Health Law Is A Tough Sell To Uninsured

Uninsured Americans — the people that the Affordable Care Act was designed to most aid — are increasingly critical of the law as its key provisions kick in, a poll released Thursday finds.

This month’s tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 47 percent of the uninsured said they hold unfavorable views of the law while 24 percent said they liked it. These negative views have increased since December, when 43 percent of the uninsured panned the law and 36 percent liked it. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation.)

The poll did not pinpoint clear reasons for this drop, which comes in the first month that people could start using insurance purchased through the online marketplaces that are at the heart of the law. It did point out that more than half of people without insurance said the law hasn’t made a difference to them or their families. In addition, the pollsters noted that almost half of people without coverage were unaware the law includes subsidies to offset premium costs for people of low and moderate incomes.

Among all Americans, the sentiment was also negative, with 50 percent holding unfavorable views of the law and 34 percent supporting it. Views on the law have not been even since the end of 2012. Despite this, just 38 percent of the public wants the law to be repealed.

Most Americans say they have not been personally affected by the law. However, 27 percent say they have had a negative experience, while 15 percent say they’ve had a positive one. People with negative views chalked it up most often to the high costs of health care and insurance.


The pollsters surmised these views did not reflect actual experiences with the new marketplaces that began operation on Jan. 1, because only a small portion of those eligible has enrolled in them so far. The poll also noted that twice as many people said they had seen news stories about people being harmed by the law as had seen stories about people being helped.

The survey reported that four in 10 uninsured people said they had tried to get coverage in the past six months, either through Medicaid, a private insurer or the new health care online marketplaces. Seventy percent of the uninsured said they viewed health coverage as important and necessary.

The survey found that a quarter of Americans reported a change in their insurance status during the past six months. Roughly half of them attributed it to the health law, and the others cited an unrelated reason. Among those who linked their new circumstances to the health law, the most common type of change was switching health plans. About even numbers said they had gained coverage as said they lost coverage.

The survey was conducted from Jan. 14 through Jan. 21 among 1,506 adults. The margin of error was +/- 3 percentage points.

...new estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cause a larger than-expected reduction in working hours - eliminating the equivalent of about 2.3 million workers in 2021 versus a previous estimate of an 800,000 decline.

 whembly wrote:
Well... the CBO revised its numbers.

...new estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cause a larger than-expected reduction in working hours - eliminating the equivalent of about 2.3 million workers in 2021 versus a previous estimate of an 800,000 decline.

If only someone could've cut through the political BS and warned us... but we had to pass the law to find out what was in it.

Right?

Updated 12:51pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget experts say President Barack Obama's health care law will affect both the supply and the demand for labor, leading to a net reduction of about 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2024, ten years from now.

Tuesday's projection from the Congressional Budget Office is a significant increase from what the same nonpartisan analysts said in 2010, which roughly translated to 650,000 fewer jobs.

But the budget office still says almost all of the impact will come from people choosing not to work, or working less, because they can get health care outside the job.

Although some employers will choose not to hire additional workers, or reduce hours, the budget office said that does not appear to be the main factor.

 Maddermax wrote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obamacare-net-job-loss

Updated 12:51pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget experts say President Barack Obama's health care law will affect both the supply and the demand for labor, leading to a net reduction of about 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2024, ten years from now.

Tuesday's projection from the Congressional Budget Office is a significant increase from what the same nonpartisan analysts said in 2010, which roughly translated to 650,000 fewer jobs.

But the budget office still says almost all of the impact will come from people choosing not to work, or working less, because they can get health care outside the job.

Although some employers will choose not to hire additional workers, or reduce hours, the budget office said that does not appear to be the main factor.

Oh me oh my, so many poor people being forced out of work... by choice. Becoming entrepreneurs, artists or early-retirees, or doing unrecognized work like caring. The horror...the horror...

Yes, there will be some people who will be really impacted, as was always reported, but acting like this report is a bad thing for Obamacare is kinda funny.

 whembly wrote:
Unless, the Republicans feth it up somehow...

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Unless, the Republicans feth it up somehow...

You mean like Denver in the Super Bowl?

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obamacare-net-job-loss

Updated 12:51pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget experts say President Barack Obama's health care law will affect both the supply and the demand for labor, leading to a net reduction of about 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2024, ten years from now.

Tuesday's projection from the Congressional Budget Office is a significant increase from what the same nonpartisan analysts said in 2010, which roughly translated to 650,000 fewer jobs.

But the budget office still says almost all of the impact will come from people choosing not to work, or working less, because they can get health care outside the job.

Although some employers will choose not to hire additional workers, or reduce hours, the budget office said that does not appear to be the main factor.

Oh me oh my, so many poor people being forced out of work... by choice. Becoming entrepreneurs, artists or early-retirees, or doing unrecognized work like caring. The horror...the horror...

Yes, there will be some people who will be really impacted, as was always reported, but acting like this report is a bad thing for Obamacare is kinda funny.

Whatever dude...

If nothing changes... the Democrats are going to get creamed in November. Unless, the Republicans feth it up somehow... which is entirely possible.

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obamacare-net-job-loss

Updated 12:51pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget experts say President Barack Obama's health care law will affect both the supply and the demand for labor, leading to a net reduction of about 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2024, ten years from now.

Tuesday's projection from the Congressional Budget Office is a significant increase from what the same nonpartisan analysts said in 2010, which roughly translated to 650,000 fewer jobs.

But the budget office still says almost all of the impact will come from people choosing not to work, or working less, because they can get health care outside the job.

Although some employers will choose not to hire additional workers, or reduce hours, the budget office said that does not appear to be the main factor.

Oh me oh my, so many poor people being forced out of work... by choice. Becoming entrepreneurs, artists or early-retirees, or doing unrecognized work like caring. The horror...the horror...

Yes, there will be some people who will be really impacted, as was always reported, but acting like this report is a bad thing for Obamacare is kinda funny.

Whatever dude...

If nothing changes... the Democrats are going to get creamed in November. Unless, the Republicans feth it up somehow... which is entirely possible.

I wouldn't worry, Obama says he'll take care of us all, just like he has so far with Obamacare.

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obamacare-net-job-loss

Updated 12:51pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget experts say President Barack Obama's health care law will affect both the supply and the demand for labor, leading to a net reduction of about 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2024, ten years from now.

Tuesday's projection from the Congressional Budget Office is a significant increase from what the same nonpartisan analysts said in 2010, which roughly translated to 650,000 fewer jobs.

But the budget office still says almost all of the impact will come from people choosing not to work, or working less, because they can get health care outside the job.

Although some employers will choose not to hire additional workers, or reduce hours, the budget office said that does not appear to be the main factor.

Oh me oh my, so many poor people being forced out of work... by choice. Becoming entrepreneurs, artists or early-retirees, or doing unrecognized work like caring. The horror...the horror...

Yes, there will be some people who will be really impacted, as was always reported, but acting like this report is a bad thing for Obamacare is kinda funny.

Whatever dude...

If nothing changes... the Democrats are going to get creamed in November. Unless, the Republicans feth it up somehow... which is entirely possible.

I wouldn't worry, Obama says he'll take care of us all, just like he has so far with Obamacare.

I just like how the new spin is that the PPACA doesn't kill jobs... it will just enable people to quit their jobs.

So now you get to pay more for insurance so that your neighbor can quit his job. Welcome to America post-PPACA...spreading that wealth around, eh?

 Maddermax wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obamacare-net-job-loss

Updated 12:51pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget experts say President Barack Obama's health care law will affect both the supply and the demand for labor, leading to a net reduction of about 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2024, ten years from now.

Tuesday's projection from the Congressional Budget Office is a significant increase from what the same nonpartisan analysts said in 2010, which roughly translated to 650,000 fewer jobs.

But the budget office still says almost all of the impact will come from people choosing not to work, or working less, because they can get health care outside the job.

Although some employers will choose not to hire additional workers, or reduce hours, the budget office said that does not appear to be the main factor.

Oh me oh my, so many poor people being forced out of work... by choice. Becoming entrepreneurs, artists or early-retirees, or doing unrecognized work like caring. The horror...the horror...

Yes, there will be some people who will be really impacted, as was always reported, but acting like this report is a bad thing for Obamacare is kinda funny.

Whatever dude...

If nothing changes... the Democrats are going to get creamed in November. Unless, the Republicans feth it up somehow... which is entirely possible.

I wouldn't worry, Obama says he'll take care of us all, just like he has so far with Obamacare.

I just like how the new spin is that the PPACA doesn't kill jobs... it will just enable people to quit their jobs.

So now you get to pay more for insurance so that your neighbor can quit his job. Welcome to America post-PPACA...spreading that wealth around, eh?

Because FREEDOM means chaining your neighbor to his sharthole job because he has a preexisting condition, no matter what other productive activity or opportunity he could take otherwise, and don't let anyone tell you differently.

 whembly wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obamacare-net-job-loss

Updated 12:51pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget experts say President Barack Obama's health care law will affect both the supply and the demand for labor, leading to a net reduction of about 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2024, ten years from now.

Tuesday's projection from the Congressional Budget Office is a significant increase from what the same nonpartisan analysts said in 2010, which roughly translated to 650,000 fewer jobs.

But the budget office still says almost all of the impact will come from people choosing not to work, or working less, because they can get health care outside the job.

Although some employers will choose not to hire additional workers, or reduce hours, the budget office said that does not appear to be the main factor.

Oh me oh my, so many poor people being forced out of work... by choice. Becoming entrepreneurs, artists or early-retirees, or doing unrecognized work like caring. The horror...the horror...

Yes, there will be some people who will be really impacted, as was always reported, but acting like this report is a bad thing for Obamacare is kinda funny.

Whatever dude...

If nothing changes... the Democrats are going to get creamed in November. Unless, the Republicans feth it up somehow... which is entirely possible.

I wouldn't worry, Obama says he'll take care of us all, just like he has so far with Obamacare.

I just like how the new spin is that the PPACA doesn't kill jobs... it will just enable people to quit their jobs.

So now you get to pay more for insurance so that your neighbor can quit his job. Welcome to America post-PPACA...spreading that wealth around, eh?

 Maddermax wrote:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obamacare-net-job-loss

Updated 12:51pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget experts say President Barack Obama's health care law will affect both the supply and the demand for labor, leading to a net reduction of about 2.5 million full-time jobs in 2024, ten years from now.

Tuesday's projection from the Congressional Budget Office is a significant increase from what the same nonpartisan analysts said in 2010, which roughly translated to 650,000 fewer jobs.

But the budget office still says almost all of the impact will come from people choosing not to work, or working less, because they can get health care outside the job.

Although some employers will choose not to hire additional workers, or reduce hours, the budget office said that does not appear to be the main factor.

Oh me oh my, so many poor people being forced out of work... by choice. Becoming entrepreneurs, artists or early-retirees, or doing unrecognized work like caring. The horror...the horror...

Yes, there will be some people who will be really impacted, as was always reported, but acting like this report is a bad thing for Obamacare is kinda funny.

 djones520 wrote:
More great PPACA news.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-20140205,0,5417742.story#axzz2sVkSlweh

After overcoming website glitches and long waits to get Obamacare, some patients are now running into frustrating new roadblocks at the doctor's office.

A month into the most sweeping changes to healthcare in half a century, people are having trouble finding doctors at all, getting faulty information on which ones are covered and receiving little help from insurers swamped by new business.

Experts have warned for months that the logjam was inevitable. But the extent of the problems is taking by surprise many patients — and even doctors — as frustrations mount.

Aliso Viejo resident Danielle Nelson said Anthem Blue Cross promised half a dozen times that her oncologists would be covered under her new policy. She was diagnosed last year with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and discovered a suspicious lump near her jaw in early January.

But when she went to her oncologist's office, she promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.

"I'm a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can't sleep at night," Nelson said. "I can't imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen."

To hold down premiums under the healthcare law, major insurers have sharply cut the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state's new health insurance market.

Now those limited options are becoming clearer, and California officials say they are receiving more consumer complaints about access to medical providers. State lawmakers are also moving swiftly to ease some of the problems that have arisen.

"It's a little early for anyone to know how widespread and deep this problem is," said California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. "There are a lot of economic incentives for health insurers to narrow their networks, but if they go too far, people won't have access to care. Network adequacy will be a big issue in 2014."

The latest travails come at a crucial time during the rollout of Obama's signature law. Government exchanges and other supporters of the healthcare law are trying to boost enrollment, particularly among young and healthy people, ahead of a March 31 deadline.

Of course, complaints about outdated provider lists and delays in getting a doctor's appointment were common long before the healthcare law was enacted. But some experts worry the influx of newly insured patients and the cost-cutting strategies of health plans may further strain the system.

Maria Berumen, a tax preparer in Downey, was uninsured for years because of preexisting conditions. The 53-year-old was thrilled to find coverage for herself and her husband for $148 a month after qualifying for a big government subsidy.

She jumped at the chance in early January to visit a primary-care doctor for long-running numbness in her arm and shoulder as a result of bone spurs on her spine. The doctor referred her to a specialist, and problems ensued. At least four doctors wouldn't accept her health plan — even though the state exchange website and her insurer, Health Net Inc., list them as part of her HMO network.

"It's a phantom network," Berumen said.

It was no surprise to her family doctor, Ragaa Iskarous. She has run into this problem repeatedly with other patients in the last month, the doctor said. "This is really driving us crazy."

Berumen said she was seen by a neurosurgeon Thursday — after state regulators intervened on her behalf.

Insurers say they are working hard to resolve customers' problems as they arise, and they continue to add physicians to augment certain geographic areas and medical specialties.

"Any huge implementation like this comes with a lot of moving parts," said Health Net spokesman Brad Kieffer. "There is a learning curve for everyone, and we expect as time goes on these issues should dissipate."

Looking to head off potential problems, government regulators and patient advocates are pushing for tougher rules to ensure health plans provide timely access to care.

Last week, the California Assembly approved legislation enabling people who lost coverage because of the overhaul to keep seeing their doctors if they're pregnant or undergoing treatment for cancer or other conditions.

Nelson, the cancer patient in Orange County, and her family lost their previous coverage when Aetna stopped selling individual policies in the state last year. After numerous complaints to her new insurer, Anthem, and to public officials, the company said it would cover visits to her current oncologist through March 31.

Nelson said such a temporary extension doesn't solve the problem, and as a result, she's rushing to check out other policies for herself before open enrollment closes in March.

A spokesman for Anthem said the company "continually works to update its provider directories to ensure accuracy" and helps customers with these issues on a case-by-case basis.

Nationwide, about 70% of new insurance plans under the healthcare law feature relatively narrow hospital networks compared with many existing plans, according to consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

"It's pretty clear insurers responded to greater competition by trying to hold down costs through narrower networks," said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. "Insurers have made the judgment that people prefer lower premiums to broader networks."

Health policy experts and some consumer advocates say the trade-offs may pay off. Despite some consumer complaints, the exclusion of some higher-priced hospitals such as Cedars-Sinai Medical Center from nearly all exchange plans is a positive sign, they say.

"The Affordable Care Act often gets accused of not doing enough to control costs," said Ian Hill, senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "Excluding some of the most expensive hospitals and providers who don't demonstrate high-quality outcomes is one ripple effect that may help."

The Covered California exchange began enrollment in October without the provider directory it had promised. Delays and glitches ensued for weeks, frustrating many consumers who complained that it was impossible to compare health plans without details on what hospitals and doctors were included. In November, the exchange updated its directory.

The exchange said its 11 health plans offer more than 58,000 physicians to choose from, representing 80% to 90% of practicing physicians in the state.

The California Medical Assn. credits the exchange for fixing many of the initial problems but maintains that the state's data are still flawed, often because of incorrect information from health plans. Insurers blame doctor's offices for frequently giving wrong information.

Scott Marshutz of Dana Point said he picked a Blue Shield PPO plan in the exchange so he and his wife would have greater choice of doctors.

But when he booked an appointment recently with his orthopedic surgeon, the doctor's office said it wasn't taking Covered California plans.

"I'm wondering how many other people have experienced this," he said, "and if it will backfire on the whole system."

AOL became the latest company to blame Obamacare for cutting back on employee benefits.
The tech firm will now pay its 401(k) company match only to employees who are active on Dec. 31 of that year, as opposed to in their paychecks throughout the year. So those who leave the company before the end of the year will forfeit the match.

AOL (AOL) CEO Tim Armstrong blamed $7.1 million in additional Obamacare costs the company is facing this year. Had the company not made the change in its 401(k) payments, employees would have seen their health insurance costs increase, he told CNN Thursday.
Armstrong did not provide a lot of specifics about what aspects of Obamacare were pushing up the company's health care costs, but said it was one factor affecting the 401(k) restructuring.
"The Obamacare Act and some of the changes that happened there had increases in our health care costs," Armstrong told CNN. "We had to make a choice whether we pass those on or whether we took other benefits and reduce them."
Some employees will still see their premiums rise, depending on the plan they picked, though AOL "ate a huge piece of the increase."
The news came on a day when AOL announced 2013 was "its most successful year in the last decade," reporting revenues of $2.3 billion.

AOL's move makes it the latest in a string of companies to change their benefits because of Obamacare. A few weeks ago, Target (TGT, Fortune 500) said it will stop offering health insurance to part-timers and instead help them buy coverage on the state and federal exchanges. Last year, United Parcel Service (UPS, Fortune 500) and University of Virginia said they are dropping coverage for employees' spouses that have access to benefits elsewhere because of Obamacare.

Transitional reinsurance fee: This fee will be imposed on employers for the next three years and will go toward helping the state-based insurance exchanges pay for large claims. The fee will be $63 per insured member in 2014, but is expected to decrease in the latter two years.

Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute fee: This charge will go to pay for a new agency tasked with giving patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available, and the science that supports those options. Employers were charged $1 per insured person in 2013 and will pay $2 in 2014. The fee then increases with inflation in health care spending for the next five years.

Health insurer fee: This annual fee is aimed at helping pay for the implementation of ACA. It will be about 2.5% of total premiums in 2014 and is expected to go up to 4% by 2017. Beyond that, it will rise with the growth in premiums. Insurers are expected to pass this fee through to employers.

'Cadillac' tax: Starting in 2018, employers who offer rich benefit plans -- where the total premium will cost more than $10,200 for an individual plan or $27,500 for family coverage -- will have to pay the so-called Cadillac tax, a 40% tax on the amount over the threshold. This tax is prompting companies to shift more medical expenses onto employees, which not only brings down the price of the premiums, but also pushes employees and their spouses to consider other options available to them.

Individual mandate: Also adding to employer costs is the Obamacare requirement that Americans obtain insurance or face a penalty starting in this year. That will prompt many employees who had opted out of their company's coverage to sign up.
Aside from new Obamacare fees and taxes, the growth of health care costs has been at record low levels for several years. Annual premiums -- including both employers' and employees' shares -- rose only 4% in 2013, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET) 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hundreds of people with HIV/AIDS in Louisiana trying to obtain coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform are in danger of being thrown out of the insurance plan they selected in a dispute over federal subsidies and the interpretation of federal rules about preventing Obamacare fraud.

Some healthcare advocates see discrimination in the move, but Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana says it is not trying to keep people with HIV/AIDS from enrolling in one of its policies under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The state's largest carrier is rejecting checks from a federal program designed to help these patients pay for AIDS drugs and insurance premiums, and has begun notifying customers that their enrollment in its Obamacare plans will be discontinued.

The carrier says it no longer will accept third-party payments, such as those under the 1990 Ryan White Act, which many people with HIV/AIDS use to pay their premiums.

"In no event will coverage be provided to any subscribers, as of March 1, 2014, unless the premiums are paid by the subscriber (or a relative) unless otherwise required by law," Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana spokesman John Maginnis told Reuters.

 LordofHats wrote:
I falsely assumed this thread was buried in the depths of OT by now XD

 LordofHats wrote:
I falsely assumed this thread was buried in the depths of OT by now XD

 LordofHats wrote:
I falsely assumed this thread was buried in the depths of OT by now XD

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I falsely assumed this thread was buried in the depths of OT by now XD

Obamacare is the gift that just keeps taking.

 LordofHats wrote:
I falsely assumed this thread was buried in the depths of OT by now XD

Relapse wrote:
I'm starting to think, for whatever reason, it was meant to fail from the beginning.

 sebster wrote:
makes a lot more sense when you see the kind of social dynamics that leads to people forming groups that listen only to people they agree with, and actively hunting down all information that supports their case, and not questioning at all people in the group making points for their case, no matter how flimsy individual bits of reasoning might be.

t actually helps me understand how all sorts of historically bad ideas ended up happening, something like the Maginot Line which really was just inexplicably stupid makes a lot more sense when you see the kind of social dynamics that leads to people forming groups that listen only to people they agree with, and actively hunting down all information that supports their case, and not questioning at all people in the group making points for their case, no matter how flimsy individual bits of reasoning might be.

 Ouze wrote:
I see no way that approach could backfire in any way, ever.

 LordofHats wrote:
Welcome to the modern Video Game Industry.

 sebster wrote:
It's actually quite interesting to read, if you look at it in the right context. Basically we have a handful of posters all finding bits and pieces from the conservative press about how bad and evil and doomed to fail ACA is, and posting them here, where they'll all post things agreeing with each other that the correct that article is that ACA is the worst thing ever... it's kind of like watching the creation of myth, in real time.

Awr Hawkins wrote:Rep Keith Ellison on Obamacare-Related Job Losses: Americans Work Too Much Anyway



During the February 9 airing of This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) said the loss of work hours due to Obamacare could actually be a good thing because Americans work too much anyway, compared to people in other industrialized countries.

The discussion began when round-table host Jonathan Karl asked Congressman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) about a CBO report showing "the equivalent of two million-plus workers coming out of the economy" due to Obamacare.

Cole said, "Obamacare has been an issue from day one that's hurt Democrats and helped Republicans." And he said it's "not going to go away" as an issue "because it's fundamentally a flawed, bad policy."

Ellison countered that the CBO report on the reduction of hours worked means, "We are going to have parents being able to come home, working reasonable hours. People are going to be able to retire. People might actually be able to cook dinner rather than have to order out and get some takeout."

He added: "If you look at international comparisons country by country, Americans work way more that the average of industrialized countries around the world."

He said the report showing fewer work hours gives us the chance "to look at our work/life balance," which he described as "a great opportunity."

Congressman Cole responded: "Strange spin. I don't think it's going to work."