MIT, let's make no mistake, has made some major technological contributions to this country, and continues to make educational ones with its open courseware program, e.g.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/audio-video-courses/
The profs giving those (video)courses, such as in math, chemistry and physics, deserve all the props for getting their lectures online so many around the world can benefit from them. (The ones on rocket propulsion engineering are especially good!)
But, on the other hand, some MIT profs have been colossal clowns and goofballs, one of whom is Richard Lindzen, who I already took down in previous blog posts for his climate science stance, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/richard-lindzens-fantasies-1.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/richard-lindzens-fantasies-2.html
The latest goofball is Economic Prof. Jonathan Gruber, who has now become the Repukes' "star boy" since assorted videos have appeared where he basically disses the American voter for being "stupid" because of the lack of transparency he (and others) applied to the Affordable Care Act. The videos were excavated from online searches by some guy who became convinced that somewhere in the Youtube Archives one miscreant or other must have discussed pulling the wool over the American people with "Obamacare".
In one video Gruber is seen saying:
"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scored it as taxes, it dies."
He was referring here to the individual mandate which he also implemented as part of "Romney care" in Massachusetts, thereby mandating individuals pay in for private policies from insurance companies - or face tax penalties if they refused.
In another recovered video seen last night on CBS News we beheld Gruber bragging his sorry ass off how he got "the feds" to pour in money to support Romney's MA plan to the tune of $400 million. He fairly looked like a pig that had overeaten rotten squash and potatoes with his self-satisfied look - which is now playing nonstop on all the right wing channels- especially FOX. And we won't even go into how Limbaugh has bloviated that "this proves Obamacare was a fraud".
But the worst "revelation" emerged from a particular video where Gruber appeared at some confab and blurted:
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."
Well, I don't know what parallel universe Gruber inhabits, but it surely isn't the one I'm in. In fact, most voters - left and right - smelled a "rat" from the instant the Affordable Care Act was trotted out. On the Right, we beheld hundreds appearing at ACA informal events bearing their rifles - many loaded - along with degrading images of Obama (including with a bone through his nose in Witch doctor garb).
On the Left, while we didn't go off the deep end and bring loaded weapons to assorted ACA events, we were deeply suspicious. We simply didn't buy that the insurance companies that had swindled us over the years could possibly be legitimate partners in a health care rollout- whatever its name. And this is exactly why we fought for the public option - though our first choice was "Medicare for all". We felt at least a public option had a chance to pass, but the pussified Dems - though they held a 60-vote Senate majority - were so desperate to get Reepo cooperation for political cover, that they allowed 3 Reepos to be on the critical 7-member finance committee headed by Max Baucus. The rest, as they say is history, and when Baucus aligned himself with the Reepo three we knew it was curtains for the option.
But don't tell me that we the voters were "stupid", because that was a lie, and shows that Gruber is as dense or deluded as those who believed that the ACA would really cut long term costs without negatively impacting other programs, such as Medicare. (A $500b cut in that program was needed to help fund the ACA, along with reducing the frequency of many preventative tests- hence the new "formal guidelines" for fewer PSA test, mammograms, etc.)
At the end of the day, the wool wasn't pulled so much over the voters as the Congressional Budget Office which was charged with correctly assessing the impact on the long term budget while also discriminating between real taxation and non-taxation in the mandate.
By far the worst blunder of pandering the ACA to the masses was in telling them if they liked their plan they could keep it. This later turned into a fiasco as we saw after the rollout how the insurance companies "never heard of it" and kicked tens of thousands off plans that were tailored to their needs to obtain general plans that were not (i.e. including pregnancy care, tests etc. even though a couple may be child free). Alternatively, the ones allowed to remain on their plans saw their premiums, their deductibles or both increase brutally.
But again most people were skeptical of the rosy promises from the get go. Most intelligent people also knew that any law requiring thousands of pages was likely laden with bullshit - as much or more so than Vince Buglisoi's 2,500 odd page tract on "Reclaiming History" (to try to show Oswald was the real JFK assassin after all).
Despite its flaws, and there are many (not the least of which is that the ACA was originally conceived by the Republicans in the Nixon era), bear in mind that given the political constraints and an administration not prepared to go full tilt on the public option - it was the only "game" in town. It meant at least half of the population could finally secure health care as opposed to none, and as we know from provisional ethics, enabling half a loaf is to be preferred over none.
The moral of this story, if there is one, is for future presidents to be very careful about exactly who they select as advisers or as architects of a particular program or policy.
If they aren't it may come back to bite them.
Showing posts with label Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Show all posts
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
If GOP Wins Big Tonight Will Dems Use Filibusters Come January?
There is the real prospect that the Repukes could seize control of the Senate when the dust settles after this mid-term. Right now the pukes hold 45 seats and the Dems 55 (including Bernie Sanders a socialist who votes with them), so if they gain at least 6 seats - which is possible- they would end up with a 51-49 majority in the Senate as well as a sizable majority in the House which they've held since 2010.
I don't believe this will actually happen, as I instead see the Ds hanging on by their fingernails, with a a 50-50 standoff in the Senate - the tie vote going to VP Joe Biden. So it would be a 'win' albeit a narrow won. But anything is possible. A primary indicator is the North Carolina race. If Kay Hagen wins (assuming too many African-Americans aren't hindered from voting), then look for the Dems to hold on, same if Mark Udall edges by Cory Gardener in Colorado.
But what if, as Nate Silver forecasts (75 % probability) the Repubs DO take the Senate? Then congress will be totally in their hands with only Obama the 'firewall' to act against their insanity using his veto power. (And veto he must, and veto, veto and veto - until his left hand goes into spasm.)
The good thing is that whatever advantage the Reeps manage to secure it won't be sufficient to get any of their wackier legislation passed - including rolling back the Affordable Care Act, increasing interest on private student loans (from 6.8% to 8%) or militarizing the southern border as part of "immigration reform"
However, in order to prevent these nutso laws being passed one of two things must happen: 1) The Democrats need to use the filibuster - demanding 60 vote majorities the same way the Reeps did when they were a Senate minority, and 2) If the Dems punk out with (1) and lose their cojones when it counts, then Obama must be ready with his veto pen.
Indeed, I would argue that if the Reeps do gain the Senate and hold the House (99% likely), the Democrats must become as "obstructionist" as the Reeps were when they had only 45 seats. That means using the filibuster at every turn to block all legislation issuing from the Reep zone, including any approval of the Keystone pipeline. After all, the Reeps will have been rewarded for their obstructionism so why not the Dems?
