News Count Me As Grateful For The Changes Coming In Us Health Care

[The Albatross]

In my busy time... will look up the links and get back to you.

 

[Pietro]

I'm of mixed opinion on this law.

There were much simpler ways to deal with the health care issue, but they would have require much more extensive changes. Really, they needed to throw-out Medicare and Medicaid and bundle all health care systems into one. In all of these systems, the government is also biting-off more than it can chew. There's no reason the government has to run medical programs. It can set the rules, the playing-field, and can even help to ensure that premiums stay reasonable with a catastrophic illness pool. Even if it's providing the funding for the care, the programs can still be through private insurance carriers.

The other problem is that they made the tie of health care to employment even stronger, when this tie should be completely optional. Having to switch health care insurers every time I change jobs is time-consuming, and sometimes results in bad quality insurance. They problem is that, over time, insurers began to look at employers as "pools", and now have this artificial calculation that they do, making rates cheaper for them over individual subscribers -- when, in truth, the entire body of their subscribers, regardless of employer, forms a pool.

The resulting law is a huge mess, with tons of rules and regulations only a bureaucrat could love. ;) There are many important provisions in the law, such as closing loopholes for mental health care and "existing conditions" -- but, unfortunately, the law goes far beyond this and tries to control everything. I'm not sure why Congress had to go this route -- I can only guess that there were political reasons, and/or "kickbacks" involved.

All this said, fully rescinding the law, now, would likely cause a lot of problems, itself. Everyone -- employers, insurers, etc. -- has made extensive changes to prepare for the new law, including changes to computer software, updates to policies, legal compliance changes, etc. Rescinding the law, now, would throw the entire health care system into chaos, because there's only three months left in the year -- not nearly enough time for them all to revert to the pre-Obamacare situation.

I think we're stuck with it. Hopefully, if Congress can ever tone-down the partisan crap and decide to get some things done, maybe they'll be able to revisit the parts of the law that need to be changed or removed. This is a lot to hope for. Both parties have been worthless, these last few years. Common sense and compromise have been murdered by political posturing and finger-pointing. Congress has devolved into a bunch of pre-adolescents; it's become "Lord of the Flies". Thus, we'll have to see what happens early next year, when things start kicking-in.

 

[BloomInWinter]

Here's something I am proud of - The Mental Health Parity Act. A letter I wrote about the cost of mental health care is included in the legislation.

"But under the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare," insurers will soon be required to give mental illness coverage equal to that for physical ailments.

Starting next year, the ACA calls for one of the largest expansions of mental health and substance abuse coverage in a generation, requiring that all new small-group and individual market plans offer mental health services and cover them at a par with medical benefits."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...or-parity-in-mental-health-coverage-/2847889/

So, if you're not limited in how many visits you can see your primary physician for, insurance companies cannot limit how many visits you get for seeing your mental health provider.

More - "February 21, 2013 - Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced yesterday a final rule for the Accountable Care Act that will make purchasing health coverage easier for consumers. The policies give consumers a consistent way to compare and enroll in health coverage in the individual and small group markets."

"The rule outlines health insurance issuer standards for a core package of benefits, called “Essential Health Benefits,” which health insurance issuers must cover both inside and outside the health insurance “Exchanges.” The standards for essential health benefits greatly expand the availability of coverage for mental health and substance use disorder services. HHS projects the rules will eventually expand mental health and substance use disorder benefits and federal parity protections to 62 million more Americans. For more information on the rule, see: Essential Health Benefit Rule"

Source: Obama Care, Deconstructed

The original NAMI news release about the act, which was passed with bi-partisan support, in 2007. Source - Obama Care, Deconstructed

Both parties have been worthless? Really? ;)

 

[DMerish]

"But under the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare," insurers will soon be required to give mental illness coverage equal to that for physical ailments.

I believe that comes after the deductible has been satisfied.

 

[BloomInWinter]

Some good news about costs -

"[DLMURL="http://smtp01.kaiserhealthnews.org/t/38671/537253/46168/0/"]USA Today[/DLMURL]: For Millions, Insurance Will Cost Less Than $100/Month

About 6.4 million Americans eligible to buy insurance through the new health exchanges will pay $100 or less a month in premiums because of tax subsidies, according to a Department of Health and Human Services report to be released Tuesday and obtained by USA TODAY. The report by the HHS office for planning and evaluation said the lower premiums would primarily apply to insurance customers who buy what are called "silver" plans on the exchanges that open Oct. 1 (Kennedy, 9/17)."

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/17/100-dollar-premiums-exchanges/2822979/

 

[The Albatross]

BloominWinter said: “Sure, Sen. Max Baucus is very knowledgeable. He never said Obama care would be a train wreck. "A conservative TV ad misconstrues Sen. Max Baucus’ infamous “train wreck” statement to claim “there’s bipartisan agreement that Obama care isn’t working.” A Baucus aide tells us that the Democratic senator “remains a major supporter of the law,” and that the ad takes his words out of context.”

Senator Baucus is not just knowledgeable he is one of the more significant authors of the bill. His remarks, in full context, has to do with concerns over the implementation of the program in a discussion with Kathleen Sebelius. He is a proponent of the law he helped to pen, and thinks that it didn’t go far enough as he is a proponent of the single payer system. I did not claim that “there’s bipartisan agreement that Obama care isn’t working.” - I said that Senator Baucus said that he is concerned it is a train wreck. Which he did. Here is his video in full context:, his comment is made about implementation concerns at the 1:54 minute mark:

Sebelius’ responses don’t inspire confidence. Though his personal views regarding Obamacare do not agree with mine, as one of the prominent authors of the legislation, his opinion has far more credibility than any other source.

Further, he admitted that he didn't even read it, "Judy Matott asked.... and then asked him and Sebelious, "if either of you read the health care bill before it was passed and if not, that is the most despicable, irresponsible thing."
Baucus ... took credit for "essentially" writing the health care bill that passed the Senate. "I don't think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It's statutory language, " Baucus said. "We hire experts." Max Baucus, author of Obamacare, admits he never read his own bill It was reported also by the San Francisco Examiner here: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...e-never-read-his-own-bill/Content?oid=2161708


So far as your fact checking sources, neither one inspires confidence and is suspect. The truth is not easy to determine. It is advisable to be aware of the source for the service. Left (though less so) and right, both, have called your two main source fact checkers into question. The fact is that even fact checkers don’t seem to be above bias. I tend to pick the horse’s mouth , primary source articles, or opinion editorials of well credentialed journalist/scholars.

Factcheck.org has been linked to Barack Obama and friends via the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where “Obama served on the board of directors of theChicago Annenberg Challengefrom 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.”

“Factcheck.org is part and parcel of the Annenberg Foundation. Factcheck was also chosen by the Obama campaign as the arbitrator of whether Obama’s birth certificate which purportedly proved he’s a citizen of the United States is authentic.’ (Just a little coincidence I threw in because when one's eligibility is in question is it was during his first presidential run, an organization that was truly non-partisan more than likely would not be called upon for such an endeavor. Bill Ayers also has a connection to the Annenberg Foundation though it says on it's web site that he did not receive pay.

From their website: (Link here: http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/news/chicago-annenberg-challenge-records )

“Founding members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board were: Susan Crown, vice president, Henry Crown Company; Patricia Graham, president, The Spencer Foundation, and former dean, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Stanley Ikenberry, president-emeritus, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Handy Lindsey, executive director, Field Foundation; Barack Obama; Arnold Weber, former president, Northwestern University, and president, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago; and Wanda White, executive director, Community Workshop on Economic Development.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge has no record of providing any salary for William Ayers”


PolitiFact.com is a project operated by theTampa Bay Times a newspaper widely considered anti-Republican (and known to some as the "Florida Pravda"). Formerly The St. Petersburg Tampa Bay Times. Politifact started in August 2007 by Times Washington Bureau Chief Bill Adair, in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly. Adair remains PolitiFact.com's editor. The Washington Times and the Congressional Quarterly are traditional liberal.

According to Smart Politics, a non-partisan political news site authored and founded in 2006 byDead Link Removed, a Research Associate at theDead Link Removed(CSPG) at the University of Minnesota'sDead Link Removed:

"Dead Link Removed

During the last 13 months, the Republicans that have led the way with the largest number of Barely True, False, and Pants On Fire grades are Sarah Palin with eight, Michele Bachmann with seven, and John Boehner, Mike Pence, and the National Republican Congressional Committee with four each.

Whereas Boehner received six "True," two "Mostly True," and one "Half True" ratings during this span, Pence and the NRCC received none in these categories, Bachmann only two, and Palin just four.

What is particularly interesting about these findings is that the political party in control of the Presidency, the US Senate, and the US House during almost the entirety of the period under analysis was theDemocrats, not the Republicans.

And yet, PolitiFact chose to highlight untrue statements made by those in the partyoutof power.

But this potential selection bias - if there is one at PolitiFact - seems to be aimed more at Republicanofficeholdersthan conservatives per se.

An examination of the more than 80 statements PolitiFact graded over the past 13 months by ideological groups and individuals who have not held elective office, conservatives only received slightly harsher ratings than liberals.

Half of the statements made by conservatives received ratings of Pants on Fire (12.5 percent), False (16.1 percent), or Barely True (21.4 percent), compared to 41 percent for liberals.

These findings beg the central unanswered question, and that is what is the process by which PolitiFact selects the statements that it ultimately grades?

When PolitiFact Editor Bill Adair was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal in August of 2009, he explained how statements are picked:

"We choose to check things we are curious about. If we look at something and we think that an elected official or talk show host is wrong, then we will fact-check it."

If that is the methodology, then why is it that PolitiFact takes Republicans to the woodshed much more frequently than Democrats?

One could theoretically argue that one political party has made a disproportionately higher number of false claims than the other, and that this is subsequently reflected in the distribution of ratings on the PolitiFact site.

However, there is no evidence offered by PolitiFact that this is their calculus in decision-making.

Nor does PolitiFact claim on its site to present a 'fair and balanced' selection of statements, or that the statements rated are representative of the general truthfulness of the nation's political parties or the elected officials involved.

And yet...

In defending PolitiFact's "statements by ruling" summaries - tables that combine all ratings given by PolitiFact to an individual or group - Adair explained:

"We are really creating a tremendous database of independent journalism that's assessing these things, and it's valuable for people to see how often is President Obama right and how often was Senator McCain right. I think of it as like the back of a baseball card. You know - that it's sort of someone's career statistics. You know - it's sort of what's their batting average." (C-SPAN Washington Journal, August 4, 2009)

Adair is also on record for lamenting the media's kneejerk inclination to treat both sides of an issue equally, particularly when one side has the facts wrong.

In an interview with the New York Times in April 2010, Adair said:

"The media in general has shied away from fact checking to a large extent because of fears that we'd be called biased, and also because I think it's hard journalism. It's a lot easier to give the on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand kind of journalism and leave it to readers to sort it out. But that isn't good enough these days. The information age has made things so chaotic, I think it's our obligation in the mainstream media to help people sort out what's true and what's not."

The question is not whether PolitiFact will ultimately convert skeptics on the right that they do not have ulterior motives in the selection of what statements are rated, but whether the organization can give a convincing argument that either a) Republicans in fact do lie much more than Democrats, or b) if they do not, that it is immaterial that PolitiFact covers political discourse with a frame that suggests this is the case.

In his August 2009 C-SPAN interview, Adair explained how the Pants on Fire rating was the site's most popular feature, and the rationale for its inclusion on the Truth-O-Meter scale:

"We don't take this stuff too seriously. It's politics, but it's a sport too."

By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting - and the game is elephants.”

(Source: Dead Link Removed )

 

[The Albatross]

Granted, it makes it difficult to have discourse civilly on almost any matter... considering that even the fact checkers have their bias.

So I guess you say "po-TAY-toe" and I say "po-TAH-toe" once again.

Kelly Kennedy by the way: "I joined the staff of USA TODAY in December 2010 as a health policy reporter. For now, that means all Affordable Care Act all the time."

"I've written for Army Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Associated Press, NASA, The (Boulder) Daily Camera, The Denver Post, The (Portland) Oregonian, The Salt Lake Tribune and The (Ogden) Standard-Examiner." (from her website: http://kellykennedy.net/ )

I'm thinking that if I spent the time, I could find a boatload of pro Obama care stuff. But I don't have the time. So I'll just say, that the predominance/disproportion of liberal bias in media is well known. But healthy skepticism and ultimately deciding for yourself is what is necessary in the socio/political climate today.

We likely won't agree. Not even on legitimate sources.

 

[The Albatross]

Source: http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/99827/no-doctors-dont-hate-obamacare

From Wiki: "The New Republic (TNR) is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published continuously since 1914. A weekly for most of its history, it is currently published twenty times per year with a circulation of approximately 50,000...
Domestically, TNR as of 2011 supports a largely modern liberal stance on fiscal and social issues, according to editor Franklin Foer, who stated that it "invented the modern usage of the term 'liberal', and it's one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for."[As of 2004, however, some, like Anne Kossedd and Steven Rendall, contend that it is not as liberal as it was before 1974.[5]

The magazine's outlook is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and "New Democrats" such as former US President Bill Clinton and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, who received the magazine's endorsement in the 2004 Democratic primary; so did Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008.[6] While defending federal programs, like Medicare and the EPA, it has advocated some policies that, while seeking to achieve the ends of traditional social welfare programs, often use market solutions as their means, and so are often called "business-friendly."

 

[Pietro]

I believe that comes after the deductible has been satisfied.

This will depend upon each specific medical plan, in the same way that each plan varies for physical care.

"Mental Health Parity" simply means that mental health costs will be treated in the same exact way as physical health costs, for a given plan. So, if the plan has a $2500 deductible for out-of-network providers, and your therapist is out-of-network, then you need to spend $2500 bucks on out-of-network costs before the next level of payment kicks-in -- co-insurance. ;)

My current health plan already has full parity, but most therapy providers, even those with PhD's, fall under "out-of-network", largely because the insurance companies, on the whole, refuse to negotiate reasonable rates with them. Which means that we haven't quite achieved real parity yet, have we? ;)

Obamacare, to my knowledge, will not fix or change this specific situation.

 

[BloomInWinter]

For those inHere's good info from the American Public Health Association, with an FAQ, timeline, various resources for healthcare providers and patients.

Source: [DLMURL]http://www.apha.org/advocacy/Health[/DLMURL] Reform/

Exerpt from their letter to the GOP led House of Representatives in opposition to attempts to repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

"Implementation of the Affordable Care Act is critical to addressing a number of the biggest challenges facing our health system including escalating health care costs, uneven quality and deaths due to medical errors, discriminatory practices by health insurance providers and the shrinking ranks of the nation’s primary care providers. The ACA is also helping to shift our health system from one that focuses on treating the sick to one that focuses on keeping people healthy.

The ACA expands affordable and comprehensive health insurance coverage to an additional 31 million uninsured Americans; provides mandatory funding for community-based prevention and wellness activities through the Prevention and Public Health Fund; has provided 54 million families with additional benefits, including greater access to preventive health care services such as vaccines and preventive care and screenings for women; 2.5 million young adults up to age 26 are able to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans; nearly 18 million children with pre-existing conditions are protected from insurance coverage denials; and nearly 33 million seniors have accessed preventive services now available without cost-sharing through Medicare.

Protecting the ACA and working to effectively implement this critical law will remain a top priority for APHA and we will likely include this vote to overturn the ACA in our 2012 annual congressional vote record.

We ask you to oppose this and any future efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act and we look forward to working with you on constructive efforts to protect and improve the health of the American people."

Source: [DLMURL]http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/44D8B257-7A69-42FB-9F34-4CD5C368FD53/0/APHANoonACArepealfinal2012.pdf[/DLMURL]

Republicans have also failed to pass budgets.

"But Republicans have also failed to pass budgets -
Republicans failed to pass budgets in 1998, 2004, and 2006. The Congressional Research Service noted in a January [DLMURL="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30297.pdf"]document[/DLMURL] that "Congress has adopted 39 budget resolutions during the 35 years that the congressional budget process has been in effect. At least one budget resolution has been adopted every year except 1998 (for FY1999), 2002 (for FY2003), 2004 (for FY2005), and 2006 (for FY2007)." Republicans heldLink Removed and Senate majorities in 1998, 2004, and 2006." Source: Dead Link Removed

 

[The Albatross]

The first rule of economics is that when supply (medical professionals) stay constant, and demand increases (via an ageing population, adding approximately 30 million to the tax roles, and with the perhaps additional burden of the illegal aliens should the immigration bill pass) - costs increase.

Add to that quantitative easing courtesy of the Federal Reserve, who is printing money and pumping it into the economy devaluing the dollar.

Add to that the now $17 trillion deficit and approximately $90 trillion in "unfunded liabilities" ... and um, yeah. I think this is a problem.

Because when baby boomers start dying (in 2025, 1`out of every 4 citizens will be a senior citizen) the tax base shrinks. Though admirable in intent, I think that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Senate has unduelly burdened the 53% of Americans who actually pay income taxes. And I think Baucus is right. This is going to be a train wreck.

From Alan Greenspan on the looming economic outlook of the United States: "“Both uncompromising sides of our ongoing debate on fiscal and other issues need to recognize that financial crisis lurks should we fail to resolve our deeply disruptive fiscal imbalance. And that imbalance is far greater than the official data portray [because of contingent liabilities to the U.S. government from possible rescues of large financial firms and iconic nonfinancial firms] … At risk is the status the American economy has held as the preeminent world economic power for more than a century. …"

Nancy Pelosi: "Nothing left to cut in the budget - the cupboard is bare". Um yes there is. An entitlement program we can't fiscally afford.

And how about Pelosi: Obamacare Diminishing 40 Hour Work Week For Some, Means “Freedom To Pursue Your Passion”??? Um, nice try Nancy... it means a shrinking tax base.

 

[The Albatross]

Last one, I promise, Barack Obama: “So to say it as plainly as I can, health care is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long term fiscal health. That’s a fact. That’s a fact!”

Apparently basic math isn't one of his finer points. :O_o: