Some Surprising Sanity from Fox News on Obamacare

[jarnon]

Troy Trenkle, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that developed the flawed healthcare.gov website, has resigned.

Key tech official behind Obamacare website to step down

He joins the officials who took the blame for Operation Fast and Furious and the Benghazi disaster.

[flockofseagulls104]

Troy Trenkle, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that developed the flawed healthcare.gov website, has resigned.

Key tech official behind Obamacare website to step down

He joins the officials who took the blame for Operation Fast and Furious and the Benghazi disaster.

Who would they be?

[jarnon]

Troy Trenkle, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that developed the flawed healthcare.gov website, has resigned.

Key tech official behind Obamacare website to step down

He joins the officials who took the blame for Operation Fast and Furious and the Benghazi disaster.

Who would they be?

I think their names were Whatshisname and Thatotherguy.

[Bob Juch]

Troy Trenkle, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that developed the flawed healthcare.gov website, has resigned.

Key tech official behind Obamacare website to step down

He joins the officials who took the blame for Operation Fast and Furious and the Benghazi disaster.

Want to bet that he goes to work for CGI or QSSI?

[silverscreenselect]

http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal ... -obamacare

http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal ... -obamacare

Here's a followup to that article that answers some of the questions:

http://www.propublica.org/article/answe ... h-policies

Key points:

1) Their old policy did not cover rehabilitative services (we're talking physical rehab; not drug rehab, which is covered separately). If one of them were in an auto accident or suffered a stroke, those bills could run tens of thousands of dollars. Under Obamacare, plans have to cover at least 30 visits each year for either physical or occupational therapy, or visits to the chiropractor. Plans must also cover 30 visits for speech therapy as well as 30 visits for cardiac or pulmonary rehab. So they will be getting better insurance. Did they know they wouldn't be covered for rehab services? If not, the only way they would have found out is when they tried to file a claim... a bit too late to do them any good.

2) Their rates were that low because the were very favorably underwritten originally, in part because of excellent health.

3) Reading between the lines, they switched Kaiser policies in 2011 from a policy that probably would have been grandfathered in to a policy that Kaiser knew full well would not be grandfathered in. The blame for this lies partly with Obama and partly with Kaiser. If Obama had been forthcoming: "If you change your policy, you might not be able to keep it after 2014," this situation wouldn't have happened but Kaiser wasn't forthcoming either when it sold them the policy.

4) Kaiser and the big medical insurers were instrumental in getting these policies cancelled December 31 rather than at the normal renewal date.

[BackInTex]

http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal ... -obamacare

http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal ... -obamacare

Here's a followup to that article that answers some of the questions:

http://www.propublica.org/article/answe ... h-policies

Key points:

1) Their old policy did not cover rehabilitative services (we're talking physical rehab; not drug rehab, which is covered separately). If one of them were in an auto accident or suffered a stroke, those bills could run tens of thousands of dollars. Under Obamacare, plans have to cover at least 30 visits each year for either physical or occupational therapy, or visits to the chiropractor. Plans must also cover 30 visits for speech therapy as well as 30 visits for cardiac or pulmonary rehab. So they will be getting better insurance. Did they know they wouldn't be covered for rehab services? If not, the only way they would have found out is when they tried to file a claim... a bit too late to do them any good.

2) Their rates were that low because the were very favorably underwritten originally, in part because of excellent health.

3) Reading between the lines, they switched Kaiser policies in 2011 from a policy that probably would have been grandfathered in to a policy that Kaiser knew full well would not be grandfathered in. The blame for this lies partly with Obama and partly with Kaiser. If Obama had been forthcoming: "If you change your policy, you might not be able to keep it after 2014," this situation wouldn't have happened but Kaiser wasn't forthcoming either when it sold them the policy.

4) Kaiser and the big medical insurers were instrumental in getting these policies cancelled December 31 rather than at the normal renewal date.

Once again, they were too stupid to do what needed to be done for them so our governement had to step in and do it for them. Right?

[silverscreenselect]

Once again, they were too stupid to do what needed to be done for them so our governement had to step in and do it for them. Right?

