Will "Obamacare" hurt your chances of being treated for colon cancer?

Corfieldb · Sep 24, 2011

Will "Obamacare" hurt your chances of being treated for colon cancer?

Last Thursday evening at the FOX News/Google GOP Debate in Orlando, Florida, Herman Cain was asked this question:

WALLACE: Mr. Cain, you are a survivor of stage 4 colon and liver cancer. And you say, if Obamacare had been...
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: ...and we all share in the happiness about your situation. But, you say if Obamacare had been in effect when you were first being treated, you would dead now. Why?
CAIN: The reason I said that I would be dead under Obamacare is because my cancer was detected in March of 2006. From March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go -- get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months. If we had been under Obamacare and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan that would have delayed by treatment.
My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable and not the government's timetable that's what saved my life, because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. And now I'm here five years cancer free, because I could do it on my timetable and not a bureaucrat's timetable.
This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to Obamacare, because we need get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's unpack this a bit...

Mr. Cain's cancer was detected in March of 2006. Over the next nine months, he was able to undergo a CAT scan, see multiple doctors, get a second opinion, undergo chemotherapy, surgery, recover from surgery and undergo more chemo to apparently beat the odds and emerge healthy. It was a busy and no doubt stressful time for him. He cites the speed with which he could move through those stages as being critical to his outcome. He's five year's cancer free.

Mr. Cain is a wealthy man by any measure...

Read more...

waltky · Sep 26, 2011

The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive robotic surgery is questioned...

Cancer cost 'crisis' warning from oncologists
26 September 2011 - The cost of treating cancer in the developed world is spiralling and is "heading towards a crisis", an international team of researchers says.

Their Lancet Oncology report says there is a "culture of excess" with insufficient evidence about the "value" of new treatments and technologies. It says the number of cancer patients and the cost of treating each one is increasing. It argues for reducing the use and analysing the cost of cancer services. About 12 million people worldwide are diagnosed with cancer each year. That figure is expected to reach 27 million by 2030. The cost of new cancer cases is already estimated to be about £185bn ($286bn) a year.

Rising costs

A group of 37 leading experts from around the world say the burden of cancer is growing and becoming a major financial issue. Their report says most developed countries dedicate between 4% and 7% of their healthcare budgets to dealing with cancer. "The issue that concerns economists and policymakers is not just the amount of money spent on healthcare, but also the rate of increase in healthcare spending or what has become known as the cost curve." It says the UK's total spend on breast cancer has increased by about 10% in each of the past four years. "In general, increases in the cost of healthcare are driven by innovation. We spend more because we can do more to help patients."

For example, the number of cancer drugs available in the UK has risen from 35 in the 1970s to nearly 100, but the report warns they can be "exceedingly expensive". It adds: "Few treatments or tests are clear clinical winners, with many falling into the category of substantial cost for limited benefit." The cost of drugs is not the only target for criticism. Lead author Prof Richard Sullivan told the BBC: "It's not just pharmaceuticals. Biomarkers, imaging and surgery are all getting through with very low levels of evidence - the hurdles are set too low." The report calls for a proper evaluation of the relative merits of conventional surgery and less invasive robotic surgery.

Too much

Another criticism is "overusing" treatments and technologies. "It is often easier to order a scan than to reassure the patient or physician on the basis of a careful history and a physical examination," the report claims. There is also criticism of "futile care" - providing expensive chemotherapy which gives no medical benefit in the last few weeks of a patient's life. Prof Sullivan said: "We're on an unaffordable trajectory. We either need to manage and reduce the costs or the cost will increase and then inequality rises between rich and poor." He said failure to manage costs could result in a "train crash". The report says solutions fall into two categories: reducing the cost of services or reducing the number of people using them.

Personalised Medicine
Click to expand...

waltky · Oct 28, 2011

Does an aspirin a day keep the cancer surgeon away?...

Daily aspirin 'blocks bowel cancer'
27 October 2011 - A daily dose of aspirin should be given to people at high risk of bowel cancer, say scientists.

Two pills a day for two years reduced the incidence of bowel cancer by 63% in a group of 861 at-risk patients, a study reported in The Lancet said. Newcastle University's Prof Sir John Burn, who led the study, said the evidence "seems overwhelmingly strong". Other experts said the findings added to a growing body of proof that aspirin could be used in the fight with cancer. The study was conducted on 861 patients with Lynch syndrome, which affects one in every 1,000 people. They struggle to detect and repair damaged DNA which means they are more likely to develop a range of cancers including those of the bowel, womb and stomach.

'Good deal'

When looking at all patients in the trial, those in the group given 600 milligrams of aspirin every day developed 19 tumours compared to 34 tumours in the other "control" group, a reduction of 44%. When the researchers looked at just those patients who took the medication for at least two years the reduction was 63%. There was also an effect on other cancers linked to Lynch syndrome, which fell by half in the treatment group. Prof Sir John Burn, from Newcastle University, said there were 30,000 adults in the UK with Lynch syndrome.

If all were given the treatment he said it would prevent 10,000 cancers over 30 years and he speculated that this could possibly prevent 1,000 deaths from the disease. However, there would also be side effects. "If we can prevent 10,000 cancers in return for 1,000 ulcers and 100 strokes, in most people's minds that's a good deal," he said. "People who've got a clear family history of, particularly, bowel cancer should seriously consider adding low dose aspirin to their routine and particularly those people who've got a genetic predisposition." Aspirin is already well known to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in high risk patients.

Other studies over the past two decades have suggested the pain killer reduced cancer risk, but this was the first randomised control trial, specifically for aspirin in cancer, to prove it. In 2010, a study suggested patients given aspirin had a 25% lower risk of death during that trial. Prof Peter Rothwell, from Oxford University, who conducted that study said the latest research "certainly helps to build a consistent picture, all pointing in the same direction that there is a link with cancer". Cancer Research UK's Prof Chris Paraskeva said: "This adds to the growing body of evidence showing the importance of aspirin, and aspirin-like drugs, in the fight against cancer."

'Balanced argument'
Click to expand...

webspider · Nov 14, 2011

hello friends,
Contrary to one of the article's assumptions, Mr. Cain would be a fool to have health insurance. The procedures he underwent - probably the most expensive worst case scenario around - would have cost about 1/4 of his yearly earnings. For the average American the equivilant of about $10,000. For him health insurance is the equililant of insuring a 10 year old car against being damaged by falling tree branches in Utah.
thanks

waltky · Jan 21, 2013

Higher premiums gonna wipe out Obamacare savings...

Premiums set to rise this year in run-up to ObamaCare tax on insurance industry
January 21, 2013 - While the most sweeping provisions of the health care overhaul have not yet gone into effect, plenty of Americans will still be paying higher insurance premiums this year -- as insurance companies try to preemptively cover the cost of a tax increase included in President Obama's Affordable Care Act.

That tax doesn't take effect until next year, when other major provisions like the so-called "individual mandate" and insurance subsidies also kick in. But that hasn't stopped insurance companies from charging higher premiums this year to cover the hike, as well as the cost of ObamaCare benefits such as free birth control and preventive care. Premiums for individuals and small businesses are projected to increase due to the tax by roughly 2 percent this year and by as much as 3.7 percent in 2023, according to a widely cited analysis by the insurance industry.

Officials will argue about who is to blame for the hike -- insurance companies for sticking customers with the cost, or the government for imposing the industry tax hike in the first place. But the projected increases are the latest sign that Americans, in exchange for expanding and strengthening insurance coverage, will in many cases be paying more.

Already, a pair of taxes has hit higher-income households to cover the law. Those making more than $250,000 are seeing a .9 percentage point increase in their Medicare tax, and another 3.8 percentage point hike on investment income. "The goal was to make health care more affordable, but adding a tax on health insurance does the opposite, increasing the cost for families and small businesses," Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for the group America's Health Insurance Plans, said Tuesday.

Zirkelbach and others on the side of insurance companies say younger Americans will be among those facing the largest increases. The looming tax on the insurance industry will cost health-insurance providers $8 billion in 2014, then $14.3 billion in 2018 and a total $100 billion over the next 10 years, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Insurance companies say they can start charging the higher premiums now because some polices bought in 2013 extend into 2014. State insurance commissioners say that practice is OK so long as the increases are pro-rated for next year. However, California Insurance Commissioner David Jones told Politico the company Anthem BlueCross is collecting money from customers that it "doesn't have to pay until 2014."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...care-tax-on-insurance-industry/#ixzz2IdTzUQxh
Click to expand...

See also:

Obama officials ditch ‘exchanges’ in favor of 'marketplaces'
1/20/13 - Rebranding the healthcare reform law

The Obama administration is re-branding the central component of its signature healthcare law. The Health and Human Services Department suddenly stopped referring to insurance “exchanges” this week, even as it heralded ongoing efforts to prod states into setting up their own. Instead, press materials and a website for the public referred to insurance “marketplaces” in each state. The change comes amid a determined push by conservative activists to block state-based exchanges in hopes of crippling the federal implementation effort.

