hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/01/14 08:59 AM
ACA enrollment numbers

2.1 million have enrolled for private plans

Goal was 3.3 million at this point. This is much better than I would have thought considering all the unknowns (evident on this board as well) and the website issues. They have reallly simplified the process. I have talked to many well educated people who are just clueless as to what ACA is and how they enroll. Thus it will not be suprising to me to see low enrollment numbers the first year and to see a continued late push. That is just clueless unaware Americans that wait to the last second. I base that comment on my experience as a retail pharmacist who has giving a large amount of flu shots this year to people that normally never get it....and people who wait until they are out of medication and refills and get mad at me when I cannot refill their medication or get a hold of their Prescriber on the weeked or on Christmas Eve.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/01/14 09:27 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

So a goal is set, numbers, even the dubious released numbers fall far short , with so many unknowns about the actual numbers but het
details are everything

It might have been wiser for BO and WH to downplay instead of the giddy reports.

I see the WH didn't mention the over 6 million cancelled policies. the ones BO LIED about and tole everyobe they could keep.
Why report on reality when spouting Hope and Change has worked so well before

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/01/14 09:29 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

So 4.8 million people had their policies cancelled and 2.1 million have enrolled. Does that mean 2.7 million fewer people have insurance?

I am assuming this does not include people who qualified for medicaid, so the new net people insured might be positive, but that will not create success for ACA. The number of young, healthy people who enroll and pay is the true needed measurement for this law not to collapse.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
01/01/14 11:30 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Obamacare's Benefits Become Real On New Year's Day

When the clock strikes midnight for the new year Wednesday, it also will ring in a new day for the American health care system.

President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law nearly four years ago, and Jan. 1, 2014, culminates a lot of work, strife and anxiety. It also represents the birth of a new health insurance market for individuals who aren't covered by their employers or government programs like Medicare, especially for low-income and uninsured people receiving unprecedented help paying for coverage.

Starting on Wednesday, health insurance companies can't turn away anyone because of their medical histories or pre-existing conditions. Prices can't be higher for people with chronic ailments, or for women, and older individuals can't be charged more than three times what younger customers pay. Basic benefits like hospitalizations, prescription drugs and mental health care must be covered. Annual and lifetime limits to essential coverage are gone. And nearly everyone must obtain health coverage or face a tax penalty under the law's individual mandate.




This is AWESOME news for the country! Enrollment will only get stronger every passing month, people will start seeing all the benefits of the law, and even polititically, this is a huge winner for the Prez and his party.

Happy New Year folks -- new healthcare benefits kick in!!

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/01/14 12:02 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

We will see how his party feels about that next November.

mojo17
(1000+ posts)
01/01/14 12:24 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Even though most of the country didn't want it our king knows best and his party will pay the price.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
01/01/14 12:34 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Even though most of the country didn't want it our king knows best and his party will pay the price.




That is another misleading statement mojo. EVEN after all the lies -- 'death panels', 'grandmas die', 'medicare will go broke' -- , mis-statements AND ~45 attempts to repeal, AND a govt. shutdown, and ofcourse the horrible rollout,, the American people STILL want the law to succeed:

In reply to:

But even despite this, only one third of Americans support repealing the law. A sizable bloc of those who oppose the law want it to continue, anyway.
The poll finds that 46 percent support the law, versus 54 percent who oppose it or are unsure of their feelings about it. But that second bloc breaks down into 33 percent who oppose and want repeal, versus 20 percent who oppose the law and want to let the law go ahead. That means a total of 66 percent either support the law or oppose it but want it to go forward.




Americans want ACA to work

mojo17
(1000+ posts)
01/01/14 12:54 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Then why did it take lies to get it passed in the middle of the night?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/01/14 01:15 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

That poll analysis was a stretch. The question asked "if you oppose the law, do you support repealing the law or let the law go ahead?"

Since there is absolutely no chance it can be repealed given the democratic majority and Obama himself as a final block with veto power, most educated people would be forced to answer to let it go ahead. The 66% the writer arrives at is made up of people who oppose the law? It bet if one answer option was "if you could repeal it yourself, would you repeal it?" It would have gotten a different result.

All polls show overwhelming dissatisfaction with the law, its roll out and the website. Ask the 4.8 million who lost their policy how they feel about the law.

I only know one person who has enrolled in the exchange. His premium tripled with a much higher deductible. He was thrilled!

mojo17
(1000+ posts)
01/01/14 02:43 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Roger35 if it turns out that a lot of us are wrong I will give our president the credit he deserves and I hope it does work out. Right now I can't see it though.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/01/14 03:07 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers


Did anyone notice how many have actually PAID even one month's premium?
Wouldn't that be the real measure?

How many of the reported 2.1 million have paid? Will WE the tax payer have to foot the bill for those who have " enrolled" but don't pay by jan 01 yet use medical services on jan 05? Will that be added to the ' grace period" that Pharm still refuses to exist?

I can tell you ALL of the over 6 million who have had polices cancelled have in fact had policies cancelled.

will the number 2.1 million enrolled turn out to be a lie like the If you like you policy/ doctor lie?

Vol Horn 4 Life
(2500+ posts)
01/01/14 07:08 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Heard on the radio that Walgreen and CVS are going to fill prescriptions in good faith even though they don't expect to get reimbursed for months if at all. Another sign this thing will continue to be a debacle.

HornHuskerDad
(5000+ posts)
01/01/14 08:01 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

people will start seeing all the benefits of the law



They will also see the cost - and the negative feelings about cost can override the positive feelings about the "benefits" (if they are really "benefits").

HHD

AustinBat
(2500+ posts)
01/01/14 09:41 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I'm angry about all the illegal delay to parts of the bill. If it is so damned great, we should push it ALL forward NOW. It's time to put it fully into effect and then see how things go. Isn't that the "fair" thing? And no one - NO ONE- should be exempted from the bill and the penalties. Apparently BO tried to enroll but his Information couldn't be confirmed. Pretty much like everything about him.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/02/14 07:01 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Bat - totally agree and I think any polls should ask the same question. The employer mandate delay, which conveniently was pushed past the next elections, will be the proverbial straw that breaks the back.

Although the delay is after the elections, businesses will identify and start communication of their plans by late summer. Most estimates range in the 70,000,000 of employer cancelled policies.

NJlonghorn
(250+ posts)
01/02/14 08:19 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

My family's policy was canceled, but we've bought a new one to replace it. Of the other 5,999,996 people whose policies were canceled, I wonder how many are now uninsured. Has anyone seen data on this?

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
01/02/14 08:22 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

It is about 8,000.

Mr. Deez
(2500+ posts)
01/02/14 09:01 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

My family's policy was canceled, but we've bought a new one to replace it.




Just out of curiosity, did your premium and deductible go up, down, or stay the same?

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/02/14 09:35 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

paso?
Are you saying that of the 6 million who had their policies cancelled only 8,000 remain who haven't gotten new policies?

That on the surface seems amazing. Do you have a source/ link for that?


NJlonghorn
(250+ posts)
01/02/14 09:39 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Some of the new ACA rules were already the law in New Jersey, so the impact here is smaller than elsewhere.

That said, to keep a comparable policy, my premium would have gone up substantially. Of course, it has gone up substantially every year since I left a group plan about 3 years ago, so it is impossible to know how much of the increase, if any, was due to ACA.

To keep the premium roughly level, we opted for an increased deductible.

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
01/02/14 10:44 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I read it in the Washington Post yesterday or the day before. I think it was in the Plum column, but I do not recall.

Many of these "cancellations" were just replacements of substandard policies.

In reply to:

While there is no central repository of data on insurance coverage in the individual market, the number of individuals who will lose individual coverage and be unable to renew pre-ACA coverage, enroll in subsidized coverage, or access a catastrophic plan is sure to be small. Of the reported 4.7 million people who receive cancellation notices, half should have the option to renew their 2013 coverage. Of the remaining 2.35 million individuals, approximately 1.4 million should be eligible for tax credits through the marketplaces or Medicaid. Of the remaining 950,000 individuals, fewer than 10,000 people in 18 counties in a single state would lack access to an affordable catastrophic plan. This is less than 0.2% of the estimate made by opponents of the Affordable Care Act



The Link

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
01/02/14 06:08 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

My neighbor's family is relatively healthy - Asthma, wife w/ mildly high BP, kids w/ allergies and asthma. A crappy plan with high deductible is going to cost about $1500 per month. He can write prescriptions for the family within reason and he can see some physicians for free. Thus, $18,000 a year is useful only for catastrophic care. That doesn't seem like a good deal considering in 10 years he could self-insure with approximately $300K if it can be sheltered from taxes. What do you think he should do?

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
01/02/14 07:45 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

He lives in Texas?

I am going to pay $350 a month for coverage for me and my two daughters (this is with zero subsidy). I was paying $950 a month.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
01/02/14 08:01 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In Texas? That seems way too low. I doubt a spouse would add that much and 2 daughters shouldn't be cheaper than 2 sons. I do know that I used to be covered separately from my wife because it was much cheaper. Maybe I should have him look at separate plans.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/02/14 08:08 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Did anyone notice how many have actually PAID even one month's premium?




There is nothing to notice because that information is not available.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/02/14 08:16 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

crappy plan with high deductible is going to cost about $1500 per month




I have posted prices to avoid speculation. What state and how many are covered with the plan?


Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
01/02/14 09:38 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

There is nothing to notice because that information is not available.





Don't you mean the information has not been released? It seems like it would be readily available.



Paso. I looked up the information using myself and the high deductible plans would be cheaper if 2 separate plans are purchased. Basically a high deductible bronze single PPO plan is about $330 for an individual and $600 for an individual w/ 2 kids. I have no idea why your insurance is so cheap for someone self-employed. Even if you are in your 20s, the plans would be way more than $300 for you and your kids.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/03/14 08:13 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

paso
that link was pure Democrat speculation. What date was it published? There are no hard verifiable facts , just speculation
when it says that some insurance companies have indicated they " expect" the vast majority to renew or be ' automatically enrolled ? What does that even mean?
Which insurance companies? Have these insurance companies announced they can renew cancelled policies?

BO " allowed insurance companies to renew those evil substandard policies. but how many actually did? the major insurers( BCBS Aetna ) in states like New Jersey, Michigan. Ala,Ore, Calif among others did NOT let customers rewen their old policy.

How this Dem paper can report the number of people who could not renew their old policies is small is laughable. Yes these people whose policies were cancelled do have the portion of obamacare but that is not what they were promised.


And you correct, the gov't isn't releasing how many have actually paid. Wouldn't you think that is pretty important? Otherwise WHO get stuck with the bills? The Insurance people? Sure
Where will the money come from to pay for this?



I notice you look like you got a pretty cheap policy. is this a standard obamacare policies with the 10 essential services?
and you didn't mention the deductible or the co pays.
Those elements of an insurance policy are as important as the premium.







Roger35
(5000+ posts)
01/03/14 09:50 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

An observation -- First it was "Death panels", "Grandma dies".

Then it was "socialized medicine".
Then that became "medicare will be defunded".
Then onto "website doesn't work -- ACA is dead".
Once the website got working, it became "TENS OF MILLIONS are losing their insurance"
Then when it became apparent that that wasn't the case, and crappy plans were replaced by affordable, high-quality plans, the rw has now shifted to "well gee, how come no-one has actually PAID any premiums??".
Well GOLLY, it's been 3 days since the law went into effect!!

As the ACA keeps getting stronger, the gop clarion call will keep changing. And losing. Good for the country!

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/03/14 10:41 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers


First it was obamacare will save the average family $2500.00
Then it was for 85% of people NOTHING will change

then it was ok employer offered insurance gets a year delay
Private insured? No delay
And of course how could we forget:
if you like your plan you can keep it period
If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor period

next came ok well yes millions of policies were cancelled because they were ' sub standard"
then it was OK we will let insurance companies reinstate those substandard policies
IF each state ok'd it
and IF the insurance companies will willing to do it
Most didn't.
It is estimated from 17 states that have reported that less than half of the people who enrolled have made a payment

and 3.9 million signed up for Medicaid, twice as many as signed up for private insurance. Who pays for them?

But maybe the saddest reality is that people who think they have insurance do NOT understand they have in most cases thousands of $ in deductables before the insurance pays for more that preventive care. Thousands most do not have
so now what? who will help these people and where will the money come from?

