Obamacare has over 540,000 signups in the first week

A family of 4 that has an income of $70,000 will get a subsidy from the Federal Government to help pay their premium. Originally Posted by flghtr65

#1 ... "the Federal Government" doesn't "have" any money to pass out ...

... It's taxpayers' money. So the taxpayers are subsidizing the insurance for those folks.

#2 ... most of those people you keep bragging about signing up are getting "super" medicaid .... which does not pay the medical bills submitted by the providers ..... and the restrictions placed on the "coding" and rejection rates for the payment of health care charges is HIGH!

So when you start shooting your mouth off about a $50,000 surgery not getting paid, because a person "doesn't have insurance" ... the person with the "super medicaid" coverage through the ACA DOESN'T get the $50,000 surgery billed covered EITHER! The shortfall is "eaten" by the health care provider, and private insurance picks up the tab ... which means those with "private" coverage have their premiums raised and they pay for those charges, just like they pay for the subsidies that got the broke people or unemployed people insurance.

Since you're a know-it-all I'm sure you have carefully reviewed the billing codes for medicare/medicaid, rate increase procedures for providers to increase revenues under those codes, and the rejection/reduction of the medicare/medicaid "BILLING REVIEWERS" who "authorize" payment or not. Your graphs/charts/number crunching DO NOT REFLECT REALITY.

It's the snake oil that justifies spending BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to force people to sign up for something they didn't want in the first place. That's one reason the majority of the people in this country don't want it.

Thank for your gentlemanly response, Sir, that I will accept, but do you really believe that ACA is helping "we the people", when their deductibles, (unless of course they got Medicaid, which many were already able to get, but didn't do till they were dictated to do) are 5, 10, sometimes as high as 15 K, and those that are paying their own insurance has soared as high as 100% and deductibles for a once great policy has climbed for some to a lofty 5000 dollars, in the last 5 years. Granted, there those few who will benefit, as we all know in any crises, there are always a few benefit.
Forgive me, but I don't see where the extortion/blackmail from our government, of many Americans, not to mention the increasing insurance policies for those of who choose to pay our own policies is of a benevolence to we, the American people. Originally Posted by Cherie

1. Before the ACA bill was passed in order to qualify for Medicaid your income had to below the poverty level (family of 4 makes less than $16,000). So, you are wrong when say many could get it. There were a lot of uninsured poor people who make above the poverty level ( family of 4 makes 20,000), can't afford private health insurance in the individual market and make too much to get original Medicaid.

2. The few that you are referring to are 40+ million people. The goal of the ACA is to get these people insured either with a private plan or the expanded Medicaid. Your income has to be (family of 4 and less than $24,000) to qualify for expanded Medicaid. Only 30 states accepted the expanded Medicaid. There are only two states in the south that accepted the expanded Medicaid (Arkansas and Kentucky). Florida does not have expanded Medicaid. All of the numbers calculated by the congressional budget office are in the link below in Table 3.

3. Prior to the ACA being passed, health insurance companies did not sell health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions in the individual market. That is a major reason why there were 40+ million people who were uninsured 2013. If your pre-existing condition was cancer, no health insurance company was going to sell you a policy in the individual market. People who get health insurance from their employer don't have this problem ( you are already attached to what the health insurance companies consider a favorable risk group).

4. The individual mandate was passed with the hope that risk pools of policy holders on the government exchanges would be balanced. Everyone knew that more high risk people would be signing up the purchase health insurance.

5. The risk pools on the government exchanges have not been balanced so far. There have been far more high risk policy holders than low risk policy holders. The result of this has been claims paid out by the health insurance companies have exceeded premiums collected for some states in the individual market. This is why you are seeing premiums increase by high percentages and health insurance companies dropping plans that were not profitable for them.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

#1 ... "the Federal Government" doesn't "have" any money to pass out ...

... It's taxpayers' money. So the taxpayers are subsidizing the insurance for those folks.

#2 ... most of those people you keep bragging about signing up are getting "super" medicaid .... which does not pay the medical bills submitted by the providers ..... and the restrictions placed on the "coding" and rejection rates for the payment of health care charges is HIGH!
Originally Posted by LexusLover

My reply is in Blue.

#1 ... "the Federal Government" doesn't "have" any money to pass out ...

... It's taxpayers' money. So the taxpayers are subsidizing the insurance for those folks.

LL, the taxpayers are subsidizing all of the spending the Federal Government does. If the government did not collect enough tax which has been the case since Clinton's last year in office, the FED borrows from China. This is how Bush43 paid for the invasion of Iraq.

#2 ... most of those people you keep bragging about signing up are getting "super" medicaid .... which does not pay the medical bills submitted by the providers ..... and the restrictions placed on the "coding" and rejection rates for the payment of health care charges is HIGH!

LL, you consistently confuse Expanded Medicaid and private health insurance for the individual market.

Private health insurance is purchased at HealthCare.gov or at a state website (for a state that set up their own website). If your salary is family of 4 and > $24,000 you can get a private health insurance plan. It is the same health insurance, as if got it from your employer like ATT or General Electric. It is the same health insurance as if you went to some other on-line broker and did not receive a subsidy. The plans that BCBS and Aetna are sell on the Healthcare.gov are the same they sell to employees of ATT and General Electric. All plans have to have the 10 minimum benefits.

If your income is Family of 4 and < $24,000 your application will be rejected on HealthCare.gov and you will be directed go to your state and see if you qualify for Expanded Medicaid or Original Medicaid, since not all states have Expanded Medicaid.

So when you start shooting your mouth off about a $50,000 surgery not getting paid, because a person "doesn't have insurance" ... the person with the "super medicaid" coverage through the ACA DOESN'T get the $50,000 surgery billed covered EITHER!

When the hospital finds out the person does not have a private health insurance plan ( whether it was purchased at Healthcare.gov or thru their employer) and is on Medicaid, the patient will only be billed what the government will pay. They are not going to bill the Medicaid patient the same amount they would a patient with a private plan and have the patient that is on Medicaid make up the difference. Health insurance companies raise the rates when they lose money in certain markets. Health insurance is priced by State and County. A Medicaid patient is not going to get the exact same care as someone who has a Private Health insurance plan. However, it is better to have Medicaid or Expanded Medicaid than to be UNINSURED. The hospital/doctor wants to know that they are going to get paid something. Some doctors accept Medicaid and some don't. I am not getting into the Regan law from 1986 that says any hospital that bills the federal government for Medicare can not refuse a patient with an emergency situation.


Since you're a know-it-all I'm sure you have carefully reviewed the billing codes for medicare/medicaid, rate increase procedures for providers to increase revenues under those codes, and the rejection/reduction of the medicare/medicaid "BILLING REVIEWERS" who "authorize" payment or not. Your graphs/charts/number crunching DO NOT REFLECT REALITY.

I have not submitted or posted any graphs on what Medicaid pays out on certain procedures. The graph I posted and talked about deals with how many more people the government hopes will obtain HEALTH INSURANCE by 2018. So far 20 million more citizens are insured.

Provide any link that shows the ACA takes up 18% of the economy or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Federal Spending is 28% of the GDP. Healthcare is 27% of federal spending. Health care is comprised of Medicare(signed by FDR), Medicaid(signed LBJ), Part D (signed by Bush43) and ACA (signed by Obama). Show the math where the ACA is 18% of the GDP. You can't, because it's NOT TRUE. You don't deal in reality, you deal in BULLSHIT. Even though UHG plans to get out the exchange market, there are plenty health insurance companies planning to stay in. BCBS, Aetna, Humana, Coventry just to name a few.






http://www.usfederalbudget.us/budget_pie_gs.php Originally Posted by flghtr65

Aetna and Anthem, Obamacare business is good. These two health insurance companies aren't leaving the government exchanges.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health...--finance.html

My reply is in Blue.


LL, the taxpayers are subsidizing all of the spending the Federal Government does. If the government did not collect enough tax which has been the case since Clinton's last year in office, the FED borrows from China. This is how Bush43 paid for the invasion of Iraq.


Are you still drinking that Clinton "surplus" koolaid/snake oil? The reality is (and was) if you bring in $10,000 a month when you have $12,000 a month in bills, but only pay $8,000 of the bills during that month ... so you have $2,000 left over in the bank account ... that's not a "surplus"! There were hearings in 2001 that reviewed the LACK OF SPENDING by the Clinton administration when Congress had authorized the spending .... border security was one. Here is another one:

"In the area of security, the Commission believes that the threat against civil aviation is changing and growing, and that the federal government must lead the fight against it. The Commission recommends that the federal government commit greater resources to improving aviation security, and work more cooperatively with the private sector and local authorities in carrying out security responsibilities." 1996 White House Commission on
Aviation Safety and Security FINAL REPORT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON By Al Gore (let me guess you voted for him!!!)

When personnel vehicles ordered and delivered during the Clinton Administration show up on the battle field WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ARMOR PLATING FOR LIVE FIRE COMBAT (not "exercises") then as the saying goes someone has been "penny wise and pound foolish" and those servicemembers with missing arms, legs, brains, and lives are the result! How much does that cost the next administration? Like refurbishing the existing carrier fleet rather than pissing money of "passive/green energy" projects?????

When the hospital finds out the person does not have a private health insurance plan ( whether it was purchased at Healthcare.gov or thru their employer) and is on Medicaid, the patient will only be billed what the government will pay. Originally Posted by flghtr65

You made my point! The taxpayers pay the short fall on Medicaid as well as the Medicaid billing payments themselves.....

... that means and the privately insured PATIENTS pay for the UNPAID medical bills ....increased premiums and deductibles to cover the losses or n the form of grants and local taxes for the hospital facilities or in the form of deductible losses from income taxes paid by the providers who were not paid for their services ...

..the underlined portion of your statement is incorrect. The "patient" is not billed a damn thing. The provider uses codes for the services and the "government" pays what it DEEMS REASONABLE. The days of getting paid "in full' were long over and particularly now. That is why providers are dropping out of taking medicaid/medicare patients (which includes those with an advantage plan or medicare supplement ... retirement medical plans "consume" the medicare benefits of the retiree in many instances).

You taking the numbers published by the government .... like "signups" is playing into Obaminable's bullshit. And I can't believe you are still buying into the 40 million. That was shot down years ago by the General Accounting Office .... the realistic number is about 25% of that ... or around 10 to 11 million.

My response is in RED

And I can't believe you are still buying into the 40 million. That was shot down years ago by the General Accounting Office .... the realistic number is about 25% of that ... or around 10 to 11 million.

My response is in RED Originally Posted by LexusLover

The forty million is the goal. It won't be reached until at least 2018. As for the year 2000 being a surplus or not, government spending.com disagrees with you.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...icit_brief.php

the realistic number is about 25% of that ... or around 10 to 11 million.

My response is in RED Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL, for an accountant, you don't count well. Especially if it is a policy or law that you don't like. As of March 2015, the number of citizens gaining health insurance coverage because of the ACA, private plan or Medicaid is over 20 million people.

http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/03/16/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-as-of-march-2015/

From the link:

The report estimates 16.4 million uninsured gained coverage under the ACA since 2010.
11.7 are currently enrolled in state and federal Marketplaces. Some percentage would be expected to not continue coverage for the full calendar year, while many more will enroll in special enrollment.
5.7 million young adults (aged 19-25) stayed on a parent’s plan until age 26. That is 2.3 million who stayed on their parents plan from 2010 to 2013 with an estimated 3.4 million gaining coverage from 2013 to 2015.
14.1 million adults gained health insurance since the beginning of open enrollment in October, 2013 through March 4, 2015. Adding in the 2.3 million from 2010 to 2013 we get 16.4 million.
There were 10.8 million Medicaid and CHIP enrollments since October 2013. The uninsured rate dropped more in states that expanding Medicaid.
Generally adults with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level saw little to no change in uninsured rate (as it was already at about 98%).
About 4.5 million lost their plan in 2013, so some amount of Marketplace enrollments were this group.
Millions more enrolled in individual plans due to the individual mandate and through plans offered by employers due to the employer mandate.
The current uninsured rate is a little over 12%, although the study below cites 13.2%. Although an estimate based on survey data, this percentage does account for everything from Medicaid to plan drops.
Before the ACA around 47 million lacked health coverage.

Subtract the 4.5 million who lost their policy from the 16.4 million who got a private plan policy on the exchanges and add that 10.8 million who got the expanded Medicaid and that comes to just under 23 million more people with Health Insurance coverage since the ACA was passed.

The forty million is the goal. It won't be reached until at least 2018. As for the year 2000 being a surplus or not, government spending.com disagrees with you.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...icit_brief.php Originally Posted by flghtr65

#1: Of course. I didn't say it "wasn't a surplus" .... based on funds "left over"! What I am saying is that Congress authorized spending in budgets, which were not spent and that creates the "appearance of a surplus" ... then in 2001 Congress (the House) had hearings in which authorizations were reviewed and it was determined that "why should we authorize more when the administration was not spending what was authorized!!!!" ... Just like the Clinton administration cooked the labor books (in 2000) on the employment stats and raised hell when Cheney said their first task was to address the economic downturn in 2000!!!!!

#2: One does not reach a "goal" by driving millions of people out of the private insurance market and forcing them into a federal health care coverage program ... UNLESS one's goal is to drive ALL CITIZENS into a "one payor" Government health care program!

The snake oil sales pitch in the beginning WAS there were 40 to 50 million "uninsured"! After the "fluff" was taken out the actual number of INVOLUNTARILY UNINSURED was around 10 to 11 million!!!! ALA THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE and the CBO. Then one could keep their doctor and their insurance .. IF THEY LIKED IT!!!! (You were not also told ... IF THEY CONTINUE OFFERING SERVICES.)

One does NOT SPEND $200 BILLION a year and counting to insure 11 million people. Unless of course: One is a narcissistic, egotistical liberal who couldn't find his ass with both hands before he took office and hasn't done any better since, and has as his goal a NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLAN that REQUIRES all people to have the same health care coverage EXCEPT the President, all members of Congress, the Federal employees, and the LABOR UNIONS who will be covered by private insurance or THEIR OWN PLAN!

I am not suggesting that you are not intelligent by this suggestion. if I were you I would become acquainted with the medicare/medicaid "rate increase" process and the billing practices of health care providers to impact the increases in revenue for medicare/medicaid providers. And the actual payments with EOB's published!

In addition one must separate data on medicare from that of medicaid.

There are only two ways to DECREASE health care costs. Control prices or cut benefit payments (or both). The only way that "prices" can be "controlled" is by establishing a "one payer" system (or National Health Insurance) and that will also control "benefits"! The reality is you will then have 2 CLASSES of patients.

One only has to look at the California state retirement health care program. It now uses "clinics" and salaried health care workers, including the doctors. It employees "panels" and "review boards' to assess treatment options and care decisions.....in other words ... "death panels" as that term is used. State of the art drugs, procedures, and equipment are considered "experimental" and not included in the "care package" offered through the program. That's what is happening in medicaid and medicare (even the so called "expanded" coverages. They are doing it through the administrative regulations and rulings/interpretations.

Do you stand in line at a pharmacy much? Listen to the information being provided to "patients" and the responses!!! More and more people (poor people btw) are beginning to understand the "snake oil"! They are being forced to do without or take "generics" .... IF THE GENERIC IS AVAILABLE!!!! Why do you think people were mail ordering drugs from Canada? Cheaper!!!! Drug companies are sending shit over seas at 10% of what we (and insurance companies) pay drugs stores with a prescription.

