How is Obama Care going to impact CPAP?

[Wulfman...]

Employers have been finding out how much more their insurance is going to be costing them and they're bailing out of providing insurance for their employees. Every time the government lowers the criteria of hours of "full time" employees (for providing insurance benefits), many employers are following suit to stay under them.
This is compounding the problem. Peoples' hours are getting cut and their insurance is getting more expensive.


Den

.

One of best arguments there is to go to a single payer system not tied to employment.

It's been obvious that was (and still is) their ultimate goal all along.
But, as long as the private industry is still involved in it, the costs are going to be out-of-sight.
The insurance industry and big pharma wrote this legislation. What do you expect?

All you have to do is look up the name "Elizabeth Fowler" and start reading. She's been in the "revolving door" with insurance, politics, and big pharma.


Den

.

[johnthomasmacdonald]

Death Panels - Obama plans to personally shoot everyone in the USA who has sleep Apnea ( it's true- i heard it on glen beck)

[cpapist]

I am all for universal medical coverage. But I am not so naive to believe the government can even come close to achieving it without wrecking things.

Just think, whichever party you love and whichever one you hate, the one you hate will be in control of your medical care for part of your life. And it looks like that will be after the one you love has totally screwed things up.

Medical care is way too important to have the federal government take over.

[NateS]

The Lyin' King read his teleprompter may times over the years claiming that my premiums would decrease by $2500 per year. All the while he was reading these lies, my premiums have increased by more than $2500.

1) Your repeated obsession with the President's use of a teleprompter suggests an extreme naivety about how leaders in general and Presidents in particular deliver prepared speeches as opposed to conversational speech or extemporaneous remarks. Suggest you read:

By MARK KNOLLER / CBS NEWS/ March 6, 2009, 11:16 AM
The Truth About Presidents And Teleprompters

There's one reason above all others that President Obama uses a teleprompter in delivering most of his speeches: he's good at it.

Ronald Reagan was the same way. He was more at ease in reading his speech off the dual screens of a teleprompter than looking up and down at a speech text on his lectern

Not so, George W. Bush. He often got that nervous, deer-in-the-headlights look when giving an address from a teleprompter. He would seem stiff and ill-at-ease. He did not convey a sense of understanding.

"He preferred using large index cards," said his one-time White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, "plus I think he was just more comfortable with the cards."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

and

Obama's Teleprompter: The GOP's Dumbest Attack
The Republicans' fixation on the president's teleprompter is inane

It's a strange obsession because it's inane. Teleprompters are tools. Sure they're high tech if you've just emerged from the 1950s (which might explain the GOP's fascination with them), but ultimately they're just a medium for prepared remarks, substantively no different from a sheet of paper on a lectern. A teleprompter can't magically imbue a poor speech with additional spellbinding qualities. Criticizing someone for using a teleprompter is like berating him for using a microphone, or arguing that there's something wrong with writing on a word processor rather than with a quill and ink.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... est-attack

2) You have repeated this misleading remark about your insurance premiums numerous times all over the forum. You admit that you still do not know what your health insurance obtained through the new PPACA (Obamacare) exchanges will cost. Instead you keep telling us what your existing insurance company wants to charge you and whom you choose to believe when your company blames it on "Obamacare" - this has been pointed out to you numerous times, but you still continue to repeat this false and misleading statement. Nobody believes you except the Tea Party bobbleheads who believe any phony story that is anti-Obama or anti Obamacare (formerly known as "Romneycare").

If you expect any rational person to believe you, put up copies of your new paperwork from the exchange and your insurance policy from last year. If you use phtobucket, it will be easy for you to whiteout all personal information and policy numbers before posting.

Regards, Nate

[deerhound]

The Lyin' King read his teleprompter may times over the years claiming that my premiums would decrease by $2500 per year. All the while he was reading these lies, my premiums have increased by more than $2500.

1) Your repeated obsession with the President's use of a teleprompter suggests an extreme naivety about how leaders in general and Presidents in particular deliver prepared speeches as opposed to conversational speech or extemporaneous remarks. Suggest you read:

By MARK KNOLLER / CBS NEWS/ March 6, 2009, 11:16 AM
The Truth About Presidents And Teleprompters

There's one reason above all others that President Obama uses a teleprompter in delivering most of his speeches: he's good at it.

Ronald Reagan was the same way. He was more at ease in reading his speech off the dual screens of a teleprompter than looking up and down at a speech text on his lectern

Not so, George W. Bush. He often got that nervous, deer-in-the-headlights look when giving an address from a teleprompter. He would seem stiff and ill-at-ease. He did not convey a sense of understanding.

"He preferred using large index cards," said his one-time White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, "plus I think he was just more comfortable with the cards."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

and

Obama's Teleprompter: The GOP's Dumbest Attack
The Republicans' fixation on the president's teleprompter is inane

It's a strange obsession because it's inane. Teleprompters are tools. Sure they're high tech if you've just emerged from the 1950s (which might explain the GOP's fascination with them), but ultimately they're just a medium for prepared remarks, substantively no different from a sheet of paper on a lectern. A teleprompter can't magically imbue a poor speech with additional spellbinding qualities. Criticizing someone for using a teleprompter is like berating him for using a microphone, or arguing that there's something wrong with writing on a word processor rather than with a quill and ink.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... est-attack

2) You have repeated this misleading remark about your insurance premiums numerous times all over the forum. You admit that you still do not know what your health insurance obtained through the new PPACA (Obamacare) exchanges will cost. Instead you keep telling us what your existing insurance company wants to charge you and whom you choose to believe when your company blames it on "Obamacare" - this has been pointed out to you numerous times, but you still continue to repeat this false and misleading statement. Nobody believes you except the Tea Party bobbleheads who believe any phony story that is anti-Obama or anti Obamacare (formerly known as "Romneycare").

If you expect any rational person to believe you, put up copies of your new paperwork from the exchange and your insurance policy from last year. If you use phtobucket, it will be easy for you to whiteout all personal information and policy numbers before posting.

Regards, Nate

Nate, can you tell me when the website will be working? It certainly isn't on Dear Leader's teleprompter. One difference between Romneycare and Obamadon'tcare is that people in Mass. can find out about their options. Something Dear Leader has chosen not to do as of yet.

[NateS]

Nate, can you tell me when the website will be working? It certainly isn't on Dear Leader's teleprompter. One difference between Romneycare and Obamadon'tcare is that people in Mass. can find out about their options. Something Dear Leader has chosen not to do as of yet.

Here's a good article from WebMD to help you with your struggle with the website:

http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/2 ... -have-help

And I see that you are finally admitting that you don't even know what your health insurance cost will be under the PPACA, while you have been repeatedly trying to make us believe that your Obamacare annual cost was thousands more than your existing insurance!

Nate

[NateS]

This balanced, unbiased article may also be helpful to you, Deerhound:

Tampa Bay Times
PolitiFact.com
Winner of the Pulitzer Prize

A few hours before the Senate voted to end a 16-day government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, the lawmaker who played a leading role in precipitating the crisis, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke to reporters. Cruz’s mission had been to defund President Barack Obama’s health care law and, as he has from the start, Cruz listed the failings of the health care program.

"President Obama promised the American people Obamacare would lower your health insurance premiums," Cruz said. "I would venture to say virtually every person across this country has seen exactly the opposite happen, has seen premiums going up and up and up."

We received many requests to check this statement and so we’ll examine whether Obamacare meant that "virtually every person across this country ... has seen premiums going up and up and up."

Not for the entire insurance market

The new health care law takes a private market system and gives it an overlay of government rules. The private market has two major sectors -- the group market and the non-group, often called the individual market.

About 60 percent of Americans under the age of 65 get their insurance through their employers.That’s the group market, where insurance companies write policies that cover a lot of workers all at once.

One critic of the new law, Robert Laszewski, a health insurance consultant and head of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, says the new health care law has had little impact on people who currently get their insurance through their work.

"In the large employer market where most under-65 folks are, the Obamacare increase is a very few percentage points, like 2 points," Laszewski said.

Other experts we talked to echoed that point, without necessarily agreeing to Laszewski’s specific estimate of a 2 percent increase.

The former head of Medicare and Medicaid under President George W. Bush, Gail Wilensky, noted the health reform law has touched group coverage in certain ways, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' plan.

"Some portion — albeit probably a very small portion — of all premiums probably have gone up as a result of these requirements," Wilensky said.

So Cruz’s claim about what "virtually every person" has seen runs up against the realities of the marketplace. About two-thirds of Americans buy their insurance in the part of the market where Obamacare has had the least effect.

Evidence of premium hikes

Where Obamacare has been most active is on the individual side, which accounts for less than 10 percent of Americans with insurance. The health insurance marketplaces that opened with fits and starts this month are all about people buying coverage on their own.

Obamacare requires most everyone to have insurance, says no one can be denied coverage for a pre-existing health problem and sets minimum standards for the services that policies must cover. It also offers subsidies to defray the cost of insurance for many people.

For some, those changes can translate into higher premiums.

From the earliest days of the debate over Obamacare, there has been general agreement that young people in the individual market would see the largest hit on their wallets. If they never had insurance, they would now need to pay for it. If they did have individual coverage, it would be more expensive.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank strongly opposed to Obamacare, did an analysis of the premiums offered through the health care marketplaces that opened this month. It found "the insurance on health exchanges will cost more than existing insurance." According to the Heritage computer simulation, young people in their late 20s and 30s will see the greatest increases. The study cited Vermont where it estimated that rates for a 27-year-old will go up 144 percent, but older adults would also see a hefty increase.

This is just one study from a group that advocates conservative policies. Analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent group that enjoys broad credibility, have declined to compare rates before and after Obamacare on the grounds that good data is lacking. They said we don’t know what people in the individual market pay today and we don’t know what they will choose in the Marketplaces.

However, the general idea that young people will pay more comes as no surprise to Sabrina Corlette, program director for the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

"Young, healthy individuals who buy coverage on their own might see their rates rise, because they'll now be pooled with older sicker individuals," Corelette said. "But remember, these folks' premiums pre-ACA were kept low because plans were able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. We're now moving to a system that doesn't discriminate and that means that yes, some people might have to pay more."

Also, there are early signs that some people who already buy on the individual market are vulnerable to the minimum coverage requirements under Obamacare. If their plans fell below that standard, some of them would get letters from their insurance companies telling them that higher premiums are in store.

"I am hearing the actuaries talk about baseline increases of 30 percent to 40 percent," said Laszewski.

These are the sort of trends that Cruz’s office pointed to when we asked them about his claim.

Another important note is that health care premiums generally have been rising for years, regardless of the health care law.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average family premium for employer-sponsored plans rose by an average of 5.8 percent per year from 2008 to 2013. Before that, premiums actually were rising faster. From 1999 to 2008, premiums rose by an average of 13.2 percent a year, Kaiser found.

Our ruling

Cruz said Obamacare has led to premiums going up and up and up for virtually every person. Cruz was most inaccurate when he spoke sweepingly about most Americans. The fact is, the majority of Americans already have insurance and Obamacare has had little impact on their premiums.

The people first in line to see the law’s effects are in the individual market. There, it is true that young adults, along with some older adults, are vulnerable to hefty premiums hikes, but as painful as that might be, their numbers hardly amount to "virtually every person."

One final point: Cruz's comments don't take into account the many people who will get subsidies as they shop on the health care marketplaces. People making less than 400 percent of the poverty level will be eligible for subsidies. If these people have been able to afford to buy their own insurance before the law, then they should see substantial decreases in their premiums thanks to the new regulations and subsidies.

Cruz is using inflated rhetoric. We rate his claim False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ually-eve/

[NateS]

Here are reports flooding in of people getting health insurance at lower rates:

http://tinyurl.com/owwt5uc

My neighbor, 2 heart attacks , 50 yrs old 350/ month, couldn't get insurance before so he's stoked!!! @DavidCornDC @PolitiFact

— June (@Today_June_says) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC @PolitiFact that's funny, my premiums will be going from $1500 all the way up to $600.

— Kevin (@politicalnutz) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC @PolitiFact Here in Maine, I can now buy Gold PPO coverage for less than a $6,500 deductible policy cost me before.

— Ellen Clair Lamb (@ECLamb) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC @PolitiFact According to the NYS Premium estimator I can get Platinum for less than I pay now for equivalent of Silver

— cynthia kouril (@cynthiakouril) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC 2 man law firm in NJ. AETNA raised premium 39% on 10/1/13. We are going to ACA

— John P Brennan Jr (@johnpbrennanjr) October 16, 2013
@ECLamb @DavidCornDC @PolitiFact in Maryland got insurance with 2500 less deductible, cheaper office visits for 30 less/month.Existing afib

— Scott (@scottlstuart) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC Our family of 3 w/2 full time employed adults & a 15yo r fully covered thru @WAplanfinder no way we could afford previously

— JS Martin II (@JSMartinII) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC @PolitiFact Several factors in play, but my employer-provided plan lowered premiums & deductibles for 1st time in 15 years.

— Cat Lady Darcy (@CatLadyDarcy) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC According to the http://t.co/... website, my premium for a Humana policy is $400/mo less than what I was paying.

— Steve Beste (@stevebeste) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC @PolitiFact my premiums are going from 850 to 650 plus a much lower deductible.

— Kati Mohammad-Zadeh (@katimz) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC My mom is 63 pays $1800.00 per month now. With ACA will pay $350.00 with better coverage and lower deductible.

— Smokin Jay (@SsMokinJay) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC @TheDemocrats Fm Wash State: My premium for good coverage less than $300/mo vs over $1000 Cobra. Site works fine.

— william trejo (@poochhouse) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC family of 4 we are paying $1500 a year now w will be paying $975

— BJ Gutierrez (@bjthemole) October 16, 2013
@DavidCornDC BCBS premiums for MI state govt retirees: no increase in 2014 despite improved coverage required by Obamacare

— Walt Sorg (@WaltSorg) October 16, 2013
And this is what Republicans shut down the government over? Good luck convincing these people's friends and family that the ACA is the next coming of Stalin.

[chunkyfrog]

This scene keeps playing through my head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw
Them hicks don't know much but whut they been tole at the gatherin'.
And they wuz downwind fum de cross, so they might of inhaled some smoke.

[idamtnboy]

There is/was absolutely NO excuse for them to roll out computer software this bad. But, it's the government,

.

Actually it was a private contractor who wrote the s/w.

I know. I actually posted a link to the article about the Canadian company the other day.
But, "somebody" made the decision to go ahead with this disaster, knowing it was not working.

That was a good article.

Actually, bad software from contractors has been quite common. About 25 years ago I saw a presentation slide that showed that about 20% of s/w contracted for was never delivered, 20% was delivered but was not usable, 40% was delivered and used after extensive rework to make it work, and 20% was usable as delivered. The numbers are my best best recollection so could be off somewhat, but you get the picture. I'd be surprised if the ratio isn't still similar.

I worked for Uncle Sam monitoring contractors. It's appalling how inefficient and incompetent they can be, and it's not because of onerous requirements placed on them. And then when you try to call them on their mistakes they go crying to their Congressman complaining how unfair the Feds are treating them. I have no sympathy for contractors. An incredible number of them are incompetent or inefficient or flat out crooked, or some combination of all three.

[hegel]

+1 Nate. A little fact checking always helps.

There are political efforts afoot to sabotage the ACA; break it before it can be fully implemented and then cry out that it doesn't work. Hence all of the states who are refusing to set up their own exchanges, or expand medicare, or throw up other roadblocks to implementing the plan. The problem with people on sites like this and many others posting false or misleading or malicious information about the ACA is that it once again attempts to defeat the program through a kind of sabotage. This is not helpful. (Posters who make honest mistakes of course are not guilty of this; I make factual mistakes all of the time.) Democracy requires parties to act in good faith in order to succeed. Any rational discussion of an issue likewise requires that the participants act in good faith--see Plato. Rumor mongering and inciting fear based on misinformation is the opposite of good faith.

Hey, it could turn out that the ACA is a bust. No one can say that right now; it's barely begun.

[dragon672]

Next year I think my employer will probably drop our healthcare. We only have 20 workers so we don't even have to have insurance. We changed insurance companies this year and it's not quite as good as before. We only pay 25% of the premium per month @ $126 a month and that includes eye and dental. From what I've seen so far when and if I go through the exchanges my rates will increase. I haven't tried the site yet. Single person and probably make too much to get any help lol. Oh well we shall see what happens.

[Wulfman...]

+1 Nate. A little fact checking always helps.

There are political efforts afoot to sabotage the ACA; break it before it can be fully implemented and then cry out that it doesn't work. Hence all of the states who are refusing to set up there own exchanges, or expand medicare, or throw up other roadblocks to implementing the plan. The problem with people on sites like this and many others posting false or misleading or malicious information about the ACA is that it once again attempts to defeat the program through a kind of sabotage. This is not helpful. (Posters who make honest mistakes of course are not guilty of this; I make factual mistakes all of the time.) Democracy requires parties to act in good faith in order to succeed. Any rational discussion of an issue likewise requires that the participants act in good faith--see Plato. Rumor mongering and inciting fear based on misinformation is the opposite of good faith.

Hey, it could turn out that the ACA is a bust. No one can say that right now; it's barely begun.

You just contradicted yourself in your own post.

You said this in an earlier post:

Here's an idea: give Obamacare a year to play out, and see where we are then. Admittedly, it's going to take longer than that to work out all of the kinks.

The problem is, the penalties will begin early next year for those who don't get enrolled. It would seem that there is no time to let it "play out".

Personally, I'm on Medicare, but have other relatives who may be affected by this disaster. Nobody seems to be willing to take the blame or responsibility for the mess........typical of this administration.


Den

.

[NateS]

+1 Nate. A little fact checking always helps.

There are political efforts afoot to sabotage the ACA; break it before it can be fully implemented and then cry out that it doesn't work. Hence all of the states who are refusing to set up there own exchanges, or expand medicare, or throw up other roadblocks to implementing the plan. The problem with people on sites like this and many others posting false or misleading or malicious information about the ACA is that it once again attempts to defeat the program through a kind of sabotage. This is not helpful. (Posters who make honest mistakes of course are not guilty of this; I make factual mistakes all of the time.) Democracy requires parties to act in good faith in order to succeed. Any rational discussion of an issue likewise requires that the participants act in good faith--see Plato. Rumor mongering and inciting fear based on misinformation is the opposite of good faith.

Hey, it could turn out that the ACA is a bust. No one can say that right now; it's barely begun.

You just contradicted yourself in your own post.

You said this in an earlier post:

Here's an idea: give Obamacare a year to play out, and see where we are then. Admittedly, it's going to take longer than that to work out all of the kinks.

The problem is, the penalties will begin early next year for those who don't get enrolled. It would seem that there is no time to let it "play out".

Personally, I'm on Medicare, but have other relatives who may be affected by this disaster. Nobody seems to be willing to take the blame or responsibility for the mess........typical of this administration.


Den

.

If the website makes it difficult to comply by that deadline, I am confident that the Administration will exercise its authority under PPACA to extend the deadline by a reasonable amount of time and/or waive the penalty for the period of the extension.

And if this occurs, then I am equally confident that that the whiners and complainers will immediately attack the President for extending the deadline.

Best wishes, Nate

[hegel]

Wulfman, my point about politicians trying to sabotage (or undermine, abort, if you prefer) Obamacare isn't rumor, it's fact; the politicians who are doing it state as much right up front. So no contradiction.

This whole policy was discussed for years; it was effectively voted on over four elections cycles. It is the law. It's big and complicated; there will be glitches. But again, let me say that now is the time to try make it work through good faith efforts that aim to make the policy achieve it's intended goals. It's a policy that at least tries to address the current health care affordability crisis. Staying with the current system will just guarentee rising premiums on a yearly basis--the ones that we've had for the last twenty years--as far as the eye can see.

It's probably true that a lot of small business owners will stop providing health care; the idea of the ACA is that premiums for those same employees should be about the same under the ACA. Relieving small businesses from the burden of providing health care, with it's yearly increase of rates, should allow those same businesses to now provide raises in wages. (Yearly increases in insurance rates have effectively offset paying raises to employees over many years.)

This isn't the program I would have wanted either, but it looks like it will achieve some important things.