Dean Clancy, the director of healthcare policy at FreedomWorks, said HHS’s decision to ditch the “exchanges” label shows that opponents of the healthcare law are succeeding. “I think the patient-centered care movement can chalk up a minor victory here,” he said. “If they’re trying to re-label, it means they’re flailing.” FreedomWorks runs a website, blockexchanges.com, that’s trying to build grassroots opposition to the insurance markets. The effort has taken on heightened importance in the wake of President Obama’s reelection, which killed off any chance of repealing “ObamaCare” in Congress.

Nearly every Republican governor has rejected a state-based exchange, although some could end up working in partnership with the federal government. Even Republicans who had previously seemed open to the idea have since said they wouldn’t pursue their own exchanges, instead leaving the task up to HHS.Changing the name to “marketplaces” won’t make any difference, Clancy said. “They could call them motherhood or apple pie, but it wouldn’t change our feelings about them,” Clancy said. “We're encouraged that they're showing signs of desperation. I think that it’s too late in the game to try to start calling this something different. And [we’re] not going to spend a lot of effort fighting over a word.”

MORE
Click to expand...

Anders Hoveland · Jan 22, 2013

Don't forget that more people die of colon cancer than are murdered with a gun.

waltky · Jan 22, 2013

Anders wrote: Don't forget that more people die of colon cancer than are murdered with a gun.

Granny says, "Well den...

... mebbe ever'body needs to register dey's colon...

... or mebbe what we need is colon control?"

waltky · Feb 8, 2013

Doctors havin' second thoughts about Obamacare...

Doctors feel ill winds blowing as they look closely at Obamacare
Thursday, February 7, 2013 - Many plan to limit their exposure to Medicare and Medicaid

After 25 years of practicing medicine, Dr. Tamzin Rosenwasser packed in her dermatology practice in 2011, barely a year after the passage of President Obamas health care initiative. The timing wasnt coincidental. I have interrupted practicing medicine because of Obamacare, said Dr. Rosenwasser. Id read the bill. I was conversant with what had already happened with Medicaid, and I didnt want to go down that road with Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act isnt scheduled to be fully implemented until next year, but some doctors already are viewing it as dead on arrival. The medical rumor mill is abuzz with stories about physicians girding for Mr. Obamas signature domestic policy achievement by limiting their exposure to Medicare and Medicaid, selling their practices, converting to fee-for-service approaches, or even retiring from medicine altogether. Every single day, people are talking about retiring early, getting out of clinical medicine, or going into hospital administration, where you dont have to think about patient care anymore, said Dr. Richard Armstrong, a Michigan surgeon and chief operating officer of Docs 4 Patient Care, which opposes the Affordable Care Act.

Not all doctors agree. The American Medical Association endorsed the health care legislation at the time of its passage in 2010, although the group now is pushing for the elimination of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the cost-control organization at the heart of the presidents plan that became known to critics as the death panel. Some physicians are all for [Obamacare], said Dr. Rosenwasser, who had practices in Florida and Indiana and is a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which opposes the program. Theyve been brought up in the government system. This is what they know.

Most doctors appear to be waiting to see what happens. About 90 percent of doctors are completely uninformed about what the governments doing, Dr. Armstrong said. A lot of them are in this free-floating anxiety mode.

Widespread concern
Click to expand...

hudson1955 · Feb 9, 2013

waltky said: ↑

Doctors havin' second thoughts about Obamacare...

Doctors feel ill winds blowing as they look closely at ‘Obamacare’
Thursday, February 7, 2013 - Many plan to limit their exposure to Medicare and Medicaid
Click to expand...

"Second thoughts"? I don't know one doctor or surgeon in private practice that ever believed in Obamacare. The majority are finding themselves being forced out of practice, spending hours a day complying with EHR regulations and seeing their wages decreasing by thousands a month. The only input by the medical profession prior to the passage of Obamacare was from the AMA that does not represent the majority of physicians and surgeons in practice.

Physicians and Surgeons should all stop accepting Medicare and Medicaid and PPO private insurance plans and instead offer their patients cash discounts and payment plans. Then the Federal Government and Private Insurance will be forced to reimburse providers fairly for the services they provide.

Until the medical profession sticks together and pulls out of Federal Medicare and Medicaid and Private Insurance Plans that fail to pay fairly private practice physicians will continue to see their incomes decrease while they are forced to work 12 hour days and see more patients.

hudson1955 · Feb 9, 2013

Higher premiums gonna wipe out Obamacare savings...
Click to expand...

There was never any savings associated with Obamacare the legislation assured that premiums and the cost of health care would rise. Ultimately the only outcome was to increase the number of people covered by health insurance by Mandating that everyone purchase insurance. But even that intention fails to require that those that the HHS and IRS determine can't afford insurance must apply for assistance if they qualify and it doesn't do anything to stop the uninsured from seeking emergency room care. So taxpayers and those with private/group coverage will now be paying a portion of many peoples premiums or all of it and still be paying higher premiums due to uninsured emergency care. On top of that those that can't afford coverage but don't qualify for premium assistance will either pay the penalty for not having insurance or will have to "charge" their premium payments or borrow to buy insurance. What a crock.

According to Government funded studies prior to the passage of Obamacare( Lewin group for one) and the CBO; there was no proven savings in regard to the cost of private insurance premiums, actually, most studies indicated the savings would be minimal if any savings at all. When you mandate that the insurance companies insure those with costly pre-existing illness/conditions, pay for preventative care 100%; the logical result is that the cost of insurance will increase for all of those privately insured and those insured under group plans. Like any business, when the cost of doing business increases it is passed on to the customer/insureds.

When you believe that private health insurance should cover "all" medical expenses you should be prepared to pay for that coverage. Health Insurance was never meant to cover all costs and treatments. Just as car and homeowners insurance doesn't pay for tune-ups, new tires, new water heaters or air conditioners; neither should health insurance cover preventative care, routine check-ups and IMO office visits unless the insured wants to pay a higher premium for such coverage.

Greenbeard · Feb 9, 2013

hudson1955 said: ↑

There was never any savings associated with Obamacare the legislation assured that premiums and the cost of health care would rise.
Click to expand...

Savings and a continued rise are not mutually exclusive concepts.The point of any reform has to be to slow the growth in health care spending (the meaning of the "bend the cost curve" expression). If the ACA does that, there will indeed be savings relative to pre-ACA laws/baselines/expectations. The closer we get the growth rate of health spending to actual growth, the less health costs will eat up paychecks and national spending.

What you're talking about is an actual period of deflation in the health sector, where prices and real spending drop--given the amount of employment we have in that sector, that might not be a particularly desirable thing. What would be great is if, in the long run, we could get health care growth at or below GDP growth. In the latter case it would shrink as a share of the economy, even as it continues to grow in real terms.

That said, right now spending, price inflation, and even insurance premium growth have moderated. The challenge going forward is to sustain and build upon that.

Health care price growth plummets – 2012 lowest year since 1998

Health care price growth in December, at 1.7% year-over-year, was three-tenths below November’s reading, and the lowest rate since February 1998. The 12-month moving average at 2.0% is the lowest since a fractionally lower 2.0% figure was recorded in December 1998. [...]

December was the 43rd month of economic expansion but price pressures are nowhere to be found. Indeed, lower PPI and CPI readings are likely exerting downward pressure on the health price index rather than the expected opposite whereby health care prices would be stimulating general inflation. This scenario, in conjunction with aggressive measures that providers are taking to become more efficient, argue for continued price stability (or even another leg down!).
Click to expand...

Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years

The cost of providing health care benefits to employees rose by just 4.1% this year, the smallest increase in 15 years, according to a survey by human resources consultant Mercer.

And employers are expecting to see another modest increase of 5% next year, the survey of 2,800 companies found. That's a far cry from the beginning of the decade, when employers reported increases of 10% to nearly 15% a year. Last year, benefit costs rose by 6.1%.
Click to expand...

Growth In Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Continues To Hit Historic Lows

The slow growth in spending per beneficiary from 2010 to 2012 combined with the projections of spending growth at GDP+0 for 2012-2022 is unprecedented in the history of the Medicare program.
Click to expand...

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Medicaid and Medicare. In recent years, health care spending has grown much more slowly both nationally and for federal programs than historical rates would have indicated. (For example, in 2012, federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid was about 5 percent below the amount that CBO had projected in March 2010.) In response to that slowdown, over the past several years, CBO has made a series of downward technical adjustments to its projections of spending for Medicaid and Medicare. From the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, such technical revisions have lowered estimates of federal spending for the two programs in 2020 by about $200 billion—by $126 billion for Medicare and by $78 billion for Medicaid, or by roughly 15 percent for each program.
Click to expand...

Growth of Health Spending Stays Low

January 7, 2013
WASHINGTON — National health spending climbed to $2.7 trillion in 2011, or an average of $8,700 for every person in the country, but as a share of the economy, it remained stable for the third consecutive year, the Obama administration said Monday.

The rate of increase in health spending, 3.9 percent in 2011, was the same as in 2009 and 2010 — the lowest annual rates recorded in the 52 years the government has been collecting such data.
Click to expand...

tkolter · Feb 9, 2013

i have no health insurance now even medicaid would be better than nothing.

hudson1955 · Feb 10, 2013

Greenbeard said: ↑

Savings and a continued rise are not mutually exclusive concepts.The point of any reform has to be to slow the growth in health care spending (the meaning of the "bend the cost curve" expression). If the ACA does that, there will indeed be savings relative to pre-ACA laws/baselines/expectations. The closer we get the growth rate of health spending to actual growth, the less health costs will eat up paychecks and national spending.

What you're talking about is an actual period of deflation in the health sector, where prices and real spending drop--given the amount of employment we have in that sector, that might not be a particularly desirable thing. What would be great is if, in the long run, we could get health care growth at or below GDP growth. In the latter case it would shrink as a share of the economy, even as it continues to grow in real terms.

That said, right now spending, price inflation, and even insurance premium growth have moderated. The challenge going forward is to sustain and build upon that.

Health care price growth plummets – 2012 lowest year since 1998

Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years

Growth In Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Continues To Hit Historic Lows

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Growth of Health Spending Stays Low
Click to expand...

Bending the cost curve? Not proven and surely not a fact. And national health care spending only relates to Medicare and Medicaid not private insurance as the Government and States do not contribute to private health insurance premiums. And, premium growth for group and individual private health insurance has increased not been moderated. Reducing the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending is only based on decreasing reimbursements to Providers, period. The cost of providing health care services to patients by providers is rising while the reimbursements are continually decreasing. Duh. Obviously costs for the Federal Government will go down when they pay those providing health care less and cover less; while, increasing medicare premiums and taxing durable good companies. You don't have a clue.

- - - Updated - - -

Greenbeard said: ↑

Savings and a continued rise are not mutually exclusive concepts.The point of any reform has to be to slow the growth in health care spending (the meaning of the "bend the cost curve" expression). If the ACA does that, there will indeed be savings relative to pre-ACA laws/baselines/expectations. The closer we get the growth rate of health spending to actual growth, the less health costs will eat up paychecks and national spending.

What you're talking about is an actual period of deflation in the health sector, where prices and real spending drop--given the amount of employment we have in that sector, that might not be a particularly desirable thing. What would be great is if, in the long run, we could get health care growth at or below GDP growth. In the latter case it would shrink as a share of the economy, even as it continues to grow in real terms.

That said, right now spending, price inflation, and even insurance premium growth have moderated. The challenge going forward is to sustain and build upon that.

Health care price growth plummets 2012 lowest year since 1998

Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years

Growth In Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Continues To Hit Historic Lows

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Growth of Health Spending Stays Low
Click to expand...

Bending the cost curve? Not proven and surely not a fact. And national health care spending only relates to Medicare and Medicaid not private insurance as the Government and States do not contribute to private health insurance premiums. And, premium growth for group and individual private health insurance has increased not been moderated. Reducing the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending is only based on decreasing reimbursements to Providers, period. The cost of providing health care services to patients by providers is rising while the reimbursements are continually decreasing. Duh. Obviously costs for the Federal Government will go down when they pay those providing health care less and cover less; while, increasing medicare premiums and taxing durable good companies. You don't have a clue.

waltky · Aug 1, 2013

"In Texas there is a town called New Braunfels, where there is a large German-speaking population.

One day, a local rancher driving down a country road noticed a man using his hand to drink water from the rancher's stock pond.

The rancher rolled down the window and shouted: "Sehr angenehm! Trink das Wasser nicht. Die kuehe haben darein geschissen."
This means: Glad to meet you! Don't drink the water. The cows have sh_t in it."

The man shouted back: "I'm from New York and just down here campaigning for Obama's health care plan. I can't understand you. Please speak in English."

The rancher replied: "Use both hands."

waltky · Sep 4, 2013

Affects individuals with incomes over $200,000, $250,000 for couples...

The Rich and Sick Taxed to Pay for Health Care Reform
September 04, 2013 Last week, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final regulations on the individual shared responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with few changes to the provisions of the proposed regulations.

"Most people associate the ACA solely with the creation of the healthcare exchanges and the individual and employer insurance mandates," says Lindsey Buchholz, a tax lawyer and a lead analyst in The Tax Institute at H&R Block. "However, the ACA also alters "how much taxpayers owe, how much they can put in a flexible spending account and how much they can deduct in medical expenses not just their insurance."

The health care law includes several changes to income taxes, most of which affect individuals with incomes over $200,000, $250,000 for couples, but some of which affects taxpayers who have high medical expenses. The government has placed a $2,500 limit to salary reduction contributions per employee per year under health Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). Married couples can each allocate up to $2,500 to an FSA, notes James H. Guarino, a CPA at MFA-Moody, Famiglietti & Andronico. Starting in 2014, the limit will be adjusted for inflation.

The change will negatively impact parents who have special needs children and who use FSA funds to help pay for tuition in special needs schools, says Xavier Epps, owner of XNE Financial Advising. "The lose-it-or-use it feature of FSAs still applies for 2013 and later," says Michael D'Addio, principal at Marcum, an accounting firm. "In the old days [prior to 2011], you could always go to a drug store and stock up on over-the-counter items to use up any balance so that the funds would not be lost. Under the current rules, this strategy does not work, since these items are not considered qualified medical expenses."

MORE
Click to expand...

waltky · Sep 16, 2013

Uncle Ferd says it gonna break him `cause he don't make enough money till he gets his job back atta dry cleanery wringin' farts outta shirt-tails...

Is the Affordable Care Act's Impact Over-hyped?
September 13, 2013 Obamacare is coming, and you probably won't feel a thing.

That's the result of a set of studies recently conducted by the RAND Corporation and Kaiser Foundation, two think tanks dedicating considerable resources to asking just how this sweeping piece of legislation will change the American health care marketplace. With the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) state insurance exchanges starting next month, now is the right time to ask the question.

The somewhat surprising answer is that, for most consumers, it won't. "In general, there won't be a big spike in premiums because of the Affordable Care Act, so there shouldn't be a big rate shock," said Dr. Carter Price, a mathematician with the RAND Corporation. "Some states will see an increase in premiums, some states will see a decrease in premiums... But across the system, premiums won't be higher."

Price's team looked at data from ten different states to model how the law will change the health insurance marketplace, both in its impact on premiums and enrollment. The team's first finding was that the law should largely work as intended, reducing the predicted number of uninsured Americans by more than half over the next two years. As far as prices go, however, the team found that Americans just won't see many changes.

It's an issue of demographics. "It's going to depend a lot upon the demographics of the population in each different area," Price said, "and particularly it will depend on what the uninsured population looks like. So in some states where you have a large uninsured population, and that uninsured population is relatively healthy, you're likely to see a big increase in the number of people who are enrolled in the non-group market but not a huge response in premiums."

MORE
Click to expand...

waltky · Sep 19, 2013

Defunding Obamacare battle half won...

Defunding Battle 'Has Been Won' in the House, 'Just Beginning' in Senate
September 19, 2013 -- House Speaker John Boehner said several times on Thursday that the fight to defund Obamacare "has been won" in the House, but the fight in the Senate "is just beginning."

"We'll deliver a big victory in the House tomorrow, and then this fight will move over to the Senate, where it belongs. I expect my senate colleagues to be up for the battle." A reporter's suggestion that Senate Republicans don't think the continuing resolution is the correct vehicle for defunding Obamacare -- and that Republicans will be blamed for a government shutdown -- produced a flash of temper: "Well, guess what, we're having the fight over here -- we're going to win the fight over here. It's time for them to pick up the mantle and get the job done."

Boehner several times refused to predict what the Senate might do about a continuing resolution that funds all of government except Obamacare. That's the legislation that the House will pass on Friday. On the debate over raising the nation's borrowing limit, Boehner made it clear that Republicans have "no interest in defaulting on our debt. None. We just want to find a way to pay it off. That's why the House will act on a plan that will reduce the deficit and includes pro-growth economic reforms, including the delay of the president's health care law. "There's a common-sense principal here: If we're going to raise the debt ceiling, you should work to reduce the deficit and grow the economy at the same time."

Boehner noted that every major deficit-reduction plan over the last 30 years has been tied to the debt limit. "This time should be no different," he said. He called it troubling the President Obama "has decided to just sit out this debate -- he says he won't engage. You know, most presidents refer to their bipartisan efforts to reduce the deficit as achievements -- the president sees this quote-unquote as 'extortion.' So while the president is happy to negotiate with Vladimir Putin, he won't engage with the Congress on a plan that deals with the deficits that threaten our economy." Boehner said a debt limit increase without any deficit-reduction "just isn't going to cut it."

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...se-just-beginning-senate#sthash.gmU48j83.dpuf
Click to expand...

waltky · Oct 25, 2013

Granny says dey oughta delay Obamacare till dey get the kinks worked out...

Obamacare Architect: Itll Take Year or Two to Fix Technical Glitches
October 25, 2013 - Not so fast! Obamacare might not be fixed in November or at least November, 2013. The Oct. 25, CNBC "Squawk Box" featured a far more pessimistic view when Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, former special adviser on health policy to President Obama, warned that solutions might be a long time coming.

Admitting that "There are glitches," Emanuel tried to reassure the audience by saying that these "technical problems... will be solved and over the next year or two, it's going to be a much better shopping experience."

He also discussed the many issues with the Obamacare exchange websites. Emanuel praised Obamacare, saying that it will be worth the difficulties, but admitted that the implementation "wasn't managed well."

The Obama administration has been struggling to implement the law before the individual mandate takes effect on January 1. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently said deadlines for enforcement might change. If Emanuel is correct, however, we may have to fill in a 2015 or 2016 behind these dates.

Emanuel is no stranger to controversy. He was dubbed a "deadly doctor" by Obamacare opponents for his promotion of "death panels." He repeatedly supported medical rationing and even the denial of care to those with disabilities throughout his career. Emanuel is the brother of former White House Chief of Staff and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/s...it-ll-take-year-or-two-fix-technical-glitches
Click to expand...

Iriemon · Oct 25, 2013

Corfieldb said: ↑

Will "Obamacare" hurt your chances of being treated for colon cancer?

Last Thursday evening at the FOX News/Google GOP Debate in Orlando, Florida, Herman Cain was asked this question:

WALLACE: Mr. Cain, you are a survivor of stage 4 colon and liver cancer. And you say, if Obamacare had been...
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: ...and we all share in the happiness about your situation. But, you say if Obamacare had been in effect when you were first being treated, you would dead now. Why?
CAIN: The reason I said that I would be dead under Obamacare is because my cancer was detected in March of 2006. From March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go -- get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months. If we had been under Obamacare and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan that would have delayed by treatment.
My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable and not the government's timetable that's what saved my life, because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. And now I'm here five years cancer free, because I could do it on my timetable and not a bureaucrat's timetable.
This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to Obamacare, because we need get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's unpack this a bit...

Mr. Cain's cancer was detected in March of 2006. Over the next nine months, he was able to undergo a CAT scan, see multiple doctors, get a second opinion, undergo chemotherapy, surgery, recover from surgery and undergo more chemo to apparently beat the odds and emerge healthy. It was a busy and no doubt stressful time for him. He cites the speed with which he could move through those stages as being critical to his outcome. He's five year's cancer free.

Mr. Cain is a wealthy man by any measure...

Read more...
Click to expand...

A lot of speculation about what would happen with Obamacare. But why would it be any different if his employer plan was the same?

Where in Obamacare does it say a bureaucrat would decide whether he needed a CAT scan?

Question: What procedures would he have gotten had he been one of the 50 million or so who don't have health care coverage?

smevins · Oct 25, 2013

I think McCain's position is a stretch. A relative of mine on medicare was diagnosed in the ER with cancer and had multiple x-rays, CT, and a sonogram within the first few hours. They had other issues that had to be dealt with as well, but had further CT's, MRI's within the first day and a half, needle biopsy within the first three days, and oncology and hemotology plans in place within a week of that, and then had their first round of IV chemo in the hospital before they were scheduled for release. I dare say that if they will take medicare's reimbursement rates and do all that, they will gladly take an ACA issued third party policy's reimbursement rates and do all that.

waltky · Oct 25, 2013

Granny says, "Dat's right - is all Obama's fault...

Website contractors point fingers at Obama administration
October 24, 2013 - WASHINGTON (AP) Contractors who built the web portal for the Obama administration's health insurance marketplace said Thursday the site's crippling problems trace back to insufficient testing and changes that government officials made just prior to going live.

Who's to blame? The first congressional hearing into what went wrong dug into issues of website architecture and testing protocols but also re-stoked the partisan battle over President Barack Obama's signature expansion of health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. Republicans who've been trying to kill the program the past three years sounded outraged that it is being poorly carried out, while Democrats jeered them as political hypocrites. What was clear after more than four hours of testimony was that the contractors had only partial answers, and only the Obama administration can eventually put the entire picture together to explain the botched rollout.

Better times are coming, said executives from CGI Federal, which built the HealthCare.gov website serving 36 states, and from QSSI, which created a component that helps verify applicants' incomes and other personal details. They said problems are being fixed daily and expressed optimism that anybody who wants coverage will able to get it by Jan. 1. "The system is working, people are enrolling," said CGI vice president Cheryl Campbell. "But people will be able to enroll at a faster pace." Asked for a timetable, she side-stepped, saying: "I don't like to raise expectations."

The online insurance markets were meant to be the portal to coverage for people who don't get health benefits on the job. Middle-class people are to pick from subsidized private insurance plans, while low-income people are steered to Medicaid in states that have agreed to expand that safety-net program. But the administration is now urging consumers to apply via call centers or on paper forms as the website problems are being addressed. Lack of testing was the main thread emerging from Thursday's hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

But questions were also raised about a decision by the administration to not allow window shopping, as e-commerce sites generally do. Requiring consumers to open accounts and calculate subsidies before they could shop greatly increased the volume of traffic. That precipitated the crash of an accounts registration feature that became an early bottleneck. The site is now allowing limited window shopping. "It's certainly not perfect but getting better by the day," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in Phoenix. "We now have 700,000 applications that have been submitted for health insurance. We intend to make sure those folks get the coverage they need," she said.

At Thursday's House hearing, the contractors said they each tested their own components independently but that the Health and Human Services Department was responsible for testing the whole system from end to end. That kind of testing didn't happen until the last couple of weeks before the system's Oct. 1 launch.

MORE
Click to expand...

huangzhuang19 · Oct 26, 2013

I very like this post

waltky · Mar 29, 2016

Millions of workers will leave employer-sponsored health plans over the next decade because of ObamaCare...

ObamaCare may force employers to pull the plug on millions of health plans, CBO report finds
March 28, 2016 - In the latest report to undercut President Obama's "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" promise, the Congressional Budget Office projects millions of workers will leave employer-sponsored health plans over the next decade because of ObamaCare.

Some will opt to go on Medicaid, but others will be kicked off their company plans by employers who decide not to offer coverage anymore, according to a new CBO report titled, "Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2016 to 2026." "As a result of the ACA, between 4 million and 9 million fewer people are projected to have employment-based coverage each year from 2017 through 2026 than would have had such coverage if the ACA had never been enacted, the report, released Thursday, said.

Sen. Ben Sasse: Obamacare has fewer insurer options in 2016

Employers now cover some 155 million people, about 57 percent of those under 65. That's expected to decline to 152 million people in 2019. Ten years from now, employers will be covering about 54 percent of those under 65. CBO said part of the shrinkage is attributable to the health care law: some workers may qualify for Medicaid, which is virtually free to them, and certain employers may decide not to offer coverage because a government-subsidized alternative is available. Larger employers would face fines if they take that route.

But the agency also noted that employer coverage had been declining due to rising medical costs well before the health care law was passed, and that the trend continues. The CBO also found that more people will enroll in Medicaid than previously predicted, though fewer will be covered through the public insurance marketplaces mandated by the Affordable Care Act. The analysis underscores the view that the health care law is driving the nation's gains in insurance coverage, which raises political risks for Republicans who would repeal it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...alth-plans-cbo-report-finds.html?intcmp=hpbt4
Click to expand...

SueAnn · Mar 29, 2016

I have learned to hate April.
That's the month that Hubby's employer calls a meeting of all employees so the health insurance company can explain the changes in this year's new (downgraded) policy.

Every April they take more money out of every paycheck for the rest of the year.
Every April the deductible goes up for the rest of the year.
Our insurance plan pays such a tiny amount of our bills we had to take out a home equity loan to pay the rest of the bills.
Every year we are one step closer to having no insurance at all.

This has only been happening since the AFFORDABLE care act was initiated.

Mr_Truth · Mar 29, 2016

right wing mysticism:

Obamacare is a job killer
Obamacare will create death panels
Obamacare will lead to rationing

DOOM AND GLOOM ALL THANKS TO OBAMACARE!

not one of these prophecies ever took place because money and lives have been saved thanks to ACA

THANK YOU MR OBAMA!

Log in or Sign up

Will "Obamacare" hurt your chances of being treated for colon cancer?

Corfieldb New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

webspider New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Anders Hoveland Banned

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Greenbeard Well-Known Member

tkolter Well-Known Member

hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

smevins New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

huangzhuang19 Newly Registered

waltky Well-Known Member

SueAnn Member

Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Will "Obamacare" hurt your chances of being treated for colon cancer?

Corfieldb New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

webspider New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Anders Hoveland Banned

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Greenbeard Well-Known Member

tkolter Well-Known Member

hudson1955 Well-Known Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

smevins New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

huangzhuang19 Newly Registered

waltky Well-Known Member

SueAnn Member

Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches