Skip to main content

View Diary: ACA, Understanding the details: Actuarial values of the plans' tiers & why you can ignore them (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Needless Complexity & Loopholes (7+ / 0-)

    We need Single Payer now.  We would save over 600 billion/year.  ~One trillion has been pissed away to deliver the current product which is a fail.

    •  Absolutely true! nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashoil, worldlotus
    •  True, but you'd better give this some love (4+ / 0-)

      or it will get killed and we'll have nothing.

      Oatmeal is not foie gras but it's better than dirt.

      •  Very Hard to buff a Turd. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sunspots, Willa Rogers

        First Hints of Back End Problems Appear

        NOTE [3] Remember, it's highly likely that the White House totally borked the entire project by changing the forms -- that is, the stuff you fill in on the Exchange website -- at the last minute for political and public relations reasons. Speculating freely: If the ObamaCare Exchange's front end, where the form is filled out, was tightly coupled to the back end -- that is, if the backend expected to find some chunk of data in exactly one place in the form, from where it would grab it and slam it directly into the database on the backend, that's quite likely. That's the quick and dirty way a body shop under pressure would do the job, and we all know the Obama administration would never cut corners on something that didn't directly impact public relations, right? Ha ha. Anyhow, we do know that changing the forms broke the Connecticut, state-based Exchange, so it's reasonable to think that the Feds had the same problem. Except for 36 states, not one. And that means that Obama is going to people he screwed over to ask them for a shovel to dig himself out of a jam. To technical people, this is standard operating procedure, but the managers and department heads may not be so compassionate.
        The quote above is just a small example of the difficulty of this scheme.  With Single Payer, just your birth certificate would work.  LBJ set up Medicare in less than a year in the IBM card era.  This has dragged on for a long time to end up with no plans that feature treatment for cancer and cost too much when you discover the loopholes.
        Ultimately a verdict will be rendered at the polls.  When the true costs of this scheme are realized by the consumer, all hell will break loose.
        •  They would have had to hire an idiot DBA (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          whenwego

          For this to occur:

          if the backend expected to find some chunk of data in exactly one place in the form, from where it would grab it and slam it directly into the database on the backend
          From what I know of the folks they've had do their software over the years, this is highly unlikely.

          The form fields would have names, and those names would correspond to database fields. Moving a field on a form would have no impact on whether or not its data ended up in the right place in the DB.

          It's not like they'll have coded the system in Microsoft Access, or dug up an old copy of Hypercard somewhere, for crying out loud.

          I am not surprised that CT did something stupid with their DB, but the Obama administration is a boatload more tech savvy - their system will work just fine on the back end.

      •  No Cancer Treatment in Exchange Plans. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sunspots

        A Touching Story of Haves versus have an Exchange

        Congress addressed the “holes” in insurance policies via creating the “10 essential benefits”. Access to doctors who treat serious illnesses was NOT one of those 10 essential benefits. Thus insurance companies created new holes in their policies, severely curtailing access to treatment for illnesses they have traditionally covered.

        The Democrats are too busy protecting Obama to help us. The Republicans are too busy screaming "socialism". We have to protect each other, keep each other informed.

        No treatment for cancer is 100% fail.
        •  I've noticed that both of your comments ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          whenwego

          cite the same extremely anti-Obama source.  And when you go to the link in your first comment, Corrente.com (whatever that is) cites NOTHING for its assertion that

          it's highly likely that the White House totally borked the entire project by changing the forms -- that is, the stuff you fill in on the Exchange website -- at the last minute for political and public relations reasons.
          Especially when that is followed by "Speculating freely ..." and a bunch of other stuff, I'm not sure why you think anybody should take that seriously.

          Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

          by leevank on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 07:45:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  NYT has it today. (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            leevank

            NYT

            WASHINGTON — The technical problems that have hampered enrollment in the online health insurance exchanges resulted from the failure of a major software component, designed by private contractors, that crashed under the weight of millions of users last week, federal officials said Monday.
            O'Reilly Programming
            The biggest takeaway though, is that the way that the federal government bids out software is fundamentally broken. There are clearly companies in the industry who understand exactly the kind of problems that healthcare.gov needed to address. Intuit’s online TurboTax is much more complicated than the sign-up process for healthcare, and it works under heavy load. Amazon and Google both handle crushing loads gracefully as well. Why can’t the government draw on this kind of expertise when designing a site as critical to the public as healthcare.gov, rather than farming it out to the lowest bidder?
            Obama did in fact bork the original questionnaire and muck up all the code which then had to be redone.  Sorry.
            •  No, the NYT DOESN'T have "it" (meaning ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              whenwego

              any support whatsoever for your statement that "Obama did in fact bork the original questionnaire and muck up all the code which then had to be redone"). It also isn't supported by your quote from O'Reilly Programming.  

              You don't get to simply make shit up, and then claim it's supported by links that don't in fact support it.  Hence the donut.

              Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

              by leevank on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 08:27:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Biggest Obama Bork (0+ / 0-)

                Was the decision to go with his rube scheme instead of proven Medicare Single Payer.  Keeping the private rentier insurance industry intact when it should have bit the dust.  With that stated, let's look at how Obama borked his own program by changing the questionnaire well after most of the code was already written.
                Here is an early Description of Obama's Bet.

                The length of the old application was largely driven by the need to ensure that consumers were actually eligible for the government subsidies that Obamacare offers as a way to offset the cost of buying health insurance.

                Stop right there. It's the eligibility determination that's the fundamental architectural flaw. It cannot be fixed. Americans have to be thrown into different buckets in a complex and confusing system of eligibility determination, and inevitable get thrown in the wrong buckets, or there aren't even the right buckets for them. Adding to the mix is that buckets differ by state, both legally and in terms of insurance markets, and so what should be a simple, national system of Medicare for All instead creates second-class citizens all over the place, both within and between states. Obama chose to go that route. Under a single payer system, where health care is a right, the eligibility paperwork is very simple. There is one form, and it's already been filled out: Your birth certificate. That's the real policy discussion that's being hidden under the discussion about the length of the form.

                Back to the complexity:

                Those 61 pages of the old application were mostly filled with questions to make sure that people were eligible to get the subsidies. The government needs to verify their income, and make sure that they aren’t eligible for health insurance at work.

                Under Obamacare, the government also needs to verify that people aren’t eligible for other public health insurance programs like Medicaid or Veteran’s benefits before they receive subsidies to buy coverage on the exchanges.

                Is anyone in your household eligible to get health coverage from Medicare? Tricare? The Peace Corps? Are there any “other state or federal health benefit program” that they may be able to tap for health coverage? Is anyone in your household pregnant, and therefore eligible for other kinds of government

                assistance?
                That's a mighty big Bork sonny!  BTW at 67YOA your HR does not carry much weight.
              •  More. (0+ / 0-)

                Apology.

                We're only a week into the loud thud "soft launch" anyhow, so it's way too soon for a victory lap. In fact, victory means replacing ObamaCare with a truly universal system that treats health care as a right instead of an opportunity for rental extraction, so it's a ways off. I have to go on to write real posts on ObamaCare, so I'm not going to give linky goodness or quotes, or dance on anybody's grave [sigh], but links to back up claims on request.

                That said, if you've been reading Corrente, you've seen the following claims, all of which have turned out to be true (and none, not one of which have been covered by the career "progressive" blogs or mentioned by Obama apologists, let alone Democratic loyalists)*:

                1. The software development process for the Exchanges was borked: It was rushed, and subject to last minute changes from "management" (the White House);

                2. There would be significant systems integration problems on the back end;

                3. Credit reporting agency data is bad data, and that will cause problems for eligibility determination;

                4. Access to health care through the policies on the Exchanges is a crapshoot; it's arbitrary and capricious, instead of being a right guaranteed universally to all.

                If you've been reading Corrente since the single payer battle in 2009-2010, you'll remember Hipparchia's serial brutal takedowns of the Dartmouth study, which demolished the intellectual foundations for ObamaCare's claim to "bend the cost curve." And recently we've been seeing other Correntians joining in the fun, with Teresa showing how hospitals are gaming the in- and out-of-network coverage, and Alexa and others reporting on their own experiences. More like this please!

                We have been following this for some time.  You seem to be a little new to the program.   Help me find O'care exchange provider networks which include specialty cancer treatment in any State!  Please provide the links to what you find.
        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          Why wouldn't cancer care be either ambulatory services or hospitalization?

          If the issue is that a particular provider is not participating in an exchange plan, that is very different than claiming that the ACA doesn't cover cancer treatment.

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 11:01:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Childrens Hospital, Seattle WA (0+ / 0-)

            Hospital Sues

            Seattle Children’s filed suit Friday over the state Office of the Insurance Commissioner’s “failure to ensure adequate network coverage” in several health plans being sold through the state’s new online insurance marketplace, called Washington Healthplanfinder. ... Families that enroll in those plans could face significantly higher cost-sharing amounts they have to pay if they seek care at Children’s rather than at in-network providers.

            Exactly as I've been saying.

            Children’s officials say they are worried that families may sign up for coverage without realizing that the pediatric specialty hospital is not in most of the plans’ networks.

            Ayep. People may sign up for coverage, not realizing that most of their area hospitals are not included in their provider lists. It is irresponsible that the Insurance Commissioner doesn't make this apparent for people, given that it is a NEW PARADIGM.

            The lawsuit underscores a concern that has emerged in Washington state and elsewhere that many health plans sold through the exchanges may have “narrow networks” of providers compared with those offered in commercial health-insurance products.
            Children’s officials say the hospital’s exclusion from the exchange plans represents a significant change for the pediatric hospital, which has typically been included in most health plans in the state’s commercial market. “The notion that a major insurance plan is going to exclude us from their network is truly precedent-setting and represents a new level of degradation in children’s access to care,” said Dr. Sandy Melzer, the hospital’s senior vice president and chief strat

            egy officer.
            That is just one example.  Please help me find O'care Exchange plans which provide specialty cancer treatment in their provider network.  Please provide a link for every plan that you can find.
            I have asked this and no one can provide an example, so please step up and help me out.
            •  As i wrote (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              whenwego, VA gentlewoman

              If the issue is that a particular provider is not participating in an exchange plan, that is very different than claiming that the ACA doesn't cover cancer treatment.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 02:44:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Show me a Provider (0+ / 0-)

                That offers specialty cancer treatment of high quality that is included in any O'care exchange health insurance network.  Just one, or hopefully many!  TBOMK there are zero.
                As designed by Max and Liz....

              •  Back to the Future (Maybe you were not there.) (0+ / 0-)

                Ride the Delorean!

                The present
                Unfortunately our good Democratic politicians have short memories. According to Media Matters, that liberal bastion and media watchdog:

                Narrow Networks Provide Health Care Coverage While Keeping Costs Low

                and

                Previous Use Of Narrow Networks Have Been Successful

                Well, I guess that depends on your definition of success! If you're worried about corporate profits over anything vaguely resembling care, then yes, narrow networks definitely are a success!

                In the (paraphrased) words of James Carville: “If it’s so great, run on dat!”
                Using Washington state again as an example again (my apologies)...Children’s Hospital and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance are two last resort hospitals that people travel from other states to literally receive life-saving treatments. Is eliminating them from our Exchange networks a good way to ensure that consumers get "meaningful coverage [which] will give people peace of mind and financial security?" If so, then why isn’t our Governor Jay Inslee and Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler mentioning them when they talk about how the rates are "lower than expected". Why aren't they shouting this to the rooftops? Why aren't they running on the virtues of limiting consumer choices to "save money"? Why aren't they "running on dat?"

                My presumption of the future
                We rejected narrow networks in the 90’s and I believe we will reject them again -- but not before people endure severe costs just as they did in the 80's and 90's.

                Obamacare was supposedly about choices.

                Here we go once again....  You don't even know what the issues are.
                •  Your claim (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VA gentlewoman

                  is that the ACA doesn't require policies to cover cancer care.  That is bullshit.

                  You are complaining that certain hospitals are not available under certain plans.  it is a legitimate complaint, but it is not a result mandated by the ACA.

                  If there is a hospital or provider that is not part of a plan, ask them why.  The reason is likely that the hosptial or provider wanted a higher rate of reimbursement than other hosptials or providers.

                  "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                  by Old Left Good Left on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 05:27:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Money Quote (0+ / 0-)
                    Congress addressed the “holes” in insurance policies via creating the “10 essential benefits”. Access to doctors who treat serious illnesses was NOT one of those 10 essential benefits. Thus insurance companies created new holes in their policies, severely curtailing access to treatment for illnesses they have traditionally covered.
                    Not part of the program by design.  A feature, not a bug.  Thanks Max and Liz, POTUS Obama.
                    •  Again, bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                      Among the ten essential benefits are ambulatory and hospital care.  How do you get from that to "No Cancer Treatment in Exchange Plans"?

                      You are correct that unlimited access to all providers is not required in an exchange policy.  But that is not the same thing as no access.

                      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                      by Old Left Good Left on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 06:18:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Specialty Cancer Treatment Providers not included. (0+ / 0-)

                        Just show me a plan with a list of the specialty providers.  That's easier than a "bullshit" response.  I don't know why you can't offer a specific example lol.
                        Here is how it works in Seattle WA:

                        The heartwarming story/myth
                        I perused the web site of Evergreen Medical Center, an Exchange-plan friendly hospital in my state. There, I found lovely marketing materials, success stories of breast, colon, blood and other cancer cures. I could almost hear the violins playing.

                        For a second, my cynical heart melted. Maybe I’m being a little too shrill about this whole thin provider network problem. What’s so wrong if only certain hospitals offer care? We Exchange plebes would still get high quality care, as it seems!

                        Then I searched to see if the doctors mentioned in these lovely stories are in-network on Exchange plans and…..

                        SCREEEEEEECH

                        The Reality
                        With very, very (,VERY) few exceptions, none of the cancer care providers mentioned in these feel-good articles were in-network for Exchange plans.

                        Even the director of the cancer program at Evergreen, Dr. Michael Hunter, is not contracted with any PPO Exchange plans except Community Health Plan of Washington, which gets terrible ratings for not paying even the simplest of claims.

                        The same holds true for the director of radiation oncology, Dr. Eric Taylor

                        And

                        Cascade Cancer Specialists, the group Evergreen uses for outpatient chemotherapy has been absorbed by our mega cancer center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, which has not contracted with Exchange plans.

                        You seem to have the answers so show me!
                        •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

                          But the reason they are not in plan is probably because the cancer care centers are greedy.  Got it?  Not the fault of the ACA.

                          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                          by Old Left Good Left on Wed Oct 09, 2013 at 07:20:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So We continue with Insured Medical Bankruptcy. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            allergywoman

                            That is a failure.

                          •  Have a New Pre-existing Condition. (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            Old Left Good Left

                            Bad Credit or Bad Credit Report

                            Orlando Sentinel:

                            Credit scores impacting new Affordable Care Act insurance plans
                            Many people signing up for health care in Florida through the Affordable Care Act have been shocked when they have to give proof of their credit score before they finish the process.

                            Anne Packham, one of many people licensed by the state to help people navigate the government's website, said on Tuesday that the credit check occurs so providers can make an educated decision about who to insure.

                            "If someone is defaulting on all of their bills they may not want to have them as part of their health plan," said Packham, the lead Navigator in Florida.

                            Man, those Navigators sure do know how to extend a helping and, don't they?

                            Participants with low credit scores could end up paying higher premiums, according to Packham, who said that ultimately the insurance company makes the call.

                            Lambert [lambert blushes modestly] scooped the world on this, 2013-05-11: ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Feds to use "consumer reporting agencies" to determine eligibility despite penalty for perjury.

                            BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!

                            NOTE One question: I've heard that if you have bad credit, and apply for a card, you can end up making your credit rating even worse. I wonder if the same is true if you apply for ObamaCare? Seems crazy, I know, but what about this process hasn't it been crazy?

                            Credit Agencies create a new pre-existing condition insurers can use.  Navigators are on it!
                          •  That is a bullshit story (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tommy Aces

                            and you are trolling.

                            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                            by Old Left Good Left on Wed Oct 09, 2013 at 08:59:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Did not see the Navigator's Retraction. N/T (0+ / 0-)

                            That was an update in the Orlando Sentinel.  "Bullshit," "Trolling,"  HR's do not reflect much confidence in your product.  "Old Left Good Left" is a nice handle, but I doubt you were with us when we protested the Vietnam War.

                          •  In other words (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tommy Aces

                            You were trolling.

                            I certainly wasn't with assholes like you.

                            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                            by Old Left Good Left on Wed Oct 09, 2013 at 09:23:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is more on Credit Scores to investigate. (0+ / 0-)

                            From the Comments at my Link:

                            My speculation:

                            The Affordable Care Act did nothing to prevent denial based on Credit Score, and if you ARE denied for credit score, they CAN charge you more for insurance. Here's how.

                            This is Illinois Law, (hey, not a Washington example!). The text at the link addreses insurances other than medical insurance. However, the medical insurance industry did not need this loophole before so they didn't use it before, but they need it now.

                            YMMV, but I suspect similar laws exist in each state, cuz OH GAWD, they can't expect insurers to get screwed out of their money, can they? From the link:

                            Underwriting

                            Underwriting is the process where an insurer gathers information about you and decides whether or not they will insure you. Illinois law allows an insurer to deny you a new policy, or to cancel or nonrenew your existing policy based solely on information obtained from your credit report,

                            Thus, they deny you for low credit score (because of unpaid medical bills or something).

                            as long as the insurer offers coverage through an affiliate company, even if the coverages, terms, or conditions offered in the affiliate are different."

                            BUT, they agree to sign you up for a new (and improved) much more expensive policy.

                            Thus, even tho the root reason might be a pre-existing medical condition, they CAN charge you more.

                            AND IF THIS ISN'T A VIABLE LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW, READERS, THEN WHY DO THEY COLLECT YOUR CREDIT SCORE?

                            Sure looks like there is a little more here than I thought.  It's like peeling an onion.  Some will be crying before they unravel much more...
                          •  Bullshit (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cville townie, Tommy Aces

                            A little matter of federal preemption of state law.  The ACA sets the standards for pricing policies.cal

                            The exchanges contracted with credit reporting companies to verify income information, since income is self-reported for purposes of calculating subsidies.

                            This is well-known.

                            You are a troll.

                            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                            by Old Left Good Left on Wed Oct 09, 2013 at 09:54:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Link please. (0+ / 0-)

                            Please provide a link which clearly states this.

                          •  The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tommy Aces

                            Try to find better sources of information.  The ones you link to suck.

                            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                            by Old Left Good Left on Wed Oct 09, 2013 at 11:55:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Which Plans are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

                            Medicare, or State Exchange Plans.  Most that I have seen have different rates for different counties!  Now you claim a uniform standard?

                          •  Ahead of the Curve on Disclosure! (0+ / 0-)

                            My sources were the first to shine a light on Obamacare's new HMO's on steroids!  This Article shows how a little digging can yield potatoes and go mainstream!

                            The health care industry has revived a variation on a widely derided product and proclaimed it a fresh, urgently needed innovation.

                            The old idea was managed care during the 1990s, which involved restricting the number of physicians a patient could visit in order to give insurers greater bargaining power over provider and plan rates. The plans were ultimately abandoned; patients felt they had too few options and let their insurers know about it. But the general concept has been revived. Some insurers are simply narrowing networks and leaving it at that. Others are attempting to narrow networks and direct patients to the best physicians, generally by having their services cost less. The networks will proliferate due to the health care law's emphasis on cost savings and will be especially prevalent in Obamacare's exchanges, the insurance marketplaces that opened Oct. 1.

                            Early data suggest such narrow-network and "tiered" plans will be widely available on the exchanges; the one insurer on the New Hampshire exchange, for example, will offer care at only 16 of the state's 26 hospitals. Modern Healthcare reported in August that nearly half of the plans offered on 13 state exchanges will have narrow networks. An executive from Moody's quoted in the article estimates that these exchange insurance plans will pay providers close to Medicare rates. That's cheaper than most of the private market.

                          •  Like Carville said, (0+ / 0-)

                            "You run on dat!

                          •  Give it a break! (0+ / 0-)

                            All I've seen you do around here lately is troll the ACA, constantly reply to yourself, post bogus or misleading stories, and link to some blog obsessed with ragging on the ACA that I suspect belongs to you.

                            This is the first and last time I will feed you, because seriously, anyone with a functioning brain would see that "credit score" stuff for the bullshit that it is. That leads me to the conclusion that you are either being disingenuous or.......

                            Honestly, intentionally spreading misinformation about the ACA ought to be an HR-able offense around here. It is potentially causing direct harm to others.

                          •  Why I post: Save Lives. (0+ / 0-)

                            This Information is not disclosed here on this site.

                            Bending the "cost curve" in this way appears to also bend "the care curve"
                            As you can see from my results, the most under-represented specialties (on the left) are the ones that typically provide services to truly sick patients, such as oncology, cardiology, internal medicine, neurology. And no specialty has more than about 75% representation on the Exchange provider networks. Hospitals are also included on the right of the graph. Their numbers are diminished in the Exchange plan network via excluding specialty hospitals that are crucial to good care in this region, such as Children's Hospital and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

                            Quasi-Medicaid
                            What we're seeing has been described as a quasi-Medicaid level of doctor access. I would have little problem with plans that “streamline care”. But using Premera as a case in point along with reading about left-out doctors and hospitals all over the nation, I see a pattern of drastically reducing access to care for the sickest patients. This is a way for insurers to subvert the mandated yearly caps (and also the loss of the ability to create lifetimes maximums) by making access to expensive care difficult or impractical, especially for the poorest and sickest patients. And by limiting tax subsidies to Exchange plans only, the Democrats wrote their law deliberately to let insurers do this.

                            Action, Action, Action
                            Come on A-list blogosphere. Is your party so important to you that you don’t care anymore about the principles that led you to join it? Don't you think you need to fight this? Maybe you should do so for the sake of your party? I would love to spend 24-hours-a-day, 7 days a week in action on this myself. However, besides the fact that I feel powerless, I'm finding that the Exchange plans create in me an urgent need to leave self-employment and venture back into the world of employer provided health insurance. So those of you with a national audience, maybe those who are getting paid to do this, how about stepping up!

                            We are not getting this and our health care will suffer because we don't know.  If  you don't know the problem, you can't fix it.  You say give it a rest.  I say action is needed.
                          •  My confidence is irrelevant (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            cville townie, Tommy Aces

                            given that, as you admit, I am correct.

                            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                            by Old Left Good Left on Wed Oct 09, 2013 at 10:24:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Pretending that subsidies to private insurers... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sunspots, splashoil

        ...and mandates for purchasing private insurance are things to be lauded, because they'll lead to single-payer, is like hoping an abusive spouse will stop hitting you if you just stop complaining and pretend to be happy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site