.

[solimi]

While doing hard work, but in reverse direction, the result is not good also, and sometimes do not change much better than change.

[1714004690]

1714004690

[1714004690]

1714004690

[1714004690]

1714004690

[1714004690]

1714004690

[Wilikon]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/05/13/Over-5-Billion-and-Counting-Obamacare-Websites

[Wilikon]

SHOCK VIDEO➙ Obamacare Contractor Pays Workers to DO NOTHING – Sit at Computer & Press Refresh





http://www.kmov.com/news/investigates/News-4-investigates-Workers-paid-taxpayer-dollars-to-do-nothing-259002161.html

Obamacare Contractor: I Was Paid to Act Like I Was Working - Goes on record...

http://youtu.be/P5FmJyWrujI

[Wilikon]

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PAVES WAY FOR OBAMACARE BAILOUT


A 436-page stack of regulations released on Friday by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paved the way for the Obama administration to bailout health insurers who lost money on Obamacare.

Originally, the Obama administration promised its so-called “risk corridors”–a program to shift money from profit-making insurers to underperforming insurers to keep down premiums–would be temporary. On Friday, however, HHS said despite the fact that it expects there will be sufficient funds available, “in the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year… [the Department of Health and Human Services] will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payment” and that additional funding would “be subject to the availability of appropriations.”

Last month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bill called “The Obamacare Taxpayer Bailout Protection Act” that would prevent the expansion of Obamacare’s risk corridors.

“Taxpayers cannot be expected to foot the bill for Washington’s mistakes when the law fails,” said Rubio. “This provision holds the Administration to its word and takes a common sense approach to guaranteeing taxpayers are protected from further paying for a reckless and irresponsible law that should never have passed in the first place.”

News of the Obamacare bailout comes as early filings by insurers in the states of Washington and Virginia show several insurers projecting double-digit premium increases in 2015 due to Obamacare.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/16/Obama-Administration-Paves-Way-for-Obamacare-Bailout

[Wilikon]

A California veteran is having trouble finding a doctor because of a faulty Obamacare plan.

Kyle, affected by chronic Lyme disease he contracted while on active duty, is frustrated with the lack of doctor availability on his Anthem BlueCross insurance plan. “I was on the phone with Anthem for two hours while they were trying to find me a doctor within 20 miles. Finally a supervisor came on the phone and said ‘Sir, we have to go, we have other people to help’ and advised me [that] I need to cancel my plan,” he told KPIX.

State law stipulates that insurers must have enough doctors to enable patients to get an appointment within 15 days within 15 miles of their home. Kyle was not able to find a doctor under these requirements and neither was Anthem. Inaccurately listed doctors are considered a violation of the law. The list of doctors given to CoveredCalifornia was incorrect.


http://freebeacon.com/issues/marine-cant-find-doctor-due-to-obamacare/

http://youtu.be/FuNDBiCo340

[Wilikon]

SC Woman Can’t Get Medicine Because ObamaCare Says She’s a Man





A family who was forced to buy healthcare is distraught after their daughter was denied medication because of an Obamacare error.

Shelby Higdon needs her medication, but has been repeatedly denied it because the information in her BlueCross BlueShield health insurance account lists her as a male, not a female.

“When it was time to get my medicine, they told that they couldn’t give it to me because on my insurance I was registered as a man,” Shelby told WLOS.

Her mother, Kris Hitt Hidgon, shares her daughter’s frustration. She has called healthcare.gov “probably about eight times.”

Each time Kris calls healthcare.gov, the website promises her that the problem has been solved, but when the mother and daughter call their insurance company, they receive the same response.

They have painstakingly battled healthcare.gov for over three weeks to have Shelby’s gender changed on her account, but healthcare.gov won’t budge and have been rude to the Higdons.


http://freebeacon.com/issues/s-c-woman-denied-vital-medicine-due-to-obamacare-glitch/

[BitDreams]

I hope that somewhere inside this massive thread there is a proposal to replace insurance companies with DAC's.

[Benjig]

Overtesting is in the eye of the beholder.  Again, the US is the most expensive medical care industry on Earth for many reasons, but some of those are contributions to the high quality of care.  Sure, odds are good that if you get a good bump on the head, and the doctor sees no ready signs of a concussion, you'll be fine.  But what about the times those odds don't pan out?  Going with the greatest odds is cheaper overall, but if you're the guy that caught brain cancer early because the emergency room insisted on an MRI after your head injury; odds are better you would be thankful for wasteful uses of medical testing.

[Wilikon]

WH rules that employers can’t dump workers into health exchanges

http://youtu.be/OQez5Dkst0A


It figures the Obama administration would wait for a three-day weekend to announce its latest executive rule change to Obamacare (aka the “law of the land”).

This one is a doozy. The implications are so far-reaching that the official White House newspaper, the New York Times, buried the story by Robert Pear on page A12 of the New York edition. Here’s the gist of it:

Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do not satisfy the health care law, the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of $100 a day — or $36,500 a year — for each employee who goes into the individual marketplace.

The ruling this month, by the Internal Revenue Service, blocks any wholesale move by employers to dump employees into the exchanges…

…Many employers — some that now offer coverage and some that do not — had concluded that it would be cheaper to provide each employee with a lump sum of money to buy insurance on an exchange, instead of providing coverage directly.

Pear quotes Obama as recently saying, “I don’t think that an employer-based system is going to be, or should be, replaced anytime soon,” which is a total reversal of the official position articulated in February. Back then, the administration and its contingent in Congress were bragging that Obamacare allowed workers to “escape their jobs.” Suddenly, the dreaded condition known as “job lock” is back on the table, hamstringing the hordes of Americans who were planning the pursue their lifelong dreams.

http://www.examiner.com/article/wh-rules-that-employers-can-t-dump-workers-into-health-exchanges

[Wilikon]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-4-8-billion-on-obamacare-exchanges-so-far/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most expensive website/portal/online exchange. Ever.

[Wilikon]

D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
But second court backs administration on key part of law


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/22/obamacare-dealt-serious-setback/#ixzz38DonX0Gs
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Millions of Americans are not entitled to government health insurance subsidies under Obamacare because of the way the law is written, a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

But the force of the legal victory was undercut just hours later when another appeals court in Richmond sided with the Obama administration on the subsidy question, setting up an almost certain extended legal battle that could soon reach the Supreme Court.

In a decision that could blow a massive hole in President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the court held that people living in states that relied on the federal government to set up their insurance market exchanges cannot offer the subsidies considered critical to making coverage affordable.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the administration used an IRS rule to stretch the meaning of the Affordable Care Act, which said financial aid to to low- and middle-income people should only flow to exchanges “established by the State.” If that means only state-run exchanges, it would cut off subsidies to two-thirds of the nation.

The 2-1 decision from a three-judge panel effectively invalidated the IRS rule that ensured subsidies flowed to every state, and the deciding judges seemed to realize the potential impact of the ruling.

“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith said in his opinion for the court. “At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.”

Hours later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the administration’s interpretation of where subsidies may flow, creating a split in the circuits. The judges in Richmond reasoned that Obamacare’s language was ambiguous and that the IRS rule was “a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

Yet the D.C. Circuit is widely viewed as the second-most powerful court in the land, and their edict will likely overshadow the Fourth Circuit for now.

The Obama administration is sure to appeal the D.C. circuit’s decision because the subsidies are a huge draw for Obamacare customers. Without that selling point, the reforms would effectively collapse under the weight of premiums that are no longer affordable.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the ruling will have no immediate impact on consumers’ ability to receive tax credits right now, and the administration is “confident” about the appeal that the Justice Department will be making.
“While this ruling is interesting to legal theorists, it has no practical impact,” Mr. Earnest said.

But Republicans wasted no time in cheering the blow to the White House, which comes on top of a Supreme Court victory in the Hobby Lobby case that allowed closely held corporations to ignore Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

“For the second time in a month, the courts have ruled against the president’s unilateral actions regarding Obamacare,” Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said. “The president has demonstrated he believes he has the power to make his own laws. That’s not the way our system of government was designed to work.”

Under the court’s ruling, only the 14 states and the District that have taken on the responsibility for their exchanges would be able to dole out premium tax credits to their residents.

Other states, most with Republican governors or state legislatures, refused to set up the exchanges, forcing the federal government to step in for them.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/22/obamacare-dealt-serious-setback/

[Wilikon]

Court Ruling On Obamacare Subsidies Frees More Than 57 Million Americans From Individual And Employer Mandates…

… In the 36 states with federal Exchanges, a Halbig victory would free — not “exempt” — all employers with more than 50 workers from the employer-mandate penalties to which the Obama administration is unlawfully subjecting them. Census Bureau data indicate that in all, more than 250,000 firms and 57 million workers could be freed from those unlawful taxes. That’s more than the population of 27 states. Table 3 shows the number of firms and employees in each of the 36 states with federal Exchanges. In Florida, a Halbig victory would free more than 16,000 firms and 5.1 million employees from the employer mandate. In Texas, it would free more than 24,000 firms and nearly 7 million employees from the employer mandate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/21/halbig-v-burwell-would-free-more-than-57-million-americans-from-the-acas-individual-employer-mandates/?&_suid=1406043716874031751095689833164

[DrG]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

[LostDutchman]

I am surprised to not see any discussion here about US health care mandate (Obamacare). I am guessing it is because there is a pretty large international user base here. I usually lurk but I guess I have to make my own thread this time.

Why is it the best thing since sliced bread?
Why will it cause the world to end?

So lets discuss in hopefully less extreme manner than the two above questions.






I am against the individual mandate but you can't pay for it without the individual mandate. Since you can't have the good without the bad in this case, I would rather not have it at all.

Well, H.Obama just took it up the ass with one court decison while another supported him.

SCOTUS will resolve the matter.

[Spendulus]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Hey, look.

We're talking Free Stuff here.

Free Stuff is mighty fine.

You just need to get your thinking straightened out.  Because you can get some, too.

<<satire>>

<<I have to EXPLICITLY STATE <<satire>>.  Or people will actually take me seriously>>

[Wilikon]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.

[Wilikon]

Investigators obtain ObamaCare coverage, subsidies using fake identities

In six other applications, GAO investigators also tried to sign up fake applicants with in-person representatives. But in five of those cases, GAO was “unable to obtain in-person assistance” for various reasons, including one representative saying they could not help because HealthCare.gov was down.

“We are examining this report carefully and will work with GAO to identify additional strategies to strengthen our verification processes,” administration spokesman Aaron Albright said. At least on paper, fraudsters risk prosecution and heavy fines.

The GAO said its investigators concocted fake identities using invalid Social Security numbers and falsely claiming citizenship or legal residence. In other cases, they made up income figures that would disqualify them from getting subsidies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/23/fake-applicants-finding-it-easy-to-sign-up-for-obamacare-investigators-say/




Obamacare's Fraudulent Incentives

Obama’s complete failure to prevent fraud in his signature domestic accomplishment even had some liberals questioning the administration. “This lack of oversight just isn’t acceptable,” Indiana University School of Medicine professor Aaron Carroll (no relation) blogged, “The GAO should be checking this stuff, and the administration should be responding to it. Let’s see what happens.”

Carroll should not hold his breath. Obama has every incentive to get as many “beneficiaries” signed up for Obamacare no matter how fraudulent they are. Democrats have made the number of “Americans” enrolled in Obamacare the defining metric for the law’s success. There simply is no penalty for signing up fake people.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/07/23/obamacares-fraudulent-incentives-n1865050

[Chef Ramsay]

Survey says:
Fewer than 1 in 5 better off because of Obamacare

Eighteen percent of Americans, or fewer than one in five, say they or someone in their family is better off because of the Affordable Care Act, according to a new poll by CNN. Nearly twice that number, 35 percent, say they or someone in their family is worse off. A larger group, 46 percent, say they are about the same after Obamacare as before.

In nearly all demographic categories — age, income, education, etc. — more people say they are worse off because of Obamacare than say they are better off.

For example, one might expect respondents with incomes below $50,000 to be somewhat likely to say Obamacare has helped them. And that is the case: 21 percent say they are better off because of the Affordable Care Act. But 35 percent say they are worse off. (Forty-four percent are the same.)

Likewise, one might expect young respondents to report benefits from Obamacare. And they do: 23 percent say they're better off. But 33 percent say they're worse off. (Forty-three percent are the same.)

In other categories, the gap between better off and worse off is larger. In just one demographic group, nonwhites, is the group of those who say they are better off, 29 percent, bigger than the group who say they are worse off, 17 percent. (Fifty-four percent say they are the same.)

More...http://washingtonexaminer.com/survey-fewer-than-1-in-5-better-off-because-of-obamacare-many-more-worse-off/article/2551199

[BTCmoons]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.

I don't think the liberals wanted obamacare to fail from the start, but the law was very poorly designed and never had any chances of success.

[Wilikon]

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost.  The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses.  Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.

Obamacare was supposed to fail from the start. The failure is not an option. Obama never had any "good" intentions whatsoever. Let insurances compete across state lines, let the free market boost quality of services and technology in medicine and healthcare. They wanted a single-payer health care from the start but thought obamacare would be loved by many if they stick long enough with it, if they let many jump in no matter if there were massive fraud or not (in my next post). Only the number of people under obamacare was kept as the only good matrix of success. Obamacare has nothing to do with helping anyone. This a program created for total population control for the benefit of government, not for helping patients and those in need. Just look at the VA scandal: this is the future of obamacare.

I don't think the liberals wanted obamacare to fail from the start, but the law was very poorly designed and never had any chances of success.

Yes. It was supposed to fail but not like that, not that fast. But now they need enough people to be slaved to it quickly so people will cry whenever someone tries to kill it in the future.