Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[American Patriot]

Oh MY GOD. These MOTHER...


God Damn them all to hell.

Fucking Libtards.

Not EVEN a week ago I predicted this. This time I was RIGHT. I said now that they have a liberal majority, passed these gun laws they'd go after more taxes.

Sure AS SHIT.

Colorado Senate to debate universal health care, other big health care changes

Colorado would be first state with universal care






Copyright 2013 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Regular Photo Size


















ShareThis

Posted: 04/12/2013

Last Updated: 1 hour ago


DENVER - The Colorado Senate will debate a health care overhaul Friday, including a universal health care proposal.


Colorado would be the first state in the nation to implement universal health care if the proposal goes forward.


The proposal by a Denver Democrat would have Colorado abandon Medicaid and Medicare entirely and move forward with single-payer health care. A 9 percent payroll tax would be required to pay for the ambitious plan, tried in no other state.


The universal health care proposal faces long odds. Democrats are also pushing to expand health assistance to needy adults with a Medicaid expansion, part of the new federal health care law.


Gov. John Hickenlooper has said that Colorado will expand the health assistance, and the Medicaid bill up for a Senate debate Friday enables the change

[vector7]

And so it begins....

[American Patriot]

No, so it ENDS.

If I wasn't leaving soon, I'd been leaving soon.

If you know what I mean.

Fuck this state.

[vector7]

ObamaCare’s 30-Hour Work Week: Fulfilling a Longtime Leftist Dream?

Is it a backdoor move towards a drastic nationwide work-week reduction?

by Tom Blumer
May 10, 2013 - 12:09 am

That new definition and its related requirement have given rise to a new guideline for small business survival. Known as “49 and 29,” it suggests that small firms would be very unwise to expand their operations beyond 49 full-time employees as defined by ObamaCare, or to allow part-timers to ever work more than 29 hours in a given week, lest they accidentally move into the law’s full-time category. Large companies also have an incentive to keep as many employees as possible below the 30-hour threshold.

Last Friday’s employment report – especially because the administration expressed pleasure with its results — makes you wonder if ObamaCare, among other things, wasn’t deliberately designed to force the country over the long-term to accept a work week of just under 30 hours, something we’ve always seen as part-time employment, as the “new normal” definition of a full-time worker.

Seasonally adjusted government figures for April show that the private sector added 176,000 jobs, while average total weekly hours worked dropped from 3.926 billion to 3.909 billion, a fall-off of almost 16.6 million hours. That difference, the largest since October 2009 when the economy was still losing jobs, caused the number of “full-time equivalent” jobs (i.e., total weekly hours divided by 40) to fall by a stunning 416,000.

Other evidence abounds that an already existing trend toward hiring part-time help has accelerated, while full-time work is stagnating. The economy is still almost 2.6 million jobs short of where it was at its January 2008 peak, but one area of employment has just fully recovered while reaching a seasonally adjusted all-time high of 2.66 million workers. That category would be workers at temporary help services, many (probably most) of whom are either part-timers or usually don’t put in consecutive months of full-time work. Since the recession as officially defined ended in June 2009, the economy has added 913,000 temps, a stunning 17 percent of all employment growth during that time.

Anecdotally, here are just a few of the employers who have officially or unofficially taken concrete steps to keep part-timers’ hours below 30, busted full-timers down to part-time, or both: Kroger; Circle K Southeast; Regal Entertainment; the city of Long Beach, California; and the state of Virginia. Many others are taking their actions quietly to avoid leftist protests and intimidation.

At the rate things are going, it shouldn’t be too many more months before everyone will have to admit that ObamaCare’s 30-hour full-time employment definition is on track to permanently alter the nature of work and employment in America — and not for the better. Last week, even the Associated Press referred to a well-known economist who cited it as “a reason some employers are holding back” on hiring.


Read More:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-30-hour-work-week/2/

[Ryan Ruck]

South Carolina House Passes Bill Making ‘Obamacare’ Implementation A Crime

May 2, 2013

The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.

The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

The measure permits the state Attorney General, with reasonable cause, “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm to any person or business with the implementation of Obamacare.

Earlier this year in her state of the state address, Gov. Nikki Haley said that South Carolina does not want and cannot afford the president’s plan, “not now, not ever.”

“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington,” she said. “Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”

The nullification bill moved on to the state Senate Thursday and referred to the Committee on Finance.

[vector7]

Sebelius Waivers Are For Union Pals, Not Dying Child

Posted 06/05/2013 07:01 PM ET

Health Care: Kathleen Sebelius' claim she can't waive a rule to save a 10-year-old's life is rich, given she was last seen doling out ObamaCare waivers like candy to union groups. Welcome to the world of politicized health care.

This week, lawmakers pressed Sebelius, who heads the Health and Human Services Department, to step in to help a Pennsylvania girl suffering cystic fibrosis in urgent need of a lung transplant.

Because she's only 10, Sarah Murnaghan can't access lungs from adult donors, only those from children, of which there are none currently available.

A rule set in place by the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, which is under contract by HHS to manage donated organs and waiting lists, set the cutoff for access to adult organs at age 12.

Pennsylvania's Sen. Pat Toomey and Rep. Patrick Meehan insist that Sebelius has "the ability and the authority to intervene to allow for Sarah and other children under the age of 12 to become eligible for adult organs."

Despite the fact this is just a bureaucratic — and seemingly arbitrary — rule, and that Sarah's doctors say she's a good candidate for an adult transplant, Sebelius has refused to act. Instead she's ordered a general review of the OPTN's rule, which will take too long to be of any use to the girl. (Late Wednesday, Politico.com reported that a federal judge had ordered HHS to put Murnaghan on the list.)

Whether Sebelius should have intervened in Sarah's care is, of course, the immediate issue. But very troubling is the fact that a government official is in this position at all, able to act as a one-person Death Panel about a girl's health care.

In that sense, Sarah's plight provides a window into what life will be like under ObamaCare.

By putting the government in charge of virtually all aspects of health care, ObamaCare will increasingly leave critical medical decisions in the hands of faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats and panels of so-called experts, who will have the power to issue rigid, arbitrary, one-size-fits-all rules about access to doctors, treatment and reimbursement.

Only the well-connected or politically favored will have a chance of getting the rules bent in their favor. That's how union groups were able to get the bulk of the ObamaCare waivers HHS granted over the past two years, absolving them of the law's restrictions on annual health plan dollar limits.

As Sarah and her family are learning, government involvement in health care comes at a steep price.


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...dying-girl.htm

[American Patriot]

Just in case no one is keeping up with the little girl, she's 10 years old. She can't be on the "list for adult lungs" because she is 10 and not 12.

According to doctors (and this father of five, grand pa of thirteen) a ten year old is not vastly physiologically different from a twelve year old.

Last night a Federal Judge made a ruling that will likely put the little girl on the list, not necessarily "next" but "in line".

According to her doctors she has probably 3-4 weeks left to live. Today they are intabating her (putting a tube into her throat over her wind pipe) and then hooking her up to a machine to force her lungs to work. The problem as I understand it is that there is a problem transferring CO2 and O2 in her lungs (she has cystic-fibrosis).

Sebelius basically stated she wouldn't make an exception to the "rules" for this little girl.

But on the "bright side" she went ahead and "ordered a review" of the rules (not made by Congress, not laws, RULES by the Dept of health and human services by the way) which will take months, if not years. Nothing in there to help that little girl.

But by GOD if someone wants to terminate their baby, it's ok. If someone wants to have an abortion, even late term, its OK. If someone get's caught up in Benghazi and gets killed, that's ok.

But you better not ask for help for your children to help them live. You'd better not be a Conservative wanting to have a tax exempt status. You'd better NOT believe in the Second Amendment or the Death Penalty (cuz then you're worse than a hypocrite....)

If we don't get these people out of office soon there WILL be a revolution in this country - which is what they are trying to push on us.

[American Patriot]

This, by the way, is your window to the future of Health Care in the United States.

You all had better start taking better care of yourselves NOW, exercise, work out, eat properly and care for your bodies because there ain't NO government in this world that will do it for you. All they will do is FORCE you to PAY more money out of your pocket for something worse than you get even now.

And if you refuse to get Obama care (like I plan to do ) they will TAX you into oblivion.

I refuse government health care. Right now, I REFUSE IT. (When I turn 60 I'm ENTITLED to my "share" of health care because of my military service and I'll use it, the free version, but I WILL NOT accept or use government services, and I WILL NOT PAY FOR THEM, I WILL NOT BE TAXED, I WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO TAKE IT).

So, as of now, IRS consider this a promise. You are not getting any more of my hard earned money. Period. I'll pay my taxes as normal, but NO MORE.

[vector7]

Kathleen Sebelius Advocates for GaybamaCare
Thursday, June 6, 2013


This is June, and Barack Obama has transformed a month that used to be about fatherhood and dragging out the barbeque into 30 days of homage to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (and Questioning) pride. That’s right, count ‘em: 30 whole days to rejoice in LGBTQ-ness.