If the people in this country want to control health care costs, they'll have to grow some balls and do it. You DON'T DO IT by wealth redistribution.

You gotta love the LLephantMan's spunky discussion. All opinion (unsubstantiated spin and blather), while Flighty's argument is backed up by facts and substantiated by links.

No wonder he never leaves the basement,

LL, for an accountant, you don't count well.

....the number of citizens gaining health insurance coverage because of the ACA, private plan or Medicaid is over 20 million people.



From the link:

Some percentage would be expected to not continue coverage for the full calendar year, while many more will enroll in special enrollment.

[/B] Originally Posted by flghtr65

The devil is always in the details, isn't it? And the slight of hand is always "magic"!

You seem to keep quoting the koolaid ... from where does the data come?

Look back your "headline" ... then look at the "fine print"! That's what I do!

"Some percentage...."????

Why not just put those uninsured on Medicaid if they want healthcare coverage? Wouldn't that be less disruptive and more acceptable to the U.S. voters?....oh yea, and less expensive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slight of hand?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !

Why not just put those uninsured on Medicaid if they want healthcare coverage? Wouldn't that be less disruptive and more acceptable to the U.S. voters?....oh yea, and less expensive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YouRong is as good a reason as any for not doing it.

He gets the taxpayers to pay enough of his tab for healthcare premiums so he can pretend to have his own insurance. That way he can make fun of people he thinks are "leeching" on medicare, and he can "qualify" for "government assistance" without having to be branded by his own loudmouthed name calling ... He has previously admitted ... once it was in place he could qualify for the "subsidy"! Problem is ... he has to repay it, right YouRong?

It's merely "tax relief"! Unless he qualifies for not having to pay it back!

He's a welfare hog calling others a medicare "leech"!!!! Even though those qualified for medicare paid in for years!

Care to voxsplain this frightr??? http://nypost.com/2015/11/20/a-new-t...cares-failure/





A new taxpayer bailout to cover up ObamaCare’s failure?

How dare the Obama administration bail out insurance companies with our money in order to hide ObamaCare’s failures. Thursday, just hours after giant insurer UnitedHealthcare said it’s losing money selling ObamaCare plans and will likely exit the health exchanges next year, the Obama administration quietly promised to bail out insurers for their losses — using your money.

Nearly all insurers are bleeding red ink trying to sell the unworkable plans. Without a bailout, more insurers will abandon ObamaCare, pushing it closer to its demise. A bailout would benefit insurers and the Democratic Party, which is desperate to cover up the health law’s failure. Ironically Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders) bad-mouth bank bailouts but are all for insurance-company bailouts. Truth is, it’s a ripoff for taxpayers, who shouldn’t have to pay for this sleazy coverup.

The pressure is building on Republicans in Congress. Industry groups like the American Health Insurance Plans and giant insurers are joining with the Obama folks to lobby ferociously for a bailout.

UnitedHealthcare’s Thursday bombshell rattled investors, health-plan subscribers and ObamaCare partisans. The insurer currently covers more than half a million ObamaCare plan subscribers in 23 states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

The insurer announced losses of $425 million on ObamaCare plans, and CEO Stephen Hemsley said, “We cannot sustain these losses,” and “we saw no indication of anything actually improving.”

Hemsley pointed to enrollees who were older and sicker than expected and in many cases gamed the system by waiting until they were ill to sign up. “We can’t subsidize a market that doesn’t at this point appear to be sustaining itself.”

When UnitedHealthcare speaks, the industry listens. It’s the nation’s largest insurer. And the problems it faces are slamming all insurers.

According to the consulting firm McKinsey, insurers lost billions selling ObamaCare plans in 2014, and the losses are mounting again this year. On Friday, Aetna also conceded it is losing money on ObamaCare.

Similar pressures already have forced a dozen insurance ObamaCare co-ops out of business, including the New York giant insurer Health Republic. If enrollments continue to stagnate, it’s likely other insurers will follow UnitedHealthcare and jump ship.

On Thursday, the administration tried to calm insurers, sending them a written memo full of promises. Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services vowed to go to Congress for full funding to reimburse insurers for their losses.

At issue is the Affordable Care Act’s so-called “risk corridor” program. Profitable insurers are supposed to pay into a fund every year to help unprofitable insurers. But with nearly all insurers losing money on ObamaCare, there’s not enough money in the pot. Insurers requested $2.9 billion to offset their 2014 losses, and were told they would get only 13 cents on the dollar, because the pot is so empty.

That shortfall pushed several co-ops into bankruptcy, including Health Republic. UnitedHealthcare also said it was a reason for its reluctance to stay in ObamaCare. But too bad for insurers. They’re in business to take risks and either make money or lose it.

The risk-corridor program shouldn’t be used to funnel taxpayer money to insurers. But the administration is trying to weasel around it and get Congress to fill the pot with taxpayer dollars. That’s what makes it a bailout. And crony capitalism.

When Obama tried this last year, Republicans in Congress stopped it. In the coming weeks, count on Obama and congressional Democrats to try slipping insurance-bailout money into the spending bills being rushed through Congress as the year closes.

Let’s face it, Obama will do anything to protect his signature health-care law, even if it means paralyzing the budget process. As long as Republicans keep their backbone and their eyes on the fine print, they can stop the bailout again. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to prop up the failures of ObamaCare.

Betsy McCaughey is the author of “Beating Obamacare.”

Care to voxsplain this frightr??? http://nypost.com/2015/11/20/a-new-t...cares-failure/





A new taxpayer bailout to cover up ObamaCare’s failure? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Nope, he believes it is the best thing since sliced bread .... perhaps it is!


And while you're "enjoying" his sliced bread just remember .....

.. this is the same guy who wants to piss off what little money the government has on "global warming" ...

...and is allowing unvetted refugees from Syria into our country.

#2: One does not reach a "goal" by driving millions of people out of the private insurance market and forcing them into a federal health care coverage program ... UNLESS one's goal is to drive ALL CITIZENS into a "one payor" Government health care program!

The snake oil sales pitch in the beginning WAS there were 40 to 50 million "uninsured"! After the "fluff" was taken out the actual number of INVOLUNTARILY UNINSURED was around 10 to 11 million!!!! ALA THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE and the CBO. Then one could keep their doctor and their insurance .. IF THEY LIKED IT!!!! (You were not also told ... IF THEY CONTINUE OFFERING SERVICES.)

One does NOT SPEND $200 BILLION a year and counting to insure 11 million people. Unless of course: One is a narcissistic, egotistical liberal who couldn't find his ass with both hands before he took office and hasn't done any better since, and has as his goal a NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLAN that REQUIRES all people to have the same health care coverage EXCEPT the President, all members of Congress, the Federal employees, and the LABOR UNIONS who will be covered by private insurance or THEIR OWN PLAN!
Originally Posted by LexusLover

Provide a link from the CBO or the General Accounting Office that says there are only 10 to 11 million who are involuntarily uninsured or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

The Kaiser foundation disagrees with you. There were 47 million citizens who were uninsured before the ACA was implemented. From the link:

In January 2014, the major coverage provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into full effect. These provisions include the creation of new Health Insurance Marketplaces where low and moderate income families can receive premium tax credits to purchase coverage and, in states that opted to expand their Medicaid programs, the expansion of Medicaid eligibility to almost all adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL). The ACA has the potential to reach many of the 47 million Americans who lack insurance coverage, as well as millions of insured people who face financial strain or coverage limits related to health insurance.

http://kff.org/uninsured/report/the-...s-and-the-aca/


The Congressional Budget Office created a report for Congress in March 2012. In Table3 of the link below it has the number of uninsured equal to 55 million. This total includes illegal immigrants. If you subtract out 8 million illegal immigrants the CBO and the Kaiser foundation have the same number of citizens under the age of 65 that do not have health insurance as 47 million. That is two different sources with the same number. Do you expect us to believe that you count better than the accountants in the CBO?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf