Gee, ya think?!?!!?!!?!?

Moderator: Super Moderators

strindl
Pirate
Posts: 130
Joined: 11-24-2013 05:38 PM

Post by strindl » 12-21-2013 02:41 AM

BenSlain wrote: Yea Cherry.You need to educate yourself on things somebody else knows nothing about. I love the ego. Somebody who disagrees with someone automatically thinks the person needs to be educated. What tunnel vision .

There are a lot of world leaders whom disagree .


Disagreement based on knowing the facts, is fine. Disagreement without knowing the facts is not. Cherry clearly demonstrated not knowing even the basics of the affordable care act. How can she be so against something she knows nothing about?

strindl
Pirate
Posts: 130
Joined: 11-24-2013 05:38 PM

Post by strindl » 12-21-2013 03:04 AM

Cherry Kelly wrote: strindl - really - I challenged you to actually READ the law that was passed and the 18K MORE pages added later.... you haven't - now YOU want the truth -- READ IT!!!


Case in point...how many times have we seen Cherry say that the Affordable care act has 18,000 pages and nobody read it before voting for it. HERE is the full text of what was passed by Congress and signed into law.

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/la ... ection.pdf


Not even close to 18,000 pages.

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 12-21-2013 08:59 AM

Back to what I was discussing about the concept of Accountable Care Organizations - how they were written into the law, and why physicians are moving around, leaving healthcare altogether, or contemplating doing so.....

Accountable care organization

In the Affordable Care Act[edit]

The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) proposed the initial set of guidelines for establishment of ACOs under the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Section 3022 of the PPACA) on March 31, 2011. These guidelines stipulate the necessary steps that voluntary groups of physicians, hospitals and other health care providers must complete in order to partake in ACOs. Section 3022 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) authorizes Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to create the Medicare Shared Savings program (MSSP), which allows for the establishment of ACO contracts with Medicare by January 2012.[2][15] According to the ACA, the MSSP "promotes accountability for a patient population and coordinates items and services under part A and B, and encourages investment in infrastructure and redesigned care processes for high quality and efficient service delivery."[16] The existence of the Medicare Shared Savings Program ensures that ACOs are a permanent option under Medicare. However, the specifics of ACO contracts are left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, which allows the ACO design to evolve or devolve over time.[17]

The MSSP is a three-year program in which ACOs accept responsibility for the overall quality, cost and care of a defined group of Medicare Fee-For-Services (FFS) beneficiaries. Under the program, ACOs are accountable for a minimum of 5,000 beneficiaries.[18] The provider network is required to include sufficient primary care physicians to serve its beneficiary population.[19] The ACO must define processes to promote evidence-based medicine and patient engagement, monitor and evaluate quality and cost measures, meet patient-centeredness criteria and coordinate care across the care continuum. Prior to applying to MSSP, an ACO must establish appropriate legal and governance structures, cooperative clinical and administrative systems and a defined shared savings distribution method. Finally, the ACO may not participate in other shared savings programs during the period it participates the MSSP. An ACO may include ACO professionals (e.g., Doctors of Medicine (M.D.) or Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists) in group practice arrangements, networks of individual practices of ACO professionals, partnerships or joint venture arrangements between hospitals and ACO professionals, hospitals employing ACO professionals, or other Medicare providers and suppliers as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services."[19]

ACO’s financial incentive payments will be determined by comparing the organization’s annual incurred costs relative to CMS-established benchmarks. These benchmarks will be based on an estimation of the total Fee-for-Service expenditures associated with management of a beneficiary based on fee-for-service payment in the absence of an ACO. CMS will update benchmarks by the projected absolute amount of growth in national per capita expenditures as well as by beneficiary characteristics. CMS will also establish a minimum savings rate (MSR) that will be calculated as a percentage of the benchmark (2%) that ACO savings must exceed in order to qualify for shared savings. The MSR will account for normal variation in health care spending.[20]

While Medicare will continue to offer a Fee-For-Service program, ACOs can chose one of two payment models (one-sided or two-sided model) based on the degree of risk and potential savings they prefer. Initially, a one-sided model ACO shared in savings for the first two years and savings or losses during the third year. The maximum sharing percentage for this model is 50%. In a two-sided model, ACOs shared in savings and losses for all three years. In both cases, the ACO savings must exceed 2% in order to qualify for shared savings. The maximum sharing percentage for this model is 60%. In both models there is a shared loss cap of 5% in the first year, 7.5% in the second year, and 10% in the third year. Aspects regarding financial risk and shared savings would be altered in the final regulations.[21]

