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
 
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.
 
Barack-Obama-Dirt-off-Shoulderf.gif


8 MILLION
hookem.gif
 
Rog - You quoted the huffington post
pukey.gif
earlier so you don't have any room to say anything about sources.
rolleyes.gif
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Well it is time for the chickens to come home to roost. As final year end tax documents arrive, taxpayers will begin to understand some of the problems of ACA. Don't fear, the White House is already preparing to bypass congress and the law with "special exemptions."

From NYTimes:
WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials and other supporters of the Affordable Care Act say they worry that the tax-filing season will generate new anger as uninsured consumers learn that they must pay tax penalties and as many people struggle with complex forms needed to justify tax credits they received in 2014 to pay for health insurance.

The White House has already granted some exemptions and is considering more to avoid a political firestorm.

Mark J. Mazur, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, said up to six million taxpayers would have to “pay a fee this year because they made a choice not to obtain health care coverage that they could have afforded.”

But Christine Speidel, a tax lawyer at Vermont Legal Aid, said: “A lot of people do not feel that health insurance plans in the marketplace were affordable to them, even with subsidies. Some went without coverage and will therefore be subject to penalties.”
The Link

85% of those on Obamacare get it paid for by someone else. Now, this rogue president once again plans to violate the constitution in order to appease his voting base. Not really sure the U.S. can survive two more years of lawlessness.
 
Just updating my position here. As many positioned here, the negative impacts of ACA would hit down the road. Recent reports are not positive.

1) ER visits are way up, not down as predicted by Obama. The reason is that there is an extreme shortage of primary care physicians and it is expected to get worse. Add to this that many PCP's no longer accept Medicaid due to reimbursements being lower than costs.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/e...re-implementation-survey-says/article/2548730


2) The above also has negatively impacted hospitals. Obama likes to brag about Kentucky's enrollment numbers. Unfortunately, Kentucky hospitals are now in a crisis where layoffs are overwhelming and many rural hospitals are closing or about to close their doors due to ACA.

http://kyhealthnews.blogspot.com/2015/05/kentucky-hospitals-say-theyre-losing.html

This disastrous snowball is starting to roll down the hill.
 
ii's
When you add in the cost of setting up state exchanges- We, Fed, gave 5.4 BILLION in grants to set up just 13 states most of which are failing including several states that have already shut down( NM NV OR WA and BO's 2 states HA and ILL) with more to follow year obamacare is an avalanche, a predicted avalanche.

No one ever said reform was not needed and there are some good things in obamacare that can be moved to a plan that actually would work without destroying plans that were working for millions.
 
theiioftx said:
The problem is ACA is really not healthcare reform. It is insurance reform.
Click to expand...

To a layman, medical charges are bizarre, complex and in some cases, patently unfair. I have to have blood work done four times a year because of cholesterol and blood pressure meds. I have a high deductible plan so most years all the money that pays for my health care is from my paycheck. Still, having insurance is worth it, because it saves me getting screwed over. I was briefly without insurance once during the time before my new employer extended coverage. Didn't mind paying the doctor cash, but the cost for my bloodwork was over $200. With insurance the "allowable" charge is less than $20 and I get a 10 percent discount on that for paying ontime/online.

If medical companies were setting the prices, a 2002 minivan with sticky valves and 200,000 miles on it would set you back $50K.
 
If you had to cover everyone's transportation who could not afford it, that mini van would set you back $50K.
 
Crockett said:
To a layman, medical charges are bizarre, complex and in some cases, patently unfair. I have to have blood work done four times a year because of cholesterol and blood pressure meds. I have a high deductible plan so most years all the money that pays for my health care is from my paycheck. Still, having insurance is worth it, because it saves me getting screwed over. I was briefly without insurance once during the time before my new employer extended coverage. Didn't mind paying the doctor cash, but the cost for my bloodwork was over $200. With insurance the "allowable" charge is less than $20 and I get a 10 percent discount on that for paying ontime/online.

If medical companies were setting the prices, a 2002 minivan with sticky valves and 200,000 miles on it would set you back $50K.
Click to expand...

This is true, but you have to look at it from the providers' perspective. Health insurers are never going to pay them what they ask for, so if they simply ask for a reasonable charge, they'll end up getting an unreasonably low reimbursement. If they ask for a high chargemaster rate, they might end up with something reasonable. Of course, if you're uninsured, that rate is going to be pretty rough, though most providers will play ball with you on that if you can't pay it.
 
Looks like 673 rural hospitals are on the verge of closing. The iVantage Health report estimated if the 673 vulnerable hospitals shut down, it would result in a $277 billion loss to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over 10 years, a loss of 99,000 healthcare jobs in rural communities, and 11.7 million patients would lose direct access to care. Someone remind me how ACA is good for the country?

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/...erge-of-closing/413277/#.VrbHYNPA6g0.linkedin
 
theiioftx said:
Looks like 673 rural hospitals are on the verge of closing. The iVantage Health report estimated if the 673 vulnerable hospitals shut down, it would result in a $277 billion loss to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over 10 years, a loss of 99,000 healthcare jobs in rural communities, and 11.7 million patients would lose direct access to care. Someone remind me how ACA is good for the country?

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/...erge-of-closing/413277/#.VrbHYNPA6g0.linkedin
Click to expand...

Quick question that I don't have the answer for, is this a function of the ACA or is it a demographic shift? For decades the population has been migrating to the urban centers for jobs. Concurrently, mechanization has limited the need for rural jobs. Take farming for example since I grew up in Nebraska in a farming community. In the 70's and 80's farmers were still using equipment that could plant 6 or 8 rows at a time. Now the seeders plan 16, 18 or even 20 rows simultaneously. In the 80's you could make a decent living on 350 acres. Now if you farm less than 1000+ then you aren't able to even scrape by. You could apply the same analogy to ranching, logging, or other rural industries.

So, the problem of rural communities losing basic services has been a challenge for decades whether it be mail service, phone service or even internet service more recently. Why is healthcare any different? Hospitals with significant fixed costs and a diminishing customer base would be in trouble regardless of the ACA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top