Jihadin wrote:
One can no longer enroll into ACA for the year? Almost midnight when I was looking so my reading comprehension might have been off..

 Breotan wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
One can no longer enroll into ACA for the year? Almost midnight when I was looking so my reading comprehension might have been off..

Open enrollment is continuing through "Special Enrollment" exemptions. Special exemptions can cover anything from "life changes" such as getting pregnant to not being able to get coverage in time due to the defective web site. One program being offered mentioned that "proof of being unable to enroll via the web site might be required" although I've no idea how you go about proving that.

After holding tight to her position as Health and Human Services Secretary for five years, Kathleen Sebelius resigned earlier this evening.

Sebelius became a household name in the fall for her role supervising the troubled rollout of the Healthcare.gov website and the general failure of President Obama’s signature healthcare law thus far.

The White House announced that tomorrow Obama will nominate Syliva Mathews Burwell, the director of the Office of Management and Budget to succeed Sebelius – a name that few know today, but will certainly come to recognize once she takes over.

According to reports, Sebelius was not forced out and chose to resign on her own recognizance. That said, her decision to leave coincides with a major push by the Obama administration to move past the early failures of the healthcare law, especially in light of the upcoming midterm elections wherein the law will feature prominently.

One of her last acts as HHS Secretary was to testify before the powerful Senate Finance Committee wherein she touted that 7.5 million people had enrolled in private insurance plans – half a million more than the original CBO projections.

Unsurprisingly, the Republican response to Sebelius’s resignation was cold and snarky:

“I thank Secretary Sebelius for her service. She had an impossible task: nobody can make Obamacare work,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor tweeted.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus called Sebelius’s oversight of the healthcare law “disastrous.”

He echoed Cantor’s sentiments, adding that no matter who is in charge of the law, Obamacare is doomed to never be anything but a failure.

The White House hopes that Ms. Burwell will be at least part of the answer to their healthcare woes.

“The president wants to make sure we have a proven manager and relentless implementer in the job over there, which is why he is going to nominate Sylvia,” said Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff.

I personally know Sylvia well and worked with her in the Clinton administration. I believe that she offers the prospect for the hard-headed administrative oversight and direction that Sebelius was clearly unable to provide.

To be sure, it is good news for the President and the law itself that there will be a new face to represent it that does not harken back to the early days of failures.

But Sebelius’s departure should not be considered as a fix to a law that has real and enduring problems.

We still don’t know how many of the enrollees aren’t those who lost coverage as a result of the law. And there are a number of reforms – including being able to purchase coverage across state lines, expanding the use of health savings accounts for those with high deductible plans and tort reform amongst others – that should be implemented in order to maximize effectiveness of the law.

The Republican crusade to repeal Obamacare will not stop with Sebelius’s resignation. Indeed, it may only intensify.

It is President Obama and the Democrats’s job to show that they are ready to work across the aisle and make the healthcare law effective. If they don’t do that, it frankly doesn’t matter who is in charge.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Spoiler:

Health And Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Resigns

After holding tight to her position as Health and Human Services Secretary for five years, Kathleen Sebelius resigned earlier this evening.

Sebelius became a household name in the fall for her role supervising the troubled rollout of the Healthcare.gov website and the general failure of President Obama’s signature healthcare law thus far.

The White House announced that tomorrow Obama will nominate Syliva Mathews Burwell, the director of the Office of Management and Budget to succeed Sebelius – a name that few know today, but will certainly come to recognize once she takes over.

According to reports, Sebelius was not forced out and chose to resign on her own recognizance. That said, her decision to leave coincides with a major push by the Obama administration to move past the early failures of the healthcare law, especially in light of the upcoming midterm elections wherein the law will feature prominently.

One of her last acts as HHS Secretary was to testify before the powerful Senate Finance Committee wherein she touted that 7.5 million people had enrolled in private insurance plans – half a million more than the original CBO projections.

Unsurprisingly, the Republican response to Sebelius’s resignation was cold and snarky:

“I thank Secretary Sebelius for her service. She had an impossible task: nobody can make Obamacare work,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor tweeted.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus called Sebelius’s oversight of the healthcare law “disastrous.”

He echoed Cantor’s sentiments, adding that no matter who is in charge of the law, Obamacare is doomed to never be anything but a failure.

