[Vision2020] BULL***T ! ! !

Gary Crabtree moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
Mon Feb 2 16:57:47 PST 2015

So people other then tom who had coverage that they preferred whether it be
as a benefit of their employment or a benefit of their own hard work should
not be entitled to the same deferential treatment?​ Many of those polices
also "exceeded the coverage of the policies that people were not able to
maintain under Obama care?


On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Gary,
> Isn't the difference that Tom's coverage was a benefit of his employment,
> and exceeded the coverage of the policies that people were not able to
> maintain under Obamacare?
> Sunil
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:20:05 -0800
> From: moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
> To: ngier006 at gmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] BULL***T ! ! !
> Let's assume that I am as wrong as wrong can be and o-care has resulted in
> nothing but sunshine and lollipops for ​everyone who has come in contact
> with it. Let's also posit that everyone who had to change their health
> care plans as a result of this wonderful program couldn't be any happier
> with the outcome. Why shouldn't tom be allowed to enjoy these wonderful
> benefits along with all the other shiny happy people? I can only guess
> that, like so many Americans, He simply doesn't know what's in his own best
> interest and that the government needs to take him by the hand and show him
> the proper path, right?
> g
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Nicholas Gier <ngier006 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gary,
> Do you know what you are talking about, or are you just repeating what you
> have heard on right-wing radio/TV?  I will do some more research,
> especially on whether these people are paying higher premiums, but the
> following from factcheck.org will do for a start:
> The Line: Millions of people have lost their health insurance and their
> doctors because of the Affordable Care Act.
> The Party: Republican
> President Obama gave ad-makers plenty of fodder last year when his promise
> — “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” — clearly
> was proven false
> <http://www.factcheck.org/2013/10/reality-confronts-obamas-false-promise/>.
> We had said years earlier
> <http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/> that
> Obama couldn’t make that promise to everyone, but the claim made headlines
> when Americans received cancellation notices for individual market plans
> that no longer met the law’s requirements.
> Critics of the law now say millions lost their health insurance. But
> that’s misleading. Those individual market plans were discontinued, but
> policyholders weren’t denied coverage. And the question is, how *many*millions
> of insured Americans had plans canceled, and how does that compare with the
> millions of uninsured Americans who gained coverage under the law.
> There is evidence that far more have gained coverage than had their
> policies canceled.
> The conservative Americans for Prosperity has made the canceled policies a
> theme in its advertising. In one series of ads, a soft-spoken woman says:
> “Millions of people have lost their health insurance. Millions of people
> can’t see their own doctors.” That ad, which aired in February and March,
> targets Democratic senators in three states: Sens. Mark Udall in Colorado,
> Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and Mark Pryor in Arkansas. The ad aired
> <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdSOGKMMlmmY7PeOxod80xHZxUhfsDh2H> against
> Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina in November, and it’s also been used to
> target a few House members.
> Another AFP ad targeting Landrieu — and airing in January — said that
> “millions of Americans have lost their health care.”
> It’s true that insurance companies discontinued health plans that had
> covered millions of people who had bought them directly rather than through
> an employer. That’s because those plans didn’t meet the coverage standards
> of the new law.
> But those policyholders didn’t lose the ability to have insurance. In most
> cases, insurers offered them an alternative plan, though there were some
> instances of companies exiting the individual market altogether.
> Whether offered an alternative or not, individuals could shop for
> insurance on the federal and state marketplaces, or through a broker or
> insurance carrier directly. Many were likely eligible for federal subsidies
> to help pay for insurance, resulting in better coverage and lower rates for
> some. But the specific plan they had was indeed discontinued. (More than
> half of those with canceled policies were likely to be eligible for federal
> assistance, according to Urban Institute research
> <http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/03/03/how-many-nongroup-policies-were-canceled-estimates-from-december-2013/>,
> and about 80 percent of all those buying plans on the exchanges are
> expected to qualify for subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget
> Office
> <http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900-2014-02-ACAtables.pdf>
> .)
> How many individual market cancellations were there?
> The most commonly used figure is 4.7 million, based on reporting by the
> Associated Press last December. But there’s reason to doubt the accuracy of
> that figure. An analysis of a more recent poll by researchers at the Urban
> Institute puts the figure at somewhere around 2.6 million.
> An AP story that ran Dec. 26
> <http://finance.yahoo.com/news/policy-notifications-current-status-state-204701399.html> said
> that “at least 4.7 million Americans received the cancellation notices,”
> and gave state-by-state figures for the “number of policies scheduled to be
> canceled.”
> But the news agency didn’t say exactly how it arrived at the other figures
> that went into the 4.7 million total, making the reporting impossible for
> outsiders to verify. In three states, the figures appear to be inflated.
> Washington state’s insurance commissioner, for example, has publicly stated
> that the AP’s figure of 290,000 discontinued policies in that state is
> “inaccurate.” In a news release on his official website
> <http://oic.wa.gov/about-oic/news-media/news-releases/2014/2-13-2014.html>,
> Insurance Commissioner Michael Kreidler said that there were only 278,000
> total in the individual market at the end of September. Recent reports by
> our fact-checking colleagues at Politifact.com
> <http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/30/4022122/rick-scotts-political-committee.html>and
> the *Washington Post*
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/07/mcconnells-stale-inflated-claim-on-health-plan-cancellations/> show
> the numbers were too high in Florida and Kentucky.
> And now, new research also gives reason to think the AP estimate may be
> inflated.
> In a March 3 posting on the website of the journal Health Affairs, two
> researchers from the Urban Institute analyzed findings from a nationwide
> poll and said, “Our findings imply that roughly 2.6 million people
> <http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/03/03/how-many-nongroup-policies-were-canceled-estimates-from-december-2013/>would
> have reported that their plan would no longer be offered due to
> noncompliance with the ACA.” And in this case, the methodology is made
> explicit.
> In December 2013, the Urban Institute’s quarterly Health Reform
> Monitoring Survey <http://hrms.urban.org/index.html> of adults ages 18-64
> included this question: “Did you receive a notice in the past few months
> from a health insurance company saying that your policy is cancelled or
> will no longer be offered at the end of 2013?” And of the 522 people polled
> who were covered by non-group policies, 18.6 percent said yes, their old
> plan would no longer be offered because it didn’t meet the new coverage
> standards that went into effect Jan. 1.
> And if 14 million people were covered by non-group policies nationwide (as
> indicated by the National Health Information Survey of the U.S. Centers for
> Disease Control and Prevention), that percentage translates to 2.6 million
> non-group policies discontinued, the authors stated.
> To be sure, there is always a statistical margin of error in any
> random-sample poll. Lead author Lisa Clemans-Cope told us in an email that
> statistically, there is a 95 percent certainty that the true percentage
> whose non-group policies were discontinued falls somewhere between 16.2
> percent and 23.3 percent. That would put the number at anywhere between
> about 2.3 million and 3.3 million.
> That range could be higher or lower depending on what number is used for
> the total who had non-group coverage in the first place. The Urban
> Institute authors cite a study published last year
> <http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/03/03/how-many-nongroup-policies-were-canceled-estimates-from-december-2013/> that
> found estimates of the total number of people covered by non-group policies
> ranged from 9.55 million to 25.3 million. So if 18.6 percent of non-group
> policyholders got notices that their policies were being dropped because of
> the new law, as the poll indicates, then the actual number whose plans were
> dropped could be as low as about 1.8 million or as high as 4.7 million
> (coincidentally, the same as the AP’s figure), depending on how many had
> such policies in the first place.
> The authors, as noted, picked an estimate that fell in the middle of this
> range to arrive at their figure of 2.6 million discontinued policies. Until
> and unless better evidence comes along, that’s the most solidly based
> figure available.
> How many “millions” so far have gained coverage?
> The early numbers on enrollment in the exchanges and Medicaid don’t tell
> us how many of the enrollees were previously uninsured — despite some
> claims from Democrats to the contrary
> <http://www.factcheck.org/2014/01/reid-overstates-reduction-in-uninsured/>.
> The Obama administration disclosed
> <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-105572.html> on
> April 10 that 7.5 million had signed up for plans on the exchanges, but we
> don’t know how many previously had insurance. The Medicaid rolls increased
> by more than 3 million through the end of February, the administration
> also said
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/medicaid-chip-enrollment-grows-by-more-than-3-million-cms-data-shows/2014/04/04/fcdca03e-bc19-11e3-9c3c-311301e2167d_story.html>,
> a figure that would reflect both those newly eligible under the law and
> previously eligible but now signing up.
> But a survey funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and conducted
> by the Urban Institute
> <http://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/newsroom/newsroom-content/2014/04/new-survey-results-show-significant-decline-in-uninsurance-rate-.html?cid=xrs_rss-pr> indicates
> that many of those signing up for the exchanges and Medicaid may have been
> uninsured. It found that 5.4 million of the previously uninsured had gained
> coverage between September and the beginning of March. The exchanges
> launched Oct. 1.
> An April 8 report by the nonprofit RAND Corp.
> <http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/survey-estimates-net-gain-of-9-3-million-american-adults.html> put
> the figure of newly insured higher. Based on a nationwide poll, Rand
> estimated that there had been a net gain of 9.3 million insured “adults” as
> of mid-March, when the poll was being conducted. That includes marketplace
> and Medicaid enrollment, as well as an increase in employer-based
> enrollment.
> Neither of those figures includes an estimated 3 million young adults
> <http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/06/20120619b.html> who gained
> coverage in 2010 and 2011, likely because of the law’s provision allowing
> them to stay on their parents’ policies.
> RAND also estimated that 700,000 who previously had individual market
> plans were now uninsured. The survey didn’t ascertain whether those newly
> uninsured were due to cancellations or voluntarily dropped coverage.
> It will be some time before more concrete coverage numbers are available.
> The RAND numbers are extrapolated from a survey, and one with sizable
> margins of error. The estimate of 9.3 million newly insured has a margin of
> error of 3.5 million people, meaning researchers have a high degree of
> confidence that the true number would be between 5.8 million and 12.8
> million. And the estimate of 700,000 uninsured who previously had
> individual market plans carries a margin of error of 900,000, putting the
> likely real number somewhere between zero and 1.6 million people.
> Millions more are expected to gain insurance because of the law nationwide
> in the coming years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates
> <http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900-2014-02-ACAtables.pdf>that
> there will be 25 million fewer uninsured due to the ACA as early as 2016.
> Losing Doctors?
> The AFP ad also makes the claim that “millions of people can’t see their
> own doctors,” but there’s no evidence that all those who had individual
> market policies discontinued ended up not being able to keep their own
> doctors. Anecdotally, we know
> <http://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/the-rest-of-the-story-on-arizona-anecdote/>
>  of some folks
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/11/update-julia-boonstras-claim-her-obamacare-plan-is-unaffordable-gets-downgraded-to-three-pinocchios/> who
> were able to keep the same doctor on a new insurance policy. But those are
> only a few individual stories. One of our guiding principles here is the
> saying, “The plural of anecdote is not data.”
> It is true that using a smaller network of providers is one way insurers
> can reduce premium costs, and there is evidence that insurers are indeed
> doing that for exchange plans
> <http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/september/26/narrow-insurance-network-missouri-exchange-marketplace.aspx>.
> As Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research, a
> nonpartisan research firm, told us in December
> <http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/aca-doesnt-set-prices-on-exchanges/>:
> “The narrow-network plans offered by some issuers are intended to (a)
> maximize negotiating leverage with providers by narrowing their PPOs; and
> (b) thereby reduce premiums to attract consumers.”
> Limited networks have existed for some time, as anyone with an HMO, PPO
> and the like can attest. There are no available statistics showing whether
> the plans on the new exchanges have more or less narrow networks than
> existed in the individual market previously. But, again, insurers certainly
> are limiting their networks to price their plans competitively.
> Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told us:
> “It’s definitely the case (based on conversations with insurers and with
> providers) that insurers have decided to limit networks in some instances
> in order to price their health plans more competitively.” She continued:
> “It’s also definitely the case that some providers have declined to
> participate in some of the new health insurance networks, holding out for
> higher fees from some insurers in return for a promise to participate
> exclusively in their networks. This is market competition at work — not
> entirely transparent, unfortunately, so it’s not yet clear what the impact
> will be on patients.”
> *– Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson*
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> When Obama care caused millions of Americans to lose the health care
> they were promised they could keep and forced then to scramble for
> more expensive health plans that were less suitable to their needs you
> thought that this was a wonderful step forward for the country. Surely
> you can't be objecting to a little health care presto change-o coming
> into your own little world?
> g
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
> > Is this what happens under a Republican-controlled congress?
> >
> > Privatization of health care insurance for military retirees?????
> >
> > If it works, DON'T FIX IT ! ! !
> >
> > I am a disabled retiree (with a service-connected disability rated at
> 45%).
> > I would HATE to have to pay commercial health insurance premiums . . .
> and
> > hope I am covered if I should ever have to be admitted to the hospital.
> >
> > Courtesy of the Army Times.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > Commission Calls for Abolishing TriCare
> >
> > A congressional commission has called for an overhaul of the military
> health
> > system that does away with Tricare, changes the medical command structure
> > and seeks to improve Defense Department coordination with Veterans
> Affairs.
> >
> > The goal of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
> > Commission’s plan according to its final report released Jan. 29, is to
> > preserve the quality of combat care that saved many troops’ lives in Iraq
> > and Afghanistan but also improve access to health treatment for those who
> > use the system.
> >
> > Under the recommendations, active- duty members and mobilized reservists
> > still would receive medical care from the U.S. military, with easier
> access
> > to specialty care in the civilian sector if they need it.
> >
> > But their family members, and retirees under 65 and their families,
> would be
> > covered through commercial insurers, similar to plans run under the
> Federal
> > Employee Health Benefits Program.
> >
> > Active-duty families would get an allowance to cover their insurance
> > premiums, called the Basic Allowance for Health Care.
> >
> > Retirees below Medicare-eligible age would pay their premiums out of
> pocket,
> > though at a lower cost thancivilianplansas“recognition” of their service,
> > under the plan.
> >
> > The program would be run from the Office of Personnel Management, just as
> > the FEHBP is, negating the need for the huge Tricare contract management
> and
> > oversight structure that exists in the Pentagon, according to the report.
> >
> > But this would not be FEHBP, commission members stressed, because that
> > program doesn’t offer options appropriate for military beneficiaries with
> > their unique requirements, including the availability of military
> treatment
> > facilities and readiness demands, the commission wrote.
> >
> > “By moving toward private insurance, beneficiaries of the plan would have
> > improved access to health care. ... It also solves some of the issues
> with
> > mobilization and place monthly pension checks with 401(k)-style
> investment
> > accounts. That suggested the government contributions should be at least
> > 16.5 percent of basic pay, with higher rates for deployed service
> members or
> > high-demand career f ields.
> >
> > That plan went nowhere after it was criticized by troops, disavowed by
> the
> > Pentagon leadership and landed with a thud on Capitol Hill.
> >
> > Last March, the Pentagon’s personnel and readiness office broke its long
> > silence and offered several detailed and complex alternatives to the
> current
> > system: hybrid options that included both a TSP with government
> > contributions and smaller, partial pension checks before traditional
> > retirement age.
> >
> > That plan also included some lump-sum payments for troops staying at
> least
> > 20 years, offering a “transitionpay”equaltoasmuchas three years’ basic
> pay.
> >
> > The nine-member commission is chaired by Maldon. Other members include
> > Pressler, Dov Zakheim, Edmund Giambastiani, Peter Chiarelli, Bob Kerrey,
> > Christopher Carney, Michael Higgins and Stephen Buyer. N care they now
> have,
> > under the plan.
> >
> > The commission also recommends that DoD create a four-star Joint
> Readiness
> > Command that would lead much of the portion of the Joint Staff that is
> > responsible for readiness. This structure, commissioners said, would
> improve
> > coordination across the services in treatment, transportation and care
> for
> > injured and ill troops.
> >
> > “Joint readiness today is at a high level because we’ve just been through
> > more than a decade of war. This seeks to preserve that function,” Daigle
> > said.The commission also suggests changes to programs for beneficiaries
> with
> > special needs, to more closely align them with state Medicaid programs —
> > something advocates have sought in recent years.
> >
> > The commission also called for improving coordination between DoD and VA
> > health services, to include creating a uniform drug formulary for smooth
> > transition of prescriptions, establishing standard reimbursement and
> > completing the effort to create a joint electronic health record system.
> >
> > The report estimates changes to the health programs could cut the
> Pentagon
> > budget by $26.5 billion from fiscal 2016 to fiscal 2020 and save $6.7
> > billion a year by 2033.
> >
> > Unlike the retirement portion of the report, which would apply only to
> new
> > recruits, the health care portion of the recommendations would affect all
> > family members, retirees and their families — except for those on Tricare
> > For Life — once signed into law.
> >
> > Joyce Raezer, executive director of the National Military Family
> > Association, said she polled 20 military spouses shortly after the report
> > was released and said most were “intrigued” by the recommendations,
> > particularly the prospect of greater choice.
> >
> > “Generally, the option for choice in this arrangement ... they like that.
> > The Tricare bureaucracy is cumbersome,” Raezer said.
> >
> > But spouses added they would need help understanding their options and
> > choosing plans, and they also wondered how such a system would work
> across
> > state lines and overseas.
> >
> > “The biggest concern is about education,” Raezer said. “We have been
> > educating the whole country about health care with the Affordable Care
> Act
> > right now. This means we’d need to educate retirees and family members
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
> >
> > "Moscow Cares"
> > http://www.MoscowCares.com
> >
> > Tom Hansen
> > Moscow, Idaho
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20150202/db36eb6b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list