TM NOTE [now updated]: Wanted to check in with you summer weekend die hards, but the power is out, so programming of this entry could be odd looking. Will fix any errors when power is back in the area. Thanks for offering slack as you read entry below.*
It is so hot that NBC Washington’s Chief Meteorologist, Doug Kammerer, explained on air “If we did not have global warming, we wouldn’t see this.” – Think Progress
via Amanda Terkel on Twitter
FIERCE STORM stomped through Washington, DC last night. Lightning wripped across and down from the sky making me believe in Greek mythological gods wreaking havoc with us lowly earthlings.
Amanda Terkel tweeted the best lightning bolt shot thrown from the sky I’ve seen so far (embedded above*).
Writing from my Blackberry, as power is out.
To highlight one story being shared widely, a Huffington Post article tells the negative, perhaps realistic, possibility on coming Obamacare scenario. It’s written by health care wonk Marcia Angell. I’ve made the same points on the built-in issues on costs in Obamacare due to the private insurance and Big Pharma deal made with Pres. Obama, though Angell makes the case in epic detail.
Obamacare is simply incapable of doing what it is supposed to do — provide nearly universal care at an affordable and sustainable cost. The problem is that three years ago, in his futile efforts to win over Republicans (remember the embarrassing courtship of Olympia Snowe?), Obama gutted the law before it was even passed. He made the private insurance companies the linchpin of the new system, and promised them millions of additional customers and billions of taxpayer dollars. He also did nothing to rein in the profit-oriented delivery system that rewards providers on a piecework basis for doing tests and procedures. So with all the new dollars flowing into the system and no restraints on the way medicine is practiced, the law is inherently inflationary.
Although there are some provisions to curb the worst abuses of the insurance companies, such as excluding people with preexisting conditions, there is nothing in the law that would stop insurers from raising premiums. A senior executive of the industry’s trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, told me privately that that’s exactly what the companies will do if regulations cut into their profits. Thus, costs under Obamacare will almost certainly rise even faster than at present. No reform can work well or very long if its costs are unsustainable.
In fact, it is unlikely that Obamacare will ever be fully implemented as it stands. If Romney is elected, with a Republican Congress, it will be quickly overturned. If Obama is re-elected (and I hope he is, despite my disappointment in his health plan), it will come apart more slowly. But
unravel it will, as costs rise and it becomes clear that there are still tens of millions of Americans priced out of the system.Here’s how the unraveling will look…
*UPDATE [7.1.12 - 9:00 a.m.]: Programming and HTML added after power restored.
Four of the top ten states with the highest rates of uninsured people are controlled by GOP Governors and GOP legislatures. The Governors of these states (Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina) have all taken the pledge that they will refuse to implement Obamacare(s). They are permitted by the Supreme Court ruling not to implement the expansion of Medicaid by raising the eligibility standards for Medicaid. These Governors have declared themselves to head state death panels that will consign tens of thousands of their citizens to an early death. Here’s how Oklahoma earned its status as one of the top ten worst states in health insurance coverage and overall poor health.
8. Oklahoma
> Excess deaths from a lack of insurance (per 100,000): 12.02> Pct. of population uninsured: 18.9% (7th highest)> Pct. living below the poverty line: 16.9% (14th highest)> Life expectancy at birth: 75.6 years (5th lowest)
It can hardly be said that Oklahomans are healthy. Among all states, Oklahoma has the third-highest percentage of adults who smoke, the sixth-highest rate of heart disease death, the seventh-highest obesity rate and a lower proportion of adults who consume fruit twice a day than any other state. Making matters worse, Oklahoma spends just over $6,500 per capita on health care — one of the lowest amounts in the United States. Relatively few residents have employer-based health coverage, and many residents cannot otherwise afford private insurance because the median household income in the state is just $42,072 — one of the lowest figures in the country.
http://247wallst.com/2012/06/26/ten-states-dying-for-health-coverage/2/
One of the major differences between Romneycare and Obamacare is that Romneycare covers 98% of all its residents while Obamacare does not cover close to all US residents. Excluded from Obamacare are all non-citizens currently living in the US, including non-citizens here on work visa’s, student visas and all undocumented immigrants.
How does Romney care manage to cover 98% of its residents when Obamacare will struggle to cover at best 90% of all US residents ? Romneycare covers all residents of Massachussetts citizens and non-citizens alike, including illegal immigrants, that’s why.
You won’t hear Romney mentioning that Romneycare covers all its residents, citizens and non-citizens, including illegal immigrants.
If Obamacare had contained a public option ar allowed non-citizens health care coverage it never would have been passed. Obamacare is now established law and improvements can be made over time. Progerssives not sit on the sidelines they should be working for improvements to Obamacare including a public option and coverage for residents citizens and non-citizens alike.
“If Obamacare had contained a public option ar allowed non-citizens health care coverage it never would have been passed. Obamacare is now established law and improvements can be made over time. Progerssives not sit on the sidelines they should be working for improvements to Obamacare including a public option and coverage for residents citizens and non-citizens alike.”
Exactly. Social Security today doesn’t look or provide for people anything like the way it was originally implemented.
I was as disappointed as anyone who posts here that the public option wasn’t included but for better or the short time worse that’s the way it was done. It will be built upon.
As for the red states and their unhealthy populations…at some point these people have to shoulder some…indeed ALL of the blame for electing the psychotic, imbecilic ass monkeys they do. Maybe when they see people in surrounding states getting healthcare while they can’t they will wake up?
Exactly wrong. If the first Social Security had demanded that people pay money for retirement that they wouldn’t have been able to use when they finally retired, then you’d have a point. Social Security wasn’t fixed, it was improved. The ACA needs to be fixed, and it will not be, because the people who like the system the way it is won.
What the ACA did is require that those of us who can’t afford insurance pay for it anyway. That’s actually worse than the current situation. We still won’t be able to use the insurance, except when we need extreme medical intervention, but we will now have to shell out a minimum of $800. That’s real money that we can’t use to either feed or take care of ourselves.
Those few lucky enough to be put onto Medicaid by the ACA will soon find that benefit disappearing, as will many folks on Medicare. That’s because the way the ACA administers health care costs is the one option that would make it more expensive for the government (out of all the ones considered by the CBO). The ACA ensures that the government will cut back those funds when austerity is needed.
If the government had just expanded Medicaid, or fixed Medicare, or reduced health care costs, that would have been progress. What it did, in fact, was make things worse for just about everyone. That’s not progress.
“Social Security wasn’t fixed, it was improved. The ACA needs to be fixed, and it will not be, because the people who like the system the way it is won.”
Are you going to start opining about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin next?
“What the ACA did is require that those of us who can’t afford insurance pay for it anyway. ”
That is simply not true.
No, I’ll leave that to you, and anyone else who writes that things are “not true” when they quite clearly are. That point was mentioned in the Angell article Taylor quoted.
We are required to buy insurance. There is a minimum amount that anyone buying it must spend out of his own pocket, which was $800 in 2009/2010 dollars.The insurance you will be required today is what is referred to as “junk insurance”, or more formally, “catastrophic” health insurance. That means that if things go really sideways for you medically, the insurance company will pick up a lot, but not all, of the tab. Any incidental medical care is out of your own pocket.
If you think that is not true, do the research and post it here. I’ve done this research, and found that folks like you aren’t inclined to click on that mysterious blue type, or read and understand what’s there, so I’m not going to bother looking all that up again.
Sigh: “The insurance you will be required to buy is today is what is referred to as”
If someone can not afford to pay for insurance there are provisions for them to be covered.
As for “junk insurance” or “catastrophic” health insurance so you are against insurance companies having to pick up the hundreds of thousands of dollars catastrophic illness and injuries cost?
Um, you’re arguing with someone who is far more interesting in getting “imbecilic assmonkeys” and “Republiklann” into every post than in presenting a literate opinion or facts. Just to remind you what you are dealing with here.
I suspect Secular’s heart is in the right place, and he has a lot to say, but he’s way too invested in spittle and buzzphrases and way too uninterested in just making a coherent point.
There is a myth that the American people oppose Obamacare and demanding a repeal.
According to a New York Times/CBS News poll. As of a month ago, 34 percent supported it, virtually unchanged. To be sure, about a fifth of those who oppose it say it did not go far enough, essentially frustrated liberals (see Taylor Marsh). That means that a minority want Obamacare to be repealed.
The GOP thinks that this is a plus for Romney. If it was it should have been reflected in the polls. The polls taken after the Supreme Court decision reflect something entirely different. For the last two days Rasmussen daily showed Obama with a small lead over Romney for the first time this month. The Gallup showed Obama leading Romney 48% to 43%.
Comon REJensen, don’t be having me have to agree with you twice in one thread…it makes my tummy hurt.
I apologize for reposting this from the Hillary post of Shame on you, but i am curious regarding its”truthiness”.
However, this latest post by Taylor makes me think there might be some truth to it.
Can anyone confirm or fact check this video? It was posted at a pro-Romney site, or rather I should say an anti-Obama site. Actually where it was posted is a moot point.
What is important to me is whether or not it is totally true, partially true, or just something a Super-Pac pulled out of its A$$:
http://my.brainshark.com/The-President-s-8-Billion-Coincidence-356086344
Any insight is much appreciated. Thank you!
P.S. Everybody who supports this bill lauds that it is a beginning like Social Security and it will be improved over time. With the Republican House and a Senate that is nearly 50-50 and more right leaning thanks to some Democrats who are Republicans in disguise (as is President Obama) I don’t see much happening to change ACA anytime soon. This Congress has been so obstructionist pardon me for not holding my breath on this one. It is a terrible law, especially for seniors, but then again, our youth-oriented culture for the most part doesn’t really give a rat’s right butt cheek about old people.
P.P.S. Oh, and my gut tells me that regardless of who gets elected in November, the powers that be will most likely ensure that Social Security is gutted to the crappy level of ACA versus the other way around – ACA being improved to the standard of Social Security.
Crickets….
Maybe you ObomneyCare (TM) fans can tell me if I can thank ObomneyCare (TM) for this letter I just received from my medical insurer (NOTE: I just got this today so they gave me whopping one-day notice!!!!! Good thing I got this before my next trip to ER and I hope to heavens I am conscious enough to designate my hospital or better yet I better leave a huge sign telling whoever finds me where to take me, or maybe I should just have a list of in network ER physician hospitals tattooed on my chest….)
“Dear (you are more the f_CKED) Consumer:
I am writing to inform you that effective July 1, 2012 that ((Brand we plan to suck all of the money out of your wallet Emergency Physicians)) at the following hospitals will no longer be in the ((we don’t really care because we are in-this-for-profit)) network for members of ((extremely lame partially paid for by me)) Medical Plan:
—Insert list of many good hospitals in the area here—
The ER physicians at these facilities are affiliated with an independent group, (xxxx@!3$%@#$!!!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)) which is separate from the hospitals at which they practice.
What does this mean to (XXXXX) members?
Only the ER physicians at these hospitals listed above will be non-network providers for (XXXXXX) members. The hospitals remain network providers and services provided by the hospitals will be covered at the network rate. The plan will continue to pay the hospital’s emergency room physicians at the network level,
BUT BECAUSE THESE PHYSICIANS WILL NO LONGER BE IN THE NETWORK, THEY CAN BILL (you are even more screwed now than before) members for amounts above what the plan allows network providers to charge. THIS WILL LIKELY LEAD TO HIGHER OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS FOR WHICH YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE.
Since a non-network provider is not required to submit claims to the plan, you need to ask the provider if they will do so. If not, you will need to submit the claim to the plan yourself, with payment sent to the as a check made out to both you and the provider. You are responsible for paying the provider. Note that claims must be submitted within 12 months of the date of service to be payable.
What other options do members have?
We recognize members do not always have a choice in an emergency. (But we really don’t give a pig’s tit as long we remain obscenely profitable). However, the following hospitals do offer network emergency room physicians in the (XXXXyyyyy) areas. We encourage you to consult with your family physician to determine your options for after-hours care.
—Insert list of some good hospitals in the area here—
In a true medical emergency, you should call 911 or go to the closest emergency room. (LOLOLOLOLOL…but remember, you may be screwed cost-wise if that hospital is not in the list above….)
We regret any inconvenience this situation my cause you (not really— we are just saying that hoping that this makes a pig’s ear look like a silk purse). If you have questions, please call (we are a health insurance company and we don’t care because we don’t have to) at 1-888-SCREW-U!!!”
The timing of this has me wondering if this message was brought to me by ObomneyCare???
It’s not helped by Obamacare. In fact, I suspect this is one of the means that insurance companies will continue to use to lower costs. It’s not forbidden by the ACA.
P.S. Even if it were forbidden by the ACA, I suspect they’d be getting away with it, though. There’s no real means of enforcing the new regulations on the insurance companies in it. There’s an exchange monitor thing, but as Dr. Angell pointed out, that is going to be an extremely complicated job, and will be very susceptible to fudging even on the things the monitoring agency is likely to look at.
My guess is that there is something in the ACA that enabled this, versus forbids it, hence the rush for my provider to get this out ASAP after ACA was upheld.
Regardless, as long as the system allows doctors, health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies to make a profit off of the misfortune of people being sick or injured, this isn’t ever going to work well. All it is going to do is increase costs and make it extremely difficult for the consumer to get reimbursed because they are going to have to haggle over who is willing to pay way between all parties.
Cujo, you mentioned $800. I had to laugh at some “progressive” talking on a liberal radio about how you only had to pay 2.5% of your salary to cover this. Well, if you earn $50,000, that is $1250. That might not be much to the pundit, but it sure as heck is a lot of money to me!
I have just forwarded the video to Snopes.com, they will check it out. HOWEVER, considering the veracity of the vast majority of promittens and antiObama crap out there I wouldn’t count on it’s being accurate.
As for ACA being improved…we’ll just have to wait and see won’t we.
Thanks for doing that secular. I agree. I found it pretty bold but scarce on details so there might be some element of truthiness surrounded by tons of exaggeration.
Interesting article by Dr. Angell, Taylor, and not at all surprising if you were paying attention.
BTW, on a technical note, if your Blackberry has the less than “<” and greater than “>” signs on it, you can still do a block quote. Just type <blockquote> , followed by the quote, and then follow it with </blockquote> .
That’s how I put block quotes in my comments, BTW. No need for that fancy editor.
Here’s a link that might be useful for anyone wondering what the different levels of coverage will be available on the exchanges. It’s not clear whether there will be a “catastrophic” or “young invincible” level. That may ultimately be left to the states.
Oops! Forgot the link. Here it is http://www.netquote.com/health-insurance/news/coverage-levels-under-health-care-reform.aspx
Ok. I just checked the first link. Mind you that I am covered via my employer now with some taken from my paycheck each month to pay for my share.
According to the quote link, the best deal I could get on my own is $276 per month and it would have a $3500 deductible and 50% co-pay. Suffice it to say, I am paying far less today and have a smaller deductible and co-pay. So this policy would cost me $3312 per year for not very much. There would be a whole lot of out-of-pocket expenses–$6812+++ to cover the cost of the insurance plus the deductible and we haven’t even gotten into the co-pays yet. So far, I am not impressed….Next!
Another useful link if you want to know what takes effect when: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
More. Preventive care without co-pays:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/keyprovisions.html
Knock it off Stridehyde, it’s TERRIBLE, didn’t you get the memo?
Here is a tool to calculate what kind of subsidy you can get: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
sec, lol! Here’s another link explaining subsidies and the “silver level” of coverage (70/30). http://www.bcbsvt.com/visitor/HealthCareReform_BCBSVTDiscussion/Bill_Summary/IndividualandSmallEmployerSubsidies
Thanks for all of the links, StrideHyde! I will take a look. I really appreciate it!
By the way, I am hoping that Taylor and others in the East and Midwest being hit by the terrible weather are hanging in there!
Sorry about your power being out Taylor, I live in West Virginia and we got hit hard, trees are down and all over the roads and power is out in alot of places, mine thankfully didn’t go out but the other side of the hill from where I live they don’t have no power. Thousands close to where I live still don’t have power and the temperatures are not helping at all. I feel like I live in Arizona. Global Warming sucks thats for sure. I live in a high elevation and these temperatures are not something were used too. As for the healthcare bill, I am going to wait and see what it does before making too many judgements. There are good things in the bill and bad things in the bill. I am a public option person and I don’t like the mandate at all. The Republicans are going after this big time especially Fox News, I keep hearing healthcare rationing, high taxes and forced against your will mandate, Marco Rubio said that the IRS can come after you. Romney does not have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to this healthcare bill but new candidates running for Congress and the Senate will. I think its looking more like a split government again for 2012 with a Republican House, Republican Senate and a Democratic President.
“I think its looking more like a split government again for 2012 with a Republican House, Republican Senate and a Democratic President.”
Senate stays blue with a long shot at retaking the House.
I guess we will have to see, too many Senate seats in red states are up for grabs. Its going to be brutel !!
Besides the fact that at least one “Democrat” all but certain to win re-election- Joe Manchin- will happily switch parties if his vote gives the GOP the majority, in exchange for an important chairmanship.
After he wins a second term with the help of the DSCC, of course.
ladyw, not sure where you are getting those figures. The subsidies are supposed to be tied to a silver plan and the lowest level is supposed to be bronze which is 60/40, not 50/50, and your cost sharing is supposed to be capped. That said, believe or not, $276/month sounds very low to someone who’s been on the individual market.
Hmm…I may have looked at the wrong thing. I will take another peek.
I’m with fairminded on the ACA. It’s a mixed bag. My misgivings are different. I favored a public option as well–to act as a model for the private plans. As it is, Medicare will have suffice. If it shows savings the private plans will follow suit, they usually do because Medicare is so big. I think Dr Angell is making assumptions when she says people will choose the tax over coverage–if they think they can afford coverage they might go for it. But I agree with her on the employer problem. I feel like employers may find loopholes so they don’t have to provide coverage. Self-insured plans will be exempt from some of the rules. My problem is that in my industry employer coverage is multiple employers contributing to a fund that offers coverage. There is no provision in the ACA for this.
ladyw, I’m looking at a PDF Kaiser put out; it’s a summary of the ACA. Someone printed it and gave it to me, so I don’t have the URL but it should be searchable under Kaiser health reform summary. I notice CLASS is still there, that was scuttled last year by Sibelius.
Thanks. I will search for that. I appreciate the help.
VERY late, obviously, to this conversation, but I wanted to note one very important thing, ladywalker68…
ACA compels the same private insurance & Big Pharma racket in perpetuity. This is the very same foundation that explodes health care costs, which isn’t solved by ACA. The private insurance industry is the problem, as you just found out, not the solution, but Democrats used it as such.
No one cares that it makes women’s emergency health care needs unworkable, explodes abortion procedure costs, while also further limiting access. I get that, because women’s full freedoms just aren’t a top priority across the board to Democrats or progressives anymore. That’s a political party decision. So be it.