The ACA and Small Businesses

[Doc]

“Definitive Proof that Obamacare Raises Costs and Kills Jobs.”

Yeah, but wait until they tweak it!

[DC Tom]

“Definitive Proof that Obamacare Raises Costs and Kills Jobs.”

 

 

.

 

It's not supposed to fix things, it's just supposed to be a step in the right direction.

[Doc]

It's not supposed to fix things, it's just supposed to be a step in the right direction.

A goose step?

[B-Man]

The country's in the very best of hands:

 

Health and Human Services Secretary Doesn’t Understand What Insurance Is: Kathleen Sebelius thinks insurance isn’t really insurance unless it covers routine expenses. This is exactly backwards.

 

Yes, it is, but it’s not surprising to hear this from an advocate of the Dependency Agenda.

 

.

[Doc]

The country's in the very best of hands:

 

Health and Human Services Secretary Doesn’t Understand What Insurance Is: Kathleen Sebelius thinks insurance isn’t really insurance unless it covers routine expenses. This is exactly backwards.

 

Yes, it is, but it’s not surprising to hear this from an advocate of the Dependency Agenda.

It's idiots like her who have ruined medicine.

[DC Tom]

A goose step?

 

More like a silly walk.

[Magox]

More from Kathleen Sebelius

 

 

 

 

But Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of HHS, thinks that catastrophic insurance isn't really insurance at all.

 

 

At a White House briefing Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said some of what passes for health insurance today is so skimpy it can't be compared to the comprehensive coverage available under the law. "Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don't pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus," she said. "They're really mortgage protection, not health insurance."

She said this in response to a report from the American Society of Actuaries arguing that premiums are going to rise by 32% when Obamacare kicks in, as coverage gets more generous and more sick people join the insurance market. Sebelius' response is apparently that catastrophic insurance isn't really insurance at all--which is exactly backwards. Catastrophic coverage is "true insurance". Coverage of routine, predictable services is not insurance at all; it's a spectacularly inefficient prepayment plan.

 

Now, it occurred to me that Sebelius might be thinking about the scam insurance that is all too often sold to naive, mostly lower-middle-class folks who labor in the service industry. That stuff isn't insurance at all; it's a fraud, and the people who sell it will richly deserve any justice that is meted out to them in either this life or the next. But that stuff doesn't protect your mortgage, either; they're almost-worthless discount plans or very-limited-coverage insurance sold by fly-by-night operations who tend to evaporate as soon as claims have to be paid. So I don't think that's what she's talking about; I think she's talking about catastrophic plans.

 

Nor do I think that Sebelius is responding awkwardly to a report that the administration would like to wish away. I think she's sincerely confused about the difference between insurance, and prepayment. Which explains a lot about the new health law.

Last week, I was at a health care conference where the subject of catastrophic plans came up. Obamacare has, unfortunately, sharply curtailed the ability to offer these plans; very high deductible plans are now effectively illegal. Which is a great shame, because these plans, combined with a dedicated health savings accounts, were showing real promise at controlling costs.

<a name="body_text11" style="visibility:hidden">

 

A liberal policy professor at the event explained this as a result of the toxic political environment surrounding policy these days; since Republicans wouldn't cooperate on Obamacare, Democrats stuck the knife in one of their favorite programs.

 

But Sebelius' answer suggests another explanation: the Democratic opposition to castrophic plans was not strategic, or vengeful, but entirely heartfelt. The Secretary of Health and Human Services genuinely believes that health insurance should do more than just, well, protect your ability to keep paying the mortgage. Unfortunately, "more" is very expensive and inefficient.

[birdog1960]

More from Kathleen Sebelius

i think she's acknowledging that a $15k chest pain ER visit for indigestion for lower wage worker is catastrophic. yes, we need to get the cost of that er visit under control but it ain't happeming overnight.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that Dr. Carson has come up with the single most efficient, effective, and elegant solution to the US Healthcare situation that I've ever encountered.

 

HSA's and a nationalized catastrophic risk pool solves every problem that deserves solving.

[birdog1960]

The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that Dr. Carson has come up with the single most efficient, effective, and elegant solution to the US Healthcare situation that I've ever encountered.

 

HSA's and a nationalized catastrophic risk pool solves every problem that deserves solving.

so surprised...those that can't afford to adequately fund an hsa are undeserving to you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

so surprised...those that can't afford to adequately fund an hsa are undeserving to you.

Perhaps you should bother to read Dr. Carson's position on HSA funding before attacking it, yes?

[Doc]

Perhaps you should bother to read Dr. Carson's position on HSA funding before attacking it, yes?

Come now! Kathy Sebelius is infinitely more qualified to direct medical care in this country than some hack like Carson.

[birdog1960]

Perhaps you should bother to read Dr. Carson's position on HSA funding before attacking it, yes?

what is there to read? he says everyone should have hsa'a...nothing else. like how to fund indigent hsa's. or would the funding allow for "catasrophic" coverage, presumably from medicaid while medicaid simultaneously funds the hsa? simplicity is good but this "plan"is far too lean on details.

[B-Man]

Delaying Obamacare

by Yural Levin

 

Those of us following the frantic and disconcerting efforts to roll out Obamacare have a kind of drill we follow these days: For news of big problems that the administration wants treated as small, we look toward the back of the A section of the New York Times. That’s where the Times now buries most of Robert Pear’s coverage of health care which, despite Pear’s best efforts to cheerlead, tends to involve coverage of delay and dysfunction in Obamacare. Today’s story (page A12) begins with an 11-word phrase we should get used to and builds from there:

Unable to meet tight deadlines in the new health care law, the Obama administration is delaying parts of a program intended to provide affordable health insurance to small businesses and their employees — a major selling point for the health care legislation.

 

 

It seems HHS is delaying implementation of this provision by a year, to 2015 instead of 2014. Leaving aside the question of where exactly the administration is getting the authority for the delay (given the fact that the requirement to implement this provision, in section 1311(b)(1) of the law, begins with the words “Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish”), and leaving aside the fact that this provision was the price of at least one senator’s vote for Obamacare (Mary Landrieu’s) and perhaps others’, the fact of the delay should get members of Congress from both parties thinking. We have already seen other deadlines pushed back, and we will see more. Why not formalize this process and just push back the implementation of the entire law by at least a year?

 

.

[Magox]

Seems as if just about every day there is either a study, news from the actuaries, the administration, the states or medical providers that warn us of some sort of negative impact that we will see as a result of the ACA.

 

One of the worst impacts will be on at the state level, the classic bait and switch, we'll cover your Medicaid expansion costs for the first x amount of years, then after that, "don't worry about it, health care costs will go down, so you will be fine"

 

State budgets will explode! Which will lead to even more dramatic cuts for state government Union employees, and of course they will all be asking Uncle Sam to bail their ass out. Then you will see liberal lawmakers blame Conservative governors for slashing budgets, that basically were imposed by their crappy piece of **** legislation. The ACA sucks ass. Some of us have been saying this for a few years now, soon we will start seeing everything that was predicted.

 

It will be interesting to see how Liberals will react to this abortion of a Law that they created all on their own. Will some of them remain quiet and hide? Will some of them predictably say "see, we should have had the public option". Will some of the more moderate democratic voices admit that it could have been crafted better and support a repeal or a major overhaul. or will some push for Single Payer health care?

 

In any case, it's a train wreck that will undoubtedly affect our health care system, small businesses and state and federal budgets.

[birdog1960]

 

will some push for Single Payer health care?

 

budgets.

you didn't get the playbook?

[Magox]

you didn't get the playbook?

 

Most liberals that I see, reluctantly support the ACA because it's the president's main achievement, so it's more a matter of trying to help support his legacy. However, I believe once the healthcare law starts showing it's ugly face, they'll dip on him with blinding speed.

[DC Tom]

Most liberals that I see, reluctantly support the ACA because it's the president's main achievement, so it's more a matter of trying to help support his legacy. However, I believe once the healthcare law starts showing it's ugly face, they'll dip on him with blinding speed.

 

Or they'll blame the Republicans for its faults.

 

You underestimate the strength of their Kool-Aid, I believe.

[TakeYouToTasker]

what is there to read? he says everyone should have hsa'a...nothing else. like how to fund indigent hsa's. or would the funding allow for "catasrophic" coverage, presumably from medicaid while medicaid simultaneously funds the hsa? simplicity is good but this "plan"is far too lean on details.

You simply don't bother to read, do you? If you actually read the work of those who you presume to disagree with, instead of just dismissing them out of hand according to your confirmation biases, and the demagoguing you would know that your characterization of Dr. Carson's position is far from accurate.

[Magox]

Or they'll blame the Republicans for its faults.

 

 

 

For sure.