Healthcare.gov

[Dr. NO]

Obamacare's big overhead costs to top $270B

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102707721" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eh, vs. the $18 T, T, Trillion debt, who cares about a few paltry Billion? Didn't Bill and BO reduce the national debt? OH, and they both balanced the Federal Budget, in the next 10 to 20 years?

[steamboat1]

Obamacare's big overhead costs to top $270B

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102707721" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eh, vs. the $18 T, T, Trillion debt, who cares about a few paltry Billion? Didn't Bill and BO reduce the national debt? OH, and they both balanced the Federal Budget, in the next 10 to 20 years?

Some people just don't understand the difference between debt & deficit. Debt has always risen but the deficit goes up & down although neither has ever been in the black in recent history.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Obamacare's big overhead costs to top $270B

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102707721" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eh, vs. the $18 T, T, Trillion debt, who cares about a few paltry Billion? Didn't Bill and BO reduce the national debt? OH, and they both balanced the Federal Budget, in the next 10 to 20 years?

Some people just don't understand the difference between debt & deficit. Debt has always risen but the deficit goes up & down although neither has ever been in the black in recent history.

My liberal buddies were praising / bragging about Obama's budget surplus last month (which, I imagine, is a result of ACA tax receipts/fees). When I started talking about about the the fiscal year budget for 2016 (as well as prior-years) will create a deficit and increase the federal debt, there is much confusion.

[Geoff]

My liberal buddies were praising / bragging about Obama's budget surplus last month (which, I imagine, is a result of ACA tax receipts/fees). When I started talking about about the the fiscal year budget for 2016 (as well as prior-years) will create a deficit and increase the federal debt, there is much confusion.

Nice try on the spin but that is not why the short-term budget is roughly balanced for the first time in recent memory. After 6 years of Keynesian priming the pump, the economy had enough growth in 2014 that tax revenue is up, they're not flinging money at economic recovery spending, and they've finally stopped the quantitative easing bond buyback with borrowed money.

Unfortunately, the US can't control the world economy. Europe is sucking wind and Asia really slowed down. US exports were down enough that GDP growth flattened out in Q1. The economy has been chugging along since Q3 2009. It's kind of remarkable we haven't had at least a mild recession in the last 5 1/2 years. We could easily see that in Q2 and Q3.

[Bubba]

My liberal buddies were praising / bragging about Obama's budget surplus last month (which, I imagine, is a result of ACA tax receipts/fees). When I started talking about about the the fiscal year budget for 2016 (as well as prior-years) will create a deficit and increase the federal debt, there is much confusion.

Nice try on the spin but that is not why the short-term budget is roughly balanced for the first time in recent memory. After 6 years of Keynesian priming the pump, the economy had enough growth in 2014 that tax revenue is up, they're not flinging money at economic recovery spending, and they've finally stopped the quantitative easing bond buyback with borrowed money.

Unfortunately, the US can't control the world economy. Europe is sucking wind and Asia really slowed down. US exports were down enough that GDP growth flattened out in Q1. The economy has been chugging along since Q3 2009. It's kind of remarkable we haven't had at least a mild recession in the last 5 1/2 years. We could easily see that in Q2 and Q3.

Better check the Q2 GDP forecasts. As far as I know, Q2 looks like a rebound to about a 2.5% growth rate. Of course, that follows a probable revision downward to a decline in Q1.

[shortski]

My liberal buddies were praising / bragging about Obama's budget surplus last month (which, I imagine, is a result of ACA tax receipts/fees). When I started talking about about the the fiscal year budget for 2016 (as well as prior-years) will create a deficit and increase the federal debt, there is much confusion.

Nice try on the spin but that is not why the short-term budget is roughly balanced for the first time in recent memory. After 6 years of Keynesian priming the pump, the economy had enough growth in 2014 that tax revenue is up, they're not flinging money at economic recovery spending, and they've finally stopped the quantitative easing bond buyback with borrowed money.

Unfortunately, the US can't control the world economy. Europe is sucking wind and Asia really slowed down. US exports were down enough that GDP growth flattened out in Q1. The economy has been chugging along since Q3 2009. It's kind of remarkable we haven't had at least a mild recession in the last 5 1/2 years. We could easily see that in Q2 and Q3.

Better check the Q2 GDP forecasts. As far as I know, Q2 looks like a rebound to about a 2.5% growth rate. Of course, that follows a probable revision downward to a decline in Q1.

Well as long as they don't count as unemployed the people who have given up looking for work as unemployed that figure should drop below 4%...that's full employment. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtin. With the major stock market indexes around +3-5% it not a robust economy and a lot is smoke and mirrors. Good luck to you millennials you may as well pull the plug now.

[SnoBrdr]

Economy contracted 0.7% in the first quarter; corporate profits fall

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-g ... story.html

[Highway Star]

Crazy tea people:

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/25/fox_new ... destroyed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today could very well be the day we get a Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell. Or it might not be. The ruling could come tomorrow, or Monday. Either way, there isn’t much time left before we transition to the next phase of Affordable Care Act’s life, with or without health insurance subsidies in the majority of states. And given that time is short, I wanted to seize this moment to share with you, my beloved reader(s), one of the hottest King v. Burwell takes that has yet been cooked up.

To recap, the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell seize on four words in the text of the Affordable Care Act to argue that the law is written in such a way that the federal government cannot legally dole out health insurance subsidies to residents of states that use the federal insurance marketplace. The legal minds who dreamed up the case contend that Congress intentionally drafted the bill this way in order to effectively coerce the states into setting up their own marketplaces – build your own exchange, or your residents won’t get money to help pay for health insurance. According to this mythology, the administration didn’t anticipate that so many states would refuse this deal, and so it ordered the IRS to dole out the subsidies in direct violation of the law.

Making this argument requires one to ignore everything one knows about the drafting and passage of the ACA, embrace some fantastical leaps of logic, and deny obvious truths in a spirit of deliberate and pernicious bad faith. And conservatives happily embraced this warped history of the ACA because King v. Burwell carries the potential to do real damage to Obamacare.

That brings us to Matt Kibbe, the outgoing CEO of the Tea Party astroturf group FreedomWorks. Kibbe sees something else happening in the administration’s implementation of Obamacare – something far more sinister than the pedestrian illegality that the rest of the conservative movement has convinced itself of. He wrote an Op-Ed for Fox News a couple of days ago confidently predicting that the Supreme Court will rule for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell and cripple the Affordable Care Act, and Obama wants it that way.

Read, and be scandalized:

Obama is not worried about the Supreme Court ruling against him, he’s banking on it. It gives him an opportunity to blame Republicans for robbing people of their health care. By taking no action, he can point fingers at everyone else for spoiling his vision of government-run health care.

It’s the ultimate insider play: pass a broken law in a one-sided, partisan way, lie to people about what the law does, allow the IRS to implement the law illegally, and then, when it all falls apart, fiddle while America burns in the interest of scoring political points.

No wonder people hate Washington.

I’m not entirely sure where to start with this, but here goes. I don’t know the president and I haven’t had the opportunity to ask his opinion of the case (though if he’s reading and he wants to sit down for an interview I can probably move some things around). However, I feel pretty confident in asserting that he’d rather the court not blow a giant hole in his legacy-defining healthcare law, even if doing so would provide him with the rare and precious gift of “an opportunity to blame Republicans.” Seems like he’d rather have a functional healthcare law and not put millions of people at risk of losing their insurance. But I only assume that’s the case because I don’t view the president as an absurdly misguided Machiavellian sociopath.

To that point, Kibbe seems to be suffering from the same strain of cognitive dissonance that is afflicting most conservatives and Republicans who are backing the plaintiffs in King. On the one hand, he thinks Obamacare is an obvious failure – a “broken law” that isn’t living up to the promises that attended its passage. On the other hand, he acknowledges that stripping away the subsidies that are at the heart of Obamacare’s success would be disastrous – America will “burn,” he writes, when they’re taken away. And, of course, Kibbe is very much of the opinion that the subsidies should be stripped away by the Supreme Court. He just thinks Obama should shoulder the blame for it instead of the conservatives and Republicans who are actively pushing to achieve that end.

It’s utter gibberish, and I highlight it because it stands out as one of the more extreme examples of the contorted nonsense that conservatives have eagerly espoused as part of the war on Obama’s healthcare reform law. Hopefully by the end of the day, or by the end of next week, we won’t have to deal with this garbage anymore.

[madhatter]

Crazy tea people:

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/25/fox_new ... destroyed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today could very well be the day we get a Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell. Or it might not be. The ruling could come tomorrow, or Monday. Either way, there isn’t much time left before we transition to the next phase of Affordable Care Act’s life, with or without health insurance subsidies in the majority of states. And given that time is short, I wanted to seize this moment to share with you, my beloved reader(s), one of the hottest King v. Burwell takes that has yet been cooked up.

To recap, the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell seize on four words in the text of the Affordable Care Act to argue that the law is written in such a way that the federal government cannot legally dole out health insurance subsidies to residents of states that use the federal insurance marketplace. The legal minds who dreamed up the case contend that Congress intentionally drafted the bill this way in order to effectively coerce the states into setting up their own marketplaces – build your own exchange, or your residents won’t get money to help pay for health insurance. According to this mythology, the administration didn’t anticipate that so many states would refuse this deal, and so it ordered the IRS to dole out the subsidies in direct violation of the law.

Making this argument requires one to ignore everything one knows about the drafting and passage of the ACA, embrace some fantastical leaps of logic, and deny obvious truths in a spirit of deliberate and pernicious bad faith. And conservatives happily embraced this warped history of the ACA because King v. Burwell carries the potential to do real damage to Obamacare.

That brings us to Matt Kibbe, the outgoing CEO of the Tea Party astroturf group FreedomWorks. Kibbe sees something else happening in the administration’s implementation of Obamacare – something far more sinister than the pedestrian illegality that the rest of the conservative movement has convinced itself of. He wrote an Op-Ed for Fox News a couple of days ago confidently predicting that the Supreme Court will rule for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell and cripple the Affordable Care Act, and Obama wants it that way.

Read, and be scandalized:

Obama is not worried about the Supreme Court ruling against him, he’s banking on it. It gives him an opportunity to blame Republicans for robbing people of their health care. By taking no action, he can point fingers at everyone else for spoiling his vision of government-run health care.

It’s the ultimate insider play: pass a broken law in a one-sided, partisan way, lie to people about what the law does, allow the IRS to implement the law illegally, and then, when it all falls apart, fiddle while America burns in the interest of scoring political points.

No wonder people hate Washington.

I’m not entirely sure where to start with this, but here goes. I don’t know the president and I haven’t had the opportunity to ask his opinion of the case (though if he’s reading and he wants to sit down for an interview I can probably move some things around). However, I feel pretty confident in asserting that he’d rather the court not blow a giant hole in his legacy-defining healthcare law, even if doing so would provide him with the rare and precious gift of “an opportunity to blame Republicans.” Seems like he’d rather have a functional healthcare law and not put millions of people at risk of losing their insurance. But I only assume that’s the case because I don’t view the president as an absurdly misguided Machiavellian sociopath.

To that point, Kibbe seems to be suffering from the same strain of cognitive dissonance that is afflicting most conservatives and Republicans who are backing the plaintiffs in King. On the one hand, he thinks Obamacare is an obvious failure – a “broken law” that isn’t living up to the promises that attended its passage. On the other hand, he acknowledges that stripping away the subsidies that are at the heart of Obamacare’s success would be disastrous – America will “burn,” he writes, when they’re taken away. And, of course, Kibbe is very much of the opinion that the subsidies should be stripped away by the Supreme Court. He just thinks Obama should shoulder the blame for it instead of the conservatives and Republicans who are actively pushing to achieve that end.

It’s utter gibberish, and I highlight it because it stands out as one of the more extreme examples of the contorted nonsense that conservatives have eagerly espoused as part of the war on Obama’s healthcare reform law. Hopefully by the end of the day, or by the end of next week, we won’t have to deal with this garbage anymore.

salon.com, bastion of lunacy....

[Dr. NO]

Top 9 Quotes From Scalia’s Scathing Dissent

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/top-9 ... hffacebook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Guess he is not happy that the Court interpreted rather than uphold to put down what the law said. Now State means State or possibly Federal governments.

[Bubba]

Falling of its own weight?

UnitedHealth May Quit Obamacare Market in Blow to Health Law

The U.S.’s biggest health insurer is considering pulling out of Obamacare, a month after saying it would expand its presence in the program.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. is scaling back marketing efforts for plans it’s selling this year under the Affordable Care Act, and may quit the business entirely in 2017 because it has proven to be more costly than expected. It’s an abrupt shift from October, when the health insurer said it was planning to sell coverage in 11 new markets next year, bringing its total to 34. The company also cut its 2015 earnings forecast.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ne&ref=yfp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bubba]

Wow! Here's a surprise.....


Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/27 ... ustainable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dr. NO]

Wow! Here's a surprise.....


Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/27 ... ustainable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, insurance companies get out of health care and pass it on to Government. BOOM, Single Payer System that seems to be what many doctors and patients want. Of course, this will probably bankrupt the Fed and States and bring our healthcare system to a screeching halt. How does a 3 to 6 month wait for that MRI sound? need a stint to clear your artieries? OR will be ready in 2 or more months. Please have a seat.

[Bubba]

Wow! Here's a surprise.....


Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/27 ... ustainable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, insurance companies get out of health care and pass it on to Government. BOOM, Single Payer System that seems to be what many doctors and patients want. Of course, this will probably bankrupt the Fed and States and bring our healthcare system to a screeching halt. How does a 3 to 6 month wait for that MRI sound? need a stint to clear your artieries? OR will be ready in 2 or more months. Please have a seat.

The majority of doctors don't want single payer. They see what the reimbursement rates are under Medicare and Medicaid already.

[Dr. NO]

Wow! Here's a surprise.....


Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/27 ... ustainable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, insurance companies get out of health care and pass it on to Government. BOOM, Single Payer System that seems to be what many doctors and patients want. Of course, this will probably bankrupt the Fed and States and bring our healthcare system to a screeching halt. How does a 3 to 6 month wait for that MRI sound? need a stint to clear your artieries? OR will be ready in 2 or more months. Please have a seat.

The majority of doctors don't want single payer. They see what the reimbursement rates are under Medicare and Medicaid already.

True, True, MOST doctors don't want it. Butt in my travels I have had conversations with a few doctors (yeah, they actually talked to me) and they are adamant about changing our system over to government controlled single payer. Mostly because it removes a s**t load of paper work. Currently, I'm working on going along for the ride with my upcoming Medicare and BS part A, B, C, D...... Does anyone really know how this crap works?