Author Topic: Obamacare claims 4 more victims - failed health exchanges $474 million  (Read 2367 times)


dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Soul, it isn't a failure because libtards say so. They forced 8 million under threat of ever increasing penalties to enroll and somehow that is evidence that the law is a success and that it was wanted. Never mind that 25% of those haven't paid (so they are not insured) and 6 million had lost their previous coverage due to crap care.

So how many of the 35 million previously uninsured individuals are INSURED NOW by crap care? HEHEHEHEHEEH! Libtards don't want to know. How convenient that they know how many enrolled but they don't know how many uninsured have coverage for the first time under crap care. Very convenient.

It is beneficial to them to keep that number in that dark. Even they can't justify destroying the entire health care insurance industry and wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to insure less than 5% of the uninsured.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
O-Care’s one-size-fits-all failure
   
 



Share on facebook

1.3K
 
Share on twitter

220
 
Share on google_plusone_share
 
More Sharing Services
 
42
 
Share on email
 
 44 .




By Nancy Pfotenhauer - 05/07/14 06:57 PM EDT





Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree universal health insurance is the central goal of successful healthcare reform. The left sold the Affordable Care Act on this promise; the right hopes to do the same with an alternative plan set to be unveiled later this year.

Both sides are trying to fix the wrong problem. Universal health insurance is profoundly different from better healthcare, and so long as reformers focus on the former, the latter will continue to deteriorate.



ADVERTISEMENT

Real healthcare reform must improve the quality of America’s healthcare system. At its most fundamental level, healthcare exists to improve individuals’ health outcomes and overall well-being. Beneficial reforms will thus improve those outcomes, increase healthcare’s quality and lower its costs, with the ancillary effect of expanding its availability.
This is a more worthy goal than putting a health insurance card in everyone’s hand, a la ObamaCare and its Republican replacements. Universal health insurance is merely the provision of a service regardless of that service’s quality. This cannot be achieved without the assistance of a massive bureaucratic apparatus in Washington that stifles innovation, limits consumer choice and increases its costs. Thus, reforms that seek universal health insurance decrease healthcare’s quality, and they don’t deliver on their promise to make coverage universal.

Look no further than ObamaCare for proof. The Rand Corporation estimates that only one-third of the exchanges’ enrollees were previously uninsured. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 50 percent of the uninsured don’t plan to buy health insurance. Most damningly, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that 31 million Americans will still be uninsured in 10 years.

The problems extend well beyond insurance coverage. By attempting to solve the wrong problem, ObamaCare has also exacerbated — or created — a host of other issues.

Individuals and families now have significantly less freedom when choosing their healthcare. Due to its many coverage, benefit, and cost mandates, ObamaCare replaces the quality, affordable coverage that individuals and families want with one-size-fits-all plans. This resulted in at least 6.3 million Americans losing the health insurance they liked and wanted to keep. Millions of other plans likely will be canceled when the small-business mandates kick in. And millions of Americans were forced to buy insurance that costs more but includes less.

Meanwhile, health insurance is still getting more expensive by the year. ObamaCare’s architects claimed that it would stop healthcare’s runaway costs. The average first-year premium spikes on the exchange of 41 percent — and the increasing likelihood that they’ll increase again next year — dispelled that myth. So did the recent news that healthcare spending growth is now at a 10-year high and will continue to outpace economic growth for at least the next two decades.

These problems will persist so long as reformers pursue universal health insurance. Not so with reforms that lead to better healthcare .

Better healthcare will not be realized without unleashing market-driven innovation. Reformers can’t pretend that this existed prior to Obama-
Care’s passage. Then, as now, federal regulations hemmed in consumers and innovators on every side. ObamaCare’s mandates only expand this restrictive regulatory regime.

Innovators and consumers should be unshackled from the rolls of red tape. This starts by putting patients, not bureaucrats or insurance companies, at the center of healthcare. Patients must be free to choose a health plan that is tailored to their needs, not one with benefit mandates created by special interests. Patients need access to real-time healthcare provider data that doesn’t hide costs or quality behind an impenetrable wall of bureaucratic regulations. Patients should be empowered to improve their own health using breakthrough technologies and personalized treatments.

