patrick.net

"The mandate on health exchanges doesn’t cover everyone. Aides in lawmakers’ personal offices must obtain health care through the exchanges but not committee staff."

It's telling that people with access to write the legislation, i.e. the committee staff, had exempted themselves all along.

Please don't, I want Obamacare in all of its glory mostly Warts and all, to go live in 2014. We really need a Republican President in 2016 to turn things around.

CaptainShuddup says

We really need a Republican President in 2016 to turn things around.

That's not going to happen as long as the current "batch" of the GOP keeps on insisting that by golly- they need to be even MORE conservative.

Listen by 2016, even Black gang bangers will be more conservative.

CaptainShuddup says

Listen by 2016, even Black gang bangers will be more conservative.

They already agree with you on gun control, or did.

upisdown says

They already agree with you on gun control, or did.

It's YOUR thought you picked it, you finish the damn thing.

CaptainShuddup says

It's YOUR thought you picked it, you finish the damn thing.

So you hated Reagan too, somehow I really doubt that. Maybe when you fantasize about Nancy, but not in general.

Pelosi or Regan?

alright no funny stuff, I'll post pictures of them both at a similar age.

I'd still have to go with Regan.

CaptainShuddup says

I'd still have to go with Regan.

That figures. Neither of them do anything for me, especially that nuerotic mess Pelosi.

I always thought that how Nancy and Ronnie met was funny and ironic though.

CaptainShuddup says

Please don't, I want Obamacare in all of its glory mostly Warts and all, to go live in 2014. We really need a Republican President in 2016 to turn things around.

Obamacare sucks precisely because it was the Republican health care plan. It's what the GOP came up with back in the 1990s to counter HilaryCare. All Obama did was cave in and adopted the Republican plan.

What we really need is:
1. Single payer
2. Public option
3. Divorce of health care from employment.
4. No state regulations. All regulation at the federal level.
5. No mergers in the insurance industry at all.
6. Real accountability for fraudulent billing by hospitals and providers.

I don't care what it's called or who's it is. But HE owns it.
Don't forget Nancy's encouraging rally, "Let's pass it to see what's in it."

'Nuff said!

And for the Record, Hilliary Care is the reason, everyone thought healthcare needed fixing in 2008. She got plenty crammed through so stop giving Republicans so much credit. It's education and health that are the Liberal elite babies.

Republicans are all about finances and wall street and Oil. Liberals can have every thing else. And they have!

We need Leaders that are so far disconnected from industry vertices, until all of Washington politicians become enemies of them. Companies should quake in fear over politicians, not invite them to the Hamptons on the week end.

Poorly written article that doesn't make any sense. This, for example:

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said if OPM decides that the federal government doesn’t pick up “the 75 percent that they have been, then put yourself in the position of a lot of entry-level staff people who make $25,000 a year, and all of a sudden, they have a $7,000 a year health care tab? That would be devastating.”

A single person making $25K a year would be required to pay $1,726 at the most; the rest he would receive back as a tax credit. A family of 4 making $25K would be on Medicare. Also, where does this $7000 figure come from?

Wouldn't staff people receive the same subsidies as any other U.S. citizen? I'm not seeing anywhere is the article that says otherwise. The republicans are just feeding a shitload of misinformation with the goal of sabotaging ACA.

(You know, when you "dislike" a post but are obviously unable to refute it, it just makes you look like an idiot who reacts with emotions instead of intellect.)

CaptainShuddup says

And for the Record, Hilliary Care is the reason, everyone thought healthcare needed fixing in 2008

Oh, god - not that tired-out lie again. Hillary Care never passed. The republicans blocked it. Crack open a history book for a change.

The Fed Poverty Limit is around $11,500. If you make 400% of the FPL (or roughly $46,000) then you should not as an individual pay more than $4,115 a year for health insurance with a deductible no greater than $2000. So that is about $350 per month.

What about the individual that makes $100,000 per year in New York City? That is certainly not rich in that part of the country. What is the impact on his or her health insurance premiums ?

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Effective_by_January_1.2C_2014

Homeboy says

Hillary Care never passed.

Related programs did, including CHIP, which enabled PhRMA to get more of its pills into American children. It's true though that Bill Clinton had the presence of mind to drop the all-encompassing takeover when he saw people hated it. If only the current POTUS had some of that caution, we might have got something worthwhile.

Homeboy says

A family of 4 making $25K would be on Medicare.

Umm, no, Obamacare actually takes money out of Medicare, and Obama proposes to reduce Medicare further. Proposals to broaden Medicare (e.g. "Medicare for all") were rejected by the Democrats who enacted Obamacare.

adarmiento says

What about the individual that makes $100,000 per year in New York City? That is certainly not rich in that part of the country. What is the impact on his or her health insurance premiums ?

Median income in Manhattan is about $67,000. Maybe $100,000 isn't "rich", but it's certainly far above average, and most definitely isn't poor. I would wager that most people who make over $100K get health insurance through their employer. Those who don't are going to have to get it through the exchanges, and won't get the low-income subsidy. I believe you do get a tax deduction for self-employment healthcare premiums, though. So what will happen to premiums? So far, they have continued to go up, but at a slower pace than before ACA, so obviously ACA isn't the cause of rising premiums. The "impact" so far is that out of control rises in healthcare premiums have been scaled back. What will happen in the future? We'll just have to wait and see.

Homeboy says

So what will happen to premiums? So far, they have continued to go up, but at a slower pace than before ACA, so obviously ACA isn't the cause of rising premiums. The "impact" so far is that out of control rises in healthcare premiums have been scaled back.

Where are you getting your data on premiums? I've looked at places like S&P, but their data does not seem to agree to what I see happening to small business premiums which are rising out of control even in 2013.

CaptainShuddup says

Pelosi or Regan?

alright no funny stuff, I'll post pictures of them both at a similar age.

Actually, Pelosi doesn't look half bad. That other broad looks plastic, like her face would crack if you touched it. Probably a half gallon of spackle troweled on there.

How about the two of them having a pillow fight in their undies that ends up in a makeout session?

treatmentreport says

I've looked at places like S&P, but their data does not seem to agree to what I see happening to small business premiums which are rising out of control even in 2013.

If you have data showing that healthcare premiums are rising FASTER than they were rising before ACA, by all means post it. Everything I've read says that's not true. Just saying it's "out of control" doesn't mean anything to me, since it was out of control BEFORE ACA.

Homeboy says

Just saying it's "out of control" doesn't mean anything to me

I am asking you for your data sources because "everything I've read" does not mean anything to me.

I run a business and have to pay healthcare premiums for employees, Premiums nearly doubled since 2008. I would say that's out of control. And yes it was out of control prior to 2008, but the point is that it has not gotten better.

treatmentreport says

I am asking you for your data sources because "everything I've read" does not mean anything to me

I'm asking you for YOUR data. You go first.

treatmentreport says

I run a business and have to pay healthcare premiums for employees, Premiums nearly doubled since 2008. I would say that's out of control.

ACA was passed in 2010.

treatmentreport says

And yes it was out of control prior to 2008, but the point is that it has not gotten better.

Oh, so when you lose the argument, you just retroactively change what you "point" is? Nice.

Just once, I'd love to see someone who bags on Obamacare actually come up with even a single FACT to back it up.

Homeboy says

Just once, I'd love to see someone who bags on Obamacare actually come up with even a single FACT to back it up.

I am stating a fact that my business healthcare premiums have not seen any relief because of ACA (nothing changed since 2010). You are ignoring this data point completely.

I am also telling you that it's difficult to find good reliable source to show healthcare prices and premiums. One indicator that I watch is how well healthcare stocks have outperformed many other sectors in the market. This is telling me that my anecdotal evidence has value.

Here is some data from S&P that shows that healthcare inflation is very high. Look at the increase of the growth rate since ACA passed.

I would say this is much better than "everything I read".

http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldocumentfile&blobtable=SPComSecureDocument&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3Ddownload.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1245338641599&blobheadervalue3=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobnocache=true

http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-healthcare-economic-indices/en/us/?indexId=sp-healthcare-economic-indices

The above data is much more consistent with my anecdotal evidence. If you look at the commercial index, it's rising pretty fast. Most likely large businesses are better able to negotiate their rates and small businesses under 25 employees have very little negotiating power.

treatmentreport says

I am stating a fact that my business healthcare premiums have not seen any relief because of ACA (nothing changed since 2010). You are ignoring this data point completely.

I am also telling you that it's difficult to find good reliable source to show healthcare prices and premiums. One indicator that I watch is how well healthcare stocks have outperformed many other sectors in the market. This is telling me that my anecdotal evidence has value.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Homeboy says

The plural of anecdote is not data

That's all you can say? I gave you both anecdotal evidence and S&P healthcare inflation indices. Is that not enough for you to even consider that you may be wrong?

treatmentreport says

Here is some data from S&P that shows that healthcare inflation is very high. Look at the increase of the growth rate since ACA passed.

I honestly can't make heads or tails out of what you think that chart is supposed to be showing.

Here are health insurance premiums over time:

As you can see, Obamacare was not the cause of rising premiums, since the rate of increase was LOWER the year Obamacare passed.

Year: 2000 Rate of increase: 11%
2001 10%
2002 13%
2003 13%
2004 10%
2005 9%
2006 6%
2007 5%
2008 5%
2009 5%
2010 3%

You don't think a 3% increase is an improvement over the 13% increases we had in the early 2000s? I just don't get how anyone can look at data like this and conclude that Obamacare is the reason for a problem that existed years before the law was even written.

treatmentreport says

Is that not enough for you to even consider that you may be wrong?

I always consider that I may be wrong, but since I have posted actual data, and you have posted a chart that frankly doesn't make any sense, coupled with anecdotes and your "gut feeling", I am not ready to conclude that I am wrong at this point.

treatmentreport says

The above data is much more consistent with my anecdotal evidence. If you look at the commercial index, it's rising pretty fast. Most likely large businesses are better able to negotiate their rates and small businesses under 25 employees have very little negotiating power.

Actually, no. The commentary on that very page says that the growth rate is DEcelerating. Did you even read the article you linked to?

“The past two months have generally been marked by a deceleration in the annual rate of change in
health care costs. In June 2012, all nine of our Healthcare Indices’ annual growth rates decelerated
from their May 2012 rates,” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow
Jones Indices. “In May, six of the nine indices we publish also saw a deceleration in their annual
growth rates from April. In June, the Composite Index posted an annual rate of +5.78%, the
Commercial Index +8.09% and the Medicare Index +2.27%. These rates were all down from their
respective April and May 2012 levels.

Homeboy says

Actually, no. The commentary on that very page says that the growth rate is DEcelerating. Did you even read the article you linked to?

Two months of deceleration after a couple of years of acceleration. Read the entire article.

How does the chart from S&P not make sense? It breaks healthcare inflation by sectors (commercial, medicare, etc) and shows the rate of change for the last eight years.

Kaiser data stops in 2010. I bet it would show much larger increases for 2011 and 2012. Also, what is the sample size of Kaiser data and how large of employers do they sample?

If ACA was really meant to work, we should see premiums go down not up. If someone told you in 2008 after Obama's victory that it's all we are going to get as far as healthcare reform is concerned, you would have been disappointed.

Does the Kaiser survey take in account rising deductibles and co pays?

We've consistently increased deductibles to limit premium increases.

S&P data looks at both.

Homeboy says

I just don't get how anyone can look at data like this and conclude that Obamacare is the reason for a problem that existed years before the law was even written.

We will see if premiums will rise for those individuals that make $60,000 to $120,000 a year under Obamacare. There may be enough independent and luke-warm Dem voters in this category who will never again vote Democrat because of their premiums going up.

treatmentreport says

Does the Kaiser survey take in account rising deductibles and co pays?

Excellent point. Pass on more costs to the consumer while charging the same amount for insurance coverage. I think that will be the mantra starting in 2014.

treatmentreport says

Two months of deceleration after a couple of years of acceleration.

I see a line that goes up and down. How is that "a couple years of acceleration"?

Why do you post the rate of change graph? There's another graph below it that simply shows the index value. Much easier to comprehend. The commercial index line is a relatively steady increase, and the economic and medicare indices are slowing in their rates of increase. And all 3 have now slowed the rate of increase considerably, as it says in the commentary that you conveniently left out of your previous post.

treatmentreport says

How does the chart from S&P not make sense? It breaks healthcare inflation by sectors (commercial, medicare, etc) and shows the rate of change for the last eight years.

Two of the lines zigzag all over the place, and the third is mostly a steady decline. What is it you think that proves?

treatmentreport says

If ACA was really meant to work, we should see premiums go down not up. If someone told you in 2008 after Obama's victory that it's all we are going to get as far as healthcare reform is concerned, you would have been disappointed.

Well if you were being honest, you would have STARTED OUT being clear on what your point is. Apparently you are conceding that Obamacare hasn't caused premiums to go up, and your only complaint is that it hasn't made premiums go DOWN. So far, Obamacare has succeeded in getting healthcare for children who formerly had to go without, and has helped thousands with pre-existing conditions who couldn't get insurance before. And that is before the main parts of the law have even taken effect. Next year, millions will be insured who were not insured before, and low to middle income Americans will receive tax credits to help them afford insurance. If your only complaint is that rates didn't immediately get cut in half, before the main part of the law is even in effect, it's still a win.

Like I've said before, I'd rather have a single-payer system or a completely subsidized system like the successful systems in most other countries. But the republicans wouldn't let that happen here. It's a miracle we got any change at all.

adarmiento says

We will see if premiums will rise for those individuals that make $60,000 to $120,000 a year under Obamacare. There may be enough independent and luke-warm Dem voters in this category who will never again vote Democrat because of their premiums going up

Oh, I see. You are Nostradamus. We will see what we will see. Don't forget that many in that income range will receive tax credits. People who make $120K won't get any tax credits. Do I feel sorry for them? Not really. They can afford it.

adarmiento says

There may be enough independent and luke-warm Dem voters in this category who will never again vote Democrat because of their premiums going up.

If the republicans ever come up with a candidate who isn't a complete douchebag.

adarmiento says

Excellent point. Pass on more costs to the consumer while charging the same amount for insurance coverage. I think that will be the mantra starting in 2014.

Wrong again. Out of pocket expenses are explicitly capped under ACA. So-called "catastrophic" policies will not be allowed.

"Sources in both parties said" could mean nothing. Let's say I'm some aide with little real power and a lot of fears, hanging out in a DC bar griping and thinking out loud and some reporter overhears that. Who knows, since the story veers all over the place badly.

The "brain drain" fear seems complete bullshit. We all know the point of DC for aides is as a stepping stone to some lobbying job anyway. So they suck it up and accept the low Federal pay & benefits no matter what.

Homeboy,

You are blindly defending ObamaCare. Yes, it has some good parts, but it barely addresses the cost issue (there is 10B in it to study per patient instead of per procedure procedure payments). People like myself are bearing the cost increases. For example, my family could be making another house payment with our premium for a high deductible plan.

Again, if it was the reform that many expected in 2008, we would see premiums going down at this point.

treatmentreport says

You are blindly defending ObamaCare. Yes, it has some good parts, but it barely addresses the cost issue (there is 10B in it to study per patient instead of per procedure procedure payments). People like myself are bearing the cost increases. For example, my family could be making another house payment with our premium for a high deductible plan.

Again, if it was the reform that many expected in 2008, we would see premiums going down at this point.

Bullshit. I'm not "blindly defending" it. I'm saying that the problems you complain about are not the result of ACA. If it hasn't made things worse, and has made some improvement in some areas, I don't understand how you can complain about it. Are you saying we would be better off if the law had not been passed? Please explain how we would be better off with no ACA.

Your only complaint seems to be that YOUR rates have risen. Do you understand that there is a provision in the law that requires everyone to buy insurance, and that provision has not taken effect yet? Do you understand that the reason that provision was put there was that the system wouldn't be economically feasible without it? Right now, there are still millions of freeloaders in the system - people who do not have any health insurance. Right now, YOU ARE PAYING FOR THESE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GO WITHOUT INSURANCE. Starting in 2014, they will have to contribute. IF, next year, it becomes clear that rates are skyrocketing beyond the rate they were skyrocketing before the law, I will admit the law is a failure. But will the law's detractors be honest and include the subsidy that rate-payers get when they calculate the average premium? So far, republicans are not being honest at all - for example Sen. Richard Burr claiming that someone making $25K a year would have a "$7000 a year healthcare tab", when the law clearly states that such a person would only be responsible for $1,726.

So would you mind explaining to me how it is that you are criticizing a system that isn't even in effect yet?