Over 92 million Americans out of work force

[Jim Craik]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) May 8, 2014
Most people signing up for Obamacare are paying their premiums, insurers told a Congressional subcommittee Wednesday.

Though it may take weeks or months for the final payment figures to be calculated, rates are running in the 80% to 90% range, several major insurers said.

Some 8.1 million people selected insurance plans on the Obamacare exchanges during the first open enrollment period, which ended March 31. But these folks will not be fully enrolled until they pay their premiums.

The Obama administration said it will not have data on how many people paid and enrolled for a few months. That's in part because the computer systems that would allow insurers to claim federal subsidies for qualified enrollees is not complete, forcing them to file manual reports.

The Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee last week issued a report saying that only 67% of those signing up for Obamacare had paid their first month's premium. But the insurers appearing before the subcommittee said the figures in the panel report were incomplete.

Related: Thankful for Obamacare
About 83% of the more than 600,000 members who signed up for Aetna (AET, Fortune 500) plans have paid, a company executive told the representatives.

At WellPoint (WLP, Fortune 500), up to 90% have sent in payments, depending on the state, said an executive from the insurer, which is the largest participant in the exchange arena.
Health Care Service Corp. has seen payment rates in the 80% range for the 600,000 applications received on the exchanges.

 

[Larry L.]

You can probably guess who is giving her the $$$ to pay her premiums.

And you can bet your boots you aren't the only one who's doing that for his kids.

The "AFFORDABLE Care Act is anything but. Even its name is a total lie.

And I say again - just wait 'til all the 'Joe Sixpacks' around the country find out (after the 2016 elections...Obama made darned sure they wouldn't find out before then) that their employer-based health coverage is no more. THEN let's see how many of those who are all for Obamacare today still will be.

 

[Jim Craik]

Saving my life

• Name: Kathy Bentzoni, 58
• Hometown: Slatington, Penn.
• Job: Freelance graphic artist/part-time school bus driver

I started feeling sick in January, but I thought driving a school bus, I was picking up whatever the kids had. But when I was checking the school bus early in the morning in the cold, all my fingers would go numb.
I had signed up for health insurance early enough to get coverage for Jan. 1.

******I had to drop my old, useless insurance back in November because the insurer denied every claim I sent in because they said it was a pre-existing condition.******

That's the wonder of Obamacare ... they can't say that anymore.

I have a Highmark Blue Shield silver plan. I pay $55 for the premium with the tax credit. I almost cried when I saw it. I thought 'Oh my god, I can actually afford this. It's amazing!"

On March 1, I had to go the ER. They found my hemoglobin level was 5.7, and the normal is 14. I needed a transfusion. It was due to a rare blood disorder.

Where would I be without Obamacare? ER, 3 units of blood, multiple tests in the hospital and a 5-day inpatient stay without insurance? Probably dead.

I have to thank Obamacare for saving my life.

 

[Larry L.]

Saving my life

• Name: Kathy Bentzoni, 58
• Hometown: Slatington, Penn.
• Job: Freelance graphic artist/part-time school bus driver

I started feeling sick in January, but I thought driving a school bus, I was picking up whatever the kids had. But when I was checking the school bus early in the morning in the cold, all my fingers would go numb.
I had signed up for health insurance early enough to get coverage for Jan. 1.

******I had to drop my old, useless insurance back in November because the insurer denied every claim I sent in because they said it was a pre-existing condition.******

That's the wonder of Obamacare ... they can't say that anymore.

I have a Highmark Blue Shield silver plan. I pay $55 for the premium with the tax credit. I almost cried when I saw it. I thought 'Oh my god, I can actually afford this. It's amazing!"

On March 1, I had to go the ER. They found my hemoglobin level was 5.7, and the normal is 14. I needed a transfusion. It was due to a rare blood disorder.

Where would I be without Obamacare? ER, 3 units of blood, multiple tests in the hospital and a 5-day inpatient stay without insurance? Probably dead.

I have to thank Obamacare for saving my life.

"I pay $55 for the premium with the tax credit."

Yeeeeup...her coverage cost her $55.00 "with the tax credit" (well, surprise, suprise!) - that is unless her story is proven to be as bogus as some others have been shown to be...but her coverage cost the rest of us $1.5 trillion...so far. And it cost those on Medicare $700 billion.

Why do I even bother pointing this stuff out? 'Waste of time & energy.



The hiking trails are calling. 'Gotta answer 'em. TTFN.

 

[Jim Craik]

"I pay $55 for the premium with the tax credit."

Yeeeeup...her coverage cost her $55.00 "with the tax credit" (well, surprise, suprise!) - that is unless her story is proven to be as bogus as some others have been shown to be...but her coverage cost the rest of us $1.5 trillion...so far. And it cost those on Medicare $700 billion.

Your compassion is noted.

Larry you said that "her coverage cost the rest of us $1.5 trillion...so far."

It that true?

Has coverage cost "the rest of us $1.5 trillion...so far?

No Larry, that is just not true!

Per the CBO.....

It is estimated to cost up to $1.36 trillion by ***2023****

Larry, is 2023 the same as "now?"



What is the cost of ObamaCareClick Here To Enroll? ObamaCare, Obama's new health careClick Here To Enroll law, has a massive impact on health care costs. ObamaCare's cost is estimated at up to net cost of $1.36 trillion dollars by 2023.

Although Obamacare's net costs are in the trillions, the law actually reduces the growth in health care spending by tens of billions each year, reduces health care costs for many Americans, helps to insure tens of millions and is estimated to result in an overall net decrease of the deficit.

***Obamacare is projected to cut the national deficit by over $200 billion during its first 10 years and over $1 trillion over the next two decades.***

This helps offset the up-front cost of ObamaCare. Please be aware the cost estimates are changed on a regular basis and are often quoted as being between $1 and $2.6 trillion. Our cost estimate is taken directly from the front page of the official CBO report on ObamaCare's costs. ObamaCare is paid for through collected taxes, penalties, spending cuts and reformations to the health care industry.


****************

Larry, when you are crying about the $1.36 trillion for lifesaving health care through 2023, keep in mind that by then we are estimated to have spent $6+ trillion on Bush's wars.........

What has been the net effect of those wars on the lives of Americans?

Larry, when you consider the lives lost/destroyed in war and the lives saved by health care, which of those expenses will provide the greatest benifit for the American people?

 

[Larry L.]

As usual, Jim, you've purposely chosen to ignore the point completely and obfuscate instead.

'Done here...

 

[Jim Craik]

What is your point?

We already knew that those who can't afford all the cost of health care would be subsidized.

We also knew that the costs could be as much as $1.36 trillion by 2023.

We also knew that the more Americans with health care, that over time the money we are paying for the ununsured would go way down.

We also know that having more American with health care would help the health care industry, over time lowering the cost to all.

We also know that you do not give a shit about the less fortunate.

***********

So Larry, you say I have....

"purposely chosen to ignore the point completely and obfuscate instead?"

Larry, what is your point that I have ignored?

 

[Larry L.]

What we "KNEW", Jim, is that we could KEEP our doctor ("period")...'KEEP our plan ("period")..."NOBODY could take 'em away from us (PERIOD)"....'WE'D PAY AN AVERAGE OF $2,500 L-E-S-S PER YEAR for our health insurance under the Obamacare plan...'EVERYBODY would be covered...we'd get BETTER coverage FOR LESS MONEY, AND we "knew" Obamacare was NOT a tax. THAT is what we "knew", Jim. "Over time" had nothing whatsoever to do with it...neither did "What we said was, if you already had a plan that qualified under Obamacare BEFORE the ACA passed (blah, blah, blah)." 'Not during the admin's "pre vote" sales pitches anyway. Oh, after the fact - sure - when the ACA had already been passed and it was too late to stop it, AND the horror stories were beginning to surface. But NOT during the 'sales pitch' phase. No sir. (And, incidentally, that "1.3 trillion" cost estimate you're now telling us was a known fact back then WAS ORIGINALLY $900 BILLION!)

And where did we get our info? 'The same people from whom you got your rosy, 'pie-in-the-sky' assertions above.

I'll say it again: It would have been faaaaaaaaaar cheaper if we had just handed the 30 or 40 million uninsured people a medical bank account in the amount of 'X' million dollars EACH than to launch the bottomless money pit we now know as Obamacare.

(Now, be sure to nitpick the $$$ amount again rather than to see the point.)

 

[Doug S.]

As I understand it, Jim, Larry's primary issues revolve around two points. As I see it he takes exception to what he believes in that the ACA was forced down the throats of those of us here in the USA when what he sincerely believes to be a majority of Americans were against the law from the beginning. My belief is that he believes that because his "sample group", i.e. the people he associates with, probably ARE all against the law. I doubt he hangs out with many minimum wage earners...he's a physician, after all. His sample group is skewed in reference to the population, but he's either unaware of that or unwilling to recognize exactly how different his reference group is. He is as sincere in his beliefs as are you...and as firm.
I think his other issue is a philosophical disagreement with managed health care. I do not know many physicians who are fond of negotiated discounts for PPOs, reimbursement limits for Medicaid/Medicare, that sort of thing. He must be incredibly intelligent, you do not make it through med school if you are not...but he IS most assuredly delusional if he believes the government is targeting him and other highly compensated individuals out of any personal agenda, such as those espoused by Saul Alinsky. The current administration is simply attempting to carry through on the mandate issued via the ballot box...the populous demand that the welfare of the masses be attended to before the welfare of the few at the top of the economic food chain. Get everyone insured so those of us with more limited resources don't have to pay for healthcare for the irresponsible, get the lowest economic levels back to work and in jobs that have a minimum wage high enough that they contribute to the economic welfare of our country rather than draining those resource through public assistance programs (this is a thread about unemoyment, after all).
Those who are in his reference group share the same shortsighted (IMHO, Larry...IMHO!!!) beliefs as he has and he will never be in touch with the populous dilema.
He is not "the enemy" here...those radical right wing groups are. God help us if we more "regular" types do not get out the vote in the next big round of elections...if that happens it will be because those Tea Party adherents were zealous enough in their angst to get out the vote and the apathetic general population did not recognize the threat.

Doug

 

[Steve]

Karl Marx has got to be loving the fact that he's back in vogue...

 

[Jim Craik]

Of coure you are right Doug, I'm sure that Larry and Steve strongly believe what the are saying. To a certain extent they are a victim here, just as we all are.

They only repeat what they read and hear. Unfortunaltly just as those who get their "news" from MSNBC are fooled, so are these guys.

But you would think that after awile you would question your source.

Look at the original poster on this thread.....

Mr Fechter has been starting threads like this for many years, virtual all of the lacking in reality.

As we know the unemployment rate has been going down, so the righ wing media has decided the the long used "Regan method" sould be changed because look here, if we count everyone over 18 that is not working...........you know stay at home mothers, retired people, peole over 90 years old.......

They get 92 million people who are "out of the work force". They tell Mr Fechter this in such a way that he believe that all those people are unemployed.........


So Mr Fechter says this is outrgous, I must tell everyone

He starts this thread he calls it "Over 92 million Americans out of work force"

Then in the very first line he says:

"They aren't counted as "unemployed" so our employment rate looks "rosy!"


Now it's obvious that once again he has been fooled by this type of media,

He did not know it was Reagans method, that we use, he really believed that 92 million Americans want to work........and should be counted as "unemployed."



But Doug, this has been going on and on for years, at some point you stop being the victim and become the problem!

 

[Bob Fechter]

I honestly think craik would be a better Press Secretary for B.O. than Mr Jay Carney.

 

[Jim Craik]

Then earlier today Larry posted this about the lady.........

He said this about here subsidised health care "but her coverage cost the rest of us $1.5 trillion..."so far"

I'm sure Larry believed that, I don't believe he just made it up......


And he came here with it.........


Its possible that his "news source" forgot to mention that number included all the years through 2023, not just "so far".......


But Doug, if I'm burned by a news source or a friend once.......well OK


But who goes back time after time to get burned again and again?

 

[Steve]

Carney has more panache but his blind allegiance to the Nobel Peace Prize Winner may pale compared to Jim.

Just flipping through some Marxist quotes. I don't remember as much from college as I'd like. Apparently he firmly believed in the "iron law of wages". Very similar to what Jim espouses. The belief is that the the laborer can do nothing about their low wages and that the employer always desires to keep their wages at the bare minimum of subsistence. These theories are over 150 years old and have been proven false time and again, yet they still have their adherants. Socialism is, of course, necessary to free laborers from the chains of their existence. All of those minimum wage workers are clearly not capable of getting raises or improving their position so it's necessary for the government to have more control and set the wages higher.

 

[Steve]

Didn't know you were a doc Larry?

 

[Jim Craik]

Yep Doug, this one will play out like all the others. When you point out that once again, they have been fooled, they never acknowledge the error, the don't defend their data, they usually say somthing about me being a Marxist, Communist, Socialist or being an Obama stooge........

(We own and run two businesses, have a fair amount of Silicon Valley land, income property, tenants, a Porsche, A GT/40 and the important part of a Le Mans LMP car.....Does any of that sound like a Marxist?)

Don't be so foolish as to confuse compassion with failed socialist experiments.

Then they just go on believing what they post, we can expect to hear these same incorrect numbers repeated over and over.

Can anyone explain how this can happen?

*********************

Being correct is very important to me, I check what I post, but in the rare instance I get something wrong I admit it, apologize and correct the record.

If I post something that does not seem right, please call me on it, but check the data and not just one place.

Then please point out the checked data and I will change my view and apologize, I promise!

 

[Larry L.]

Didn't know you were a doc Larry?

Neither did I...

 

[Larry L.]

Then earlier today Larry posted this about the lady.........

He said this about here subsidised health care "but her coverage cost the rest of us $1.5 trillion..."so far"

Here we go with the nitpicking again. Wooooo - let's get the 'TENSE' precisely right in every sentence so Jim doesn't get all bent out of shape.

The $1.3, or $1.5, or $1.93865 trillion >IS< what the powers that be currently claim Obamacare's price tag to be. Just as they USED TO CLAIM $750 to $900 BILLION or whatever it was (I don't recall the PRECISE amount). But 1.3 or 1.5 (or whatever it might be as of this nanosecond) IS the current cost estimate so far...which was what I was getting at. Anyway, the 'tense' used has nothing to do with the point I was making, which was: Obamacare's price tag is waaaaaaaaaaay too darned high vs. what is necessary to cover people like the dame above...and it's going to go higher. What govt program hasn't?

Regardless, when all the receipts are added up down the road, the current cost 'guesstimates' will come up a trainload (or two) short. That's a given.

Krymuny...(sigh)

But who goes back time after time to get burned again and again?

You for one.



It's midnight-thirty.

G'night.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Call Obama care what you like and bleat about the costs but you cant knock the bloke for trying to make healthcare available for all. You can bet that once this is in place properly there wont be a newly elected government brave enough to dismantle the system , they may trim up the costs which can only be a good thing but healthcare for the masses is a must have PERIOD.

Bob

 

[Steve]

Neither did I...

Oh, I thought Jim said "being correct is very important to me". After spending an entire post bashing you for being a selfish greedy doctor I'm sure you can expect an apology forthright.

To be clear, his views on minimum wage are marxist but not all of his views are. See here: The Marxian Theory of Wage Rates

In general what he supports is commonly termed the "modern welfare state" which isn't pure socialism. It's "socialism lite" and is the mantra of the progressives. Some of them favor these policies as a means to grab power by creating a large dependent population on government social programs-the malignant progressives. Some favor these policies because they're confident they are far smarter than the populace and the populace needs to have these decisions made for them by the government and paid for with taxpayer dollars. They want the individual to give up individual liberties and freedoms, shut up and have these policies rammed down their throat because, after all, the progressive is smarter than you and knows what's best for you-the arrogant elitist progressive. Some are fools who think we should all sit by the camp fire and sing kum ba ya and we must care for all people all the time because we're enlightened and we're such good people-the bleeding heart progressive or the social elitist progressive. Some progressives are a combo.

So, the desire to raise the minimum wage fits neatly into any one of the above narratives. In reality, it's not clear that raising it will do anything to improve the poverty rate and no one has put forth a valid argument with evidence to the contrary. If there was such an argument and the potential consequences of such a move (i.e. inflation) were minimal then it would seem like a good thing. Some fast food workers want to see it doubled to $15 an hour. Hard to imagine I could have made that equivalent in HS while bagging groceries! I must admit I don't know why minimum wage, if you're going to have it, isn't indexed to inflation.