Remember the President's assurances that his ACA would finally “bend the cost curve”?
Despite a determined rear-guard media that clings to Obama's every word as universal truth, evidence accumulates that the President was talking thru his hat.
On September 17, 2013, CBO released it's most recent Long-Term Budget Outlook.
According to CBO, in 20 years, “major health care programs” will be the largest component of federal spending.
CBO expresses its estimate relative to GDP - which is also growing. CBO's estimate is that federal health care spending will increase from roughly 3% to north of 8% of GDP. That's almost tripling the share of a base number that is itself growing every year. CBO thus anticipates federal dollar spending growth for health care more like 4X's to 5X's its level in 2013.
Bend the cost curve, indeed.
Talking thru his hat.
(btw, the same CBO estimate finds that within the next 25 years, federal debt held by the public will be 100% of America’s entire GDP "without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy." The corresponding percentage as late as 2007 was less than 40% of GDP. This administration's failure to bend the federal spending cost curve is clearly a serious problem that extends well beyond "health care".)
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Cavalcade of Risk #192: Galloping Into View edition
Nancy Germond hosts this week's romp through the wilds of risk, a maze of medical conditions, and a not-so-*fowl* post on chickens (cluck all you want).
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Bored Game
If you have nothing to do, what happens? Some drink. Some go shopping. Others create board
games.
Do not pass Go.
Do not collect $200.
games.
"Everybody has to pay. Nobody ever wins,"
Each player starts out on the "Buy Insurance" square as a small business owner (except for the Occupy Wall Streeters, who begin the game unemployed). Along the way, players are taxed, troubled, hospitalized, or may even fall victim to a death panel as they make their way across the board.CNS News
Do not pass Go.
Do not collect $200.
"We may have added some funny exaggerations in the game," LeFeber said. "But since the original bill was brought to you by the same folks who so efficiently manage the US Postal Service, Social Security Trust Fund, recent Bank Bailouts, and soon-to-be $17,000,000,000,000.00 in government debt--you know the game is rigged against us from the start."Just like real life. You have to play the game to know what is in it.
Obamacare Cry Babies
Employees of Bibb County (GA) schools got an early peek at their new benefit plan for 2014.
Through the end of this year employees had a choice between several plans administered by UHC or Cigna. They could pick an HMO or PPO. Copay or high deductible HSA or high deductible HRA.
Choices, choices.
That was then. This is now.
The Georgia Blue's got tired of sitting on the sideline and made a winner take all offer to the SHBP (State Health Benefit Plan) administrator.
Blue won the contract. Cigna and UHC are gone.
Say bye-bye to copay plans and freedom of choice. Employees can pick from one of three plans and their choice is Blue or Blue.
No more copay plans.
They are calling the new design a PPO with an HRA wrap.
Last year the state provided this comparison between the 2012 and 2013 plans. The plans were not bad and not good. Most employees preferred the HMO because of the doc copay's.
2014 is a new year and copay's are last years news. The new PPO Wrap looks like this.
As you can guess, most of the employees are not happy.
Where are the copay's? Gone . . . .
They can't do this to us! Yes they can . . .
I want my Obamacare plan. This IS your Obamacare plan . . .
For some reason I am reminded of that scene from Private Benjamin.
Pvt Benjamin - "I think they sent me to the wrong place. I did join the army, but it was a different army. I joined the one with the condo's and private rooms."
No doubt, many Pvt. Benjamin's will be checking out the exchange offerings when it opens in a few weeks. Some may even sign up, expecting to get a subsidy . . . or a condo with a private room.
A subsidy that will never happen.
The law says if you have an "affordable" health insurance plan through your employer, you can still buy from the exchange but you are not eligible for subsidies.
How is affordable defined?
Glad you asked. If the employee premium is less than 9.5% of the employee's W-2 gross income the plan is deemed affordable.
If the employer plan meets that criteria, neither the employee or their dependents will qualify for an Obamacare subsidy.
Elections have consequences.
Choices, choices.
That was then. This is now.
The Georgia Blue's got tired of sitting on the sideline and made a winner take all offer to the SHBP (State Health Benefit Plan) administrator.
Blue won the contract. Cigna and UHC are gone.
Say bye-bye to copay plans and freedom of choice. Employees can pick from one of three plans and their choice is Blue or Blue.
No more copay plans.
They are calling the new design a PPO with an HRA wrap.
Last year the state provided this comparison between the 2012 and 2013 plans. The plans were not bad and not good. Most employees preferred the HMO because of the doc copay's.
2014 is a new year and copay's are last years news. The new PPO Wrap looks like this.
As you can guess, most of the employees are not happy.
Where are the copay's? Gone . . . .
They can't do this to us! Yes they can . . .
I want my Obamacare plan. This IS your Obamacare plan . . .
For some reason I am reminded of that scene from Private Benjamin.
Pvt Benjamin - "I think they sent me to the wrong place. I did join the army, but it was a different army. I joined the one with the condo's and private rooms."
No doubt, many Pvt. Benjamin's will be checking out the exchange offerings when it opens in a few weeks. Some may even sign up, expecting to get a subsidy . . . or a condo with a private room.
A subsidy that will never happen.
The law says if you have an "affordable" health insurance plan through your employer, you can still buy from the exchange but you are not eligible for subsidies.
How is affordable defined?
Glad you asked. If the employee premium is less than 9.5% of the employee's W-2 gross income the plan is deemed affordable.
If the employer plan meets that criteria, neither the employee or their dependents will qualify for an Obamacare subsidy.
Elections have consequences.
Layers and Layers of Fact-Checkers
The Lame Stream Media prides itself on its unerring accuracy and commitment to getting the facts straight. As it turns out, at least when it comes to life insurance, this pride is, in fact, unjustified. As we pointed out almost 4 years ago, they can't even get the relatively simple suicide exclusion correct:
"...it appears that this may well have been an elaborately staged suicide, the point of which was to leave the proceeds of a life insurance policy to the victim's son ... “There’s no such thing as suicide insurance."
Which is true, but as we pointed out, irrelevant. It would have taken the reporter five minutes to interview a life insurance agent to provide clarity and context (not to mention accuracy).
And now we see the same shoddy reporting in another tragic case:
"... for Cindy Karlsen, there was the $1.2 million policy that her husband had now taken out on her life ... She learned Karlsen had invested some of the insurance money from his son's death into a life insurance policy on her."
And how did the erstwhile Mrs Karlsen learn this? Apparently it came as a big surprise to her that she had applied for life insurance, but some simple fact-checking by the (so-called) reporter might have revealed that it's almost impossible to buy life insurance on another person without his or her consent, let alone knowledge. And a policy with over $1 million on the line is going to require not just a physical examination, but (at least according to the carriers I represent), a telephone interview with the prospective insured.
So we are left to believe one of two things is true:
1) A life insurance company issued a million dollar policy strictly off an application - no exam, no blood or urine draw, no interview - and no effort to confirm the information on the application.
or
2) She agreed to complete and sign a lengthy life insurance application, take a fairly invasive physical exam - including, depending on her age, a stress-test and the release of her medical records - and do an exhaustive telephone interview, without the slightest clue that this was for a ... wait for it .... life insurance policy.
How dumb does the LSM think we are?
[Major IB Thanks to Jeff M for helping me noodle through this post]
"...it appears that this may well have been an elaborately staged suicide, the point of which was to leave the proceeds of a life insurance policy to the victim's son ... “There’s no such thing as suicide insurance."
Which is true, but as we pointed out, irrelevant. It would have taken the reporter five minutes to interview a life insurance agent to provide clarity and context (not to mention accuracy).
And now we see the same shoddy reporting in another tragic case:
"... for Cindy Karlsen, there was the $1.2 million policy that her husband had now taken out on her life ... She learned Karlsen had invested some of the insurance money from his son's death into a life insurance policy on her."
And how did the erstwhile Mrs Karlsen learn this? Apparently it came as a big surprise to her that she had applied for life insurance, but some simple fact-checking by the (so-called) reporter might have revealed that it's almost impossible to buy life insurance on another person without his or her consent, let alone knowledge. And a policy with over $1 million on the line is going to require not just a physical examination, but (at least according to the carriers I represent), a telephone interview with the prospective insured.
So we are left to believe one of two things is true:
1) A life insurance company issued a million dollar policy strictly off an application - no exam, no blood or urine draw, no interview - and no effort to confirm the information on the application.
or
2) She agreed to complete and sign a lengthy life insurance application, take a fairly invasive physical exam - including, depending on her age, a stress-test and the release of her medical records - and do an exhaustive telephone interview, without the slightest clue that this was for a ... wait for it .... life insurance policy.
How dumb does the LSM think we are?
[Major IB Thanks to Jeff M for helping me noodle through this post]
Monday, September 16, 2013
Monday Afternoon LinkFest
Lately, we've had an embarrassment of riches concerning the ObamaTax and other related news. Because there are only 24 hours in a day, it's not really possible to give each one the blog-space it probably deserves, but at least we can give our readers a heads' up on what's hot:
1 - We've been warning folks about the very real probability of fraud in the new Navigator program. From FoIB Holly R here's the latest:
"...officials are watching for look-alike websites that could lead consumers to be the victims of fraud or simply confuse people ... States are on the lookout for websites created by interest groups, private insurance companies and sometimes scammers that have similar web addresses and the appearances of the official state exchange websites."
So-called "phishing" sites have been around for a long time, this seems to be the latest iteration of that phenomenon.
2 - Holly also tips us to this story - surely only one of many to come - about pushback on so-called "wellness" programs. In this case, certain employees at Penn State University are protesting a new requirement that they either participate in one of these, with the added benefit that they'll get to divulge some very personal information, at least some of which seems pretty intrusive (and doesn't seem to be particularly "health"-related):
"The plan requires nonunion employees, like professors and clerical staff members, to visit their doctors ... and submit to an extensive online health risk questionnaire that asks, among other questions, whether they have recently had problems with a co-worker, a supervisor or a divorce"
Cost for declining to participate? $100 a month (or $200 if they're married and have their spouse on the plan).
Potential solution (and probably rationale for the whole exercise): opt out of the Penn State plan and onto the Exchange.
3 - We've noted before that the Public Exchanges seem to be having a problem attracting (and keeping) carriers. Our Friend Jeff M reports from North Carolina that the Tar Heel State is no exception:
"FirstCarolinaCare Insurance abruptly pulled out of the North Carolina market, saying there are too many unknowns about how the Affordable Care Act will play out here."
So what if they gave an Exchange and no carrier came?
We may find out.
4 - And circling back around to Navigators and the likelihood of shenanigans, Florida has banned them from county health departments:
"Local health departments can accept public exchange brochures and other exchange outreach material, but they can distribute the materials only if consumers ask for information"
Florida heath officials wanted to make sure that they're agencies know that Navigators "aren't acting on behalf of the state."
Gee, one wonders why anyone would think that.
1 - We've been warning folks about the very real probability of fraud in the new Navigator program. From FoIB Holly R here's the latest:
"...officials are watching for look-alike websites that could lead consumers to be the victims of fraud or simply confuse people ... States are on the lookout for websites created by interest groups, private insurance companies and sometimes scammers that have similar web addresses and the appearances of the official state exchange websites."
So-called "phishing" sites have been around for a long time, this seems to be the latest iteration of that phenomenon.
2 - Holly also tips us to this story - surely only one of many to come - about pushback on so-called "wellness" programs. In this case, certain employees at Penn State University are protesting a new requirement that they either participate in one of these, with the added benefit that they'll get to divulge some very personal information, at least some of which seems pretty intrusive (and doesn't seem to be particularly "health"-related):
"The plan requires nonunion employees, like professors and clerical staff members, to visit their doctors ... and submit to an extensive online health risk questionnaire that asks, among other questions, whether they have recently had problems with a co-worker, a supervisor or a divorce"
Cost for declining to participate? $100 a month (or $200 if they're married and have their spouse on the plan).
Potential solution (and probably rationale for the whole exercise): opt out of the Penn State plan and onto the Exchange.
3 - We've noted before that the Public Exchanges seem to be having a problem attracting (and keeping) carriers. Our Friend Jeff M reports from North Carolina that the Tar Heel State is no exception:
"FirstCarolinaCare Insurance abruptly pulled out of the North Carolina market, saying there are too many unknowns about how the Affordable Care Act will play out here."
So what if they gave an Exchange and no carrier came?
We may find out.
4 - And circling back around to Navigators and the likelihood of shenanigans, Florida has banned them from county health departments:
"Local health departments can accept public exchange brochures and other exchange outreach material, but they can distribute the materials only if consumers ask for information"
Florida heath officials wanted to make sure that they're agencies know that Navigators "aren't acting on behalf of the state."
Gee, one wonders why anyone would think that.
Not just No, but Heck No!
As Bob noted last month, the grand folks in Capital City aren't too keen on rubbing elbows with us rubes waiting on line at the Health Insurance Exchange. Far beneath their stations in life, don'tcha know.
Well, it should probably comes as no surprise, then, to learn that Federal "workers" really don't want to give up their gold-plated (but Yugo-priced) health insurance. After all, they were promised that "if they liked their insurance, they could keep their insurance."
[Ironic, I know]
But if you'd really like to know just how much they don't want to forced off those great/affordable plans, "[a] new survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent believe federal workers should keep their current health insurance and not be forced into ObamaCare."
Frankly, I'm surprised that number's so low.
Well, it should probably comes as no surprise, then, to learn that Federal "workers" really don't want to give up their gold-plated (but Yugo-priced) health insurance. After all, they were promised that "if they liked their insurance, they could keep their insurance."
[Ironic, I know]
But if you'd really like to know just how much they don't want to forced off those great/affordable plans, "[a] new survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent believe federal workers should keep their current health insurance and not be forced into ObamaCare."
Frankly, I'm surprised that number's so low.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)