Obamacare Has Helped Seniors Save Over $6 Billion On Their Prescription Drugs

[Hardrock69]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/21/1754711/obamacare-donut-hole-6-billion/?mobile=nc


As the health reform law approaches its third birthday, Obama Administration officials are noting that one of its provisions has already helped seniors on Medicare save $6.1 billion on their prescription drug costs.

Obamacare ensures that more prescription drugs are covered under Medicare by closing the “donut hole” coverage gap. Even as the cost of prescription drugs has continued to rise, the health law gives discounts to Medicare beneficiaries so seniors continue to be able to afford the medication they need — one of its most popular provisions. On Thursday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that more than 6.3 million Americans in the Medicare program have saved more than $6 billion on prescription drugs.

Since the Affordable Care Act first began phasing in reforms to Medicare’s drug coverage in 2010, the recorded savings for seniors have been steadily growing. And according to new estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it won’t cost as much to close the donut hole’s coverage gap as initial estimates predicted. Ultimately, making drugs more affordable means that people will take them more regularly, ensuring seniors stay healthy and their medical costs are lower. In fact, the estimated 90 million Americans who don’t take their medications as directed represent the biggest root of wasteful health spending in the United States.

A full 90 percent of seniors with Medicare plans are satisfied with the prescription drug coverage they can access through the program, largely because of the savings they’re now experiencing. And those savings are likely to increase. This year, Obamacare increases Medicare’s prescription drug discounts to about 52 percent of the cost of most brand name drugs and 21 percent of the cost of covered generic drugs.

[ELVIS]

Too bad most of the drugs are poison...

And the one's that aren't are way, way, way overprescribed...

[Hardrock69]

Wassamatta U?

U no can argue wit fax?

So U gots to go irrelevant?

:hee:

[Nitro Express]

Obamacare has also raised insurance premiums 200%. It's resulted in people losing their full time hours and benefits. It will result in a lower standard of living.

[Nickdfresh]

Too bad most of the drugs are poison...

And the one's that aren't are way, way, way overprescribed...

A silly overgeneralization, as usual...

[Nickdfresh]

Obamacare has also raised insurance premiums 200%.

WTF is that "statistic" from? Rates have gone up, unfortunately. But that is largely the case of individual states not giving regulators the power to deny insurance companies the right to blanket hike rates. Here in NY, rates haven't gone up because the state can simply say "fuck your rate hikes!"


It's resulted in people losing their full time hours and benefits. It will result in a lower standard of living.

"It's" because it's not being managed properly, it's also a disingenuous criticism from the right because they want to restrict gov't powers and "let the market decide" fundamentally, but then they strip the gov't's ability to regulate and hold down rates...

Obamacare is a start, not an end product...

[Nickdfresh]

Insurers also have to refund unused portions of the healthcare premiums, so some people are actually paying drastically less after refunds. But yes, the system needs better regulation and a balance has to be struck between fair profit and the human right of basic healthcare...

[tbone888]

It just means more people with an increasing dependence on government...exactly what they want.

[ELVIS]

Obamacare is a start, not an end product...

And a product I do not need or want...

[Nitro Express]

It just means more people with an increasing dependence on government...exactly what they want.

Who's the government now? Corporations. They own the politicians. Obamacare will result in a healthcare monopoly with only the politically connected insurance and healthcare companies surviving the weed out.

What the Democrats fail to realize is government regulation no longer works when the government is no longer owned by the people. By giving the government more power today, you just screw the people more. Some of these Democrats welcome government control of more industry but they fail to realize they are just empowering what they think they are fighting by doing that. No. The less we give the government at this point the better. It no longer serves us. It uses us.

[Nitro Express]

And a product I do not need or want...

The majority of Americans didn't want it. They just rammed it through over the Christmas holiday anyways. Whenever congress is working on the holiday the legislation is never good. Never. We got the Federal Reserve Act over a holiday as well.

I can remember some people saying just pass something. I cringed. Hey asshole. Here. I have some papers for you to sign that gives me power of attorney over your estate if you feel that way. Yeah. Let's just pass something even if we don't know what it is. Pelosi knew people were just that stupid and smugly made her "We have to pass it before we know what's in it" comment. She knows her voting base are dumb as bricks and knows she can get away with saying anything. I bet if we were flys on the wall at their cocktail parties we would see and hear them laughing and bragging how they ripped the dumb ass public off some more.

[Nitro Express]

WTF is that "statistic" from? Rates have gone up, unfortunately. But that is largely the case of individual states not giving regulators the power to deny insurance companies the right to blanket hike rates. Here in NY, rates haven't gone up because the state can simply say "fuck your rate hikes!"

The statistic comes from a US congressional report. Here's the link.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/analysis/20130305PremiumReport.pdf

[FORD]

The statistic comes from a US congressional report. Here's the link.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/analysis/20130305PremiumReport.pdf

Prepared by
House Committee
on
Energy and
Commerce, Majority Staff
,
Senate
Committee
on
Finance, Minority Staff
,
and
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor &
Pensions, Minority Staff


So in other words, produced by a bunch of snot-nosed teabagging "College Republicans" working for KKKoch flunkies in congress.

Yeah, sure that's a fair and honest report. :biggrin:

Hell, just look at the "completely neutral" title of the thing.....

The Price of Obamacare’s Broken Promises


This ain't exactly a Congressional Budget Office non-partisan assessment here.

[Nickdfresh]

The statistic comes from a US congressional report. Here's the link.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/analysis/20130305PremiumReport.pdf

Oh, a pile of partisan shit by Republicans. LOL I thought you might have something a tad more objective that didn't cherry-pick facts and use selective analysis, or maybe blame Republicans for many of the laws shortcomings...

[FORD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRElpcllwxo

[FORD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVZ14UY3sxA

[Warham]

When Obamacare was passed, it was only supposed to cost $950B. In March of last year, the CBO (not some kook right-wing establishment) projected the actual cost to be around $1.8T, which is most likely still too low.

So where are the savings?

[jacksmar]

Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?page=1

“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.

[ELVIS]

Obombacarelessness®

Get some today...:biggrin:

[Satan]

All of you will eventually be covered by HellCare® anyway.

[ELVIS]

That's bullshit too...

[Satan]

We're hiring nurses at St. Lucifer Hospital. Should I have them call you for an interview?

[ELVIS]

To do what, paperwork ??

Fuck no !!

Hire as secretary...

[ELVIS]

Here's a good indicator of the future success of Obamacare, and frankly, anything else Obomba touches...



"yes we can!"


:biggrin:

[FORD]

what?

[Satan]

"yes we can!"


:biggrin:

Well, you have to remember what he meant by that.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS53I-k_T4o

You're welcome, Barry http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/d010.gif

[ELVIS]

what?

Exactly...

[ELVIS]

Walgreen Co. (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/21880617/walgreen-clinics-to-begin-treating-chronic-illnesses#axzz2PVg1erWS) has expanded the reach of its drugstore clinics beyond treating ankle sprains and sinus infections to handling chronic diseases such as diabetes, asthma and high blood pressure.

The company, based in Deerfield, Ill., said Thursday that most of its 370 in-store Take Care Clinics now will diagnosis, treat and monitor patients with some chronic conditions that are typically handled by doctors.

Drugstore clinics, which are run by nurse practitioners or physician assistants, have grown popular in recent years as a convenient way for patients to get immunizations, physicals and treatment for relatively minor illnesses when their regular doctor is unavailable. But the clinics have been broadening their scope of care: Walgreen's decision follows a move by CVS Caremark Corp. a few years ago to handle chronic conditions at most of its 640 MinuteClinics.

Drugstores say they don't aim to replace doctors, but rather to provide more people with access to health care and work with physicians as part of a team treating patients. But the move to provide more complex care has drawn concern from doctors who say that can disrupt their relationships with patients and lead to fragmented care.

Dr. Jeffrey J. Cain is president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, one of the nation's largest medical organizations. He said doctors know their patients, and that makes them better suited for doing things like helping a patient with diabetes develop an exercise plan or learn how to eat better.

He also said that transferring records or test results between health care providers can be difficult if computer systems don't communicate well. That can lead to test duplications.

"It's not about telling somebody what they have to do, it's helping them make choices in their life to move toward a healthier lifestyle," he said.

Dr. Alan E. London, chief medical officer for the Take Care Clinics, said that the clinics can help coordinate a patient's care. If a patient has a doctor and a treatment plan for a condition such as high cholesterol, the patient can use the clinics for blood tests and then have the results sent back to the doctor.

But nearly half of the patients who receive treatment at Walgreen clinics don't have a primary care doctor, London said. In those cases, the clinics will diagnose a chronic illness, get the patient started on some medication and then help them connect with a doctor.

"We're filling a niche for patients who need access," London said. "When we uncover gaps in care and we're capable of closing those gaps, it's the right thing to do."



:elvis:

[Warham]

The Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress and it's shit and now they are trying to ram through Obamamnesty and it'll be shit too.

[FORD]

The Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress and it's shit and now they are trying to ram through Obamamnesty and it'll be shit too.

I'll bet you were OK with amnesty in 1986, right?

[Warham]

I'll bet you were OK with amnesty in 1986, right?

To be honest, FORD, I was 13 in 1986 and was more interested in comic books and other things a 13 year old boy in the 1980s was interested in than politics. I liked Reagan at that age, about as much as a young teen could like a president. But if I had been 39 in 1986, I would have said "no way".

[SunisinuS]

The Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress and it's shit and now they are trying to ram through Obamamnesty and it'll be shit too. *

It's main components have not happened as yet. So your proof that it is shit?

I have degrees and 10+ experience in Insurance. I have lived (not "stationed") in other countries that have very similar plans....they work. This current "Health Care" thing in duh US, does no one any favors. It needs to be changed or it will bankrupt you and everyone you know.

Your resume to make your case based upon your experience?

;)

[Warham]

*

It's main components have not happened as yet. So your proof that it is shit?

I have degrees and 10+ experience in Insurance.

Your resume to make your case based upon your experience?

;)

It's shit. Period.

I don't give a fuck if you got "degrees". People that work at McDonald's have degrees.

[SunisinuS]

It's shit. Period.

I don't give a fuck if you got "degrees". People that work at McDonald's have degrees.

Ahhh...gotcha....great logic!

You win based upon your superior intellect...Well Played Sir! Your experience is a shining beacon lighting us to the way to glory and success! And in defense of those that work at Mcdickie D's...at least people with degrees had to provide a reasoned argument to graduate with one...for years.

:thumb:

[FORD]

It's shit. Period.

I don't give a fuck if you got "degrees". People that work at McDonald's have degrees.

People that work at McDonalds also have healthcare.


....in every country but the US. :(

[Warham]

OK, let's just talk about the basics first if you want "logic".

The program hasn't even been implemented yet and it's already going to cost the federal government 1.8 Trillion dollars, almost twice the initial estimate. That doesn't even factor in other things that haven't been accounted for. This might cost two, three or four times that amount by the time it really is in full gear.

Who is going to pay for that, using your "degrees" and "10+ years in Insurance"?

[Warham]

People that work at McDonalds also have healthcare.


....in every country but the US. :(

FORD, McDonald's was one of the many companies who were initially given a waiver from Obamacare a couple years ago.

If they hadn't, they would already be cutting full-time employees to part-time like many other companies are doing to side-step the law.

[ELVIS]

People that work at McDonalds also have healthcare.




Some do...

McDonalds is also an Obamacare waiver recipient...

[SunisinuS]

OK, let's just talk about the basics first if you want "logic".

The program hasn't even been implemented yet and it's already going to cost the federal government 1.8 Trillion dollars, almost twice the initial estimate. That doesn't even factor in other things that haven't been accounted for. This might cost two, three or four times that amount by the time it really is in full gear.

Who is going to pay for that, using your "degrees" and "10+ years in Insurance"?

In Insurance we have Actuaries, the more people the better the tables look, look at any Life Insurance Premium....how can they offer that at "Dime a Day"?

I am sorry if my experience is a joke to you, I can only tell you what a successful person has done educating themselves and the experience gained by living on 4 of the 7.

/shrug

You just keep fearing change, that is normal, but I can tell you from experience...having everyone covered by healthcare is not scary.

Sorry. Just True.

I hope you get what you want....less people covered and more people around you sick....do you have a bed in your home for family members not covered if we go back?
You will be their own personal hero!

If you not are concerned about the cost...you will not care will you? Or should they just die...and decrease the surplus population? But Damn, that first hospital emergency room visit that just bankrupted your kid's education and ruined your credit trying to help....see you on the bowery curb! Or should you just cook grandma up for beef (stringy) stew make it quicker and easier?

Don't get me wrong...I admire your ability to care about nobody but yourself and that immediate circle that sucks your dick and tells you that you are great....it seems the other people are someone you will get to later....Invite me to your Thanksgiving Dinner....I am a big guy...and we will use your "survival of the fittest" mantra that Rush Limbaugh gave you. Lol I will eat the food off your plate, fuck your wife, and throw you off the roof...after all, I am bigger stronger and faster than you Warham. Wanna Bet how your philosophy will play out before the big game? Gimme an Invite.

GL!

:gossip:

[Warham]

In Insurance we have Actuaries, the more people the better the tables look, look at any Life Insurance Premium....how can they offer that at "Dime a Day"?

I am sorry if my experience is a joke to you, I can only tell you what a successful person has done educating themselves and the experience gained by living on 4 of the 7.

/shrug

You just keep fearing change, that is normal, but I can tell you from experience...having everyone covered by healthcare is not scary.

Sorry. Just True.

I hope you get what you want....less people covered and more people around you sick....do you have a bed in your home for family members not covered if we go back?

You will be their own personal hero!

GL!

:gossip:

No, I don't fear change, unless it's Obama's change.

I can ask the question again because you didn't answer it the first time. If Obamacare costs keep increasing like the CBO says it will (from 900B to 1.8T and beyond) and the government is forced to make hard cuts, what will happen?

[FORD]

OK, let's just talk about the basics first if you want "logic".

The program hasn't even been implemented yet and it's already going to cost the federal government 1.8 Trillion dollars, almost twice the initial estimate. That doesn't even factor in other things that haven't been accounted for. This might cost two, three or four times that amount by the time it really is in full gear.

Who is going to pay for that, using your "degrees" and "10+ years in Insurance"?

Why weren't you asking these questions when the Chimp was invading half the Middle East for no good reason, 10 years ago?

At least Obamacare - seriously flawed though it is - attempts to move slightly forward toward the goal of affordable healthcare for every American. What did the trillions of dollars wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan get us?

[SunisinuS]

No, I don't fear change, unless it's Obama's change.

I can ask the question again because you didn't answer it the first time. If Obamacare costs keep increasing like the CBO says it will (from 900B to 1.8T and beyond) and the government is forced to make hard cuts, what will happen?

We will cut half of Congress's healthcare and their salaries....agreed that would be a good start?

And we will cut Gerrymandering funds from the Replublicans "National" committee...will that help as well?

I would rather seen Grandma's hip replacement covered (even it was your grandma) out of my taxes than one more Mitch McConnell Public "Service" Announcement.

Oops?

Lol Richest country in the world...and Canada seems to be able to do it.....wild your logic....so let's spend more public money on healthcare in the US than ANY OTHER DEVELOPED NATION.

Double Oops.

[Warham]

If you not are concerned about the cost...you will not care will you? Or should they just die...and decrease the surplus population? But Damn, that first hospital emergency room visit that just bankrupted your kid's education and ruined your credit trying to help....see you on the bowery curb! Or should you just cook grandma up for beef (stringy) stew make it quicker and easier?

GL!

:gossip:

Seniors like grandma were already covered by Medicare. Since Obamacare raids Medicare to the tune of $700+B, maybe Grandma might not be able to get some of those tests and treatments like she could before. Medicare will be unable to pay out to hospitals like it could before and doctors will soon stop taking Medicare/Medicaid patients, leaving poor grandma unable to get any care whatsoever. A majority of doctors polled (something like 75%) have already said they were going to cut back on Medicare patients.

[FORD]

Since Obamacare raids Medicare to the tune of $700+B,

Bullshit....

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/

[Warham]

Why weren't you asking these questions when the Chimp was invading half the Middle East for no good reason, 10 years ago?

At least Obamacare - seriously flawed though it is - attempts to move slightly forward toward the goal of affordable healthcare for every American. What did the trillions of dollars wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan get us?

Iraq is half the Middle East?

Our deficits were nowhere near as bad 10 years ago. Bush's budget deficits were in the low hundreds of millions compared to Obama's trillion-plus deficits.

[FORD]

Iraq is half the Middle East?

Our deficits were nowhere near as bad 10 years ago. Bush's budget deficits were in the low hundreds of millions compared to Obama's trillion-plus deficits.

That's because Chimp didn't include his wars in the budget. He still poured the money down the toilet, he just left it off the books. That's why there was an appearance of a huge jump when Obama took office, because he put the wars on the books.

Chimp started out with the surplus that Clinton left him. He gave that away to the rich tax dodgers and it was all downhill from there.

[SunisinuS]

Iraq is half the Middle East?

Our deficits were nowhere near as bad 10 years ago. Bush's budget deficits were in the low hundreds of millions compared to Obama's trillion-plus deficits.

And Clinton's Surpluses.

:bump:

[Warham]

Bullshit....

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/

Is factcheck.org the final word, FORD?

Who checks their facts?

[Warham]

That's because Chimp didn't include his wars in the budget. He still poured the money down the toilet, he just left it off the books. That's why there was an appearance of a huge jump when Obama took office, because he put the wars on the books.

Chimp started out with the surplus that Clinton left him. He gave that away to the rich tax dodgers and it was all downhill from there.

Actually, tax revenue increased under Bush because of the tax cuts. Even now, Obama enjoys record revenues due to those cuts, but his spending is out of control. Bush spent like a drunken sailor, but Obama's taken it to another level.

[SunisinuS]

Actually, tax revenue increased under Bush because of the tax cuts. Even now, Obama enjoys record revenues due to those cuts, but his spending is out of control. Bush spent like a drunken sailor, but Obama's taken it to another level.

So let's see...the population has remained static?

Will the next Prez after BHO spend less on 330 million than 300 million?

Wow that damn math.

Instead, perhaps the next 30 million will have healthcare...so therefore get an education, and get jobs, and not worry about a simple bad tooth or a broken ankle marginalizing them for the next 10 years...and pay taxes?

Wow what a bad plan to keep everyone healthy and paying taxes....you are right...DOWN WITH HEALTHCARE!

I am convinced...over and out.

[FORD]

Is factcheck.org the final word, FORD?

Who checks their facts?

Fact check is owned by the Annenberg Foundation. As in Walter Annenberg, a good friend of your Messiah Ronald Reagan.

So no "liberal bias" there........

[Warham]

So let's see...the population has remained static?

Will the next Prez after BHO spend less on 330 million than 300 million?

Wow that damn math.

What are you talking about? Tax revenues are increasing every year (despite an unemployment rate of about 8%. The unemployment rate during the Bush years was between 5-6%, but I digress), but spending is outpacing revenue.

I thought you had "degrees".

[Warham]

Fact check is owned by the Annenberg Foundation. As in Walter Annenberg, a good friend of your Messiah Ronald Reagan.

So no "liberal bias" there........

One thing about Reagan. Many Democrats loved him as much as Republicans. They voted for him despite not liking his policies because they thought he was a good guy.

[FORD]

Actually, tax revenue increased under Bush because of the tax cuts. Even now, Obama enjoys record revenues due to those cuts, but his spending is out of control. Bush spent like a drunken sailor, but Obama's taken it to another level.

Yes, but the right wingers never complained about Chimpy's spending (yeah, I remember YOU did, to some extent. But not the right wingers in Congress or the corporate media).

It's all part of something called the "two Santa Claus theory".....


The Two Santa Claus Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Santa_Claus_Theory#The_Two_Santa_Claus_Theory)

The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Jude Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.

According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates—by expanding the private sector—will diminish the relative size of the public sector." Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections."

The theory states that in democratic elections, if Democrats appeal to voters by proposing more spending, then the Republicans cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the Democratic party which promises spending. The "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the Republican party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but rather offering the option of cutting taxes.

This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great).

[SunisinuS]

What are you talking about? Tax revenues are increasing every year, but spending is outpacing revenue.

I thought you had "degrees".

Lol you are an anarchist huh?

See...as the population increases...more firehouses have to be built.

Name why maintaining something that Ben Franklin even thought was important is not important to you?

Ever even play "SimCity"?

See, as population increases...resources need to....and just cutting spending because you are 70 and think "a nickel used to buy a lot" is just creating slums. I do not want to see Favelas* in the US like I saw in Brazil.

Get a grip and solve the problems Warham....don't spout platitudes you hear from old people that never got past 5th grade math.

Sorry that you hate degrees. One of mine was in Economics. That probably Really pisses you off.

:horn:

[FORD]

One thing about Reagan. Many Democrats loved him as much as Republicans. They voted for him despite not liking his policies because they thought he was a good guy.

Probably a bit of a stretch to say I thought he was a "good guy". But he had good taste in jelly beans. And compared to Poppy & Chimpy, he looks a lot better, I guess.

[Warham]

In my mind, there are two fiscal parties in Washington. There are the far-left Democrats and then the near-center Republicans. Neither one wants to really reduce the size in government. I'd cut everything across the board, defense, welfare, etc by a certain percentage to get it under that 2.7 Trillion. There should be a constitutional amendment to balance the budget or keep it even at 95% of revenue so that we can actually pay down the debt.

[SunisinuS]

In my mind, there are two fiscal parties in Washington. There are the far-left Democrats and then the near-center Republicans. Neither one wants to really reduce the size in government. I'd cut everything across the board, defense, welfare, etc by a certain percentage to get it under that 2.7 Trillion. There should be a constitutional amendment to balance the budget or keep it even at 95% of revenue so that we can actually pay down the debt.

How did Clinton do it and why do Republicans today (after 8 years of their leadership) not do it?

Clinton even did it without a law.....wow just smart or what?*

*BTW Clinton had a degree.

[Warham]

Name why maintaining something that Ben Franklin even thought was important is not important to you?

Sorry that you hate degrees. One of mine was in Economics. That probably Really pisses you off.

:horn:

Ben Franklin would probably think he was on some alien world if he saw what we've become. I wouldn't want the Founding Fathers to have to see this. They were much wiser than anyone in Congress today.

Your degrees don't piss me off at all but I've seen many educated people who are clueless about reality.

[FORD]

Far left Democrats in Washington?

There's no such thing (sadly).

It would be difficult to name 10 in the House that are even significantly left of center. Doubt you could name 5 in the Senate.

And none in the White House :(

[Warham]

How did Clinton do it and why do Republicans today (after 8 years of their leadership) not do it?

Clinton even did it without a law.....wow just smart or what?

Which party is in control now?

[SunisinuS]

Ben Franklin would probably think he was on some alien world if he saw what we've become. I wouldn't want the Founding Fathers to have to see this. They were much wiser than anyone in Congress today.

Your degrees don't piss me off at all but I've seen many educated people who are clueless about reality.

Yup and many more without. Guess we can agree on that.


As at least you had to pass 8th grade to even know who Ben Franklin was. Thank your taxpayers for forcing you to learn that fact. God Forbid they force (and pay for) you to get your High School diploma, that just may mean you vote different.

And Rush forbid, that you are forced to get health insurance...that broken ankle....is paid for by your good paying job at 14.


Rush Limbaugh suggests that children should seek cheap fast food or dumpster-dive to stave off hunger in the summer. Limbaugh's strained efforts to be provocative and over-the-top are neither insightful nor humorous

James Weill, President of the Food Research and Action Center

I was reminded of this from A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens.

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

The clerk, in letting Scrooge's nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge's office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.

'Scrooge and Marley's, I believe,' said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. 'Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?'

'Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,' Scrooge replied. 'He died seven years ago, this very night.'

'We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,' said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.

'It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman,' I wish I could say they were not.'

'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.

'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'

'Are there no prisons?"

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'


'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

'You wish to be anonymous?'

'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

---from A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

I apologize again as one of my degrees is in the study of English....and Dickens used fantastical devices to illustrate Reality. The same way the human condition has always been heightened...you might read: The Lottery.



Roth On!

[Warham]

Far left Democrats in Washington?

There's no such thing (sadly).

It would be difficult to name 10 in the House that are even significantly left of center. Doubt you could name 5 in the Senate.

And none in the White House :(

Far left for this country, FORD. I don't count socialists.

You obviously can't be too happy with what is going on in Washington.

[Warham]

By some measure, I'm almost left-of-center because I have a strong libertarian streak running through me but Bush and Obama have both been disasters. This country is off the rails. We waste money on things we shouldn't and don't spend it on things we should.

[ashstralia]

We waste money on things we shouldn't and don't spend it on things we should.

you just perfectly described the current australian federal government. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Is factcheck.org the final word, FORD?

Who checks their facts?

Maybe you can, though you only seem worried when they contradict your beliefs...

[ELVIS]

http://thabto.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/obamacaretrojanhorse.jpg


WASHINGTON (http://news.yahoo.com/medicare-hike-could-hit-middle-class-075045878--politics.html) (AP) — Retired as a city worker, Sheila Pugach lives in a modest home on a quiet street in Albuquerque, N.M., and drives an 18-year-old Subaru.

Pugach doesn't see herself as upper-income by any stretch, but President Barack Obama's budget would raise her Medicare premiums and those of other comfortably retired seniors, adding to a surcharge that already costs some 2 million beneficiaries hundreds of dollars a year each.

More importantly, due to the creeping effects of inflation, 20 million Medicare beneficiaries would end up paying higher "income related" premiums for their outpatient and prescription coverage over time.
Administration officials say Obama's proposal will help improve the financial stability of Medicare by reducing taxpayer subsidies for retirees who can afford to pay a bigger share of costs. Congressional Republicans agree with the president on this one, making it highly likely the idea will become law if there's a budget deal this year.

But the way Pugach sees it, she's being penalized for prudence, dinged for saving diligently.
It was the government, she says, that pushed her into a higher income bracket where she'd have to pay additional Medicare premiums.

IRS rules require people age 70-and-a-half and older to make regular minimum withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement nest eggs like 401(k)s. That was enough to nudge her over Medicare's line.

"We were good soldiers when we were young," said Pugach, who worked as a computer systems analyst. "I was afraid of not having money for retirement and I put in as much as I could. The consequence is now I have to pay about $500 a year more in Medicare premiums."

Currently only about 1 in 20 Medicare beneficiaries pays the higher income-based premiums, which start at incomes over $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples. As a reference point, the median or midpoint U.S. household income is about $53,000.

Obama's budget would change Medicare's upper-income premiums in several ways. First, it would raise the monthly amounts for those currently paying.

If the proposal were already law, Pugach would be paying about $168 a month for outpatient coverage under Medicare's Part B, instead of $146.90.

Then, the plan would create five new income brackets to squeeze more revenue from the top tiers of retirees.

But its biggest impact would come through inflation.

The administration is proposing to extend a freeze on the income brackets at which seniors are liable for the higher premiums until 1 in 4 retirees has to pay. It wouldn't be the top 5 percent anymore, but the top 25 percent.

"Over time, the higher premiums will affect people who by today's standards are considered middle-income," explained Tricia Neuman, vice president for Medicare policy at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "At some point, it raises questions about whether (Medicare) premiums will continue to be affordable."
Required withdrawals from retirement accounts would be the trigger for some of these retirees. For others it could be taking a part-time job.

One consequence could be political problems for Medicare. A growing group of beneficiaries might come together around a shared a sense of grievance.

"That's part of the problem with the premiums — they simply act like a higher tax based on income," said David Certner, federal policy director for AARP, the seniors lobby.

"Means testing" of Medicare benefits was introduced in 2007 under President George W. Bush in the form of higher outpatient premiums for the top-earning retirees. Obama's health care law expanded the policy and also added a surcharge for prescription coverage.

The latest proposal ramps up the reach of means testing and sets up a political confrontation between AARP and liberal groups on one side and fiscal conservatives on the other. The liberals have long argued that support for Medicare will be undermined if the program starts charging more for the well-to-do. Not only are higher-income people more likely to be politically active, they also tend to be in better health.

Fiscal conservatives say it makes no sense for government to provide the same generous subsidies to people who can afford to pay at least some of the cost themselves. As a rule, taxpayers pay for 75 percent of Medicare's outpatient and prescription benefits. Even millionaires would still get a 10 percent subsidy on their premiums under Obama's plan. Technically, both programs are voluntary.

"The government has to understand the difference between universal opportunity and universal subsidy," said David Walker, the former head of the congressional Government Accountability Office. "This is a very modest step towards changing the government subsidy associated with Medicare's two voluntary programs."

It still doesn't sit well with Sheila Pugach. She says she's been postponing remodeling work on her 58-year-old house because she's concerned about the cost. Having a convenient utility room so she doesn't have to go out to the garage to do laundry would help with her back problems.

"They think all old people are living the life of Riley," she said.


:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Pugach doesn't see herself as upper-income by any stretch, but President Barack Obama's budget would raise her Medicare premiums and those of other comfortably retired seniors, adding to a surcharge that already costs some 2 million beneficiaries hundreds of dollars a year each.

It's because shithead Republicans have a massive hard-on for "entitlement reform," meaning destroying the welfare state. There's no other way for "Obama" to get a budget done...

[Satan]

Nurse Presley doesn't even realize that the cartoon he posted and the article under it directly contradict each other.

If Obamacare was a "trojan horse" for "socialized medicine" (i.e. Medicare for all), then corporate insurance threatening Medicare would be the polar opposite of that.

[ELVIS]

Proposed premiums for new policies for individuals will rise by 25 percent on average next year.

By Jay Hancock, Kaiser Health News Staff Writer


April 24, 2013 (Kaiser Health News) (http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living/maryland-offers-glimpse-at-obamacare-insurance-math.aspx) — In the latest preview of prices for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, Maryland’s dominant insurer says proposed premiums for new policies for individuals will rise by 25 percent on average next year.

That’s lower than what some had predicted. Just three weeks ago, the insurer, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, had been looking at a proposed 50 percent increase. But the company revised that initial estimate, citing worries about affordability for consumers.

“Not only were we concerned about a potential hit to subscribers, but we were also concerned about price levels that were unattractive” to young customers seen as an important stabilizing force for the market, CareFirst CEO Chet Burrell said in an interview Wednesday.

Late Tuesday Maryland regulators posted proposed rates and benefits for health plans to be sold through an online exchange, a step required under the health act, known as the Maryland Health Connection.

Maryland is an important state to watch because it has embraced Obamacare’s insurance reforms, setting up its own marketplace. But there have been serious concerns that the insurance offered there — and on every other exchange across the country — might be too expensive for people to buy.

While most Marylanders younger than 65 have health plans through employers, the exchange’s plans for individuals and small employers are expected to play a key role in bringing coverage to the state’s 700,000 uninsured. That’s about 12 percent of the state’s population.

Many have warned that guaranteeing coverage at regulated prices for sick people would drive up the cost of insurance in the individual market. The ACA prohibits charging sicker members substantially more but allows plans to adjust premiums for age and other factors, within strict limits.

Taking those factors into account, CareFirst premiums for individual plans could rise as high as 150 percent next year for healthy young men and decrease slightly for someone older and sicker, Burrell said.

One current popular CareFirst plan with a $2,700 deductible costs “less than $115 per month” for men under 30, said Mark Hammett, a broker at Kelly & Associates Insurance Group in Hunt Valley, Md.

Consumer advocates were reluctant to draw conclusions from the raw rate filings for the exchange, which make it difficult to quote proposed prices for specific individuals. And they cautioned that filings by CareFirst and other carriers are only preliminary.

“Now the regulators take a look and say, ‘How do you justify these increases?’” said Kathleen Stoll, director of health policy for the pro-ACA consumer group Families USA. “That often results in a reduction to the proposed charges.”

Although prices may rise for some, benefits may be better and many will receive federal subsidies to pay the premiums, she said. Families USA estimates that some 361,000 Marylanders will be eligible for tax credits to pay insurance costs.

“Some people may actually spend much less out of pocket… and end up with a much better product and a much better situation to protect their family from financial devastation from illness,” she said.

That distinction may be initially lost on those focusing only on the premiums, however.

“To the average consumer who has insurance now, the rates will feel every bit like a rate increase,” said Joseph Antos, a health economist at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

CareFirst owns about 70 percent of Maryland’s individual insurance market, with about 120,000 members. Even most of them — 60 percent — won’t see the kind of increases CareFirst proposes because they’re in older, “grandfathered” plans that don’t have to comply with some requirements of the health law yet, Burrell said.

CareFirst and other carriers also filed plans for small employers, but because Maryland had already implemented small-group reforms similar to those that are included in the ACA, those prices weren’t expected to change much. For years Maryland has prohibited insurers from charging substantially more to small employers with sicker and older workforces.

Premiums for CareFirst’s small employer plans to be offered on the exchange next year are proposed to rise about 15 percent, Burrell said, mainly because of the rising cost of health care.

Burrell dismissed a reporter’s suggestion that Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has much riding on the success of the ACA in Maryland, might have pressured CareFirst to lower its initial filing premiums.

“Nobody asked,” he said. “We did it of our own volition.”

Maryland law requires the nonprofit CareFirst to promote health care affordability and accessibility. With the new, lower projected premiums, Burrell said, “we’re not expecting to make money. We’re expecting to lose money. If we’re going to lose it we’re going to lose it on behalf of subscribers and the community.”

Besides CareFirst, Kaiser Permanente, Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, Coventry Health and Evergreen Health Cooperative all filed to offer about 50 individual or small group plans on the exchange.

An Aetna spokesman said proposed premiums for Maryland small group plans would rise between 12 and 16 percent next year. United proposed average small group increases of from 15 to 28 percent, but premium changes could vary widely depending on the plan, said company spokesman Matt Stearns.

Aetna didn’t say what the average increase for individual plans would be. United hasn’t filed applications yet for Maryland individual plans.

“We currently offer individual coverage in Maryland, and we expect to do so next year,” United's Stearns said.

The O’Malley administration also stressed that the filings are not the final word on insurance prices under the health law.

“It is premature to reach any judgment or conclusion based on the rates as proposed,” said Carolyn Quattrocki, director of the Governor’s Office of Health Care Reform. “In the meantime, we are pleased that the filings confirm there will be robust participation in the Maryland Health Connection.”



:elvis: