GOP struggles with Obamacare surge

[Cigar]

GOP struggles with Obamacare surge

By Steve Benen

As much of the country has probably heard, today marks the end of the open-enrollment period in the Affordable Care Act, and consumers who don’t get coverage are likely to face a tax penalty. ACA proponents have long predicted there’d be an 11th-hour surge in folks signing up, and right now, those predictions are holding up nicely...the White House posted photos over the weekend of events in Nevada, Texas, and Florida, where Americans lined up at grassroots events to enroll in the system...Enrollment through exchanges will likely get close to the 7 million threshold, and that won’t include Americans who’ve gained coverage through Medicaid, through their parents’ plans, or through direct enrollment that bypassed the exchanges...the L.A. Times reported this morning, “(A)t least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gained coverage” – a number that keeps growing – as the rate of uninsured continues to drop.

Congressional Republicans, who are making no effort to hide the fact they’re rooting against the U.S. health care system, aren’t taking the news well.


Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) on Sunday dismissed the White House’s recent announcement that Obamacare enrollment had reached more than 6 million people, calling it a meaningless figure.

“I don’t think it means anything. … I think they’re cooking the books on this,” said Barrasso on “Fox News Sunday.”

Even by GOP standards, this was a rather extraordinary moment. A member of the Senate Republican leadership – indeed, the chair of the Senate Republican Policy Committee – went on national television to accuse the White House of perpetrating a fraud based on nothing but his own hopes...When enrollment totals were low, Barrasso said the figures were very important. When enrollment totals surged, Barrasso said the figures don’t mean anything...For another, there’s literally no evidence to suggest the enrollment totals are illegitimate or have been “cooked” for political purposes. For a Senate leader to make such a reckless accusation out of frustration – a U.S. senator is apparently annoyed by American consumers gaining access to affordable medical care – is deeply irresponsible...confronted with information they find ideologically confusing, Republicans have suddenly become Luke Skywalker, learning who his father is for the first time.

“No! That’s not true!” they say. “That’s impossible!”

Reality, however, is stubborn. It’s eerily reminiscent of Election Night 2012 – conservatives had spent months telling themselves that the polls are wrong, the evidence was skewed, and the facts had been manipulated by rascally liberals, so they were absolutely shocked when President Obama won a second term rather easily.

- more -

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-struggles-obamacare-surge



Long Lines As Obamacare Enrollment Deadline Fast Approaches (PHOTOS)

<...>


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bj6Gjv6CQAAMfPR.jpg

Steven Venick @Steven_Venick
Follow
Had to open up an overflow waiting room at @ElValorSchool for all the people who want to #GetCovered!! @GetCoveredIL
12:23 PM - 29 Mar 2014Chicago, IL, United States

89 Retweets 35 favorites


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bj6FVMYCcAAM28M.png

David Simas ✔ @Simas44
Follow
Lines around the building in McAllen, Texas as people #GetCoveredNow

Texas-sized #ACASurge through Monday!
12:18 PM - 29 Mar 2014

217 Retweets 157 favorites


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bj7ImBoCQAAYXaN.jpg

HealthCare.gov ✔ @HealthCareGov
Follow
Columbia, SC is getting in-person help to #GetCovered. Visit http://localhelp.healthcare.gov to find help. h/t @accessfreely
5:12 PM - 29 Mar 2014

55 Retweets 16 favorites
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/long-lines-acasurge-obamacare-enrollment

So, Ted Cruz has a poll about "Obamacare" on his Facebook page: Quick poll: Obamacare was signed into law four years ago yesterday. Are you better off now than you were then?

Comment with YES or NO!



As of just now, there are 41,386 responses. Every single one I looked at either had some variation of "YES" or was giving him hell for the shutdown:

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/517779935000978 (http://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/517779935000978)


Not quite the response he expected, I'm sure! http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/rofl.gif

[Blackrook]

So did you hear about that guy in Nevada who signed up for Obamacare but still got stuck with a $407,000 medical bill?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/obamacare-leaves-las-vegas-man-owing-407000-doctor-bills

What about him?

[nic34]

Those stories have happened before.... remember, you're talking about insurance companies.

[Blackrook]

Those stories have happened before.... remember, you're talking about insurance companies.
So that's your excuse? In other words, you will tell this guy stuck with a $407,000 insurance bill to go fuck off and die, with the excuse, "Well, it's happened before, so go fuck off and die."

[Mac-7]

Congressional Republicans, who are making no effort to hide the fact they’re rooting against the U.S. health care system, aren’t taking the news well.






That's only how libs see it.

Conservative Republicans think ObamaCare is a bastardization of the previous healthcare system that served most Americans well.

Obama and his healthcare scheme are the enemy of Americans who had good healthcare before he came along.

[patrickt]

So did you hear about that guy in Nevada who signed up for Obamacare but still got stuck with a $407,000 medical bill?

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/obamacare-leaves-las-vegas-man-owing-407000-doctor-bills

What about him?

They're all lies. Sen. Reid said so and he wouldn't lie, would he?

[Mainecoons]

Those stories have happened before.... remember, you're talking about insurance companies.

But ObombedItCare was supposed to fix this stuff.

Wait until some of these folks actually try to use these crappy policies. That's when the fun will start.

[barbarap]

[/INDENT]

That's only how libs see it.

Conservative Republicans think ObamaCare is a bastardization of the previous healthcare system that served most Americans well.

Obama and his healthcare scheme are the enemy of Americans who had good healthcare before he came along.

Data indicates that the previous health care system didn't serve most Americans very well.

Under the old system, Americans paid more for health care with worse outcomes than other industrialized countries.

I don't think the ACA is the best alternative, but to say the old system served Americans well is contrary to all available data.

[nic34]

So that's your excuse? In other words, you will tell this guy stuck with a $407,000 insurance bill to go fuck off and die, with the excuse, "Well, it's happened before, so go fuck off and die."

Example of a voter that says nothing till it's too late, then cries obamacare.....

This kind of thing was happening even before O-care.

What was YOUR solution?

Did you favor ANY change?

Did you support single payer?

The public option? .......

ER care?

la la la la la la.... I caaaan't heeeear youuuu.......

[Paperback Writer]

Evil insurance companies harmed Americans and made it difficult for them to obtain cheap insurance. Evil insurance companies get rewarded by having mandated customers. Evil insurance companies make money. Healthy middle class males pay the price.

This is just brilliant! Good job, Yanks.

[Paperback Writer]

Example of a voter that says nothing till it's too late, then cries obamacare.....

This kind of thing was happening even before O-care.

What was YOUR solution?

Did you favor ANY change?

Did you support single payer?

The public option? .......

ER care?

la la la la la la.... I caaaan't heeeear youuuu.......


Catastrophic for all, but only catastrophic. Even middle class people get cancer.

[Captain Obvious]

But ObombedItCare was supposed to fix this stuff.

Wait until some of these folks actually try to use these crappy policies. That's when the fun will start.

Does anyone have any data on what the population is experiencing on average or are we just going to single out individual events and extrapolate assumptions on them?

[barbarap]

Does anyone have any data on what the population is experiencing on average or are we just going to single out individual events and extrapolate assumptions on them?


I think it's probably too soon for any reliable hard data on the success or failure of the ACA, but here is some information that gives some insight:

http://m.lifehealthpro.com/2014/03/31/judging-obamacare-how-do-we-know-if-its-a-success?ref=hp

[patrickt]

Data indicates that the previous health care system didn't serve most Americans very well.

Under the old system, Americans paid more for health care with worse outcomes than other industrialized countries.

I don't think the ACA is the best alternative, but to say the old system served Americans well is contrary to all available data.

Nonsense. The healthcare system served most Americans quite well and if you looked at survival rates we were better than countries with socialized medicine.

The healthcare system did not serve the federal government well but, amazingly, as they look to socialized medicine they are carefully excluding...themselves.

[barbarap]

Nonsense. The healthcare system served most Americans quite well and if you looked at survival rates we were better than countries with socialized medicine.

The healthcare system did not serve the federal government well but, amazingly, as they look to socialized medicine they are carefully excluding...themselves.

According to the data, you are wrong.

Health care in the United States is more expensive with worse results than other countries.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/09/168976602/u-s-ranks-below-16-other-rich-countries-in-health-report

There is a lot of reliable data available that verifies this fact. The link above provides a nice summary, but google for reliable and legitimate sources for more information if you care to educate yourself further.

[Chris]

Does anyone have any data on what the population is experiencing on average or are we just going to single out individual events and extrapolate assumptions on them?


I think it's probably too soon for any reliable hard data on the success or failure of the ACA, but here is some information that gives some insight:

http://m.lifehealthpro.com/2014/03/31/judging-obamacare-how-do-we-know-if-its-a-success?ref=hp



And there's this from Can Anyone Tell How Obamacare Is Doing? (http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/31/can-anyone-tell-how-obamacare-is-doing/):


...

http://i.snag.gy/0urLx.jpg

...what Gallup really shows is an astonishing spike in the percentage of uninsured in 2013 (see below) In fact, this survey is quite interesting. It shows an increase in the numbers of insured from a low of 14.4% just before Obama took office as the effects of the recession and poor employment numbers took hold. This peaked in late 2011 at 17.5% and was starting to come down, all the way to 16.3% in late 2012, when it suddenly shot up again in 2013 to 18%. This spike is likely the result of pre-Obamacare cancellations.

So, does that Administration really deserve credit for lowering the percentage today, when it also caused the rise last year? In fact, even at 15.9% the Administration has yet to get back to the 14.4% before the President was sworn in to office.

...

OBama and Obamacare have made things worse.

[barbarap]

And there's this from Can Anyone Tell How Obamacare Is Doing? (http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/31/can-anyone-tell-how-obamacare-is-doing/):



OBama and Obamacare have made things worse.


It appears you are rating the ACA on one variable, a variable which was impacted due to implementation.

While those numbers do tell a story, there still isn't enough hard data to measure the over all success or failure of the legislation.

[Mac-7]

Data indicates that the previous health care system didn't serve most Americans very well.

Under the old system, Americans paid more for health care with worse outcomes than other industrialized countries.

I don't think the ACA is the best alternative, but to say the old system served Americans well is contrary to all available data.

Most Americans were satisfied with the previous healthcare they were getting.

That's why Obama had to tell lies such as they could keep their current plans and doctors and pay less.

if he had told told the truth ObamaCare never would have passed in congress.

[barbarap]

Most Americans were satisfied with the previous healthcare they were getting.

That's why Obama had to tell lies such as they could keep their current plans and doctors and pay less.

if he had told told the truth ObamaCare never would have passed in congress.

I respect your right to your opinion, but the data does not support your assertion.

[Chris]

It appears you are rating the ACA on one variable, a variable which was impacted due to implementation.

While those numbers do tell a story, there still isn't enough hard data to measure the over all success or failure of the legislation.



Yes, that was the point of the larger context of my citation and graph, and several other pieces I've read and posted elsewhere. It's said though that the WH has the numbers but is not releasing them, relying instead on numbers others "estimate."

[nic34]

Most Americans were satisfied with the previous healthcare they were getting.

That's why Obama had to tell lies such as they could keep their current plans and doctors and pay less.

if he had told told the truth ObamaCare never would have passed in congress.

You and pat need to show your work..... :grin:

[nic34]

Yes, that was the point of the larger context of my citation and graph, and several other pieces I've read and posted elsewhere. It's said though that the WH has the numbers but is not releasing them, relying instead on numbers others "estimate."

As much as you'd like them to be... the WH is not the all powerful OZ .... even they need to wait awhile to crunch the numbers.

[Mac-7]

I respect your right to your opinion, but the data does not support your assertion.

Data is just that - numbers on a piece of paper.

In real life most Americans were ok with the health insurance and healthcare they personally were getting.

That's why Obama could not tell them the truth about what he was doing to them.

[patrickt]

According to the data, you are wrong.

Health care in the United States is more expensive with worse results than other countries.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/09/168976602/u-s-ranks-below-16-other-rich-countries-in-health-report

There is a lot of reliable data available that verifies this fact. The link above provides a nice summary, but google for reliable and legitimate sources for more information if you care to educate yourself further.

Sorry, but getting reliable data from NPR is a joke.

"Five-year survival rates for early-stage breast cancer were only 78 per cent, against 97 per cent in the U.S. and 93 per cent across Europe.

Similarly, only 70 per cent of patients with early-stage colo-rectal cancer live for five years in Britain, against 90 per cent in the U.S. and 80 per cent in Germany. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-125860/Britain-trails-cancer-survival-rates.html#ixzz2xfQ0ST3b

The studies on healthcare that showed the U.S. trailing badly always, as in all studies, focused on availability of service. Socialized medicine was given a bias from the start. So, in the U.S. you might not be in the system but you're more likely to live longer. In Europe, you are always in the system but they might kill you.

If you care to think about what you're reading, you can educate yourself. It's a long shot though.

[Chris]

As much as you'd like them to be... the WH is not the all powerful OZ .... even they need to wait awhile to crunch the numbers.


The last thing I want for the WH or government in general is for them to be powerful, nic.

But they do know how many have tried to register, how many have submitted registrations, how many have paid the first premium, which, btw, is the final step. These counts would be part of any halfway decent software and database system.

I don't expect them to know how many have lost insurance because of the ACA.

[Newpublius]

Does anyone have any data on what the population is experiencing on average or are we just going to single out individual events and extrapolate assumptions on them?

Medicaid expansion means people on Medicaid pay nothing, right? Of course any government program can give things away, there's plenty of government programs now that do that today. We know exactly what Obamacare is going to cost on average and its in excess of $100bn dollars because that's what's budgeted for it. Some people will win, they'll get Medicaid or subsidized insurance, and others will lose, they'll pay taxes to support the program.

Just like that thread where the 'staunch' Republican was pleased about his health care premiums being reduced from $400+ to less than $100 per month.....Of course he likes that, somebody else is paying the bill....

Nothing so rare as a shrinking government.

The mandates are still delayed....

Obamacare is no panacea, there's no free lunch, there never is.

[barbarap]

Medicaid expansion means people on Medicaid pay nothing, right? Of course any government program can give things away, there's plenty of government programs now that do that today. We know exactly what Obamacare is going to cost on average and its in excess of $100bn dollars because that's what's budgeted for it. Some people will win, they'll get Medicaid or subsidized insurance, and others will lose, they'll pay taxes to support the program.

Just like that thread where the 'staunch' Republican was pleased about his health care premiums being reduced from $400+ to less than $100 per month.....Of course he likes that, somebody else is paying the bill....

Nothing so rare as a shrinking government.

The mandates are still delayed....

Obamacare is no panacea, there's no free lunch, there never is.

Medicaid expansion does not mean that people pay nothing.

Depending on ones situation, there can be a share of cost.

There seems to be a whole lot if mis information floating around here..... Too bad.

[Mac-7]

Medicaid expansion does not mean that people pay nothing.

Depending on ones situation, there can be a share of cost.

There seems to be a whole lot if mis information floating around here..... Too bad.

There is a whole lot of entitlement mentality on the left demanding more and more from others in society.

Its true that I don't know all the details of Medicaid.

But I know its costing the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year so there can't be too much shared paying going on.

[Peter1469]

It is too early to know much about Obamacare's numbers (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-31/obamacare-what-we-know-and-what-we-don-t):


Open enrollment closes today and, anecdotally, there has been a big surge in traffic, a heroic tribute to the American powers of procrastination. At this rate, the number of plan selections looks like it might hit, or at least get close to, 7 million. That won't mean 7 million people actually enrolled in health insurance (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-28/is-obamacare-now-beyond-repeal), but it will certainly be a marketing coup for President Barack Obama's administration.


Nonetheless, as I wrote last week, there's still an immense amount we don't know. This morning's Los Angeles Times brings optimistic-sounding news (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-uninsured-national-20140331,0,6550360,full.story#axzz2xYVbfomi) based on a Rand Corp. enrollment survey. As the article puts it: [see link]




All of which brings us back to what I said last week: we don't yet know whether enrollment is doing better or worse than projected. Here's a sampling of what we still don't know:


· How many people have bought and paid for policies

· How many people have signed up for Medicaid who weren't eligible before 2010

· How many people who are buying insurance didn't have insurance before

· How the new policies compare to the old policies

· How much subsidies are costing


Some of the things we want to know are just impossible to find out yet -- the administration has no way to reliably calculate how many people will keep paying their premiums. But some of this data is stuff that the administration could get pretty quickly -- if it wanted to.

[zelmo1234]

I respect your right to your opinion, but the data does not support your assertion.

Are you telling us that the Obama administration did not lie about how the program would work?

[lynn]

I have been tracking the numbers of sign ups since it began and what I summarize from it is that they are and have been fudging the numbers all along. It makes it difficult to believe that they reached their goal.

[Mainecoons]

Apparently, the Rand Corporation projects less than a million have paid, 80 percent are subsidized and many if not most had health insurance previously.

Obama can lie all he wants here, the insurance companies who really are responsible for this boondoggle can't run or hide from the actual numbers who have or will pay, the ages of the actual payers and the numbers of people who didn't have insurance before. They are going to have to tell their shareholders the truth when this program screws up their bottom line.

Nor will they be able to hide from the wrath of policy holders who actually try to use policies with huge deductibles and puny prepays. No matter how much the Obama administration lies, by the time November rolls around the reality will have set in. Supposedly we had 40 million uninsured and they have been able to cover 7 million who mostly already had insurance or are getting it for free?

I suppose this is a liberal's idea of a success.

[Chris]

I've seen numbers flying around more people have lost insurance plans than have gained them.

[Peter1469]

I wonder when the insurance companies will announce the 2015 rates?

[Mainecoons]

The bottom line is how many paying customers? How many previously uninsured? It seems that a bunch of these insured are Medicaid or kids getting on their parents' insurance, or subsidized in some way or another.

Rand estimates that less than a million are newly insured people, out of the alleged 40 million uninsured.

Like I said, only a liberal would claim victory with these kinds of numbers.

[Peter1469]

Will the press ask these questions?

[Mac-7]

I suppose this is a liberal's idea of a success.

Any expansion of their beloved big government is cause for celebration for libs.

[lynn]

Since the mandate became the law effective 2014 in 2010, we started with 48 million uninsured. From that time it gave employers plenty of time to evaluate continuing insurance coverage, reducing their employee count and so on. In preparation for 1/1/2014, the number of uninsured increased to 60 million.

They can say the exchanges were a success but I hardly think 7 million sign ups is enough to offset the additional 12 million who lost coverage since the law was approved in 2010. We have more uninsured now then we ever had in history.

[Bob]

Since the mandate became the law effective 2014 in 2010, we started with 48 million uninsured. From that time it gave employers plenty of time to evaluate continuing insurance coverage, reducing their employee count and so on. In preparation for 1/1/2014, the number of uninsured increased to 60 million.

They can say the exchanges were a success but I hardly think 7 million sign ups is enough to offset the additional 12 million who lost coverage since the law was approved in 2010. We have more uninsured now then we ever had in history.

And Obama was bragging again today.

How fun, many lose policies.

Many suffer extreme price hikes.

Then Obama brags to the public he forced 7 million to pay insurance companies monthly premiums.

Can that man sleep nights?

[Peter1469]

Since the mandate became the law effective 2014 in 2010, we started with 48 million uninsured. From that time it gave employers plenty of time to evaluate continuing insurance coverage, reducing their employee count and so on. In preparation for 1/1/2014, the number of uninsured increased to 60 million.

They can say the exchanges were a success but I hardly think 7 million sign ups is enough to offset the additional 12 million who lost coverage since the law was approved in 2010. We have more uninsured now then we ever had in history.

Question: is this typical liberal unintended consequences, or is this deliberate?

[Green Arrow]

Yes, if you force people to spend money they don't have on health insurance by threatening them with a tax penalty (that they also can't pay), people will sign up. Not sure how that's a win, really.

[lynn]

Do know why the government wanted that 7 million sign-ups? The non farm employee count for 2014 is 136,684 (million), 109,600 (million) have employer coverage between the ages of 19-64. This leaves 27,084 million employed workers with no ins.

However, it is the IRS that is managing it. The most wage and salary workers that ever filed taxes is 120 million tax filers so if you subtract the 109 million from the 120 million tax filers you get 11 million wage and salary workers that the IRS can control with fines.

7 million sign-ups on the exchange and 4 million new medicaid enrollees is 11 million covered.

[lynn]

Yes, if you force people to spend money they don't have on health insurance by threatening them with a tax penalty (that they also can't pay), people will sign up. Not sure how that's a win, really.

Its not a win for the American citizens, it is pure extortion. Having health insurance is not the same as being able to afford healthcare now that higher deductibles are becoming the norm. These deductibles allows insurance companies to profit for their stockholders and the providers of healthcare will be stuck with large patient balance receivables which will make it hard to pay their overhead expenses.

The shift to higher out of pocket expenses is going to be very stressful for those unfortunate enough to get sick with chronic conditions.

[Bob]

Its not a win for the American citizens, it is pure extortion. Having health insurance is not the same as being able to afford healthcare now that higher deductibles are becoming the norm. These deductibles allows insurance companies to profit for their stockholders and the providers of healthcare will be stuck with large patient balance receivables which will make it hard to pay their overhead expenses.

The shift to higher out of pocket expenses is going to be very stressful for those unfortunate enough to get sick with chronic conditions.

I have had medicare for close to 10 years.

But when I paid Kaiser HMO for their family plan, the cost then was maybe $250 and we had 7 kids.

We paid $5 per visit and there was no deductible.

Today were I to try to do that, no chance in hell.

I agree that the age you are matters as to if you want insurance or not.

If you are in good health and not 60, I would tell them to stuff it.

Best thing to do is save money each payday marked for doctors care.

Funny how fast it adds up.

Then when you talk to them at the doctors office, just ask them what they will discount for paying cash.

It is not that hard to do. You do it when you buy cars. And find out first what the estimate is.

A smart buyer can do magic.

[nathanbforrest45]

What is wrong with Americans. We are "given" a product that cost more than what we were paying and provides less than we were getting and we still don't want it! What will it take?

[nathanbforrest45]

Don't really care if Barbarap's numbers are right or wrong. What matters is the American people were basically satisfied with the health insurance they had especially in light of the fact that many were insured by their employer and they paid little or nothing for the policies. The American people were opposed (and still are) to having the government tell them they were idiots for not letting the government handle their insurance for them.

[nathanbforrest45]

Will the press ask these questions?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

You are really funny Peter!!!!

[nathanbforrest45]

Question: is this typical liberal unintended consequences, or is this deliberate?


I am going to go with deliberate. They are not stupid people and know exactly what they are doing. All of this is an agenda for single payer, fully government controlled insurance. In another 2 years there will be no more private insurance companies except for the very rich who won't actually need it anyway.

[Green Arrow]

I am going to go with deliberate. They are not stupid people and know exactly what they are doing. All of this is an agenda for single payer, fully government controlled insurance. In another 2 years there will be no more private insurance companies except for the very rich who won't actually need it anyway.

I don't know how else to explain it, but this idea that Obamacare is their way of getting single-payer is total, unequivocal, unadulterated bullshit.

[Bob]

I understand that those who are chronically ill, love doctors visits and vacation at hospitals will get a good deal, why should this result in very high premiums, very high deductibles, just so the ACA can be called Obama-care?

If you have a home burned down annually, you will believe the cost to insure is a super great deal.

If you smash up your car often, again, great deal.

So, if you must go to doctors all the time, to you, insurance is great.

But most Americans don't go to doctors. Don't go to hospitals.

They will get fucked.

[Kalkin]

This guy nailed it:

The truth of the matter is, the number released yesterday does nothing to alleviate the unpopularity of obamacare. It's a filtered, cherry-picked stat designed to give the administration a turd-polishing propaganda opportunity.

[Peter1469]

I don't know how else to explain it, but this idea that Obamacare is their way of getting single-payer is total, unequivocal, unadulterated bullshit.

I don't think so. Obama mentioned it in his first presidential campaign when a citizen asked him why not just go straight for single payer, why Obamacare? Obama said there wasn't the votes to get to single payer today. But there can be the votes for Obamacare.

Plus, the way the law is written it is designed to implode the insurance industry.

[lynn]

The only thing that will hurt the health insurance companies and the providers of care will be when the public wake up and demand the right to a copy of the fee schedule of their contracted carrier. People have no idea what the actual cost of healthcare actually is since it is not the healthcare provider that determines it.

Their charges are only real for people who do not have any coverage and that is why they can be negotiated for a lot less since the providers of care know that no insurance company pays in full for any charges submitted to them. If people had the right to a copy of the fee schedule they would soon realize that insurance premiums cost month after month, year after year until that one healthcare event like a heart attack, cancer, etc, only to then find out what the allowables were for each procedure code that was billed.

They would see that it didn't justify all those years of paying for coverage. The reason why they blew it off before is because the difference between the allowable and what is charged is written off by the provider of care. Now that we have higher deductibles that are being applied to lab work, testing, surgical procedures, etc I wouldn't put it pass the insurance companies to raise the allowable on all codes that would be applied to deductibles and lower the allowable on codes that the insurance company will pay for.