What happens when the trainwreck doesn't materialize?

[MeBelle]

More and more Doctors are not taking Medicaid pts.
What prevents Doctors from refusing to take any other kind of insurance?

My Dentist takes one program offered by Delta, but won't doesn't take other Delta programs.

Yo bumping! Answer please.

Medicaid primary care rates are rising, on average, 73% this year, courtesy of the ACA. Good for access.

That said, most of Medicaid is privatized--they'll figure it out, right?

Yes, I have read that article.
I still know that more Docs, in 2013, are not accepting Medicaid/MediCal patients.

I also haven't seen an increase in reimbursements from MediCal.

Calif. Physicians Unsure of Timeline for Medi-Cal Pay Increases Under ACA - California Healthline

Comment?

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes, I have read that article.
I still know that more Docs, in 2013, are not accepting Medicaid/MediCal patients.

I also haven't seen an increase in reimbursements from MediCal.

Calif. Physicians Unsure of Timeline for Medi-Cal Pay Increases Under ACA - California Healthline

Comment?

Comment on?

As I said, Medicaid primary care rates are rising this year (retroactive to January 1, whenever your state implements it). Are you asking whether that's going to happen? The answer is yes.

If you want even better access, write your state reps and governor to ask them to direct some of their surplus into increasing Medicaid specialty care rates.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, I have read that article.
I still know that more Docs, in 2013, are not accepting Medicaid/MediCal patients.

I also haven't seen an increase in reimbursements from MediCal.

Calif. Physicians Unsure of Timeline for Medi-Cal Pay Increases Under ACA - California Healthline

Comment?

Comment on?

As I said, Medicaid primary care rates are rising this year (retroactive to January 1, whenever your state implements it). Are you asking whether that's going to happen? The answer is yes.

If you want even better access, write your state reps and governor to ask them to direct some of their surplus into increasing Medicaid specialty care rates.

Why do states have to direct their (imaginary) surpluses to a program that wasn't supposed to add a dime to the deficit?

 

[Greenbeard]

Why do states have to direct their (imaginary) surpluses to a program that wasn't supposed to add a dime to the deficit?

If you want the GOP to push to nationalize Medicaid instead of leaving it under state control, knock yourself out.

 

[Meister]

Yes, I have read that article.
I still know that more Docs, in 2013, are not accepting Medicaid/MediCal patients.

I also haven't seen an increase in reimbursements from MediCal.

Calif. Physicians Unsure of Timeline for Medi-Cal Pay Increases Under ACA - California Healthline

Comment?

Comment on?

As I said, Medicaid primary care rates are rising this year (retroactive to January 1, whenever your state implements it). Are you asking whether that's going to happen? The answer is yes.

If you want even better access, write your state reps and governor to ask them to direct some of their surplus into increasing Medicaid specialty care rates.

Why do states have to direct their (imaginary) surpluses to a program that wasn't supposed to add a dime to the deficit?

ACA is having more holes blown through it despite what the paid greenbeard spews.
Even the democrats saying it's a bust. Several parts of it aren't being funded as packaged.
Politicians are trying to opt our of this law.

Congressional leaders from both parties are reportedly discussing ways that lawmakers and their aides can avoid having to participate in Obamacare health insurance exchanges.

The talks were apparently prompted by concerns on Capitol Hill that the provision in the law requiring lawmakers and congressional staffers to join the exchanges could cost them thousands of dollars in new healthcare costs, which could force many staffers to leave their government jobs in search of higher-paying employment.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Congressional Leaders Want to Opt-Out of Obamacare
Unions are trying to opt out of it.

Who knew Obamacare was bad for workers? Unions, or rather the professional class of union leaders, were vehement supporters of Obamacare’s federal takeover of health care. Now that they’ve had a chance to actually read the 2,801-page bill and “find out what is in it,” they are upset and want out.

Major unions like the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters are now demanding that they be allowed to stay on their current health care plans and receive government subsidies to cover the increased costs some of Obamacare’s provisions will impose on lower-income workers. They want to eat their government cake and have it too. What else is new? Who would foot the bill? You guessed it: We, the taxpayers.

The rank hypocrisy of Obamacare-backing unions began almost immediately after the passage of the bill three years ago, with hundreds of thousands of union workers being exempted from the law through waivers from the Obama administration.

In total, more than 1,200 entities were granted waivers from President Obama‘s signature legislation, the vast majority of them labor unions. In fact, unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers, while only 69,813 employees at private firms, many of them small businesses, managed to secure a waiver.
The same unions that fought tooth and nail to impose this program on all Americans used million-dollar lobbyists to make sure they didn’t have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Nice.

Read more: CLANCY: Labor unions that pushed Obamacare through want out - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter


Yes, yes, as much as the paid greenbeard tries and touts just how wonderful the debacle is, seems that those in the know and aren't paid hacks want out of it.

 

[MeBelle]

Yes, I have read that article.
I still know that more Docs, in 2013, are not accepting Medicaid/MediCal patients.

I also haven't seen an increase in reimbursements from MediCal.

Calif. Physicians Unsure of Timeline for Medi-Cal Pay Increases Under ACA - California Healthline

Comment?

Comment on?

As I said, Medicaid primary care rates are rising this year (retroactive to January 1, whenever your state implements it). Are you asking whether that's going to happen? The answer is yes.

If you want even better access, write your state reps and governor to ask them to direct some of their surplus into increasing Medicaid specialty care rates.

Comment on lack of access, period.

Comment on what happens to states after the ACA measure increases payments for certain primary care services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries to the same level as Medicare reimbursements for two years.

 

[Greenbeard]

Comment on lack of access, period.

Comment on what happens to states after the ACA measure increases payments for certain primary care services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries to the same level as Medicare reimbursements for two years.

California is in the middle of rebuilding its delivery system not only to build capacity but to better utilize what they already have. They're using more than $400 million for community health center capital development but more importantly they've gotten approval for an 1115 Medicaid waiver to build safety net capacity and implement delivery models like primary care medical homes to get more for what they've got. That includes launching a new delivery system incentive pool:

Public hospitals will play an important role in providing care to those newly eligible for Medi-Cal in 2014 as well as the estimated 3.1 million Californians who will remain uninsured after implementation of the ACA. The waiver provides up to $3.3 billion in federal matching funds over five years for a new Delivery System Reform Incentive Pool (DSRIP) to help support efforts by county and University of California hospitals to improve the quality of care they provide and the health of the populations they serve.

There are four areas for which federal funding is available under DSRIP:

• Infrastructure development: investments in technology, tools, and human resources (e.g., increases in primary care capacity, telemedicine, enhanced interpretation services).
• Innovation and redesign: investments in new and innovative care delivery models (e.g., medical homes, chronic disease management systems, primary care redesign).
• Population-focused improvement: investments to enhance care delivery for the five to ten highest burden conditions in public hospital systems for the low-income populations for whom they are responsible (e.g., improved diabetes care management and outcomes, improved chronic care management and outcomes, reduction of readmissions).
• Urgent improvement in care: hospital-specific interventions that have substantial evidence of being able to achieve major and measurable improvement in care within five years.

It's not just about coverage, it's about building a delivery system that works, including for those getting coverage for the first time. These efforts go hand in hand.

 

[Meister]

Comment on lack of access, period.

Comment on what happens to states after the ACA measure increases payments for certain primary care services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries to the same level as Medicare reimbursements for two years.

California is in the middle of rebuilding its delivery system not only to build capacity but to better utilize what they already have. They're using more than $400 million for community health center capital development but more importantly they've gotten approval for an 1115 Medicaid waiver to build safety net capacity and implement delivery models like primary care medical homes to get more for what they've got. That includes launching a new delivery system incentive pool:

Public hospitals will play an important role in providing care to those newly eligible for Medi-Cal in 2014 as well as the estimated 3.1 million Californians who will remain uninsured after implementation of the ACA. The waiver provides up to $3.3 billion in federal matching funds over five years for a new Delivery System Reform Incentive Pool (DSRIP) to help support efforts by county and University of California hospitals to improve the quality of care they provide and the health of the populations they serve.