Thus free to choose, consumers will seek out products and services that actually fit their needs. Innovators will concurrently strive to develop treatments and healthcare options that consumers want, and at a price they can afford. This is the same principle that allowed personal computers, cars and cellphones to soar in quality but plunge in price.

No one-size-fits-all federal policy can accomplish this goal. For instance, several state and federal laws prevent innovators and consumers from working together. So, multiple policy proposals targeting these barriers should be considered and challenged.

National Center for Policy Analysis President John Goodman’s ideas about improving the poor’s access to care can be coupled with Cato Institute Director of Health Policy Studies Michael Cannon’s ideas about getting prices closer to consumers. Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) idea about equalizing the tax treatment of insurance policies can be one of a number of policies, along with Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) and Rep. Tom Price’s (R-Ga.) slightly different approaches. Economist John Cochrane has proposals to help those with pre-existing conditions; Bob Graboyes, a senior research fellow at George Mason University, details how we can unleash healthcare innovation. And ideas by the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), and many others all have promise.

Every proposal should be judged by whether it leads to better healthcare for individuals and families, not whether it gives them a health insurance plan they don’t want or can’t afford. Until this shift happens, the country’s healthcare system will continue to serve Washington’s whims rather than Americans’ well-being.

Pfotenhauer is the president of MediaSpeak Strategies and a senior adviser with Freedom Partners, a nonprofit advocate for free-market policy.
.

Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/205526-o-cares-one-size-fits-all-failure#ixzz31WGgAHd4
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
O-Care’s one-size-fits-all failure
   
Share on facebook

1.3K
 
Share on twitter

220
 
Share on google_plusone_share
 
More Sharing Services
 
42
 
Share on email
 
 44 .




By Nancy Pfotenhauer - 05/07/14 06:57 PM EDT





Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree universal health insurance is the central goal of successful healthcare reform. The left sold the Affordable Care Act on this promise; the right hopes to do the same with an alternative plan set to be unveiled later this year.

Both sides are trying to fix the wrong problem. Universal health insurance is profoundly different from better healthcare, and so long as reformers focus on the former, the latter will continue to deteriorate.



ADVERTISEMENT

Real healthcare reform must improve the quality of America’s healthcare system. At its most fundamental level, healthcare exists to improve individuals’ health outcomes and overall well-being. Beneficial reforms will thus improve those outcomes, increase healthcare’s quality and lower its costs, with the ancillary effect of expanding its availability.
This is a more worthy goal than putting a health insurance card in everyone’s hand, a la ObamaCare and its Republican replacements. Universal health insurance is merely the provision of a service regardless of that service’s quality. This cannot be achieved without the assistance of a massive bureaucratic apparatus in Washington that stifles innovation, limits consumer choice and increases its costs. Thus, reforms that seek universal health insurance decrease healthcare’s quality, and they don’t deliver on their promise to make coverage universal.

Look no further than ObamaCare for proof. The Rand Corporation estimates that only one-third of the exchanges’ enrollees were previously uninsured. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 50 percent of the uninsured don’t plan to buy health insurance. Most damningly, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that 31 million Americans will still be uninsured in 10 years.

The problems extend well beyond insurance coverage. By attempting to solve the wrong problem, ObamaCare has also exacerbated — or created — a host of other issues.

Individuals and families now have significantly less freedom when choosing their healthcare. Due to its many coverage, benefit, and cost mandates, ObamaCare replaces the quality, affordable coverage that individuals and families want with one-size-fits-all plans. This resulted in at least 6.3 million Americans losing the health insurance they liked and wanted to keep. Millions of other plans likely will be canceled when the small-business mandates kick in. And millions of Americans were forced to buy insurance that costs more but includes less.

Meanwhile, health insurance is still getting more expensive by the year. ObamaCare’s architects claimed that it would stop healthcare’s runaway costs. The average first-year premium spikes on the exchange of 41 percent — and the increasing likelihood that they’ll increase again next year — dispelled that myth. So did the recent news that healthcare spending growth is now at a 10-year high and will continue to outpace economic growth for at least the next two decades.

These problems will persist so long as reformers pursue universal health insurance. Not so with reforms that lead to better healthcare .

Better healthcare will not be realized without unleashing market-driven innovation. Reformers can’t pretend that this existed prior to Obama-
Care’s passage. Then, as now, federal regulations hemmed in consumers and innovators on every side. ObamaCare’s mandates only expand this restrictive regulatory regime.

Innovators and consumers should be unshackled from the rolls of red tape. This starts by putting patients, not bureaucrats or insurance companies, at the center of healthcare. Patients must be free to choose a health plan that is tailored to their needs, not one with benefit mandates created by special interests. Patients need access to real-time healthcare provider data that doesn’t hide costs or quality behind an impenetrable wall of bureaucratic regulations. Patients should be empowered to improve their own health using breakthrough technologies and personalized treatments.

Thus free to choose, consumers will seek out products and services that actually fit their needs. Innovators will concurrently strive to develop treatments and healthcare options that consumers want, and at a price they can afford. This is the same principle that allowed personal computers, cars and cellphones to soar in quality but plunge in price.

No one-size-fits-all federal policy can accomplish this goal. For instance, several state and federal laws prevent innovators and consumers from working together. So, multiple policy proposals targeting these barriers should be considered and challenged.

National Center for Policy Analysis President John Goodman’s ideas about improving the poor’s access to care can be coupled with Cato Institute Director of Health Policy Studies Michael Cannon’s ideas about getting prices closer to consumers. Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) idea about equalizing the tax treatment of insurance policies can be one of a number of policies, along with Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) and Rep. Tom Price’s (R-Ga.) slightly different approaches. Economist John Cochrane has proposals to help those with pre-existing conditions; Bob Graboyes, a senior research fellow at George Mason University, details how we can unleash healthcare innovation. And ideas by the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), and many others all have promise.

Every proposal should be judged by whether it leads to better healthcare for individuals and families, not whether it gives them a health insurance plan they don’t want or can’t afford. Until this shift happens, the country’s healthcare system will continue to serve Washington’s whims rather than Americans’ well-being.

Pfotenhauer is the president of MediaSpeak Strategies and a senior adviser with Freedom Partners, a nonprofit advocate for free-market policy.
.

Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/205526-o-cares-one-size-fits-all-failure#ixzz31WGgAHd4
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


She lost me at "...with the ancillary effect of expanding its availability."   WTF?   

OTH, after seeing a pic of plastic-surgery disaster Pfotenhauer, one can maybe understand her thinking that "improving healthcare" might have less to do with making it available to folks that were previously doing without and more to do with lowering the price of elective surgery (and raising its quality, too, the poor thing).



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Consumers Losing Doctors With New Insurance Plans



By Kelli Kennedy - May 14, 2014



 

 

 
 

Email
 
Print
 



24
Comments 

MIAMI (AP) -- Some consumers who bought insurance under President Barack Obama's health care law are experiencing buyer's remorse after realizing that their longtime doctors aren't accepting the new plans.

Before the law took effect, experts warned that narrow networks could impact patients' access to care, especially in cheaper plans. But with insurance cards now in hand, consumers are finding their access limited across all price ranges - sometimes even after they were told their plan would include their current doctor.


<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N8667.130777.REALCLEARPOLITICS/B8083568.6;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;pc=[TPAS_ID];click=;ord=2097942666?"> </script> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="https://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N8667.130777.REALCLEARPOLITICS/B8083568.6;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;pc=[TPAS_ID];ord=2097942666?"> <IMG SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N8667.130777.REALCLEARPOLITICS/B8083568.6;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;pc=[TPAS_ID];ord=2097942666?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Advertisement"></A> </NOSCRIPT> 
 
Michelle Pool is one of those customers. Before enrolling in a new health plan on California's exchange, she checked whether her longtime primary care doctor was covered. Pool, a 60-year-old diabetic who has had back surgery and a hip replacement, purchased the plan only to find that the insurer was mistaken.

Her $352 a month gold plan was cheaper than what she'd paid under her husband's insurance and seemed like a good deal because of her numerous pre-existing conditions. But after her insurance card came in the mail, the Vista, California resident learned her doctor wasn't taking her new insurance.

"It's not fun when you've had a doctor for years and years that you can confide in and he knows you," Pool said. "I'm extremely discouraged. I'm stuck."

The dilemma undercuts President Obama's 2009 pledge that: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period." Consumer frustration over losing doctors comes as the Obama administration is still celebrating a victory with more than 8 million enrollees in its first year.

Narrow networks are part of the economic trade-off for keeping premiums under control and preventing insurers from turning away those with pre-existing conditions. Even before the Affordable Care Act, doctors and hospitals would choose to leave a network - or be pushed out - over reimbursement issues as insurers tried to contain costs.

Insurance trade group America's Health Insurance Plans says studies show the biggest factor influencing consumer choice is price. Insurers say that if consumers want low premiums, their choices may be limited.

Insurance companies also argue there's wide variation in what doctors and hospitals charge, with some increasing prices every year. Insurers say there's little evidence that higher-priced hospitals or doctors are actually delivering better care.

Health and Human Services spokesman Fabien Levy says the law requires insurance companies to post their directories so consumers can see if their doctor is covered before they sign up. Officials say insurance companies ultimately decide what doctors and hospitals to include in networks, just as they did before the law. The federal government is closely monitoring plans to see if more guidelines are needed to ensure consumers have access to quality health care.

Insurance companies say doctors are equally responsible for letting consumers know what plans they accept. But finding that information can be tricky because healthcare.gov does not have a centralized directory of doctors and what plans they accept. Instead it offers links to directories of individual plans, which are sometimes inaccurate.

Insurance agents Craig Gussin in San Diego and Kelly Fristoe in Texas helped dozens of clients switch plans just before the enrollment deadline when clients realized their doctors weren't covered. Now, they're struggling to help clients who realized they were in that position after the March 31 enrollment deadline, when consumers are locked into plans for one year.

Gussin says that even after his mad-dash to make switches before the deadline, he still has a half-dozen clients who are stuck - and he expects the number to grow as more try to schedule with doctors. He and other agents fear it will be one of their most serious issues in 2014.

"Everybody I talk to is having the same issue. It's probably the number one item that we're seeing right now," said Gussin, who is petitioning Covered California for special enrollment status to help clients change plans.

Health counselor Nathalie Milias, who helped enroll nearly 300 Miami-area residents in ACA plans, says most of them chose a plan with $0 monthly premiums and deductibles - but with much more limited choices. She says tax credits could have allowed them more robust plans if they were willing to spend more, but many are working poor who didn't want to pay another bill.

Marie Bien-Aime, a 59-year-old cook at a Miami restaurant, enrolled in that plan to avoid a monthly payment, but she realized her longtime health clinic didn't take the plan. Shortly before the enrollment deadline, Bien-Aime upgraded to a plan that costs $37 per month.

"Paying $37 isn't good for me, but I had to do it because I wanted to keep my doctor because he's so good," said Bien-Aime, who was previously uninsured.

Many consumers are still learning. They hear "Obamacare" and think it's free like Medicaid or Medicare, said John Foley, an attorney and navigator.

"They don't expect to pay anything," said Foley. "For a couple more dollars a month you can get a really good plan and they're like, 'This is free. I don't want to pay for this.'"

Even with pricier plans, some consumers have access problems.

James Potts' $647-per-month silver plan was issued by the same company that had insured him with a different plan cancelled under the Affordable Care Act. The 64-year-old property insurance agent assumed his doctors would remain the same under the insurer's new plan, but didn't double check.

When Potts got a nasty cold, he called three facilities near his home in Wichita Falls, Texas, and was shocked to find none took the insurance, including his primary care doctor.

"It was a waste of money for me," he said. "I couldn't find doctors that would talk to me."



Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/14/consumers_losing_doctors_with_new_insurance_plans_122631.html#ixzz31ndxKn25
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
She lost me at "...with the ancillary effect of expanding its availability."   WTF?   

OTH, after seeing a pic of plastic-surgery disaster Pfotenhauer, one can maybe understand her thinking that "improving healthcare" might have less to do with making it available to folks that were previously doing without and more to do with lowering the price of elective surgery (and raising its quality, too, the poor thing).




um.  duh.  you don't know what the ancillary effect of expanding availability means???  she's obviously talking about my cock.

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
um.  duh.  you don't know what the ancillary effect of expanding availability means???  she's obviously talking about my cock.


lol