Harder to figure, as Scarborough noted this a.m., is why Americans would reward these jerks anyway, given all they've done is block Obama's agenda at every turn. They have contributed to the worst congress in history with their do-nothingism and have a 20 percent approval rating (this is compared to 42% for Obama in the most recent polls).
Repub pollster Frank Luntz, this morning on CBS, opined the election is not really about Obama at all, but about "Washington", but I am not sure I buy it. Tune in any time to FOX, including Hannity and O'Reilly, and all you hear and see is anti-Obama blather. It's no wonder their viewers (surveys show 47 % of repukes go to no other station) and end up brainwashed Obama haters.
If in fact it is really about Washington, as Luntz suggests, then it is the Republicans who should lose big because they are the party - via their incessant 'call in' filibusters, who've mucked it up the most. Especially as Luntz said that in his own polling what mattered to voters the most was "accountability and getting things done". Well, Katy bar the door, the Repukes fail on all counts there! Or is it people are really living in a parallels universe where the Reepos have been beyond reproach in their work?
Whatever the outcome in a potential GOP Senate takeover, 51 seats or 54 (making a 9 seat gain and the greatest since 1994 and the 'Contract On America') the Dems cannot allow themselves to be suckered into accepting that any R-takeover translates to a "mandate". It doesn't. It amounts to a temporary advantage that will likely be reversed in the next election. The same as the GOP 2002 gains were reversed in 2006.
The main thing we need is for the Democrats to stand with the people, come hell or high water, and that means filibustering whenever it's needed - which will likely be about every week!
I don't believe this will actually happen, as I instead see the Ds hanging on by their fingernails, with a a 50-50 standoff in the Senate - the tie vote going to VP Joe Biden. So it would be a 'win' albeit a narrow won. But anything is possible. A primary indicator is the North Carolina race. If Kay Hagen wins (assuming too many African-Americans aren't hindered from voting), then look for the Dems to hold on, same if Mark Udall edges by Cory Gardener in Colorado.
But what if, as Nate Silver forecasts (75 % probability) the Repubs DO take the Senate? Then congress will be totally in their hands with only Obama the 'firewall' to act against their insanity using his veto power. (And veto he must, and veto, veto and veto - until his left hand goes into spasm.)
The good thing is that whatever advantage the Reeps manage to secure it won't be sufficient to get any of their wackier legislation passed - including rolling back the Affordable Care Act, increasing interest on private student loans (from 6.8% to 8%) or militarizing the southern border as part of "immigration reform"
However, in order to prevent these nutso laws being passed one of two things must happen: 1) The Democrats need to use the filibuster - demanding 60 vote majorities the same way the Reeps did when they were a Senate minority, and 2) If the Dems punk out with (1) and lose their cojones when it counts, then Obama must be ready with his veto pen.
Indeed, I would argue that if the Reeps do gain the Senate and hold the House (99% likely), the Democrats must become as "obstructionist" as the Reeps were when they had only 45 seats. That means using the filibuster at every turn to block all legislation issuing from the Reep zone, including any approval of the Keystone pipeline. After all, the Reeps will have been rewarded for their obstructionism so why not the Dems?
Harder to figure, as Scarborough noted this a.m., is why Americans would reward these jerks anyway, given all they've done is block Obama's agenda at every turn. They have contributed to the worst congress in history with their do-nothingism and have a 20 percent approval rating (this is compared to 42% for Obama in the most recent polls).
Repub pollster Frank Luntz, this morning on CBS, opined the election is not really about Obama at all, but about "Washington", but I am not sure I buy it. Tune in any time to FOX, including Hannity and O'Reilly, and all you hear and see is anti-Obama blather. It's no wonder their viewers (surveys show 47 % of repukes go to no other station) and end up brainwashed Obama haters.
If in fact it is really about Washington, as Luntz suggests, then it is the Republicans who should lose big because they are the party - via their incessant 'call in' filibusters, who've mucked it up the most. Especially as Luntz said that in his own polling what mattered to voters the most was "accountability and getting things done". Well, Katy bar the door, the Repukes fail on all counts there! Or is it people are really living in a parallels universe where the Reepos have been beyond reproach in their work?
Whatever the outcome in a potential GOP Senate takeover, 51 seats or 54 (making a 9 seat gain and the greatest since 1994 and the 'Contract On America') the Dems cannot allow themselves to be suckered into accepting that any R-takeover translates to a "mandate". It doesn't. It amounts to a temporary advantage that will likely be reversed in the next election. The same as the GOP 2002 gains were reversed in 2006.
The main thing we need is for the Democrats to stand with the people, come hell or high water, and that means filibustering whenever it's needed - which will likely be about every week!
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Sotomayor Needs to Back Off - Remove Emergency Stay on ACA Birth Control Provision
Apart from the fact that Sotomayor - appointed to the highest court- has as her first mandate to be objective and not allow ideological bias to sway her, it is also bad form to be seen appearing to appease the Catholic Latino demographic bloc. Thus, the Obama administration has rightfully called on Sotomayor to dissolve her stay, arguing (correctly):
"With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves the relief they seek from this court -- an exemption from the requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision -- and the employer-applicants’ employees (and their family members) will not receive contraceptive coverage through the plan’s third-party administrator either,"
Why is Sotomayor doing this? Perhaps either because she's overlooked the fine print that allows a practical out, or has been driven to make this decision by pressure from the Latino Catholic demographic. (Which we know is the fastest growing in the nation, and which she - as a the first Laino on the SC- would dearly love to appear to attend to.) As for the "Little Sisters of the Poor", one can't help but suspect they've been put up to this by the same front group rabble that put the Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS) up to their own challenge to the contraception provision of the ACA In other words, all the Catholic groups are willing and compliant puppets to the machinations of the conservative shadow players and organizations who want to derail Obamacare.
In the case of FOCUS, it was the Alliance Defending Freedom calling the shots, who claimed:
Faith-based organizations should be free to live and operate according to the faith they teach and espouse.”
Adding:
“If the government can fine Christian ministries out of existence for keeping their faith there is no limit to what freedom they can take away.”
As I noted in response to that babble, there is no attempt whatsoever to “fine Christian ministries out of existence” – only to have them adhere to the standards of all other employers in the public sphere. If then the Catholic Church operates as an employer in the public sphere – never mind it’s a religious institution – then it’s bound to adhere to public standards pertaining to the Affordable Care Act, which all other public employers at other institutions, corporations are also bound to accept. Hence, the only thing being “taken away” here is the Church employer’s ability to take away secular employees’ rights to the same standard of health care as all other secular employees’ in the public or private sphere. The Church, meanwhile, is quite free to morally legislate its own members’ do’s and don’ts to its heart’s content. NO one is taking away that right.
If the Church sees fit to deny its own members’ as employees access to birth control or the morning after pill, or abortion, then fine. It is well within its purview. But it can’t extrapolate that to secular employees and retain tax-free status as a peculiarly religious institution.
The specious 'Alliance Defending Freedom' argument also went on:
"The (ACA) mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.”
Friday, October 18, 2013
The Healthcare.Gov Glitches: What Happened?
Readers who saw my first blog this month, 'The Finer Details of Obamacare, 2', will note that under the header of Cautions, I listed as No.1: Signing up on Day One could be a bitch.
And quoted Bryce Williams (managing director of exchange solutions for Towers Watson) from the Sunday Wall Street Journal section of the Denver Post:
"Unless you are desperate for health insurance, our advice is to wait until November or December. It's kind of like not buying the first model of a car when it comes out - wait until the kinks get worked out."
This has turned out to be good advice, especially for those who tried to get onto the healthcare.gov site. Some estimates in the media, indeed, claim maybe only 20,000 have actually physically managed to sign up without getting the spinning "symbol of death" indicating the server is kaput.
So what happened? How did it all go wrong? According to Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky, writing in a piece in the WSJ, most of the problems - according to policy and technology experts, occurred because of a design element that requires users of the federal site (which serves 36 states) to create accounts before shopping for insurance. Of course, this is exactly opposite to human nature, because typically people want to know what they're getting into, and all that's available before they sign onto anything or create an account. (An "account" normally translates into 'money' and people will wish to know what the options are before they spend any)
The decision to move ahead without that feature proved crucial because, before users can begin shopping for coverage, they must cross a busy digital junction in which data are swapped among separate computer systems built or run by contractors including CGI Group Inc., the healthcare.gov developer; Quality Software Services Inc., a UnitedHealth Group Inc. unit; and credit-checker Experian PLC.
Sadly, healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering, but that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said. The upshot was.....havoc. People naturally insisted on browsing first, then likely stymied when they registered - found things went amiss - then perhaps didn't complete the process. This may explain why, according to a CBS News report this morning, many insurance agencies have complained about duplicate registrations, errors littering other registrations.... and other problems.
If any part of the web of systems fails to work properly, it could lead to a traffic jam blocking most users from the marketplace. That’s just what happened on Oct. 2, and officials identified a bottleneck where those systems intersect at a software component sold by Oracle Corp. that still hasn’t been cleared. This bespeaks a modularity problem in the overall software operation. Many of the sort of internal software deviations highlighted can be traced directly to the modularity applicable to a given software program. Modularization allows the software designer to decompose a system into functional units, to impose hierarchical ordering on function usage, implement data abstractions and develop independently useful subsystems. As pointed out by the techies in further examination of the healthcare,gov modules, there occurred some breakdowns in mutual exclusion – an attribute necessary to preserve modularity. Basically, “ME” is needed to ensure multiple processes don’t attempt to update the same components of the shared processing state at the same time.
That may well be a hard bugger to fix and bring up to expectations, with likely million waiting to get access to health care. It may well be necessary for the government to redirect prospective buyers to the sites of the insurance companies themselves - wherein the selection or choice will already have been made, and hopefully the companies will already be on the exchange sought.
Tech experts Brett Norman and Jason Millman, highlight further bugbears to do with the likely "ME" problem, i.e the consumer end of the website, designed by one contractor, is not “talking to” the back end of the website, developed by a different company. This communication impasse then leads to breakdowns in mutual exclusion .
A further article by Robert Pear, Sharon LaFraniere and Ian Austen in The New York Times, notes that as one tech expert has observed, this software "wasn't even ready yet for beta testing".
In hindsight, it surely would have been better to postpone the inaugural date for healthcare.gov than to trot out a product not likely to pass a proper beta test for a proper software company. It would have been better to be late than to have a roll out that has now become a laughing stock, and which the ever predatory Reepos are likely to want to exploit as a vehicle for more attacks on "Obamacare".
Let's hope they get this thing fixed and soon!
And quoted Bryce Williams (managing director of exchange solutions for Towers Watson) from the Sunday Wall Street Journal section of the Denver Post:
"Unless you are desperate for health insurance, our advice is to wait until November or December. It's kind of like not buying the first model of a car when it comes out - wait until the kinks get worked out."
This has turned out to be good advice, especially for those who tried to get onto the healthcare.gov site. Some estimates in the media, indeed, claim maybe only 20,000 have actually physically managed to sign up without getting the spinning "symbol of death" indicating the server is kaput.
So what happened? How did it all go wrong? According to Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky, writing in a piece in the WSJ, most of the problems - according to policy and technology experts, occurred because of a design element that requires users of the federal site (which serves 36 states) to create accounts before shopping for insurance. Of course, this is exactly opposite to human nature, because typically people want to know what they're getting into, and all that's available before they sign onto anything or create an account. (An "account" normally translates into 'money' and people will wish to know what the options are before they spend any)
The decision to move ahead without that feature proved crucial because, before users can begin shopping for coverage, they must cross a busy digital junction in which data are swapped among separate computer systems built or run by contractors including CGI Group Inc., the healthcare.gov developer; Quality Software Services Inc., a UnitedHealth Group Inc. unit; and credit-checker Experian PLC.
Sadly, healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering, but that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said. The upshot was.....havoc. People naturally insisted on browsing first, then likely stymied when they registered - found things went amiss - then perhaps didn't complete the process. This may explain why, according to a CBS News report this morning, many insurance agencies have complained about duplicate registrations, errors littering other registrations.... and other problems.
If any part of the web of systems fails to work properly, it could lead to a traffic jam blocking most users from the marketplace. That’s just what happened on Oct. 2, and officials identified a bottleneck where those systems intersect at a software component sold by Oracle Corp. that still hasn’t been cleared. This bespeaks a modularity problem in the overall software operation. Many of the sort of internal software deviations highlighted can be traced directly to the modularity applicable to a given software program. Modularization allows the software designer to decompose a system into functional units, to impose hierarchical ordering on function usage, implement data abstractions and develop independently useful subsystems. As pointed out by the techies in further examination of the healthcare,gov modules, there occurred some breakdowns in mutual exclusion – an attribute necessary to preserve modularity. Basically, “ME” is needed to ensure multiple processes don’t attempt to update the same components of the shared processing state at the same time.
That may well be a hard bugger to fix and bring up to expectations, with likely million waiting to get access to health care. It may well be necessary for the government to redirect prospective buyers to the sites of the insurance companies themselves - wherein the selection or choice will already have been made, and hopefully the companies will already be on the exchange sought.
Tech experts Brett Norman and Jason Millman, highlight further bugbears to do with the likely "ME" problem, i.e the consumer end of the website, designed by one contractor, is not “talking to” the back end of the website, developed by a different company. This communication impasse then leads to breakdowns in mutual exclusion .
A further article by Robert Pear, Sharon LaFraniere and Ian Austen in The New York Times, notes that as one tech expert has observed, this software "wasn't even ready yet for beta testing".
Confidential progress reports from
the Health and Human Services Department show that senior officials repeatedly
expressed doubts that the computer systems for the federal exchange would be
ready on time, blaming delayed regulations, a lack of resources and other
factors.
Deadline after deadline was missed.
The biggest contractor, CGI Federal, was awarded its $94 million contract in
December 2011. But the government was so slow in issuing specifications that
the firm did not start writing software code until this spring, according to
people familiar with the process. As late as the last week of September,
officials were still changing features of the Web site, HealthCare.gov, and debating
whether consumers should be required to register and create password-protected
accounts before they could shop for health plans.
Meanwhile, Craig Timbert and Lena Sun of The Washington Post have observed that ordinary glitches in the course of software use would be expected to be magnified in the case of a government run interface.
Most government agencies
have a shortage of technical staff and long have outsourced most jobs to big
contractors who, while skilled in navigating a byzantine procurement system,
are not on the cutting edge of developing user-friendly Web sites. Thus, the original modularity problems would be compounded.
These companies also sometimes fail
to communicate effectively with each other as a major project moves ahead.
Dozens of private firms had a role in developing the online insurance exchanges
at the core of the health-care program and its Web site, working on contracts
that collectively were worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a
Government Accountability Office report in June. At the heart of the federal IT crisis is a
complex system of regulations that rewards contractors that are better at
bidding on giant federal contracts than at building software.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
YES! The Tea Baggers Are Nuts Enough to Crash The Government!
Rebel traitor Jefferson Davis, whose visage still appears on many Southern license plates, must be smiling from his grave at how his neo-Confederate ideological descendants have brought the government to the precipice and will now likely toss it over the cliff."If you listen to right-wing radio, watch FOX News and read their online media and take it seriously (because they do) then you would know that many on the right don’t want to live in a country that has Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, the minimum wage, Food Stamps, immigration, public schools, infant nutrition programs and the rest of the things government does to make our lives better. And they don’t want anyone else to live in a country that has those things, either."- Dave Johnson, 'Misunderestimating Who They Are', smirkingchimp.com
Okay, I admit I was wrong. Way wrong! In my fulsome over optimism (which only occurs a few times a century) I had actually predicted the government shutdown would end after a week and never ever bleed into the debt ceiling deadline. I had somehow expected rationality to eventually prevail so we wouldn't have reached this point. But, alas, I'd underestimated the supreme idiocy and insanity of the Tea Bagger neo-Confederate band of loons holding this country hostage. Many of whom, let's be clear, don't even think a default matters or will have consequences. Thanks to these assholes, all of us will experience real consequences!
Ol' Jeff Davis must be smiling from his grave, to see his ideological and other economic descendants (in the Tea Party especially) are on the verge of crashing the federal government into what many financial analysts have called "Armageddon" if the debt ceiling isn't raised by midnight tonight.
Already credit rating service Fitch has put the U.S. on a watch list for credit downgrade, below its current AAA bond rating. If that happens, and if no solution is reached by midnight, then we are headed to default. The U.S. Treasury will be able to borrow no more money, and risks not being able to pay Social Security, Military Vets benefits, or bond interest. In this case, which could transpire by Oct. 31- Nov. 1 (as Steve Rattner noted on Chris Hayes' All In on Monday) then people will see pain across the board. Start with your student loans, home loans and car loans all going up. As Rattner noted, every 1% increase in interest means $20b not available for purchase of goods and services. One financial analyst firm already estimates the shutdown has cost this fragile economy $22b.
Meanwhile, this morning, John Chambers - Chair of the Sovereign Ratings Committee at Standard and Poor's - has noted that each week of shutdown has cut 0.3% of GDP from the 4th quarter output This alone is parlous, given the GDP in any given year remains unbelievably low at 2-2.2%. Chambers noted that if we go past the point the government can't borrow any more, "one of two things can happen": 1) You'd have to cut government spending (other than debt service) by over a quarter of gov't spending, which would put the economy in recession, OR 2) refuse to pay bond interest coming due -leading to absolute default. In this case, the outcome would be "much worse than Lehman in 2008". For those who don't recall, Lehman paved the way for the massive stock market crash (and credit meltdown) that year, with most 401ks losing up to 40% of their value - from which many ordinary citizens have just started to emerge.
Chambers also dispelled a long standing myth among the ignorant Tea Bagger crowd, i.e. that the debt ceiling being raised allows spending. In fact, as Chambers pointed out, "the spending has already been approved as per acts of congress, but now elected officials are balking at funding that spending."
And let's get it straight WHO these assholes are: they are entirely the Tea Bagger nutsos who have threatened Goopr weak sister John Boehner with his Speakership unless he conforms to their idiotic, insane agenda - defunding the Affordable Care Act. This is why Boehner, wussie that he is, turned down the reasonable bipartisan solution worked out in the Senate yesterday- which was really the last best chance to conclude a deal. That deal would have re-opened the government at least until January, and raised the debt ceiling without any major strings attached, until February. So anyone prepared to blame the inability to go to military monuments (including Vietnam War Memorial) in D.C. on Dems or Obama needs to get their heads on straight about who the real culprits are here. (Oh, and stop watching FAUX News!)
Because as soon as the rational re-opening solution was sent to the House, Boehner's rebellious crew warned him it was a no -go. No way would they vote for it, because "it didn't go far enough". Now note- this was after GOP Senate stalwarts like Mitch McConnell, had already backed it. So WHO are the crazy whackjobs here? WHO are the ones responsible for this bullshit? They comprise a kernel of about 44 -odd, recycled proto-Jeff Davis backers in the House - about 1/30 of the whole gov't holding the rest hostage.
Chris Hayes had a feature segment on 'Who Is Shutting the Government Down?'
At the top of the list, Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia's 10th district, about whom Chris played several clips, including showing this asshole stating:
- The South was victimized by "Yankee Aggression" in the Civil War
- Climate change is the "biggest hoax of the century"
- " Evolution, the Big Bang Theory and Embryology are ALL lies from the Pit of Hell".
Get this, this delusional psychotic jackass sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology! You want to know why your government is shut down, look no further than under -educated Tea Party pawns like this. Though he claims to have an "M.D." degree, it could only have been awarded by Smokehouse Online Bible College since he professes the Bible governs and dictates science. And no real scientist would ever make a statement (following his fulminations against evolution, etc.) like: "It's these lies that try to keep me and all the folks who are taught from understanding that they need a savior".
Again, HOW the fuck can this fool be a member of any Science and Technology committee? Shit, how the hell could he even be a member of congress? The only explanation is half wit goobers in his district no more educated or informed than he is, electing his sorry ass! And it is because of 44 such districts across these United States (mostly in the South), with hundreds of thousands of such halfwits (many pining for the glorious days of Jeff Davis and his lot) that we have 44 Tea Bagger traitors in the House ready to turn this country upside down to try and get their way. Are we now into appointing blithering imbeciles? Well, figure it out for yourself when you next consider another Tea Pea moron backing the shutdown and default: Doug Lamborn.
Lamborn hails from El Paso County, Colorado, where he's been re-elected by the goober hyper military nuts ensconced here. Though these goobers piss and moan about "welfare" (Medicaid) for a pregnant mom working at Walmart unable to make ends meet from a piddling wage, they are quite happy to snatch military welfare benefits. This includes defense contractor benefits such as Lamborn has proposed to construct a $1 billion 'combat air brigade" here in the Springs, defended as "necessary for training support in Afghanistan" - despite the fact the U.S. is supposed to be leaving next year.
In other words, $1 b down the drain, and that's not even figuring in the tens of millions wasted each year in fuel costs with 122 choppers flying hither, thither and yon.
Lamborn has also gone on record to defund any health care act, especially the ACA, which allows birth control. He also is against contraception, period, and demands a "personhood" amendment to "protect the unborn citizen". Thus, he advocates passage of a new personhood amendment currently on offer, which penalizes any pregnant woman with up to 5 years behind bars if she is caught riding on a motorcycle, skiing, or drinking alcohol - which would be "voluntary manslaughter of the unborn citizen."
Now you know the basic psychological profile of the Tea Bagger assholes shutting the government down, and holding a gun to our collective heads as we near the 11th hour. Don't fucking blame Obama for any of this! He's finally standing his god damned ground as he should have the first time these fucks tried to extort concessions in 2011. Blame the Jefferson Davis, neo-Confederate dickheads who are hell bent to avenge the South's surrender to "Yankee aggression", by taking down the current federal gov't led by the first African-American President.
To read more about the issue under discussion, see:
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/07/shutdown_shows_the_civil_war_never_ended_partner/
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/13/the_south_is_holding_america_hostage/
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/joshua-holland/52150/tea-partys-war-memorial-rally-was-another-let-him-die-moment
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jack-lessenberry/52151/meet-the-gop-Taliban
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/52148/misunderestimating-who-they-are
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
The Corporate Media Needs Its Ass Kicked Over Its False Equivalence Shutdown Narrative
"The Tea Party is acting like lemmings, just going over a cliff. You shouldn't be taking your toys and just throwing a fit and threaten government shutdown, and that's what this strategy is."
Devin Nunes (California Republican) on CBS Early Show today
"the 'they're all bums' reaction is off-base. This shutdown, the first in 17 years, isn't the result of two parties acting equally irresponsibly. It is the product of an increasingly radicalized Republican Party, controlled by a disaffected base that demands legislative hostage-taking in an effort to get what it has not been able to attain by the usual means: winning elections.Call it the Tea Party shutdown. The group will wear the badge proudly. (USA Today, editorial, 'The SHutdown Party')
Right now, unbeknownst to most Americans, we are in the middle of a new Civil War. No, there are no bullets, not yet anyway , but the consequences in terms of pillaging the nation's treasure are just as real. The last time a shutdown happened, in 1996, it cost $2.1 billion in today’s dollars. Breaching the debt limit would be far, far worse, likely destroying this country's credit and ruining the savings of millions of Americans. But don't blame "congress" What we have is one (mainly former Confederate ) faction of one extreme Right party -Repukes- comprising maybe 50 in number, holding all three branches of gov't hostage to a terrorist demand: defunding an already passed and legit LAW.
As Chris Hayes aptly put it two night ago, on his 'All In' program,
"We have one thirtieth of the government holding the whole nation hostage".
And yes, I use the term "terrorist" responsibly, because that is what the fuck they are. Anyone who doesn't believe so is either brain dead, or a Tea Bagger. Let's get it clear here: These Tee Pee -driven Republicans are demanding that Democrats unwind their signature achievement – a piece of legislation that took 18 months to pass, survived a Supreme Court challenge and a presidential election – in exchange for a stopgap budget resolution. On Saturday, they tacked on a provision that would limit access to contraceptives. Are you kidding me? Every REAL American with real blood in his veins ought to be up in arms and bombarding the Tee Pee fruitcakes to tell them to stop this barbarism.
Idiots and fools like Condi Rice (this morning) - but more often the whole blow-dried corporo-punditry axis of bimbos and himbos keep saying they "hope both sides can sit in the same room and settle this."
Both sides? Let's get it fucking clear here once and for all that there is no "settling" anything when one side (a minority contingent of extremists) has a loaded gun to the other side's head. The gun in this case is effective repeal (they call it "defunding") of an already passed law.
Apart from the fact that this is ALL on one side, so silly talk of "congress" being responsible misses the point (it's a core of assholes within congress) think of the god-awful precedent being set. Imagine if after a repuke administration got a defense funding law passed, a majority liberal caucus in the House held the nation hostage via a shutdown unless they got their way - having it repealed or "defunded".
The whole country would erupt in outrage.
But the corporate media, the wimps who looked the other way while the NSA went hog shit wild in mass spying, are trying to portray it as a "pox on both houses" - equally blaming Repukes and Democrats. This is pure unadulterated codswallop.
Blogger Joshua Holland has exactly the correct take on BillMoyers.com:
"Beltway reporters who see their professed neutrality as a higher ground bear an enormous amount of responsibility for encouraging this perversion of democratic governance. With a few notable exceptions, the media have framed what Jonathan Chait called “a kind of quasi-impeachment” in typical he said-she said fashion, obscuring the fact that the basic norms that govern Congress have been thrown out the window by a small cabal of tea party-endorsed legislators from overwhelmingly Republican districts."
He goes on to observe (again, spot-on) that the "corporate media treat unprecedented legislative extortion as typical partisan negotiations, and in doing so they normalize it."
Indeed, by normalizing it the "fifth estate" betrays its responsibility to inform and educate the American public. Yet only ONE person, interviewed last night in an ABC News segment, correctly pinpointed the Tea Bagger faction as the ones responsible - all the others employed generic mush references to "they" and "congress". Can't these people THINK? Well, it's hard when: a) one isn't already a political junkie and b) one can't depend on the press to clarify issues.
But why be surprised at this media obfuscation and irresponsibility? It's been going on for years, hell decades! Look at the media's inability to properly discuss the JFK assassination in context without employing their usual dopey "tin foil hat" narrative BS. Michael Parenti in his book, The Dirty Truth, as well as his essay The Gangster State, has well documented how the media has become committed to the "one lone nut" myth almost since the Warren Commission received its specious benediction from LBJ. It didn't help that CIA disinformation hirelings were ensconced at both The New York Times, and Washington Post, so controlled any anti-Warren narratives. This was documented by Kathryn Olmstead in her book, Challenging the Secret Government (University of North Carolina Press, 1996)
In the same sense, to use an analogy, what is happening now in the U.S. shutdown coverage would be like German media equally blaming holocaust deniers and holocaust survivors, offspring for any new civic turmoil over the trial of Nazi Beate Zschäpe, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-new-german-nazis-really-up-to.html
But make no mistake that sober publications, like The Financial Times, put the onus foursquare where it belongs on the Tea Bagger- controlled House Republicans. There are also responsible bloggers and media people in the U.S. that do the same - but one must make an effort to find them, But if you believe the shutdown crazies are wreaking havoc, wait until the debt ceiling fight begins and these terrorists take it to another level! As reported by Ezra Klein:
Are we going to stand for this? Isn't there some punishment for treason? Isn't it hanging or putting before a firing squad? All of the above to me indicate blatant nativist, domestic extortion and terrorism (hence treason) no different from what American "enemy combatants" are using, as in Yemen and Somalia. If those fuckers can be taken down by a drone.....well.....don't get me started!
Devin Nunes (California Republican) on CBS Early Show today
"the 'they're all bums' reaction is off-base. This shutdown, the first in 17 years, isn't the result of two parties acting equally irresponsibly. It is the product of an increasingly radicalized Republican Party, controlled by a disaffected base that demands legislative hostage-taking in an effort to get what it has not been able to attain by the usual means: winning elections.Call it the Tea Party shutdown. The group will wear the badge proudly. (USA Today, editorial, 'The SHutdown Party')
Right now, unbeknownst to most Americans, we are in the middle of a new Civil War. No, there are no bullets, not yet anyway , but the consequences in terms of pillaging the nation's treasure are just as real. The last time a shutdown happened, in 1996, it cost $2.1 billion in today’s dollars. Breaching the debt limit would be far, far worse, likely destroying this country's credit and ruining the savings of millions of Americans. But don't blame "congress" What we have is one (mainly former Confederate ) faction of one extreme Right party -Repukes- comprising maybe 50 in number, holding all three branches of gov't hostage to a terrorist demand: defunding an already passed and legit LAW.
As Chris Hayes aptly put it two night ago, on his 'All In' program,
"We have one thirtieth of the government holding the whole nation hostage".
And yes, I use the term "terrorist" responsibly, because that is what the fuck they are. Anyone who doesn't believe so is either brain dead, or a Tea Bagger. Let's get it clear here: These Tee Pee -driven Republicans are demanding that Democrats unwind their signature achievement – a piece of legislation that took 18 months to pass, survived a Supreme Court challenge and a presidential election – in exchange for a stopgap budget resolution. On Saturday, they tacked on a provision that would limit access to contraceptives. Are you kidding me? Every REAL American with real blood in his veins ought to be up in arms and bombarding the Tee Pee fruitcakes to tell them to stop this barbarism.
Idiots and fools like Condi Rice (this morning) - but more often the whole blow-dried corporo-punditry axis of bimbos and himbos keep saying they "hope both sides can sit in the same room and settle this."
Both sides? Let's get it fucking clear here once and for all that there is no "settling" anything when one side (a minority contingent of extremists) has a loaded gun to the other side's head. The gun in this case is effective repeal (they call it "defunding") of an already passed law.
Apart from the fact that this is ALL on one side, so silly talk of "congress" being responsible misses the point (it's a core of assholes within congress) think of the god-awful precedent being set. Imagine if after a repuke administration got a defense funding law passed, a majority liberal caucus in the House held the nation hostage via a shutdown unless they got their way - having it repealed or "defunded".
The whole country would erupt in outrage.
But the corporate media, the wimps who looked the other way while the NSA went hog shit wild in mass spying, are trying to portray it as a "pox on both houses" - equally blaming Repukes and Democrats. This is pure unadulterated codswallop.
Blogger Joshua Holland has exactly the correct take on BillMoyers.com:
"Beltway reporters who see their professed neutrality as a higher ground bear an enormous amount of responsibility for encouraging this perversion of democratic governance. With a few notable exceptions, the media have framed what Jonathan Chait called “a kind of quasi-impeachment” in typical he said-she said fashion, obscuring the fact that the basic norms that govern Congress have been thrown out the window by a small cabal of tea party-endorsed legislators from overwhelmingly Republican districts."
He goes on to observe (again, spot-on) that the "corporate media treat unprecedented legislative extortion as typical partisan negotiations, and in doing so they normalize it."
Indeed, by normalizing it the "fifth estate" betrays its responsibility to inform and educate the American public. Yet only ONE person, interviewed last night in an ABC News segment, correctly pinpointed the Tea Bagger faction as the ones responsible - all the others employed generic mush references to "they" and "congress". Can't these people THINK? Well, it's hard when: a) one isn't already a political junkie and b) one can't depend on the press to clarify issues.
But why be surprised at this media obfuscation and irresponsibility? It's been going on for years, hell decades! Look at the media's inability to properly discuss the JFK assassination in context without employing their usual dopey "tin foil hat" narrative BS. Michael Parenti in his book, The Dirty Truth, as well as his essay The Gangster State, has well documented how the media has become committed to the "one lone nut" myth almost since the Warren Commission received its specious benediction from LBJ. It didn't help that CIA disinformation hirelings were ensconced at both The New York Times, and Washington Post, so controlled any anti-Warren narratives. This was documented by Kathryn Olmstead in her book, Challenging the Secret Government (University of North Carolina Press, 1996)
In the same sense, to use an analogy, what is happening now in the U.S. shutdown coverage would be like German media equally blaming holocaust deniers and holocaust survivors, offspring for any new civic turmoil over the trial of Nazi Beate Zschäpe, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-new-german-nazis-really-up-to.html
But make no mistake that sober publications, like The Financial Times, put the onus foursquare where it belongs on the Tea Bagger- controlled House Republicans. There are also responsible bloggers and media people in the U.S. that do the same - but one must make an effort to find them, But if you believe the shutdown crazies are wreaking havoc, wait until the debt ceiling fight begins and these terrorists take it to another level! As reported by Ezra Klein:
In return for a one-year suspension of the debt ceiling, House Republicans are demanding a yearlong delay of Obamacare, adoption of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s tax-reform plan, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, more offshore oil drilling, more drilling on federally protected lands, looser regulations around ash coal, a suspension of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of carbon emissions, more power over the regulatory process in general, reform of the federal employee retirement program, changes to the Dodd-Frank Act, more power over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s budget, repeal of the Social Services block grant, expanded means-testing for Medicare benefits, repeal of the public health trust fund and more.
Are we going to stand for this? Isn't there some punishment for treason? Isn't it hanging or putting before a firing squad? All of the above to me indicate blatant nativist, domestic extortion and terrorism (hence treason) no different from what American "enemy combatants" are using, as in Yemen and Somalia. If those fuckers can be taken down by a drone.....well.....don't get me started!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
The Finer Details of Obamacare (Part 2)
Perhaps the most significant boon of the Affordable Care Act is for young males, age 18-34. There are so many advantages to signing up that it beggars the imagination to conceive why one wouldn't. See also:
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/why_nobody_without_insurance_should_skip_obamacare/
So what makes Obamacare so advantageous to this demographic? First, an analysis of the individual market today shows that young men with income above tax credit eligibility (400% of FPL) comprise a small fraction of enrollees: 7 percent of the 10.8 million total individual market enrollees, or about 750,000 in 2011. Overall, nearly 60 percent of young men ages 18-34 currently enrolled in the individual market may be eligible for tax credits or Medicaid if their state implements the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid eligibility expansion.
Second, preliminary information suggests that premiums will be affordable for this group, even without eligibility for a premium tax credit. InLos Angeles Portland Albuquerque
Individuals under the age of 30 will also be eligible for catastrophic coverage, and those under the age of 26 may be eligible for coverage on parent’s policy. InLos Angeles , California Albuquerque , New Mexico Portland , Oregon
Third, tax credits will help many young men in this market. To illustrate the impact, a 25 year old inCalifornia with income of $17,235 (150% of poverty) could pay as little as $34 per month for a silver plan in North Los Angeles , and could purchase a bronze plan for as little as $7 a month.
So why wouldn't a young guy take advantage? Well, because he may have an invincibility complex. And that works or seems to, until one is in an auto accident, or is accidentally (or intentionally) shot or perhaps even gets some contagious disease (say dengue fever) because of exotic travel (Peace Corps?) Or, he may simply get an H3N2 flu he can't shake and which requires ER attention.
The problem, as always, is that once one is severely physically compromised after the fact, it's too late. You then reap the whirlwind, and if say seriously injured with a spine injury in a car accident you will now be looking at $280,000 in medical bills- perhaps along with college loans to pay off.
Young males need to bear that in mind when they consider taking the penalty as opposed to signing up for health insurance.
Btw, you can compare prices and packages at:
www.healthcare.gov
Cautions: What Health Exchanges Might Not Tell You:
1) Signing up on Day One could be a bitch.
Today is ribbon cutting day on the ACA but beware. The exchanges in 36 states have been scrambling to get ready but a majority may not be. Anticipated snafus can range from jammed phone lines and websites to technological glitches and security failures.
Quoted in the Wall Street Journal Sunday section of the Denver Post, Bryce Williams (managing director of exchange solutions for Towers Watson) says:
"Unless you are desperate for health insurance, our advice is to wait until November or December. It's kind of like not buying the first model of a car when it comes out - wait until the kinks get worked out."
See also: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/01/3662645/health-insurance-marketplace-plagued.html
2) Know Thy Exchanges.
The new ACA exchanges, also known as health insurance marketplaces, are run either by states or the federal government and cater to individuals. Private exchanges, operated by benefits firms like Towers Watson and Aon Hewitt, exist meanwhile to serve employee groups.
Too many people think of the exchanges as like a shopping mall, but in reality they are basically websites where people can log on to compare insurance prices, packages. Think of it more like the health insurance version of Orbitz or Priceline.com.
3) Don't ask staff for advice - if you call up - they can't give it
Certain companies have delegated money to hire "navigators" for the new health care exchanges. The problem is that current regulations prohibit these navigators from recommending or choosing plans on a consumer's behalf. The navigators are only allowed to "facilitate enrollment", i.e. such as helping people to set up an online account.
4) Don't Violate the Honor Code to Try To Get a Cheaper Plan
A key and welcome component of the ACA is the ability of low income people to receive subsidies on health insurance through the exchanges. All those with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level are eligible. The problem is that the verification processes will likely be delayed until 2015 - leaving exchanges to trust customers on the "honor system" until then. But legal experts warn of stiff penalties if violators are found out, ranging from jail time to large fines.
5) Sharing the Cost Burden.
Those who get insurance through their employers will not be eligible for subsidies. But they will still be expected to help subsidize insurance for those not employed, for example. A lesser known ACA provision requires employers to pay fees that go toward the cost of covering Americans who were previously uninsured- often those who have chronic health conditions and expensive to insure. Until the fees are phased out, employers will pass them on to workers.
6) You Might Not Be Able to Keep Your Doctor
When first promoting the ACA, Obama said those buying insurance through the exchanges could keep their own doctor. The truth is that many plans strictly limit the network of doctors they pay for. People can look for a plan that covers their doctor, but it might not be feasible in some market places. An analysis of plans in 13 states disclosed half had limited networks.
7) Competition to Get Lower Prices is a Work In Progress
Gov't officials have said the exchanges will keep insurance prices down by making companies compete with each other. But that's a work in progress. So far large insurance companies like Cigna and United Health group have abstained from many states' exchanges this year.
WHO Will Pay?
Interestingly, despite the government partial shutdown starting today, Obamacare (the ACA) is fully funded. So ironically also, the one law the Reepos wanted to defund carries on despite their seeking the shutdown solution. But it elicits the question of who pays? There are several components:
-Higher Medicare taxes on top incomes - brings in $210.2 billion
- Insurance company sales fees - brings in $60 to $100 billion
- Tax on Cadillac health insurance policies (for the 1 percenters) brings in $32 billion
- Tax on Medical devices - brings in $20 billion
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/why_nobody_without_insurance_should_skip_obamacare/
So what makes Obamacare so advantageous to this demographic? First, an analysis of the individual market today shows that young men with income above tax credit eligibility (400% of FPL) comprise a small fraction of enrollees: 7 percent of the 10.8 million total individual market enrollees, or about 750,000 in 2011. Overall, nearly 60 percent of young men ages 18-34 currently enrolled in the individual market may be eligible for tax credits or Medicaid if their state implements the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid eligibility expansion.
Second, preliminary information suggests that premiums will be affordable for this group, even without eligibility for a premium tax credit. In
Individuals under the age of 30 will also be eligible for catastrophic coverage, and those under the age of 26 may be eligible for coverage on parent’s policy. In
Third, tax credits will help many young men in this market. To illustrate the impact, a 25 year old in
So why wouldn't a young guy take advantage? Well, because he may have an invincibility complex. And that works or seems to, until one is in an auto accident, or is accidentally (or intentionally) shot or perhaps even gets some contagious disease (say dengue fever) because of exotic travel (Peace Corps?) Or, he may simply get an H3N2 flu he can't shake and which requires ER attention.
The problem, as always, is that once one is severely physically compromised after the fact, it's too late. You then reap the whirlwind, and if say seriously injured with a spine injury in a car accident you will now be looking at $280,000 in medical bills- perhaps along with college loans to pay off.
Young males need to bear that in mind when they consider taking the penalty as opposed to signing up for health insurance.
Btw, you can compare prices and packages at:
www.healthcare.gov
Cautions: What Health Exchanges Might Not Tell You:
1) Signing up on Day One could be a bitch.
Today is ribbon cutting day on the ACA but beware. The exchanges in 36 states have been scrambling to get ready but a majority may not be. Anticipated snafus can range from jammed phone lines and websites to technological glitches and security failures.
Quoted in the Wall Street Journal Sunday section of the Denver Post, Bryce Williams (managing director of exchange solutions for Towers Watson) says:
"Unless you are desperate for health insurance, our advice is to wait until November or December. It's kind of like not buying the first model of a car when it comes out - wait until the kinks get worked out."
See also: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/01/3662645/health-insurance-marketplace-plagued.html
2) Know Thy Exchanges.
The new ACA exchanges, also known as health insurance marketplaces, are run either by states or the federal government and cater to individuals. Private exchanges, operated by benefits firms like Towers Watson and Aon Hewitt, exist meanwhile to serve employee groups.
Too many people think of the exchanges as like a shopping mall, but in reality they are basically websites where people can log on to compare insurance prices, packages. Think of it more like the health insurance version of Orbitz or Priceline.com.
3) Don't ask staff for advice - if you call up - they can't give it
Certain companies have delegated money to hire "navigators" for the new health care exchanges. The problem is that current regulations prohibit these navigators from recommending or choosing plans on a consumer's behalf. The navigators are only allowed to "facilitate enrollment", i.e. such as helping people to set up an online account.
4) Don't Violate the Honor Code to Try To Get a Cheaper Plan
A key and welcome component of the ACA is the ability of low income people to receive subsidies on health insurance through the exchanges. All those with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level are eligible. The problem is that the verification processes will likely be delayed until 2015 - leaving exchanges to trust customers on the "honor system" until then. But legal experts warn of stiff penalties if violators are found out, ranging from jail time to large fines.
5) Sharing the Cost Burden.
Those who get insurance through their employers will not be eligible for subsidies. But they will still be expected to help subsidize insurance for those not employed, for example. A lesser known ACA provision requires employers to pay fees that go toward the cost of covering Americans who were previously uninsured- often those who have chronic health conditions and expensive to insure. Until the fees are phased out, employers will pass them on to workers.
6) You Might Not Be Able to Keep Your Doctor
When first promoting the ACA, Obama said those buying insurance through the exchanges could keep their own doctor. The truth is that many plans strictly limit the network of doctors they pay for. People can look for a plan that covers their doctor, but it might not be feasible in some market places. An analysis of plans in 13 states disclosed half had limited networks.
7) Competition to Get Lower Prices is a Work In Progress
Gov't officials have said the exchanges will keep insurance prices down by making companies compete with each other. But that's a work in progress. So far large insurance companies like Cigna and United Health group have abstained from many states' exchanges this year.
WHO Will Pay?
Interestingly, despite the government partial shutdown starting today, Obamacare (the ACA) is fully funded. So ironically also, the one law the Reepos wanted to defund carries on despite their seeking the shutdown solution. But it elicits the question of who pays? There are several components:
-Higher Medicare taxes on top incomes - brings in $210.2 billion
- Insurance company sales fees - brings in $60 to $100 billion
- Tax on Cadillac health insurance policies (for the 1 percenters) brings in $32 billion
- Tax on Medical devices - brings in $20 billion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)