View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Betty Arenson:Affordable Care Act in practice

Posted: January 24, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: January 24, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Ask yourself the honest question: Did you truly believe The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, or ACA, was going to work as promised? If the answer is “yes,” then did you earnestly think through the practical workings of the program?

Those are sincere questions. Vigorous promotion of the many promises of the ACA caused prudent people to consider the operating mechanics and how it was all to work in practice. Unfortunately, politics reigned when questions were raised.

The askers were too often dismissed as the enemy and emotions smothered practicality, no matter the validity of their questions.

Putting politics aside, the ACA is a massive venture that is now a law in America, and it affects every citizen.

The primary aspects of promoting and enacting the ACA were: (1) to provide health insurance coverage to the oft-quoted 47 million uninsured Americans; (2) plans would be “affordable” for everyone; (3) responsible people would keep their existing chosen plans and providers; (4) having coverage would assure payments to medical providers for services rendered; (5) overall health care costs would decrease; (6) Americans would save money on premiums and (7) Americans would not be burdened with medical bills driving them into bankruptcy.

There were initial practical questions. How are 47 million people added to the rolls going to decrease costs? How can workers keep their plans if employers cannot offer them anymore?
What is the mechanism for forcing people to buy the mandated insurance to make them monetary participants? Is every single person being mandated into the ACA law — no exceptions and no waivers?

What will occur to keep doctors practicing when many say they will depart? How and where is all of the electronic medical data going to be gathered, viewed and stored? How will those processes mesh with HIPAA (federal law mandating health data privacy)?

Most unfortunately, the public weighed in on a crucial topic with an immense absence of the facts as written within the multi-thousands of pages of the Act and its ensuing regulations.

We were denied information that reflected poorly on the plan because the promised transparency of getting all of the details via C-SPAN 72 hours before the law was passed never happened.

As time passed, more and more irregularities surfaced, which generated more suspicion, animosity and fear.

It’s needless to list the numerous and continuing “Obamacare rollout” failures as the rollout is only part of the picture. Instead, be mindful of some very serious facts.

The law has been arbitrarily changed, multiple times, by sole decree of the president, without proper congressional legislation. Such a precedent should scare every American.

Waivers have been granted for political gain. Among other negative elements, non-participation directly affects funding necessary for the ACA to be effective.

To date, 6.3 million insurance policies that existed a few months ago are now canceled. That number of policies can easily calculate to lost coverage for 12-19 million people.

That’s a new total of up to 68 million uninsured. The sum doesn’t stack up to the reported 2.1 million sign-ups — a deceptive number as many are not actually on the books as paying customers.

People’s permiums are doubling, their deductibles are in some cases tripling, and they’re facing increased out-of-pocket expenses.

Three of my family members work with health insurance and attendant ACA regulations. They would tell you plans are unnecessarily complex. For instance, some plans do not consider all out-of-pocket costs as applicable to paying down the deductible, resulting in more increased costs.

Doctors and facilities still have the legal right to pursue monies owed to them for services rendered — thus bankruptcy remains an issue.

Medicaid (Medi-Cal for California) has notably expanded with new enrollees; intended cost-savings are seemingly backfiring.

Recently, the New York Times reported a journal “Science” article on a finding in Oregon stating: “Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts during their first 18 months with insurance.

“The findings cast doubt on the hope that expanded insurance coverage will help rein in emergency room costs just as more than 2 million people are gaining coverage under the Affordable Care Act.”

As 2014 slides into 2015, more regulations will surface. If you are not presently affected, changes are inevitably in your future.

Be honest with yourself and think clearly. Do you trust your personal or family medical insurance coverage and overall health care to politicians and their un-elected appointees?

How did we get here and who got us here?

Betty Arenson is a Valencia resident.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: January 24, 2014 6:38 a.m.

Your initial premise is flawed. The purpose of the ACA is to slow down the overall growth in health costs borne by the US govt (which already delivers most health care in the USA) which is the fastest growing expense going forward. Getting uninsured into preventative care and out of Trauma Centers will save billions.