There's a heck of a lot of people who don't understand their insurance policies, and they're not stupid. They just don't discover there's a problem until it's too late. I read about a case involving a family whose home was nearly destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. The first floor was nearly a total loss and they had over $50,000 in contents ruined or destroyed. The good news was they had flood coverage and contents coverage. The bad news was that the "first floor" was actually the basement as the policy was defined because you went down a couple of steps from the front entrance to get to it, and basements were excluded from contents coverage. They discovered the real meaning of their policy too late to do them any good.

[Bob Juch]

http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal ... -obamacare

http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal ... -obamacare

Here's a followup to that article that answers some of the questions:

http://www.propublica.org/article/answe ... h-policies

Key points:

1) Their old policy did not cover rehabilitative services (we're talking physical rehab; not drug rehab, which is covered separately). If one of them were in an auto accident or suffered a stroke, those bills could run tens of thousands of dollars. Under Obamacare, plans have to cover at least 30 visits each year for either physical or occupational therapy, or visits to the chiropractor. Plans must also cover 30 visits for speech therapy as well as 30 visits for cardiac or pulmonary rehab. So they will be getting better insurance. Did they know they wouldn't be covered for rehab services? If not, the only way they would have found out is when they tried to file a claim... a bit too late to do them any good.

2) Their rates were that low because the were very favorably underwritten originally, in part because of excellent health.

3) Reading between the lines, they switched Kaiser policies in 2011 from a policy that probably would have been grandfathered in to a policy that Kaiser knew full well would not be grandfathered in. The blame for this lies partly with Obama and partly with Kaiser. If Obama had been forthcoming: "If you change your policy, you might not be able to keep it after 2014," this situation wouldn't have happened but Kaiser wasn't forthcoming either when it sold them the policy.

4) Kaiser and the big medical insurers were instrumental in getting these policies cancelled December 31 rather than at the normal renewal date.

Once again, they were too stupid to do what needed to be done for them so our governement had to step in and do it for them. Right?

I'd say "ignorant", not "stupid", but yes.

Also remembet that one purpose of the law is to protect the rest of us from having to pay the bills of those who won't or can't due to having no or little insurance.

[BackInTex]

Here's a followup to that article that answers some of the questions:

http://www.propublica.org/article/answe ... h-policies

Key points:

1) Their old policy did not cover rehabilitative services (we're talking physical rehab; not drug rehab, which is covered separately). If one of them were in an auto accident or suffered a stroke, those bills could run tens of thousands of dollars. Under Obamacare, plans have to cover at least 30 visits each year for either physical or occupational therapy, or visits to the chiropractor. Plans must also cover 30 visits for speech therapy as well as 30 visits for cardiac or pulmonary rehab. So they will be getting better insurance. Did they know they wouldn't be covered for rehab services? If not, the only way they would have found out is when they tried to file a claim... a bit too late to do them any good.

2) Their rates were that low because the were very favorably underwritten originally, in part because of excellent health.

3) Reading between the lines, they switched Kaiser policies in 2011 from a policy that probably would have been grandfathered in to a policy that Kaiser knew full well would not be grandfathered in. The blame for this lies partly with Obama and partly with Kaiser. If Obama had been forthcoming: "If you change your policy, you might not be able to keep it after 2014," this situation wouldn't have happened but Kaiser wasn't forthcoming either when it sold them the policy.

4) Kaiser and the big medical insurers were instrumental in getting these policies cancelled December 31 rather than at the normal renewal date.

Once again, they were too stupid to do what needed to be done for them so our governement had to step in and do it for them. Right?

I'd say "ignorant", not "stupid", but yes.

Also remembet that one purpose of the law is to protect the rest of us from having to pay the bills of those who won't or can't due to having no or little insurance.

Yeah, got that. So to encourage folks to buy something they don't want at a cost more than they can afford, the govment gives them a subsidy paid for by, um us.

[silverscreenselect]

So to encourage folks to buy something they don't want at a cost more than they can afford, the govment gives them a subsidy paid for by, um us.

What is the source for your statement that people don't want insurance?

[BackInTex]

So to encourage folks to buy something they don't want at a cost more than they can afford, the govment gives them a subsidy paid for by, um us.

What is the source for your statement that people don't want insurance?

Logic, experience, conversations, news reports on every network. Take your pick.