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
01/03/14 11:22 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Uninformed, I am using my real numbers for a bronze plan (it is $389 not $350). It is only for me and my two children not a spouse. I am 50 and my children are 23 and 13.

Maybe you need to plug in El Paso County and maybe our insurance rates are a little lower than elsewhere in the state. I did notice that California rates are significantly higher than El Paso.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/03/14 11:53 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

paso
what is your deductible?
co pays?

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
01/03/14 12:04 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

significantly higher than before

but I am saving almost $600 a month

I will save money

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
01/03/14 12:39 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

For a 45 year old with 2 children in Williamson or Travis County, it appears that the cheapest PPO plan is about $600/month. For a 4 person family with no pre-existing conditions, it is about $900/month. This is with about a $12,000 deductible so it is useful only for catastrophic coverage. It really doesn't matter what the plan covers other than catastrophic because that deductible will only be met if something bad happens. Basically, what that means is that it costs a healthy person $11,000 per year to insure against cardiovascular diseases and cancer and maybe Type 2 diabetes if you believe that in most cases it can't be controlled by exercise and diet.

militaryhorn
(500+ posts)
01/03/14 12:44 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Here is what it would cost me if I were to enroll. I don't have to since I am in the military and about to retire. I will have Tricare when I retire, so I won't need the exchange then either. Based on my premiums, I wouldn't want to get healthcare and I would just pay the penalty. I would then hope that my family had no major medical issues between the sign up periods.

In reality, I would more than likely do the Gold plan with the $0 deductible. To me that is expensive but I would rather pay $12,000 a year than to pay $6,000 a year and have to constantly worry about having $12,700 readily available to pay extreme medical bills.

On top of that, from the way I understand deductibles and such, you would end up paying for all your medical costs up to the deductible amount anyway. Not only would I foot most of the bill most of the time but the insurance company would get $6,000 a year from me to pay my own way.

I would much rather pay the $12,000 a year and let them pay for my medical cost throughout the year. At least I would feel like they are keeping all of my $12,000. Anywho, that is how I see it.



Roger
(2500+ posts)
01/03/14 01:26 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers


People when making decisions on a plan need to understand 1) the monthly premium 2) the deductible 3) the annual max out of pocket and 4) the co-pays both prior and post meeting the deductible. To truly do a cost benefit analysis you'd have to calculate all 4 of those items. From experience I know that until I was in a situation where the family was going to hit the deductible and the annual max out of pocket I didn't fully understand my costs and the different plans available. Once I was put in a situation where it was imperative to understand these I've made much better decisions on what plans I put my family on.

I'd be concerned that there are a lot of low information people out there that thought they were getting free health care or very cheap healthcare and are going to end up in a world of hurt over how much is going to be expected of them when a family member gets seriously sick. There are several plans out there that you could easily pay $1,000 a month and still have a $5,000 deductible and $10,000 max out pocket per indivdual and double that for a family. Thus if a family has a major illness in their family they could pay or be expected to pay $22,000 in a year. Cheaper than if they don't have insurance but my guess is that number would still shock a lot of people.

militaryhorn
(500+ posts)
01/03/14 01:55 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Yeah, I don't really know the difference between the deductible and the max-out-of-pocket expenses. Anyone care to enlighten us?

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/03/14 02:30 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

military Horn
that is a good question
the deductible is the amount you must pay on your own before the insurance company will pay anything. This is in addition to your monthly premiums. The exception to that is preventive exams like a mammo or prostate. IIRC those kinds of preventive exams are free.

Your maxiuml our of pocket expenses are the combinded total of your deductible and co pays
most deductibles look like they average 5-7K
it looks like the average max out of pocket is around 10-12K
So people really need to consider all expenses when choosing a plan.
Sadly most people do mot understand this and are going to be shocked when they learn of it.
In todays news there was a woman who went to a Va hospital for a chest Xray thinking she had insurance.
She didn't have a card so they told her it would be $500.
even if she had her card it would have been $500 since she would first have to meet her deductible.
How many average lower or middle class families can afford $500.00 in premiums PLYS another 8-10K in deductibles?

militaryhorn
(500+ posts)
01/03/14 02:49 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

That is what I thought it was but wanted to hear it from someone else.

Based on that, I would definitely do the Gold option of $1,066 a month with no deductible and have $12,700 in savings. That way when I go to the hospital, I show up and pay my copay or whatever fee for a fee dollars and let the insurance pick up the rest. Then when the times that I have a major medical bill I have the $12,700 in reserves to pay my portion and let the insurance pick up the rest.

Overall this is the best route, at least the $1,066 would actually be used instead of sending money to the insurance and then having to pay for most of the visits myself (with $12,700 deductible).

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/03/14 03:00 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

MH
If you think you are going to have lots of medical expenses that is the way to go
OTOH if you and your family are relatively healthy and have been healthy it would make sense to get the highest deductible you could afford to pay which also means your monthly premiums would be lower.
Everyone needs to look at the big picture and make the choices that work for them
Most people don't and most people have not had to deal with deductibles
so they are getting sticker shock and in some cases foregoing medical care.



hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/04/14 11:58 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

even if she had her card it would have been $500 since she would first have to meet her deductible.




actually cash paying customers usually pay full price while ins customers pay contractual rates....thus with ins and a deductible she would have paid much less.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/04/14 12:25 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I did another quick search so I could post deductible info. family of 3, 36, 35, 2 years old, williamson county.

BCBS gold plan
$964/ month
500/1500 deductibles
4000/12000 out of pocket max

more than I pay now for my work offered plan but less than what I and my employer are currently paying combined.

There are more high deductible plans out this year since this is the first year of ACA and there are so many unknowns. Everyone has a different situation and there is not a one size fit all approach. if you expect to incur significant medical costs then go with a lower deductible plan. if you are mostly healthy then you cam opt for a higher deductible plan and hope for the best. I usually opt for a mid range to lower deductible and then do a $2500/ year FSA account. that works out to about $200 per month or $48 per week before tax dollars. I use this to pay the deductible and copays until it runs out. helps me better budget my spending and saves me from paying $500 tax on that $2500 dollars. currently my family pays about $4,000 a year in premiums and then $2500 for the FSA. so we are out $6500 at least every year.

What we should also recognize is how much in other taxes we are currently paying to subsidize those who do not have insurance and just show up at the ER when they are sick. We are all paying taxes at the local, state, and federal level to foot that bill.


Roger
(2500+ posts)
01/04/14 12:41 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

What we should also recognize is how much in other taxes we are currently paying to subsidize those who do not have insurance and just show up at the ER when they are sick. We are all paying taxes at the local, state, and federal level to foot that bill.




are we going to save money in this area? Here in Houston/Harris County we have Ben Taub as the big Country owned hospital. I haven't heard anything about their budget being cut back or taxes going down so that they don't get as much. Unfortunately my guess is that there are still quite a few uninsured people (many possibly illegals) that still will need somewhere to go.

Roger
(2500+ posts)
01/04/14 12:43 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

actually cash paying customers usually pay full price while ins customers pay contractual rates




Prices are so high due to the insurance companies negotiating the prices down, however if you have to pay cash you can often ask and many doctors and hospitals will give you a discounted price.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
01/04/14 03:27 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Most people don't and most people have not had to deal with deductibles
so they are getting sticker shock and in some cases foregoing medical care.




Horn6721, do you realize what you are attempting to do? You are willfully trying to misinform people about a govt law. Any actual proof of all these 'sticker shock' folks or are you pulling this off faux news?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/04/14 04:06 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

From USA Today:


The premiums for bronze-level plans are generally the least expensive, but "the deductibles are simply not affordable," says Laura Stack, a former financial analyst looking for full-time work and using her 401k to pay for health insurance. "Many will not be able to afford the per person deductibles before insurance begins to pay. What are you really paying for?"

About 4.4 million people in the individual insurance market are not eligible for the subsidies and tax credits that can help cover premiums and out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles.

Insurance brokers and "navigators" helping people apply for insurance say there are shockingly high prices for some consumers who aren't eligible for subsidies. Without much competition in some states and because they know so little about their new customers, insurers may have priced higher than they would have otherwise.
The Link

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/04/14 06:10 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

are we going to save money in this area?




not. in Texas. we choose not to expand medicaid.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/04/14 06:12 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Prices are so high due to the insurance companies negotiating the prices down, however if you have to pay cash you can often ask and many doctors and hospitals will give you a discounted price.




in some cases. not lower than the ins rate though. good luck with that.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
01/04/14 09:43 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

How many of these involve governors who refuse to provide healthcare for their citizens?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/05/14 06:45 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

First, hospitals do accept cash payments as settlement that are lower than the negotiated insurance rates. Sometimes, it just makes good business sense from a cash flow perspective.

R35 makes yet another stupid statement. Governors are not medical providers and ACA does not provide healthcare either. It is insurance reform.

I know PharmD checks and know his facts. I asked a question earlier and hope you have a source or link. What is the net amount of people now insured (not medicaid enrollees)? I did not ask, but someone else did. Do we know how many have paid their premiums?

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
01/05/14 09:28 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

R35 makes yet another stupid statement.




We shall see, by the end when the lies and distortions are cleared up who looks stupid.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
01/05/14 10:04 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Why does the President keep changing the law and delaying portions until after the elections if people are lying about it? It seems to me like the president would like to implement things right away so that we could see the truth. This would serve two purposes as it save him from breaking the law and shows the people how great it is.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/05/14 10:16 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I am glad R35 is finally admitting Obama lied and distorted the facts about ACA!

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
01/05/14 10:37 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

am glad R35 is finally admitting Obama lied and distorted the facts about ACA!




We'll get to "lies and misleading an entire country" shortly. First, we'll clear up the mis/dis-information of a law that benefits all Americans.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
01/05/14 10:52 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers


In reply to:

we'll clear up the mis/dis-information of a law that benefits all Americans.




Again, if the law was so great, Obama should implement it right away to clear up the distortions instead of waiting until after the mid-terms. Then, he wouldn't have to break the law and would allow Dems to sweep the mid-terms after everyone has an opportunity to see the law's "greatness". How could the administration not see the simplistic brilliance of such a plan, following the law and seeing its "beauty"?

militaryhorn
(500+ posts)
01/06/14 07:50 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

a law that benefits all Americans




Well, I hate to burst your bubble but this law does not benefit me at all. Here is why. I am already covered for life (at least right now) since I have served over 20 years in the military and I will have medical insurance for me and my family (kids until they move out of the house) for life.

Uniformed brings up a good point, if it is so great...why all the delays for some and why make any changes? I know that you have to tweek it some but shouldn't the tweeking go through congress?

Sangre Naranjada
(10,000+ posts)
01/06/14 07:51 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

It doesn't benefit me.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/07/14 09:45 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

First, hospitals do accept cash payments as settlement that are lower than the negotiated insurance rates. Sometimes, it just makes good business sense from a cash flow perspective.




Um, no. you may be able to negotiate a discount but good luck getting a discount that is lower than the ins rate. This is just laughable. I can imagine going into a physicians office and saying....hey your cash price is $100 and the ins gives you $50....so here is $40 now cash in hand.....we got a deal?

That probably only works at the pill mills and I think they can charge full price knowing what the pills are worth on the street.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/07/14 09:51 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Do we know how many have paid their premiums?




I have no idea where to find that information since this involves numerous private insurance plans across the country. most people just enrolled the last 30 days or so so not sure many have even had to make their first payment yet.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/07/14 10:12 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

pharm?
Uh do you know of many insurance companies who, without being asked by Bo, would offer coverage without a single payment?

I see some states including calif who have extended the deadline for first payment until jan 15
so Pharm WHO pays if someone who signed up gets medical treatment now but then never pays?


Roger
(2500+ posts)
01/07/14 10:56 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

... not sure many have even had to make their first payment yet.




it was all over the news that the first premium payment was due prior to Jan 1 for the insurance to be effective on Jan 1. However I have no doubts there was pressure on the insurance companies to give some leeway.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/07/14 01:19 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Roger
ah that deadline apparently was just a suggestion

Calif and Washington have extended the payment deadline for jan 01 starting coverage to jan 15
The Link


nice deal if you can get it
think anyone will use medical care and then not pay?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/07/14 05:17 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I consult for hospitals and I know for a fact they do. Your statement makes me believe your other posts are also laced with your opinion versus fact.

Hospitals are businesses. All businesses face decisions that are best for their interest. Today, cash flow is a major issue due to ACA and other reimbursement issues. If you owe money for your pharmaceuticals, equipment or payroll, you will enter a strategy of collecting cash as quickly as possible to keep the building running. Arguing otherwise shows you simply do not understand business or you try to deceive others with your "facts."

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
01/07/14 05:55 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

ii's
?
Was that directed at me? I provided a link showing states are delaying deadlines for the first obamacare payments even as coverage has begun
and I do know for a fact that there is a clause in obamacare that will force taxpayers to cover the costs docs and hospitals incur treating obamacare insured who in fact didn't pay or stop paying.
some posters on here still deny that this will happen

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/08/14 12:28 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Nope, Pharm.

NEWDOC2002
(2500+ posts)
01/09/14 12:53 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

actually cash paying customers usually pay full price while ins customers pay contractual rates....thus with ins and a deductible she would have paid much less.




Not true. Most of the time, a patient who gets a prompt pay discount (cash/credit card) will be as much as 50% off the "rate". Prompt pay is used bc it is illegal to offer cash discount. Payment must happen at time of visit. That is the law. It's not as low as Medicaid rates but cheaper on the dollar than most commercial plans and on par with Medicare. This is common in my area so I am not just pulling this out of thin air.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/09/14 07:26 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

it was all over the news that the first premium payment was due prior to Jan 1 for the insurance to be effective on Jan 1




I was told it is 1/10/14 for Texas.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/09/14 07:30 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

This is with about a $12,000 deductible




There are plans with lower deductibles available. some have zero deductibles. do more research.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/09/14 07:32 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

There are several plans out there that you could easily pay $1,000 a month and still have a $5,000 deductible and $10,000 max out pocket per indivdual and double that for a family. Thus if a family has a major illness in their family they could pay or be expected to pay $22,000 in a year.




There are better plans available.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/09/14 07:41 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Uh do you know of many insurance companies who, without being asked by Bo, would offer coverage without a single payment?




what is the point of the question?

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/09/14 07:55 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Most of the time, a patient who gets a prompt pay discount (cash/credit card)




prompt pay discounts are different than cash paying or negotiated discounts. they must be offered to everyone and at the same rate.

Bronco
(500+ posts)
01/13/14 11:17 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Jesus dude, just say "ok I was wrong about that" and move on. You stated something and the ACTUAL people in that business have said it is not true.

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
01/13/14 01:04 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

We never pay our health insurance bill on time. I guess I am in the business of paying for health insurance and you typically get a 30 day grace period.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/14/14 05:39 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Jesus dude, just say "ok I was wrong about that" and move on. You stated something and the ACTUAL people in that business have said it is not true.




I disagree and have stated why. the people in the business have not responded. do you disagree with the facts? do facts matter to you? or do you just blindly believe what those in the business, unverifiable reasly, tell you.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/14/14 05:42 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

We never pay our health insurance bill on time. I guess I am in the business of paying for health insurance and you typically get a 30 day grace period




haha. no Paso you are obviously working the system, utilizing healthcare services, not going to pay your bill, and are going to cancel your insurance or never pay your premiums. the rest of us pay our premiums up front, pay the doc before we see them, and do not get bills.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/14/14 11:39 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

As one of the people in the business, I did respond that you were speaking about something that was untrue as far as hospitals are concerned. Business for hospitals is not the same as working for a retail pharmacy, especially one of the big boys. Hospitals negotiate terms all of the time - it is the real world survival needed to navigate difficult reimbursement systems. ACA makes it worse.

mop
(500+ posts)
01/14/14 01:24 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

do you disagree with the facts? do facts matter to you? or do you just blindly believe what those in the business, unverifiable reasly, tell you.




Hornpharmd, does this apply to AGW/ACC as well? ; )

Roger
(2500+ posts)
01/14/14 01:56 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

We never pay our health insurance bill on time. I guess I am in the business of paying for health insurance and you typically get a 30 day grace period




I'm not sure why this matters but the difference is the first payment usually has to be on time. I know with COBRA you have a 60 day grace period on the first payment but anything you do prior to making the first payment you pay for and then have to file reimbursement. Once you make the first payment you have a 30 day grace period each month or you get cancelled however they continue to pay assuming you are going to pay your premiums.

Reality is that the plans were not going to take effect until the first payment was received. However by executive decree they were told to start the plans and give the grace period for payment.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/15/14 07:22 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Hornpharmd, does this apply to AGW/ACC as well? ; )




yes but difference there is we are believing the expert opinions of the scientific community. Those sources are verifiable. Here we are all anonymous so we can not verify how credible sources are. It is up to us to decide how much credibilty we put into opinions on here. That is linking credible sources is the best way to back up claims or opinions.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/15/14 07:27 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Reality is that the plans were not going to take effect until the first payment was received. However by executive decree they were told to start the plans and give the grace period for payment.




That was due to all of the system glitches and the grace periods are very small. The fact is the initial question on how many people have enrolled but not made a payment was a pointless question. It involves the issue of default which has not yet occurred and is way too early to evaluate. It is simply distraction and propaganda on the side that has never supported ACA and does not want to give it a fair chance to work.

Roger
(2500+ posts)
01/15/14 07:56 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

The fact is the initial question on how many people have enrolled but not made a payment was a pointless question.



Actually this question goes to all the reports that X number of people had registered but had yet to complete the payments. This was all over the news in December which prompted the President to issue his decree.

My guess is that the actual numbers in February/March on how many people paid for the plans will be lower than what the numbers for enrolles right now is. However I don't think it is because people are trying to get free health care but more because people went through the process and then never intended to buy that insurance due to either finding something else or deciding it was too expensive.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/20/14 05:39 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

My guess is that the actual numbers in February/March on how many people paid for the plans will be lower than what the numbers for enrolles right now is.




of course it will. there will be some defaults like there were under the previous system. how could it be higher?

the fact is this isn't an issue yet because it is too early to have that data, thus that information was not available in the original article, thus it was a pointless question......at this point. so there is also no point to make projections based on nothing substantial and then to make conclusions based on those made up projections.....conclusions like this will put hospitals into bankruptcy, etc.

let's just wait and see what happens.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/20/14 05:51 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

updated enrollment numbers

you can ignore the editorial comments in this article. just linking because it contains factual enrollment number updates. now 2.2 million through 12/28.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/20/14 06:15 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

There are numerous studies showing that more than 2/3 of those people already had insurance. Quoting MSNBC does nothing to your credibility on the analysis of ACA...

At the end of the day, for all of the rhetoric and promises about what Obamacare would achieve, the health law’s most ardent supporters have stuck to their guns because of one thing: coverage expansion. But new data suggests that Obamacare may fail even to achieve this goal. Instead of expanding coverage to those without it, Obamacare is replacing the pre-existing market for private insurance. Surveys from insurers and other industry players indicate that as few as 11 percent of those on Obamacare’s exchanges were previously uninsured. If these trends continue, the probability increases that Obamacare will eventually get repealed.
The Link


hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/23/14 03:48 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

There are numerous studies showing that more than 2/3 of those people already had insurance. Quoting MSNBC does nothing to your credibility on the analysis of ACA...




I mentioned why I limked it and to ignore the editorial comments. Do you disagree with those numbers? They are widely reported. You have lnked nothing and that gives you zero credibility. Your point about '2/3' is pointless. The goal is to enroll a certain number...that never stated that these were people previously uninsured. you are trying to move the goalposts.

In reply to:


At the end of the day, for all of the rhetoric and promises about what Obamacare would achieve, the health law’s most ardent supporters have stuck to their guns because of one thing: coverage expansion. But new data suggests that Obamacare may fail even to achieve this goal. Instead of expanding coverage to those without it, Obamacare is replacing the pre-existing market for private insurance. Surveys from insurers and other industry players indicate that as few as 11 percent of those on Obamacare’s exchanges were previously uninsured. If these trends continue, the probability increases that Obamacare will eventually get repealed.




other editorial comments which are unsubstantiated and can be ignored on that basis.

Roger
(2500+ posts)
01/23/14 04:51 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

The goal is to enroll a certain number...that never stated that these were people previously uninsured.




whose goal? and what time period? I thought the goal of the ACA was to insure the uninsured.

mojo17
(1000+ posts)
01/23/14 07:59 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

They are insureing the once insured before they uninsured them and now they have less insured than before they uninsured them.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/25/14 10:50 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

whose goal? and what time period? I thought the goal of the ACA was to insure the uninsured.




The goal mentioned was regarding the number to enroll. reading comprehension is key.

The goal is that of the administration base on the CBO estimates and is 7 million to enroll for coverage through the exchanges by 3/31/14. they are currently at 3 million. This does not count those who have signed up for medicaid under medicaid expansion.

www.politico.com/story/2013/06/kathleen-sebelius-says-exchange-goal-is-7-million-by-march-93301.html

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/25/14 01:18 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Does anybody but diehard Obama supporters believe anything he or his administration says? The facts are (as supported by my link) that most of the touted enrollees already had insurance. They have not come close to their needed number and those who are enrolling are largely older, sicker people. Next year, premiums will skyrocket and the insurance companies will be bailed out by the taxpayers.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
01/26/14 02:36 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

The facts are (as supported by my link) that most of the touted enrollees already had insurance.




I am only posting facts and correcting those who are not. Did somebody tell you that we were only looking to enroll those who were previously uncovered? I will want to see the total number of those uninsured at the end of the enrollment period to compare it to the number of uninsured before ACA. One od the main goals is to expand coverage so ultimately that will be a big measuring stick. I will be looking at the longer term affect though as well and it ultimately may take 3 years or more for us to really make a good conclusion. In the meantime lets just stick with the facts and not our own predictions.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
01/26/14 06:19 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

The primary premise and selling point (there were plenty of other lies) of the law was to cover those who previously were uninsured. Are you admitting that the real goal was single payer?

The facts are that the law cannot support itself unless someone actually pays for it and that comes through healthy young people enrolling as well as massive tax increases. I know economics is something foreign to democrats, but even a pill counter can add.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
02/11/14 07:12 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

The primary premise and selling point (there were plenty of other lies) of the law was to cover those who previously were uninsured. Are you admitting that the real goal was single payer?




of course that is a goal. That is how we expand coverage. but the enrollment goal is a goal based on total enrollment. that will include those who previously had coverage and those that dis not. what you need to wait to see is the total number uninsured before and after.

In reply to:

The facts are that the law cannot support itself unless someone actually pays for it




based on?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
02/12/14 06:15 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Based upon that ridiculous theory called "math." Despite what you liberals believe, you cannot continue to spend more money than you take in. Obamacare is anchored by giving as many people as possible free insurance to make it popular. Unfortunately, someone does have to pay for it.

nashhorn
(500+ posts)
02/12/14 12:29 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

They don't need our money, they can just print it - all they need, maybe a few million a month, why not? I mean really, who's counting?
Until we lose our position as the monetary standard ( and it is going to happen, no one in Congress is going to do anything to slow, much less stop, Obama.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
02/16/14 01:33 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Despite what you liberals believe, you cannot continue to spend more money than you take in




It is a problem in both parties. Look at spending under the last few Republican administrations. Neither Presidential candidate in the last election talked about entitled reform in a serious manner. Military spending spyrocketed under Bush and President Obama has not done a great job in bringing it back down. President Obama was for raising taxes and has fought hard in that area...which is aimed at increasing revenue to help balance the equation.

The rest of your post is not a counterpoint. Just typical rhetoric that you say when you hit a brick wall.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
02/16/14 01:46 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Feb2014/ib_2014feb_enrollment.pdf

Update:

3.3 million enrolled from 10/1/13 to 2/1/14.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
02/16/14 05:42 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Pharm
Interesting site you linked
I see many mentions of people who ' selected

and I admit I didn't review it minutely
so
did your link provide how many of those who selected plans PAID for the plans? Do you know how many who selected actually paid?

and Pharm can you explain who PAYS for sevices if those who " selected : plans quit paying?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
02/16/14 06:45 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

You specifically asked a question about the sustainability of ACA and I answered it. You then come back with fiscally irresponsible people from the past as a defense?