After the initial set of regulations released in March, 2011, CMS received feedback regarding streamlining the governance and reporting burdens and improving the potential financial return for ACOs willing to make the necessary, and often substantial, investments to improve care.[22] On October 20, 2011, the DHHS released the final regulations for the Medicare Shared Savings Program, which addressed many concerns raised in response to the draft regulations. The final regulations allow for broader ACO governance structures, reduce the number of required quality measures and create more opportunities for savings while delaying risk bearing.[23]

Under the new regulations, providers’ financial incentives were increased. Under the one-sided model, providers have the opportunity to engage in ACOs and any savings above 2% without any financial risk throughout the three years. Under the two-sided model, providers will assume some financial risk but will be able to share in any savings that occur (no 2% benchmark before provider savings accrue). In addition, the quality measures required was also reduced from 65 to 33, decreasing the monitoring that many providers say as overwhelming. Community health centers and rural health clinics were also allowed to lead ACOs.[24][25]

Incorporating DHHS final regulation adjustments on October 20, 2011, Section 3022 outlines the following requirements for ACOs:
The ACO shall be willing to become accountable for the quality, cost, and overall care of the Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries assigned to it
The ACO shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary to participate in the program for not less than a 3-year period
The ACO shall have a formal legal structure that would allow the organization to receive and distribute payments for shared savings to participating providers of services and suppliers
The ACO shall include primary care ACO professionals that are sufficient for the number of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries assigned to the ACO under subsection
At a minimum, the ACO shall have at least 5,000 such beneficiaries assigned to it in order to be eligible to participate in the ACO program
The ACO shall provide the Secretary with such information regarding ACO professionals participating in the ACO as the Secretary determines necessary to support the assignment of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries to an ACO, the implementation of quality and other reporting requirements under paragraph (3), and the determination of payments for shared savings under subsection (d)(2)
The ACO shall have in place a leadership and management structure that includes clinical and administrative systems
The ACO shall define processes to promote evidence-based medicine and patient engagement, report on quality and cost measures, and coordinate care, such as through the use of telehealth, remote patient monitoring, and other such enabling technologies
The ACO shall demonstrate to the Secretary that it meets patient-centeredness criteria specified by the Secretary, such as the use of patient and caregiver assessments or the use of individualized care plans
The ACO participant cannot participate in other Medicare shared savings programs [26]
The ACO entity is responsible for distributing savings to participating entities
The ACO must have a process for evaluating the health needs of the population it serves

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acc ... ganization

As you can see, beyond the new burdens being placed on physicians and group practices by Obamacare, the new law actually restricts how, and what insurances the physician or group can work with (from above: "The ACO participant cannot participate in other Medicare shared savings programs ").

So, when someone like Obama comes along and tells physicians via a law about they can function, what insurances they can and cannot contract with - there are going to be a LOT of upset people.

The ACO Model also creates a whole new level of administrative bureaucracy for each practice and healthcare organization because in order to meet the new regulations, there are new quality measures that are reviewed and scored. So, in addition to the existing quality measures, Obamacare just added additional requirements. And al the data collection, analysis and submission to CMS requires additional staff.

And, this is just ONE reason why people are finding out that they can't use the physician or practice that they have enjoyed relationships with for years - because Obama said that they can't.

User avatar
Doka
Pirate
Posts: 7978
Joined: 09-02-2009 08:15 PM

Post by Doka » 12-21-2013 11:27 AM

strindl
The ACA is a law, not an insurance company.


Oh?
Obama Care has placed it's self as another level, the highest, over health care. Therefore, it dictates over all things "health insurance". Leaving any thing or everyone beneath the "Dictates" to scramble for survival or not . I can see why you would be confused. A duck in camouflage, but it is still a duck . As Riddick says, "Smoke and Mirrors" is the name of the game.
KARMA RULES

Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities': Voltaire

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 12-21-2013 12:14 PM

Strindl - you have now proven that you do not know how to read.

WHERE did I say the original law was 18k pages? HMM I DIDN'T.

