Wrong Direction Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Damn. Get people covered, and they actually see doctors? You often reply in ways you disdainfully accuse others of doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 No doubt there are more patients, and no doubt some will have incorrectly gone to the ER. Pre ACA, did every patient that showed up at the ER have injuries that justified being there vs urgent care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 It is (or at least might be) a legit point. One of the selling points for getting people insured was the notion that people are going to the ER, for things that should be urgent care, because they couldn't go to urgent care. (Because urgent care requires payment, whereas the ER does not.) Now, what's missing, here, is WHY more people are going to the ER. Did more people go to the ER AND more people to urgent care? Did people buy coverage that doesn't cover the local urgent care? (Or is there some other kind of rationing going on? Does the urgent care have a policy of only taking three Obamacare patients per day, and after that, you're SOL?) Are people simply unaware that the urgent care option is now available? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 My limited personal experience is that people just don't know where to go for what injury. I correctly went to urgent care for a broken finger in December, but an older lady was rushed in complaining of chest pains. She should have gone to the ER. If you don't know beforehand, and you suddenly need a doctor, you don't typically research where you need to go first. You want to see someone as quickly as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Obamacare subsidies are likely to cost billions more than expected this year, after a Wednesday federal report revealed that a 87 percent of HealthCare.gov customers are getting taxpayer subsidies to purchase health insurance. According to a report released by the Department of Health and Human Services Wednesday, customers in federally-run Obamacare exchanges that received any amount of subsidies paid on average 76 percent less than the real cost of their premium. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/18/obamacare-subsidies-to-cost-billions-more-than-expected/#ixzz352GZFRWB The high proportion of customers seeking the advanced premium tax credits to fund their health insurance program will boost the cost of subsidies by 65 percent, according to an analysis of the HHS data by the Los Angeles Times. According to the data from federally-run Obamacare exchanges alone, subsidies will cost $11 billion — and if state-run exchange customers qualify for subsidies at the same rate, Obamacare subsidies will total $16.5 billion for 2014 alone. The Congressional Budget Office last projected that subsidies would cost $10 billion in 2014. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/18/obamacare-subsidies-to-cost-billions-more-than-expected/#ixzz352GoxMzx if ya need more good news 3,137-County Analysis: Obamacare Increased 2014 Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 49%http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/18/3137-county-analysis-obamacare-increased-2014-individual-market-premiums-by-average-of-49/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 According to a report released by the Department of Health and Human Services Wednesday, customers in federally-run Obamacare exchanges that received any amount of subsidies paid on average 76 percent less than the real cost of their premium. I find that really hard to believe, although I will freely admit that I have no clue what the formulas for subsidies are. If I just pull some numbers out of my Philly, and assume that there are two levels of subsidy, 10% and 80%, then for the average to be 74%, 92% of the people have to qualify for the 80% subsidy. But I assume it's an accurate quote of the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I find that really hard to believe, although I will freely admit that I have no clue what the formulas for subsidies are. If I just pull some numbers out of my Philly, and assume that there are two levels of subsidy, 10% and 80%, then for the average to be 74%, 92% of the people have to qualify for the 80% subsidy. But I assume it's an accurate quote of the report. not much incentive for the higher earners(small subsidies),and most probably have company plans...combine that with the delays/waivers , then add in the millions who's income records aren't matching the applications. utilization is also booming from what I hear(ins bailouts are probable as a result) the subsidy cliff probably also discourages most near it from bothering( not wanting a nasty surprise at tax time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-obamacare-subsidies-20140617-story.html "That assistance helped lower premiums for consumers who bought healthcare coverage on federal marketplaces by 76% on average, according to the new report from the Department of Health and Human Services." "If these state consumers received roughly comparable government assistance for their insurance premiums, the total cost of subsidies could top $16.5 billion this year. Making precise estimates is difficult because of expected fluctuations in enrollment over the year. That total would be approximately in line with projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office." Things appear to be running par with projections. Edited June 19, 2014 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Which 'that total' are you referring to the 11M or the 16.5M? CBO said.....In April 2014, the CBO estimated the government would pay $10 billion for subsidies now add in the subsidies not paid due to delays from the website looks like somebody got a phone call no one knows **** on how this will shake out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 no one knows **** on how this will shake out Yeah we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Yeah we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Which 'that total' are you referring to the 11M or the 16.5M? CBO said.....In April 2014, the CBO estimated the government would pay $10 billion for subsidies now add in the subsidies not paid due to delays from the website looks like somebody got a phone call no one knows **** on how this will shake out They are both B not M, but the way I read it is the $11B is only based on certain states. The $16.5B is what you'd expect if the trends for the states that we do have data on extend to the states that we do not have data on. Essentially, the $11B is a subset of the larger (expected) $16.5B. I'm not going to claim to know how it is going to work out, but if I'm working at the CBO right now, I'm pretty happy with myself. And just to point out, the total projections of the law by the CBO is that it is net deficit reducing. Edited June 19, 2014 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 They are both B not M, but the way I read it is the $11B is only based on certain states. The $16.5B is what you'd expect if the trends for the states that we do have data on extend to the states that we do not have data on. Essentially, the $11B is a subset of the larger (expected) $16.5B. I'm not going to claim to know how it is going to work out, but if I'm working at the CBO right now, I'm pretty happy with myself. And just to point out, the total projections of the law by the CBO is that it is net deficit reducing. M, B....what difference does it make? The CBO that threw it's hands up and said there is no way to project this anymore? the CBO that said 16.5 B in 2013 then 10 in 2014? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 regrets, they are having a few http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-employer-mandate-108578.html Robert Gibbs’ prediction that Obamacare’s employer mandate would — and perhaps should — be jettisoned shocked Democrats back in April. By July, the former aide and longtime confidant of President Barack Obama had a lot more company. More and more liberal activists and policy experts who help shape Democratic thinking on health care have concluded that penalizing businesses if they don’t offer health insurance is an unnecessary element of the Affordable Care Act that may do more harm than good. Among them are experts at the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund and prominent academics like legal scholar Tim Jost. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-employer-mandate-108578.html#ixzz36kMxVFNE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 A work in progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 IN progress that is causing headaches and uncertainty in a already shaky job market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 In Shambles is what I would say, at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 IN progress that is causing headaches and uncertainty in a already shaky job marketiirc, you were touting how great your job market is in a different thread...how great of a portion of our nation's GDP, etc. Now it's shaky because of the ACA. Gotcha. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 My insurance didn't go up at all. I am actually really happy that i went back to Kaiser like i used to when i was a kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 My insurance didn't go up at all. I am actually really happy that i went back to Kaiser like i used to when i was a kid The increase or decrease of your health care depends on a lot of factors, probably the least being Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I did get a $496 bill from LabCorp for my bloodwork from my physical, but I guess we have to do a little of our own legwork now, since the law requires that 80% of your monies be spent directly on your healthcare, not admin costs, or the difference goes back to the policyholder (yes, it can be the company). I called LabCorp, gave them my insurance info, covered, boom.If I have to make one phone call (instead of completely wigging out at the arrival of a bill I would assume was covered, and it was), I'm good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I did get a $496 bill from LabCorp for my bloodwork from my physical, but I guess we have to do a little of our own legwork now, since the law requires that 80% of your monies be spent directly on your healthcare, not admin costs, or the difference goes back to the policyholder (yes, it can be the company). I called LabCorp, gave them my insurance info, covered, boom. If I have to make one phone call (instead of completely wigging out at the arrival of a bill I would assume was covered, and it was), I'm good. That process of you having to make a phone call again has nothing to do with Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 iirc, you were touting how great your job market is in a different thread...how great of a portion of our nation's GDP, etc. Now it's shaky because of the ACA. Gotcha. I shouldn't be concerned with ya'll? if it impacts it here ,it certainly impacts it more in the weaker markets I certainly admit we would be even better here w/o the waffling idiots up there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The increase or decrease of your health care depends on a lot of factors, probably the least being Obamacare. I wasn't making a comment towards obamacare, but actually that i am just happy with my healthcare in general now compared to a few years ago 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I shouldn't be concerned with ya'll? if it impacts it here ,it certainly impacts it more in the weaker markets I certainly admit we would be even better here w/o the waffling idiots up there Ah, a new approach I agree Vote differently, why don'tcha? Give somebody else a chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now