Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 01, 2014, 09:40:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82694 Posts in 2251 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Politics of Health Care
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] Print
Author Topic: The Politics of Health Care  (Read 171833 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4097


« Reply #1350 on: June 26, 2014, 11:27:20 AM »

As a primary I don't want another burden hoisted on me by another entity interested only on THEIR bottom line.  I spend half the day performing someone else's requirements to help them supposedly in the fraudulent claim it is for the "care of the patient".   I can confidently tell you it ain't and all information coming in is that statistical measurements are not showing more than very minimal if any gains in overall health.  It is all a bunch of people and business finding ways to cut costs are generate income.  And I am in the middle.  embarassed

***********Hospitals Spy on Your Purchases to Spot Bad Habits
 

By Shannon Pettypiece and Jordan Robertson  Jun 26, 2014 12:01 AM ET 
 
You may soon get a call from your doctor if you’ve let your gym membership lapse, made a habit of picking up candy bars at the check-out counter or begin shopping at plus-sized stores.

That’s because some hospitals are starting to use detailed consumer data to create profiles on current and potential patients to identify those most likely to get sick, so the hospitals can intervene before they do.

Information compiled by data brokers from public records and credit card transactions can reveal where a person shops, the food they buy, and whether they smoke. The largest hospital chain in the Carolinas is plugging data for 2 million people into algorithms designed to identify high-risk patients, while Pennsylvania’s biggest system uses household and demographic data. Patients and their advocates, meanwhile, say they’re concerned that big data’s expansion into medical care will hurt the doctor-patient relationship and threaten privacy.


“It is one thing to have a number I can call if I have a problem or question, it is another thing to get unsolicited phone calls. I don’t like that,” said Jorjanne Murry, an accountant in Charlotte, North Carolina, who has Type 1 diabetes. “I think it
Acxiom Corp. (ACXM) and LexisNexis are two of the largest data brokers who collect such information on individuals. They say their data are supposed to be used only for marketing, not for medical purposes or to be included in medical records.

While both sell to health insurers, they said it’s to help those companies offer better services to members.

Much of the information on consumer spending may seem irrelevant for a hospital or doctor, but it can provide a bigger picture beyond the brief glimpse that doctors get during an office visit or through lab results, said Michael Dulin, director of research and evidence-based medicine at Carolinas HealthCare System.


Carolinas HealthCare System operates the largest group of medical centers in North Carolina and South Carolina, with more than 900 care centers, including hospitals, nursing homes, doctors’ offices and surgical centers. The health system is placing its data, which include purchases a patient has made using a credit card or store loyalty card, into predictive models that give a risk score to patients.

Within the next two years, Dulin plans for that score to be regularly passed to doctors and nurses who can reach out to high-risk patients to suggest interventions before patients fall ill.

Buying Cigarettes

For a patient with asthma, the hospital would be able to score how likely they are to arrive at the emergency room by looking at whether they’ve refilled their asthma medication at the pharmacy, been buying cigarettes at the grocery store and live in an area with a high pollen count, Dulin said.

The system may also score the probability of someone having a heart attack by considering factors such as the type of foods they buy and if they have a gym membership, he said.

“What we are looking to find are people before they end up in trouble,” said Dulin, who is also a practicing physician. “The idea is to use big data and predictive models to think about population health and drill down to the individual levels to find someone running into trouble that we can reach out to and try to help out.”

While the hospital can share a patient’s risk assessment with their doctor, they aren’t allowed to disclose details of the data, such as specific transactions by an individual, under the hospital’s contract with its data provider. Dulin declined to name the data provider.

If the early steps are successful, though, Dulin said he would like to renegotiate to get the data provider to share more specific details on patient spending with doctors.

“The data is already used to market to people to get them to do things that might not always be in the best interest of the consumer, we are looking to apply this for something good,” Dulin said.

While all information would be bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, he said he’s aware some people may be uncomfortable with data going to doctors and hospitals. For these people, the system is considering an opt-out mechanism that will keep their data private, Dulin said.

‘Feels Creepy’

“You have to have a relationship, it just can’t be a phone call from someone saying ‘do this’ or it just feels creepy,” he said. “The data itself doesn’t tell you the story of the person, you have to use it to find a way to connect with that person.”

Murry, the diabetes patient from Charlotte, said she already gets calls from her health insurer to try to discuss her daily habits. She usually ignores them, she said. She doesn’t see what her doctors can learn from her spending practices that they can’t find out from her quarterly visits.

“Most of these things you can find out just by looking at the patient and seeing if they are overweight or asking them if they exercise and discussing that with them,” Murry said. “I think it is a waste of time.”

While the patients may gain from the strategy, hospitals also have a growing financial stake in knowing more about the people they care for.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, hospital pay is becoming increasingly linked to quality metrics rather than the traditional fee-for-service model where hospitals were paid based on their numbers of tests or procedures.

Hospital Fines

As a result, the U.S. has begun levying fines against hospitals that have too many patients readmitted within a month, and rewarding hospitals that do well on a benchmark of clinical outcomes and patient surveys.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which operates more than 20 hospitals in Pennsylvania and a health insurance plan, is using demographic and household information to try to improve patients’ health. It says it doesn’t have spending details or information from credit card transactions on individuals.

The UPMC Insurance Services Division, the health system’s insurance provider, has acquired demographic and household data, such as whether someone owns a car and how many people live in their home, on more than 2 million of its members to make predictions about which individuals are most likely to use the emergency room or an urgent care center, said Pamela Peele, the system’s chief analytics officer.

Emergency Rooms

Studies show that people with no children in the home who make less than $50,000 a year are more likely to use the emergency room, rather than a private doctor, Peele said.

UPMC wants to make sure those patients have access to a primary care physician or nurse practitioner they can contact before heading to the ER, Peele said. UPMC may also be interested in patients who don’t own a car, which could indicate they’ll have trouble getting routine, preventable care, she said.

Being able to predict which patients are likely to get sick or end up at the emergency room has become particularly valuable for hospitals that also insure their patients, a new phenomenon that’s growing in popularity. UPMC, which offers this option, would be able to save money by keeping patients out of the emergency room.

Obamacare prevents insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions or charging patients more based on their health status, meaning the data can’t be used to raise rates or drop policies.

New Model

“The traditional rating and underwriting has gone away with health-care reform,” said Robert Booz, an analyst at the technology research and consulting firm Gartner Inc. (IT) “What they are trying to do is proactive care management where we know you are a patient at risk for diabetes so even before the symptoms show up we are going to try to intervene.”

Hospitals and insurers need to be mindful about crossing the “creepiness line” on how much to pry into their patients’ lives with big data, he said. It could also interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.

The strategy “is very paternalistic toward individuals, inclined to see human beings as simply the sum of data points about them,” Irina Raicu, director of the Internet ethics program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, said in a telephone interview.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4097


« Reply #1351 on: July 02, 2014, 08:31:03 PM »

So not making the employer pay for post conception birth control now jeopardizes women's health?
It seems most medical organizations have been hijacked by the left.   Donna Marbury and the ACP (I am a member to help me keep up with advances in medical care) do not represent me.    As always claiming to be objectively scientific and nonpartisan so common with the left Marbury claims this position paper is non partisan.   rolleyes:

****Will the Hobby Lobby decision allow employers to ignore medical evidence?
ACP says SCOTUS ruling could jeopardize women’s health

Publish date: JUL 01, 2014
By: Donna Marbury
As stakeholders across the country debate the religious, gender and political implications of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, one physician advocacy group worries that the decision ignores the practice of evidence-based medicine.

The Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that "closely held" for-profit corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the requirement to provide no-cost contraceptives for female employees under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The justices' 5-4 decision is the first time the high court has ruled in favor of for-profit businesses holding religious views under federal law.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) released a statement concerning the ruling, saying that it could undermine physicians’ authority to treat patients and have adverse affects on women’s health. The ACP states that the decision could lead to challenges of other government mandated, and evidence-based healthcare.

“We have no position or expertise on the legal arguments and precedents involved in the Hobby Lobby case; our expertise is based on the potential impact of the decision on public health, and specifically, the adverse health impacts on the patients seen by the 137,000 internal medicine specialists and medical students who are members of ACP,” David A. Fleming, MD, FACP, president of the ACP said in a written statement. “We are concerned that allowing employers to carve-out exemptions to the ACA’s requirements that health insurance plans cover evidence-based preventive services without cost-sharing, including but not necessarily limited to contraception, will create substantial barriers to patients receiving appropriate medical care as recommended by their physicians.”

Under the ACA, companies with 50 or more employees who offer health coverage that does not include all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraception methods for women without cost-sharing would face fines of up to $100 a day per worker. Large employers not offering coverage would face a fine of $2,000 for most employees. For example, Hobby Lobby would have faced fines of $475 million per year for excluding some forms of birth control from its health coverage.

As a result of the decision, the companies filing suit—Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties, as well as Hobby Lobby subsidiary Mardel Christian book stores—will not have to offer women employees all FDA-approved contraceptives as part of a package of preventive services required to be offered without copays or deductibles.

The Christian-based companies object mainly to the emergency contraceptives known as Plan B and Ella, and two types of intrauterine devices, on the grounds that the therapies are abortion equivalents that violate their religious convictions. Medical research from the National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic and several other authorities has proven that emergency contraceptives do not cause abortions. Nearly 50 businesses have sued over
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1352 on: July 05, 2014, 10:56:54 AM »

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/03/the-new-welfare-berkeley-to-start-giving-free-marijuana-to-homeless-and-the-poor/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4097


« Reply #1353 on: July 05, 2014, 11:33:21 AM »

"It’s unbelievable that we have reached a place in society where free marijuana is treated as a right for those who cannot afford to buy their own weed."

This says it all.   cry
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12056


« Reply #1354 on: July 05, 2014, 01:23:02 PM »

That's why today's dems are more accurately called the Free Shit Army.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5970


« Reply #1355 on: July 05, 2014, 05:02:57 PM »

All incentives have been turned upside down.  It used to be that you had to use your hard earned money to buy the stuff and hide it from the government.  One of the pundits had it right.  As soon as something is legal, it has to be mandatory, and free and provided to you by others.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5970


« Reply #1356 on: July 09, 2014, 07:04:03 AM »

More Than Expected Will Drop Out Of Colorado’s Obamacare Program

Nearly twice as many people are expected to drop out of Colorado’s state-run health care exchange in the coming years than originally projected, leading to nearly $2 million lost in associated fees for the financially embattled program over the next two years.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/09/report-more-than-expected-will-drop-out-of-colorados-obamacare-program/#ixzz36yJp05ga
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Unreliable, Audit Finds
By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
 Posted 07/08/2014 06:59 PM ET

Buried in a largely overlooked government audit of the Obama-Care exchanges is a finding that casts still more doubt on the reliability of the 8 million enrollment number commonly cited by the administration and the press.

In a section titled "Other Issues," an inspector general report released last week found that the HealthCare.gov marketplace couldn't show it had been reconciling its monthly enrollment numbers with insurance companies.

That's despite the fact that the law specifically calls for this reconciliation, and the fact that, as the IG report notes, "the federal marketplace obtained the services of a contractor to reconcile enrollment information."

Obama administration officials "stated that the system to support reconciliations had yet to be developed."

But as the IG makes clear, without this monthly reconciliation, the government "cannot effectively monitor the current enrollment status of applicants, such as ... termination of plans."

Perhaps Far Fewer Enrollees
In other words, there could be far fewer enrollees than advertised if these numbers were reconciled as required by law.

Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/070814-707833-obamacare-enrollment-numbers-unreliable-government-audit-finds.htm#ixzz36yKHET6C
-----------------------------------------

Most transparent administration in history, and they all seem so honest...

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1357 on: July 10, 2014, 12:44:10 PM »



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/8/carson-better-than-obamacare/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1358 on: July 17, 2014, 10:45:46 AM »



http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/surgery-center-of-oklahoma-proving-free-market-medicine-works/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1359 on: July 17, 2014, 10:58:08 AM »

second post

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/million-more-patients-in-california-25-less-doctors-for-medi-cal/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1360 on: July 22, 2014, 02:02:17 PM »

Health Law Subsidies Upheld, Conflicting With Ruling Hours Earlier
Two federal appeals court panels issued conflicting rulings Tuesday on whether the government could subsidize health insurance premiums for people in three dozen states that use the federal insurance exchange. The decisions are the latest in a series of legal challenges to central components of President Obama’s health care law.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, upheld the subsidies, saying that a rule issued by the Internal Revenue Service was “a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

The ruling came within hours of a 2-to-1 ruling by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said that the government could not subsidize insurance for people in states that use the federal exchange.

That decision could cut potentially off financial assistance for more than 4.5 million people who were found eligible for subsidized insurance in the federal exchange, or marketplace.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the appeals court here said, subsidies are available only to people who obtained insurance through exchanges established by states.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/us/court-rules-against-obamacare-exchange-subsidies.html?emc=edit_na_20140722

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1361 on: July 25, 2014, 06:02:45 PM »



http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-if-youre-a-state-and-you-dont-set-up-an-exchange-that-means-your-citizens-dont-get-their-tax-credits/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12056


« Reply #1362 on: August 05, 2014, 07:55:04 AM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/florida-obamacare-premiums-jump-132_802050.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4097


« Reply #1363 on: August 09, 2014, 08:41:48 PM »


I've heard this is the most expensive hospital in the country.  One of the guys who bought the hospital at basement rates, who used to be with Blackstone got his Wall Street buddies to finance fixing the place up and embarked on an out of network strategy and then resold it for something like a 40 million profit.  The health care mogul as he was called in a news article now has a mansion in the Hamptons.   So this poor guy gets stuck with a 9K bill.

I have a patient who told me he went to this hospital which is much farther from here than several others to have a procedure done via a limousine.   In this way the patient got in his mind "first class treatment".  The bill is usually multiples of what it would otherwise cost.  I explained this abuse to the patient.   His response:   "but it didn't cost me anything".  I asked him doesn't this dishonest game playing while using you as the pawn bother you?  His response, was again "it didn't cost me a thing".

So there you have it.   I replied, but it costs everyone else a bundle to finance this.  What do you think happens to everyone's insurance rates with this going on?   No response from him.  No concern.   

*********Hospital ER Charges $9,000 to Bandage Cut Finger

Money Talks News
By Krystal Steinmetz 8 hours ago
 
A New Jersey teacher was stunned when he received a $9,000 bill after his cut finger was bandaged in a hospital emergency room. Baer Hanusz-Rajkowski cut his finger with the claw end of a hammer. After waiting a few days to see if it would heal on its own, Hanusz-Rajkowski decided to go to the emergency room at Bayonne Medical Center in New Jersey, according to NBC New York. It was determined (without X-rays) that his finger didn’t need stitches. So Hanusz-Rajkowski left with a bandaged middle finger. NBC New York said he was surprised to get this in the mail:

Hanusz-Rajkowski got hit with an $8,200 bill for the emergency room visit. On top of that, Bayonne Medical Center charged $180 for a tetanus shot, $242 for sterile supplies, and $8 for some antibacterial ointment in addition to hundreds of dollars for the services of the nurse practitioner.

That $9,000 bill left Hanusz-Rajkowski speechless. From NBC:

“I got a Band-Aid and a tetanus shot. How could it be $9,000? This is crazy,” Hanusz-Rajkowski said. “If I severed a limb, I’d carry it to the next emergency room in the next city before I go back to this place.”

Why was the bill so high? The answer isn’t clear. It’s more of a he said, she said. Carepoint Health bought Bayonne Medical Center about six years ago, making it a for-profit business, NBC said. Dr. Mark Spektor, president and CEO of the medical center, said the big bill is the fault of Hanusz-Rajkowski’s insurance company, United Healthcare, which no longer has an in-network pricing contract with the hospital. Spektor said United doesn’t offer fair reimbursement rates. According to NBC, Mary McElrath-Jones, spokeswoman for United Healthcare, disagrees with Spektor. “United Healthcare is deeply concerned about hospitals establishing an out-of-network strategy to hike the rate they charge for emergency room services, often surprising patients,” she said. Regardless of whether there’s an in-network price deal, New Jersey law demands that insurers cover the costs of ER visits, NBC said. United Healthcare ended up paying $6,640 on the bill. After the story hit the news, the hospital wrote off Hanusz-Rajkowski’s portion of the bill. Some people are calling for a price cap on ER procedures, NBC reported. Spektor said that would put the hospital, which was once on the brink of bankruptcy and is now profitable again, at risk.

“Insurance companies in the state of New Jersey particularly have had record profits last year. Billions of dollars in profits while hospitals are struggling and closing. That is the real story,” Spektor said.

What do you think of Hanusz-Rajkowski’s hospital bill? Do you think you’ve been massively overcharged at a hospital? Share your comments below or on our Facebook page.

This article was originally published on MoneyTalksNews.com as 'Hospital ER Charges $9,000 to Bandage Cut Finger'.

 

 
 
 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5970


« Reply #1364 on: August 11, 2014, 11:58:54 AM »

This should also go in the President Rubio thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/08/more-obamacare-woes-congress-must-act-to-block-health-insurance-bailout/

More ObamaCare woes: Congress must act to block health insurance bailout
By Sen. Marco RubioPublished August 08, 2014FoxNews.comFacebook431 Twitter217 livefyre325

As evidence mounts of a looming taxpayer-funded bailout of health insurance companies under ObamaCare, the urgency grows for Congress to take this possibility off the table for good.

As expected, ObamaCare's costs are rising, and health insurers are passing them along to patients in the form of higher premiums and deductibles.

Just this week, a majority of insurers offering health plans in Florida announced rate increases ranging from 11 to 23 percent. This means that if patients balk at paying this sharp increase and drop their coverage, these health insurers will have to make up the difference somehow.

Enter section 1342 of the ObamaCare law, which established so-called "risk corridors".

According to this provision, taxpayers will make up the difference for health insurance companies whose plans lose money under ObamaCare. Last November, as it became clearer what this section of the law actually meant, I introduced legislation repealing it and protecting taxpayers from being forced to cover insurers' ObamaCare losses.

Afterwards, as pressure from taxpayers mounted on the Obama administration, it announced that it had no intention of operating this bailout program at a net cost to the American people. As expected, health insurers and their lobbyists revolted. I called the administration's bluff, and introduced new legislation that would codify into law what they have promised and prohibit this "revenue neutrality" from being achieved through use of taxpayer funds. Not surprisingly, it's gone nowhere in the Democratically-controlled Senate, and the White House won't go anywhere near it.

In recent weeks, the public has learned that senior White House officials have been working closely with insurers behind the scenes to make sure that their earlier bailout deal, which helped assure ObamaCare's passage in 2010, would stand and that a taxpayer-funded bailout was still, in fact, on the table.

According to a recent investigation conducted by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by Darrell Issa, insurers widely expect to receive funds from the bailout program. One large health insurer recently filed financial statements claiming they expect part of their revenue to come from American taxpayers via the ObamaCare bailout "fund".

This "fund" brings us to another dimension of the Obama administration's maneuvering to make sure that health insurers get paid. Knowing that the current U.S. House of Representatives will never appropriate money for this bailout, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) figured out a way to use general funds available through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to pay off health insurers. The effect is to circumvent Congress' power of the purse for the purpose of bailing out health insurers with taxpayer funds.

On this ObamaCare bailout, as with so many issues, Washington politicians are misleading average Americans and planning to stick them with the bill. This is government favoritism and corporate cronyism at its worst.

With ObamaCare's costs rising and projected to cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade, its damage on people's jobs and work hours continuing, and the prospect of a taxpayer-funded bailout of health insurers still alive and well, it's clear this law has failed. It's time to repeal and replace it, but at the very least, we should make it the law of the land that health insurers won't be bailed out by taxpayers because ObamaCare has not proven to be as profitable as its proponents hoped it would be.


Republican Marco Rubio represents Florida in the U.S. Senate. He is a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4097


« Reply #1365 on: August 11, 2014, 08:22:51 PM »

"According to this provision, taxpayers will make up the difference for health insurance companies whose plans lose money under ObamaCare. Last November, as it became clearer what this section of the law actually meant, I introduced legislation repealing it and protecting taxpayers from being forced to cover insurers' ObamaCare losses."

Again the top health care companies stocks and their top officials are making millions and are at all time highs and the rest of us get bulldozed.  Their employees can't even afford their own health care.

My rates going up another 50% despite sky high deductibles.   The whole thing will crash.

 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5970


« Reply #1366 on: August 21, 2014, 08:45:44 AM »

Republicans should circle back to the Obamacare failure, especially in the NINE Senate toss up races.  Great article:
 http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2014/08/20/6-Reasons-Obamacare-Can-Win-Senate-GOP
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 06:26:57 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1367 on: September 04, 2014, 11:29:46 AM »

DC Circuit Agrees to En Banc Hearing of ObamaCare Ruling

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that ObamaCare subsidies given through the federal exchanges were illegal because the law provides for them only through state exchanges. It was a huge blow for the law's supporters, who ironically argued the law doesn't mean what it says. However, the full court has granted a rehearing en banc in December. Clearly, Barack Obama hopes for a favorable ruling this time before the case heads to the Supreme Court. This is exactly why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went nuclear to change confirmation rules so Obama could pack the court with his jurists favorable to his lawlessness.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5970


« Reply #1368 on: September 05, 2014, 11:36:28 AM »

This is just one reason why we don't centralize all our personal and governmental functions, any more than necessary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2744241/Foreigners-hacked-Obamacare-website-July-HHS-just-discovered-10-days-ago-claims-no-consumer-data-stolen.html

Foreigners hacked Obamacare website on July 8 – but HHS only discovered it 10 days ago
Malicious code was inserted into an Obamacare server and lay dormant, waiting for a command to attack other computers
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5970


« Reply #1369 on: September 16, 2014, 09:57:35 AM »

CBO: Cost of Obamacare Subsidy Will Increase 8-Fold in 10 Years

(The increases in the out-years are most certainly UNDER stated.  - Doug)

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45653-OutlookUpdate_2014_Aug.pdf





Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the federal government requires Americans to purchase a health-insurance plan that meets government specifications. If they buy that insurance through a government-run exchange, and earn less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, the U.S. Treasury will pay a part of their premium. The amount the Treasury pays decreases as a person’s income increases toward the 400-percent-of-poverty level.

At the same time, the Affordable Care Act expands the Medicaid rolls by providing subsidies to states that make people earning up to 133 percent of poverty eligible for the program. People signing up for insurance on the exchange whose income is below that level must be enrolled in Medicaid.

“ACA’s Medicaid expansion provisions have the potential for affecting eligibility for premium credits if certain low to middle income individuals and families seek health insurance through the exchanges,” says the Congressional Research Service. “Under ACA, states have the option to expand Medicaid eligibility to include all nonelderly, non-pregnant individuals (i.e., childless adults and certain parents, except for those ineligible based on certain noncitizenship status) with income up to 133% FPL.”

“States that choose to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion will receive substantial federal subsidies,” says the Congressional Research Service. “If a person who applied for premium credits in an exchange is determined to be eligible for Medicaid, the exchange must have them enrolled in Medicaid.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/cbo-cost-obamacare-subsidy-will-increase-8-fold-10-years
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 09:59:47 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1370 on: September 21, 2014, 11:24:21 PM »

 shocked shocked shocked
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html?emc=edit_th_20140921&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31326


« Reply #1371 on: September 30, 2014, 12:00:34 PM »

http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-to-game-obamacare-1412032995
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!