year. That’s when the individual mandate kicks in. That’s when people need to be signed up and what we saw in Massachusetts was a large rush before the mandate kicked in.”

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/11/13/obamacare-architect-enrollment-numbers-are-meaningless-until-we-start-punishing-you/

[chuckd]

I would assume that most people sign up as a family, not as an individual. Small children don't usually buy insurance on their own.

You are correct, of course.

I was responding to a poster that declared % of "population", not potential policy holders.

My response also referred to the 7,000,000 enrolee target set by the CBO.

Oops:

I also notice my figure for my post is incorrect.

The total signees of 106,185 do, in fact, make up 1.51% of the targeted number of 7,000,000.

I'm sorry for those zeros that were inadvertantly omitted, giving me all the problems. Hopefully they will forgive me and try to do better in the future..

[chuckd]

As I have been saying, most people who like Obamacare don't understand it.

In first month, the vast majority of Obamacare sign-ups are in Medicaid Washington Post.

And many doctors and hospital don't accept Medicaid, and many have said they won't accept this new deal. Simple Google search

Obama has had to apologize, and now he's trying to delay past next year's elections (illegally I think).

How can you keep defending the indefensible????

At this point in the enrollment processing, the Massachusetts RonmeyCare enrollment percentage was at 0.3% of the population.

At the same point for ObamaCare, the enrollment rate is 1.3% of the population.

So the experience in this kind of program is that in the early stages of enrollment the initial data are paltry (in the extreme).

The closer the enrollment deadline comes, the more are the people that enroll. The ACA enrollment deadline is next March.

See you then.

The current population of the US is 317,075,045 as this is written... http://www.census.gov/popclock/

1.3% of the population figure totals 3,170,750. Where did your number of enrolees come from?

The CBO estimated that 7,000,000 would enroll in Obamacare's private insurance by 31 March 2014.

The 106,185 enrolled in the first month constitutes .0152% of the March target figure.

The anti-ACA people have their own simplified math but the professionals have the accurate and real math.

The valid math I cite comes from MIT Prof Jonathan Gruber who was the key person in helping Gov Romney develop RomneyCare in Massachusetts and a played a central role in developing ObamaCare.

Here's the full quote by Prof Gruber:

"Look, when we opened our system in Massachusetts the first month the people could pay premiums and enroll, 123 people enrolled. By the end of the year, it was 36,000. That meant we got .3 percent of the people the first month. By that standard the federal government did great, 1.3 percent of the people the first month. It’s too early to say anything useful. The real deadline we have to focus on is march of next year. That’s when the individual mandate kicks in. That’s when people need to be signed up and what we saw in Massachusetts was a large rush before the mandate kicked in.”

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/11/13/obamacare-architect-enrollment-numbers-are-meaningless-until-we-start-punishing-you/

Your source is correct with his percentage calculations, while I was not.

I would also like to know how many actually enrolled and paid premiums during October for the private policies under Obamacare. The 106,185 included anybody that had put a plan in thir shopping cart, not necessarily those that had enrolled.

He used "paid and enrolled" as a criteria, which is not what HHS used in arriving at their totals. Different strokes for different folks, it seems.

He certainly speaks in short sentences.

[Publicus]

I would assume that most people sign up as a family, not as an individual. Small children don't usually buy insurance on their own.

You are correct, of course.

I was responding to a poster that declared % of "population", not potential policy holders.

My response also referred to the 7,000,000 enrolee target set by the CBO.

Oops:

I also notice my figure for my post is incorrect.

The total signees of 106,185 do, in fact, make up 1.51% of the targeted number of 7,000,000.

I'm sorry for those zeros that were inadvertantly omitted, giving me all the problems. Hopefully they will forgive me and try to do better in the future..

Semantics.

One equally could say the 'universe' of the ACA, which would be clear enough to many people and absolutely clear to an MIT professor.

[chuckd]

I would assume that most people sign up as a family, not as an individual. Small children don't usually buy insurance on their own.

You are correct, of course.

I was responding to a poster that declared % of "population", not potential policy holders.

My response also referred to the 7,000,000 enrolee target set by the CBO.

Oops:

I also notice my figure for my post is incorrect.

The total signees of 106,185 do, in fact, make up 1.51% of the targeted number of 7,000,000.

I'm sorry for those zeros that were inadvertantly omitted, giving me all the problems. Hopefully they will forgive me and try to do better in the future..

Semantics.

One equally could say the 'universe' of the ACA, which would be clear enough to many people and absolutely clear to an MIT professor.

I've had MIT grads working on a couple of my programs. Great engineers and not a lick of common sense.

Uh...politics thrives on semantics. "If you like your health care, you can... etc, etc, etc."

[cloudhopper]

Well the current score is 106,185 enrolled in ACA and 4,020,000 cancellations (and no they will not be un-cancelled, despite the rhetoric).