<p>“Your rule that people with pre-existing conditions have to pay more is both strange and mean”</p>
<p>CF, reread my post. Never said that</p>
<p>However, what is mean is denying advanced cancer coverage to millions of people or doubling rates for unsubsidized payers. See my last two posts and read the links I posted.</p>
<p>Fortunately, for most cancer patients the most advanced treatment is available everywhere. </p>
<p>Wow…the cancer center issue is so much better now than it was 6 months ago when we read some of these cancer centers werent in anybody’s plans.</p>
<p>Plus… Now cancer isnt a precondition anymore. </p>
<p>dstark, please read the hill.com article (liberal publication) link in my previous post. It blows apart your thesis that premiums will not go up very much under Obamacare.</p>
<p>LOL, only you, dstark, and your merry band of supporters would find a silver lining to that story.</p>
<p>GP, I wanted to return to the question of the uninsured vs. insured on the exchanges. The trouble with doing all these calculations is, the numbers we’re trying to calculate with don’t agree with each other.</p>
<p>If we apply the McKinsey survey to the February California exchange, we get the 70/30 insured/uninsured numbers that you quote. Since we know that 85% of the February enrollees got subsidies, we have a minimum of 482,000 enrollees who were both previously insured and are now eligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>But other figures we have seen say that there were 1.1 million people with private insurance last year, and 39% of them were eligible for subsidies. That’s only 440,000 people. How can 482,000 previously insured be on the exchange getting subsidies, when only 440,000 were eligible for subsidies? Something is wrong here. (I suspect the 1.1 million number; I think it’s 1.6 million.)</p>
<p>GP, you said “Okay, those with preexisting conditions who are not poor, will have to pay premiums for medicaid.” Excuse me if I thought that meant that people with pre-existing conditions (who are not poor) would have to pay. Perhaps you could expand on your idea.</p>
<p>“please read the hill.com article (liberal publication) link in my previous post. It blows apart your thesis that premiums will not go up very much under Obamacare.”</p>
<p>The Hill isn’t a liberal publication. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_media”>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_media</a> </p>
<p>emily, actually the newspaper doesn’t seem to lean in either direction. Looks like a straight news organization to me. The article should be a major concern to all the Obamacare supporters. If what is being reported is true, this would be the death knell for Obamacare.</p>
<p>Actually, we are very close to an implosion of Obamacare. Only by delaying major parts of the law have we been able to stave off its demise.</p>
<p>CF, what’s wrong with having people with preexisting conditions pay premiums if they can afford it?</p>
<p>“emily, actually the newspaper doesn’t seem to lean in either direction”</p>
<p>GP, I am not going to argue with you. If you want to believe that, it’s fine with me - although I find it interesting that when you wrote your post you had no problem labeling it a liberal publication. </p>
<p>If you google conservative media The Hill is usually mentioned. </p>
<p>Here is the list from Conservapedia:<a href=“http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_media#Conservative_Newspapers_.2F_Magazines”>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_media#Conservative_Newspapers_.2F_Magazines</a></p>
<p>Conservative Newspapers / Magazines</p>
<pre><code>Wall Street Journal
The Weekly Standard
Washington Times
American Spectator
Christian Science Monitor
Forbes
The Hill
NY Post
Human Events
National Review
National Journal
Investors Business Daily
American Conservative Magazine
Modern Age
The New American
Chronicles (magazine)
Soldier of Fortune
Army Times
Commentary Magazine
Reason (magazine)
Townhall
Libertas
Whistleblower
NewsMax
Tea Party Review
City Journal
Commentary
Imprimis
The Advocate
Barron’s
Foreign Policy (magazine)
</code></pre>
<p>It’s punishing people for being sick. In your system everyone, by taxes, is paying for health care for all the people on Medicaid, just as everyone now pays for people on Medicare. But in your system only sick people are also paying the sick premium. Essentially, you’d be charging people extra, and quite a lot extra, for being sick. </p>
<p>As you know, everyone on Medicare pays premiums. Though the premiums do not come close to covering the cost of Medicare, everyone pays, and if you don’t enroll immediately upon becoming eligible, your premiums are higher for the rest of your life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see the unfairness here. People in the individual health insurance market are paying for health care for sick people in the individual insurance market. People in the group insurance market are paying for health care for sick people in the group insurance market. Why is this worse for people in the individual market than it is for people in the group market? Are people in the individual market sicker? I’ve seen no evidence of that.</p>
<p>Now, people who get Medicaid, including Medicaid expansion, ARE sicker than average. But everybody is paying for them. And everybody is paying subsidies for the subsidized population; that is not the unique burden of the individual insurance market.</p>
<p>Technically we just cancelled everyone’s insurance since we are not bound by the law and there was an external choice that was lot cheaper than employer insurance available. Medicaid would not have been an option for their incomes under the current income rules.</p>
<p>Visa Holders are not eligible for medicaid and in most states permanent residents need to wait 5 years,</p>
<p>Some states extend March 31 deadline, sort of (from brainwrap at ACAsignups.net):</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/state-plan-allows-marylanders-who-try-to-enroll-in-a/article_e36f6de9-7e41-5885-9250-e447d23ee0b2.html”>Maryland News - Baltimore Sun;
<p><a href=“Massachusetts Is Given Extension”>Massachusetts Is Given Extension;
<p><a href=“Cover Oregon: Legislature passes bills on IT contracting, enrollment deadline extensions - oregonlive.com”>Cover Oregon: Legislature passes bills on IT contracting, enrollment deadline extensions - oregonlive.com;
<p>Massachusetts, Maryland and Oregon were three of the worst-performing exchanges.</p>
<p>CF, yeah… I think the Cal market is about 1.7 million. Anthem was 47 percent of the market and had 800,000 people with coverage. That comes close to 1.7 million.</p>
<p>If I use 1.7 million, the amount of newly insured is higher than I stated. About 200,000 newly insured more. </p>
<p>Wellpoint is going to have a conference call on Friday. That is Anthem. The individual insurance market is more important to Wellpoint than the other large insurers. Wellpoint’s market share in California has dropped from 47 percent to 30 percent. The conference call may be 5 hours. (Hopefully 5 hours is a misprint). If it isnt, I look forward to reading the summary. Lol.</p>
<p>If Wellpoint says a couple of positive things, we can be talking over 1 million newly insured with private insurance. ;)</p>
<p>Texaspg, I understand what you did, and I meant no criticism. </p>
<p>I just point out that under GP’s extend-Medicaid notion, your employees would have been eligible for Medicaid for free, rather than subsidized insurance, and you probably would have cancelled their employer-paid insurance and sent them to the free Medicaid insurance. If the program were available, and your employees were eligible for it, you probably would have thought that they were adequately covered.</p>
<p>No one is going to dispute the Hill.com article? If what they are reporting is true, I don’t see how this law can survive the rest of the year. The next executive order will be to rescind the law.</p>
<p>“Technically we just cancelled everyone’s insurance since we are not bound by the law and there was an external choice that was lot cheaper than employer insurance available”</p>
<p>:) </p>
<p>"The next executive order will be to rescind the law. "</p>
<p>LMAO!</p>