The White House hopes that Ms. Burwell will be at least part of the answer to their healthcare woes.

“The president wants to make sure we have a proven manager and relentless implementer in the job over there, which is why he is going to nominate Sylvia,” said Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff.

I personally know Sylvia well and worked with her in the Clinton administration. I believe that she offers the prospect for the hard-headed administrative oversight and direction that Sebelius was clearly unable to provide.

To be sure, it is good news for the President and the law itself that there will be a new face to represent it that does not harken back to the early days of failures.

But Sebelius’s departure should not be considered as a fix to a law that has real and enduring problems.

We still don’t know how many of the enrollees aren’t those who lost coverage as a result of the law. And there are a number of reforms – including being able to purchase coverage across state lines, expanding the use of health savings accounts for those with high deductible plans and tort reform amongst others – that should be implemented in order to maximize effectiveness of the law.

The Republican crusade to repeal Obamacare will not stop with Sebelius’s resignation. Indeed, it may only intensify.

It is President Obama and the Democrats’s job to show that they are ready to work across the aisle and make the healthcare law effective. If they don’t do that, it frankly doesn’t matter who is in charge.

Happy now whembley .

 CptJake wrote:
From the Democratic perspective, this is great. Confirmation hearings while they were trying to implement would have been a political disaster. Now that it is implemented, and with the 50+1 confirmation procedure set in, this won't hurt them. It will give them the opportunity to make the Rs look like vindictive rights destroying fiends and the Ds as the Passer Outers of Free Good Things.

 CptJake wrote:
Premiums won't go up until after the election along with the next enrollment period.

As for popularity, just watch the spin during the confirmation hearings. An in place entitlement is about impossible to dig out, popular or not. The Rs will focus on 'how do you fix it' and the Ds will make the Rs look like evil candy stealing obstructionists.

U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, the lone member of the Bay State delegation to vote against Obama­care four years ago, now predicts the law’s botched roll-out will not only cost Democrats valuable House seats but could even jeopardize their control of the Senate in this year’s hotly contested midterm elections.

“We will lose seats in the House,” the plain-talking South Boston Democrat said in Boston Herald Radio’s studio yesterday, delivering a harsh diagnosis. “I am fairly certain of that based on the poll numbers that are coming out from the more experienced pollsters down there. And I think we may lose the Senate. I think that’s a possibility if things continue to go the way they have been ... primarily because of health care.”

Lynch cuttingly questioned whether many of his colleagues who echoed President Obama’s health care promises even “read through the bill really,” noting that many mechanisms created to fund the law still aren’t in effect.

Among them, Lynch said, is a hefty tax on employers who offer so-called “Cadillac” plans that won’t come into play until 2018.

“There’s all these taxes and fees that are the tough medicine, that up to now they haven’t implemented. I don’t know who’s going to do that,” Lynch said. “Maybe ... they expect the next administration is going to put these penalties in place. I think that’s the time it’s going to hit the fan.”

The Obamacare fallout has already written the script for Republicans in races nationwide, including in two of New England’s most closely watched bouts.

Former state Sen. Richard Tisei has made it a centerpiece of his push to unseat John Tierney in the 6th District, dubbing Obamacare a “disaster.” Scott Brown has delivered similar slams in his Granite State campaign to oust U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, whom he’s panned as the law’s deciding vote.

Tisei seized on Lynch’s remarks, praising Lynch in a statement yesterday for “telling the truth about how destructive Obamacare has been” in Massachusetts.

“If I’m elected to Congress, I look forward to working with Rep. Lynch to fix the mess Obamacare has made of our state-based system, which was once touted as the best in the country,” Tisei said.

Longtime Tierney adviser Michael Goldman countered, “While it may be an issue in some places around country, it’s not an issue for Tierney.” He predicted voters will judge Tierney on his “entire legislative issue, not on any single issue.”

Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said the key for Democrats is promoting the law’s popular parts, citing a provision letting parents cover their children until age 26 — even though recent polls show the majority of people look at the law itself negatively. A Gallup poll last week showed 54 percent of Americans disapproved of the Affordable Care Act, compared to 43 percent who approved of it.

“The question for Democrats is they own their vote, they own the bill, and they can’t run away from it. So they need to embrace it and talk about the features people love,” McMahon said. “And there are many.”

Obamacare effects are bigger than expected, poll finds
New Gallup survey data suggest that about 12 million previously uninsured Americans have gained coverage since the fall.

By Noam Levey

5:56 PM PDT, April 16, 2014

WASHINGTON — President Obama's health law has led to an even greater increase in health coverage than previously estimated, according to new Gallup survey data, which suggests that about 12 million previously uninsured Americans have gained coverage since last fall.

That is millions more than Gallup found in March and suggests that as many as 4 million people have signed up for some kind of insurance in the last several weeks as the first enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act drew to a close.

Just 12.9% of adults nationally lacked coverage in the first half of April, initial data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index indicate. That's the lowest rate since the survey began in 2008.

Eighteen percent were uninsured in the third quarter of 2013, just before Americans could start shopping for coverage on the new online marketplaces created by the law.

Gallup pollsters cautioned that the data are preliminary but said it is increasingly clear the health law is responsible for the gains. "It is fair to say it is having a significant impact," said Dan Witters, the survey's research director.

Critics of the law, sometimes called Obamacare, say it has done little to expand health coverage.

Gallup's latest data, which parallel recent findings from Rand Corp. and the Urban Institute, lump together all coverage gains, including those on the marketplaces, as well as through other forms of insurance, such as Medicaid, employer-provided coverage and health plans purchased directly from insurers.

The data also take into account any losses in coverage the law may have brought about by the cancellation of health plans that did not meet new standards.

The health law enables Americans who do not get coverage through an employer to select a plan on government-run marketplaces. Insurers must offer a basic set of benefits and can no longer turn away sick customers.

Americans making less than four times the federal poverty level — about $94,000 for a family of four — qualify for government subsidies in most parts of the country.

In about half the states, very low-income Americans can sign up for Medicaid. Most Republican-led states, however, have not expanded the program to cover all low-income residents, an option provided by the health law.

The disparity between states that have embraced the health law and those fighting it is already showing up in health coverage, Gallup found.

From 2013 to the first quarter of 2014, the uninsured rate fell to 13.6% from 16.1% in the 21 states that are expanding Medicaid and are fully or partially operating their own marketplaces, rather than deferring that job to the federal government.

The uninsured rate dropped about a third as much in the states that have not fully embraced the law, to 17.9% from 18.7%, the poll found

"The gap is widening," Witters said.

The Obama administration reported last week that 7.5 million people have signed up for coverage through the marketplaces.

Not all of these people were previously uninsured, however. Some probably had coverage through an employer. Some may have bought insurance directly from an insurance company. Others may have been on government programs, such as Medicaid.

Gallup's polling does not clarify how many of the 7.5 million were previously uninsured, nor does the survey identify whether the newly insured got coverage on a marketplace or through other avenues, such as Medicaid or an employer.

The new data do provide some new insights into who the newly insured are, however.

They appear to be slightly younger than the population at large, with two-thirds ages 18 to 49, compared with 55% of the population at large.

And they are about as healthy as the general population, according to self-reported health status.

The newly insured also seem to reflect the nation's deep political divide over the health law; 54% are Democrats, while just 24% are Republicans.

Frank Newport, Gallup editor in chief, said that suggests Americans' political leanings may be influencing their decisions about whether to get health insurance. Gallup has found that although about 3 in 4 Democrats approve of the health law, just 1 in 6 Republicans do.

Gallup interviews about 14,800 adults a month nationwide for the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, making it one of the largest health insurance surveys in the nation.

 motyak wrote:
That's your response to the article? Really? Just ignore it and shout "Liar liar pants on fire". Good work.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 motyak wrote:
That's your response to the article? Really? Just ignore it and shout "Liar liar pants on fire". Good work.

The numbers are suspect, as are many members of his administration, and the Jpeg is only using direct quotes from him, so, yeah pretty much. So has the program extended benefits to Australia or are you just an Americaphile?

 motyak wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 motyak wrote:
That's your response to the article? Really? Just ignore it and shout "Liar liar pants on fire". Good work.

The numbers are suspect, as are many members of his administration, and the Jpeg is only using direct quotes from him, so, yeah pretty much. So has the program extended benefits to Australia or are you just an Americaphile?

Aaand back we go to "don't comment on stuff outside your country". Stay classy Space.

 Maddermax wrote:
Ok, Credit where Credit is due, so I'll give it to Breotan here. He said the numbers would be revised, and look, they're already being revised. Except up, not down.

Obamacare effects are bigger than expected, poll finds
New Gallup survey data suggest that about 12 million previously uninsured Americans have gained coverage since the fall.

By Noam Levey

5:56 PM PDT, April 16, 2014

WASHINGTON — President Obama's health law has led to an even greater increase in health coverage than previously estimated, according to new Gallup survey data, which suggests that about 12 million previously uninsured Americans have gained coverage since last fall.

That is millions more than Gallup found in March and suggests that as many as 4 million people have signed up for some kind of insurance in the last several weeks as the first enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act drew to a close.

Just 12.9% of adults nationally lacked coverage in the first half of April, initial data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index indicate. That's the lowest rate since the survey began in 2008.

Eighteen percent were uninsured in the third quarter of 2013, just before Americans could start shopping for coverage on the new online marketplaces created by the law.

Gallup pollsters cautioned that the data are preliminary but said it is increasingly clear the health law is responsible for the gains. "It is fair to say it is having a significant impact," said Dan Witters, the survey's research director.

Critics of the law, sometimes called Obamacare, say it has done little to expand health coverage.

Gallup's latest data, which parallel recent findings from Rand Corp. and the Urban Institute, lump together all coverage gains, including those on the marketplaces, as well as through other forms of insurance, such as Medicaid, employer-provided coverage and health plans purchased directly from insurers.

The data also take into account any losses in coverage the law may have brought about by the cancellation of health plans that did not meet new standards.

The health law enables Americans who do not get coverage through an employer to select a plan on government-run marketplaces. Insurers must offer a basic set of benefits and can no longer turn away sick customers.

Americans making less than four times the federal poverty level — about $94,000 for a family of four — qualify for government subsidies in most parts of the country.

In about half the states, very low-income Americans can sign up for Medicaid. Most Republican-led states, however, have not expanded the program to cover all low-income residents, an option provided by the health law.

The disparity between states that have embraced the health law and those fighting it is already showing up in health coverage, Gallup found.

From 2013 to the first quarter of 2014, the uninsured rate fell to 13.6% from 16.1% in the 21 states that are expanding Medicaid and are fully or partially operating their own marketplaces, rather than deferring that job to the federal government.

The uninsured rate dropped about a third as much in the states that have not fully embraced the law, to 17.9% from 18.7%, the poll found

"The gap is widening," Witters said.

The Obama administration reported last week that 7.5 million people have signed up for coverage through the marketplaces.

Not all of these people were previously uninsured, however. Some probably had coverage through an employer. Some may have bought insurance directly from an insurance company. Others may have been on government programs, such as Medicaid.

Gallup's polling does not clarify how many of the 7.5 million were previously uninsured, nor does the survey identify whether the newly insured got coverage on a marketplace or through other avenues, such as Medicaid or an employer.

The new data do provide some new insights into who the newly insured are, however.

They appear to be slightly younger than the population at large, with two-thirds ages 18 to 49, compared with 55% of the population at large.

And they are about as healthy as the general population, according to self-reported health status.

The newly insured also seem to reflect the nation's deep political divide over the health law; 54% are Democrats, while just 24% are Republicans.

Frank Newport, Gallup editor in chief, said that suggests Americans' political leanings may be influencing their decisions about whether to get health insurance. Gallup has found that although about 3 in 4 Democrats approve of the health law, just 1 in 6 Republicans do.

Gallup interviews about 14,800 adults a month nationwide for the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, making it one of the largest health insurance surveys in the nation.

 Ouze wrote:
Fascinating. Easysauce is critical of Obamacare, but also Canadian, and yet no one's telling him to keep his opinion to himself.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 dogma wrote:



When did Obama say he wouldn't support gay marriage?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm also trying to remember the "If you like your healthcare" quote...

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm also trying to remember the "If you like your healthcare" quote...

What, are you turning into dogma?

http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/

 Seaward wrote:

What, are you turning into dogma?

 dogma wrote:
So can I presume that you, much like Spacemanvic, don't know when Obama said he wouldn't support gay marriage?

 Seaward wrote:

He said he didn't support it during his first election.

 Seaward wrote:

But hey, since we're doing this, is it still your position that "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan," wasn't a lie?

 dogma wrote:
He did, but not being in support of a thing does not mean you oppose it.

Yes. No relevant facts have changed.