It is going to be implemented no matter how much Republicans complain about it.

I do find it interesting that Republicans note without comment that employers have complete power to reduce workers' hours to under 30 hours a week.

Ray Jay wrote:With the employer and employee mandates unraveling and the substantial evidence that employers are reducing hours to 29 per week, and other implementation delays, I'm wondering whether politically speaking the Democrats would have been better off if the SC ruled it unconstitutional.

But experts predict that premiums on individual plans will increase in most states because of the new consumer protections the sweeping legislation requires. The impact on premiums will vary across states depending on geographic location, the type of coverage and the individual characteristics of the enrollee.

For example, while Obama pointed to a reduction in premiums in New York state, state officials in Ohio say the average premium proposal for individual coverage next year is up 88 percent from this year’s average price as reported by the Society of Actuaries. In Maryland, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield proposed a 25 percent increase in premiums next year, after first seeking a 50 percent increase. Final rates haven’t been determined in either state.

The higher rates, supporters say, buy a health insurance system that guarantees access to coverage for everyone and improves benefits, such as requiring insurers to cover older children and outlawing lifetime spending limits on claims.

Obama, fighting to sell the health care law against an onslaught of criticism from Republicans, focused on the positives.

"Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor." The bottom line is that Obamacare guarantees neither. Doctors may be only available through certain networks, just as in the current system. And only plans that existed in their current form on March 23, 2010, are even eligible to be "kept." The vast majority of plans will be new, subject to a raft of new regulations, requirements, and restrictions.

freeman3 wrote:Well, on one hand you have this massive study on outcomes for trauma patients based on whether they are insured or not. On the other hand, this Oregon study measures blood pressure, cholesterol level, and blood sugar levels for a brief two year period. The trauma study is pretty much unanswerable, whereas the Oregon study (as the writer of the article notes) has significant flaws on how it is done. I don't see why statistical analysis of Medicaid patients can't be made over a longer period with regard to mortality rates (which is the primary thing to track) I am not dismissing the Oregon study, but I don't see how that overrides all of the other studies pointing to increased mortality among the uninsured. I am also wondering what the writer of the article believes with regard to studies showing uninsured do worse. He does not discuss that at all.

Piles of studies have shown that people on Medicaid have health outcomes that are no better, and often worse, than those with no insurance at all.

GMTom wrote:and already some people are getting rebate checks from insurance companies that did not meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Wow, seems like this is going to be pretty sweet huh?
On the radio this morning they had a spokesman for the largest insurance carrier in this area, he said we will not be getting checks back because they already far surpass this minimums and across the US only 1/4 of 1% can expect such refunds.
...but it was reported as being such a sweet Obamacare effect!? 1/4 of 1%, really?

geojanes wrote:

GMTom wrote:and already some people are getting rebate checks from insurance companies that did not meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Wow, seems like this is going to be pretty sweet huh?
On the radio this morning they had a spokesman for the largest insurance carrier in this area, he said we will not be getting checks back because they already far surpass this minimums and across the US only 1/4 of 1% can expect such refunds.
...but it was reported as being such a sweet Obamacare effect!? 1/4 of 1%, really?

The checks I know of are for making too much money, not a fine for not meeting the minimum standards. Is that what you mean? If so, those are very common. Most insurance providers in NY State sent out rebate checks either this year, last year or both. If the employer chips in a part of the premium for the employee, they get to keep it, as long as the rebate doesn't exceed the amount that they paid, and since the rebate is relatively small to the annual premium, that's unlikely, so that may be your 1/4 of 1%. But someone's getting a check for you Tom: Your employer is getting a rebate, thereby reducing the cost of giving you insurance. You should be thanking Mr. Obama for forcing your insurance company to give your job creator a dividend check for employing you and making your owner happy.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

GMTom wrote:and already some people are getting rebate checks from insurance companies that did not meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Wow, seems like this is going to be pretty sweet huh?
On the radio this morning they had a spokesman for the largest insurance carrier in this area, he said we will not be getting checks back because they already far surpass this minimums and across the US only 1/4 of 1% can expect such refunds.
...but it was reported as being such a sweet Obamacare effect!? 1/4 of 1%, really?

The checks I know of are for making too much money, not a fine for not meeting the minimum standards. Is that what you mean? If so, those are very common. Most insurance providers in NY State sent out rebate checks either this year, last year or both. If the employer chips in a part of the premium for the employee, they get to keep it, as long as the rebate doesn't exceed the amount that they paid, and since the rebate is relatively small to the annual premium, that's unlikely, so that may be your 1/4 of 1%. But someone's getting a check for you Tom: Your employer is getting a rebate, thereby reducing the cost of giving you insurance. You should be thanking Mr. Obama for forcing your insurance company to give your job creator a dividend check for employing you and making your owner happy.

That's right.

It doesn't matter if you lose your health insurance, have to change doctors, or your rates go through the roof, Obama only does what is good!

freeman3 wrote:Here is an analysis of the effect of the so-called 80/20 rule.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact- ... _blog.html
By the way, I remember George way back when touting this aspect of the ACA. Kudos to him for being right .