And even the most loyal Obama supporter knows enrollment is way behind EVEN though it is now mandatory. I am beginning to believe you are on the MSNBC payroll.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
02/17/14 04:49 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

6721,

I think I read where actual enrollment is 80% of selected. I don't know how accurate that percentage is, however.

NJlonghorn
(250+ posts)
02/17/14 09:29 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

military spending spyrocketed


Best typo ever. There is truth in what you meant to type, and just as much truth in what you actually typed.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
02/17/14 12:26 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Uni
thanks
all I have found is that they don't actually know.
I did however see the admin said 4/5 of those who selected a plan qualified for us taxpayers to subsidize their premiums/



hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
02/28/14 08:48 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

enrollment now up to 4 million

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
02/28/14 08:52 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

did your link provide how many of those who selected plans PAID for the plans? Do you know how many who selected actually paid?




The link could only provide information that is available. if you have that info feel free to post so we can discuss.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
02/28/14 08:56 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

You specifically asked a question about the sustainability of ACA and I answered it.




Help me out. link a quote with my question you are referring to.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
02/28/14 10:18 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

The New York Times recently published an article/study where 20% of enrollees have not paid their premiums. In the greatest stretch of liberal numbers, that places the total at 3.2 million enrollees. At least 10% of those were previously covered (most people believe the number is much higher given 6 million lost their plans - And the back end of the website is not complete preventing any true idea of numbers), so the true number is still less than 3 million. These enrollment figures are despite the fact that there is a legal requirement to enroll.

I know your are a proponent, but surely you will admit this is troubling for the program. Add in the low numbers of healthy people who have enrolled, and you have a recipe for failure.

I posted a link on the other recent ACA post to an article in the Huffington Post citing that most uninsured people had a unfavorable view of ACA. How do you spin all of this as good news?

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
02/28/14 10:29 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

but surely you will admit this is troubling for the program.




Oh boy, so you're now worried the program doesn't have enough happy customers? Don't worry, just like your extreme 'concern' about the website not working has been alleviated, this too will be.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
02/28/14 10:41 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Turn the lights up in Mom's basement and read the post. I am not worried about anything - ACA as written is a miserable failure and the democrats will feel it in the midterms.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/02/14 05:17 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

How do you spin all of this as good news?




Why are you asking random questions and derailing the discussion we were just having? I asked you something specific. Address that before moving on.

I do find it funny you want to make commentary when all I do is post an updated enrollment number that has been released.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
03/02/14 06:22 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Interestingly, we have spent 684 Million on Obamacare advertising which is only a portion of total marketing costs. Either the marketing campaign has been ineffective or the product that is being marketed sucks. Since it is free marketing for the insurance companies, however, I guess one could just consider it an entitlement for the insurance industry.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/02/14 06:32 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

You want me to provide a link to a post just a few up -then you accuse me of derailing?

If we wanted to see the Obama numbers, we would google any number of his sites which appear to be neutral, but are just propaganda.

My question is how do you see the numbers YOU posted? Positive or negative. If you have no opinion, maybe this forum is not for you...

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/06/14 09:21 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

You want me to provide a link to a post just a few up -then you accuse me of derailing?




Yes. i think you are incorrect regarding a question you have said I asked. so please quote me to show what you are referring to.

as of now you just seem to be all over the place in this discussion.

In reply to:

My question is how do you see the numbers YOU posted?[\quote]

I am making no analysis at this point. Do you dispute the numbers? Not sure why you are capitalizing you.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/07/14 05:54 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

See my math post.

I think everyone will be excited to see your next post with the administration's numbers! After all, this is the most honest and transparent President ever!

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
03/07/14 09:33 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Now we learn that the very people BO insisted would benefit the most. all those 47 million uninsured, aren't signing up.
with days to go in enrollment period few previously uninsured appear to have enrolled OR are going to enroll

We have wasted over a trillion so far and we aren't making a dent in the very group BO gnashed his teeth over?
With what we have spent we could have covered every one of those 47 million including the ones who simply chose not to have health ins and even the illegals for many years.

BO has made so many illegal changes and exceptions to his " signature" legislation that he very well may have reneged on more obamacare regulations that he is enforcing.




Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
03/07/14 10:11 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

CNN doesn't have anything positive to say about obamacare. No good news at all As a matter of fact, I can't seem to find hardly any positive stories on any news site regarding this subject.

dillohorn
(2500+ posts)
03/07/14 10:13 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Ask Obama. He says it's working just fine.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/07/14 11:41 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

We have wasted over a trillion so far and we aren't making a dent in the very group BO gnashed his teeth over?




A pittance, compared to the $8-10 trillion on the idiotic iraq war. And this is for the health insurance of our people.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/07/14 12:04 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

all those 47 million uninsured, aren't signing up.




Did you think we were going to get all uninsured signed up through ACA? we will see less people uninsured after ACA. Medicaid expansion is a big part of that. It would have more of an impact if all states were expanding medicaid.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/07/14 12:10 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

I think everyone will be excited to see your next post with the administration's numbers!




and still nothing. Well after multiple attempts at asking you to show me the quote where you say I asked you a question about the sustainability of ACA you have not provided it. the reason is because it does not exist.

If you disagree with the numbers then link a source that indicates what specifically you find flawed in the numbers and what numbers you find to be credible. Post facts so we can discuss them. if you disagree with the facts I am linking then refute them with facts you are seeing elsewhere.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/07/14 01:13 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Copied from your post:


In reply to:
The primary premise and selling point (there were plenty of other lies) of the law was to cover those who previously were uninsured. Are you admitting that the real goal was single payer?



of course that is a goal. That is how we expand coverage. but the enrollment goal is a goal based on total enrollment. that will include those who previously had coverage and those that dis not. what you need to wait to see is the total number uninsured before and after.

In reply to:
The facts are that the law cannot support itself unless someone actually pays for it

YOUR COMMENTS

based on? -----This is your specific question. I know you feel like everybody else is just dumb or lying (Reid's Orders), but you asked a question about why it was not sustainable. Not in those exact words, but that was what you asked.




theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/09/14 06:44 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

The Obama administration has, for months now, been peddling nice-sounding numbers as to how many people are gaining health coverage due to Obamacare. But their numbers have been inflated on two fronts. First, not everyone who has “selected a marketplace plan” under Obamacare has actually paid the required premiums, payment being required to actually gain coverage. Second, only a fraction of people on the exchanges were previously uninsured. A new survey from McKinsey gives us a better view into the real numbers. Of the 3.3 million people that the White House has touted as Obamacare exchange “sign-ups,” less than 500,000 are actual uninsured people who have actually gained health coverage.

The Link

McKinsey is one of the most respected organizations in healthcare. The numbers are deceiving and point to looming problems for ACA.


Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
03/09/14 08:08 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Did you think we were going to get all uninsured signed up through ACA? we will see less people uninsured after ACA.




More people are uninsured now and that number will continue to increase until there is a non-Democrat in the White House.

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
03/10/14 12:17 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

This is a joke, right?

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/10/14 12:38 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

More people are uninsured now and that number will continue to increase until there is a non-Democrat in the White House.




In reply to:

This is a joke, right?




It is a sign that they've given up, as they don't have actual facts to back them up. You'll have to give them a few more hours, when the faux news cycle spins out the latest talking points and sends them scurrying back here.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/10/14 01:05 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Who do we trust? Independent world renown consultants or the administration of "you can keep your plan" and "you can keep your doctor" ?

I will give Roger this, never gives up on his pied piper.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
03/10/14 03:26 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Google is their friend, if they want to learn. 500,000 previously uninsured are now insured. That number is dwarfed by the downward pressure on employment, the drops of medical coverage benefits by businesses, the incentive to move employees part-time to avoid ACA consequences, and the decline in healthcare coverage by the middle-class who cannot afford to pay for their insurance and subsidize the insurance of others. My personal insurance is over $1000 with approximately $10,000 in deductibles before insurance begins to pay. Many people in such a situation will opt out.

Below is a biased article but was the first on google search.
The Link

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/10/14 05:33 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Google is the friend that could give them the honest truth - unfortunately they rely solely upon sites that end in .gov.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/10/14 07:14 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

but you asked a question about why it was not sustainable. Not in those exact words, but that was what you asked.




glad you gave it some effort. That however is not what was asked.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/10/14 07:19 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Of the 3.3 million people that the White House has touted as Obamacare exchange “sign-ups,” less than 500,000 are actual uninsured people who have actually gained health coverage.




Sign ups are sign ups. The number of those that have enrolled was never mentioned to be newly insured only.

What you will want to do is wait until after the enrollment period and look at how many are uninsured ( do not have health coverage) then compared to the previous number.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/10/14 08:36 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Do tell. What was asked or is this just one of your long diversions from discussing the subject?

The numbers will prove out in the end, good or bad. However, sign ups are not enrollees and enrollees are not necessarily previously uninsured. I just wonder what it is like to live with your head buried in the sand.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
03/11/14 04:01 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

The numbers will prove out in the end, good or bad. However, sign ups are not enrollees and enrollees are not necessarily previously uninsured.




Are all uninsured the same or is one type of uninsured worse than another? In the past, the uninsured have been a mixture of the poor, illegal aliens, the healthy young, and those with debilitating preexisting conditions

If subsidies are too high, then those in the middle class and upper middle class will become a new and growing class of uninsured. For example, my brother's friend is a real estate agent and owns a small real estate firm. He told me that he is now uninsured because the cost is $1500 per month ($18,000 per year) for him and his family. There are many others who were previously insured through their workplace but the company they work for has dropped coverage benefits because of cost. Does it have any differential effect on society when the uninsured is a low wage earner vs when it is a high wage earner who already has a high tax burden? Does it create societal problems if the poor can obtain insurance but the mid and high income working class cannot obtain insurance?

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
03/11/14 06:56 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

This shows the number of uninsured sharply lower in January of 2014. 16.1% vs. 17.3% in December of 2013.

The Link

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/11/14 08:27 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Did you read the whole article? I do not think sharply and modestly are the same description.

Implications

Preliminary results from the first 19 days of January show the U.S. uninsured rate has modestly declined since the health insurance mandate went into effect at the beginning of the year. The uninsured rate has fluctuated at other points over the past several years, so it is unclear if this small decline is a reflection of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that took effect on Jan. 1, or if this is part of a trend based on other reasons.

Still, with only 2.1 million Americans newly enrolled in plans through the exchanges as of Dec. 28, 2013, the Obama administration and other proponents of the new healthcare law have a long way to go in hopes of reaching the goal of increasing the number of Americans who have health coverage.

Gallup will continue to track the U.S. uninsured rate in the weeks and months ahead.

I see this as a result of the expansion of medicaid. The biggest change is in unemployed. Yes, this is a result of ACA, but you did not have to create such a massive law to simply increase the eligibility of medicaid. Honestly, am I misreading the article you posted?

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
03/11/14 08:38 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Yes, you are misreading it.

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
03/11/14 08:52 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Paso
How much do you think unemployed going on Medicaid added to the drop in uninsured ?

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
03/11/14 09:22 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Not as much as it should have thanks to shitheads like Rick Perry.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/11/14 09:55 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Okay, what part? Where is the sharp decrease you describe and what caused it?

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
03/11/14 10:42 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I am well aware of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. 9000 families is an appropriate sample size, but there is an inherent bias towards reachable adults. Expect their numbers to be different than those obtained in a census.

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
03/11/14 10:44 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

17.3% to 16.1% in one month is not a sharp decrease?



pasotex
(2500+ posts)
03/11/14 10:59 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

This seems fair:

In reply to:

People will be even more confused by the inevitable spinning of the numbers. The anti-Obamacare crowd will selectively seize on the most negative numbers possible to try to further discredit an already unpopular law; the pro-ACA crowd will selectively seize on the most positive numbers possible to show that the law is beginning to achieve its lofty goals.

The reality likely will fall somewhere in between. Based on what we know now or can reasonably expect:

Enrollment may fall modestly short of meeting the administration’s revised enrollment goals although still "large enough for the market to function."

The initial reported end of March enrollment numbers will probably be reduced a few weeks later when the government figures out how many people actually ended up paying the premium. Currently, about one out of five have not paid according to the New York Times and will be dropped from the initial enrollment totals.

