The Affordable Care Act

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Specifically premiums going up and people being dropped. 'ACA'

Pete

Being dropped by the insurance companies. They could have made these policies meet minimum standards just by taking away the CEO's 2013 bonus.

Oops nearly took thr Lord's name in vain, we have the worlds shittiest healthcare system that only works if you have money. We have 40 million people uninsured, 65% of personal bankruptcies are due to medical coste. Hospitals use a billing system called Chargemaster that should make every citizen hang their head in shame.

Yes they should have done SinglePayer but the average American voter is just too easily led around by the nose and the politicians too busy lining their pockets.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by CarlV

BTW, repost about McConnell and Humana.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...der-96509.html
So Jones and then-Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson — a Democrat — turned to the most powerful person in Kentucky politics: GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell. They asked McConnell for $10 million in federal funds for the project. Instead, the then-Senate majority whip came through with $38 million in a spending earmark, breaking the good news himself to Jones in a late-night phone call.

Did somebody say pork?


But Jones has been one of McConnell’s most powerful and lasting political benefactors. Jones, his family and Humana employees have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to McConnell’s political committees over the past several decades, making them one of McConnell’s biggest sources of campaign dollars, campaign reports show.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2nNIbZAMq

All you have to do is google Humana and Mitch McConnell for many like articles. Here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Huma...ficial&spell=1


Carl

So in effect Mitch gives tax money to humana and they in turn give it back to him as a political contribution - and there were people here in PC bitching about bending laws.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Yes, even regulated to 20% it still makes them filthy stinking rich.


Carl

Yet those crazy Canadians can administer their plan for 7% - must be the water.

[Menton1]

Originally Posted by JBS...

Where's all the chest pounding from the left over the November enrollment Numbers.

6 million lost there insurance (that we know of) and how many signed up.

Nah. All the wind from Fox and Co. about people "losing" their insurance is just that. Wind. And then the callers to right wing radio who complain about rates "going up". Of course, they fail to mention that it's better coverage, and it actually will cost LESS, because of a (forgot to mention) government subsidy.

[JBS...]

Originally Posted by Menton1

Nah. All the wind from Fox and Co. about people "losing" their insurance is just that. Wind. And then the callers to right wing radio who complain about rates "going up". Of course, they fail to mention that it's better coverage, and it actually will cost LESS, because of a (forgot to mention) government subsidy.

Yup, and food actually cost;s LESS, because of food stamps

Your going fit right in here....

Menton meet Ice, Ice meet Menton

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by JBS...

Yup, and food actually cost;s LESS, because of food stamps

Your going fit right in here....

Menton meet Ice, Ice meet Menton

Someone piss in yer cornflakes Jim?

[icenine]

Originally Posted by JBS...

Yup, and food actually cost;s LESS, because of food stamps

Your going fit right in here....

Menton meet Ice, Ice meet Menton

how come everytime I go to the thrift store I always see Sarah Palin's Going Rogue all the time both in book AND cd....

I guess you were the only one who bought and kept their copy

Do you work for Americans For Prosperity?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Menton1

Nah. All the wind from Fox and Co. about people "losing" their insurance is just that. Wind. And then the callers to right wing radio who complain about rates "going up". Of course, they fail to mention that it's better coverage, and it actually will cost LESS, because of a (forgot to mention) government subsidy.

Tell that to these guys:

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf...ves_nj_sm.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg....html?page=all

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

Tell that to these guys:

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf...ves_nj_sm.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg....html?page=all

Well, whell...tough shit. Where were these whiny small business owners every time there was a premium hike over the last 45 years? They were where they are now...and what was their response? Passing it on to their employees, or dumping the nice PPO plans entirely and forcing some piece of shit HMO plan on the workers because it was putting a dent in their bottom line...and not a peep out of any of them. And not a peep out of the workers either, who had to change plans and change doctors. (Been through it a number of times myself with various and sundry providers and employers.)

But now...now when it's poor people finally having the opportunity to have coverage and now when it's the Kenyan anti-colonialist driving the changes in the structure...now it's an outrage.

Give it a rest.

[donquixote99]

One can cherry-pick horror-stories, Whell, but reality is more complex.

From your first cite:

Other companies are facing tough choices, such as how to apportion out the wildly different premiums that individual workers are being assessed under the new plans.
Insurers acknowledge the majority of their small-group clients in New Jersey, or those employers with 50 or fewer workers, are facing higher premiums next year. But they stress that most won’t be as extreme as the examples that Greene and other independent brokers cite. And other factors are pressuring rates, from higher taxes imposed by the law to the continually rising cost of medical care.

Despite this, the law is producing some winners, insurers note: businesses that for the first in a long time won’t be paying more for their insurance next year, or groups that actually will be paying less.

One can summarize the piece as 'some win, some lose, there are reasons why, and the extreme hikes are not the norm.'

Your second cite is headlined "Some small-group health insurance rates skyrocket." You may choose to highlight "skyrocket," but don't ignore the "some."

From that second article, this insight:

At the same time, the new plans have been rebuilt to increase deductibles and co-insurance in a region long accustomed to paying no deductibles.

The shock is in part due to the new market making the 'cadillac' plans of some elite employers unsustainable. It seems to me that many small groups, especially those heavily weighted with older workers, may be better off adding the existing insurance contribution to everyone's pay, and letting them participate in the individual insurance exchanges.

Change is happening, and that always means disruption and adjustment. But the picture if one looks are the details (or even one of the headlines) is not one of unmitigated disaster.