Aca A Success

[longknife]

Current Status of Health Insurance Marketplace and Medicaid Expansion Decisions @ Current Status of Health Insurance Marketplace and Medicaid Expansion Decisions

Gee. It sure is simple when one Googles.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

On the fact that y'all will accept "the TRUTH!!!" of any and every blog or message board that you stumble across that says what you already believe?

No need for an update. SSDD.

So, no update, but you felt a need to post.

Thanks for nothing.

Some day y'all will learn to post primary sources and not garbage. I look forward to it.

And you'll be the judge of that ?

Don't make me laugh.

If I had any power, I'd make you acknowledge that I post primary sources, something the RW seems either unwilling or too ignorant to do.

Which is it?

You are long on insults but painfully short on anything but opinion. You present no facts to support your assertions. Why is that?

Because........she has primary sources........she just seems to have lost them.

 

[emilynghiem]

On the fact that y'all will accept "the TRUTH!!!" of any and every blog or message board that you stumble across that says what you already believe?

No need for an update. SSDD.

Dear longknife and Arianrhod
What hasn't changed is the total lack of recognition of
"right to health care" as a BELIEF
and Constitutional beliefs that are violated by the ACA mandates and how they were passed.

Until these beliefs are
A. recognized as creeds
B. recognized as equal, where it is wrongful to enforce one and penalize the other

Then the issues go round and round in circles, never addressing the root conflict behind the opposition between the two sides.

Arianrhod
This is like trying to argue back and forth between
A. a Hindu trying to argue with a Muslim that beef is worse than pork, so it is better to ban beef than ban pork
B. a Muslim trying to argue the opposite with a Hindu to defend pork bans, and prove pork is worse than beef

No matter how much proof you show, of either viewpoint:
1. the federal govt has no business favoring one belief over another, so any such law REQUIRING citizens to comply with EITHER ONE
(and penalizing them if they don't) is still biased by BELIEF and is DISCRIMINATING by CREED in violation of equal protections of the laws.
2. NEITHER side is going to change their root belief.
And shouldn't be required to change, compromise, or be penalized for their beliefs by federal govt.

Arianrhod if you can understand that Federal Government is not authorized to pass laws forcing:
A. A Hindu to buy and eat beef, which is AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS, but is required by federal law
(or they will be fined for not complying because this isn't recognized as violating their beliefs, so the law is still being enforced anyway)
B. A Muslim to buy and eat pork, which is AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS, but is required by federal law or they will be fined for not complying
(or they will be fined for not complying because this isn't recognized as violating their beliefs, so the law is still being enforced anyway)

Then maybe you can understand how outraged Constitutionalists are about
being forced to comply with ACA mandates and fines that are AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS, but having to pay fines for not complying
because this isn't recognized as violating their beliefs, so the law is still being enforced anyway.

It is like forcing a Muslim to buy and eat pork UNTIL it is proven that law is BIASED.
Or forcing an Atheist to pay into a Christian program required by federal govt
OR BE FINED where the penalty goes into that program anyway, even though
1. they don't believe in Christianity "as the only way" (similar to buying health insurance
"as the only way" or else face fines that go into the exchanges that are equally against
the beliefs of Constitutionalists)
2. or Christianity goes AGAINST their beliefs
3. and/or the abuse of federal laws to pass and enforce such biased legislation and penalties
VIOLATES their Constitutional right to equal protection of creed from discrimination

Either way, 1 , 2 or 3, that person's beliefs and rights are VIOLATED.

So that is why "no amount of proof" is going to change that.
It's still a violation on several counts, regardless if a program works or fails.

 

[Arianrhod]

Current Status of Health Insurance Marketplace and Medicaid Expansion Decisions @ Current Status of Health Insurance Marketplace and Medicaid Expansion Decisions

Gee. It sure is simple when one Googles.

It certainly does. It tells you which state legislators refused to allow their citizens to access health insurance through a state exchange. Yellow was an excellent choice of color. Those citizens can still access health insurance through the federal exchange, however. And you can expect some of those yellow states to change color next year.

