Index du Forum

aderfp633 · Inscrit le: 27 Sep 2011 Messages: 7915 Localisation: England

Fact,[url=http://www.peuterey-outlet.net]peuterey prezzi[/url]
Fact-Checking The President's Kind-Of Sort-Of 'Apology' For Obamacare-Driven Insurance Cancellations On November 7, 2013, President Obama sat down with NBC News' Chuck Todd to discuss problems with the rollout of Obamacare's health insurance exchanges. (Image courtesy NBC News.) Yesterday, in an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, President Obama addressed the problems caused by his incessantly-repeated pledge to the American public that “if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” As millions of Americans receive cancellation letters in the mail, however, that pledge looked increasingly strained. “I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me,” the President said last night. In the course of his interview, however, Mr. Obama made several other misleading statements that don’t accurately reflect Obamacare’s impact on pre-existing health insurance plans. ‘We’re talking about 5 percent of the population.’ In the wake of the cancellation conflagration,[url=http://www.peuterey-outlet.net]peuterey outlet[/url], the President and his deputies have attempted to minimize the problem by arguing that the failure of the “like your plan” pledge only affects “5 percent of the population”; that is, around two-thirds of the 25 million Americans who shop for coverage on their own. But that’s not true. As I noted last week, in 2010, the Obama administration estimated that 93 million Americans would be unable to keep their prior health coverage under the narrow grandfathering provisions issued by the administration in June 2010. My colleague Chris Conover estimates that the number is 129 million. And we are here only talking about disruptions to private health plans, and not counting the law’s $716 billion in cuts to Medicare. The level of disruption in the employer-sponsored market will be less than that in the individual market, where people shop for coverage on their own. But the President is most certainly violating his “like your plan” pledge in the employer-sponsored market, too. For example, employer-sponsored insurance will now have to cover costly, federally-dictated benefits that they did not have to cover before, rendering many plans illegal. Excise taxes on premiums, drugs, and medical devices will drive premiums upward. And the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value insurance plans—a meritorious idea—will force a massive restructuring of many coverage arrangements. It’s for these reasons that Delta Air Lines has said that it will spend $100 million more on health insurance in 2014 than it did in 2013,[url=http://www.peuterey-outlet.net]peuterey outlet[/url], and why labor unions have complained that Obamacare “will drive the costs of collectively bargained, union administered plans, and other plans that cover unionized workers to unsupportable levels.” APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: Obamacare renders illegal the majority of the privately-sponsored health plans in America issued prior to 2014, not merely 5 percent of them. ‘They’ll be able to get better care at the same cost or cheaper.’ As noted above, employer-sponsored health insurance is going to be significantly more expensive under Obamacare than it was before. But the biggest spike in the underlying cost of health insurance will take place in the market for individually-purchased health insurance. Obamacare forcibly increases the premiums paid by healthy people in order to correct this perceived inequity. And most people are healthy rather than sick, which is why our recent Manhattan Institute analysis of individual-market insurance premiums found that the average state faces a 41 percent increase in rates relative to the old system. Some of these people—especially older individuals—will benefit from taxpayer-funded subsidies marshaled by the law. But our analysis shows that most Americans will face premium increases, despite the application of subsidies. And exchange plans will typically have far narrower choices of physicians and hospitals—so-called “narrow networks”—than plans did in the old individual market. While I have no fundamental problem with narrow-network plans, so long as they’re freely chosen by consumers,[url=http://www.peuterey-outlet.net]peuterey prezzi[/url], progressive health wonks rarely argue that narrow networks produce “better care” than broad networks. APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: Individual-market health coverage, under Obamacare, will feature plans that are more expensive, with narrower physician networks, than the ones offered under the old system. ‘Women were being charged as much as double compared to men.’ It’s true that, in the individual market, many plans charge women more than men, and there are extreme cases where these premiums are double for women than they are for men. On average, however, the difference is more modest. Our Manhattan Institute survey of pre-ACA premiums finds that for the average 27-year-old, premiums were 25 percent higher for women than men. For 40-year-olds, they were 21 percent higher; and for 64-year-olds, women actually paid 7 percent less than men. Why does this discrepancy exist? Some people believe it is because women have more health problems than men. Others argue that women are greater consumers of health-care services, irrespective of health status. Either way, Obamacare requires men to spend more on health insurance than they consume in health care, and vice-versa for women. Whether or not you believe this is a good thing, it will be a worse deal for half the population. APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: It’s true that women are usually charged more than men for individual-market policies, though it’s rarely “double.” Eliminating that discrepancy, whatever its cause, will make health insurance more expensive for men. And because of other aspects of the law (see above), women will pay more also. ‘Everybody is moving into better plans because they want ’em.’ The President told Chuck Todd this whopper about the design of Obamacare: “What we intended to do…is to make sure that everybody is moving into better plans because they want ’em, as opposed to because they’re forced into it.” That is, most clearly, not the intention of Obamacare. For years, the President has bragged that his signature health law abolishes plans that don’t live up to the standard that he believes they should meet. “Before the law was passed,” he said earlier in the very same interview, “a lot of these plans, people thought they had insurance coverage. And then they’d find out that they had huge out of pocket expenses. Or women were being charged more than men.” There are all sorts of insurance practices that Obamacare abolishes, because those practices, in the President’s view, unfairly benefited the healthy at the expense of the sick. If he’s right about that—a contestable assertion—than reversing this injustice requires healthy people to pay more, whether they “want” to or not. And contrary to the President’s assertions, many of the people facing cancellations had good coverage before. “Right now,” wrote Bob Laszewski last month, “I have ‘Cadillac’ health insurance.” Laszewski is being forced to give up his plan for a new one with a $500 higher deductible, a far narrower choice of doctors and hospitals, and a 66 percent higher monthly premium. And remember that Obamacare contains an individual mandate that forces people to buy these costlier plans, or pay a fine. APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: Contra the President, Obamacare was explicitly intended to abolish the old market for individually-purchased health coverage, and replace it with a new, more heavily-regulated one that forces healthier and younger individuals to pay more, whether they want to or not. ‘We’re gonna do everything we can to get [it] fixed.’ If the President is sincerely concerned about the fact that vast numbers of Americans will have their existing coverage arrangements disrupted by his health-care law, there is an easy solution: he can encourage Democrats to support, and sign into law, Sen. Ron Johnson’s two-page bill, the “If You Like your Health Care Plan You Can Keep It Act,” that would solve the problem once and for all. But the President hasn’t done that. Instead, according to Sam Stein of the Huffington Post, the President is “looking at an administrative fix for the population of people in the individual market who may have an increase in premiums, but don’t get subsidies.” While the details of such a “fix” have yet to be disclosed, it would not honor the President’s pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” though it may help ameliorate the problem of rate shock with the new plans that Obamacare requires everyone to have. APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: The President has a clear option available to him if he sincerely wants to “do everything we can” to honor his pledge: sign the Johnson bill. It’s far from clear that he has committed to that. Some disruption is good In all of the hubbub around this story, there is one point worth emphasizing. The American health care status quo ante—prior to Obamacare—was no picnic. U.S. government spending on health care, in 2010, was higher per-capita than all but three other countries in the world. Health insurance in America has long been unneccesarily expensive. And it’s a noble goal to ensure that every American is protected from financial ruin due to injury or illness. Any serious health reform program—left, right, or center—would involve some disruption of our existing health-coverage arrangements. What makes Obamacare such a deeply flawed piece of work is not that it disrupts our existing arrangements, but that it disrupts those arrangements by forcing people to buy costlier coverage. And not only does Obamacare force people to buy costlier coverage, it most significantly punishes a population that is already disadvantaged in our current system: people of average income who buy coverage on their own, and don’t benefit from the heavy subsidies enjoyed by people with government- or employer-sponsored insurance. Critics of the President are right to hold him accountable for the inexcusable deception contained in his “like your plan, keep your plan” pledge. But if they in turn promise unrelenting fealty to the status quo, they will doom any efforts to reform our health care system in a better way. * * * Follow @Avik on Twitter, Google+, and YouTube, and The Apothecary on Facebook. Or, sign up to receive a weekly e-mail digest of articles from The Apothecary. * * * UPDATE: This piece by former George W. Bush staffer Keith Hennessey is a must-read on how different the Bush and Obama White Houses appear to have vetted their bosses’ statements for accuracy and honesty: As a practical matter we also knew that any overstatement would do far more damage to the President than any temporary rhetorical advantage it might offer. We knew, with certainty, that even the slightest inaccuracy would immediately generate aggressive questions from a press corps that mostly leaned against us. The New York Times at the first opportunity unless others beat them to the punch. We knew we’d then have to help the Press Secretary defend the President’s statement under repeated and ruthless attacks from a press corps that was constantly probing for such weaknesses. If this sounds a tad paranoid, remember the old saying: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. Our relationship with the White House press corps was quite different than that facing Team Obama… As someone who spent countless hours ensuring Presidential policy accuracy, the idea that an Obama White House staffer would lose such an internal battle, that they would give President Obama a speech staff knew was wrong, is beyond my experience. A White House Chief of Staff who permits President Obama to say something he knows is false violates everything I learned about serving a President. A President must not lie to the American people and Congress about a core element of his signature domestic policy initiative, even if doing so is necessary for that initiative to become law. When he did this, President Obama breached the trust America needs to have in her President.INVESTORS’ NOTE: The biggest publicly-traded players in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges are Aetna (NYSE:AET), Humana (NYSE:HUM), Cigna (NYSE:CI), Molina (NYSE:MOH), WellPoint (NYSE:WLP), and Centene (NYSE:CNC), in order of the number of uninsured exchange-eligible Americans for whom their plans are available. Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out. STOP!!! EXCUSE ME – EXCUSE EVERYONE !!! Why are we so surprised at what the “KING” OF THE USA is doing, or should I say the dictator? Dictators and Kings don’t need to explain their actions – they know in their own mine what us underlings need and should have. Let me ask you something, intelligent people; why would someone, senator, representative or president spend tens of millions dollars for a job that pays from $140,000 to $400,000 per year? REMEMBER – KINGS AND DICTATORS DON’T HAVE TO CARE as long as they have SUBJECTS to follow their rules. The only thing Good that will come out of this is like Prohibition – it will get repealed in 2 or 3 years. PEOPLE LISTEN UP – WE NEED TO TELL CONGRESS AND THE DICTATOR / KING THAT THEY WORK FOR US – NOT WE WORK FOR THEMIt is grossly misleading to imply that the grandfathering provision of ACA was the only part of the legislation intended to redeem the promise that if you like your insurance you can keep it. It was one of three elements. The second was the expectation that existing plans would meet the essential benefits provision or be able to meet them with minor changes, making grandfathering irrelevant. The third, clearly flawed for many, not all, of those receiving cancellation notices was the belief that people would stop liking their existing plan once they saw what was available on the exchange.Meanwhile, the website just keeps getting scarier. I’m self employed and 61 years old and haven’t been able to get insurance for years due to minor preexisting, so I was very interested to see my Obamacare options. Last week, the cheapest and second cheapest plans had the following networks: 1. my doctor and two public hospitals in network 2. my doctor and most major area hospitals in network This week, the two cheapest plans available to me have the following networks: 1. my doctor NOT in network, one private hospital in network (the two public hospitals are no longer in network) 2. my doctor NOT in network, no hospitals listed as being in network plan available to me had my doctor in network and the two public hospitals in my area in network and the second cheapest plan had my doctor and most major hospitals in network. I just looked at these plans again today, and this time, neither plan has my doctor in network. The cheapest plan lists one private hospital as in network (the two public hospitals that were in network last week are no longer listed) and the second cheapest plan doesn’t show any hospitals at all as being in network. The plans have changed! The networks are not the same as they were last week. And there is no explanation. Will the plans change again next week? What is really being offered to me? If I figure out how to enroll (so far, I always get kicked off when I try to enroll), will the network available to me be the one that appears on the website, or a completely different one??????We elected this crumb president. Twice. We’ve elected and reelected his Democrat chums in congress. We are getting what we deserve: good and hard.Obamacare should be repealed, the demented mastermind Obama should be recognized for the undeniable fraud he is and he should be impeachedThe Obamacare law was written by insurance industry lobbyists. It does exactly what that industry wants it to do. That’s how things are supposed to work when the government does industry’s bidding. Why are conservatives complaining? Why did “the Left” go along with it? Someone please explain.I’m amused at the latest platitudes offered by the defenders of BarryCare and by Barry himself: “This affects only a small sliver of the population.” But the primary goal of BarryCare was to provide additional insurance coverage to those presently uninsured, i.e. an only slightly larger sliver of the population at ~15% vs. the 5% impacted in the individual market. It’s the height of hubris and innumeracy to claim that a 15% problem is a national tragedy but a 5% problem is a slight inconvenience.The Obama Healthcare debacle is simply one more arrow in the quiver of the structural government change that we need. Senator John Cornyn put it best when he said that “it is illegal to lie to Congress, but unfortunately, it not illegal to lie to the American people.” So true. I propose eliminating reducing the “free speech” shield that members of the government have when telling BS to the American people under the auspices of getting elected or pushing programs. Fraud laws need to apply to these situations and politicians who lie or make false promises need to do some serious jail time. If I lied on an employment application and my employer found it out, I would be immediately terminated. Given that politicians have really long terms of office and do not have “employment at will,” their false promises and lies need to be dealt with criminally.why would a insurance want to offer people a plan with a lower premium that the aca plans before subsidies? the cancellation problem and 5.4 million that want qualify for medicaid could have been fixed prior to march 23, 2010. all they would have had to do, is let everyone claim the subsidies , including those with income below 100% and over 400% of the federal poverty level.Avik, when the President addressed congress about healthcare he said the following: “Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.” Did this provision make it into the law? If it did, could you tell me where to find it. Keep up the great work! The Apothecary, a blog about health care and entitlement reform, is edited by Avik Roy, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a former health-care policy adviser to Mitt Romney. Avik also writes a weekly column on politics and policy for National Review. The other contributors to The Apothecary are: Josh Archambault, Director of Health Care Policy at the Pioneer Institute in Boston; Robert Book of the American Action Forum; Chris Conover, Research Scholar in the Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research at Duke University and an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; Nicole Fisher of the University of North Carolina; John R. Graham of the Advanced Medical Technology Association; and Jeet Guram of Harvard Medical School. Russian President Vladimir Putin climbs one spot ahead of U.S. President Barack Obama, who held the title in 2012.
相关的主题文章：

[url=http://www.shc-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2448647#2448647]peuterey prezzi Seoul000 workers to[/url]

[url=http://www.myip.cn/cgimage.lv]peuterey prezzi[/url] 0uqxsrlk

[url=http://cgi-games.com/abi/abicorp/ccc.cgi]peuterey outlet 15pebh01[/url]

相关的主题文章：

[url=http://bus.61.com/3243689/diaryread/?id=1085]peuterey prezzi awu1vjz5[/url]

[url=http://bus.61.com/12996248/diaryread/?id=1208]peuterey prezzi uqwm4xcl[/url]

[url=http://bus.61.com/57929868/diaryread/?id=1158]peuterey outlet b2q30ooj[/url]
_________________
People watching the forthcoming beginning of the German half of the inhabitants of Berlin are no interested in co-optation

Index du Forum -> Livre d'or -> peuterey outlet peuterey prezzi gih4kkyi