Sunday, September 29, 2013

Delay Is The Way



 Ask you self a very simple question: "If the problems with ObamaCare listed below are obvious enough to be published in the Washington Post, wouldn't it make sense for the Administration to agree to a one year delay until the bugs are worked out?" They could cut a deal with the Republicans that would solve several problems in one stroke. The shutdown could be averted. One would think that the very last thing that the Democrats would want is for ObamaCare to be plagued with problems going into an election year. Delay would offer a good solution. You don't get a second chance to make a good first impression, and to the extent that this law fails to deliver on the promises, the Democrats will pay the price. Oh, and by the way, so will 300 million Americans.

Reports of problems precede launch of Obamacare

By Sandhya Somashekhar, Lena H. Sun and Sarah Kliff, Published: September 27 | Updated: Saturday, September 28, 12:07 AM

Buying health insurance will be as easy as purchasing a plane ticket or shopping on Amazon, the president has promised.
Maybe, but perhaps not on Tuesday — the day that millions of Americans are supposed to be able to start buying coverage under the sweeping law referred to as Obamacare.
Widespread reports of computer problems and logistical glitches are casting a pall over what many supporters envisioned would be a triumphant day for the embattled program. State and federal health officials have said in recent days that some key functions of the online insurance sites called “marketplaces” will not be ready right away. Some of the consumer guides meant to help people sign up for coverage are not yet certified to do so.
Some people who had planned events in conjunction with the opening of the marketplaces have called them off.
“We just kind of laughed and said, ‘Well, I guess we’ll have to reschedule,’ ” said Jason T. Andrews, an insurance broker in California. He had planned on Tuesday to get on the state’s online marketplace and enroll a couple of people who were excited about the health-care law and wanted to be among the first to sign up for coverage.
But he hasn’t been certified by the state to do the work. He hasn’t been able to see the exact rates his clients would have to pay on the marketplace. And he’s not confident that California’s site will be up and running, and fully functioning, come Tuesday. California officials insist the marketplace will be ready, and that the brokers will be certified in early October.
Obama administration officials have warned there might be rough spots in the early days. They also have said those problems aren’t likely to prevent people from signing up for coverage that starts Jan. 1, when many of the law’s benefits and consumer protections kick in.
However, widespread problems on Tuesday, if they occur, will further fuel Republican attacks on the law’s viability. The program is at the center of a standoff between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill that could lead to a government shutdown on the very day the marketplaces are to open and an eventual default on the nation’s debt.
Under the law, more low-income citizens will become eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor, while others will receive federal subsidies to help pay their premiums for private coverage bought on the marketplaces. Some of the marketplaces, also called exchanges, are being operated by the states, but most are being run at least partly by the federal government.
Some problems could be worse than mere glitches:
In the District, people who use the online marketplace will not immediately learn if they are eligible for Medicaid or for subsidies.
In Oregon, people will not initially be able to enroll in an insurance plan on the Web site.
In Vermont, the marketplace will not be ready to accept online premium payments until November.
In California, it could take a month for an insurer to receive the application of someone who applies for coverage on the exchange on Oct. 1.
“Nobody is going to say we’re not starting on October 1,” said Joel Ario, a health-care consultant who formerly oversaw exchanges at the Department of Health and Human Services. “But in some situations, you may see a redefinition of what ‘start’ means.”
From a practical standpoint, a slow start might not have a big impact on consumers. According to the latest poll by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, just 12 percent of the uninsured know that open enrollment starts Oct. 1.
One problem insurers have pointed out is that there are some errors in the premiums that shoppers would see online. A senior administration official said that such problems are being worked on and that the marketplaces will be ready on time.
But as the launch nears, more delays are occurring. On Thursday, the administration announced a delay in the online shopping system for small businesses and confirmed that the Spanish-language site for signing up for coverage will be delayed until mid-October. Earlier in the week, officials said Medicaid applications will not be electronically transferred from the federally run exchange to states until November.
Jon Kingsdale, former head of the Massachusetts health exchange who is now a consultant to many states about their exchanges, described a particularly worrisome problem. In testing, he said, some exchanges have been unable to immediately send to insurers information about what amounts consumers would owe for health plans. The impact should be minimal if addressed in October.
“If that isn’t working on an automated basis by the end of October, we’re really in deep doo-doo,” Kingsdale said.
On Thursday, President Obama touted the ease with which people will be able to buy health insurance on the federally run marketplace, Healthcare.gov.
“Now, this is real simple,” he said during his speech at Prince George’s Community College. “It’s a Web site where you can compare and purchase affordable health insurance plans side by side the same way you shop for a plane ticket on Kayak, same way you shop for a TV on Amazon.”
He said there would be glitches but predicted they would be few and exaggerated by political foes. “They’ll have their cameras ready to document anything that doesn’t go completely right,” he said.
Joanne Peters, an HHS spokeswoman said: “The Health Insurance Marketplace will open in every state on October 1. As we have said, we expect that adjustments will be needed along the way, and will be ready to address them.” She said that thousands of in-person helpers have been certified across the country.
Special troubleshooting teams also will be available around the clock.
Still, Colorado’s marketplace, Connect for Health Colorado, decided to delay certain online functions after testing fell behind. People seeking to buy coverage with federal subsidies in the initial weeks will at some point have to call a hotline to finish the process.
“We don’t feel comfortable with it running automated right now,” spokesman Ben Davis said.
The Colorado marketplace was testing more than 100,000 types of scenarios that it might encounter, ranging from relatively simple situations with individuals to more complex cases involving sprawling families. In the more difficult situations, software that was supposed to determine the size of a subsidy was not always coming up with the right number.
In some places, applicants may run into trouble initially finding people to assist them through the enrollment process.
As of Friday, Iowa had no certified “navigators” — groups and individuals who have been approved to serve as in-person helpers. State officials expect the navigators to be certified by Tuesday.
On the federally run marketplaces, the system for brokers to become certified to help people sign up on the marketplaces has been plagued with problems, say insurance brokers.
The certification site “ is constantly crashing. It’s been a complete pain,” said Wes Bissett, senior counsel for state government affairs at the Independent Insurance Agents and

Friday, September 27, 2013

Spinning Premiums


We hate to keep harping on ObamaCare, but the impact of this monstrosity is becoming more and more negative each day. Now it is apparent that the administration is spinning the fact that while the cost estimates for premiums came in lower than originally estimated, they are not fessing up to the fact the the new rates are higher than the current rates. Rather than driving premiums down, the opposite is happening.

You really have to wonder why the administration would not have rolled this program out the way any intelligent corporation rolls out a new product; in test markets first. They could have picked several metropolitan and rural areas to test the program, identify the problems in a controlled environment, and then fixed them before rolling the program out nationally. Now, in a mid-term election year, they are going to have serious isses with the program and they can't blame the Republicans.

The Dodgy New HHS Report on Obamacare Premiums

whitehouse.govwhitehouse.govHow much will insurance plans cost on Obamacare’s exchanges? This has been a big, and contentious, question since before the law was passed. Late last night, we got some new information: the Department of Health and Human Services released selected details on plan prices for insurance premiums in the federally run exchanges that will operate in the majority of states.
Administration officials are spinning the new numbers as good news for Obamacare. “The prices are affordable,” Gary Cohen, a top HHS official, told The Wall Street Journal. The White House is happily declaring that the premiums are “lower than expected.” And multiple news reports on the numbers are following suit, running headlines on the “lower than expected” premiums coming under Obamacare.
But “lower than expected” is, of course, not the same as lower than they are currently. That’s not the comparison the administration wants to make. "Because of the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance that people will be buying will actually cover them in the case of them getting sick. It doesn't make sense to compare just the number the person was paying, you have to compare the value people are getting," HHS official Cohen told the Journal. Accordingly, there are no comparisons in the report to current premiums. All that lower than expected really means, then, is that premiums won’t go up as much as the Congressional Budget Office initially estimated.
It's also worth noting that the HHS report isn’t comprehensive. It focuses on two thin slices of the insurance market—lowest cost premiums for 27-year-olds who make $25,000 annually, and four-member families with $50,000 incomes. As Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute writes at Forbes, it’s a safe bet these two slices weren’t picked accidentally; most likely they represent demographics best served by the law.
What about everyone else? As a Politico piece on the release notes, “the report doesn’t actually reveal very much about what most people will pay.” Instead, it “gives lots of examples of the kinds of people who will get good prices — but everyone else will remain in the dark until at least next Tuesday, when Obamacare is supposed to open its doors.”
Nor did the administration want reporters digging too much into the data before writing stories today. “The report was issued to news organizations on Tuesday under a strict embargo, with specific instructions not to share the information with anyone else, like outside health insurance experts who might be able to provide more analysis of the numbers," Politico reports.
The report leaked out anyway, but the embargo guidelines suggest that HHS was wary of early scrutiny of the numbers. And along with the selective reporting, it does make one wonder whether HHS is anxious about premium levels when enrollment begins next week. If a comprehensive report on premiums could stand up to outside scrutiny, wouldn’t HHS be putting out a fuller picture, and courting outside analysis?

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Not Big Enough to Fail


 I'm glad the Justice Department is having a good time raping the shareholders of JPMorgan and Bank of America. After all that's really who is paying these fines. The Feds should also remember that when the world was crumbling and they needed all the help they could get, JPM stepped up and bought Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, and B of A did they same with Merrill Lynch. They were not in any way responsible for the irresponsible behavior that got the above mentioned firms into trouble, but to a large degree they are now being penalized for it. If and when the next crisis happens, how fast do you think these institutions will rush to the governments rescue?

 

 

JPMorgan chief Dimon meets with Justice Department to discuss $11 billion settlement


Gary Cameron/Reuters - JP Morgan chief executive Jamie Dimon leaves the Justice Department after meeting with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Dimon and Holder met Thursday morning as the nation’s biggest bank attempts to end federal and state investigations into its liability for selling shoddy mortgage securities.

Talks between the Justice Department and JPMorgan have been ongoing for months but began to heat up this week as federal prosecutors in California were preparing to announce civil charges against JPMorgan related to the sale of mortgage-backed securities between 2005 and 2007.
A person familiar with the negotiations said JPMorgan offered the Justice Department more than $3 billion Tuesday to put the cases to rest. Federal prosecutors wanted more, and by Wednesday a deal for an $11 billion settlement — $7 billion in cash and $4 billion in relief to consumers — was under consideration.
Although Justice is taking the lead in the discussions, a person with knowledge of the negotiations said state authorities have an important seat at the table.
The full scope of the deal remains unclear, but it might include an agreement to end a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in October over shoddy mortgage securities, as well as similar federal probes, said the person, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
Officials at JPMorgan and the Justice Department declined to comment.
“We have brought a substantial number of those kinds of cases over the past few years,” Holder said. “We have matters that are under investigation and I expect we will be making further announcements in the coming weeks and months.”
The Justice Department probe of JPMorgan is part of a larger government effort to hold banks accountable for the haphazard packaging and selling of mortgage bonds that nearly toppled the economy.
Investigations, however, have ramped up under the Obama administration’s federal mortgage task force — a team of federal and state attorneys assembled in 2009 to go after crimes related to the financial crisis.
In January 2012, the task force launched a working group to investigate misconduct in the mortgage-backed securities market. Since then, the group, led by Schneiderman, has filed cases against Credit Suisse and Bank of America, accusing them of misleading investors about the quality of the securities they sold.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Detroit's Wheels Come Off


Undisclosed Payments Cost Detroit Pension Plan Billions

A group of city retirees protested against any cuts in their pensions in downtown Detroit in August.Rebecca Cook/Reuters A group of city retirees protested against any cuts in their pensions in downtown Detroit in August.
Detroit’s municipal pension fund made undisclosed payments for decades to retirees, active workers and others above and beyond normal benefits, costing the struggling city billions of dollars, according to an outside actuary hired to examine the payments.
The payments included bonuses to retirees, supplements to workers not yet retired, and cash to the families of workers who died too young to get a pension, according to a report by the outside actuary and other sources.
How much each person received is not known because payments were not disclosed in the annual reports of the fund.

Detroit has nearly 12,000 retired general workers, who last year received pensions of $19,213 a year on average— hardly enough to drive a great American city into bankruptcy. But the total excess payments in some years ran to more than $100 million, a crushing expense for a city in steep decline. In some years, the outside actuary found, Detroit poured more than twice the amount into the pension fund than it would have had to contribute had it only paid the specified pension benefits.
And even then, the city’s contributions were not enough. So much money had been drained from the pension fund that by 2005, Detroit could no longer replenish it from its dwindling tax revenues. Instead, the city turned to the public bond markets, borrowed $1.44 billion and used that to fill the hole.
Even that didn’t work. Last June, Detroit failed to make a $39.7 million interest payment on that borrowing — the first default of what was soon to become the biggest municipal bankruptcy case in American history.
Detroit said that making the interest payment would have consumed more than 90 percent of its available cash. And besides, the hole in its pension fund was growing again, and it needed yet another $200 million for that.
When Detroit turned to the bond market in 2005, it acknowledged that it needed cash for its pension fund but did not explain its long history of paying out more than the plan’s legitimate benefits, including the bonuses, known as “13th checks,” which were reported earlier this month by The Detroit Free Press. Nor did the city describe the pension fund’s distributions to active workers, or that a 1998 shift to a 401(k)-style plan had been blocked and turned instead into a death benefit. In its most recent annual valuation of the fund, the plan’s actuary said it was still trying to determine the “effect of future retroactive transfers to the 1998 defined contribution plan,” without mentioning that it had not been carried out.
All of these things eroded the financial health of the pension system, but neither the magnitude of the harm, nor its effect on the city’s own finances, were disclosed to investors. German banks were big buyers of Detroit’s pension debt; now they are complaining that they were told it was sovereign debt.
Finally, in 2011, the city hired the outside actuary to get a handle on where all the money was going. The pension system’s regular actuaries, with the firm of Gabriel Roeder Smith, would not provide the information because they worked for the plan trustees, not the city.
The outside actuary, Joseph Esuchanko, concluded that the various nonpension payments had cost the struggling city nearly $2 billion from 1985 to 2008 because the city had to constantly replenish the money, with interest. The trustees began making the payments even before 1985, but it appears that Mr. Esuchanko could not get data for earlier years.
His calculations included only the extra payments by Detroit’s pension fund for general workers. Detroit has a second pension fund, for police officers and firefighters, which also made excess payments in the past. But Mr. Esuchanko could not get the data he needed to calculate those, either.
When Mr. Esuchanko reported his findings, Detroit’s city council voted to halt all payments except legitimate pensions, as described in plan documents. The police and firefighters’ plan trustees appear to have discontinued the practice earlier.
Detroit’s pension trustees, and their lawyers, were unavailable on Wednesday to comment on the extra payments.
Joseph Harris, who served as Detroit’s independent auditor general from 1995 to 2005, said the payments were approved by the pension board of trustees, and it would have been useless for the city to have tried to stop them during his term.
“It was like dandelions,” he said. “You just accept them. They were there, something you’ve seen all your life.”
When asked on what legal authority the trustees made the payments, Mr. Harris said, “My understanding was, it had to be approved by city council, and council was under the belief that the money was there —t hat the pension funds were earning the money, with the consideration that in bad times the city would be making up the difference. I hate to say that. Ultimately the fund has to be funded by the taxpayers.”

Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died


Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin is pretty hard edged even for my tastes, but the following is not political. This is a real thing that is happening to her as a small self-employed business owner, and thousands of other small businesses. Sooner or later America has to come to grips with the fact that the President looked us right in the eye and told some whoppers. As cynical as this may sound, politically, the Republicans might actually help themselves by letting ObamaCare kick in in 2014. It's a mid-term election year and the obvious deficiencies and problems with PACA will be hitting the voting public right between the eyes as they go to the polls. The Democrats are all by their lonesomes on this one and they will bear the full brunt of any public dissatisfaction.
Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died
By Michelle Malkin - September 25, 2013
Like an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors.
Or rather, we had such a plan.
Last week, our family received notice from Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of "changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA)." The letter informed us that "(t)o meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date."
In short: Obama lied. My health plan died.
Remember? Our president looked America straight in the eye and promised: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also lied when she pledged: "Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them."
This isn't just partisan business. It's personal. Our cancellation letter states that Anthem is "not going to be selling new individual PPO plans." When we asked whether we could keep our children's doctors, an agent for Anthem told my husband and me she didn't know. The insurer has no details available yet on what exactly they'll be offering. We either will be herded into the Obamacare federal health insurance exchange regime (launching October 1), a severely limited HMO plan, or presented with costlier alternatives from another insurer. If they even exist.
My family is not alone. Across the country, insurers are sending out Obamacare-induced health plan death notices to untold tens of thousands of other customers in the individual market. Twitter users are posting their Obamacare cancellation notices and accompanying rate increases:
Linda Deright posted her letter from Regency of Washington state: "63 percent jump, old policy of 15 yrs. cancelled." Karen J. Dugan wrote: "Received same notice from Blue Shield CA for our small business. Driving into exchange and no info since online site is down." Chris Birk wrote: "Got notice from BCBS that my current health plan is not ACA compliant. New plan 2x as costly for worse coverage." Small-business owner Villi Wilson posted his letter from HMSA Blue Cross Blue Shield canceling his individual plan and added: "I thought Obama said if I like my health care plan I can keep my health care plan."
Few among Washington's protected political class are paying attention, because they enjoy their lucrative government benefits and are exempted from Obamacare's destructive consequences. But one of my state's congressional representatives, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, also lost his individual market plan. Unlike most politicians on Capitol Hill, Gardner chose not to enroll in the federal health insurance program. He told me that he opted to participate in the private market "because I wanted to be in the same boat as my constituents. And now that boat is sinking!"
Gardner points to recent analysis showing individual market rate increases of 23 percent to 25 percent in Colorado. "After my current plan is discontinued," he wrote last week, "the closest comparable plan through our current provider will cost over 100 percent more, going from roughly $650 a month to $1,480 per month." He now carries his Obamacare cancellation notice with him as hardcore proof of the Democrats' ultimate deception.
Maryland announced that its post-Obamacare individual market rates could also rise by a whopping 25 percent. The National Association for the Self-Employed is recommending that its small-business owners and freelancers plan for at least a 15 percent increase nationwide. One of the reasons for those rate hikes, of course, is that Obamacare's mandated benefits provisions force insurers to carry coverage for items that individual market consumers had deliberately chosen to forgo.
Americans who had opted for affordable catastrophic coverage-style plans now have fewer and fewer choices. This includes a whole class of musicians, photographers, artists, writers, actors and other creative people who purchased health plans through the individual market or through small professional organizations. As St. Vincent College arts professor Ben Schachter reports in the Weekly Standard, groups like the College Art Association, Modern Language Association and the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust are dropping their plans. Young, healthy members of these groups "are far more likely to see their rates go up -- or to face the individual mandate penalties."
Thanks to Obama, access is down. Premiums and health care spending are up. Research and development on lifesaving drugs and medical devices are down. Hours and benefits have been cut because of Obamacare costs and regulatory burdens by at least 300 American companies, according to Investor's Business Daily. And the Obamacare layoff bomb continues to claim victims.
Obamacare is destroying the private individual market for health insurance by design, not accident. For hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of self-employed job creators, three fundamental Obamacare truths are becoming as clear as Obama's growing nose: 1) You can't keep it. 2) We're screwed. 3) The do-gooders don't care. 

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/25/obama_lied_my_health_plan_died_120085.html#ixzz2fu4RdJgq
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Motley Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has managed to get the House Republicans not only mad at each other, but now they're furious with him too. And for good reason. Cruz pushed the House Republicans to pass a bill the would fund the government but defund ObamaCare. No sooner did it get to the Senate then he promptly developed an advanced case of Kerry Syndrome and threw his Republican brethren under a bus by saying he was against it.

Cruz has had a wonderful time doing commercials and raising money  for himself apparently without the slightest concern for what impact his shenanigans are having on anyone else.

This ingenious strategy also has Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell twisted in knots. Frankly, the Republicans are doing such a classic imitation of what Democrats usually do that the Democrats should sue them for copyright infringement of the circular firing squad.

This ham-handed stupidity will only make what was going to be a difficult fight even more difficult. They need to get a way for Cruz to back off, and John Boehner needs to gain control of the House caucus if he is up to it.

This is really pathetic. Instead of addressing the real issues that ObamaCare is creating as it nears implementation, these idiots are focused on an irrelevant side show.

Monday, September 23, 2013

More Obamacare Problems

And the hits just keep on coming. Here's another significant problem with PACA that will limit exchange patients access to specialists. Sure the rates charged on the exchange will be lower but that is because they are going to offer less. Yet another reason to delay implementation, but all of this is falling on deaf ears in Washington. My guess is that the Republican defunding gamble will fail, the law will go into effect, and when people realize what they are being confronted with, there will be huge pressure on Congress to fix the problems. 

There is a reason why airplane manufacturers test plane repeatedly before they put them into service. Tha's how you work out the inevitable bugs. PACA should have been set up in several test markets around the country and tried out for a year rather than being foisted before it was ready on a country that is clearly not ready for it.

Lower Health Insurance Premiums to Come at Cost of Fewer Choices



WASHINGTON — Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama’s health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.
Andrea Morales for The New York Times
Peter L. Gosline, the chief executive of Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough, N.H.

From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.
When insurance marketplaces open on Oct. 1, most of those shopping for coverage will be low- and moderate-income people for whom price is paramount. To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers.
Some consumer advocates and health care providers are increasingly concerned. Decades of experience with Medicaid, the program for low-income people, show that having an insurance card does not guarantee access to specialists or other providers.
Consumers should be prepared for “much tighter, narrower networks” of doctors and hospitals, said Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at the North Carolina Justice Center, a statewide advocacy group.
“That can be positive for consumers if it holds down premiums and drives people to higher-quality providers,” Mr. Linker said. “But there is also a risk because, under some health plans, consumers can end up with astronomical costs if they go to providers outside the network.”
Insurers say that with a smaller array of doctors and hospitals, they can offer lower-cost policies and have more control over the quality of health care providers. They also say that having insurance with a limited network of providers is better than having no coverage at all.
Cigna illustrates the strategy of many insurers. It intends to participate next year in the insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Tennessee and Texas.
“The networks will be narrower than the networks typically offered to large groups of employees in the commercial market,” said Joseph Mondy, a spokesman for Cigna.
The current concerns echo some of the criticism that sank the Clinton administration’s plan for universal coverage in 1993-94. Republicans said the Clinton proposals threatened to limit patients’ options, their access to care and their choice of doctors.
At the same time, House Republicans are continuing to attack the new health law and are threatening to hold up a spending bill unless money is taken away from the health care program.
In a new study, the Health Research Institute of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the consulting company, says that “insurers passed over major medical centers” when selecting providers in California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee, among other states.
“Doing so enables health plans to offer lower premiums,” the study said. “But the use of narrow networks may also lead to higher out-of-pocket expenses, especially if a patient has a complex medical problem that’s being treated at a hospital that has been excluded from their health plan.”
In California, the statewide Blue Shield plan has developed a network specifically for consumers shopping in the insurance exchange.
Juan Carlos Davila, an executive vice president of Blue Shield of California, said the network for its exchange plans had 30,000 doctors, or 53 percent of the 57,000 doctors in its broadest commercial network, and 235 hospitals, or 78 percent of the 302 hospitals in its broadest network.
Mr. Davila said the new network did not include the five medical centers of the University of California or the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center near Beverly Hills.
“We expect to have the broadest and deepest network of any plan in California,” Mr. Davila said. “But not many folks who are uninsured or near the poverty line live in wealthy communities like Beverly Hills.”
Daniel R. Hawkins Jr., a senior vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, which represents 9,000 clinics around the country, said: “We serve the very population that will gain coverage — low-income, working class uninsured people. But insurers have shown little interest in including us in their provider networks.”

Obamacare Glitches


Here is a classic example of unintended consequences that we have spoken of so often. There is a significant fault in Obamacare that will have a very negative and costly effect on people. This is why the law should be delayed and corrected rather than pursuing the nutty strategy that the Republicans are espousing  to defund it.  

Boy it really makes me long for Bubba. even though he had his differences with the Republicans, he knew how to govern and how to work with other people. Obama should sit down with him and get some lessons.

 

 

'Family glitch' in health law could be painful


It could leave up to 500,000 children without coverage and cost some families thousands of dollars.

SHARE 165 46 28 COMMENTMORE
WASHINGTON — A so-called "family glitch" in the 2010 health care law threatens to cost some families thousands of dollars in health insurance costs and leave up to 500,000 children without coverage, insurance and health care analysts say.
That's unless Congress fixes the problem, which seems unlikely given the House's latest move Friday to strip funding from the law, which is also called the Affordable Care Act.
Congress defined "affordable" as 9.5% or less of an employee's wages, mostly to make sure people did not leave their workplace plans for subsidized coverage through the exchanges. But the "error" was that it only applies to the employee — and not his or her family. So, if an employer offers a woman affordable insurance, but doesn't provide it for her family, they cannot get subsidized help through the state health exchanges.
That can make a huge difference; the Kaiser Family Foundation said an average plan for an individual is about $5,600, but it goes up to $15,700 for families. Most employers help out with those costs, but not all.
"We saw this two-and-a-half years ago and thought, 'Has anyone else noticed this?'" said Kosali Simon, a professor of public affairs at Indiana University who specializes in health economics. "Everyone said, 'No, no. You must be wrong.' But we weren't, and that's going to leave a lot of people out."
The issue has recently received attention, especially after former president Bill Clinton highlighted it in a recent speech.
"The family glitch is definitely a drafting error that Congress made that needs to be fixed," said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families. "But that seems unlikely."
New rules state that those families will not be penalized for not purchasing coverage, but the point of the law was to make coverage affordable for families.
Other challenges for families remain as the Obama administration and the health care industry gear up for the Oct. 1 opening of the exchanges, websites for each state on which customers can shop for and buy health insurance. The law requires uninsured Americans to buy health insurance; many are eligible for government subsidies to help them for the policies. For example:
• Kids may not receive Medicaid or exchange coverage if their parents aren't eligible and, therefore, don't know to check.
• Undocumented immigrants may not learn their children are eligible for insurance.
The law has already helped children, Alker said, because it "stabilizes Medicaid and CHIP," the insurance program for children.
However, 70% of uninsured kids are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP, but they're not all enrolled, she said.
"There has to be a lot of outreach and education about the importance of getting health care," she said. "These kids could enroll today."
If congressional Republicans were to succeed in cutting funding for the law, the CHIP program would expire in October, said Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, a bipartisan advocacy group for families.
The Children's Health Insurance Program provides insurance for kids whose family incomes are too high for Medicaid, but whose families still can't afford coverage. The Affordable Care Act extended it for two years, which means as many as 6 million children have health care.
Eliminating money for the law would force states to rethink their children's programs quickly, Alker said.
But even with the funding, not all kids are getting coverage. In fact, two-thirds of kids are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP but not enrolled. Advocates hope that adults signing up for insurance through the health exchanges will find out their kids are eligible, and have said as many as 4 million kids could sign up.
"In Massachusetts, the uninsured rate for kids is lower than 2%," Lesley said, explaining that when Massachusetts implemented "RomneyCare," children were enrolled for insurance in droves. The Massachusetts program became law in 2006 under then-Gov. Mitt Romney, last year's unsuccessful Republican nominee for president.
The Obama administration is working with the YMCA and other organizations to get the word out about children's eligibility, he said.
This can be a particularly big deal for immigrant families, where one parent might be a documented immigrant, a second could be undocumented, and the children could be U.S. citizens.
"Most of the kids are United States citizens," said Jenny Rejeske, a health policy analyst for the National Immigration Law Center. "We know already that many kids in mixed-status families don't have insurance."
Though she said the majority of immigrants are in the country legally, undocumented immigrants may be afraid to seek benefits for their children. Those children, she said, need immunizations and preventive care, in part to keep everybody else's kids healthy, too.
"I feel very confident saying it is safe for mixed-status families to sign up," she said. "The information they give will not be used for immigration enforcement."
The information will go only to the agencies that need to see it, and there are "protections" built in to the Affordable Care Act so families will go sign up their children, she said.
Others who might miss coverage options for kids include veterans receiving care through the VA but who don't have benefits for their families, as well as grandparents receiving Medicare. There is a child-only coverage option that would allow the child to receive subsidized insurance.
Alker said kids also benefit when their parents have coverage because the family is more likely to be financially secure. Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy. She also cited examples, such as maternal depression or healthy pregnancy benefits that affect children as well as adults.
According to a Georgetown policy brief, 11.5 million parents and 6.3 million children were uninsured in 2010. Three-quarters of the parents' incomes fell below the poverty line, and 38% lived in deep poverty. About half of them are white, 29% are Hispanic, and 17% are African American.
Despite their concerns, the analysts said several promising things for families have happened through the law, including:
• Foster kids who have "aged out" of the system can continue to receive insurance through Medicaid until they are 26
• American children of immigrant parents -- even undocumented -- can get insurance subsidies through the new health insurance exchanges, and may be eligible for Medicaid.
• The children and spouses of disabled veterans, who receive their health care through Veterans Affairs, could be eligible for subsidized insurance through the exchange, even if the veteran is not. The same could apply to children who live with retired grandparents who receive care through Medicare.

What is Obama Saying?


Hmmmm, Let's see now, your allowance is going up, but you're not getting more money. How can the President possibly say, “Raising the debt ceiling …does not increase our debt.” Of course it's going to raise the debt because the government is going to run out of money unless we do. I'm beginning to think the the President believes he can say virtually anything that he wants to. The media won't hold him accountable and the American people will just accept it.

The Insiders: The president only adds confusion


President Obama addresses members of the Business Roundtable. (Alex Wong/European Pressphoto Agency)
President Obama addresses members of the Business Roundtable. (Alex Wong/European Pressphoto Agency)
What the president said about the debt ceiling during his Business Roundtable speech was so nonsensical and bewildering it’s actually almost trivial. But nonetheless, it’s irresistible to tease the Democrats about this, especially following House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s gushing, high-profile lecture – aimed at Republicans specifically and Americans generally — about the president’s “brilliance and eloquence,” which she said must be frustrating for those who disagree with the president. But what the president said yesterday was anything but brilliant and eloquent. It’s perhaps one of the most memorable political lines since John Kerry’s infamous, “I actually did vote for [it] before I voted against it” comment during the 2004 campaign.
The president actually said, “Raising the debt ceiling …does not increase our debt.”  I’m not sure what he meant, and if White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to tidy up that statement maybe I missed it, but with thinking this muddled, it’s probably not the best time for the president to be negotiating with Republicans anyway. Trying to give the president the benefit of the doubt, in this case, he’s technically right. Raising the debt ceiling means that we will increase our debt eventually; we don’t increase it by the full amount the very next day.
Does the president believe the debt doesn’t matter? Will he even acknowledge that we should have less debt rather than more debt?
The president’s comments, combined with his refusal to engage with Congress, just adds to the confusion and the uncertainty. I’m not oblivious to the fact that some Republicans are undertaking a strategy that leads to nowhere and is destined to fail by trying to link the budget and debt ceiling to the defunding of Obamacare, but the president needs to step up and show leadership, not just lob partisan blasts and confusing blunders from the sidelines.
Nothing about what the president is saying or doing is getting us closer to a useful debate and a constructive outcome.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Obama's Economic Myths


 President Obama continues to tell the American people fairy tales about how much economic progress the county has made in the last five years. Well, there are some good reasons why the Federal Reserve did not begin it's long anticipated tapering of quantitative easing (a euphemism for printing $85 billion a month). Despite the Presidents' contentions, Bernanke and company see real weakness in the economy which is why they did not pull the trigger. Ironically, the free money punchbowl that has been turned on for the past four years has created more wealth for the 1% that the President keeps picking on by raising the stock market to record levels. The middle class, or what's left of it, has seen wages stagnate, savings produce no returns, and a massive increase of people on unemployment, food stamps, and social security disability. All of which make the budget battle even more difficult.

Obamacare and That Q-Easy Feeling

Quantitative easing may never end, especially if worker-demoralizing Obamacare stays.
by
Tom Blumer
Bio
September 20, 2013 - 9:36 am
printing_money_big_9-19-13-1
On Thursday, the Federal Reserve made a mockery of President Obama’s recent campaign to convince the American people of “how far we’ve come from where we were five years ago.”In “unexpectedly” announcing that it would continue propping up the economy with $85 billion of monthly “quantitative easing,”  i.e., electronically “printing” money out of thin air to buy Treasury and mortgage-backed securities, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke essentially said, “This economy still stinks.”
The mystery is why the Fed’s decision to leave “QE” where it is was at all unexpected, for a number of obvious reasons, plus another which should be.
In July, in a rare moment of unfettered candor deliberately ignored by all but a very few in the establishment press, when asked at his congressional testimony what would happen if the Fed tightened its monetary policy — which in the current context really means, “What would happen if you reduced QE by as little as $10 billion per month?” — Bernanke responded bluntly: “The economy would tank.”
That’s obviously still the case.
Nothing we’ve seen in the past two months would lead any reasonable observer to believe that the economy is meaningfully improving, or that it wouldn’t slip into another recession without its full monthly shot of monetary crack cocaine.
Employment growth this year has been and continues to be dominated by part-timers and temps. Labor force participation is at a 35-year low. In June, wildly disproportionate food stamp enrollment was over 47 million for the eleventh month in a row, seemingly and intractably stuck at a level 36 percent above where it was at the recession’s official end in June 2009.
Seasonally adjusted new home sales in July were over 20 percent below the figure originally reported in June, which itself was revised down by 8 percent. This is the sector whose alleged strong but in reality barely existing turnaround was going to bring back the economy. Despite all the hype, the fact remains that the seasonally adjusted number of single-family homes under construction in August was barely higher than it was at the recession’s end.
Beyond that, 2012 Census Bureau data released on September 17 revealed that real median household income fell for the fifth straight year to a mind-boggling 8.3 percent below where it was in 2007. African-Americans (down 11.3 percent since 2007) and Hispanics (down 8.9 percent) have taken even harder hits. The overall poverty rate, as imperfect a measurement as it is, remained at 15.0 percent, up 2-1/2 points, or 20 percent, from 2007.
Barack Obama, allegedly a fan of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor and a champion of the middle class, has presided over an economy where during the past two years only the top 5 percent of households have seen median income gains.
In a huge irony, given Obama’s alleged “progressive” nature, stock market investors are about the only ones who are pleased with Bernanke’s move. Interest rates will remain artificially low for a while, but I wouldn’t get too comfortable. One astute contrarian claimed on Wednesday that “the Feds have already lost control of the bond market,” and in essence that it’s only a matter of time before “it lose(s) control of the stock market.”

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Defunding is DUMB!!!!


 As we have said the new Republican strategy of defunding Obamacare is looney. No one understands the Republican party dynamics like Karl Rove, like him or not. Here's his take.

 

Karl Rove: The GOP's Self-Defeating 'Defunding' Strategy

It will only strengthen the president while alienating independents.


In 2010, Republicans took the House of Representatives by gaining 63 seats. They also picked up six U.S. senators and 675 state legislators, giving them control of more legislative chambers than any time since 1928. The GOP also won 25 of 40 gubernatorial races in 2009 and 2010.
These epic gains happened primarily because independents voted Republican. In 2010, 56% of independents voted for GOP congressional candidates, up from 43% in 2008 and 39% in 2006.
Today, independents look more like Republicans than Democrats, especially when it comes to health care. In a new Crossroads GPS health-care policy survey conducted in 10 states likely to have competitive Senate races and in House districts that lean Republican or are swing seats, 60% of independents oppose President Obama's Affordable Care Act. If this holds through 2014, then Republicans should receive another big boost in the midterms.
There is, however, one issue on which independents disagree with Republicans: using the threat of a government shutdown to defund ObamaCare. By 58% to 30% in the GPS poll, they oppose defunding ObamaCare if that risks even a temporary shutdown.
This may be because it is (understandably) hard to see the endgame of the defund strategy. House Republicans could pass a bill that funds the government while killing all ObamaCare spending. But the Democratic Senate could just amend the measure to restore funding and send it back to the House. What then? Even the defund strategy's authors say they don't want a government shutdown. But their approach means we'll get one.
After all, avoiding a shutdown would require, first, at least five Senate Democrats voting to defund ObamaCare. But not a single Senate Democrat says he'll do that, and there is no prospect of winning one over.
Second, assuming enough Senate Democrats materialize to defund ObamaCare, the measure faces a presidential veto. Republicans would need 54 House Democrats and 21 Senate Democrats to vote to override the president's veto. No sentient being believes that will happen.
So what would the public reaction be to a shutdown? Some observers point to the 1995 shutdown, saying the GOP didn't suffer much in the 1996 election. They are partially correct: Republicans did pick up two Senate seats in 1996. But the GOP also lost three House seats, seven of the 11 gubernatorial races that year, a net of 53 state legislative seats and the White House.
A shutdown now would have much worse fallout than the one in 1995. Back then, seven of the government's 13 appropriations bills had been signed into law, including the two that funded the military. So most of the government was untouched by the shutdown. Many of the unfunded agencies kept operating at a reduced level for the shutdown's three weeks by using funds from past fiscal years.
But this time, no appropriations bills have been signed into law, so no discretionary spending is in place for any part of the federal government. Washington won't be able to pay military families or any other federal employee. While conscientious FBI and Border Patrol agents, prison guards, air-traffic controllers and other federal employees may keep showing up for work, they won't get paychecks, just IOUs.
The only agencies allowed to operate with unsalaried employees will be those that meet one or more of the following legal tests: They must be responding to "imminent" emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property, be funded by mandatory spending (such as Social Security), have funds from prior fiscal years that have already been obligated, or rely on the constitutional power of the president. Figuring out which agencies meet these tests will be tough, but much of the federal government will lack legal authority to function.
But won't voters be swayed by the arguments for defunding? The GPS poll tested the key arguments put forward by advocates of defunding and Mr. Obama's response. Independents went with Mr. Obama's counterpunch 57% to 35%. Voters in Senate battleground states sided with him 59% to 33%. In lean-Republican congressional districts and in swing congressional districts, Mr. Obama won by 56% to 39% and 58% to 33%, respectively. On the other hand, independents support by 51% to 42% delaying ObamaCare's mandate that individuals buy coverage or pay a fine.
The desire to strike at ObamaCare is praiseworthy. But any strategy to repeal, delay or replace the law must have a credible chance of succeeding or affecting broad public opinion positively.
The defunding strategy doesn't. Going down that road would strengthen the president while alienating independents. It is an ill-conceived tactic, and Republicans should reject it.

We're Going Backwards

This is indeed a disturbing trend. It is very easy and simplistic to blame it on Wall Street, or big business, or the prior administration (if you're Obama), but it goes much deeper than that. Ever since the onset of globalization, our economy has been undergoing massive changes. When agreements like NAFTA and LAFTA were put in place years ago, when tariffs were amended, when Japanese cars started to be better than American cars, the people who were most affected were the middle class. Gone are the days when a high school graduate with a good pair of hands could get a factory job that could support a wife, two kids, a house and a car. Yes, the politicians who favored and pushed globalization were convinced of the rightness of what they were doing. But, those annoying unintended consequences got in the way as they always do. It's not just in the U.S. The Euro Zone was going to be a smashing success. Well guess who got smashed. Ask the people in Greece or Spain how things have worked out.

This is what we are now experiencing, the unintended consequences of a globalized economy. People are frustrated because they are powerless to do anything about what is happening. Government is also powerless because the horse is out of the barn and too far down the road to get back in.

Wonder why people are worried about the unintended consequences of Obamacare? What is scary is that both political parties have their heads firmly ensconced in their rectums. The Republicans now seem fixated on the utterly impossible strategy of defunding Obamacare, and the Democrats are oblivious to what companies are doing and won't call a halt to fix some obvious problems with the law.

This may turn out to be the winter of our discontent.

US families make less than they did in 1989

America's middle class has seen its median income drop by $600 since 'The Simpsons' first went on the air.

By Jason Notte 29 minutes ago
Family eating fast-food burgers (© Bananastock/Jupiterimages)The Census Bureau's poverty report issued earlier this week included some income statistics that were a bummer for middle-class families hoping for a return of the good old days of prosperity. Turns out that even in those days, families were bringing in roughly the same as now.

According to the Census Bureau, median household income in the U.S. in 2012 was $51,017, which is still beneath the 2011 median of $51,100. That 2011 number followed two straight years of decline and is nowhere near the $56,080 average salary from 1999. In fact, 2012's real median household income is still 8.7% lower than it was in 2007, just before the recession.

Even by those mileposts, the news is discouraging for the middle class. But before those relative boom years just before the crash of the early 2000s and the absolute cratering of 2008, median income in 1989 -- just before the recession of the early '90s -- was an inflation-adjusted $51,681, according to The Washington Post's Wonkblog.

That means middle-class families have not gained any ground in the last 24 years. Worse, they actually lost about 660 bucks over that time. The price of the average movie ticket then was $4 compared to $8 now. And the price of a gallon of gas hovered around a dollar compared to the $3.60 average now. But sure, why not dock middle-class families a few Benjamins and see how the economy likes it?

For members of Generation X wondering if all the angst they had as teens about being the first generation not to do as well as their parents was misplaced, fear not. It may be only a slight difference and the least of your worries. But middle-class Gen Xers are bringing home less than their parents were when they were sitting the family down for new episodes of "Doogie Howser," "Family Matters" and the first episodes of a little show called "The Simpsons."

That American incomes have changed roughly as much as the yellow, four-fingered, ageless cartoon family in the latter show should be cause for concern. Even with only Homer's salary at the Springfield nuclear power plant to support them, the Simpsons managed to grow from a Bart-led, "Don't have a cow, man" novelty to a Homer-supported national icon with a movie deal.