ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

Hey, PS, stop knocking Obamacare. It just got a ringing endorsement....

Here...take this white coat....make it look like everyone here is a doctor to give the phony impression Obamacare is supported by doctors

[mrswdk]

This person doesn't exist while Player worships Obamacare: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/12/105176-alabama-mom-shares-devastating-experience-obamacare-open-letter-american-people/

An anecdote!

!

[WILLIAMS5232]

This person doesn't exist while Player worships Obamacare: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/12/105176-alabama-mom-shares-devastating-experience-obamacare-open-letter-american-people/

these people are clearly living outside of their means. they should buy a 25 y/o mobile home or FEMA trailer and a couple of 88' nissan sentras.... like all the other stupid redneck Alabamians. ( i am from Mississippi so i can make this joke. )

[saxitoxin]

Sometimes I Google the things night strike types and it just makes me say "f*ck it." It never feels like it's worth the effort anymore. It's not fun. Just sad.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366828/who-says-obama-hasnt-united-country-john-fund

I got that. Like I said, I googled. I'm still sad that you are more concerned about political gotchas (and a mediocre one) than working to fix anything. Any damn thing.

Something that's inherently designed to fail can't be fixed. It has to be completely scrapped and replaced with real solutions.

Catchphrase!

lolwut ... you can't get away yelling catchphrase at Night Strike (even though it was a catchphrase) after you just dropped the DNC's "responsibility to govern" meme

I'll give you both credit in that each of you paraphrased your respective party slogans rather than quoting verbatim, but it was very light paraphrasing.

[Neoteny]

Got me there, Saxi, fair and square.

ITT: NS and PS realize that dealing with for-profit insurance is really shitty, and now the government is making us do it!

High points include Scotty thinking Michael Moore wanting more government in his Obamacare (something many liberals on this site have been saying for years) somehow supports the idea that there should be less government in healthcare.

[PLAYER57832]

This person doesn't exist while Player worships Obamacare: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/12/105176-alabama-mom-shares-devastating-experience-obamacare-open-letter-american-people/

Pretty funny that you consider "better than what we had before, but still with big problems" to be a
"worhsip of Obamacare"

I read the letter. i have no doubt she is telling the truth.
But, as Paul Harvey used to say, here is "the rest of the story"

So why am i saying this doesn't prove Obamacare is a failure, as you wish to put forward?

Because i relayed an even worse tale,that HAPPENED TO ME, personally, long before Obama was put into office. You dismissed that, and MANY other stories as just "rhetoric". ALSO, unless she and her husband make over 100K, her ADHD son is eligible for Medicaid. That is very likely why he was not offered regular insurance. The worst part is that even though she says she had insurance and it was cheaper, the real truth (as MANY have attested) is that her family could be dropped at any almost any time. Her ADHD son would further be facing a lifetime limit to his care before he was far into adulthood.

Once again, your stories would have more credibility if you actually balanced it against the reality of what we had, instead of imagined ideals.

Your real objection is that you now have to pay a bit more for insurance. Whether it will help you and your family in the long run (it will), doesn't matter to you, because you have convinced yourself that anything other than a basic accident policy is "extra".

AND, it would be nice if you and others would spend time looking for better solutions instead of just
"its Obama.... its BAD"

[Night Strike]

Player, how many times do we have to post real, better solutions to the current health insurance system before you believe that we are actually posting real, better solutions to the current health insurance system? Just because the only system you want is one where the government controls every facet of health care doesn't mean that we aren't putting up working alternatives. But once again, for those who can't actually remember what the viable alternatives would be: reform law suits so doctors don't have to run every test to avoid being sued, work on moving the system to individual based (just like almost every other insurance), require all prices of procedures to be published, and allow every person to pick and choose what they want covered from any provider in the nation.

Your real objection is that you now have to pay a bit more for insurance. Whether it will help you and your family in the long run (it will), doesn't matter to you, because you have convinced yourself that anything other than a basic accident policy is "extra".

Because to some people, it IS extra. Some people buy insurance to cover them only in actual emergencies, not for every single cut or splinter. Why do YOU ban people from making a choice as to what is best for them and their current situation? Why are YOU smarter than them when it comes to what they need in their lives? Why do YOU have more authority to spend their money than they do?

For the record, I DO have comprehensive health insurance through my employer, and the ONLY reason it went up (thankfully only 6%) this year is because of Obamacare taxes and new coverage mandates. In fact, how do insurance costs go down when Obamacare directly taxes insurance companies with new taxes totaling billions of dollars? I thought the law was supposed to drive down costs, not inherently raise them.

[mrswdk]

It's funny, because even before Obama the US was one of the world's biggest per head spenders on healthcare.


On a side note, one of my professors showed us some government spending figures in a recent seminar. In European countries, around 40% of GDP is government spending (on average). In the US, it's 30%. In China, it's about 15%. Turns out that authoritarian China is better at 'small government' than the US. Made me lol.

[PLAYER57832]

GRRRR.... just spent an hour (literally) replying to you NS, only to have it lost because I was logged off and forgot to copy in case that happened...GRRRR

Anyway, I can't rewrite it now... maybe later.

[Night Strike]

GRRRR.... just spent an hour (literally) replying to you NS, only to have it lost because I was logged off and forgot to copy in case that happened...GRRRR

Anyway, I can't rewrite it now... maybe later.

So another pro-government diatribe that we're all probably better off for not having to read yet again.



Anyway, here's what is already happening under government run Medicare....and the same company will be working with Obamacare payments too. Real people aren't getting paid because they're not getting the money the government said they would be reimbursed for.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-contractor-blamed-slow-medicare-payments-hospitals_773207.html

[Phatscotty]

this is 'heading in the right direction'? Oh yeah, I forgot, we're supposed to ignore what we see and hear and experience

Hospital staff in Northern Virginia are turning away sick people on a frigid Thursday morning because they can't determine whether their Obamacare insurance plans are in effect.

Patients in a close-in DC suburb who think they've signed up for new insurance plans are struggling to show their December enrollments are in force, and health care administrators aren't taking their word for it.

In place of quick service and painless billing, these Virginians are now facing the threat of sticker-shock that comes with bills they can't afford.

'They had no idea if my insurance was active or not!' a coughing Maria Galvez told MailOnline outside the Inova Healthplex facility in the town of Springfield.

She was leaving the building without getting a needed chest x-ray.

'The people in there told me that since I didn't have an insurance card, I would be billed for the whole cost of the x-ray,' Galvez said, her young daughter in tow. 'It's not fair – you know, I signed up last week like I was supposed to.'

The x-ray's cost, she was told, would likely be more than $500

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2pJE6Lbug
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... k-out.html

I know someone who works at a hospital, and I have been persistent in asking them how if at all Obamacare has impacted their section (emergency room) and the answer has always been no, until this week. He got a memo that instructs patients without health insurance to contact a health insurance company and they will have to come out of pocket. end of memo

[Dualta]

Single payer. Coming to a USA near you!

[jj3044]

this is 'heading in the right direction'? Oh yeah, I forgot, we're supposed to ignore what we see and hear and experience

Hospital staff in Northern Virginia are turning away sick people on a frigid Thursday morning because they can't determine whether their Obamacare insurance plans are in effect.

Patients in a close-in DC suburb who think they've signed up for new insurance plans are struggling to show their December enrollments are in force, and health care administrators aren't taking their word for it.

In place of quick service and painless billing, these Virginians are now facing the threat of sticker-shock that comes with bills they can't afford.

'They had no idea if my insurance was active or not!' a coughing Maria Galvez told MailOnline outside the Inova Healthplex facility in the town of Springfield.

She was leaving the building without getting a needed chest x-ray.

'The people in there told me that since I didn't have an insurance card, I would be billed for the whole cost of the x-ray,' Galvez said, her young daughter in tow. 'It's not fair – you know, I signed up last week like I was supposed to.'

The x-ray's cost, she was told, would likely be more than $500

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2pJE6Lbug
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... k-out.html

I know someone who works at a hospital, and I have been persistent in asking them how if at all Obamacare has impacted their section (emergency room) and the answer has always been no, until this week. He got a memo that instructs patients without health insurance to contact a health insurance company and they will have to come out of pocket. end of memo

This is correct, with the exception of the spin on the story.

The real story is that because insurers & the government extended the signup deadline, as well as extending the deadline to pay the first premium payment (as late as the 10th of January, in some cases), these individuals seeking care on Jan 1st will receive retroactive benefits. Meaning, they will be billed the full freight of service, but will not actually OWE the full freight, unless they really didn't sign up for insurance. The providers have no way of verifying enrollment until participants are active in the insurers systems, which because of the extended deadlines, may be a couple of weeks into January.

Most likely all these people would need to do is, once they DO receive their insurance card, call the provider with their subscriber number, and ask them to re-process the claim. Or, pay the bill and send the bill to the insurance company, receiving a reimbursement.

It's not malicious at all, just an effect of allowing later enrollments. NOW, of course the next thing to be said likely will be "If the exchange worked properly from the onset, an extension wouldn't have been necessary", which would be an entirely accurate point...

[mrswdk]

...turning away sick people on a frigid Thursday morning...

...a coughing Maria Galvez...

...Galvez said, her young daughter in tow...

The Mail's journalistic style is somehow entirely appropriate for a PS post.

[Night Strike]

This is correct, with the exception of the spin on the story.

The real story is that because insurers & the government extended the signup deadline, as well as extending the deadline to pay the first premium payment (as late as the 10th of January, in some cases), these individuals seeking care on Jan 1st will receive retroactive benefits. Meaning, they will be billed the full freight of service, but will not actually OWE the full freight, unless they really didn't sign up for insurance. The providers have no way of verifying enrollment until participants are active in the insurers systems, which because of the extended deadlines, may be a couple of weeks into January.

Most likely all these people would need to do is, once they DO receive their insurance card, call the provider with their subscriber number, and ask them to re-process the claim. Or, pay the bill and send the bill to the insurance company, receiving a reimbursement.

It's not malicious at all, just an effect of allowing later enrollments. NOW, of course the next thing to be said likely will be "If the exchange worked properly from the onset, an extension wouldn't have been necessary", which would be an entirely accurate point...

The deadline was extended only in the political sense, not the real sense. Remember, just because Obama made a speech or gave a dictation doesn't mean that the letter of the law was actually changed. There is no law saying insurance companies have to provide retroactive benefits: it's just the government once again making a promise and then screwing people over. Why should people receive something they haven't paid for? Signing up =/= paid in full.

[jj3044]

This is correct, with the exception of the spin on the story.

The real story is that because insurers & the government extended the signup deadline, as well as extending the deadline to pay the first premium payment (as late as the 10th of January, in some cases), these individuals seeking care on Jan 1st will receive retroactive benefits. Meaning, they will be billed the full freight of service, but will not actually OWE the full freight, unless they really didn't sign up for insurance. The providers have no way of verifying enrollment until participants are active in the insurers systems, which because of the extended deadlines, may be a couple of weeks into January.

Most likely all these people would need to do is, once they DO receive their insurance card, call the provider with their subscriber number, and ask them to re-process the claim. Or, pay the bill and send the bill to the insurance company, receiving a reimbursement.

It's not malicious at all, just an effect of allowing later enrollments. NOW, of course the next thing to be said likely will be "If the exchange worked properly from the onset, an extension wouldn't have been necessary", which would be an entirely accurate point...

The deadline was extended only in the political sense, not the real sense. Remember, just because Obama made a speech or gave a dictation doesn't mean that the letter of the law was actually changed. There is no law saying insurance companies have to provide retroactive benefits: it's just the government once again making a promise and then screwing people over. Why should people receive something they haven't paid for? Signing up =/= paid in full.

But that is exactly the point here that you are missing. If they don't pay the premium, they will not receive the benefits and WILL owe the full cost of the visit.

Also, as much as I agree with your point that the president shouldn't be able to unilaterally change the law, extending the deadline from 12/23 to 12/27 (ish...depending on the state), doesn't fall into this category, as there is nothing in the LAW stating that someone must signup by the 23rd, instead of the 27th. This was a logistical change, and not a policy change.

[Phatscotty]

We'll see JJ. But the scoreboard so far is still 5 million lost insurance, 2 million signed up for Obamacare, with a bunch of Medicares inbetween

Is Oregon still zero? Portland....Really?

[Night Strike]

Is Oregon still zero? Portland....Really?

They're still zero because they had already expanded Medicaid in 2008, causing a 40% increase in ER visits, which does NOT lower health care spending:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/04/study-suggests-medicaid-expansion-will-lead-to-more-emergency-room-visits-under/

[Neoteny]

Newsflash: people with healthcare go to the emergency room.

Perhaps not the brightest prediction the libs made with the act, but, overall, still a positive outcome at the individual level based on this study. For example, "people who got Medicaid coverage were more likely to use health services in general, less likely to suffer from depression, and less likely to suffer financial problems related to medical bills than those who remained uninsured."

But hey, THE ECONORMY

[Phatscotty]

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE COURT SYSTEM COMBINED WITH THE COMPASSION OF THE IRS

From the local blog: Progress in Action
http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3969

by Dave Mindeman

It pains me to say so, but MNsure is an absolute disaster.

I have been working on getting insurance since mid-October. Fighting website problems for weeks and long waits on the phone lines, I thought I was making progress. I sat on "pending" for 6 weeks and then, finally, got to a point where my application said approved. Only to find out a couple of weeks later that it was just another glitch.

They told me they were waiting for verification of a part of my income. Waiting and waiting and waiting. Finally in mid-December they said that this "approved" application needed to be cancelled and restarted.

I did that and was back to the "pending" status. After another week and time running out, I ventured into the phone system yesterday to find out what the problem was.

I sat on the line for 1 hour and 45 minutes. When I finally got to a person, they listened to my explanation for 1 minute and said, "Oh, you need to go to enrollments. I will put you back on hold and send you there." I said how long? And she said, "sorry, you have to go back into the que."

So I sat there for another 2 hours and 15 minutes. Got to another person, which it turns out, is not somebody in enrollments (apparently nobody goes directly to enrollments), but another phone line operator. I was getting pretty upset at this point.

After a myriad of questions and I don't knows..... I finally figured out that we were back to a verification problem....(same one as before where I was waiting 6 weeks). I wanted to know what was needed to "fix" this and after checking with several people, she gave me the P.O. Box for sending the proof of income that supposedly they had sent in a request - which I never received.

So I still sit here without insurance. I started this process on October 15th. I have done everything I can. I have spent over 16 hours holding on the phone. I have gone through at least 10 different people - getting different answers every time.

This is an unmitigated disaster.

And you know what - today's Pioneer Press has an article that says MNsure is getting better.

I don't believe it.

Some simple procedures would help. For instance, a triage at the phone center would make a difference. The people who answer the phone could take a name, a phone number, and a brief description of what is needed - and then hand it off to others who could research the situation and find someone to call back who knows something about the problem.

Or they could at least have troubleshooters who can work on problem applications. Instead of the same people calling in to the center over and over again with the same problem - have a troubleshooter assigned to some of these cases that can work directly with problem issues.

Yes, the glitches in the website are probably the main problem. But the call center is a disaster as well.

This is really unfortunate, because it isn't the law that is failing - it is the infrastructure that implements it.

And it is not getting any better. And I still do not have health insurance.

[PLAYER57832]

I penned a long answer, but it got lost.

Here is the REAL issue:

Obamacare is far from perfect. It was a compromise. Sadly, instead of working on ways to improve things, far too many pundits and politicians decided to just "attack, attack, attack". You, Nightstrike and Phattscotty have represented the worst of these groups... attacking before you even knew any details and proudly proclaiming that anything other than your "solutions" of allowing people to buy insurance across lines. That won't work, has been PROVEN to not work. What it does is lower cost for a few people,but mostly by allowing insurance companies to not offer as much AND allowing them to be pickier in who they cover.

The worst problem with insurance costs right now,is not lack of freedom -- most insurers already operate in most states, but offer different policies based on state laws. THAT won't change because too many people would see it as infringing upon state's rights. (see how that REALLY works? government uniformity ... a true federal system would allow national insurance, but folks like you wanting the feds to keep out are preventing that from happening). Obamacare doesn't change that at all.

Ironically, obamacare DOES set up more competition, through the exchanges. No longer are the best policies only available to those who get insurance through their employers.

Obamacare DID start the way toward fixing 2 basic problems with insurance costs --- now insurers have to demonstrate that a minimum percentage of their takings actually goes toward care and not stockholder pockets. I think the profit limit is too high,but at least its a start.

The law also specifies that insurers not exclude based on pre-existing conditions. That requires more discussion that I have time for now, it is part of why insurance premiums may go up some, BUT it also means that now people pay in and know they will actually be covered, not just dropped either because of some minor issue or becuase they have reached their lifetime limits.


Oh, yeah,that sob story about the mother who spent hours on the phone... its very likely that here ADHD son was denied because his ADHD status makes him eligible for Medicaid. Also, while they claim to have had no issues with their prior insurer, that is very, very far from typical.

And that is the worst part about all this rhetoric. You KEEP insisting that we only pay attention to the absolute worst stories about Obamacare.... but consistantly present just the rosiests pictures of the past. AND, ignore any evidence to the contrary.

[Phatscotty]

I penned a long answer, but it got lost.

Here is the REAL issue:

Obamacare is far from perfect. It was a compromise. Sadly, instead of working on ways to improve things, far too many pundits and politicians decided to just "attack, attack, attack". You, Nightstrike and Phattscotty have represented the worst of these groups... attacking before you even knew any details and proudly proclaiming that anything other than your "solutions" of allowing people to buy insurance across lines. That won't work, has been PROVEN to not work. What it does is lower cost for a few people,but mostly by allowing insurance companies to not offer as much AND allowing them to be pickier in who they cover.

The worst problem with insurance costs right now,is not lack of freedom -- most insurers already operate in most states, but offer different policies based on state laws. THAT won't change because too many people would see it as infringing upon state's rights. (see how that REALLY works? government uniformity ... a true federal system would allow national insurance, but folks like you wanting the feds to keep out are preventing that from happening). Obamacare doesn't change that at all.

Ironically, obamacare DOES set up more competition, through the exchanges. No longer are the best policies only available to those who get insurance through their employers.

Obamacare DID start the way toward fixing 2 basic problems with insurance costs --- now insurers have to demonstrate that a minimum percentage of their takings actually goes toward care and not stockholder pockets. I think the profit limit is too high,but at least its a start.

The law also specifies that insurers not exclude based on pre-existing conditions. That requires more discussion that I have time for now, it is part of why insurance premiums may go up some, BUT it also means that now people pay in and know they will actually be covered, not just dropped either because of some minor issue or becuase they have reached their lifetime limits.


Oh, yeah,that sob story about the mother who spent hours on the phone... its very likely that here ADHD son was denied because his ADHD status makes him eligible for Medicaid. Also, while they claim to have had no issues with their prior insurer, that is very, very far from typical.

And that is the worst part about all this rhetoric. You KEEP insisting that we only pay attention to the absolute worst stories about Obamacare.... but consistantly present just the rosiests pictures of the past. AND, ignore any evidence to the contrary.

In other words...."HOW DARE YOU SPEAK OF OBAMACARE FAILURES! EVIL ATTACKER!!!!"

These posts I make are not "attacks"....they are confirmations of our previous posts that are now proven to have been spot on.

But, since I have your ear, maybe you can help clear something up. Why is it that Obamacare supporters are not signing up for Obamacare? Specifically, the young and healthy idealists of the millennials? You know the program needs at least 7 million to break even right?

[WILLIAMS5232]

Why is it that Obamacare supporters are not signing up for Obamacare? Specifically, the young and healthy idealists of the millennials? You know the program needs at least 7 million to break even right?

i think i can get this one

they thought it (obamacare) was just going to be free. just like they think earning $15 an hour for cleaning out a deepfrier wont hurt the economy.

[Phatscotty]

Why is it that Obamacare supporters are not signing up for Obamacare? Specifically, the young and healthy idealists of the millennials? You know the program needs at least 7 million to break even right?

i think i can get this one

they thought it (obamacare) was just going to be free. just like they think earning $15 an hour for cleaning out a deepfrier wont hurt the economy.

No matter what the minimum wage is, in a few years it will be an unlivable wage again, but all the inflation will be permanent.

here's from the NYTimes, 1987

""An increase in the minimum wage to, say, $4.35 would restore the purchasing power of bottom-tier wages. It would also permit a minimum-wage breadwinner to earn almost enough to keep a family of three above the official poverty line.""

[Neoteny]

I signed up through an exchange! Cut my costs by a little less than half, and a better plan to boot. And it was much less painless than signing up individually. Not as good as my full-time employer-based plan from back in the day, but, hey, when it's cheaper to just not give a shit about your employees, or, worse, you want to make a political statement, I'll take what I can get!

EDIT: Also note, that I, like many millenials, and apparently Michael Moore of all people, think the ACA is a bad bill because we had to play politics with you turds to get anything done. It should be so much more. But, there's a reason many insurance companies are down with the premise of the act, if not the execution. A bad ACA is better than nothing.