[macrae1234]

Yeah, got that. So to encourage folks to buy something they don't want at a cost more than they can afford, the govment gives them a subsidy paid for by, um us

I am sure he was referring to the pregnancy, abortion and birth control parts of the affordable health care act

[silverscreenselect]

So to encourage folks to buy something they don't want at a cost more than they can afford, the govment gives them a subsidy paid for by, um us.

What is the source for your statement that people don't want insurance?

Logic, experience, conversations, news reports on every network. Take your pick.

Out of curiosity, did you have insurance coverage when you had your hip replaced? Or did you tell your employer beforehand that you would feel a lot better if you just shelled out all that money out of your own pocket and negotiated your own prices with the doctors and the hospital.

Presumably, the "news reports" you've seen are about people who had their policies cancelled. Now, since these people voluntarily bought insurance when they didn't have to, it's a fair assumption that they wanted it.

The surveys I've seen indicate that the vast majority of people want insurance or an alternative mechanism for taking care of medical bills at an affordable cost. Even a majority of the "young invincibles" want insurance. The problem is the cost.

[silverscreenselect]

Yeah, got that. So to encourage folks to buy something they don't want at a cost more than they can afford, the govment gives them a subsidy paid for by, um us

I am sure he was referring to the pregnancy, abortion and birth control parts of the affordable health care act

And how many of those people shopped around in the "good old days" to find policies that specifically excluded everything they felt they didn't want (which aren't even available in a lot of markets)?

[BackInTex]

The surveys I've seen indicate that the vast majority of people want insurance or an alternative mechanism for taking care of medical bills at an affordable cost. Even a majority of the "young invincibles" want insurance. The problem is the cost.

Bingo. Read your own damn words. 10 minus 8 is NOT 0.

The Affordable Care Act was driven in large part by the "15%" of Americans without health insurance. Surely if it is justifiable to enact such monumental legislation for only 15% of the population then even you could agree that such minorities (those not included in "vast majority") are relevant.

Of the 85% that had insurance, is was mostly by choice, but I'm sure many of those would not want to be forced to buy it if they for some reason chose not to, or to be forced to buy a package they did not want (even though they wanted some package).

Insurance through my employer is part of my benefits package which is part of my compensation. Employers know that in order to hire the best they have to be competitive. If they didn't offer insurance or pay for part of it, that is part of MY decision on whether to work for them or someone else. Perhaps my base salary would be higher there. It is a decision and CHOICE I should be able to make in a free society.

Do I want medical insurance? Sure. I also want cable TV and leather seats in my car. So I pay for all of it. If I didn't have enough to buy it all, I would decide which I would get. If I didn't make enough to afford any of it I would either accept it or do what I thought necessary to make myself marketable enough to earn a salary where I could afford the things I want.

I realize you and I differ there. You don't view people as being a service provider to their employers and it being the employees having the responsibility to make sure the services they supply are valuable to their employers. You think it is the responsibility, no, the purpose, of employers to hire and pay people. And provide medical insurance.

I also understand that you can't comprehend people wanting to be free to make their own choices (except in the case of abortion).

[silverscreenselect]

The surveys I've seen indicate that the vast majority of people want insurance or an alternative mechanism for taking care of medical bills at an affordable cost. Even a majority of the "young invincibles" want insurance. The problem is the cost.

Bingo. Read your own damn words. 10 minus 8 is NOT 0.

The Affordable Care Act was driven in large part by the "15%" of Americans without health insurance. Surely if it is justifiable to enact such monumental legislation for only 15% of the population then even you could agree that such minorities (those not included in "vast majority") are relevant.

The 85% do not all have private health insurance. According to the Census Bureau in 2012 (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases ... 3-165.html).

54.9% of the population had employer based health insurance
9% had other private health insurance, either individual or some other group form such as association-based
16.4% had Medicaid
15.7% had Medicare
15.4% had no coverage

So the government is already providing health care coverage for 1/3 of the people in this country.

The percentage of the population with employer health care coverage has decreased steadily over the past several years. The reason that the percentage of uninsured has remained fairly steady is that most of them wound up on Medicare or Medicaid.