Enrollment of younger people may also fall short although not by enough to create a premium death cycle.

The number of Americans without health insurance will decrease by several million in 2014 although millions more will remain uninsured—no big surprise, since all along it was expected to take as much as a decade to cover the bulk of the uninsured. Sarah Kliff notes that in its most recent report, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined that "Over time, more people are expected to respond to the new coverage options, so enrollment is projected to increase sharply in 2015 and 2016 . . . Starting in 2017, between 24 million and 25 million people are expected to obtain coverage each year through exchanges, and roughly 80 percent of those enrollees are expected to receive subsidies for purchasing that insurance."

The enrollment numbers will be a complicated mix of people who previously didn’t have coverage (the uninsured), people who had to switch plans because their old plans didn’t meet ACA standards (some of whom will like their new plans, others who won’t), people newly eligible for Medicaid, people who already were eligible for Medicaid but didn’t know it, and people who left employer-coverage to buy a marketplace plan, either on their own volition or because they had no choice.

Enrollment will vary greatly by state. Reports of “success” stories in some states with better than expected enrollment are likely to be counterbalanced by reports of “failures” in other states with lower than expected enrollment. For example, as of February 1, Pennsylvania was way ahead of many other states in ACA marketplace penetration: out of 286,926 eligible to enroll in a marketplace plan, 123,680—just over 43%--had signed up. In Delaware, fewer than 24% of eligible persons had enrolled; in New Jersey, it was just over 27%.

You probably won’t hear a lot about the actual people behind the enrollment numbers who have gained the most from the ACA. They include 1.8 million who could not get coverage because of a cancer diagnosis and more than 2.8 million who faced the same hurdle because of a diagnosis of diabetes. “Altogether, more than 5.7 million have been diagnosed with these . . . and similarly serious conditions,” reported health policy scholar Harold Pollack in a recent blog post. For the first time, many of them will have access to affordable health insurance coverage that can’t be denied because of their pre-existing conditions.



The Link

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
03/11/14 11:03 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

paso
that really isn't an answer.
If Medicaid enrollment has increased beyond what would be expected then of course that would reduce the number of uninsured.

What if all those who could afford to buy insurnaace actually bought insurance? Add in the people over 65 who qualify for medicare

and as far as I remember illegals were included in the original number thrown around 41-47 million
so if we took out all those who qualify for medicare, those could afford it but choose not to and those who are not entitled to it we would get to a real number
a real number that could have been ' insured" a whole lot less that what we have spent and are spending
and without disrupting the millions of people lives.

militaryhorn
(1000+ posts)
03/11/14 11:20 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I think the real success or failure of the ACA will be the effect it has on the wallet (both government and personal). The overall intent is to have affordable coverage. The coverage part I think has been taken care of for the most part, either through Medicare or private insurance coverage. To me the coverage is not the worst thing to worry about, it is the cost associated with the coverage.

In the big scheme of things, the cost will drive how many will eventually sign up. If the cost can be at a point that the market will bear, then I think more will sign up for coverage.

Most of the articles that I have read do point towards more people that were previously insured are the ones signing up on the exchanges but there are many that have coverage now because of the expanded Medicare.

I think this discussion here needs to decided which number you want to discuss. They are totally two separate issues if you ask my opinion.

I feel that the private/exchange numbers should be discussed since that is what is mostly reported in the news. Saying that 3.3 million people have signed up doesn't say much. But saying 500,000 of the 3.3 million who have signed up have not had any insurance previously is saying something.

pasotex
(2500+ posts)
03/11/14 11:20 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Every time someone on the Right claims that things should have been done differently, I reflect on just how many proposals were proposed and passed by the Republicans over the past 25 years.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/11/14 12:03 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

I reflect on just how many proposals were proposed and passed by the Republicans over the past 25 years






\m/
(250+ posts)
03/11/14 12:10 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Every time someone on the Right claims that things should have been done differently, I reflect on just how many proposals were proposed and passed by the Republicans over the past 25 years.




There should only be one "proposal" -- get government completely out of health care.

But that "proposal" has been met with left-wing howls of Grandma being thrown off the cliff.

When your solution is deemed a non-starter by the opposition (including the mainstream media), then what does one do but bide time until the whole thing collapses?

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/11/14 12:59 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

But that "proposal" has been met with left-wing howls of Grandma being thrown off the cliff.




Yeah like this: Death panels

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/11/14 01:01 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

then what does one do but bide time until the whole thing collapses?




When is right going to learn? They've had the same attitude towards social security, medicare, etc, since their inception. Yet, these programs only get stronger and more popular, helping lift millions from despair.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/11/14 01:17 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

If you expand the qualifications of a free lunch program, guess what? more people will be eating free lunches. However, ACA cannot sustain itself by the number of new free riders join the program and the article YOU posted states that it is not a "sharp" decline. Your Obamanesque description of it is right along the MSNBC talking points though.

msdw24
(2500+ posts)
03/11/14 02:12 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Yet, these programs only get stronger and more popular, helping lift millions from despair.


Yep nothing has changed. I take a few months off and you're still in looney toones land. You must think no one should have any personal resopnsibility at all.

militaryhorn
(1000+ posts)
03/11/14 08:38 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

helping lift millions from despair.




Or they realize eventually too late in life that these programs don't pay enough to live off by themselves and are forced to work well into their sixties. All because they thought it was going to be the answer to their retirement but in reality the programs are there to supplement retirement.

The biggest farce politicians make today is the perception that SS is your retirement answer. Don't believe the hype people. Plan for the worst...that it won't be there when you will need it.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/12/14 05:35 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2014/03/11/aca-enrollment-hits-42m/

4.2 million as of March 1st.

Will be interesting to see how FUnny or die video impacts young people to enroll.


Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
03/12/14 07:37 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Pharm
were you offering that link to try to show it as a good stat?

did you read the article at the link?

What happens to those ' enrollees' if they never make a payment?
Pharm
who pays if those enrollees make one payment but then stop yet continue to get medical care under those plans? Who pays for that care?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/12/14 08:47 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I have tried to get Pharm to answer those questions, but he cannot answer them to support ACA so he refuses.

There is overwhelming evidence that the majority were previously insured and the majority of the newly insured have not paid. Add in the mix of not enough healthy people in the pool and you have financial trouble ahead.

As for the skit, sad to believe that such a serious issue takes a SNL style skit to get people's attention. With that said, it was hilarious.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/16/14 05:43 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

were you offering that link to try to show it as a good stat?




Offering it as a link to a media outlet reporting the updated enrollment numbers. That is the purpose of this thread and why I have been posting updated figures when they are available.

In reply to:

did you read the article at the link?




Yes I always read what I link.

In reply to:

What happens to those ' enrollees' if they never make a payment?




they will lose their coverage and have to pay fee for not having ins on their tax return next year.

In reply to:

who pays if those enrollees make one payment but then stop yet continue to get medical care under those plans? Who pays for that care?




I do not know if all ins companies will require prepayment before enrollment will be effective or continue to stay effective. I would think they would. Thus if that is the case if they do not continue to pay then they will lose coverage and be charged the cash price for any services they utilize. you cannot continue to get medical care covered by a plan that you are no longer paying for.



hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/16/14 05:46 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

As for the skit, sad to believe that such a serious issue takes a SNL style skit to get people's attention. With that said, it was hilarious.




They are called twenty year olds.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/17/14 06:24 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Sure they are. In liberal world, when do you expect people to become responsible? They can have kids, vote and go to war, but need the lead idiot in Hangover to get them to enroll in supposedly free healthcare?

We are definitely headed for ruin under democratic leadership.

And for the record, I do not think it was beneath the President. It was very smart, just like empowering ACORN to get out the vote even if it was fraud. It got him his way.


hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/18/14 08:35 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

5 million have now enrolled. surge in enrollments in March.

Vol Horn 4 Life
(2500+ posts)
03/18/14 09:01 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Consumers who make less than four times the federal poverty level, or about $94,000 for a family of four, qualify for government subsidies to offset the cost of their premiums.






I love the term "government subsidies" especially when someone making almost a hundred grand a year is getting them.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/18/14 09:53 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

I love the term "government subsidies" especially when someone making almost a hundred grand a year is getting them.




I know right! Instead of the billionaires and oligarchs pulling in all those govt subsidies/tax breaks, how dare the rest of the people get them!

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/18/14 10:16 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Tavenner's agency did not disclose how many of the 5 million enrollees have paid for their insurance plans, which is required for enrollment to be official, and for benefits to be provided to a person. Insurance industry experts have estimated that between 15 to 20 percent of enrollees have not paid yet, and one expert told CNBC.com he expects that after open enrollment closes, about 10 percent of Obamacare ernollees will end up not paying for the plans they selected.

CMS also did not disclose what percentage of the 5 million sign-ups have come from people who previously had insurance. Obamacare critics have claimed that the bulk of enrollments have come from the previously insured, as opposed to the uninsured that the health-care reform law is supposed to be helping the most.

Vol Horn 4 Life
(2500+ posts)
03/18/14 12:24 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

I know right! Instead of the billionaires and oligarchs pulling in all those govt subsidies/tax breaks, how dare the rest of the people get them!




Do you know what a government subsidy is and where the money is collected? These people are taxed so the money can be filtered through the ACA system paying for all of the middle men to give themselves a subsidy. Only the left could come up with such a genius idea.

Oh thats right, gubmnt subsidieees com frum then arrrrre.

Vol Horn 4 Life
(2500+ posts)
03/18/14 06:47 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

The backend mess begins.

I predict many more issues like this to come.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
03/19/14 06:54 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

5 million have now enrolled. surge in enrollments in March.


In reply to:

the Obama administration announced.


Really credible source that Obama administration...

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/20/14 06:32 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

The front end issues have already begun with hospitals. Major cuts in reimbursement for hospitals and doctors have resulted in massive layoffs, reduction in use of safer procedures during surgery, fewer caregivers on the floors, and less support personnel working behind the scenes for critical areas such as sterilization.

If you are entering a hospital for surgery, make sure you are first on the schedule and ask if there are any optional safety services/products/devices available for the procedure out of your pocket.

Good luck finding a quality hospital and your choice of doctor as well. The Link


Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/20/14 02:04 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Major cuts in reimbursement for hospitals and doctors have resulted in massive layoffs,




Good, they've been abusing the system for so long that they've got enough cash on hand to live out the rest of their golden years.

In reply to:

reduction in use of safer procedures during surgery,




Now this is the usual rw/palin bs. Which "safer procedures" are being 'reduced'?

In reply to:


fewer caregivers on the floors, and less support personnel working behind the scenes for critical areas such as sterilization.




While throwing out horse manure, let's throw some more. So un-sterile instruments are increasing?

In reply to:


If you are entering a hospital for surgery, make sure you are first on the schedule and ask if there are any optional safety services/products/devices available for the procedure out of your pocket.




Aha! So some of these hospitals are now offering 'optional' safety procedures, out of pocket? If this is indeed the case, someone needs to/has already reported it to the DOJ under their fraud/abuse investigation. As soon as I'm done posting this, I'll be sending out an email to the DOJ helpdesk with the same.

In reply to:

Good luck finding a quality hospital and your choice of doctor as well.




That's always been the case -- sometimes one does need luck in finding the doctor/hospital that they absolutely love. That will continue to be the case.

Edit: Report Fraud or call 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477)

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/20/14 02:15 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I got a kick out of the mugshots of all these criminals:

oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp#other-fugitives

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/20/14 03:19 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Google Neuromonitoring. The procedure involves having a technician connect a device to your body to measure whether the surgeon is harming your nerves. Basically a remote neurologist monitors and communicates to the surgeon whether they are negatively impacting your nervous system including possible paralysis. CMS cut the reimbursement by 75% resulting in hospitals considering it as optional.

So you consider less people working in a hospital a benefit of ACA? I am always amazed by your idiocy, but this tops it.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/20/14 03:23 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

If there are limited number of people working in sterile processing, you think this is good? The most dangerous bugs reside in hospitals and you want sterile processing working with the lowest paid people with limited staffing? I suggest you have surgery late in the day to prove how much you love ACA.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/20/14 03:28 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Your mugshots are all examples of Medicare and medicaid fraud. Government programs are the biggest victims of fraud and ACA will dwarf those two programs. Thanks for confirming just how stupid you are.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/21/14 10:23 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

So you consider less people working in a hospital a benefit of ACA?




If one person is picking up the instrument and handing it to a second, second then places in sterilizer, a third retrieves from sterilizer and hands to a fourth, who then with great care puts the instrument back. Yeah, that's an efficient way.


In reply to:

I am always amazed by your idiocy, but this tops it.




A TP'er/John Birch-type commenting on someone else's mental capacity should be strongly 'refudiated'.

In reply to:



If there are limited number of people working in sterile processing, you think this is good? The most dangerous bugs reside in hospitals and you want sterile processing working with the lowest paid people with limited staffing? I suggest you have surgery late in the day to prove how much you love ACA.




See above for an answer to your idiotic, 'let's see how much I can stretch this thing' query. And I did have surgery recently (a month ago) to repair my knee. Other than wanting to kick the anesthesiologist in the nuts for having a crappy attitude, everything went off just fine.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/21/14 10:26 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Google Neuromonitoring. The procedure involves having a technician connect a device to your body to measure whether the surgeon is harming your nerves. Basically a remote neurologist monitors and communicates to the surgeon whether they are negatively impacting your nervous system including possible paralysis. CMS cut the reimbursement by 75% resulting in hospitals considering it as optional.




Instead of just posting bs, why not provide an actual article supporting your (bs) claim?


Monahorns
(1000+ posts)
03/21/14 10:28 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Rog, don't assume your imagined process is reality

In reply to:

If one person is picking up the instrument and handing it to a second, second then places in sterilizer, a third retrieves from sterilizer and hands to a fourth, who then with great care puts the instrument back. Yeah, that's an efficient way.




It just shows your complete lack of understanding of what you are talking about.

More people =/= a longer chain of people handling. It means one person handling more items which means those items receive sterilization less often.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/21/14 10:31 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Your mugshots are all examples of Medicare and medicaid fraud. Government programs are the biggest victims of fraud and ACA will dwarf those two programs.




That was an illustration to show that the DOJ has been going after a bunch of doctors and hospitals who've been scamming the system for a long time. I know this from the inside. There will be crooks/criminals who'll try the same thing with the ACA, it becomes everyone's civic duty to report these to the DOJ & the HHS.

In reply to:

Thanks for confirming just how stupid you are.




You should bring your IQ above room temp before posting on a MB.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/21/14 10:36 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

It just shows your complete lack of understanding of what you are talking about.

More people =/= a longer chain of people handling. It means one person handling more items which means those items receive sterilization less often.




You answer your own question. There is NOTHING that shows that instruments are being improperly/insufficiently sterilized because of the ACA. It is just more hot air from the rw, something they've been doing since it was first proposed. It's one thing to express dislike for the program, it's a whole another to wilfully post/spread mis-information and propaganda.

NEWDOC2002
(2500+ posts)
03/21/14 12:45 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Rog,

Please detail your extensive medical background and experience in either clinical medicine or medical administration. We are all ears.

And I can tell you firsthand the last people needing payment cuts and salary reductions in medicine are precisely the first ones getting it.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
03/21/14 01:02 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Please detail your extensive medical background and experience in either clinical medicine or medical administration. We are all ears.




Newdoc we've been over this in past. I come from a family of doctors, both retired as well as currently practicing. There are the old timer greedy types, who made millions of $$ by milking the system, used all the services that this country has to offer (SS, medicare for their old parents, etc), YET voted republican because they didn't like paying taxes. And then the younger generation who are more socially responsible and after the Palin debacle on the McCain ticket, are solidly democratic and strong Obama supporters. In other words, I know what the heck I'm talking about.

In reply to:

And I can tell you firsthand the last people needing payment cuts and salary reductions in medicine are precisely the first ones getting it.




If you're talking about the surgeons and those doing interventional procedures, HECK NO, they don't need to be pulling in millions by doing unnecessary procedures. They'll survive on the $300K - $400K that they'll make anyways. If you're talking about the internists, I agree they probably should be in the $250K range instead of the average of ~$150K right now. It's not surprising that the ones screaming loudest are the surgeons and the hospitals.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
03/21/14 03:58 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Best comment made about obamacare: "They screwed it up again. Can't do anything right." Rog, you're not a contractor for them are you?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/21/14 08:42 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Here is the SPD link. It is scary that idiots like you actually vote and support politicians that equally do not understand what they are legislating.
The Link

"On any given day 40,000 instruments are handled at John Hopkins."

"The hospital operates with limited resources which leads to errors."


theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/21/14 08:46 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

This is an article talking about cutting of services in neuromonitoring. These cuts have occurred and actually have resulted in revenue reductions of more than 75%.
The Link

Again, you obviously have no idea about how healthcare works.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/22/14 05:10 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Health care providers announced more layoffs than any other industry last month — 8,128 — largely because of reductions by hospitals, according to outplacement firm Challenger Gray and Christmas. So far this year, the health care sector has announced 41,085 layoffs, the third-most behind financial and industrial companies.

The following are the 10 largest hospital and health system workforce reductions covered by Becker's Hospital Review this past year. They are listed below by the number of employees and/or positions affected, starting with the greatest number. The workforce reductions were implemented through layoffs, reduced hiring, reduced employee hours, attrition and the elimination of vacant positions.

1. LSU Hospitals. Hospitals within Baton Rouge-based Louisiana State University Health Care Services Division laid off 2,340 employees in its 2012-13 fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2013.

2. Franciscan Alliance. The Mishawaka, Ind.-based system cut 125 positions from its Illinois facilities in September and announced plans to lay off an additional 275 employees and eliminate 650 more positions in its Indiana facilities. In total, 1,050 employees were affected by the workforce reduction.

3. Vanderbilt University Medical Center. VUMC in Nashville, Tenn., planned to lay off 1,033 employees by the end of 2013. The major workforce reduction is part of VUMC's attempt to cut $250 million from its operating budget over its next two fiscal years.

4. Indiana University Health. The Indianapolis-based system initially announced plans in September to lay off 800 employees by Dec. 1, then upped that number to 900 workers in October.

5. St. Vincent Health. After announcing layoff plans in May, the 22-hospital system based in Indianapolis eliminated about 865 jobs this summer, cutting its labor budget by 5 percent.

6. SSM Health Care. The St. Louis-based system cut 586 positions through layoffs and attrition this year. Of the 586 eliminated jobs, 206 were in St. Louis.

7. PeaceHealth. PeaceHealth in Vancouver, Wash., slashed 500 total jobs throughout its system through layoffs, attrition and reduced hours this year.

8. Via Christi Health. The Wichita, Kan.-based system cut 4 percent of its workforce — roughly 350 or 400 positions — this summer through layoffs and the elimination of vacant positions.

9. Denver Health. The system announced plans this year to reduce its workforce by 5 percent by cutting about 300 jobs through layoffs, attrition and a reduction in new hires.

10. Detroit Medical Center. The eight-hospital system cut about 2 percent of its full-time equivalent positions this year, affecting 300 employees.

Vol Horn 4 Life
(2500+ posts)
03/22/14 12:33 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Ole Rog will soon let you know none of those workers were necessary. They were excessive fat trimmed from the bloated medical system.

We could eliminate 50% of our federal government starting with the entire department of education and the war on drugs which stops nothing and not skip a beat, but we're focused on cutting medical care employees.

Vol Horn 4 Life
(2500+ posts)
03/22/14 12:43 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

About 3.4 million have paid for Obamacare

According to insurance company statistics about 80-85% of people enrolled have paid their first premium.

texas_ex2000
(2500+ posts)
03/22/14 02:16 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

20%-15% have not paid then? That's pathetic. I think the the default rate on subprime mortgages peaked at 23%.

Statistically, that's not the company you want to be in.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/22/14 06:11 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

So far this year, the health care sector has announced 41,085 layoffs, the third-most behind financial and industrial companies.




Wow I didn't realize that the financial and industrial sector were also affected to such a degree by Obamacare. Also how do these layoffs compare to previous levels so we can get a baseline. Simply listing layoffs by numbers for just one or two months tells me very little.

Vol Horn 4 Life
(2500+ posts)
03/22/14 08:52 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

20%-15% have not paid then? That's pathetic




Not only that, these folks paid their first payment, but it's almost April and it doesn't mention how many have paid their second month.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/23/14 06:34 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

It was an all time high for the health sector. How is that for a baseline comparison?

Also, the article provided no correlation to those other industries, but yes, Obama's policies are not working there either.

mojo17
(1000+ posts)
03/23/14 10:24 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

No worries who needs jobs we got Uncle Sam. A side net Hospice House in Midland and Odessa are closing due to cuts in Medicare shifted to Obama care Very sad wonderful Drs and nurses that gave terminal and respite relief to families.

Michtex
(2500+ posts)
03/24/14 05:57 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

A side net Hospice House in Midland and Odessa are closing due to cuts in Medicare shifted to Obama care




In reply to:

The company’s initial statement that they would close Hospice House because of “stricter government healthcare rules” left many decrying the Affordable Care Act as to blame on social media. Company officials on Thursday sought to correct that impression.

“This is not what some call ‘Obamacare’ causing us to close the Hospice House,” Chancellor said in a Thursday statement. “These are Medicare rules being implemented under the Obama administration that have restricted access to care and caused many impatient facilities to close around the county.”

Company representatives explained four general categories of ways someone could be admitted to in-patient care at the Hospice House:

First, if there was a need for medical intervention to treat a malady overwhelming the ability of the at-home care in place — for example, an Alzheimer’s patient who suffered a stroke. A patient would be stabilized at home. Second, if someone needed care in the last stages of their life. Third, if a family needed “respite care” for a loved one for a short-period of time while they tended to an emergency like a death in the family. And finally, if the patients were children.

But federal government’s interpretation of the requirements a patient must meet in order for Medicare to reimburse hospice care narrowed as part of an effort to reduce Medicare spending, according to Home Hospice representatives. They described that as a decade-long trend intensifying in recent years.



The Link

mojo17
(1000+ posts)
03/24/14 08:13 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

The reason Medicare is trying to cut spending is due to money shifted to the ACA. It plainly states changes by the Obama admin.

Michtex
(2500+ posts)
03/24/14 08:25 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

The reason Medicare is trying to cut spending is due to money shifted to the ACA.




Are you sure that is the reason that Medicare is trying to cut spending?

In reply to:

The work that the hospice nurses, aides and counselors do, often in the most trying circumstances, is demanding, emotionally and physically. It typically allows patients to die at home or in other familiar surroundings — and for families of the dying, the comfort it offers can provide enormous relief.

But the survival rates at AseraCare are emblematic of a problem facing Medicare, which has created a financial incentive for hospice companies to find patients well before death.

Medicare pays a hospice about $150 a day per patient for routine care, regardless of whether the company sends a nurse or any other worker out on that day. That means healthier patients, who generally need less help and live longer, yield more profits.

The trend toward longer stays on hospice care may be costing Medicare billions of dollars a year.

In 2011, nearly 60 percent of Medicare’s hospice expenditure of $13.8 billion went toward patients who stay on hospice care longer than six months, MedPAC, the Medicare watchdog group created by Congress, has reported.

Some of those patients simply outlived a legitimate prognosis of six months.

But much of the data suggests that the trend toward longer stays is a response to the financial incentive.

Consider the difference between the nonprofit and for-profit hospices: While the average nonprofit serves a patient for 69 days, the average for-profit hospice serves a patient for an average of 102 days, according to MedPAC.


snip

The reason that longer stays are more profitable is that hospice companies typically spend more on patients at the beginning of their care and then again at the end of their lives.

When a patient is first enrolled, the hospice often must diagnose the patient’s illness, set up home equipment and get them stabilized. Then, during the last week of life, a hospice typically must pay for more frequent home visits by the nurse, aides and others.

As a result, patients who live a longer time — and for whom there is a long, stable period in the middle — generate more profits.

In 2008, MedPAC, the Medicare watchdog, noted that hospices were enrolling patients with diseases that were harder to define, resulting in long stays.

“Growth in hospice use was more rapid for patients with Alz­heimer’s disease and other generalized . . . disorders associated with long hospice stays than for other terminal diseases such as cancer and congestive heart failure,” it reported in 2008, adding that “there appear to be financial incentives in Medicare’s hospice payment system that make such patients attractive.”

Again in March 2009, MedPAC noted that the payment system favors patients with longer stays. “Our findings suggest that Medicare’s payment system for hospice needs to be significantly revised so that hospice care . . . is appropriate,” it reported.

Medicare has responded with measures that might make it more difficult for hospices to enroll ineligible patients.

In 2009, Medicare added a requirement that the physician, in recommending a patient for hospice care, must include a brief narrative explanation to support a life expectancy of six months or less.

In 2010, the agency added a requirement that a physician or nurse practitioner determine a patient’s continued eligibility for hospice in a face-to-face visit.

Next year, the agency will limit the use of vague categories when describing the ailments of hospice patients, specifically prohibiting the use of “debility” and “adult failure to thrive” as primary diagnoses.

And all along, Medicare has capped the average amount of money a company can make on a patient — currently about $25,000 — which amounts to about 180 days of routine care. This is not a per-patient limit but is averaged over all of a hospice’s patients.

Despite these rules, however, the number of long stays has not been reduced, according to the California data, and because of the large sums of money at stake, MedPAC in June added a sense of urgency to its recommendation.

“Given the magnitude of hospice spending devoted to long-stay patients, who are more profitable under the current payment system than other patients, it is important that an initial step toward payment reform be taken as soon as possible,” MedPAC wrote.

A spokesman for Medicare said the agency is considering hospice payment reform but that no such changes will happen in fiscal 2014.

“While the Medicare hospice benefit provides a choice for beneficiaries to seek the care that best meets their care needs and desires, Medicare has and will continue to take actions to safeguard this benefit from inappropriate use,” said Jonathan Blum, principal deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a statement.



The Link

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/24/14 10:03 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

So would Medicare be better off paying for normal care (ER visits, medications, Dr visits) for those additional 33 days on average? I bet not.

So is this article advocating "death panels?" No doctor can exactly diagnose the number of days any patient will live except for those on life preserving machines.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
03/24/14 06:49 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

And all along, Medicare has capped the average amount of money a company can make on a patient — currently about $25,000 — which amounts to about 180 days of routine care. This is not a per-patient limit but is averaged over all of a hospice’s patients. Despite these rules, however, the number of long stays has not been reduced, according to the California data, and because of the large sums of money at stake, MedPAC in June added a sense of urgency to its recommendation.




In reply to:

Consider the difference between the nonprofit and for-profit hospices: While the average nonprofit serves a patient for 69 days, the average for-profit hospice serves a patient for an average of 102 days, according to MedPAC.





So the government allows for an average of 180 days of hospice care while the average stay is currently 102 days. It seems like if the government wanted their policy to be effective, it would have allowed for payment up to 100 days. Such a system would keep hospices from enrolling healthier patients. Another way would be to incentivize hospice providers to take on sicker patients. And a final note, considering hospice care is much less expensive than hospital care, perhaps more money should be provided to the system to move terminal Medicare patients from hospitals to hospice care.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/26/14 04:14 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Is this technically a "law" still? Obama makes yet another arbitrary change.
The Link

Why not just enroll everyone who has a social security number and let the smart ones opt out? It would be much quicker.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
03/26/14 07:01 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

It was an all time high for the health sector.




based on?

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
03/26/14 07:14 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Every prior year counted. Are you disputing the numbers or just stretching every possible objection to the well documented side effects of the law?

Texas007
(2500+ posts)
03/31/14 12:08 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

the usual suspects still here defending a la the president has admitted is a failure. rich.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/01/14 08:38 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Every prior year counted




post a link please

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/01/14 08:40 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

6 million enrolled, on track for 7 million

late surge as expected

Horn6721
(10,000+ posts)
04/01/14 08:49 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

So I guess we will be able to" keep" that estimate as truthful just like we were expected to believe all the other BO Lies

People who actually believe this are to be pitied
I doubt pharm believes it

zork
(10,000+ posts)
04/01/14 02:45 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers



Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/01/14 08:24 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Read this hornpharmd Very telling numbers included in this article.

zork
(10,000+ posts)
04/01/14 11:51 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Thanks for the link.



In reply to:

4. Obamacare’s design gave insurers an incentive to ‘underprice’ in 2014

One last point. The various mechanisms that Obamacare’s exchanges use to keep insurers on board—what industry wonks call the “three Rs” of risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridors—have been exploited by some insurers to offer prices that, while still high, are relatively lower than their competitors. Obamacare incentivizes insurers to do this, because they know that in the early years of the exchanges, they’ll be reimbursed by taxpayers for doing so.


This is why Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), among others, has been sounding the alarm about a taxpayer-funded “bailout” of Obamacare-participating insurers. But as time goes on, the incentive that insurers have to use these tactics recedes. In 2015, many insurers who tried to underprice their premiums relative to their costs are planning to bring rates more in line with what they’re actually spending on health claims. That’s going to drive prices upward.

Pricing data will come out this summer

Insurers will have to file their proposed rates for 2015 in the late spring of 2014. So we should know by summer how this all shakes out. Don’t be surprised if Congress’ August recess is filled with another set of town hall meetings in which angry constituents ask politicians about their latest round of premium hikes. For those who already struggle to afford their health insurance bills, the worst is not yet over.

* * *

UPDATE: Echoing Mark Bertolini’s comments, WellPoint executive Ken Goulet told investors on Friday that “Looking at the rate increases on a year-over-year basis on our exchanges, and it will vary by carrier, but all of them will probably be in double digit plus.”




If people aren't signing up at the artificially low prices this year of 2014, hmmmm 2015 could be even worse for the taxpayers as prices rise.

Clean
(2500+ posts)
04/02/14 05:07 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Good article Mr Fiesta.

Pompous ass that he is, Obama was doing a victory dance yesterday declaring that 7 million signed up. Of course, there's this:

In reply to:

Unanswered is how many people have actually paid their premiums -- those who don't pay will not be considered enrolled. Also unclear is whether enough young and healthy people signed up to offset the cost of signing up older, less-healthy customers. And the administration still cannot say how many of those who enrolled via HealthCare.gov were simply people who had their old policies canceled because of the law.




The Link

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/02/14 07:19 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Based upon this study by Rand, 27% of the 7 million were previously uninsured. This makes newly insured at roughly 1.68 million. Considering not all of those have paid their first premium, hardly a success by any measure.
The Link



Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/02/14 07:43 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

iioftx - Beat you to it!

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/02/14 08:53 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I missed your link. Sorry - thanks for posting.

Also, people underestimate the mix of enrollees. The lower numbers might actually be a good thing - lower tax payer bailout.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/02/14 10:56 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

No worries. Wait until there are not as many doctors or hospitals, then you'll see plenty of taxpayer bailout.

Statalyzer
(25,000+ posts)
04/03/14 10:57 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers



Hornible
(100+ posts)
04/04/14 02:40 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I went to ACA website out of curiosity (as I would assume many others did) and entered all my information except my social security number. Would I have been counted in the enrollment number total?

I have heard at least one instance where a Medicare recipient was automatically registered by the state onto ACA without their authorization. They received a letter saying this had been done for them and they could enter the website and complete the application.

I take this move as a way to obtain the last minute registration numbers that have been reported.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/04/14 05:05 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Who really knows what the real number is? Most analysts place the net new insured around 1 million.

If any one of the IT people on this board were in charge of developing their company's customer database and had no way of knowing much about who had enrolled or how they paid, they would be fired. I dare anyone of them to argue differently.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/05/14 12:10 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

I went to ACA website out of curiosity (as I would assume many others did) and entered all my information except my social security number. Would I have been counted in the enrollment number total?




No.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/05/14 12:20 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

7.1 Million as of 4/1/14.

I am thinking we will see how many actually paid very soon.

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
04/05/14 02:12 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Does the number include prison inmates who were registered to get states off the hook for their expenses?
The Link



Does it include the 3 million more people enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program from October through February?
The Link


Does the number include the 20% who never paid?The Link


Does the number include the additional people that the government benevolently signed up itself in order to break the 7 million barrier in the last week?The Link


Luckily, there is undoubtedly no fire from all this smoke and Occum's Razor has dulled.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/05/14 04:08 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

PharmD is the number of newly enrolled 7.1 million? Yes or no.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/06/14 06:57 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Does the number include prison inmates who were registered to get states off the hook for their expenses?




No. They are enrolled under Medicaid.

In reply to:

Does it include the 3 million more people enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program from October through February?




Nope

In reply to:

Does the number include the 20% who never paid




It includes those who have not paid but we do not know what the number is yet.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/06/14 06:59 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

No.


How do you know this? If they are being enrolled, how do you know they aren't being included in the tally?

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/06/14 07:01 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

PharmD is the number of newly enrolled 7.1 million? Yes or no.




You already know the answer as do I. And it has already been answered on this thread. Ask another question or bring something new to the conversation.

mop
(500+ posts)
04/06/14 10:09 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

this thread is funny.

ACA is a huge mess and a huge nightmare. Why try to defend it?

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/09/14 05:40 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Why try to defend it?




you have added nothing substantial. This thread's purpose is to discuss enrollment numbers. who is trying to defend it?

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
04/09/14 12:14 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

ACA is a huge mess and a huge nightmare. Why try to defend it?






Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/09/14 05:50 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

you have added nothing substantial. This thread's purpose is to discuss enrollment numbers.


Rog, try to add something that has some substance. And try to do it without calling anyone names.

mop
(500+ posts)
04/10/14 01:06 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

there are people trying to defend this nightmare legislation in this thread, but I agree that the main point was to look at the Obamacare numbers.

militaryhorn
(1000+ posts)
04/10/14 10:14 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Here is an article that uses Rand as their source of information and a study by Express Scripts. The article seems to be written from a conservative. You can debate the validity of the article, but it does echo what most that are against the ACA have been saying...that premiums are going to increase significantly because of the new members that are signing up need more medical care that previously was unavailable.

LINK

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
04/10/14 12:56 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

a study by Express Scripts.




Ah Express Scripts! The crooks there jacked up prices of blood pressure medication for my Dad, under the guise of "due to new ACA guidelines"!

I called their 1-800 number but was given another customer care (?) number to call. Upon calling that number and waiting for almost 30 mins, I finally managed to get a rep on the line. She kept repeating that the increase in price was due to "new ACA guidelines" over and over. But she couldn't explain what specifically they were!

Anyways, after a few minutes I asked to talk to the supervisor and she put me through another lady. This person tried the same 'due to ACA guidelines' nonsense but after I threatened her that I would be filing a complaint with HHS, she had a sudden change of heart!

The coverage went back to the original level, (pre-'due to new ACA guidelines') and I was also issued an apology. I did make sure though that I told the supervisor that I would be monitoring their (Xpress scripts) coverage, and ANY alteration or unexplained change in coverage would be reported to HHS, without a prior call to Xpress Scripts.

All those bawling about govt taking over everything,, well here is an example of what can be achieved when citizens actually CARE! Be pro-active, care about your fellow citizens, and we can all improve the system around us.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/10/14 03:09 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

So you are not willing to pay higher prices to cover others? You are the ultimate definition of a liberal hypocrite. Always willing to rob Peter to pay Paul, as long as your name is not Peter.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/10/14 08:02 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

But she couldn't explain what specifically they were!


No one can.

Seattle Husker
(5000+ posts)
04/11/14 09:42 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

No one can.




That's the problem. What's forgotten in this mess is that healthcare insurance costs were escalating at >10% per year prior to ACA. It's as if all cost increases post-ACA are because of ACA. That's a great excuse to have a boogeyman to point to but it's certainly not the full story.

Did ACA add some costs into the system? Absolutely. Is it the sole reason for increases in healthcare costs? Absolutely not.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/11/14 12:23 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Is it the sole reason for increases in healthcare costs?


For some it appears to be. But that's another thread topic.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
04/11/14 12:58 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

So you are not willing to pay higher prices to cover others? You are the ultimate definition of a liberal hypocrite. Always willing to rob Peter to pay Paul, as long as your name is not Peter.




This is how desperate the right has become. The one universal passion for all of you has been a virulent hatred of the ACA. After numerous predictions of doom, gloom and armageddon, and tens of attempts to repeal it, they have ALL FAILED.

To add to your woes, the supreme court upheld it. Even with several red state governors not willing to participate in the exchanges, even with a bumpy rollout of the website (funds for which were cut off by the repubs in congress, i might add), the ACA a.k.a Obamacare is moving ahead and with close to 10 million new enrollees.

Just like the Romney in a landslide' delusions that y'all had, another cycle of delusional thinking of 'Obamacare is a massive failure' has taken hold of you. This too shall come crashing down shortly, like the first one did. I've got my popcorn and soda ready.

To your point about not wanting to pay for others, I don't have a problem chipping in, but NOT for the CEOs and the corporate thugs who run these companies.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/11/14 02:47 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

ACA has not produced 10 million enrollees. I seriously think if Obama made a statement that your name was not Roger35, you would believe it.

The law is a failure as highlighted by the departure of the idiot in charge of its rollout. Premiums are higher on those who pay and even you are complaining about your increasing costs. As it gets later in the year and people realize they never hit their deductible, but have paid thousands in premiums, the angst will accelerate.

You will pay more as a result of so many people getting "free rides." Just stop being a hypocrite.

Vol Horn 4 Life
(2500+ posts)
04/11/14 05:06 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Did ACA add some costs into the system? Absolutely.




Why? We were told over and over it would reduce costs not add them. All it did was add a government layer of costs and muddy the system so much no one including the government knows what's supposed to happen.

Seattle Husker
(5000+ posts)
04/11/14 06:03 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Why? We were told over and over it would reduce costs not add them. All it did was add a government layer of costs and muddy the system so much no one including the government knows what's supposed to happen.




Really? That's not what I remember but we run in different circles and websites. If that was said I disregarded it as political speak. The salient point that I took away was limiting the growth of future costs. Healthcare costs were already outpacing inflation by 3x-5x in the past decade. The demand for those services isn't a secret, the baby boomer generation is getting old. It's a ponzi scheme just like SS. You need the younger generation to subsidize the services of the older generation. Additionally, I believe that forcing people out of the emergency rooms and into standard care will also contribute to controlling the cost escalation.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/11/14 06:21 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Rog, show a link that confirms the 10 million number. MSNBC doesn't count....

Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
04/12/14 12:05 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Seattle:

The Link

NEWDOC2002
(2500+ posts)
04/12/14 02:53 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Seattle: The Link




That's racist!!

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/14/14 06:02 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

The crooks there jacked up prices of blood pressure medication for my Dad, under the guise of "due to new ACA guideline




Either that rep or that company was lieing to you. There are no ACA guidelines that are increasing your copays.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/14/14 06:11 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

CBO says it is 12 million

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/14/14 06:46 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

That ain't what the links says:

In reply to:

Twelve million more non-elderly people will have health insurance in 2014 than if Obamacare had not become law. CBO's projections on this crucial measure of the law's success are higher than recent surveys from the Rand Corp., which estimated a 9.3 million reduction, and from Gallup, which shows a 3.5 million decline.

For all of 2014, the CBO expects 6 million people to be covered by private health insurance policies purchased through the exchanges, fewer than the 7.5 million enrollment figure touted by the White House. That's mainly because the CBO expects people to cycle in and out of different types of coverage over the year -- perhaps by taking a new job and the health benefits that come with it -- and because some enrollees won't pay their first month's premium or will let their policies lapse during the year.


That's even from the huffington post. Also, please note the word "projections" And, about that part of this thread about the costs not increasing because of this "plan":
In reply to:

The CBO also projects future premium increases over the next decade.

Insurance companies will soon have to set rates for 2015, and analysts fear reported higher costs now will mean increases next year, as well.

"They're going to see an announcement that next year's premium's going to be 25 percent or maybe 50 percent higher than what they're now paying," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

John Divito of Flexible Benefit Service Corporation says, "we're reading studies where the rates could be 10 to 30, 40 percent higher. Again, it all depends geographically where these rates are being looked at but definitely an increase in rates."

Scott Gottlieb, a medical doctor as well as an analyst, adds, "We've seen insurance premiums go up quite a bit over the period in which ObamaCare started to get implemented."

Insurance executives say the same thing. Marc Bertolini, CEO of Aetna, recently told an earning conference that he anticipates 2014 spikes of 20 to 50 percent, going as high as 100 percent in some markets.




Uninformed
(10,000+ posts)
04/14/14 07:31 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Marc Bertolini, CEO of Aetna, recently told an earning conference that he anticipates 2014 spikes of 20 to 50 percent, going as high as 100 percent in some markets.




Tea partier

AustinBat
(2500+ posts)
04/14/14 10:49 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Uninformed, do you really believe the crap in the link you posted? All the MSM are in BO's corner and will never report anything negative. I am a retired teacher, and was told last year that my premium would double, from $400 a month to $800. Because of all the Obama Law Changes (apparently a President can change the law) I got a one year reprieve. But come September, I assume I will have to choose from being in an HMO at no monthly cost increase but with limited choices of doctors or being in an expensive plan with high deductibles at double the premium. Yea! And anyone who thinks the cost of insurance is not going to rise is a fool. Not to mention the fact that health care insurance and health care are two different and independent things. I continue to be amazed and saddened by the naivety of so many people that pretend to be educated.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/15/14 04:18 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

That rep was lying to you just as The Obama administration has lied to the public. No, there are no specific guidelines or rules requiring increases to co-pays. However, there are cuts to reimbursement and also new increased costs on the company. As a result, as a company's revenues decrease and costs increase, they will raise prices. It is a foreign concept to liberals, but it is universal fact. Quit being a hypocrite that you love the law, but are unwilling to pay your part of it.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/16/14 02:43 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Quit being a hypocrite that you love the law, but are unwilling to pay your part of it.




Are you writing to an imaginary person you made up in your mind and that is not reading these threads? I only ask because you seem to make such broad generalizations.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/16/14 02:46 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

That ain't what the links says:




Well you will have to spell it out for me then. The CBO is saying 12 million more people will have insurance coverage this year. That is due to enrollment on the exchanges and medicaid expansion.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/16/14 02:53 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

pro·jec·tion noun \prə-ˈjek-shən\
: an estimate of what might happen in the future based on what is happening now

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/17/14 06:04 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

You simply said the rep or company lied, but provided no evidence. I realize you are the pied piper for ACA, but at least have the dignity to speak the truth about cause and effect. It cannot be your honest belief that you gave insurance to millions for free and nobody will have to pay for it.

Rog has proven he is a hypocrite by coming out and complaining that his father's medication costs are higher. You also are a hypocrite if you are telling people there are no cost increases due to ACA.

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
04/18/14 08:29 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers




8 MILLION



Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/18/14 01:42 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Obamacare’s late surge in enrollment numbers may have been been driven by tax-preparing services that offered government-sponsored health care plans to all customers seeking help doing their taxes.

This year’s tax filing deadline occurred on April 15. Two days later, Obama announced that enrollments had hit 8 million, athough the 8 million number was disputed by at least one independent expert.

Obamacare penalties for not having insurance are deducted from Americans’ next-year tax refunds if not paid within a year.

Jackson Hewitt prepares an estimated 2.2 million tax returns per year and H&R Block reported preparing 19.9 million U.S. tax returns for tax year 2007.



H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt Tax Services partnered with online insurance brokers GoHealth and GetInsured to steer customers toward Obamacare insurance plans after preparing their tax returns, it was announced in February. The two major tax preparers are collectively responsible for preparing more than 20 million U.S. tax returns per year, according to estimates.

Neither company, however, is saying how many people they helped enroll. Neither is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which did not immediately return The Daily Caller’s request for comment on this story.

President Barack Obama is the top all-time recipient of campaign contributions from H&R Block employees and their family members and the fourth all-time recipient of campaign contributions from Jackson Hewitt employees and their family members.

“Do you have health insurance, and, if not, would you like to look at your coverage options under the Affordable Care Act?” Jackson Hewitt employees began asking customers up-front earlier this year.





Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/18/14 01:42 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Obamacare’s late surge in enrollment numbers may have been been driven by tax-preparing services that offered government-sponsored health care plans to all customers seeking help doing their taxes.

This year’s tax filing deadline occurred on April 15. Two days later, Obama announced that enrollments had hit 8 million, athough the 8 million number was disputed by at least one independent expert.

Obamacare penalties for not having insurance are deducted from Americans’ next-year tax refunds if not paid within a year.

Jackson Hewitt prepares an estimated 2.2 million tax returns per year and H&R Block reported preparing 19.9 million U.S. tax returns for tax year 2007.

H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt Tax Services partnered with online insurance brokers GoHealth and GetInsured to steer customers toward Obamacare insurance plans after preparing their tax returns, it was announced in February. The two major tax preparers are collectively responsible for preparing more than 20 million U.S. tax returns per year, according to estimates.

Neither company, however, is saying how many people they helped enroll. Neither is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which did not immediately return The Daily Caller’s request for comment on this story.

President Barack Obama is the top all-time recipient of campaign contributions from H&R Block employees and their family members and the fourth all-time recipient of campaign contributions from Jackson Hewitt employees and their family members.

“Do you have health insurance, and, if not, would you like to look at your coverage options under the Affordable Care Act?” Jackson Hewitt employees began asking customers up-front earlier this year.





Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/18/14 01:44 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

The independent expert

Roger35
(5000+ posts)
04/18/14 02:29 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

The Federalist




The same rw/militia rag that ran this story:

In reply to:

Duck Dynasty Threatens The Left




Bwahaha!

mojo17
(1000+ posts)
04/18/14 02:41 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

We are supposed to believe the administration now after all the lies. Give us a break.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/18/14 07:44 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Rog - You quoted the huffington post earlier so you don't have any room to say anything about sources. However, I notice you don't deny H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt promoted this plan as outlined in my post. Regarding the article you mention in the Federalist, is there a problem with that story? If so, what is it? Have you even read it? As far as link I provided, facts are facts no matter how much you hate them.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/19/14 06:01 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

We are supposed to believe the administration now after all the lies. Give us a break.




What a lame argument. That seems to be last counterpoint you hear when those that use it have nothing substantial to bring to the conversation. You probably do not believe we sent a man to the moon either.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/19/14 06:05 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

pro·jec·tion noun




True. But this takes into account all data through end of enrollment period in March so it will end up being very accurate.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/20/14 01:56 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I reckon the data has to be trustworthy and in this day and age, who's to say that it is? Hellfire, in this day and age, there aren't very many people that can be trusted to tell the truth. Particularly in the government.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
04/26/14 11:20 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

I reckon the data has to be trustworthy and in this day and age, who's to say that it is? Hellfire, in this day and age, there aren't very many people that can be trusted to tell the truth. Particularly in the government.




Nothing substantial there but It sounds like you agree that those projections are going to be very accurate. Thems the numbers. Thems the facts we have.

Mr. Fiesta
(1000+ posts)
04/26/14 12:12 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

Not at all. I fully expect the government to throw out a bunch of numbers that will never be able to be justified. But people like you will just eat it up as gospel and never question it. We'll see how it affects your business, my wife is a graduate of the UT School of Pharmacy (with high honors) and she is not a fan of obamacare at all.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
04/26/14 04:01 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

An idiot and his "facts."

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
05/10/14 07:40 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

Not at all. I fully expect the government to throw out a bunch of numbers that will never be able to be justified.




And again nothing substantial there. Use links with other facts to refute the numbers being released if you have them.

hornpharmd
(10,000+ posts)
05/10/14 07:42 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

In reply to:

We'll see how it affects your business, my wife is a graduate of the UT School of Pharmacy (with high honors) and she is not a fan of obamacare at all.




I do not have a business. For those that do, yes of course, like all things, we shall see.

Gadfly
(1000+ posts)
05/11/14 06:57 AM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

There is a well-funded opposition party and media outlet that has the resources to uncover any inaccuracies on such a pivotal program. Ignoring data which doesn’t agree with your pre-conceived notions is arrogant. I’m not young enough to know everything. I’m still not convinced ACA is a good thing. However, it worries me less.

theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
05/27/14 06:42 PM
Re: ACA enrollment numbers

I am shocked. Well, not really.

Unions and employers are battling over who should pay for Obamacare’s added costs, such as coverage for dependent children up to age 26 and future costs like the tax on “Cadillac” health plans starting in 2018, according to a new report.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the issue is a “poised to become a significant point of tension” as thousands of labor contracts involving millions of workers expire in the coming year.


Read more:The Link
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter