The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

The Daily GOP Ignominious: Seriously Fox News?



What would entice a person to maintain a healthy lifestyle?  (Paraphrased Fox News host question while discussing repeal of the ACA)

Fox News producers are the absolute pit.  I doubt the Fox show host who hosted the following segment actually believes simply leading a "healthy lifestyle" will ensure the prospect of a person living life without a need for medical care.  The host is yet another Fox News demagogue, but he seems to possess a modicum of cognitive acumen. That alone lends to disbelief he could be stupid.

We are not asserting Fox News producers are stupid; we wouldn't go there. Fox News producers are handsomely paid to foster, nurture and feed null garbage to willing sycophant viewers.  Their mission guides their production ignorance. 



Really Fox News? StumbleUpon

Friday, September 22, 2017

The Daily GOP Ignominious: Trump, TrumpCare, Repal ObamaCare And Your GOP


ObamaCare Facts dot com

Have you followed the developing story of US Senate efforts to ramrod an ObamaCare repeal through the chamber prior to a September 30th, procedural deadline? If you have followed the story, you know a preponderance of US Senators are ready to cast a vote to effectively turn national medical coverage legislation over to the states. If you haven't followed the story, follow it below.

We start with an MSNBC segment via the network's Ali Velshi.
The details from a liberal network perspective.

Take a minute and watch what happens when GOP elected operatives appear on camera while totally ill-equipped to  speak intelligently (without lying) about a bill the party wants to rush through to a vote. Wisconsin's Ron Johnson should have declined the interview.




If you have a few more (video) minutes take time to watch "Mr. Quip" Vice President Pence avoid questions about pre-existing conditions guarantees with a false statement about a Thomas Jefferson quote.
False
Pence"Thomas Jefferson said, ‘Government that governs least governs best.’ "
— Mike Pence on Thursday, September 21st, 2017 in comments on 'Fox & Friends'





Is there anyone in the Trump cabal who can wear a collar called credible? Maybe Pence should also avoid on camera interviews. A decent thought, but how can one campaign to replace Trump if he doesn't show on Fox & Friends with misinformation to feed the shows absorbent audience. 

If you are a news geek or a person who enjoys Jimmy Kimmel, late night ABC, you are following his point-counterpoint with Senator Cassidy (R-LA) and the aggregate GOP talking heads who support TrumpCare. The current kerfuffle started after Kimmel delivered an emotional monologue about the post-birth health of his second child (born with a serious/chronic heart disease). 

As Mitch McConnell moved his Senate GOP Majority towards an ObamaCare "kill bill," Cassidy appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel Show and stuck his naive foot in his mouth all the way through the heel of the foot. As you watch an excerpt from the Kimmel show (from May of this year) think about what is currently transpiring with the Senate efforts to kill medical care for millions while offering significant tax cuts to the nation's Top .01% (many of which financially supported Trump's election).

It is also important to note Kimmel's is catching the wrath of conservatives who are obviously following tightly transcribed talking points which include one rotund New Jersey governor referring to Kimmel as "not a serious person...on this matter."



Kimmel vs the GOP is one item and a sure loss for the GOP. Kimmel's personal experience with chronic ailments didn't relegate his family to financial ruin. Think of families in the hundreds of thousands who receive similarly dire health diagnosis without the comfort of millions to secure the best healthcare. 

What does the bill actually take away from current ObamaCare recipients (and the recipients of medical coverage under ObamaCare)? The nation's (and possibly the world's) most credible news sources, NPR sums-up the Cassidy-Graham bill as such.

"The Graham-Cassidy plan would take health insurance coverage away from millions of people, eliminate critical public health funding, devastate the Medicaid program, increase out-of-pocket costs and weaken or eliminate protections for people living with pre-existing conditions," says Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement. 
Here's what it does: 
Graham-Cassidy essentially deconstructs all of the major programs created by the Affordable Care Act, gathers up the money and hands it over to states to run their own health care programs. 
It gets rid of both the subsidies that help people buy individual health insurance policies and the reimbursements to insurance companies for offering price breaks on copayments and deductibles to the lowest-income customers. 
It rolls back the Obamacare Medicaid expansion that was adopted by 31 states and Washington, D.C., and it eliminates the Basic Health Program that was created under the ACA and implemented in New York and Minnesota. 
All the money that currently goes to those initiatives would instead be distributed to the states as block grants that would particularly benefit those states that did not expand Medicaid earlier and those states with lower health care costs.
And, what do some in the White House think about the developing bill and possible vote?  Politico reports at last one White House officials has stated they 'don't know what to think" the developing bill.  (Talking Points Memo)

Under normal condition's I would adjoin the Politico report with a question like: "Can you believe that?"  As I consider Trump and his GOP, the need for such a rhetorical question doesn't present a real need.

Finally, how does the healthcare industry rate the GOP "kill ObamaCare" bill. Huffington Post link.

It seems health care isn't buying the GOP tax cut bill.


StumbleUpon

Friday, June 23, 2017

A Visit With Your GOP Healthcare Death Panel Bill




No automatic alt text available.









GOP Vs Medicaid

No automatic alt text available.

Who wants Trumpcare?



Job Killer

StumbleUpon

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Senate Healthcare Bill; Same As Draconian As Ryan's Bill (Maybe Worse)



Image result for 13 senators health care bill
Is this a death panel?
The US Senate leadership indicated the legislative body would come up with their own bill as the May 4th release of the House bill was met with deep scorn and a horrific CBO report.

Well, it seems GOP Senatorial leadership lied. The bill, released today, in many ways mirrors the Ryan bill and in other ways seems more Draconian.

CNN offers a point to point comparison of ObamaCare, the House bill and the Senate bill. link.

We also located a detailed review via the Washington Post (linked below), but first, let;s take a look at the 13 MEN McConnell assigned to secretly develop the bill.

No automatic alt text available.


The Washington Post: link.

We will follow the day to day gyrations of the GOP health care tax cut and report pieces we feel shed light on the great con.

Obama's reaction?

Image may contain: one or more people and text












StumbleUpon

Thursday, April 27, 2017

House Republicans And Cadillac Insurance Coverage?




Image result for trojan horse
Be aware of Republicans barring gifts!


So, you voted for the GOP this past fall. 


You are a Trump supporter.
You have ignored decades of data about GOP economic acumen, or lack thereof, at the federal level.

You may be old enough to feel almost secure with your Medicare Medical coverage.

If all above fit you, you probably don't give a damn about people who will lose medical coverage from the Ryan House. You, without a doubt, do not give a double damn about the reality of the GOP Majority in Congress developing an ACA repeal which will exclude them from all provisions of their law.  

You are a nation killing facilitator if even a few of the positions above fit you and your political paradigm.

Croosk & Liars Repost

House Republicans Exempt Themselves From Their Own Health Care Plan

In a new attempt at undermining Obamacare, Republicans got caught protecting themselves from the evils of their own creation. If you remember, Obamacare forced politicians to buy the same health insurance as the rest of America, which was a good idea. Republicans obviously feel more entitled than their constituents and introduced a new amendment Tuesday "to…
StumbleUpon

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Trump Economic Talking Head (And A Lack Of Veracity)





In 2016, Donald Trump hired a well-known conservative economic talking head: Stephen Moore. On any given day, you can find Moore earning copious paychecks on camera at MSNBC, CNN and probably many visits to Fox News with his patented form of economic snake oil.

Of all of Moore's unrelated and over-the-top conservative rhetoric, the following is one case I recall most. 

Media Matters July 2014 (well before Trump declared himself a candidate for the GOP 2016 ticket): 

Conservative Media's Favorite Economist Caught Distorting Facts About Taxes And Job Creation


Moore's mission of late is that of the anti-Affordable Care Act terrorist. Moore recently appeared in an exchange with CNN's Anderson Cooper and Robert Reich, former Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor.  

Moores rounds also found him on the Christian Broadcast Network. In the spirit of Christianity, I wonder how the medical care abandonment for 24 million Americans stacks up in the aura of the scriptures. 
In 2011, Moore entered into an echage with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (a sure fired loss on his part even before the interviews), regarding income gains of the top 1 percent and the gains of American in the lowest income strata. Well, you need not go any further Moore was lying.
Moore
Moore In the 1980s, "The lowest income people had the biggest gains."
 Steve Moore on Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 in HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher"   False

Actually, Moore's hire should never have surprised anyone. Donald Trump is an unarguable pathological liar. He surrounds himself with like personalities, so why would the addition of a camera ready economic theory liar even draw attention? 

Moore is following the GOP party line via the same use of mantra used to fight the enactment of the ACA. In 2000 and 2010, we heard or read these words on a daily basis: "death panels." Well, those panels never materialize today s common GOP regarding the ACAis the image-laden phrase "death spirals." There are fewer more prolific rightwing media propagandist than Hugh Hewitt.

Over the past weekend, Hewitt joined the chorus of well-compensated talking heads appearing on Cable news networks with the same "death spiral" lie.

Tampa Bay Times, Pundifact

  Hewitt
Hewitt
Obamacare "is in a death spiral."
— Hugh Hewitt on Sunday, March 26th, 2017 in comments on "Meet the Press"  False









If you are a high information voter/person (HIV) and have a bit of time Ezra Klein's Vox offer a  detailed review of why the ACA is not on a conservative "death spiral."
StumbleUpon

Saturday, February 25, 2017

ObamaCare A Thorn For The GOP



After years of conservative and Right-wing politician railing about the ACA (AKA ObamaCare), it seems the worms has turned with most Americans interested in keeping the core of the law.

The GOP majority in the US House of Representatives have, over the past few years, wasted 58 repeal ObamaCare votes. Each vote cost the nation $1.4 to $1.6 million per vote.  The math yields an alarming waste of our tax dollars and Congressional resources wasted on obstructing Obama.

Connect The Dots offers a graphic with specifics lists of ACA benefits important to millions. 



The following Huffington Post favorability ratings are also reflective of a GOP out of touch with the nation, even though Pew Research data shows a much highrr favorbaility rating.

Hufffington Post ACA (ObamaCare)


Latest Polls

Poll
Favor
Oppose
Undecided
Spread
Feb 16 – Feb 19
2,013 Registered Voters
46459Favor +1
Feb 13 – Feb 19
11,512 Adults
52453Favor +7
Feb 7 – Feb 8
712 Likely Voters
473914Favor +8
Jan 30 – Jan 31
725 Likely Voters
464113Favor +5
Jan 23 – Jan 24
1,043 Likely Voters
454114Favor +4
Jan 20 – Jan 22
1,992 Registered Voters
47458Favor +2
Jan 15 – Jan 18
1,006 Registered Voters
50460Favor +4
Jan 12 – Jan 16
1,036 Adults
50350Favor +15
Jan 12 – Jan 15
1,000 Adults


49

47
-Favor +2

Pew Research continues to publish polling results with a favorable disposition to the ACA.  Contrary to Trump peppering his minions with words of "fake polls" Nate Silver;s 538 blog lists Pew with an B plus rating and a slight left lean (to be fair).  


Talking Points Memo published a piece earlier today with favorable ACA results at the level of 54% approval. (CLICK image below)



What is it about the ACA doesn't the GOP understand?  Would you care to wager, the majority party in the US Congres will work to motivate the ACA Vs. a full repeal?  Of course, GOP ideology induces fears of improvements which will appear as such, but in the long run fail the spirit of providing healthcare to Americans. 
StumbleUpon

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Talk Of Obamacare Sky-Rocketing Premiums

Charles Gaba on the ACA with a glance towards rumors of sky-rocketing premiums.





UPDATED: CBO confirms everything I (and Urban Institute, and many others) have been saying.


For weeks now, I (and many others) have been crunching the numbers and making projections to see just what the fallout would be on the individual market (and the total uninsured rate) if the GOP were to follow through with their promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
There's a lot of variables at play, and there's also no way of knowing what (if any) replacement plan they'd come up with instead, but there are two main scenarios to consider: First, what would things look like if the ACA were to be fully repealed (without a half-decent replacement ready to swoop in); second, what would happen if the ACA were to be partially repealed via the reconciliation process (ie, killing off the subsidies, individual/employer mandates, Medicaid expansion and so forth, but keeping the guaranteed issue, community rating and other regulatory provisions in place, which is what would happen if the Republicans were to continue on their present course).
I've gotten a lot of attention for my own state-level (and, more recently, county-level) estimates of the former scenario, while the Urban Institute has been cited by just about everyone for their analysis of the latter one. As far as I can tell, a full repeal with immediate effect would result in around 25 million people losing coverage, while the Urban Institute says that nearly 30 million would lose coverage under a partial repeal (their number is larger mainly because they foresee the off-exchange individual market being decimated as well).
Well, today the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has chimed in (PDF), and their conclusions are pretty much everything that all of us have been saying...but even worse:
CBO and JCT offered a partial assessment of how H.R. 3762 would affect health insurance coverage, but they had not estimated the changes in coverage or premiums that would result from leaving the market reforms in place while repealing the mandate penalties and subsidies.
In other words, this report is using the Urban Institute scenario: Partial repeal.
In brief, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting that legislation would affect insurance coverage and premiums primarily in these ways:
  • The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and of subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces, that number would increase to 27 million, and then to 32 million in 2026.
Now, the first bullet point is about the same (slightly worse, actually) as the Urban Institute's conclusion: Around 32 million additional people uninsured (remember, this is on top of the 28 million who are currently uninsured, for a total of around 59 million uninsured by 2026).
(I should note that a little later on, they also do, briefly touch on my scenario (full repeal without replacement), and are similarly close to my own estimates):
(The number of people without health insurance would be smaller if, in addition to the changes in H.R. 3762, the insurance market reforms mentioned above were also repealed. In that case, the increase in the number of uninsured people would be about 21 million in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies; that figure would rise to about 23 million in 2026.)
Again, this is a bit lower than my own ~25 million estimate, but still in the ballpark.
However, check out the second bullet point on the first page:
  • Premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by 20 percent to 25 percentrelative to projections under current law—in the first new plan year following enactment. The increase would reach about 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies, and premiums would about double by 2026.
Whenever I try explaining why a parital repeal would be even worse in some ways than a full repeal, I note that stripping the subsidies/mandate while keeping guaranteed issue/community rating would cause rates to "skyrocket" by "much more" than the ugly unsubsidized rate hikes we've already seen the past year or two. However, saying that they'd go up "a lot" is pretty vague.
Today's CBO analysis finally gives a fairly concrete number to work with, which shows just how devastating the GOP's game plan really is: They're projecting that individual market premiums would be twice as much by 2026 under a partial repeal scenario as they would be with the ACA in place.
I cannot stress the highlighted part above enough, though: Unless I'm misunderstanding the CBO's wording here, when they say premiums would be "double", that's relative to what they're already expected to be WITH the ACA in place as is.
What does that mean in actual dollars?
Well, I whipped up two scenarios. The first one assumes that under current law (i.e., the full ACA in place as is), unsubsidized indy market premiums go up 5% per year for the next 9 years. The second one assumes that they go up 10% on average per year.
Now, at 5% per year over a 9 year period, you'd be looking at roughly a 55% cumulative increase by 2026. At 10% per year, it'd be around 135% by then. Both of these would already be quite a bit higher than the overall ~2% inflation rate, of course.
However...again, unless I'm misunderstanding them here, according to the Congressional Budget Office, even if you assume that under the ACA rates go up 5% per year, repealing the law would cause an unsubsidized policy costing $1,000 per month in 2017 to cost $3,100/month by 2026, or 3.1x as much. If rates would otherwise go up 10%/year, it would be even worse: $4,700/month by 2026:
UPDATE: It's conceivable that the CBO really did mean premiums would "only" double by 2026, as in a 100% rate increase over 9 years. However, that would be the equivalent of roughly an 8% average annual rate hike which isn't pleasant but is below the average increases over the past 10 years, both pre-ACA and since then. If someone can show that I'm misinterpreting the report, I'll be sure to retract this point...but their wording seems pretty clear to me.
UPDATE x2: OK, never mind; looks like I had it correct in the first place:
@charles_gaba @haroldpollack @CitizenCohn Yes, all these increases in uninsured & individual market premiums are relative to current law.
— Edwin Park (@EdwinCBPP) January 17, 2017
Of course, this is exactly why the CBO (and Urban) expect the entire individual market to collapse if the ACA is repealed: Just about no one would be able to afford those premiums, so everyone would bail:
The estimated increase of 32 million people without coverage in 2026 is the net result of roughly 23 million fewer with coverage in the nongroup market and 19 million fewer with coverage under Medicaid,partially offset by an increase of about 11 million people covered by employment-based insurance. By CBO and JCT’s estimates, 59 million people under age 65 would be uninsured in 2026 (compared with 28 million under current law), representing 21 percent of people under age 65. By 2026, fewer than 2 million people would be enrolled in the nongroup market, CBO and JCT estimate
So, what else do they have to say? Plenty.
Remember last fall when the residents of Pinal County, Arizona were in a panic because there was the possibility of not having any carriers offering individual market plans this year? That crisis was eventually resolved, but it did highlight the Achilles' heel of free-market-based systems: Nothing requires private companies to participate in it. Well, guess what?
Effects on Participation by Insurers.
In CBO and JCT’s estimation, the factors exerting upward pressure on premiums and downward pressure on enrollment in the nongroup market would lead to substantially reduced participation by insurers and enrollees in many areas. Prior experience in states that implemented similar nongroup market reforms without a mandate penalty or subsidies has demonstrated the potential for market destabilization. Several states that enacted such market reforms later repealed or substantially modified those reforms in response to increased premiums and insurers’ departure from the market. After weighing the evidence from prior state-level reforms and input from experts and market participants, CBO and JCT estimate that about half of the nation’s population lives in areas that would have no insurer participating in the nongroup market in the first year after the repeal of the marketplace subsidies took effect, and that share would continue to increase, extending to about three-quarters of the population by 2026. That contraction of the market would most directly affect people without access to employment-based coverage or public health insurance.
Yes, that's right: The CBO projects that, as I (and others) have warned, most carriers would flee the entire individual market (not just the exchanges) if this plays out the way the GOP is currently headed.
It's also important to note that for all of the GOP's "delayed effect" talk, the CBO assumes that their partial repeal wouldn't actually go into effect for a couple of years in their analysis:
H.R. 3762 would make two primary sets of changes that would affect insurance coverage and premiums. First, upon enactment, the bill would eliminate penalties associated with the requirements that most people obtain health insurance (also known as the individual mandate) and that large employers offer their employees health insurance that meets specified standards (also known as the employer mandate). Second, beginning roughly two years after enactment, the bill would also eliminate the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and the subsidies available to people who purchase health insurance through a marketplace established by the ACA. H.R. 3762 also contains other provisions that would have smaller effects on coverage and premiums.
In other words, the "repeal and delay" game plan is just as devastating to the individual market.
Basically, the GOP has painted themselves into a corner. Even if you think the ACA is the worst thing in the world, there's absolutely no non-political reason to pass a law repealing any of it at the moment even if that repeal isn't triggered until 2 years later. And if it can wait a couple of years, why not wait until then to pass the repeal in the first place?
Oh, right...they've spent 7 years promising to repeal it, so now they "have" to, because...reasons.

StumbleUpon