Along with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Barack must feel it’s time that fairness be extended to the gay community. That’s why, for those who tend toward melancholy and depression, if ever there were a time to be gay, this would be it. Why? Because in addition to reassuring college grads that free birth control should give them peace of mind and sharing the roster at Girl Scout conferences with late-term abortionists, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wants to commemorate LGBTQ month by making it one of her priorities to actively advocate on behalf of the sexually confused, conflicted, and/or questioning.

When not sending out clandestine e-mails on her secret Obama-established e-mail account, Mrs. Sebelius is about the important business of spreading the word that she’ll be doling out privileges to the LGBTQ community based solely on non-traditional sexual preference. And although she doesn’t expound on exactly how they’ve been pushed to the side, Sebelius feels that “for too long … [LGBTQ people] were pushed to the side.”

To prove how committed she is to preferential treatment for homosexuals, Sebelius has refused to override a policy that will deny help to a dying 10-year-old girl with cystic fibrosis in need of a lung transplant. Because of government regulation concerning adults getting first dibs on adult lungs, the woman who has been integral in directly benefiting victims of HIV/AIDS has declined the opportunity to intervene.

Sebelius concurs that in the case of Sara Murnaghan, it is an “incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies.” So in other words, if you’re 10 years old and your name is Sara Murnaghan and, through no fault of your own, you have a deadly lung disease, you will be “pushed to the side.” On the other hand, if you’ve participated in promiscuous, risky lifestyle choices and simply refused to join the Rubber Revolution or attend Condom University, or if you’re a 12-year-old girl trapped in a 12-year-old boy’s body and desire sex reassignment surgery, by way of GaybamaCare, Kathleen Sebelius will override any policy obstacle that might stand in the way of realizing your dream to be prom queen.

In the meantime, in order to determine who the government decides will live and who the government decides will contribute to providing shovel-ready jobs for cemetery workers, a careful compilation of “gender status” queries is required, which will be included on health surveys and questionnaires. Gone are the days of basic check-boxes that say “male” or “female.” Now, even the “other” category no longer suffices; expansion is needed to include Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender categories.

Wait! What about transsexuals in the process of “transitioning” from male to female who are temporarily neither male nor female? What box do they check? Not to mention intersex individuals, formerly known as hermaphrodites. Where do they fit into all of this?

Nevertheless, despite the wrinkles that still need to be ironed out, if all goes well under ObamaCare, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it is starting a new analysis that could lift the spending ban for sex-change operations for individuals requiring surgical treatment for Gender Identity Disorder. In other words, if your pre-existing condition was a raging case of Chaz Bono-itis, you will not be penalized; you’ll be penis-ized.

In addition, standard things like preventative services, HIV screenings, vaccinations, mental health screenings, contraception (God knows why), intimate-partner violence screenings, (can people who are generally “gay” be violent?), and well-woman visits (for both males and females?) will also be part of GaybamaCare.

If you’re a homosexual, all this is wonderful. However, Americans who are happy, but not gay in a “gay” way, may be at a bit of a loss.

Therefore, while Kathleen Sebelius is busy helping gays be gayer, here’s some survival advice: if you’re a straight guy or gal, to circumvent the obstacles in ObamaCare, in case of an emergency, invest in and never leave home without a pair of Christian Louboutins or Doc Martens – the Louboutins for the gentlemen, of course, and Docs for the ladies.

Then, one day, if by chance you should you find yourself sitting in a clinic spurting blood from a main artery and a busload of stragglers from the Gay Pride parade pull up and unload into the waiting room, to avoid being punished for the sin of being straight, slip on those Louboutins or Doc Martens. Then, grab the nearest person of the same sex, drag them over to the triage nurse’s station, and plant a wet one on them, because starting on January 1, 2014, it looks like gender-bending footwear and passionate same-sex kissing will be a surefire ticket to the front of the Kathleen Sebelius GaybamaCare line.

http://jeannie-ology.com/

[vector7]

Pelosi: “I Don’t Remember Saying that Everybody in the Country Would Have a Lower Premium”

June 7, 2013
Mac Slavo

SHTF Plan

Just a few weeks ago the honorable Congresswoman from San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi, made the stunning claimthat health insurance in America would be cheaper than ever before. “Many of the initiatives that he passed are what are coming to bear now, including the Affordable Care Act,” she said at a recent press conference about legislation championed by the President. “The Affordable Care Act is bringing the cost of health care in our country down in both the public and private sector.”Of course, days later we found out what the future of ”affordable” health care and lower costs actually meant, when the IRS admitted that prices would top $20,000 per year for the average American family.

It seems that these are the ramifications for passing a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care industry without having first read the bill to find out what was in it.

Now that we know government mandated ObamaCare will actually cost Americans at all income levels significantly more than was promised by the President and Congressional democrats, Nancy Pelosi is back peddling on her statements, claiming that she and the bill’s supporters never said there’d be lower premiums.

Well, some people don’t have health insurance and they’ll certainly have their health insurance premiums go up [laughs] because they don’t have any health insurance now, so they don’t have any premiums now.

But for anyone that that is a challenge, there are subsidies in the exchanges.

And, it’s also about what you get for your money. In other words, people will be getting no lifetime or annual limits on their coverage, no discrimination because of pre-existing medical conditions… it has a whole array of quality that is in the legislation.

But if you don’t have health insurance and you don’t qualify for a subsidy… and you’re mandated to have health insurance, you won’t have an increase.

We’re very sensitive to what it means to young people, especially to young singles. And, umm, there are policies that people can get.

I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country will have a lower premium, because everybody in the country doesn’t have health insurance so how could it be lower.

But the fact is, the value of what you get for the cost that you pay, is a reduction in cost to you.

…for everybody it is going to be a liberation, a freedom.

…and if you’re a small business. What this means for small business. It is… it is…umm… it’s uh… it’s a solution for the American people. It lowers cost.

Nancy Pelosi is absolutely right.

Obamacare, which will be enforced at the barrel of a gun, is freedom!

It’s a liberation… of your money from your wallet, to be spent on Nancy’s mile high booze-it-up plane junkets and subsidies for her district that will enrich her colleague Diane Feinstein’s personal net worth.

What’s worse is that the people of San Francisco and the greater United States remain oblivious to how they just got raped by this woman, her cronies in Congress and the health care industrial complex.

Nancy Pelosi belongs in prison, not on the floor of the United States Congress.

Watch the video – if you’ve got the stomach for it:

[American Patriot]

Put both videos side by side.

[Ryan Ruck]

South Portland Doctor Stops Accepting Insurance, Posts Prices Online

May 28, 2013

Dr. Michael Ciampi took a step this spring that many of his fellow physicians would describe as radical.

The family physician stopped accepting all forms of health insurance. In early 2013, Ciampi sent a letter to his patients informing them that he would no longer accept any kind of health coverage, both private and government-sponsored. Given that he was now asking patients to pay for his services out of pocket, he posted his prices on the practice’s website.

The change took effect April 1.

“It’s been almost unanimous that patients have expressed understanding at why I’m doing what I’m doing, although I’ve had many people leave the practice because they want to be covered by insurance, which is understandable,” Ciampi said.

Before the switch, Ciampi had about 2,000 patients. He lost several hundred, he said. Some patients with health coverage, faced with having to seek reimbursement themselves rather than through his office, bristled at the paperwork burden.

But the decision to do away with insurance allows Ciampi to practice medicine the way he sees fit, he said. Insurance companies no longer dictate how much he charges. He can offer discounts to patients struggling with their medical bills. He can make house calls.

“I’m freed up to do what I think is right for the patients,” Ciampi said. “If I’m providing them a service that they value, they can pay me, and we cut the insurance out as the middleman and cut out a lot of the expense.”

Ciampi expects more doctors will follow suit. Some may choose to run “concierge practices” in which patients pay to keep a doctor on retainer, he said.

Gordon Smith, a spokesman for the Maine Medical Association, wasn’t so sure, saying most patients either want to use the insurance they pay for or need to rely on Medicare and Medicaid.

Even with the loss of some patients, Ciampi expects his practice to perform just as well financially, if not better, than before he ditched insurance. The new approach will likely attract new patients who are self-employed, lack insurance or have high-deductible plans, he said, because Ciampi has slashed his prices.

“I’ve been able to cut my prices in half because my overhead will be so much less,” he said.

Before, Ciampi charged $160 for an office visit with an existing patient facing one or more complicated health problems. Now, he charges $75.

Patients with an earache or strep throat can spend $300 at their local hospital emergency room, or promptly get an appointment at his office and pay $50, he said.

Ciampi collects payment at the end of the visit, freeing him of the time and costs associated with sending bills, he said.

That time is crucial to Ciampi. When his patients come to his office, they see him, not a physician’s assistant or a nurse practitioner, he said.

“If more doctors were able to do this, that would be real health care reform,” he said. “That’s when we’d see the cost of medicine truly go down.”

I would actually like to see more of this.

Fortunately I haven't had to go to the doctor often since I've been in fairly good health but the times I have over the last couple years, I have no idea what it is going to cost me going in. For example, for an ultrasound my thyroid it ended up being almost $400 out of pocket! For a stupid 15 minute visit that took an ultrasound trained medical aide 15 minutes to perform. I don't even know what the whole price of the visit totaled to.

If you don't know what the price is going in, how in the world can you shop around?

[American Patriot]

Me too. In a few weeks or months, I won't even have an income though. So... I'll be on a budget. I'll go to some foreign island and see what I can find there for docs.

[vector7]

Here's What Happens If You Don't Sign Up For Obamacare

Mandi Woodruff Jul. 1, 2013, 6:04 PM 13,727




We're months away from cutting the ribbon on the new online marketplace for health insurance, but the vast majority of uninsured Americans — the very people the Affordable Care Act is meant to help — still have no idea whether they'll be in the shopping mood or not.

According to a recent survey, nearly two-thirds of uninsured Americans say they haven't decided whether or not they'll buy health insurance by the Jan. 1, 2014 deadline (even though they'll have to pay a penalty if they don't).

Another 10% say they flat out won't buy in at all.

We understand the hesitation. Change is hard enough when it's simple to understand, let alone when it has to do with things like insurance, health care policy, and your own financial and personal well-being.

"People just don't understand how this is going to affect their wallet, what prices are going to be and what this could really cost them," said Laura Adams, InsuranceQuotes.com senior insurance analyst.

Here's what you need to know:

What is this new health care exchange all about?

The health care exchange (aka The Marketplace) is the centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act, an online marketplace where consumers can shop around for health care plans, just like auto insurance. All 50 states will have their own marketplaces, some of which will be run by the federal government and some of which will be run by individual states.

Delays notwithstanding, the marketplace opens on Oct. 1, 2013 and people will have until Jan 1, 2014 to pick up a policy if they want to escape penalties. There, you'll be able to choose from four different varieties of plans, platinum (highest benefits), gold, silver, and bronze (lowest benefits).

Does everyone need to sign up for a health plan?

The health care exchange is open for every U.S. resident, but only the uninsured will face penalties for skipping out. If you are enrolled in your employer's health plan or pay for your own plan already, you can keep on keepin' on, although we'd at least recommend shopping around to see if there are more affordable plans out there.

What if you don't think you can afford it?

Obviously, if everyone could afford to enroll in health care, chances are we wouldn't have an Obamacare plan to deal with at all. As it stands, 61% of the uninsured respondents surveyed by InsuranceQuotes cited money issues as the main reason they haven’t purchased health insurance.

To help, the government has put in place tax credits that are specifically designed to help low-income households cover the cost of a health care plan.

To qualify, individuals or families can earn household incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($94,200 for a family of four in 2013). You can claim the tax credit in advance, rather than paying upfront for your health care plan and then waiting for a refund after tax season, Adams notes.

Generally, the government will apply those credits directly to your health insurer, which will reduce your premium cost.

To find out how big a tax credit you can expect, use the Kaiser Family Foundation's calculator.

What if you just don't want to enroll?

To make the reform easier to swallow, lawmakers have thrown consumers a couple of bones: For starters, the Jan. 1, 2014 deadline for enrollment is a soft one. You can start signing up when the exchange opens on Oct. 1 and you have until March 31 to enroll.

That gives people a three-month cushion to get their ducks a row. And on April 1, when the penalties begin, they start small and rise on a tiered scale up until 2016:

2014:
Families — $285 or 1% of total household income, whichever is greater.
Individual adults — $95 or 1% of total household income.

2015:
Families — $975 or 2% of income, whichever is greater.
Individual adults — $325 or 2% of income.

2016:
Families — $2,085 or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater.
Individual adults — $695 or 2.5% of income.

"It's designed to be this kind of gentle nudge that becomes not so gentle in a couple years," Adams says.

Some analysts predict young people will look at the first year penalties and shrug. If you're under 26, you can always sign up for your parents' health care plan. And paying a $95 fee may not seem all that tough a burden when you compare it to the potential higher cost of a year-round health care plan.

It's not the end of the world if that happens, but it could mean some trouble for Obamacare. A lot of the new plan's success rides on whether it can attract consumers who are both young and healthy along with the older, unhealthy sect in order to keep costs affordable for everyone. If young, healthy, uninsured people decide they'd rather pay a fee than shell out hundreds of dollars per year for a health policy they doubt they'll use, leaving mostly unhealthy, older people enrolled, it could throw things out of balance and make policies more expensive.

But given the results of this Kaiser Family Foundation poll, in which nearly 77% of 18- to 25-year-olds said health care is very important, those worries may be overblown.

What about Medicaid?

Families and individuals who earn less than 138% of the federal poverty level will still have access to Medicaid.

At best, Medicare coverage in states will be expanded under Obamacare. At worst, states will exercise their right to skip an expansion in favor of the status quo. So far, about 13 states have opted out of an expansion. This map shows where each states stands as of June 14.

How much can I expect my health care costs to rise?

We wish there were an easy way to answer this question. Because each state is in the process of submitting estimates from insurers, we can only guess at premium costs as numbers trickle in. The Wall Street Journal analyzed estimates from eight states and pretty much confirmed what experts had predicted — that the new health care plans will be more expensive for the young and the healthy.

"Healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage under the federal health law later this year, while the premiums paid by sicker people are set to become more affordable," the WSJ's Louise Radnofsky reports.

Even so, there's still a chance rates could decrease over time if insurance regulators decide to lower them in order to compete in the marketplace. And if that happens, then, well, Obamacare is officially doing its job. We've already seen that happen in Oregon, and as Politico's Jason Milliman points out, since all rates have yet to go through the state review process, anything could happen.

"The prices that many people can expect to pay, though, may remain a mystery for a few more months," he writes. "The feds, who are reviewing rates for exchange plans in more than half the states, have released limited information so far about who’s even asked to sell on federal-run insurance marketplaces, let alone what they’d like to charge."

The bottom line: It's up to you whether or not you can afford to skip out on health care. For now, kick back and wait until the exchange opens in October until you start to worry. You can do some searching and see what rates are really out there before making your decision. Any speculation on costs before then is basically white noise as far as we're concerned.

[vector7]

Obamacare Piss you Off Yet? If not, this Statement from the Regime Will


by John Galt
July 2, 2013 18:00 ET


If anyone thinks that becoming a large corporation and paying bribes, er, campaign contributions does not pay off, please read the following statement from the Obama regime’s Mark J. Mazur, the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner

By: Mark J. Mazur
7/2/2013

Over the past several months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue with businesses – many of which already provide health coverage for their workers – about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so. We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action.

The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees. Within the next week, we will publish formal guidance describing this transition. Just like the Administration’s effort to turn the initial 21-page application for health insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible about reporting requirements as we implement the law.

Here is some additional detail. The ACA includes information reporting (under section 6055) by insurers, self-insuring employers, and other parties that provide health coverage. It also requires information reporting (under section 6056) by certain employers with respect to the health coverage offered to their full-time employees.


We expect to publish proposed rules implementing these provisions this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders – including those responsible employers that already provide their full-time work force with coverage far exceeding the minimum employer shared responsibility requirements – in an effort to minimize the reporting, consistent with effective implementation of the law.

Once these rules have been issued, the Administration will work with employers, insurers, and other reporting entities to strongly encourage them to voluntarily implement this information reporting in 2014, in preparation for the full application of the provisions in 2015. Real-world testing of reporting systems in 2014 will contribute to a smoother transition to full implementation in 2015.

We recognize that this transition relief will make it impractical to determine which employers owe shared responsibility payments (under section 4980H) for 2014.


Accordingly, we are extending this transition relief to the employer shared responsibility payments. These payments will not apply for 2014. Any employer shared responsibility payments will not apply until 2015.

During this 2014 transition period, we strongly encourage employers to maintain or expand health coverage. Also, our actions today do not affect employees’ access to the premium tax credits available under the ACA (nor any other provision of the ACA).

Thus the phrase “crime does pay” is now 100% valid. Welcome to the United Syndicate of America; if you don’t like it, they’ll kneecap your sorry butts.

(thank you WSJ.com for catching this story this afternoon)

[Ryan Ruck]

Paging Dr. Galt, Dr. John Galt...

Houston Doctors to Close Doors Because of Obamacare

July 2, 2013

An ABC 13 report from Houston, Texas on doctors who are closing their doors because of Obamacare:




"It's going to hurt me," says a Houston doctor of Obamacare. "But it's going to hurt the patients more."

[American Patriot]

I didn't read past the "this is how it will affect you" part.

They announced this morning they are pushing it back to 2015 (mandating small and medium businesses be providing health care).

The news this morning I've heard is all over this stuff.

Fox, ABC etc. They were ranting and raving about how bad either Obamacare is or how bad the Obama administration is for not forcing people into this ASAP.

LOL

I figured out what the Civil War will finally be about.

[American Patriot]

President Obama fights back against loudening judgment of his health care law

Obama took to the soapbox Thursday, to defend the Affordable Care Act, emphasizing that benefits and rebates had already begun to go out to people across the U.S.

Comments (3) By James Warren / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Published: Thursday, July 18, 2013, 9:52 AM

Updated: Thursday, July 18, 2013, 12:57 PM

0

0

0

Print


LARRY DOWNING/REUTERS

President Obama unveiled details of the rebates in a campaign-like appearance at the White House Thursday.