MATTER OF FACT: I said the original was (approx) 2k. The 18K additional came afterwards...and even that additional was NOT 18K originally but less pages - it just kept growing longer.

I read the first 2K. Even joined in discussions with other people - LIVE at a two day group meeting.

---and now Obama has changed the rules - which it is illegal for him to do once it became law - it requires approval from congress.

NOW again I ASK have YOU read even the first 2K? You have avoided answering.

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12852
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 12-21-2013 12:22 PM

SO OK this was listed on a fox news report on internet.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12 ... ve-mandate

A federal judge granted an injunction Friday that prohibits the government from enforcing the federal health care law's requirement that insurance coverage include access to the morning-after pill and similar contraceptives on almost 200 religious organizations that have filed a class-action lawsuit to block the mandate.

---
I will presume that other news area medias will carry the story as well as it is a FEDERAL JUDGE.

User avatar
Diogenes
Pirate
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 12-21-2013 12:39 PM

strindl wrote: Case in point...how many times have we seen Cherry say that the Affordable care act has 18,000 pages and nobody read it before voting for it. HERE is the full text of what was passed by Congress and signed into law.

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/la ... ection.pdf



Not even close to 18,000 pages.


Strindl,

More important than the number of pages would be only Dems voted for this load and not one of them read the bill prior to voting as evidenced by your then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

This is the President's signature legislation and that is fact as well and look at how your team and your team's management which has created such horrific pain and uncertainty for millions of citizens who were paying themselves for their care and were perfectly fine with the care and program they chose until this load was crammed down their throats.

CK and all of us have posted those facts more than numerous times and those material facts are far more meaningful than the exact number of pages in the bill.

Need I remind you that this President continues to futz with his signature load of a bill and I do believe the latest futzing comes to about 11 times without approval of Congress - so who is the Imperial President now.
A man's character is his fate

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 12-21-2013 01:32 PM

"Imperial Presidency" indeed........

Executive Order 13535-- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... ith-longst

Interesting article.........

Will U.S. physicians be forced to 'heel' by executive order?

DANA POINT, CA, September 10, 2012 - Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, President Obama could issue an order to bring physicians into line with his grand vision of universal health coverage in America.

“By the authority vested in me as President…” could be the words preceding perhaps the most massive change to the U.S. healthcare system in history—eclipsing in effective scope even the Obamacare law itself. In one of President Obama’s first executive orders issued in the post-election days of November 2012, if he is re-elected on November 6th, this phrase would shoot like hot lead from the barrel of the Affordable Care Act into the lives of physicians and patients everywhere.

As of today, physicians do not have to see patients with an Obamacare plan, and, by all polls, many physicians are not fans of the new law in the first place. This is keeping the President’s advisors up at night.

Some fear the President’s vision for health services in America cannot be realized without the full participation of its roughly 850,000 practicing doctors.

Today, there are nearly 960,000 physicians in the United States, but some are still in training, or retired, or unlicensed. Over the next fifteen years, it is projected another 150,000 trained physicians will need to be added to the workforce to keep pace with the needs of the nation.

Can physicians be forced to see all patients, even those with insurance plans that run physician offices into the red? How would this affect the quality of medicine delivered?

Based on a reliable source, and backed up by analysis of the facts surrounding the healthcare reform debate itself, the following order (reported to have already been written by the President’s team) would attempt to finish the work of the ‘Act’ by insuring that physicians—the key linchpin to any successful medical program—do not simply ‘opt out’ of taking various insurance plans altogether.

Allegedly, President Obama’s executive order would read something like this:

“…and based in the authority of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, duly affirmed as Constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in June 2012, … be it resolved that physicians practicing within the territories of these United States may not refuse to see any elective patient who presents to their place of practice based on an inability, or perceived inability, of that party to pay for such services or because of deemed inadequacy of the patient’s insurance-provided reimbursement.” (note: emergency patients are already, always, seen and treated)

Such a seemingly innocuous string of words may read like a reaffirmation of what most physicians practice on a daily basis—good will toward their community of patients by giving free or heavily discounted medical care. This is why the medical community always ranks at the top of consumer surveys ranking professions by esteem, honesty and decency. This love of medicine and patients is what motivates doctors to go to work each morning.

Many physicians, however, are overburdened by student debt and a decade and a half of education and training. Many docs may not even be able to keep their practice doors open if not allowed the ability to regulate the types of insurances they accept, or to create a concierge/cash-pay component to their practices.

A closer look at the wording of such an executive order will reveal, however, a much more insidious purpose. The President’s goal with healthcare reform, one shared by the majority of Americans and health providers, is to see that all citizens are armed with ready access to quality medical assessment and treatment. The difference between the proponents and opponents of Obamacare has always been, however, one of method—that is, just how to achieve such a goal of expanding services to the uninsured or underinsured.

Opponents of Obamacare argue that free-market principles, or simply allocating a pot of money to pay for basic services to those without insurance, would have achieved comparable or even better results than the existing new law.

In the Affordable Care Act, various top-down mechanisms to regulate, mandate and ration care are intended to curb expensive and perceived unnecessary testing and procedures, so as to save resources and redistribute preventative and needed maintenance care to the millions of Americans without insurance (or the ability to afford such services on an out-of-pocket basis). Libertarians and conservatives railed against the law they labeled ‘Obamacare’ because they feared it would kill innovation, sap ingenuity, and actually decrease bio-pharmaceutical-medical research and development and the delivery of top-tiered medicine itself.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... ive-order/

It's not as if Obama HASN'T used executive orders to shape Obamacare.....

strindl
Pirate
Posts: 130
Joined: 11-24-2013 05:38 PM

Post by strindl » 12-21-2013 02:35 PM

Diogenes wrote: Strindl,

More important than the number of pages would be only Dems voted for this load and not one of them read the bill prior to voting as evidenced by your then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.


You seem to forget, the American people voted for it too. In the 2012 election mitt romney vowed to repeal the ACA if elected and President Obama obviously supported the ACA. Who did the American people vote for?

Elections DO make a difference.

User avatar
Diogenes
Pirate
Posts: 5784
Joined: 07-14-2011 03:01 PM

Post by Diogenes » 12-21-2013 02:48 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strindl
You seem to forget, the American people voted for it too. In the 2012 election mitt romney vowed to repeal the ACA if elected and President Obama obviously supported the ACA. Who did the American people vote for?

Elections DO make a difference.
[/QUOTE

Strindl,

That is another topic but since you brought it up yes the majority voted for Obama and those who were half smart and informed erroneously voted for him believing him to be truthful about their own plans and providers. The polls now clearly indicate if the election were held today the outcome would probably be far different. This is why your team put this off after the 2012 election because they knew what was coming down the pike.

This is an interesting article from the NY Times.

ttp://www.redstate.com/2013/12/21/new-york-ti ... dle-class/
A man's character is his fate

strindl
Pirate
Posts: 130
Joined: 11-24-2013 05:38 PM

Post by strindl » 12-21-2013 02:48 PM

Cherry Kelly wrote:

I read the first 2K. Even joined in discussions with other people - LIVE at a two day group meeting.


Had you actually read the law, you would not have posted the nonsense that you have. For example..you posted this:
SO ACA is a law saying you must have insurance and sign up through their website to buy insurance. Why? Why if you already have insurance do you need to sign up for it again by using some gov't website to do so? Just list the insurance company on your IRS form and amount you paid.

Total nonsense that shows you don't understand even the very basics of the law.

and this:
OH we are sorry - but do not cover eye care or dental care - which might be YOUR only problem - wear glasses or need dental work - not covered.
and this:
AND now we are seeing states saying NO - to the entire ACA.
and this
I have a bowling partner who had a cancerous tumor removed. So far no other cancerous areas have been found. BUT when they tried to sign up for ACA - were turned down.
and this
From an email received last last night from wife of a cousin.

She told me about the sign in the ER waiting area: - "our hospital (name withheld) has not met ACA requirements" below it was a smaller note. "After January 1, 2014 - anyone on ACA will not be accepted here."
NONE of those things you accepted and repeated as fact about the ACA are true. When I see someone post nonsense on a forum, I call them on it.
Last edited by strindl on 12-21-2013 02:51 PM, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 12-21-2013 02:49 PM

Yes....... but will they like what they voted for?

New State Data On Obamacare Enrollment Trends Show How Scheme Is Failing

The White House obfuscates when it comes to Obamacare enrollment results.

But some of the individual states that have established their own on-line exchanges (and sidestepped healthcare.gov) have been forthcoming.

Enrollment in these states is outpacing healthcare.gov. So it’s a good bet that their experience is a proxy of what’s happening market wide.

And these individual state numbers look awful.

The entire scheme was predicated on enticing enough young, healthy consumers to sign up for insurance to subsidize the cost of the older Americans, and those with pre-existing health conditions.

The state exchanges are badly missing these demographic marks.

The newest data comes from six states that have provided the most transparency around their enrollment figures.

Totaled together, it shows that, on average, 54% of those purchasing plans were between the ages of 45 and 64. These states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Washington State.

Consumers are also paying up for “silver” plans by a wide margin (55% of enrollees, on average, have bought “silver” coverage). This makes them eligible for increased cost-sharing subsidies that will reduce out of pocket costs (assuming they are below 250% of the federal poverty level — about $60,000 in annual income for a family of four, or $30,000 for an individual. It’s at this income level where the special subsidies kick in).

Selecting a costlier silver plan (rather than the cheapest, bronze plans) is a smart choice if a consumer plans to actually tap their health coverage.

This heavy migration to “silver” plans is another indication that people signing up for Obamacare are a sicker group, on average. Younger, healthier beneficiaries were expected to be far more likely to choose bronze plans.

These numbers were analyzed in an excellent report published yesterday by the managed care equity analysts at investment bank Morgan Stanley.

Among the states, Colorado and Washington State had the lowest percentage of enrollments in the key 18-34 demographic, at just 18% of the 23,000 people who have enrolled in an Obamacare plan in Colorado (through Dec 14th) and 20,000 who have signed up in Washington State (through Nov 30th).

In California, those between 18-34 accounted for 21% of enrollees (through December 7th). In Rhode Island, that figure was 20% and in Minnesota, 23%.

Very few people are signing up for the cheapest, catastrophic plans that are being marketed to the so-called “young invincibles.”

These plans were created with the sole purpose of luring health, young consumers into Obamacare. (These are the plans that the Whit House just offered to extend to people who were kicked off of their individual insurance policies as a result of the Obamacare mandates).

In California, just 1% of enrollees chose these plans, in Connecticut 2%, and Rhode Island 1%. For other states, there were too few enrollees to get to 1%.

Most consumers who have signed up – about 85% on average — are eligible for subsidies because they fall below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (about $90,000 in annual income for a family of four). And most of these folks are choosing silver plans.

Even more revealing are the choices being made by consumers who don’t qualify for subsidies. Almost 40% of these folks are selecting gold and platinum plans. Without the benefit of government subsidies, these plans are very pricey.

So who would be willing to pay up for this coverage?

Some are undoubtedly upper middle class and wealthy consumers who were thrown off their prior coverage once insurers cancelled their existing health plans in the individual market. They want the costlier coverage because, while the networks and formularies don’t improve over cheaper plans, the co-insurance often does.

But a healthy fraction of this cohort who are buying up to Gold are undoubtedly middle class folks who are paying more for better coverage because they have medical conditions, and know that they will need to access the healthcare services.

If you plan to consume a lot of healthcare, it makes sense to buy a platinum plan. That way, through the co-insurance that some of these plans offer, you can offload a bigger chunk of your medical costs as possible onto the government.

The bulk of those signing up for Obamacare will get some form of federal subsidies.

But among those who don’t qualify for subsidies, only 30% have selected the cheap bronze plans. These are likely the younger, healthier consumers that Obamacare needs in order to make its math work. And the scheme isn’t attracting these folks.

Finally, looking at the top line numbers, things don’t get much better.

In California, just 47% of those who have signed up have received a private health plan. The rest were put on Medicaid. (And remember, these figures only include those who have signed up, but not necessarily paid their first premium).

The figures for the rest of the states aren’t any better. In Colorado, just 17% got private coverage, with the other 83% put on Medicaid. In Connecticut, 61% got private coverage, in Minnesota, 71%, Rhode Island 33%, and Washington State 11%.

The weighted average across all the states shows that only 36% of those who have signed up (but not necessarily paid for) Obamacare, were put on private plans.

The rest have been added to the rolls of Medicaid.

When it comes to the data on Obamacare enrollment, the White House has been cooking their numbers. They are anxious to find the nuggets that can paint a pretty portrait. But the totality of the data doesn’t’ lie.

The top line trends are terrible. But it’s the demographic trends, buried in the Obamacare numbers, which should cause the administration the most concern.

These trends will inevitably impact Obamacare in 2014.

But the effects will spill into 2015, as health plans set their rates based on their initial experience.

The bad start makes it more likely this entire scheme remains a niche market to service a mostly older, sicker, and less wealthy demographic.

It makes it likely that premiums will rise. And that more insurers will drop out of this market, and fewer will enter.

In the end, the health plans that Obamacare fashioned aren’t attractive to the segments that the scheme is targeting.

The insurers are calling the underlying health plans “Medicaid Plus.” The Wall Street Journal called it “Obamacaid.”

One of these maxims may soon stick.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottli ... -show-why/

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 12-21-2013 02:55 PM

And...... this can't be good either with only a few days left until Jan 1st. I wouldn't call meeting <10% of their respective enrollment targets a ringing endorsement of Obamacare.....

45 States Still Haven’t Hit 10 Percent of Enrollment Goals for Obamacare

Check out that runaway Obamacare enrollment over on EnrollMaven.com!

In Arkansas, its up to 1,404! Well along the way to the state’s goal of 51,000 paid enrollees by the end of March.

In Delaware, it’s up to 793! The state’s goal is 35,000.

In New Hampshire, they hit 1,569. Getting close to that goal of 19,000!

In West Virginia, it’s up to 775! They’ll hit their goal of 24,000 in no time!

In Hawaii, all the way up to 444! That goal of 9,000 is in sight!

In Colorado they’re up to 9,980 . . . with a goal of 92,000.

We can skip the scoffing over Oregon and Washington exchanges, as their ludicrously embarrassing failures have been extensively discussed. Oregon’s at 44, with a state goal of 237,000; Washington’s at 17,780 . . . with a goal of 340,000.

Illinois, the president’s home state! Surely they’re ahead of the curve in getting folks enrolled and paid, right? They’re at 7,043 . . . out of a goal of 143,000.

Even Kentucky, often cited as one of Obamacare’s shining success stories, is at 20,951 . . . about 10 percent of the way to their goal of 220,000 enrolled.

All of those “M” states with their own state exchanges, ambitious Democratic governors and deep-blue state legislatures — surely, they must be enrolling at a better pace, right?

Eh, not really. Maryland’s at 3,758, with the goal of 150,000 far from sight.

Massachusetts is at 1,700, even further from their state goal of 250,000 paid enrollees.

Minnesota has hit 4,478 . . . out of a goal of 67,000. Still trying to hit 10 percent.

Note that all of the above states have Democratic governors. The Obamacare fan’s usual dodge or whine that the rollout is impeded by uncooperative Republican governors does not apply in any of those states; the difficulties in these states indicate that the problems with the program do not stem from insufficient enthusiasm from GOP lawmakers.

The one state making serious progress is Connecticut; they’re up to 11,631 out of a goal of 33,000. Rhode Island has 2,669, but that state’s goal is only 12,000, one of the lowest in the country. (One health official in the state “predicts that 70,000 to 100,000 will enroll on the exchange by the end of next year.”)

Some states have hit more than five digits. In New York, they’re at 50,119; a pretty solid chunk of their goal of 218,000.

In California, they’re up to 159,004. That sounds pretty good, until you realize they were aiming for 1.3 million.

States with Republican governors are faring no better, of course.

In Iowa, they’re at 757! Nice number for a plane, but well short of the goal of 41,000 enrolled.

In Maine, they’re up to 1,747. Closing in on that goal of 23,000!

An overwhelming 398 in Alaska! Look out, enrollment goal of 20,000!

Let’s make this simpler. The only states that have reached 10 percent of their enrollment goals are California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island; Kentucky is close.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign- ... m-geraghty

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 12-21-2013 02:58 PM

How Unpopular Has Obamacare Become?

Obamacare has now been unpopular for more than an Olympiad—an amazing feat for a law that’s just now going into effect. It’s been unpopular since the summer of 2009—which, come to think of it, is about the time that President Obama first starting saying that if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; and if you’d like some oceanfront property in Arizona, you can have some oceanfront property in Arizona. But it’s particularly interesting to see how much less popular Obamacare has become over the past year.

When Obama won reelection in 2012 over a moderate northeastern Republican who’d never taken a memorable stand against Obamacare, he did so in spite of his centerpiece legislation—not because of it. In an election that Obama won by 4 percentage points (51 to 47 percent), exit polling showed that Americans opposed Obamacare by 5 percentage points (44 percent wanted it to be kept or expanded; 49 percent wanted some or all of it to be repealed). So, Obama’s namesake ran about 10 points behind Obama.

Since then, however, Obamacare’s popularity has sunk to new depths (which, in light of recent developments, is hardly surprising). Exit polling in 2012 showed that Virginians then opposed Obamacare by 1 point (47 percent wanted it kept or expanded; 48 percent wanted it repealed in all or in part). Last week’s exit polling shows that they now oppose it by 7 points (46 percent support it, while 53 percent oppose it), with 41 percent opposing it “strongly”—by far the biggest group.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how ... 66550.html

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 7302
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 12-21-2013 02:59 PM

Well, this explains a lot..... ( I couldn't get the tables to copy over...)

25% of ObamaCare's State-Based Exchange Heads Have Resigned Or Taken Medical Leave, More Sure To Follow

State-based exchanges are looking like the professional sports coaching ranks these days as bad performing ones lose their leaders. More are sure to come as enrollment performance remains poor. The media narrative following the rocky healthcare.gov rollout has been to focus on the “well-performing” state versions. But that is far from reality as a couple of states are carrying the enrollment weight, and a quick review of the early enrollment numbers show how poorly even the best-performing states are really doing.


11-Weeks In And Heads Starting To Roll At Exchanges

Leaders of the Minnesota, Maryland, and Hawaii exchanges have all resigned. The executive director of the Oregon exchange took medical leave in early December with no announced return date. And in a u-turn, after severe criticism, the executive director of the Colorado exchange backed off her request for a year-end bonus. So who could be next to face increased scrutiny?

I have been tracking enrollment numbers by state at UncoverObamacare.com. I pulled up what percentage of expected first year enrollees have selected a plan in these state-based exchanges, click on the table for a full-size version.) (Note: The numbers below are covered lives not applications.). Using this as a proxy of efficacy, it would seem that the heat should be on in New Mexico, Massachusetts, Idaho, DC, Nevada, Colorado, and probably Vermont if they really are striving for an all-in single-payer system in the exchange.

To give a clearer picture of how states are performing in enrollment efforts, I also pulled the ranking for the step before picking a plan, the number of individuals that have submitted an application. (Note: A few might be slightly high in some states that are still reporting out both exchange and Medicaid applications together, and some that have not broken down by the number of applications versus the number of lives covered).

The rankings do change some as pent up applications wait to be processed, but many poor performers are struggling even to guide individuals through the early application process. I have left the pervious ranks next to the states to see how they compare.

These numbers should be watched closely as we progress toward March 31, 2014, to see if the rates of submitted applications picks up. For context, they still need 67% of the expected first year enrollees to submit an application in the next 4 months–and select a plan– and then pay premiums.

More Turnover Will Come Based On Poor Performance & Burnout

State officials at the state-based exchanges have been putting in long hours leading up to the rollout and ever since October 1. Burnout will often be used as the reason for leaders leaving, but given the enrollment performance in a number of states, boards might expedite that process.

Even The “Best” States Are Behind, 17M Accounts Needed in These 17 States To Hit Enrollment Target

Kyle Cheney and Jason Milliman at Politico had a piece this week documenting some of the continued glitches at the state level, including in Washington, Kentucky, New York, and California. This on top of the well documented issues in Maryland, Hawaii, Oregon, Minnesota, and Massachusetts.

It is important to remember, the number of patients selecting a plan to put into their shopping cart (Table 1 above), could turn out to be a very different number from the fully enrolled group that is able to use a functioning website to pay premiums.

If the first two months are any guide, based on the current ratio of those creating an account and making it through to selecting a plan, the 17 states with state-based exchanges need 17.5 million accounts to be created to get there, out of a 107 million people, or 16% of their population.

Nationally the story is about the same, as 48 million accounts would need to be created to hit the target of 7 million first year enrollees. When you drill down to the state level, the picture looks down right depressing in Oregon, DC, Massachusetts, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Washington, and Colorado where over 10% of the total state population would need to create accounts before enough converted into enrollments.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... to-follow/

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government 2010-2013”