I do not believe employers should be in the health care business. It's a horribly inefficient idea that took root after World War II when G.I.'s got used to employer-provided health care in the Army and employers found they could offer it cheaply under tax laws. It's led to a spiral in costs that Obamacare isn't going to stop. But I think it's silly that we have a system in which 1/3 of the population is already getting health care because they are poor or old and we're trying to preserve a badly flawed system to effectively deny that to a lot of other people.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

the letter Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is sending to insurers.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/184205346/CMS ... re-Fix-pdf

[Bob Juch]

the letter Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is sending to insurers.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/184205346/CMS ... re-Fix-pdf

No, that's going to state insurance comissioners.

I'm glad Obama called the insucance companies' bluff.

[Beebs52]

So how about those spiffy "got insurance" ads. Really think you're going to snag that twenty something demographic, still on their parents' policies to shell out 500 dollars a month in premiums for "free" birth control pills and kegstand protection, to fund all us old geezers? Great business model.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm glad Obama called the insucance companies' bluff.

There was no calling anyone's bluff here. Under the law, the old policies did not comply and could not be offered after the first of the year. That wouldn't have been all that bad in the big scheme of things if the website had been working and people could compare what they were losing to what the cost would be for exchange coverage after the subsidies were figured in. But they couldn't do that since the website was screwed up.

As with much of his presidency, Obama's performance in this matter has been pathetic. There's really not much difference between his response and Bush's response after Hurricane Katrina. Both of them were completely oblivious to how bad the situation was and wouldn't do anything about it for a long time. Obama's whining about how he wouldn't have compared the healthcare site to Amazon if he knew how bad it was resembled Bush's "heckuva job Brownie" comments for absolute inanity.

I am flabbergasted that someone who has had advisors as tech savvy as Obama (his use of social media and technology In his Presidential campaigns completely left the Republicans in the dust) got caught as flat footed as Obama did. I'm not surprised his reaction to it was as bad as it was. Obama's reaction to bad news is always like a child... stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away. Obama should have known by about October 2 or 3 just how bad the situation was with the website and started doing things then.

The cancellations were something else that was very apparent to the insurance industry three years ago. A lot of people in the industry said that there wouldn't be a lot of grandfathered plans around by 2014. The Republicans were too stupid then to pick up on it; they were still complaining about the "death panels." Even once the news of the cancellations became public, Obama did nothing until his own party... most notably Bill Clinton, pretty much called him out on it.

[silverscreenselect]

So how about those spiffy "got insurance" ads. Really think you're going to snag that twenty something demographic, still on their parents' policies to shell out 500 dollars a month in premiums for "free" birth control pills and kegstand protection, to fund all us old geezers? Great business model.

These ads are appearing in Colorado, one of the states that has its own exchange, and they've been roundly criticized. They are being marketed by a group called Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, which is not affiliated with the Obama administration, HHS, or the Colorado exchange. However, I don't think the ads are targeted at those young people on their parents' coverage but rather those without any coverage at all. And I don't know very many who would be forced to shell out $500 a month in premiums.

I ran the numbers for a 25-year-old single person in Denver, making $30,000 a year. He or she would make too much money to qualify for a subsidy, but the rate for a silver (70%) policy would be $2361 a year, a little under $200 a month, nowhere near $500. For a bronze policy, the premium would be $1755 a month, or about $150 a year. Under either policy, preventive care (including birth control) would be covered, but the bronze policy would probably pay somewhat minimal benefits until the deductible limits would be reached, which would be $6350 a year. The silver plan would pay somewhat better benefits at lower levels. For people under 30, there's also a catastrophic plan, but the Kaiser site doesn't have the premium for that, but it would be even less (but would pay nothing until the $6350 deductible is reached).

Reduce the young person's income to $25000 a year and he or she would receive a $632 subsidy, reducing the cost of a silver plan by about 25% or the bronze plan by about 33%.

I don't think very many people currently on their parents' plans would be likely to switch to their own plans, and these ads aren't being marketed to them, but rather to those who don't have any coverage at all.

I would suggest that anyone, pro or anti-Obamacare, before they start throwing around numbers regarding what policies would cost, would use the Kaiser website to get a more accurate idea of what's available at all ages, income levels, and parts of the country. Here's the link again:

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/