Related Stories

• A debate about contraception or religious freedom? No, a debate about economic choice
• Only 1% of workers affected by Obamacare mandate: experts
• Obama administration delays major requirement of health law
• Snowe Tells Obama, Republicans 'I Told You So'

WASHINGTON---President Obama fought back rising criticism of his sweeping Obamacare health care reform with a defiantly simple message Thursday: the check is in the mail.
Obama went into campaign mode as he underscored benefits already flowing to an estimated 8.5 million Americans who on average have begun to receive $100 rebates from health insurers as a result of Obamacare, officially called the Affordable Care Act.
Those checks result from a rule requiring insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care, not administrative expenses. If they don't, rebates go to consumers.
The President unveiled the details of the rebates in a campaign-like appearance at the White House that had him introduced by Morgan Theriot, a self-employed woman from Silver Spring, Md., who got a $267 check. She was accompanied by her son and daughter.
"The Affordable Care act is working for people like me," she said before introducing Obama.
The East Room gathering included other families whom he said have benefitted already from the refund provision. The event was an obvious attempt to put a human face on what has largely been a confusing, policy-driven debate that has left Obama on the defensive.
RELATED: OBAMACARE TO CUT NEW YORKERS' INSURANCE COSTS
In briefings leading to the speech, White House officials said that the rebates in 2012 from the so-called "medical-loss ration" provision came to about $500 million.
They further claim total consumer savings verging on $4 billion, given an estimated $3.4 billion in lower premiums.
New York is very much on the White House's mind and Obama repeated just-released estimates that premiums in the state may plummet by as much as 50 percent next year due to changes under Obamacare. That's because state regulators have approved rates for next year that are far lower than what New Yorkers now pay.
The speech followed Wednesday's 40th vote by the Republican-led House of Representatives to reject an element of Obamacare. It's been a largely symbolic series of votes that have at least accelerated doubts about the changes, with Obama actions playing into critics' hands.
In particular, the administration recently threw up a temporary white flag by delaying by a year a provision that impacts some employers with 50 or more fulltime workers.
Though it may only delay insurance coverage for a year to just one percent of the workforce, it was seized by Obamacare critics as evidence of administration fumbling.
RELATED: BEST HOSPITALS: U.S. NEWS' 2013 CITY RANKINGS
Eighty-five percent of Americans already have insurance. But they will receive benefits, too, Obama said, stressing that they’ll get “more value for their buck” as a result of Obamacare's impact.
The speech came amid what clearly is substantial confusion among Americans, especially about the new state insurance exchanges that will begin marketing their services to consumers in October.
Meanwhile, it was no coincidence that the Department of Health and Human Services simultaneously released a report that argues that in 10 states and the District of Columbia, average premiums next year will be 18 percent lower than what the Congressional Budget Office predicted earlier.
Obama tried to defuse future criticisms by conceding that "there will be glitches" and that some states will "for political reasons resist implementation" of the law. But, he said, "We are steadily working through that stuff."
As for Obamacare critics, he concluded by referencing the group of beneficiaries standing in back of him, including Theriot.
“What do opponents of the law think they should do with their checks? Send them back to the insurance companies?”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...#ixzz2ZQ2peCuc

[Ryan Ruck]

Economist: Obamacare to Encourage Part-Time Employment, Cost Taxpayers

July 6, 2013

While much has been made of the Patient Affordable Care Act, or as it has been politically dubbed, ‘Obamacare,’ studies and analysis are increasingly scrutinizing the effects the law is going to have on health insurance in the United States.

Writing for The New York Time’s Economix blog, University of Chicago professor Casey B. Mulligan explored a startling way in which the Affordable Care Act is going to change the dynamics of the labor market.

Mulligan is the author of The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy in which he argues that features varying from minimum wage laws to tax rates deepened, or very possibly caused the recession by distorting incentives and causing massive job loss.

Similarly, he argues in his piece for Economix that Obamacare will make employees and employers alike opt for part-time hiring, a feature which could profoundly change the way American industry operates.

While he points out that a “lack of health benefits and the lower pay for part-time work have traditionally discouraged people from taking part-time jobs rather than full-time jobs,” now, he says, “Because part-time workers will be eligible for the subsidies except in the rare instances in which their employer covers them, full-time work will no longer carry the advantage of access to health insurance. That by itself will encourage more people to seek part-time work.”

Essentially, the law could have the unintended consequence of manipulating a marketplace predicated on having full-time workers to reach maximum productivity to switch largely to part-time employment, since the incentives will now be greater. In line with the argument advocated in his book, this is going to discourage firms from hiring full-time at a massive cost to the taxpayer.

Whereas he shows that a full-time position with health insurance costs an employer $56,000 a year, and leaves the employee with about $34,000 in pretax salary, now, thanks to a subsidy offered in President Obama’s healthcare law, part-time workers will be able to earn essentially the same wage ($33,908), and have the $12,658 dollar difference paid for by the United States Treasury. This will create a phenomenon, he argues, that will incentivize fewer work hours since the cost to the employer is the same, and taxpayers will be stuck to make up the difference.

The Obama administration seems to have come face to face with this reality, as they postponed the provision which would require firms of more than 50 people to offer health insurance or pay a fine, after business leaders said they needed more time to review the measure. Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana fears the politics and reality of the law are becoming too much, predicting that, “I just see a huge train wreck coming down.”

From an economic prospective, Mulligan agrees, and said the penalty could, “create yet another set of reasons that part-time employment will become more common next year.”

[American Patriot]

Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana Flee Obamacare Exchanges
August 7, 2013 - 5:16 PM
By Elizabeth Harrington





(AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Major health insurance companies--Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana--have decided not to participate in various states in the Obamacare health-insurance exchanges that will be the only place Americans will be able to buy a health insurance plan using the federal subsidies authorized under the Obamacare law.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), every American must buy a health insurance plan that meets minimum government specifications. If a person does not get health insurance through their employer, and is not on Medicaid, they can buy insurance through their home state's insurance exchange (which, depending on the state, will be run by either the state or federal government).

States will also operate exchanges where small businesses can buy health-insurance plans.

Individuals and families making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level will qualify for a federal subsidy to help them buy their government-mandated insurance--but only if they buy their insurance on the government-run exchange.

Also under Obamacare, insurance companies are required to take customers with pre-existing health problems and to provide certain services mandated either by the law itself or by regulations issued under the law by the Obama administration--thus driving up the insurance companies' costs.

Aetna, a fortune 100 company with $34.2 billion in revenue, has pulled out of the government-run exchanges in three states, including the state of Connecticut, where it is based.

Founded in Hartford, Conn., in 1850, Aetna withdrew its application to participate in that state on Monday, the Hartford Courant reported. The company said it was withdrawing from there and in Georgia and Maryland because limitations the state governments would impose on their rates would not allow them to make money.

“We have spent considerable time identifying those states in which we can be competitive and add the most value to the market,” Aetna said in a statement. “As a result of our analysis, we have reluctantly concluded that we will withdraw certain Individual Exchange filings for 2014, including filings in Connecticut, Georgia and Maryland.”

“This is not a step taken lightly, and was made as part of a national review of our Exchange strategy,” the company said. “Unfortunately, we believe the modifications to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers.”

California

Aetna will also not participate in California’s exchange, and a spokesperson told CNSNews.com that the company never intended to do so.
Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana Flee Obamacare Exchanges

(AP Photo)

“We did not withdraw exchange plans in California, as we never planned participation nor filed [Qualified Health Plans] QHPs to participate in the California exchange,” a spokesperson said.

Anthem Blue Cross has withdrawn its bid to participate in the California's government-run Obamacare exchange marketing insurance to small businesses.

United Health Group, the largest health insurer in the United States, has taken a pass on California's individual health insurance exchange.

Aetna will stop selling health insurance policies to individuals in California all together, leaving nearly 50,000 existing individual policyholders to find new coverage by January. The company will continue to directly sell health insurance to employers in California--outside of the government exchange system.

‘If You Like Your Doctor,’ Hope Your Insurer Is Participating in the Exchange

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,” Obama said on June 15, 2009.

“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period," he said. "No one will take it away. No matter what.”

That promise, however, has been revised by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which now says, “you may be able to keep your current doctor” in the health insurance marketplace.

“Most health insurance plans offered in the Marketplace have networks of hospitals, doctors, specialists, pharmacies, and other health care providers,” HHS said on its website for the health reform law. “Networks include health care providers that the plan contracts with to take care of the plan’s members.”

“Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider,” they said.
obama health care

President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) into law on Mar. 23, 2010. (AP)

With insurers opting out of state-run health insurance exchanges, individuals are left with fewer options.

Following Aetna's departure, only three companies remain in Connecticut’s “Access Health CT” exchange.

Similarly, only five insurers are participating in the exchange in Georgia, after Aetna and Coventry Health Insurance dropped out last week.

The Savannah Morning News noted that this will “leave residents of some parts of the state with limited choice.”

Two of the three largest health insurers in Wisconsin will also not participate in the state’s Obamacare exchange.

Though they will not participate in at least four state-run exchanges, Aetna said they “appreciate” the opportunity to work with state regulators on complying with the ACA.

“We have appreciated the chance to work with the regulators in each state for the past months on a variety of key issues regarding ACA implementation,” Aetna said in a statement. “We will continue to work with them, and various Exchange leadership teams, as we evaluate exchange participation in future years.”

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/....5ZRqXGuf.dpuf