Wednesday, July 23, 2014
How to screw your own. Brought to you by the Republican Party of the United States of America.
Nearly 48 million Americans, 15.4% of the total population, lacked health insurance last year, according to a new Census Bureau report. And most of them — 59.4%, to be exact — live in states that have chosen not to set up their own insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.
The exchanges — online marketplaces where people can compare different insurance plans and buy coverage — are the centerpiece of the law, which remains controversial and not terribly popular three-and-a-half years after its passage. The enrollment period opens on Oct. 1. Under the law, most Americans must either have insurance by the New Year or pay a penalty (though officials have said people who are insured by April 1 won’t be penalized, which effectively extends the deadline to buy coverage to mid-March).
The law envisioned that most states would set up and run their own online exchanges, with federally-run exchanges as a backstop. However, only 16 states and the District of Columbia have done so; seven more are partnering with the federal government to operate their exchanges. In the other 27 states, people without insurance will use federally managed exchanges to shop for coverage.
Those 27 states — many of which have actively opposed the health care law — contain a majority (59.4%) of the nation’s uninsured people; together they account for 54.6% of the nation’s population. Collectively, 16.8% of people in the “federal default” states were without insurance last year, compared with 14% in the states that have organized their own exchanges and 12.8% in the “partnership” states.
That disparity may further complicate the law’s already-complex rollout. Although exchanges (whether state- or federally-run) will be available in every state, a recent Pew Research Center study found that only 44% of people in the “federal default” states said they’d have access to one, versus 59% in the states with state-based health care exchanges or state-federal partnerships. (In at least one default state, Florida, the state government has barred federally funded “navigators” from using its offices for outreach efforts.)
Much as there’s a deep partisan divide among the American public over the healthcare-reform law (Pew Research found that 73% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents support it and 85% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents oppose it), there’s a clear partisan split on implementation. Among the 22 states (plus D.C.) that are running their own exchanges or partnering with the federal government to do so, Democrats control the legislatures of 17 and hold 18 governorships (or mayorship in the case of D.C.). Among the 27 federal-default states, all but two have Republican governors and 23 have GOP-controlled legislatures.
Congratulations William and friends you have screwed your own constituency by fighting Obamacare. as it stands today they get no subsidies and get to pay the extra tax penalty. Most of these same states have refused federal help to expand Medicaid to cover those who cannot afford insurance. So they will stay uninsured. It's really funny. Most of these states don't support Democrats anyway. Yep Ya screwed your own.
When will these poor people figure it out?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Tea Party had nothing to do with the drafting or passing of Obamacare. The poor wording and execution of the legislation are the exclusive property of the Democrat party and it's lawyers. The Democrats had complete control and when required voided time honored methods or bipartisanship.
ReplyDeleteThey waited eighty years since the progressive Roosevelt administration to f--- up their utopian wet dreams of centralized health care and death panels.
The abortionist butchers now must be content with the slaughter of millions of unborn children as they bleat about the poor children illegally crossing our boarder.
No Rick, we will not take credit for this National disgrace. This wasting of untold billions during the latest progressive period of experimentation.
In the midst of a steaming pile, you have once again drawn attention to an unpleasant truth for liberals, namely that the Democrats needlessly created a bad plan when they didn't have to. To say that Democrats didn't allow Republican input is of course BS. That said, the reality is that no matter what concessions were made, the Republicans weren't going to vote for it anyway. With that in mind, they should have simply done what was done during the previous administration with tax cuts, they should have just plowed full steam ahead, gotten what they wanted, and left the subsequent administration and Republican house majorities with the task of either accepting the law or being the bad guys who repealed it and subsequently "threw" millions out of insurance. This was a failure of courage to do the right thing under a false pretense of cooperation. Both parties are owned by insurance companies which is why we got the bill that we did.
DeleteDeath panels and abortionist butchers. Yawn. Nothing new there. A reality in all of this William is that this is not going to go away. Someday, we might actually decide to stop pretending we hate socialized medicine and come up with a real solution. In the meantime, the bill will not be overturned because the non tea Republicans will not want to face the backlash of taking away something that is doing good for a lot of people despite its flaws. This ship has sailed and people who think you do are powerless to do anything about it.
You are right William the tea party and republicans CHOSE not to participate in the writing of the bill. The Tea Party/ Repubs have also done everything they can to circumvent the bill to try to make it not work. The Tea Party/ Repubs have not come up with anything to better the plan. Fact of the matter is William the actions of the tea party/repubs have hurt no one but their own constituency. The states that will be hurt with this newest court decision are all Republican lead states and republican voting states. Meanwhile the dems have insurance, subsidies and have no additional tax worries. I don't get the reasoning. How many democratic votes have you cost that party. Answer is 0. Hopefully the poor people of these already heavily government subsidized states will wake up and see the truth of which party really doesn't care about them.
DeleteSome research William. I used 4 red states, Texas and North Carolina two red states that decided to fight the implementation of the ACA.
DeleteI also used Idaho and Kentucky two red states that decided to conform with the law and create exchanges. For my hometown I picked Raleigh NC, Boise Idaho, Dallas Texas and Louisville Kentucky. For all the other questioned I answered in what actually fits my circumstances. Here are the results if I were to buy Insurance through and ACA health exchange for my family. I did not qualify for a subsidy in any of the scenarios.
North Carolina yearly premium 12,183
Texas 11,507
Idaho 9750
Kentucky 8675
So you see William just compliance with the law contributed to making insurance more affordable. Why Competition.
Idaho offered insurance through 7 national companies and some small regional players.
Kentucky offered insurance through 5 national companies. Kentucky reduced it's uninsured rate from 18 % to 9%.
NC offered Insurance through 3 NC based companies the biggest player being the rip off artists known as Blue Cross Blue Shield NC
Texas offered 4 options.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou just don't get it rick. The Tea Party won't participate in your inside out subsidy nation. We believe government shouldn't be involved at all in health care.
DeleteYou just don't get it. Ass backwards progressive inside out thinking. We don't believe in wealth redistribution.
Obamacare is a bad idea
It was enacted in a partisan manner
It was poorly presented
It was poorly lawyered
It's web site was a disaster
It is poorly executed
It is unaffordable
This progressive ponzi scheme monstrosity will fall of it's own weight.
All insurance is a ponzi scheme William, the idea is to take in more than you pay out. For profit insurance companies have a much better risk pool than the tax payers who must pay for medicare and uninsured patients. Our system simply shifts costs around and creates unnecessary profit for those who are most adept at shifting costs. This plan was poorly presented, is poorly lawyered and was poorly executed. Yet, millions have gotten insurance who didn't previously have it and more still will get it.
DeleteIs there really a difference between profit driven ponzi schemes and progressive driven ponzi schemes?
For profit schemes have incentive to provide good service,,,
DeleteRe: IRS
Ha you think our healthcare delivers good service! We rank 11th William out of 11 among the wealthy countries. So much for that statement.
DeleteWilliam you don't get it. A few radicals who took control of a few states are denying their constituency affordable health insurance. And why? To prove a point? More likely because the black man is president and we ain't doing anything to help him. Just wish you guys would be honest about your true motives.
DeleteRick, I don't really have much respect for your socialist leanings. But you don't know me or my Tea Party friends. When you echo the hard left mantra that we are a bunch of racIsts you can go f--- yourself.
DeleteI have been on the Marketwatch and Google blogs for a number of years. I challenge you big mouth to produce one single comment that I have made with regards to race and our president.
Put up or shut up big mouth.
Actions William often speak louder then words. Not you personally but your TP group yes.
DeleteA few radicals who took control of a few states are denying their constituency affordable health insurance.
DeleteOr possibly a few sane states looked at the future costs to support an exchange and said we will not burden our ax payers with this cost. Perhaps a few sane states decided that the future costs of the medicaid expansion was more than their budget could afford. That 10% unfunded liability is more than future budget could endure.
Should be entertaining in Colorado as they will need a tax increase when the first 3 years are done and the state will need to match the required 10% of medicaid costs. Here the tax payers must vote on any tax increase which is unlikely to pass. Agreed to by a democrat, sorry future governors, figure it out yourself. Maybe the governor can divert the POT taxes from schools to pay for medicaid.
But Louman your State of Colorado did do the right thing and develop a health insurance exchange that is saving it's citizens thousands of dollars in todays health market. You yourself mentioned recently that you could have purchased your insurance cheaper on the exchange then what you decided to pay to prove a point. Did you not?
DeleteWith your legalization of pot there should be no financial problem. How much dough has the state raked in so far on pot taxes?
DeleteBut rick, because you say so doesn't mean it's the right thing as you don't live here. I pay more for insurance as I want better coverage. My policy doesn't limit me to which doctor I see, or hospital may want to go to. My physician does not accept ACA insurance or medicaid. The ACA has to much liability, the medicaid doesn't cover his cost of staying in business.
DeleteThe upside, I don't support the subsidized with my insurance dollars.
How's that work thing? Sabbatical is going well, Federal Income tax rate below 10% headed to 5% this year with luck. Maybe you could get your party to take my citizenship or denounce me as unpatriotic as I refuse to pay more in taxes..
Doesn't really matter, the governor cannot divert the money as it was an amendment to the state constitution that decides how the tax dollars are spent. They will have to bring to to the taxpayers for a vote. Today it would go down in flames like the governors last request for a tax increase.
DeleteOh lou they will catch you sooner or later on the tax thing. . Not my problem. And my friend you are still subsidizing those with no insurance or ACA insurance through higher premiums and higher costs. We all do. You think a hospital that doesn't get paid in one form or the other just says oh well? No they don't lou. They add a little to the services me and you receive and get that unpaid bill back a little at a time.
DeleteLou upon looking at the rates and coverages of the Colorado exchange you can get insurance from between 2200 a year to 9200 a year. Cover up to 90% of your services. That's some of the best in the nation.
ReplyDeleteStill more than we were paying before. But then again, we need to pay for those being subsidized.
DeleteChecked- gold plans can run as high as 1056 a month with max annual cost of 12K per family.
My plan 1200 a month, 6K max out of pocket.
If you like the plan, you can have it.
Just curious if someone needs a subsidy to buy insurance how in the HELL would they ever pay 12K in out of pocket expenses?
"For profit schemes have incentive to provide good service,,,"
ReplyDeleteMeh, the typical logic dodging response that is expected. For profit schemes have one incentive only, that is to make profit. Nobody starts an insurance company with the idea that they want to make anything better. They simply want to run a risk pool and hope that they can take in more than they pay out.
Excuse me Max but we still are a nation built on capitalism, God forbid,,,profits! We are the most successful country with the highest standard of living in history,,,and you and your socialist friends carp about businesses endeavoring to make profits!
DeleteYou are to freaking funny Max, to freaking funny.
But William should health care really be a for profit business. Should life or death be controlled by profit?. You talk about the "best practices committee established by Obamacare as "death panels". Best practices is no more then the highly successful places such as the Mayo Clinic et at use in their operations. In today's insurance system they not only deny coverage, they decide when enough has been done. I don't know why you think it is any different. It's not a panel but many times an individual with a financial stake making these decisions for you. But you don't seem to have a problem with that.
DeleteA large part of the job of a nurse liaison is the evaluation of patients. For example, a nurse liaison may make an initial assessment of a patient’s condition and review pertinent medical records to determine whether the patient should be admitted. As part of the admissions process, a person with this title may also evaluate a patient’s health insurance or ability to pay in an effort to ensure that the care he receives will be covered financially. This type of nurse may also review a patient’s records to help determine whether or not he is ready for discharge.
definition of nurse liaison. A very mild definition of what they actually do especially on e employed by an insurance company.