Jump to content
Melody

Thanks, Obamacare!

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry for your plight, but.... with respect to the scooters, that's one of the biggest areas of Medicare fraud there is. They needed to tighten that up, and have done so many times but these companies just keep finding new loopholes. I've seen seminars where they bust companies that go door to door trying to sell those to folks, regardless of need, and interviews with people that got them, and all they're used for is by grandchildren as toys. On the taxpayer dime.

True facts, though I don't think that his wife is on medicare yet.

My husband had to use one for a short period of time, a few months, and the rental wasn't covered by our insurance. We discovered that it was much cheaper to buy a used one from an individual than to rent it from a medical supply for three months. (It's still cluttering up our back room. Wish I could find a home for it.)

Medical equipment is a racket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FanDuel Michigan Sports Betting

FanDuel Michigan $100 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching shortly ( December 2020 or January 2021). Pre-register at FanDuel Sportsbook and get $50 free sports bets + $50 free online casino bets with no deposit necessary. Claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan Now

True facts, though I don't think that his wife is on medicare yet.

My husband had to use one for a short period of time, a few months, and the rental wasn't covered by our insurance. We discovered that it was much cheaper to buy a used one from an individual than to rent it from a medical supply for three months. (It's still cluttering up our back room. Wish I could find a home for it.)

Medical equipment is a racket.

What isn't? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin it BananaRepublicLIC……

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/01/18/coverage-expansion-fail-less-than-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-enrollees-were-previously-uninsured/

At the end of the day, for all of the rhetoric and promises about what Obamacare would achieve, the health law’s most ardent supporters have stuck to their guns because of one thing: coverage expansion. But new data suggests that Obamacare may fail even to achieve this goal. Instead of expanding coverage to those without it, Obamacare is replacing the pre-existing market for private insurance. Surveys from insurers and other industry players indicate that as few as 11 percent of those on Obamacare’s exchanges were previously uninsured. If these trends continue, the probability increases that Obamacare will eventually get repealed.

65-89% of Obamacare exchanges enrollees were previously insured

The latest reporting on this topic comes from Christopher Weaver and Anna Wilde Mathews of the Wall Street Journal. They cite several industry surveys on the coverage history of those signing up for insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. The first, from McKinsey & Co., indicates that “only 11 percent of consumers who bought new coverage under the law were previously uninsured.” McKinsey surveyed 4,563 individuals “thought to be eligible for the health-law marketplaces,” of which 389 had enrolled in exchange-based plans.

HealthMarkets, a insurance holding company based in Texas, conducted its own survey based on the 7,500-or-so people that the company enrolled in exchange-based plans. Based on their survey, obtained by Wilde and Mathews, only 35 percent of enrollees were previously uninsured. 10 percent previously had employer-sponsored coverage, but were dropping into the exchanges either because the exchanges offered a better (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized) deal, or because their employer had stopped offering coverage.

15 percent previously had individually-purchased coverage, but their old plans had been rendered illegal by Obamacare and were canceled. The remaining 40 percent were people previously covered under the old individual market, a market that was substantially less expensive than the Obamacare exchanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry for your plight, but.... with respect to the scooters, that's one of the biggest areas of Medicare fraud there is. They needed to tighten that up, and have done so many times but these companies just keep finding new loopholes. I've seen seminars where they bust companies that go door to door trying to sell those to folks, regardless of need, and interviews with people that got them, and all they're used for is by grandchildren as toys. On the taxpayer dime.
I happen to agree and the enforcement should happen. We really don't have a plight, just cuts into the savings we have. I would rather have her ride in comfort when she can. I even had one of our members offer a donation of their scooter from a loved one. Too far away unfortunately. Lately we have found many of these mobility chairs are prescribed for patients incapable of operating them and the guardians still procure them. If the time comes when ours is no longer needed, we will find a need and provide for it.

And the wife's Jazzy mobility chair is left at her work place. And Melody she will appreciate your comment that she is not eligible for medicare yet. (but now she is)

Edited by hueytaxi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lately we have found many of these mobility chairs are prescribed for patients incapable of operating them and the guardians still procure them. (but now she is)

It's not necessarily the guardians. These places visit retirement homes and aggressively sell the things to the residents. The first we knew of my MIL's scooter was when we saw the bill for her portion. She was still living in a retirement apartment with support. Her own doctor would NOT have ordered that scooter. But they use their own in-house doctors, whom the patient has never seen, just to mass sign them. (Or that's the way it used to be. This was about ten years ago.) We were furious. Her doctor was furious. But there was nothing we could do about it at that point because we hadn't been to court to have her declared incompetent so her signature on the contract was still valid.

She never used it. It lived in our garage for several years until her sister broke her hip, we gave it to the sister. The device did make the sister's life so much better because she was able to get from her room to the activities at her assisted living facility. But sister didn't have dementia so could operate it safely without running over other residents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More good news on Obamacare. Slappies will slap. Begin.

Better watch out Moody's...... DoJ gonna sue you!

.........

Moody’s announced Thursday it was downgrading its outlook for health insurers from stable to negative based on uncertainty related to ObamaCare.

The credit rating agency cited an unstable environment because of the healthcare law’s difficult rollout, and projected that insurers would earn 2 percent less than forecast in 2014.

“While we’ve had industry risks from regulatory changes on our radar for a while, the ongoing unstable and evolving environment is a key factor for our outlook change,” Moody’s Senior Vice President Stephen Zaharuk said in a statement. “The past few months have seen new regulations and announcements that impose operational changes well after product and pricing decisions were finalized.”

The Moody’s report also cites the slow enrollment of young people into ObamaCare as a reason for the downgrade.

“Uncertainty over the demographics of those enrolling in individual products through the exchanges is a key factor in Moody’s outlook change,” the ratings agency said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/196203-moodys-downgrades-health-insurers-over#ixzz2rGjdZ2Va

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not necessarily the guardians. These places visit retirement homes and aggressively sell the things to the residents. The first we knew of my MIL's scooter was when we saw the bill for her portion. She was still living in a retirement apartment with support. Her own doctor would NOT have ordered that scooter. But they use their own in-house doctors, whom the patient has never seen, just to mass sign them. (Or that's the way it used to be. This was about ten years ago.) We were furious. Her doctor was furious. But there was nothing we could do about it at that point because we hadn't been to court to have her declared incompetent so her signature on the contract was still valid.

She never used it. It lived in our garage for several years until her sister broke her hip, we gave it to the sister. The device did make the sister's life so much better because she was able to get from her room to the activities at her assisted living facility. But sister didn't have dementia so could operate it safely without running over other residents.

I think we discussed this when i was seeking one for Robie. Even hinted if we were closer, we could make a good deal. She never had the nerve to load or unload into our van so she leaves it at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More good news on Obamacare. Slappies will slap. Begin.

Better watch out Moody's...... DoJ gonna sue you!

.........

Moody’s announced Thursday it was downgrading its outlook for health insurers from stable to negative based on uncertainty related to ObamaCare.

Makes sense. Valuations on carriers have out run even the bull market in a major way. Aetna is up 56% in the last 12mo. Probably about time someone threw a little cold water on this particular irrational exuberance. Honestly - if ACA turned out to be as big a bonanza for the carriers as the market seems to have anticipated, it would mean insurance overheads were going up instead down = fail for the public.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More good news on Obamacare. Slappies will slap. Begin.

Better watch out Moody's...... DoJ gonna sue you!

.........

Moody’s announced Thursday it was downgrading its outlook for health insurers from stable to negative based on uncertainty related to ObamaCare.

The credit rating agency cited an unstable environment because of the healthcare law’s difficult rollout, and projected that insurers would earn 2 percent less than forecast in 2014.

“While we’ve had industry risks from regulatory changes on our radar for a while, the ongoing unstable and evolving environment is a key factor for our outlook change,” Moody’s Senior Vice President Stephen Zaharuk said in a statement. “The past few months have seen new regulations and announcements that impose operational changes well after product and pricing decisions were finalized.”

The Moody’s report also cites the slow enrollment of young people into ObamaCare as a reason for the downgrade.

“Uncertainty over the demographics of those enrolling in individual products through the exchanges is a key factor in Moody’s outlook change,” the ratings agency said.

Read more: Insurers downgraded on ObamaCare fears | TheHill

Oh NOES! The Insurance companies aren't as profitable?!?!?!?!?!?!?! IMPEACH OBAMA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes sense. Valuations on carriers have out run even the bull market in a major way. Aetna is up 56% in the last 12mo. Probably about time someone threw a little cold water on this particular irrational exuberance. Honestly - if ACA turned out to be as big a bonanza for the carriers as the market seems to have anticipated, it would mean insurance overheads were going up instead down = fail for the public.

Moody's gave the reasons.....and not the reasons you cite. Specifically this one is on Obama and his executive rule changes on the fly:

“The past few months have seen new regulations and announcements that impose operational changes well after product and pricing decisions were finalized.”

Also mention that the mix of yoot is not workable ('key factor') from a financial standpoint.

:-(

Edited by Greenwit
spelling sux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The writers of the law itself say that keeping a dead woman alive against the wishes of her family wasn't the intent of it. However, the way it is written that interpretation might be put on it. It needs to be decided in court. And THAT is the hospital's point in it. JPS is hardly a staunch conservative, rabid pro-life organization. It is the county hospital and a level one trauma center that receives patients from all over N. Texas. It is one of the places most likely to face this type of dilemma so needs the seeming conflicting laws reconciled for them by the courts and possibly the state legislature.

And the law needs to be looked at in the context of other high profile cases at that time as well, such as a father's fight to keep life support on the brain dead mother of his baby until the baby reached a viable gestation. The hospital and the woman's parents were fighting against him on this.

Two articles that might be of interest from the local paper:

Texas law didn’t anticipate Muñoz case, drafters say | Fort Worth | News fro...

An attorney who helped rewrite the state law being used to keep a pregnant Haltom City woman on life support said lawmakers never discussed it being applied to a brain-dead person.

Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the latest version of the advance directive section of the Texas Health and Safety Code in 1999, said that he does not recall discussing that aspect of the law.

“It never would have occurred to us that anything in the statute applied to anyone who was dead,” Mayo said in an interview. “The statute was meant for making treatment decisions for patients with terminal or irreversible conditions.”

and also, Few precedents exist in case of brain-dead pregnant woman | Fort Worth | News from Fort ...

In the 1990s, medical ethicist Jeffrey Spike was part of a hospital team that wrestled with another case of a brain-dead pregnant woman on life support. She was kept alive for 100 days, and a healthy baby boy was eventually delivered by cesarean section.

That case, which did not occur in Texas and is one of the few of its kind recorded in medical journals, was among the most difficult of Spike’s career.

“Some of the national reporting on the Fort Worth case is making it sound like this is just those crazy Texans and abortion,” said Spike, now a professor of clinical ethics at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. “But when I think of that other case, there were the same mixed feelings, people on both sides of the issue, even in a different state and more than 20 years ago.”

Edited by Melody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The writers of the law itself say that keeping a dead woman alive against the wishes of her family wasn't the intent of it. However, the way it is written that interpretation might be put on it. It needs to be decided in court. And THAT is the hospital's point in it. JPS is hardly a staunch conservative, rabid pro-life organization. It is the county hospital and a level one trauma center that receives patients from all over N. Texas. It is one of the places most likely to face this type of dilemma so needs the seeming conflicting laws reconciled for them by the courts and possibly the state legislature.

And the law needs to be looked at in the context of other high profile cases at that time as well, such as a father's fight to keep life support on the brain dead mother of his baby until the baby reached a viable gestation. The hospital and the woman's parents were fighting against him on this.

Two articles that might be of interest from the local paper:

Texas law didn’t anticipate Muñoz case, drafters say | Fort Worth | News fro...

and also, Few precedents exist in case of brain-dead pregnant woman | Fort Worth | News from Fort ...

I'm honestly surprised that it never occured to Dr. Mayo and others who amended the Health and Safety Code that an incident like this could occur. Granted, I'm saying it with the benefit of hindsight, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm honestly surprised that it never occured to Dr. Mayo and others who amended the Health and Safety Code that an incident like this could occur. Granted, I'm saying it with the benefit of hindsight, but still.

Me too, especially since there were several high profile court cases around that time. But he may be speaking about what was going on inside some committee. I don't recall following the debate in Austin that closely, and wish that some reporter would do some *duh* research into the matter to set better context and reporting on this. I do seem to recall discussion at the time about the issue of a brain dead mother.

This deal right here I think that both the pro life and pro choice bunch are getting wrong. If anything, it illustrates how one law with good intent can result in injustice for others.

I had to laugh at an editorial rant I read somewhere recently about JR Labbe (the hospital spokesperson), going off on her personally as some right wing conservative pro lifer activist. You remember her, don't you? Not to mention that she's a spokesperson, NOT a "decider."

Edited by Melody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moody's gave the reasons.....and not the reasons you cite. Specifically this one is on Obama and his executive rule changes on the fly:

“The past few months have seen new regulations and announcements that impose operational changes well after product and pricing decisions were finalized.”

Also mention that the mix of yoot is not workable ('key factor') from a financial standpoint.

:-(

I was only noting that people have probably been over optimistic about the sector as a general proposition. The specifics you cite are a good example - the admin (as will all future admins of either party) is in a position where they have enough problems let alone potential publicity about record profits at insurers. It's not hard to guess that after having to basically give the insurers most of what they wanted in the program to get it passed, that the gov will now always be looking for opportunities to push costs onto the insurers where they can. This isn't even politics per se, it's just the nature of the beast. Pretty much the same kind of drill you see in defense procurement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that uninsured Americans comprised around 15.5% of the American population (FY 2012), I'm not sure that looking at the numbers of those enrolled who were previously uninsured is the best way to look at this. I'd be curious to see the total number of people that comprise the supposed 11-35% that the author mentioned in the article, and cross reference that with with the overall number of people who were previously uninsured.

For all I know, those numbers might be worthy of dubbing a failure, but looking at the percentages in a vacuum as the author did just seems like grasping at straws for something to complain about, frankly.

Edited by mtutiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost 1/3 of the people are now insured when they weren't before? How is that a fail, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almost 1/3 of the people are now insured when they weren't before? How is that a fail, exactly?

It depends on how many were formerly insured but now aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on how many were formerly insured but now aren't.

Does the article give that number? I don't read Forbes since the hitjob they did before that Greenwit touted in this thread. Informed consumerism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on how many were formerly insured but now aren't.

just going by the likely psychology, probably not many. We know most of those coming into the exchanges from a previous coverage are those whose coverage became substandard under ACA rules. Those folks clearly had an interest in being insured so there is no reason to assume they would lose that interest and not go an exchange. Conversely, you can be certain given the politics, that if any kind of numbers were getting dropped who could not then find something in the exchange, it would be on Fox 24/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the article give that number? I don't read Forbes since the hitjob they did before that Greenwit touted in this thread. Informed consumerism.

Lord, I quit reading Forbes when I was still a Republican. Horrible source for anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge has just ordered the hospital to disconnect life support from Mrs. Munoz, by the way. This will happen on Monday unless the hospital appeals.

He didn't rule on the legal or constitutional question, so I guess this could happen again unless our state legislature acts to clarify the law. The legal fooling around took enough time (50 some odd days) that doctors were able to determine that the baby itself wasn't developing properly, due evidently to lack of oxygen when the mother was first stricken, and not viable.

Sad, sad story all around. And still no resolution of the bigger question. But I'm glad this family appears to be done with it, can bury their dead loved one, and try to start moving on to live their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the article give that number? I don't read Forbes since the hitjob they did before that Greenwit touted in this thread. Informed consumerism.

So you were commenting on an article you didn't read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

FanDuel Sportsbook Michigan - Sports Betting is launching in Michigan shortly (December 2020 or January 2021). If you register before it launches you will recieve $50 dollars at their online sportsbook and online casino!

Click Here to claim the FanDuel Michigan for $50 at Online Sportsbook & Casino Pre-registration Bonus Now

Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...