How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[Teatownclown]

The only thing this idiot could walk back would be his educational level.

[Townsend]

Rejecting Medicaid expansion would hit Oklahoma employers hard, study shows

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20130315_16_A9_CUTLIN69646

Oklahoma employers could pay as much as $52.6 million a year in higher taxes under the Affordable Care Act, if the state refuses to accept Medicaid expansion funding under the law, according to a study by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service.  Nationally, the 22 states that have rejected the Medicaid money or remain undecided on the issue could cost their employers extra taxes up to $1.3 billion, the report says.

[Townsend]

Bring it on back, Jim:

Bridenstine says remarks about Supreme Court misinterpreted

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20130318_335_0_FirstD35766

First District Congressman Jim Bridenstine said Monday his remarks last week about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act have been misinterpreted.

Bridenstine said he was only disagreeing with the court’s majority opinion in last year’s Affordable Care Act, not challenging the court’s authority as the final arbiter on constitutionality.

“That’s never crossed my mind,” Bridenstine said by telephone Monday morning.

Last week Bridenstine told the Daily Caller, a conservative website: “Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day, given the makeup of the court on that particular day.”

Bridenstine went on to say he believes the so-called individual mandate is unconstitutional, regardless of the court’s 5-4 ruling that it is.

Bridenstine’s remarks were widely reported, with some sources saying that the freshman congressman considered Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 decision that established the Supreme Court as the final authority on constitutionality, to have been incorrect.

Monday, Bridenstine said he does not remember saying such a thing.

“The Supreme Court justices decide constitutionality,” he said. “That’s their role.”

But, Bridenstine said, the Supreme Court has reversed itself from time to time, and he thinks the Affordable Care Act decision is one that may not stand up.

“What I should have said is that I agree with the dissenting opinion ... and that it will inform my legislation going forward.”

Bridenstine is one of several members of Congress attempting to “defund” the Affordable Care Act through the budgetary process. The Republican House leadership has not signed on to their efforts.

[Teatownclown]

Bring it on back, Jim:

Bridenstine says remarks about Supreme Court misinterpreted

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20130318_335_0_FirstD35766

Baby Face Bridenstein  is a mess.... he needs a bib!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdyio9ZSgQk[/youtube]

This idiots' handlers may be the worst in State history. Everything is either non-sense or crazy.

Here's the latest scribble: http://www.okwu.edu/keating-center/2013/03/u-s-congressman-jim-bridenstine-speaks-at-keating-center-dedication/

[Townsend]

 

“We are enforcing because Oklahoma notified … that it has not enacted legislation to enforce or that it is otherwise not enforcing the Affordable Care Act market reform provisions.”

-Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, in a letter to the Oklahoma Insurance Department. The federal government will be taking over regulation of Oklahoma’s insurance market because Insurance Commissioner John Doak has refused to enforce the law.

So has this made Doak unnecessary? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

So has this made Doak unnecessary? 

Wasn't he always...?  unnecessary....

[patric]

Incarceration is an expensive alternative to mental health care. According to a Texas Department of State Health Services report, the criminal justice system is 27 percent more expensive than the costliest outpatient services. Thus, when police take people with mental illnesses to the hospital rather than jail, we save our county money and provide a more therapeutic option for the patient.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20130321-matt-roberts-jails-and-ers-are-bad-options-for-mentally-ill.ece

[Townsend]

Poll: Most Americans Remain Ignorant of Obamacare Impacts

The sweeping health care reform package remains unpopular with the public

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/22/poll-most-americans-remain-ignorant-of-obamacare-impacts

For all the noise politicians make about the sweeping health care reform law passed three years ago, dubbed 'Obamacare,' Americans are largely in the dark about its implementation.

About 48 percent of those recently surveyed said they know "nothing at all" about whether their state is setting up a new insurance marketplace as prescribed by the law or deferring to the federal government versus just 15 percent have heard "some" about this or 7 percent who have heard "a lot," according to a new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Much ado is also being made in Washington about whether or not Red State governors are taking up the federal government's offer to help fund an expansion of Medicaid, also part of the health care reform overhaul, but the poll shows a majority of public support for the act. About 52 percent say they support expanding Medicaid to cover more low-income people versus 41 percent who oppose the move.

Overall, support for the law has not changed much since it was signed three years ago – just about 37 percent of people have a favorable view of the measure versus 40 percent who have an unfavorable view. Democrats and independents are also much more supportive of Obamacare than are Republicans. But ignorance persists on the measure, as well. About 57 percent of those polled admit they don't have enough information to understand how it will affect them personally, compared to 41 percent who say they do.

There is a disconnect between the public's perception of whether health care costs are increasingfaster or slower than usual, according to the poll.

"Analysis of national data has shown that while health care cost growth continues to outpace inflation, the rate of growth in national health expenditures has slowed markedly in recent years," says a Kaiser Foundation memo that accompanied the poll results.

"The public's perception of the cost trajectory is quite different however. Nearly six in 10 adults say that over the past few years the cost of health care for the nation as a whole has been going up faster than usual," it reads.

The poll highlights issues that have plagued the law since it was being crafted – that the complex overhaul is misunderstood by most (even lawmakers) and unpopular with Republicans. GOP lawmakers continue to demonize the legislation and have repeatedly voted to repeal it, despite the fact that President Barack Obama would veto any measure to remove his signature reforms should it reach his desk.

While some of Obamacare's provisions have already taken effect, full implementation will not happen until 2014.

[patric]

So has this made Doak unnecessary? 

He can always remind people to change the batteries in their smoke detectors, but beyond that...
He's still just high from getting elected.

[Conan71]

Don't say I didn't warn you that there was no way health care premiums could possibly go down with more people coming into the risk and claims pool.  Sebelius finally admits what was obvious from the get-go, in spite of Obama's constant lies about the average family saving $2500 per year on their premiums.

Years after the insurance industry began warning that premiums will rise due to health reform, the Obama administration acknowledged Tuesday that it might actually be the case.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters at the White House that some people may see their premiums rise under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” Sebelius said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

Sebelius’s comments were published online late Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal.

“This is the first time ever in the history of the United States that insurance companies have to file their rates, it has to be very transparent, they have to offer the same kind of coverage without 5,000 tiny little lines and internal caps, and they have to compete for customers,” Sebelius said. “And I am a believer in the market strategies that in and of itself will minimize the rate impact.”

Health insurers have long warned that health reform will increase health coverage costs, but the Obama administration has repeatedly said reform will increase coverage while reducing costs.

Though the law eliminates practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with medical conditions—likely reducing premiums for women, the elderly and the sick—premiums for men, healthy individuals and younger beneficiaries are expected to increase. Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, Sebelius said.

In a report, the Society of Actuaries predicted this week that insurers will pay 32 percent more on average within three years for medical claims under reform, as more patients enter the insurance market and take up higher-value benefits. The study attributes potential premium hikes to the expected influx of sicker people into the health care market. Changes also would vary significantly by state.

“Health care reform’s watershed year is almost here, though it will take a while for a stable state to be reached. The projections in this study suggest that when the dust settles by 2017, we can expect mixed results on the reform bill’s goals of expanding coverage and reducing costs,” Kristi Bohn, consulting health staff fellow at the Society of Actuaries, said in a statement. 

Though the law will significantly reduce the number of Americans who are uninsured, the size of the individual market will more than double an increase driven in part by people who are below 200 percent of the federal poverty line coming into the market. "This group of people are considered to be ‘good risks’ and are generally expected to bring down average costs," Bohn said. "But other changes in composition of the individual market will more than offset these lower costs, and in fact, will drive average costs up.”

America’s Health Insurance Plans has also argued that PPACA’s age rating restrictions will increase premiums for younger individuals, while the health insurance tax will significantly increase costs for consumers and employers in all 50 states.

The bulk of the law—including the health exchanges and the individual mandate—goes into effect in January 2014, which at that time the premium costs will be known.

http://www.benefitspro.com/2013/03/27/sebelius-concedes-reform-could-raise-premiums

[Conan71]

And just in case you missed this from the March 1 pre-weekend info dump from the Administration:

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday unveiled its proposal to raise billions of dollars through annual fees on health insurers, a “$100 billion health insurance tax rule” that the industry says will significantly drive up costs for consumers.

The rule as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act imposes annual fees on health insurers that start at $8 billion in 2014, increases to $14.3 billion in 2018, and will increase every year after that. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the tax will exceed $100 billion over the next ten years.

The proposed rule will be published Monday for public consideration in the Federal Register. The IRS will accept comments for 90 days, beginning Monday.

Not paying on time will result in a $10,000 penalty for insurers, plus $1,000 for every day they miss deadline.

America’s Health Insurance Plans blasted the rule as a tax that will financially drown both employers and consumers. They warn that the costs will have to be passed along to consumers in the form of higher premiums, a claim that the Congressional Budget Office has also verified in its analysis.

“Imposing a new sales tax on health insurance will add a financial burden on families and employers at a time when they can least afford it,” AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni said Friday. “This tax alone will mean that next year an individual purchasing coverage on his or her own will pay $110 in higher premiums, small businesses will pay an additional $360 for each family they cover, seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will face $220 in reduced benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs, and state Medicaid managed care plans will incur an additional $80 in costs for each person enrolled.”

There is currently legislation to repeal the fees, recently introduced by Reps. Charles Boustany, R-La., and Jim Matheson, D-Utah, which AHIP strongly supports.

A 2011 report by Oliver Wyman found that nationally the health insurance tax alone “will increase premiums in the insured market on average by 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014,” and by 2023 “will increase premiums 2.8 percent to 3.7 percent.”

Families purchasing coverage in the individual market will be hit the hardest in New York while those getting coverage from a small employer will be most impacted in West Virginia, Oliver Wyman analysis also found. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in New Jersey and the Medicaid managed care program in Washington, DC top their respective lists of those that will be hardest hit by the tax.

http://www.benefitspro.com/2013/03/01/obama-administration-unveils-health-insurer-fees

Yet one more reason premium costs will go up not down under Obamacare for most of us.

[Teatownclown]

And just in case you missed this from the March 1 pre-weekend info dump from the Administration:

http://www.benefitspro.com/2013/03/01/obama-administration-unveils-health-insurer-fees

Yet one more reason premium costs will go up not down under Obamacare for most of us.

give it three years before you rush to judgement. Besides, insurance industry will have raised premiums by even more over the same 3 years. Why do you hate coverage for the poor?

Remember that single payer is the only solution...and Mary Fallin's going to cost our state, our hospitals, and our society.

[Conan71]

give it three years before you rush to judgement. Besides, insurance industry will have raised premiums by even more over the same 3 years. Why do you hate coverage for the poor?

Remember that single payer is the only solution...and Mary Fallin's going to cost our state, our hospitals, and our society.

We already had coverage for the poor and it's even single payer for them: it's called Medicaid. 

What was the point in re-jiggering the entire insurance industry when all they needed to do was expand Medicaid in the first place?  What a bunch of smoke and mirrors for one of the biggest redistribution schemes ever foisted on U.S. citizens.

[Teatownclown]

We already had coverage for the poor and it's even single payer for them: it's called Medicaid.  

What was the point in re-jiggering the entire insurance industry when all they needed to do was expand Medicaid in the first place?  What a bunch of smoke and mirrors for one of the biggest redistribution schemes ever foisted on U.S. citizens.

The end game is to get rid of the middle man abusers...agents, insurance companies. It's not re-jiggering as much as eventual termination. You know, socialism. We're just transitioning. Quit fighting it. The new system will save huge dollars over time. Find another "get Obama" issue.

I bet you're lovin our Governess.

[Conan71]

The end game is to get rid of the middle man abusers...agents, insurance companies. It's not re-jiggering as much as eventual termination. You know, socialism. We're just transitioning. Quit fighting it. The new system will save huge dollars over time. Find another "get Obama" issue.

I bet you're lovin our Governess.

In no way shape or form can it cost less if the goal is to improve healthcare for everyone.  It's almost as if you have no real grasp on economics or you simply enjoy being a crank.