Skip to comments.Obamacare's Dismal California Numbers
Posted on 01/27/2014 6:57:45 AM PST by Innovative
900,000 Californians lost their health plans by January 1; only 500,000 signed up on the Obamacare exchange.
Health care industry expert Bob Laszewski points out that that means at least 330,000 of the 500,000 people who signed up for Obamacare already had health insurance. "If you want to know how many uninsured bought it, subtract by at least" 330,000, Laszewski told THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
If Obama was winning the numbers... he couldn’t keep his hype quiet! What a friggin mess!
To include most of the new additions, Medicaid relaxed their asset rules. However, this did not negate the ‘back-end’ asset forfeiture rules. What's this mean?
You get sick and require beaucoups medical care - you die. And your heirs (who you at least thought were gonna be ‘heirs’) don't get your house, or your bank account, or that 401K you had. Medicaid gots first dibs to recoup all that beaucoups medical care you got.
As it should be.
Oh, I agree.
But you also have to remember that many of these people who are trying to go into the ‘system’ and get some kind of healthcare, and willing to pay for it, are being shuffled into Medicaid with its requirements.
There doesn’t appear to be any middle ground in this. You either fill it all in and THEY decide, or you go directly to an insurer and don’t get any subsidy. From my perspective, I’d at least like to see some of them have to pay something up front, even with subsidies.
I actually don’t c anything wrong with that.
>>You get sick and require beaucoups medical care - you die. And your heirs (who you at least thought were gonna be heirs) don’t get your house, or your bank account, or that 401K you had. Medicaid gots first dibs to recoup all that beaucoups medical care you got. >>
Which means that even more people who thought they would be heirs will be lacking in funds and have to sign up for the Ocare insurance (with subsidies).
Honestly, I do not know. I DO know, however, that if such an inequity exists and is allowed to exist, there will be lawsuits aplenty resulting.
From my perspective, they’ve now gotten down to inequality in means and expectations of those among us who have no, or little resources save their votes. Obama cannot possibly give them all Medicaid, nor can he hide the real tangible bad results that could become reality. And, when you get those whose votes are based on payola and benefit, fickleness can be a two-edged sword.
Unfortunately. Obama miscalculated. He’s actually made it easier to make it a super majority of people who are the lucky ‘entitled’.
Question. Who is going to do all the work required to sustain it. You can take every dollar, cent, centavo, peso, dinar, ruble, rial - whatever in this country and spend it on them. How long will it last? One year? Two? Not long.
Yorkiemom is correct in that state-by-state treatment of Medicaid qualification rules varies considerably — but that’s what states are about, right?
Regarding the removal of the asset test in all but one state (Texas) — this occurred independent of Expanded Medicaid and Obamacare in many states several years ago. 2008 in my state. Then the income limit was relaxed to 133-138% of Federal Poverty level in those states that went with the expansion (some states have a 5% “deduction” prior to the computation which accounts for the range).
It is real difficult to keep track of this stuff because not only does the history and current situation vary radically by state, but the rules for SNAP (food stamps) have been relaxed similarly but not identically. Easy to confuse the changes in the two programs. In fact, now I’m wondering if my recollection of TX being the odd man out had to do with SNAP.
As pointed out numerous times Washington State and Oregon have revoked Medicaid Asset Recovery for Expanded Medicaid enrollees age 55-64 (except for long-term care expenses). I think all EM states will do this eventually. But as pointed out by those of a conservative bent, the asset recovery would seem to be a good thing — responsibly paying back the taxpayer. The spouse, etc., is permitted to continue living in the house until death.
I would agree if done under circumstances where someone has not been conscientious regarding their future, leaving their end of life care up to others...then the govt should recoup in order to relieve the taxpayers.
But they’re currently in the process of forcing us to pay more for insurance, more for deductibles, and eventually plan to force us on Medicaid and deduct whatever they want from our pay (if we still have jobs).
When the burden is so great that we’re falling under the weight of it, they then place a lien on our hard work.
Note that Boobamba's SOTU won't be mentioning Obamacare.
WHO CAN BLAME HIM? Boobamba's prolly scared stiff of lock-stepping Dems' maniacal applause, rising to their fight as one (like they had firecrackers under their a**es).
Heck, as far back as 2008, at the presidential debate in Nashville, Democrat candidate Obama advanced his signature plan that was ultimately enacted (by an historic straight Democrat party-line vote) into the "Affordable Care Act :
OBAMA: "No. 1, let me just repeat, if youve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. All Im going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. Youll still have your choice of doctor.
Repeated over and over ---- with the promise that every American family would be saving $2500.00 on healthcare costs.
LOCK-STEPPING PARTY LOYALTY NOT SEEN SINCE 1940's ERA EUROPE Obama And The Dumbos marched in lockstep. The persistent Dumbocrat drumbeat ---- in obeisance to Obama ---- kept ringing reassuringly in our ears: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
SIGNING "THE BIG EFFIN' DEAL" (now known as The Big Effin" Debacle)
"Those Democrats leering over my shoulder owe me bigtime. This
healthcare bill insures we have a permanent Democratic majority."
" All except those Tea Party types, swallowed hook, line and sinker my promises that they could:
(1) keep their existing health plans,
(2) keep their own doctors that they like,
(3) keep their 25-year-olds on the family health plan,
(4) never be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition,
(5) sign up instantly on my tech-savvy government Web site,
(6) buy insurance only after becoming seriously ill."
(7) save $2,500 in annual premiums in the bargain....
(8) All without any new taxes."
"Them sonovagun Tea Partiers will rue the day they criticized my wonderful bill."
Golly, I hope when she writes his SOTU speech, Valerie
omits references to Obamacare. Or-----disaster looms.
"And let me thank every Democrat, who---without exception
---voted for Obamacare---my historic signature legislation."
"Thank you Democrats for reminding every American in every
district: 'if they like their plan, they can keep their plan.' Nice work Democrats."
I devoutly believe that Obamacare will be chronicled in history as a blunder of Ceausescuian proportions.
Boobamba’s signature legislation —— formerly touted as his main accomplishment -—— has been an unmitigated disaster.
“Boobambas signature legislation formerly touted as his main accomplishment - has been an unmitigated disaster.”
And this is only the beginning, wait until it is fully implemented!
Just look at Canada, there was a recent article, that the wait time for cataract surgery went from 5 months to almost a year, they thought the 5 months was acceptable!
Funding cuts hurt cataract wait time
“At the start of 2013, 90% of patients had surgery within 153 days. By November, that wait grew to 230 days. “
PS — I rather not comment on any similarities between Ceausescu and Obama...especially the outcome. ;)
Interesting. Thanks for the info. I had no idea states had removed the asset test. Part of the bigger plan to get more people dependent on the government, I imagine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.