Overall, Americans have been molested by the Health Care system. We pay more and get less. Our system is not the best; we aren't even in the Top 20 when it comes to bang for the buck.


kevinstevens32: Posted: January 24, 2014 7:11 a.m.

ricketzz,

Wow you are amazingly sharp? The plan is to slow down the cost of Health Care by taking it over by the one you claim is causing the growth????
That is as ridiculous as the fact it is suppose to be cheaper.
By the way didn't your president tell all the American people we can keep our plans?


therightstuff: Posted: January 24, 2014 9:16 a.m.

Thanks Betty. Another great piece from Right Here, Right Now.

Funny how Democratic Voices has disappeared in recent weeks. Of course, would YOU want to defend Obmacare?


technologist: Posted: January 24, 2014 11:54 a.m.

A clear, polemic free recitation of PPACA history and status. Compelling fact based questions in the column as well.

Nicely done, Ms. Arenson.


philellis: Posted: January 24, 2014 4:06 p.m.

@THS - it really hard for those guys to fight facts. I am waiting for WIndy to proclaim that the reliance on facts is some sort of religious conservative perversion.


Indy: Posted: January 25, 2014 11:26 a.m.

technologist wrote: A clear, polemic free recitation of PPACA history and status. Compelling fact based questions in the column as well.

Indy: LOL

technologist wrote: Nicely done, Ms. Arenson.

Indy: Here, I agree, she has presented the list of RNC talking points on the ACA, clearly out of context and ignoring the intent of the law.

Further, her disdain for the poor that could be helped under the ACA through the Medicaid expansion is unconscionable.

But indeed the agreement here by the other religious conservatives at least tells the public where the Republican Party now is with respect to helping people.

Good to know in 2014 . . .


technologist: Posted: January 25, 2014 11:39 a.m.

What's apparent in 2014 is that you continue to fail at addressing any points in the column, Indy. Rather, you project talking points on others that you engage in yourself.

It's not intent that counts, it's actual results that matter.

I doubt you'll have an "LOL" on 11/5/14. That's when citizens will have the opportunity to weigh in on Obamacare as reality in their lives, rather than fraudulent campaign propaganda. --edited.


Indy: Posted: January 25, 2014 3:40 p.m.

Op-ed Writer: There were initial practical questions. How are 47 million people added to the rolls going to decrease costs? How can workers keep their plans if employers cannot offer them anymore?

From the LA Times:
The quasi-final 2013 tally for the ACA: more than 9 million insured

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-10-million-insured-20140103,0,4855449.story#ixzz2rSLaumiN

By Michael Hiltzik
January 3, 2014, 2:23 p.m.

Enrollment figures for insurance under the Affordable Care Act are all over the place, largely because the act has so many moving parts: the individual insurance exchanges (federal and state), Medicaid (in expansion states and otherwise), children enrolled in their parents' employer-sponsored plans.

Keeping track of the numbers requires an obsession. So be thankful that one Charles Gaba has taken on the responsibility. Gaba's conclusion is that the ACA has brought insurance in one form or another to more than 9 million Americans, possibly 9.5 million.

As Josh Marshall observes at talkingpointsmemo.com, the number would have been much higher if all the states fulfilled their responsibility to bring insurance to their poorest citizens by expanding Medicaid--at federal expense. Estimates are that the refusal of 25 states to do so has left some 5 million of their residents in the cold. (Kudos to Josh for introducing Gaba to a wider audience.)

Indy: As we can see millions of Americans are now taking advantage of the ACA.

And as we see reported here, another 5 million poor people are being denied expanded Medicaid coverage under the ACA in republican lead states.

Why would republicans want to deny poor people health care?

Likewise, employers who coverage met the ACA requirements didn’t have to change anything . . .


Indy: Posted: January 25, 2014 3:44 p.m.

technologist wrote: What's apparent in 2014 is that you continue to fail at addressing any points in the column, Indy. Rather, you project talking points on others that you engage in yourself.

Indy: Be patient young skywalker the truth you seek is coming . . .

technologist wrote: It's not intent that counts, it's actual results that matter.

Indy: The ‘intent’ of republicans to deny poor people Medicaid expansion using federal tax dollars paid by the same poor people ‘resulted’ in 5 million poor Americans being denied health coverage.

technologist wrote: I doubt you'll have an "LOL" on 11/5/14. That's when citizens will have the opportunity to weigh in on Obamacare as reality in their lives, rather than fraudulent campaign propaganda. --edited.

Indy: As we see ‘right now’ the poor people denied coverage is a ‘result’ we see as I write this.


technologist: Posted: January 25, 2014 4:15 p.m.

Again, no substance, Indy. Why are you not responsive to any of the questions raised by the columnist?

Obamacare's ostensible purpose was to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. How's that working out?

"Remember, remember the 5th of November."


Indy: Posted: January 25, 2014 6:25 p.m.

technologist wrote: Again, no substance, Indy. Why are you not responsive to any of the questions raised by the columnist?

Indy: LOL

technologist wrote: Obamacare's ostensible purpose was to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. How's that working out?

Indy: You’re going to have to answer the question why republicans are denying poor people the Medicaid expansion per the ACA . . . you can start with Perry in Texas . . . before I can help you. The articles I’ve posted note the numbers.


Indy: Posted: January 25, 2014 6:32 p.m.

Obamacare enrollment continues to rise in January
By Noam N. Levey
January 24, 2014, 9:57 a.m.

WASHINGTON – Approximately 3 million people have now enrolled in health insurance plans sold through marketplaces created by President Obama’s health law, the administration announced Friday.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-enrollment-obamacare-january-rise-20140124,0,503095.story#ixzz2rT4XYU4z


technologist: Posted: January 25, 2014 6:52 p.m.

I've already answered it, months ago, Indy. Why the cognitive difficulty?

Why would a state take on a long term, permanent entitlement obligation with temporary Federal funding? That makes about as much sense as an ARM mortgage, eh?

No one needs your help, Indy. We're thinking adults who aren't fooled by your deflections.

Now, about the issues in the column. How are these objectives matching up with reality?

"The primary aspects of promoting and enacting the ACA were: (1) to provide health insurance coverage to the oft-quoted 47 million uninsured Americans; (2) plans would be “affordable” for everyone; (3) responsible people would keep their existing chosen plans and providers; (4) having coverage would assure payments to medical providers for services rendered; (5) overall health care costs would decrease; (6) Americans would save money on premiums and (7) Americans would not be burdened with medical bills driving them into bankruptcy."


technologist: Posted: January 25, 2014 6:55 p.m.

"WASHINGTON – Approximately 3 million people have now enrolled in health insurance plans sold through marketplaces created by President Obama’s health law, the administration announced Friday."

How many of those folks were previously insured, lost their coverage due to Obamacare and replaced it? Statics reflect that only 11% of enrollees via exchanges were previously uninsured.

You're touting this as a success metric?


technologist: Posted: January 25, 2014 7:52 p.m.

“We’re talking about a population of people who chose to go without insurance when it was much more dangerous to be without insurance and when insurance actually cost less,” the study’s co-author Chris Holt told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “So the incentives have changed so that these folks now have less risk in remaining uninsured while the cost of getting insurance is even higher.”

The Obama administration is already facing a tough final two months in Obamacare’s open enrollment period. Reports on Obamacare enrollees this far have indicated that young enrollees and the uninsured are vastly underrepresented in the exchanges.

Just 24 percent of exchange enrollees were between the ages of 18 and 35 years as of December 28; the Obama administration had repeatedly outlined that the exchanges will need 38-39 percent of enrollees in that range in order to keep costs down.

As for the uninsured, Obamacare’s enrollees tend to have purchased exchange coverage after having plans cancelled or have switched over to access taxpayer subsidies.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/22/study-staying-uninsured-cheaper-than-obamacare-for-young/#ixzz2rTOb8FWb


ricketzz: Posted: January 26, 2014 5:44 a.m.

The "Daily Caller" is run by a thoroughly debunked second tier right wing gnat named Tucker Carlson. He pulls stuff outta his butt on a regular basis. If you want me to take you seriously you'll need to get out of the bubble.

I have never seen such a complete propaganda attack based on absolutely no facts. You people are a sign of the apocalypse; a tower of Babble; babes in the woods.

All one needs to do is dig deeply into the surveys to see that the propaganda is working and that disinformation is being propagated.

http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-december-2013/

I will wait another 6 months before passing judgement. I will not let the TV or the the AM radio tell me what to think.




CaptGene: Posted: January 26, 2014 9:38 a.m.

Poisoning the well, the desperation is palpable.

On the other hand:

"Analyzing data collected from a 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component — a large-scale, nationally-representative, household survey collected by one of the Department of Health and Human Services’ own agencies..."

I question anything that comes even tangentially from HHS, so...


technologist: Posted: January 26, 2014 10:55 a.m.

PPACA creates far more problems and health care delivery disruptions than it purports to solve. More are on the way.

The aversion to plain facts and the overt propaganda from government and statist policy fellow travelers is a timely demonstration of overreach. The hubris and gross incompetence demonstrated by those who assert that government is the central organizing principle of society are on display for all to see.

May the bubble of "Progressivism" noisily pop in 2014 and expose the proponents for the frauds they are. Until that occurs, they are to be mocked with the disdain they so richly deserve.


Indy: Posted: January 27, 2014 4:57 p.m.

Technologist wrote: I've already answered it, months ago, Indy. Why the cognitive difficulty?

Indy: I’ve said this months ago prior that I’m here to help you understand what the words mean when put together . . . and that offer still stands . .

Technologist wrote: Why would a state take on a long term, permanent entitlement obligation with temporary Federal funding? That makes about as much sense as an ARM mortgage, eh?

Indy: I think as we’ve seen with all government dollars, the inability to find politicians with sound business and economic acumen is the real problem here.

Just like when Buck McKeon ‘promised’ the new F35 fights would cost less than $100 million EACH, well, now there over $400 million EACH. Is this what you’re talking about?

Technologist wrote: No one needs your help, Indy. We're thinking adults who aren't fooled by your deflections.

Indy: I have to disagree both based on your demeanor and your lack of economic insight that is inhibited by your ideology based libertarianism that fails to address the economic and business reality we can actually ‘see’.

Technologist wrote: Now, about the issues in the column. How are these objectives matching up with reality?

"The primary aspects of promoting and enacting the ACA were: (1) to provide health insurance coverage to the oft-quoted 47 million uninsured Americans; (2) plans would be “affordable” for everyone; (3) responsible people would keep their existing chosen plans and providers; (4) having coverage would assure payments to medical providers for services rendered; (5) overall health care costs would decrease; (6) Americans would save money on premiums and (7) Americans would not be burdened with medical bills driving them into bankruptcy."

Indy: Let’s start with the some of the ‘benefits’ of the ACA, let’s start with the ‘coverage’ issues first:

Coverage

• Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.

• Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.

• Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.

• Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your plan reconsider its denial of payment.

Which of these should be removed from the ACA?


technologist: Posted: January 27, 2014 5:47 p.m.

No. Let's start with you answering the questions, Indy.

You've deflected with these few benefits that didn't require Federalization of the entire health care system previously.


Indy: Posted: January 27, 2014 6:48 p.m.

Technologist wrote: No. Let's start with you answering the questions, Indy. You've deflected with these few benefits that didn't require Federalization of the entire health care system previously.

Indy: Again, why does Betty just present the libertarian market fundamentalist approach that we know doesn’t work?

Why not give a ‘fair and balanced’ update on the ACA?

And then when I do present the ‘benefits of the ACA, you ignore them . . . something I’ve seen now as a habit of ideologues that ignore everything they disagree with even when it’s an important part of the ACA.

The whole concept of the ‘federalization’ of the health care system?

Do you even realize the exchanges are platforms for ‘for profit’ companies?

The ACA is just Romneycare nationally . . . all founded on the Heritage Institute plan that rebuffed ‘single payer’.

I support the penalties for ‘free riders’ who game the rest of us.

Yet, when Obama put that conservative suggestion into play, he’s now ostracized?

This is the problem with partisans like yourself that severely weaken their positions using their ideology to try to blind others to the actually reality in place.

I’ll have more on Betty . . . but I want to review the ‘benefits’ first to provide some balance to the guest readers.


technologist: Posted: January 27, 2014 7:34 p.m.

Your outgassing of talking points is repetitive, Indy. No one will pay you mind until you acknowledge the significant defects of Obamacare in design and implementation.

In addition to the points the columnist raised, here's a refresher on the magical thinking behind PPACA:

• Cover the uninsured in the USA
• Mandate and enforce purchase of medical insurance or fine for every citizen
• Mandate Community Rating
• Mandate increased minimum coverage
• Mandate preexisting condition coverage

And as a result:

• Bend the medical insurance cost curve down
• Make medical insurance affordable for all citizens
• Reduce premiums by up to $2500 per family, per year
• Create a net job increase
• Lower the Federal deficit

How are all those promised benefits working in the real world?


Indy: Posted: January 28, 2014 5:28 p.m.

Technologist wrote: Your outgassing of talking points is repetitive, Indy. No one will pay you mind until you acknowledge the significant defects of Obamacare in design and implementation.

Indy: LOL

Anyway, let’s look at the cost issue from the ACA:

Costs

• Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.

• Reviews Premium Increases: Insurance companies must now publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes.

• Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.


technologist: Posted: January 29, 2014 4:17 p.m.

Let's cut out Indy the Cut & Paste Pitch Man and go straight to the talking points source:

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/

LOL indeed!


Indy: Posted: January 29, 2014 6:02 p.m.

Let’s take a final looks at the care benefits from the ACA:

Care

• Covers Preventive Care at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for recommended preventive health services. No copayment.

• Protects Your Choice of Doctors: Choose the primary care doctor you want from your plan’s network.

• Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.

The first item is where the reduction is health care premiums will eventually come as people get their medical conditions caught earlier preventing expensive procedures the ER. But this will take time to occur.

The 2nd item is where Obama got himself caught up between health insurance companies that are reducing their cost by shrinking their list of doctors for each of their plans. In theory, Obama was right but as the ACA was rolled out, the ‘competitive’ markets that exist in the exchanges caused competing companies to lower cost to provide competitive prices for their plans.

Sadly, politicians ‘grandstand’ any perceived benefit over the reality that will eventually take place. We saw this in the stimulus plan right after Obama was elected as republicans argued for ‘tax cuts’ in the stimulus plan (someone around 30% of so of same) that economist will tell you have no ‘stimulus’ effect during a recession. No matter, the GOP ideologist got this concession anyway . . .

Finally, the issue with emergency care outside of the plan’s network is not something I’m familiar with . . .

In any event, it’s good to see the benefits and why some plan premiums have gone up to support same. Many prior individual market plans had few protections and interestingly, were changed frequently in the past providing less benefits for similar dollars but that point isn’t addressed by Betty.


technologist: Posted: January 29, 2014 6:32 p.m.

Points for talking points consistency, Indy. As expected, you addressed none of the columnist's or my issues.

Regarding those talking points, forum participants will note the Indy's verbatim quotes from the link I provided. Something to keep in mind when he projects the "focus group tested" talking points script on opponents.

Thanks again for the lulz, Indy! You're a good little OFA soldier. :-D --edited.


Indy: Posted: January 30, 2014 5:45 p.m.

Technologist wrote: Points for talking points consistency, Indy. As expected, you addressed none of the columnist's or my issues.

Indy: This poster must believe that those that ‘debate’ with him are sitting on the edge of their seats wondering what type of meaningless diatribe that will come next! (example above provided)

In any event, the libertarian market fundamentalist approach to our way of life has been described as ‘social darwinism’. In other words, we as a society can’t think collectively to chart our nation’s future including making decisions as to say how our health care system should work.

As you can see from the objectives of the ACA, they addressed many of the shortcomings provided by for profit health care providers that leveraged their clout and subjected us to draconian rules that often left Americans, even those having paid into the health care system for decades, with nothing . . .

And what I find interesting is the stated objectives of the ACA do address the Op-ed writer’s points leading me to believe the poster either ignores what I write or can’t connect the dots if you will.

Consider the Op-ed writer’s observation: “Recently, the New York Times reported a journal “Science” article on a finding in Oregon stating: “Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts during their first 18 months with insurance.”

If the Op-ed writer took time to ‘think’, she’d realize that many folks previously denied health insurance used the ER as their ‘primary care’ which raises the cost of health care all Americans.

And the solution for the ‘who gained coverage’, ‘educate’ them that now they have ‘preventative’ options provided by their coverage doctors not to mention have a ‘doctor’ that they can build a relationship with under the ACA.

The Op-ed writer continues: “Three of my family members work with health insurance and attendant ACA regulations. They would tell you plans are unnecessarily complex. For instance, some plans do not consider all out-of-pocket costs as applicable to paying down the deductible, resulting in more increased costs”

The reality is that most Americans don’t really learn about their policies until they use them. That would be the case with the ACA or not.

Likewise, however, the ACA standards used on the exchanges help people understand the ‘minimum’ basis for their policies which were often ‘buried’ in the ‘find print’ of existing individual market health care policies. Many Americans were sadly shocked to find out when they got sick, how little coverage they actually had! This was the so called ‘junk insurance’ policies that are now ‘gone’ form the individual market for those using the exchanges.

I’ll continue to address the shortcomings of the Op-ed writers opinions as time permits.


technologist: Posted: January 30, 2014 6:27 p.m.

Indy: "And what I find interesting is the stated objectives of the ACA do address the Op-ed writer’s points leading me to believe the poster either ignores what I write or can’t connect the dots if you will."

Assertions aren't facts, Indy. You wrote nothing that addresses the points the columnist and I wrote. Rather, you cut and pasted talking points from the Healthcare.gov web site. It's not even your writing.

Either address them or quit pretending.

Meanwhile at Covered California:

Facing a $78 million budget shortfall, California’s Obamacare exchange has spent $1.37 million to fund an outreach video featuring exercise guru Richard Simmons gyrating on the floor and hugging a contortionist who is kneeling with his buttocks in the air.

The “Tell a Friend — Get Covered” campaign by Covered California features other celebrities Olivia Wilde, comic Billy Eirchner, Fran Drescher and Tatyana Ali. The centerpiece of the effort was an eight-hour live web stream that ran on Jan. 16.

http://watchdog.org/126429/obamacare-lurid-webstream/


technologist: Posted: January 30, 2014 7:05 p.m.

"Consider the Op-ed writer’s observation: “Recently, the New York Times reported a journal “Science” article on a finding in Oregon stating: “Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts during their first 18 months with insurance.”

If the Op-ed writer took time to ‘think’, she’d realize that many folks previously denied health insurance used the ER as their ‘primary care’ which raises the cost of health care all Americans. "

Non sequitur.


Indy: Posted: February 3, 2014 3:09 p.m.

Anthem to raise some premiums as much as 25%
Up to 306,000 Californians with older, individual Anthem health insurance policies — unchanged by Obamacare — are subject to the rate increases.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-anthem-health-rates-20140131,0,5252164.story#ixzz2sIg6NlFC

… Anthem Blue Cross said its plan to raise rates reflects that escalating healthcare costs are an economic reality industrywide. The company said customers do have new options thanks to the healthcare law.
Indy: Gee, Blue Cross recommending the ACA . . . who would have guessed a ‘for profit’ company was recommending Obamacare!

But that was the foundation of the ACA in putting ‘for profit’ companies in the ‘exchanges’ and allowing ‘fair competition’ such that the individual health insures didn’t have to ‘game’ each other or their customers to get the ‘sale’.

Yet, as we’ve seen here, you’d have thought the ACA was an abomination as put forth by the conservative libertarian market fundamentalist that can’t see through the ideology to the actual reality in place.

In any event, the older individual polices that were being ‘supported’ by the GOP now sees the GOP on the wrong side of the issue and their advice to existing individual policy holders is going to, hold on, wait for it . . . ‘cost them more money’ to have policies that don’t provide the same benefits as those in the exchanges defined by the ACA.

And thus the warning to take lightly the ‘innuendo and speculation’ offered up by the Fox GOP channel and parroted here by conservative creating all this hysteria that as we now see was false.


Indy: Posted: February 3, 2014 3:13 p.m.

Advisory: Not seen on Fox . . .

From the Los Angeles Times:
What's behind Anthem's huge premium increase? Not Obamacare.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-anthems-huge-premium-increase-20140131,0,5354357.story#ixzz2sIsqBlLC

By Michael Hiltzik
January 31, 2014, 3:15 p.m.

Insurance companies, bless their hearts, seem determined to remind us why we need the Affordable Care Act. The latest example comes from Anthem Blue Cross, which has just hit 306,000 customers in California with premium increases of up to 25%.

As reported by my colleague Chad Terhune, the increases average 16% and are scheduled to kick in April 1, unless the state Department of Insurance jawbones Anthem into backing down.

Here's the kicker: No one can blame these increases on the mandates of the Affordable Care Act, a popular argument among critics of the act. That's because the increases are for grandfathered policies exempt from the act.

"It's a rich irony," says Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, a leading California consumer advocacy group. "The insurers can't have it both ways -- they can't blame the increases on the ACA while increasing rates on their non-ACA-compliant plans as well."


technologist: Posted: February 3, 2014 8:19 p.m.

Advisory: Not seen in the L.A. or NY Times.

When the Party Shock Troops are abandoning you…

Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rollout
By Steven Mufson and Tom Hamburger, Published: January 31

Labor leaders who have spent months lobbying unsuccessfully for special protections under the Affordable Care Act warned this week that the White House’s continued refusal to help is dampening union support for Democratic candidates in this year’s midterm elections.

Leaders of two major unions, including the first to endorse Obama in 2008, said they have been betrayed by an administration that wooed their support for the 2009 legislation with promises to later address the peculiar needs of union-negotiated insurance plans that cover millions of workers.

Their complaints reflect a broad sense of disappointment among many labor leaders, who say the Affordable Care Act has subjected union health plans to new taxes and mandates while not allowing them to share in the subsidies that have gone to private insurance companies competing on the newly created exchanges.

After dozens of frustrating meetings with White House officials over the past year, including one with Obama, a number of angry labor officials say their members are far less likely to campaign and turn out for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/labor-union-officials-say-obama-betrayed-them-in-health-care-rollout/2014/01/31/2cda6afc-8789-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html


technologist: Posted: February 4, 2014 9:00 p.m.

"As reported by my colleague Chad Terhune, the increases average 16% and are scheduled to kick in April 1, unless the state Department of Insurance jawbones Anthem into backing down."

The L.A. Times and Indy are *desperate* to deflect blame so their Party Bosses (PPACA yea voting pols) won't be held accountable in November for the broken promises, cancellations, narrowed provider networks and substantial unsubsidized increases in premiums/deductibles under Obamacare.

The squirrel? Standard medical price inflation driven by the 3rd party payer system the Feds created 60+ years ago.

Here's a scene from the 2014 Democratic Congressional campaign when challenged on Obamacare effects (the rabbit represents the angry voters):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc


Indy: Posted: February 4, 2014 8:20 a.m.

technologist wrote: "As reported by my colleague Chad Terhune, the increases average 16% and are scheduled to kick in April 1, unless the state Department of Insurance jawbones Anthem into backing down."

The L.A. Times and Indy are *desperate* to deflect blame . . .

Indy: I think the take away here is that once you get away from GOP dominated media outlets . . . the conservative libertarian’s only recourse is statements like this made against reporters reporting the actual ‘news’.

Thankfully, 9 million Americans now have health care through the ACA and several million more are being held back by conservative republicans in many states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion for ‘poor’ people . . . people seldom if ever mentioned on conservative media.


technologist: Posted: February 4, 2014 10:55 a.m.

Keep chanting, Indy. Now it's 9 million, is it?

Tuesday, November 4, 2014.


CaptGene: Posted: February 5, 2014 8:42 a.m.

Like any good little propagandist, Indy Nile has used the nine million number put out by none other than Harry Reid. Reid has picked up three more Pinocchios for that one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/07/harry-reids-claim-that-under-obamacare-9-million-people-have-health-care-that-didnt-have-it-before/

Prepare yourself for the upcoming well poisoning.


technologist: Posted: February 10, 2014 4:31 p.m.

Durbin’s claim that 10 million now have health insurance because of Obamacare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/10/durbins-claim-that-10-million-now-have-health-insurance-because-of-obamacare/?wprss=rss_fact-checker&clsrd

Hmm…let's see…if we were to redistribute the Pinocchios to Indy that would work out as 4 x .9 = 3.6 Pinocchios.

There you go, Indy. Perhaps you can aspire to Durbin levels of propaganda one day. You're well on your way!


technologist: Posted: February 10, 2014 6:25 p.m.

Obamacare: So good more employer mandates were delayed. Will the next one take it past 2016?



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...