Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am just going to laugh at you Greenie, you NEED this to go right.
Competition is the name of the game in the exchanges. That's why this is working so well thus far.
Which kinda begs the question: why are the people who are usually the most vocal proponents of competition having a problem with this?
Oh no, no train wreck. How can this be?
The train wreck is already here, it's the IRS, the group to enforce this Workers Paradise of a Law, going after conservative groups
Oh no, no train wreck. How can this be?
The train wreck is already here, it's the IRS, the group to enforce this Workers Paradise of a Law, going after conservative groups
Which has nothing to do with the ACA. Your point?
What happens when the trainwreck doesn't materialize?
What happens when the trainwreck doesn't materialize?
Contrive another train wreck, as usual.
A better question is;The GOP has been playing a very interesting game with its doomsday predictions lately. They've gone so far as to start spreading the idea--with the helpful assistance of the rightwing infotainment complex--that health insurance premiums are about to jump 400%.
But now that the actual prices for next year are starting to trickle out and aren't confirming their predictions (see: Premiums drop, coverage expands in Washington's exchange; Surprisingly low premium rates submitted for Oregon exchange; 13 insurers approved for California's exchange submit low premiums; etc), what happens?
It Looks Like Obamacare May Not Be A 'Train Wreck' After All - Business Insider
After weeks of talk about implementation "train wreck" for the Affordable Care Act, supporters of the law finally got some good news Thursday.
Insurance premiums in California's health care exchange will provide plans that range from a 2 percent increase to a 29 percent decrease in premiums, compared to current insurance rates.
Covered California, the state agency in charge of the state's health insurance exchange, announced on Thursday that the state will provide 13 insurance plans next year. Medium-level "bronze" and "silver" health insurance plans came in nearly $200 lower a month than predicted, according to the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff.That leads to an interesting scenario, posed by Ezra Klein this morning as he considered some very good news for Obamacare:The most important part to Blumberg, however, is that premiums will cost much lower than was expected. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a "silver plan" would cost an average of $5,200 per year. In reality, at least in California, it will cost approximately $3,312, or $276 per month.
It seems pretty clear that Medicaid can be a winning issue for state-level Dems next year in states that fail to expand the program. But what about exchanges, particularly in those states in which the leadership decided that the federal government could do a better job than the state at overseeing its marketplace?Of course, California and Oregon are managing Obamacare particularly well. But the state-by-state nature of the Affordable Care Act creates really unusual political dynamics around how the law is perceived in its first year.
Imagine its the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didnt allow the Medicaid expansion so the states poorest residents got nothing. They didnt help with the exchanges, or the outreach, so there arent many choices, and premiums arent as low one might hope.
Viewed in isolation, Texass problems would be deadly for the law. But viewed next to California, they might mainly be a problem for the political class in Texas, which has failed to implement a clearly workable law.
If a neighboring state that opted to design and run its own exchange is seeing in some cases double digit decreases in premiums next year relative to comparable plans this year, how do residents of a state react, particularly if their federally-facilitated exchange is shall we say less than robust?
In other words, the GOP has gone all in on the doomsday prediction that Obamacare is inherently unworkable--the cracks in the facade of that claim are starting to grow pretty quickly, thanks to the outlandishness of the claims they've been making. So at what point does the effort by leaders in some states to sabotage reform in their own states begin to backfire, as their responsibility for attempting to deprive their residents of what are going to become increasingly obvious benefits comes into focus?
There seems to be a lot of agreement that Obamacare is going to be a major issue in states in the 2014 elections. I have to say, I certainly hope that's the case.
Imagine its the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didnt allow the Medicaid expansion so the states poorest residents got nothing.
I am just going to laugh at you Greenie, you NEED this to go right.
I'll admit, I laughed with delight when i saw the premiums insurers want to charge. Competition is working.
Competition is the name of the game in the exchanges. That's why this is working so well thus far.
Which kinda begs the question: why are the people who are usually the most vocal proponents of competition having a problem with this?
I doubt even they know.
The GOP has been playing a very interesting game with its doomsday predictions lately. They've gone so far as to start spreading the idea--with the helpful assistance of the rightwing infotainment complex--that health insurance premiums are about to jump 400%.
But now that the actual prices for next year are starting to trickle out and aren't confirming their predictions (see: Premiums drop, coverage expands in Washington's exchange; Surprisingly low premium rates submitted for Oregon exchange; 13 insurers approved for California's exchange submit low premiums; etc), what happens?
It Looks Like Obamacare May Not Be A 'Train Wreck' After All - Business Insider
After weeks of talk about implementation "train wreck" for the Affordable Care Act, supporters of the law finally got some good news Thursday.
Insurance premiums in California's health care exchange will provide plans that range from a 2 percent increase to a 29 percent decrease in premiums, compared to current insurance rates.
Covered California, the state agency in charge of the state's health insurance exchange, announced on Thursday that the state will provide 13 insurance plans next year. Medium-level "bronze" and "silver" health insurance plans came in nearly $200 lower a month than predicted, according to the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff.The most important part to Blumberg, however, is that premiums will cost much lower than was expected. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a "silver plan" would cost an average of $5,200 per year. In reality, at least in California, it will cost approximately $3,312, or $276 per month.
That leads to an interesting scenario, posed by Ezra Klein this morning as he considered some very good news for Obamacare:
Of course, California and Oregon are managing Obamacare particularly well. But the state-by-state nature of the Affordable Care Act creates really unusual political dynamics around how the law is perceived in its first year.
Imagine it’s the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didn’t allow the Medicaid expansion so the state’s poorest residents got nothing. They didn’t help with the exchanges, or the outreach, so there aren’t many choices, and premiums aren’t as low one might hope.
Viewed in isolation, Texas’s problems would be deadly for the law. But viewed next to California, they might mainly be a problem for the political class in Texas, which has failed to implement a clearly workable law.
It seems pretty clear that Medicaid can be a winning issue for state-level Dems next year in states that fail to expand the program. But what about exchanges, particularly in those states in which the leadership decided that the federal government could do a better job than the state at overseeing its marketplace?
If a neighboring state that opted to design and run its own exchange is seeing in some cases double digit decreases in premiums next year relative to comparable plans this year, how do residents of a state react, particularly if their federally-facilitated exchange is shall we say less than robust?
In other words, the GOP has gone all in on the doomsday prediction that Obamacare is inherently unworkable--the cracks in the facade of that claim are starting to grow pretty quickly, thanks to the outlandishness of the claims they've been making. So at what point does the effort by leaders in some states to sabotage reform in their own states begin to backfire, as their responsibility for attempting to deprive their residents of what are going to become increasingly obvious benefits comes into focus?
There seems to be a lot of agreement that Obamacare is going to be a major issue in states in the 2014 elections. I have to say, I certainly hope that's the case.
UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna opt out of California insurance exchange
I wonder, is there a reason you didn't post this link?
UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna opt out of California insurance exchange - latimes.com
What happens when the trainwreck doesn't materialize?
Competition is the name of the game in the exchanges. That's why this is working so well thus far.
Which kinda begs the question: why are the people who are usually the most vocal proponents of competition having a problem with this?
I doubt even they know.
Well, if by 2016, the trainwreck has not materialized, the GOP will be reminded of it daily. Not only that, but the economy continues to expand, slowly, but still moving up. Totally not what you asses predicted.
So what?...They still won't be playing the stupid exchange game.I wonder, is there a reason you didn't post this link?
UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna opt out of California insurance exchange - latimes.com
I wonder if you read it?
UnitedHealth, the nation's largest private insurer, Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corp. are sitting out the first year of Covered California,[...]
UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna are small players now in California's individual health insurance market. More of their business is focused on large employers, where most Californians receive their health coverage.
No ones premium should be over $3500 a year except those under 18 which is far less and people over the age of 65 which is more. This is the average that State and Federal government pays on people on Medicaid. People on Medicaid are considered a slightly higher risk that people that are employed for the majority of them anyway. 5% of people on Medicaid are very high risk and these people usually have more then 3 chronic conditions and are disabled or elderly.
The average health insurance for people employed is well over $4000 for single coverage and that is too high since these people seldom require health services.
The train wreck will only occur to the citizens and since they have no voice or can pay lobbyist to fight it, the media will remain silent. The train wreck only applies to states that expand their Medicaid population and can't afford it later in 3 years. The ones that don't expand the burden falls back to the businesses in higher premium rates.
However, many states that did agree to expansion now have waivers that exempt them from providing the full benefits dictated by the law. Many businesses are grandfathered in so it won't affect them unless they make changes.
The unions is another story if they are self insured they are ripping the employees off right now so if they lose big deal.
Putting the IRS in charge of ObamaCare is like putting the Hitler's SS in charge of security at your local Synagogue
Here is the million dollar question for the left what if Obamacare does become the train wreck some are predicting? Just like to point out the train wreck terminology is now starting to be used by Democrats as well.