There are four areas for which federal funding is available under DSRIP:

• Infrastructure development: investments in technology, tools, and human resources (e.g., increases in primary care capacity, telemedicine, enhanced interpretation services).
• Innovation and redesign: investments in new and innovative care delivery models (e.g., medical homes, chronic disease management systems, primary care redesign).
• Population-focused improvement: investments to enhance care delivery for the five to ten highest burden conditions in public hospital systems for the low-income populations for whom they are responsible (e.g., improved diabetes care management and outcomes, improved chronic care management and outcomes, reduction of readmissions).
• Urgent improvement in care: hospital-specific interventions that have substantial evidence of being able to achieve major and measurable improvement in care within five years.

It's not just about coverage, it's about building a delivery system that works, including for those getting coverage for the first time. These efforts go hand in hand.

I guess greenbeard just glosses over the lack of coverage and gets back to his talking points.
ACA is already broken and greenbeard keeps with his marching orders and ignores the 800 lb gorrilla in the room.

 

[Katzndogz]

Only democrats could look at a trainwreck happening and say it will never happen.

 

[MarcATL]

The GOP has been playing a very interesting game with its doomsday predictions lately. They've gone so far as to start spreading the idea--with the helpful assistance of the rightwing infotainment complex--that health insurance premiums are about to jump 400%.

But now that the actual prices for next year are starting to trickle out and aren't confirming their predictions (see: Premiums drop, coverage expands in Washington's exchange; Surprisingly low premium rates submitted for Oregon exchange; 13 insurers approved for California's exchange submit low premiums; etc), what happens?

It Looks Like Obamacare May Not Be A 'Train Wreck' After All - Business Insider

After weeks of talk about implementation "train wreck" for the Affordable Care Act, supporters of the law finally got some good news Thursday.

Insurance premiums in California's health care exchange will provide plans that range from a 2 percent increase to a 29 percent decrease in premiums, compared to current insurance rates.

Covered California, the state agency in charge of the state's health insurance exchange, announced on Thursday that the state will provide 13 insurance plans next year. Medium-level "bronze" and "silver" health insurance plans came in nearly $200 lower a month than predicted, according to the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff.

The most important part to Blumberg, however, is that premiums will cost much lower than was expected. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a "silver plan" would cost an average of $5,200 per year. In reality, at least in California, it will cost approximately $3,312, or $276 per month.

That leads to an interesting scenario, posed by Ezra Klein this morning as he considered some very good news for Obamacare:

Of course, California and Oregon are managing Obamacare particularly well. But the state-by-state nature of the Affordable Care Act creates really unusual political dynamics around how the law is perceived in its first year.

Imagine it’s the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didn’t allow the Medicaid expansion so the state’s poorest residents got nothing. They didn’t help with the exchanges, or the outreach, so there aren’t many choices, and premiums aren’t as low one might hope.

Viewed in isolation, Texas’s problems would be deadly for the law. But viewed next to California, they might mainly be a problem for the political class in Texas, which has failed to implement a clearly workable law.

It seems pretty clear that Medicaid can be a winning issue for state-level Dems next year in states that fail to expand the program. But what about exchanges, particularly in those states in which the leadership decided that the federal government could do a better job than the state at overseeing its marketplace?

If a neighboring state that opted to design and run its own exchange is seeing in some cases double digit decreases in premiums next year relative to comparable plans this year, how do residents of a state react, particularly if their federally-facilitated exchange is shall we say less than robust?

In other words, the GOP has gone all in on the doomsday prediction that Obamacare is inherently unworkable--the cracks in the facade of that claim are starting to grow pretty quickly, thanks to the outlandishness of the claims they've been making. So at what point does the effort by leaders in some states to sabotage reform in their own states begin to backfire, as their responsibility for attempting to deprive their residents of what are going to become increasingly obvious benefits comes into focus?

There seems to be a lot of agreement that Obamacare is going to be a major issue in states in the 2014 elections. I have to say, I certainly hope that's the case.

What's likely to happen is that they will LOSE...in DROVES!

As should happen.

 

[Google]

The GOP has been playing a very interesting game with its doomsday predictions lately. They've gone so far as to start spreading the idea--with the helpful assistance of the rightwing infotainment complex--that health insurance premiums are about to jump 400%.

But now that the actual prices for next year are starting to trickle out and aren't confirming their predictions (see: Premiums drop, coverage expands in Washington's exchange; Surprisingly low premium rates submitted for Oregon exchange; 13 insurers approved for California's exchange submit low premiums; etc), what happens?

It Looks Like Obamacare May Not Be A 'Train Wreck' After All - Business Insider

After weeks of talk about implementation "train wreck" for the Affordable Care Act, supporters of the law finally got some good news Thursday.

Insurance premiums in California's health care exchange will provide plans that range from a 2 percent increase to a 29 percent decrease in premiums, compared to current insurance rates.

Covered California, the state agency in charge of the state's health insurance exchange, announced on Thursday that the state will provide 13 insurance plans next year. Medium-level "bronze" and "silver" health insurance plans came in nearly $200 lower a month than predicted, according to the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff.

The most important part to Blumberg, however, is that premiums will cost much lower than was expected. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a "silver plan" would cost an average of $5,200 per year. In reality, at least in California, it will cost approximately $3,312, or $276 per month.

That leads to an interesting scenario, posed by Ezra Klein this morning as he considered some very good news for Obamacare:

Of course, California and Oregon are managing Obamacare particularly well. But the state-by-state nature of the Affordable Care Act creates really unusual political dynamics around how the law is perceived in its first year.

Imagine it’s the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didn’t allow the Medicaid expansion so the state’s poorest residents got nothing. They didn’t help with the exchanges, or the outreach, so there aren’t many choices, and premiums aren’t as low one might hope.

Viewed in isolation, Texas’s problems would be deadly for the law. But viewed next to California, they might mainly be a problem for the political class in Texas, which has failed to implement a clearly workable law.

It seems pretty clear that Medicaid can be a winning issue for state-level Dems next year in states that fail to expand the program. But what about exchanges, particularly in those states in which the leadership decided that the federal government could do a better job than the state at overseeing its marketplace?

If a neighboring state that opted to design and run its own exchange is seeing in some cases double digit decreases in premiums next year relative to comparable plans this year, how do residents of a state react, particularly if their federally-facilitated exchange is shall we say less than robust?

In other words, the GOP has gone all in on the doomsday prediction that Obamacare is inherently unworkable--the cracks in the facade of that claim are starting to grow pretty quickly, thanks to the outlandishness of the claims they've been making. So at what point does the effort by leaders in some states to sabotage reform in their own states begin to backfire, as their responsibility for attempting to deprive their residents of what are going to become increasingly obvious benefits comes into focus?

There seems to be a lot of agreement that Obamacare is going to be a major issue in states in the 2014 elections. I have to say, I certainly hope that's the case.

This law is unfunded, and the tax increases that it is going to cause is going to further cripple this economy.

Some of us live in the real world, and actually know business owners and have listened to what they think about this law. Some of us are in the trenches and are actually seeing full-time employees being cut to part-time employees.

If this was such a wonderful law, how come it was ensured that it would not be fully implemented for over five years after it has passed.

Obamacare will not be fully implemented, and come the 2014 Congressional elections--it will be repealed.

 

[Claudette]

One thing no liberals have addressed is the fact that congress and the IRS want to be exempt from Obamacare. They should know more about it than anyone and they don't think it's good for them. If it's not good for them, how the hell can it be good for any of us?

Yup. What does one expect from a bill none of the Dem idiots who passed it bothered to read??

Hell. They are exempting themselves left and right. I doubt Congress will be under Obamacare. I'm sure they will still have the nifty hc programs that we will pay for.

The ACA is going to be anything but affordable. The only winners will be those that we taxpayers will subsidize. We will be paying for our own insurance and the insurance of anyone who can't pay for their own.

And a question? What happens when this is the trainwreck the GOP and others are predicting? Any answers there smarties??

Hope the Dem idiots who passed this POS all drop the **** dead.

 

[Meister]

The GOP has been playing a very interesting game with its doomsday predictions lately. They've gone so far as to start spreading the idea--with the helpful assistance of the rightwing infotainment complex--that health insurance premiums are about to jump 400%.

But now that the actual prices for next year are starting to trickle out and aren't confirming their predictions (see: Premiums drop, coverage expands in Washington's exchange; Surprisingly low premium rates submitted for Oregon exchange; 13 insurers approved for California's exchange submit low premiums; etc), what happens?

It Looks Like Obamacare May Not Be A 'Train Wreck' After All - Business Insider

After weeks of talk about implementation "train wreck" for the Affordable Care Act, supporters of the law finally got some good news Thursday.

Insurance premiums in California's health care exchange will provide plans that range from a 2 percent increase to a 29 percent decrease in premiums, compared to current insurance rates.

Covered California, the state agency in charge of the state's health insurance exchange, announced on Thursday that the state will provide 13 insurance plans next year. Medium-level "bronze" and "silver" health insurance plans came in nearly $200 lower a month than predicted, according to the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff.

That leads to an interesting scenario, posed by Ezra Klein this morning as he considered some very good news for Obamacare:

Of course, California and Oregon are managing Obamacare particularly well. But the state-by-state nature of the Affordable Care Act creates really unusual political dynamics around how the law is perceived in its first year.

Imagine it’s the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didn’t allow the Medicaid expansion so the state’s poorest residents got nothing. They didn’t help with the exchanges, or the outreach, so there aren’t many choices, and premiums aren’t as low one might hope.

Viewed in isolation, Texas’s problems would be deadly for the law. But viewed next to California, they might mainly be a problem for the political class in Texas, which has failed to implement a clearly workable law.

It seems pretty clear that Medicaid can be a winning issue for state-level Dems next year in states that fail to expand the program. But what about exchanges, particularly in those states in which the leadership decided that the federal government could do a better job than the state at overseeing its marketplace?

If a neighboring state that opted to design and run its own exchange is seeing in some cases double digit decreases in premiums next year relative to comparable plans this year, how do residents of a state react, particularly if their federally-facilitated exchange is shall we say less than robust?

In other words, the GOP has gone all in on the doomsday prediction that Obamacare is inherently unworkable--the cracks in the facade of that claim are starting to grow pretty quickly, thanks to the outlandishness of the claims they've been making. So at what point does the effort by leaders in some states to sabotage reform in their own states begin to backfire, as their responsibility for attempting to deprive their residents of what are going to become increasingly obvious benefits comes into focus?

There seems to be a lot of agreement that Obamacare is going to be a major issue in states in the 2014 elections. I have to say, I certainly hope that's the case.

What's likely to happen is that they will LOSE...in DROVES!

As should happen.

Don't take the actual facts that the bill is facing, marc.
Parts of it are already not being funded. Coverage isn't what Obama packaged it to be.
Most Americans are against the debacle.
Unions and politicians are wanting to opt out yet, there you are with your partisan hackery saying something you don't have a clue about. no surprise.....

 

[Antares]

Sorry old man.....



LIMITS ON PREMIUM VARIATIONS. Premiums
charged to older adults are limited to three
times those charged to younger adults. Aside
from age, premiums will be allowed to vary only
by family size, tobacco status, geographic area,
and metal tier. Premiums will not be allowed to
vary by health status or gender

http://www.actuary.org/files/Premium_Change_ACA_IB_FINAL_050813.pdf

To BE a QHP you MUST meet the standards set forth by said Exchange...as Greenie said 3 tiers of plans ALL covering the same things.....and they ALL have to charge the same premiums.

Are you an idiot (don't answer, rhetorical question)? Every insurer charges different premiums for their plans.

A 40-year-old in Modoc County can buy Anthem's bronze PPO plan for $234, Blue Shield's bronze EPO for $266, Kaiser Permanente's bronze HMO for $261, etc.

This is even more embarrassing than the time you claimed there's a public option because you don't know how to use THOMAS. Buy a ******* clue.

 

[Antares]

Lets just look at the Law itself....you are quiet contemptible dad.


1) IN GENERAL- With respect to the premium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small group market--
`(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved only by--
`(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family;
`(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with paragraph (2);
`(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section 2707(c)); and
`(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
`(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved by any other factor not described in subparagraph (A).

Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Comment on lack of access, period.

Comment on what happens to states after the ACA measure increases payments for certain primary care services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries to the same level as Medicare reimbursements for two years.

California is in the middle of rebuilding its delivery system not only to build capacity but to better utilize what they already have. They're using more than $400 million for community health center capital development but more importantly they've gotten approval for an 1115 Medicaid waiver to build safety net capacity and implement delivery models like primary care medical homes to get more for what they've got. That includes launching a new delivery system incentive pool:

Public hospitals will play an important role in providing care to those newly eligible for Medi-Cal in 2014 as well as the estimated 3.1 million Californians who will remain uninsured after implementation of the ACA. The waiver provides up to $3.3 billion in federal matching funds over five years for a new Delivery System Reform Incentive Pool (DSRIP) to help support efforts by county and University of California hospitals to improve the quality of care they provide and the health of the populations they serve.

There are four areas for which federal funding is available under DSRIP:

• Infrastructure development: investments in technology, tools, and human resources (e.g., increases in primary care capacity, telemedicine, enhanced interpretation services).
• Innovation and redesign: investments in new and innovative care delivery models (e.g., medical homes, chronic disease management systems, primary care redesign).
• Population-focused improvement: investments to enhance care delivery for the five to ten highest burden conditions in public hospital systems for the low-income populations for whom they are responsible (e.g., improved diabetes care management and outcomes, improved chronic care management and outcomes, reduction of readmissions).
• Urgent improvement in care: hospital-specific interventions that have substantial evidence of being able to achieve major and measurable improvement in care within five years.

It's not just about coverage, it's about building a delivery system that works, including for those getting coverage for the first time. These efforts go hand in hand.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Well, what we have here is a repeat of the economic forecasts of the 'Conservatives'. Remember, a second and worse crash was due right after Obama was elected for a second term. And look how accurate their predictions were. The market is at an alltime high. Jobs are slowly coming back. Home prices are up, foreclosures down. Auto sales up, and the US has the best EV on the market.

So, how will the ACA work out? Probably nowhere as bad as the 'Conservatives' are claiming, and not as good as the rest of us would wish. Time to segue into a singlepayer universal health care system. After all, that is only working for all the rest of the industrial nations in the world.

 

[Claudette]

Nothing the Govt has ever run has been cheaper or better and you want the Govt to run your HC??


You want your HC run by a bunch of buerocrats in DC??

You have got to be insane my friend.

 

[Seawytch]

Nothing the Govt has ever run has been cheaper or better and you want the Govt to run your HC??


You want your HC run by a bunch of beurocrats in DC??

You have got to be insane my friend.

Medicare proves your premise wrong.

 

[boedicca]

Nothing the Govt has ever run has been cheaper or better and you want the Govt to run your HC??


You want your HC run by a bunch of beurocrats in DC??

You have got to be insane my friend.

Medicare proves your premise wrong.

Tell that to the people who can't get appointments due to the growing number of doctors that refuse to accept Medicare patients.

Medicare is just a price control system which inevitably leads to supply shortages.

 

[Meister]

Nothing the Govt has ever run has been cheaper or better and you want the Govt to run your HC??


You want your HC run by a bunch of beurocrats in DC??

You have got to be insane my friend.

Medicare proves your premise wrong.

Fraud and waste proves your premise wrong.