 

[Arianrhod]

On the fact that y'all will accept "the TRUTH!!!" of any and every blog or message board that you stumble across that says what you already believe?

No need for an update. SSDD.

Dear longknife and Arianrhod
What hasn't changed is the total lack of recognition of
"right to health care" as a BELIEF
and Constitutional beliefs that are violated by the ACA mandates and how they were passed.

Until these beliefs are
A. recognized as creeds
B. recognized as equal, where it is wrongful to enforce one and penalize the other

Then the issues go round and round in circles, never addressing the root conflict behind the opposition between the two sides.

Arianrhod
This is like trying to argue back and forth between
A. a Hindu trying to argue with a Muslim that beef is worse than pork, so it is better to ban beef than ban pork
B. a Muslim trying to argue the opposite with a Hindu to defend pork bans, and prove pork is worse than beef

No matter how much proof you show, of either viewpoint:
1. the federal govt has no business favoring one belief over another, so any such law REQUIRING citizens to comply with EITHER ONE
(and penalizing them if they don't) is still biased by BELIEF and is DISCRIMINATING by CREED in violation of equal protections of the laws.
2. NEITHER side is going to change their root belief.
And shouldn't be required to change, compromise, or be penalized for their beliefs by federal govt.

Arianrhod if you can understand that Federal Government is not authorized to pass laws forcing:
A. A Hindu to buy and eat beef, which is AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS, but is required by federal law
(or they will be fined for not complying because this isn't recognized as violating their beliefs, so the law is still being enforced anyway)
B. A Muslim to buy and eat pork, which is AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS, but is required by federal law or they will be fined for not complying
(or they will be fined for not complying because this isn't recognized as violating their beliefs, so the law is still being enforced anyway)

Then maybe you can understand how outraged Constitutionalists are about
being forced to comply with ACA mandates and fines that are AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS, but having to pay fines for not complying
because this isn't recognized as violating their beliefs, so the law is still being enforced anyway.

It is like forcing a Muslim to buy and eat pork UNTIL it is proven that law is BIASED.
Or forcing an Atheist to pay into a Christian program required by federal govt
OR BE FINED where the penalty goes into that program anyway, even though
1. they don't believe in Christianity "as the only way" (similar to buying health insurance
"as the only way" or else face fines that go into the exchanges that are equally against
the beliefs of Constitutionalists)
2. or Christianity goes AGAINST their beliefs
3. and/or the abuse of federal laws to pass and enforce such biased legislation and penalties
VIOLATES their Constitutional right to equal protection of creed from discrimination

Either way, 1 , 2 or 3, that person's beliefs and rights are VIOLATED.

So that is why "no amount of proof" is going to change that.
It's still a violation on several counts, regardless if a program works or fails.

It's interesting how your language is heavily weighted toward a pretense of spirituality (and UPPER CASE LETTERS). Clearly you've forgotten Matthew 22:40 and Galatians 5:14.

 

[Arianrhod]

In fact, I do. I guess you're just not paying attention.

You have power to make me do something ?

Let's see it.

I have the confidence to say that I do cite primary sources. That you deny this means either you aren't paying attention or you don't know what a primary source is.

When you post something meaningful........

I'm not responsible for your emotional reaction to primary sources. That does not make them not primary sources.

I think the first three words cover it....four if you explode the contraction.

If you expect someone else to be responsible for you, right down to your moods, much less your health insurance decisions.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is a surprise how?

Well, with all the promises of the Obamastration...it's not hard to understand.

 

[william the wie]

State exchanges such as those in MS are unlikely to survive the next presidential term as rates continue to sky-rocket.

 

[Arianrhod]

State exchanges such as those in MS are unlikely to survive the next presidential term as rates continue to sky-rocket.

You can thank your legislators for refusing Medicaid expansion. But they'll have their hands out to the fed next time there's a hurricane.

 

[william the wie]

State exchanges such as those in MS are unlikely to survive the next presidential term as rates continue to sky-rocket.

You can thank your legislators for refusing Medicaid expansion. But they'll have their hands out to the fed next time there's a hurricane.

Actually as a state exchange Mississippi did exactly that as part of being a state exchange state.

 

[Arianrhod]

State exchanges such as those in MS are unlikely to survive the next presidential term as rates continue to sky-rocket.

You can thank your legislators for refusing Medicaid expansion. But they'll have their hands out to the fed next time there's a hurricane.

Actually as a state exchange Mississippi did exactly that as part of being a state exchange state.

Then the map longknife posted is inaccurate.

 

[william the wie]

Just google Mississippi state exchange to make sure that you are getting the latest data.

 

[Greenbeard]

State exchanges such as those in MS are unlikely to survive the next presidential term as rates continue to sky-rocket.

I gotta tell you, I've heard worse.

Three carriers offer plans through the Mississippi exchange: Humana, Ambetter/Magnolia, and UnitedHealthcare. According to the Mississippi Business Journal, average rate changes for 2016 are:

• Magnolia Health/Ambetter: average decrease of 2.9 percent (18,000 enrollees as of November 1)
• Humana: average decrease of 0.2 percent (16,915 enrollees as of November 1)
• UnitedHealthCare: average increase of 6.6 percent (26,000 enrollees as of November 1)

Based on the enrollment as of November 1, the weighted average rate change in the Mississippi exchange is only about 1.9 percent for 2016.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

State exchanges such as those in MS are unlikely to survive the next presidential term as rates continue to sky-rocket.

I gotta tell you, I've heard worse.

Three carriers offer plans through the Mississippi exchange: Humana, Ambetter/Magnolia, and UnitedHealthcare. According to the Mississippi Business Journal, average rate changes for 2016 are:

• Magnolia Health/Ambetter: average decrease of 2.9 percent (18,000 enrollees as of November 1)
• Humana: average decrease of 0.2 percent (16,915 enrollees as of November 1)
• UnitedHealthCare: average increase of 6.6 percent (26,000 enrollees as of November 1)

Based on the enrollment as of November 1, the weighted average rate change in the Mississippi exchange is only about 1.9 percent for 2016.

I have no reason to dispute those numbers.

I just have to wonder why:

united ceo regrets joining obamacare | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, if I look at those total enrollees....I see 61,000 people.

The state has a population of 3,000,000. And so this is 2% of the population.

 

[william the wie]

State exchanges such as those in MS are unlikely to survive the next presidential term as rates continue to sky-rocket.

I gotta tell you, I've heard worse.

Three carriers offer plans through the Mississippi exchange: Humana, Ambetter/Magnolia, and UnitedHealthcare. According to the Mississippi Business Journal, average rate changes for 2016 are:

• Magnolia Health/Ambetter: average decrease of 2.9 percent (18,000 enrollees as of November 1)
• Humana: average decrease of 0.2 percent (16,915 enrollees as of November 1)
• UnitedHealthCare: average increase of 6.6 percent (26,000 enrollees as of November 1)

Based on the enrollment as of November 1, the weighted average rate change in the Mississippi exchange is only about 1.9 percent for 2016.

I have no reason to dispute those numbers.

I just have to wonder why:

united ceo regrets joining obamacare | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, if I look at those total enrollees....I see 61,000 people.

The state has a population of 3,000,000. And so this is 2% of the population.

The Devil in the details is that care-providers who accept new Medicare/Medicaid patients are declining and number of carriers by zipcode is also declining. I suspect those 61,000 are the section 8 housing of the wealthiest zipcodes in the state, who like their comparables in every other state are the wealthiest of the officially poor in the state. MS is likely to lose UHC next year so total coverage by the exchanges should drop to 01% or less.

 

[Greenbeard]

The state has a population of 3,000,000. And so this is 2% of the population.

The nongroup market isn't big, it never has been. Mississippi's nongroup market in 2013, pre-exchange, was 3% of the population. Now it's whoever's in the exchange plus the off-exchange non-group market. The numbers will keep growing for the next few years, as they will everywhere. But the numbers will never be big. Most privately insured people in this country aren't even insured by insured companies.

Which is part of the reason the hysteria about all the alleged turmoil in the nongroup markets is so overwrought.