Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
November 17, 2013
The House passed legislation on Friday that allows insurance companies to offer health plans that were cancelled for not meeting new requirements under ObamaCare.
Thirty-nine Democrats broke with their party's leaders and backed the bill despite a veto threat by the White House, highlighting the political problem the issue has come for President Obama’s party. Only four Republicans opposed it.
The House approved the "Keep Your Health Plan Act" in a 261-157 vote.
Obama on Thursday announced he would take executive action that would allow insurance companies to offer the old plans for an additional year.
That likely prevented a larger wave of Democratic votes in favor of the bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
(more)
House approves ‘Keep Your Plan’ ObamaCare bill; 39 Dems defect - one thing they are forgetting ...
... 39 House Democrats have voted for a bill to allow people with fake insurance opt-out of ObamaCare...permanently.
... the provision they forgot to include in this bill is one which the people who opt-out of Obamacare avow they are not part of their national community when it comes to obtaining and paying for health care. They don't want to participate in or receive help from their community when it comes to obtaining health care. They want to be free to 'go it alone' when it comes to obtaining their own health care.... Therefor, when their fake health care insurance drops them for a pre-existing condition - just when they get sick - or when they discover their fake insurance has loop-holes that mean there are significant medical care costs the insured has to pay - THEY WILL NOT BE EXPECTING, NOR WILL THEY RECEIVE ANY HELP FROM THEIR COMMUNITY (THROUGH THE AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) IN PAYING THEIR MEDICAL BILLS THEIR 'ECONOMICAL' FAKE INSURANCE WILL NOT PAY FOR. AS THEY WISH, THEY WILL BE ON THERE OWN. It will be medical treatment on a cash only basis (for those costs not covered by fake insurance or if they are dropped entirely by their insurer) for them.
We taxpayers pay for those who receive treatment in hospitals but who dont' have insurance and can't pay for it through something called the Disproportionate Share Hospital program to compensate hospitals for care provided to people who can't pay their bills. The Disproportionate Share Hospital Program shall NOT APPLY to those who opted out of Obamacare because they 'liked their' fake insurance and decided they were better off going it alone in obtaining their health care. It will also be against the law for Hospitals to increase their billing rates - thus impacting the cost of insurance for everyone who does have insurance - to recover the costs of uncompensated care.
Those who want to be on their own will get what they wanted - with no "options to slip back" into public support.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/190404-house-approves-keep-your-plan-obamacare-bill
The House passed legislation on Friday that allows insurance companies to offer health plans that were cancelled for not meeting new requirements under ObamaCare.
Thirty-nine Democrats broke with their party's leaders and backed the bill despite a veto threat by the White House, highlighting the political problem the issue has come for President Obama’s party. Only four Republicans opposed it.
The House approved the "Keep Your Health Plan Act" in a 261-157 vote.
Obama on Thursday announced he would take executive action that would allow insurance companies to offer the old plans for an additional year.
That likely prevented a larger wave of Democratic votes in favor of the bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
(more)
November 14, 2013
McClatchy News has offered a damning critique of 60 Minutes' now-retracted story on the September 2012 Benghazi attacks, pointing out that several aspects of the story feature minimal sourcing and contradict the statements of experts.
The report comes as CBS News discloses that a "journalistic review" of the heavily criticized October 27 segment, which featured a since-discredited "witness" and promoted his book on the attacks without disclosing that the book was published by a CBS division. CBS has declined to explain who is conducting that review, how it is being conducted, and whether its findings will be public.
During the segment, correspondent Lara Logan made a number of claims about the attack and its perpetrators, often sourced only with the statement "[w]e have learned" or with nothing at all. McClatchy News Middle East Bureau Chief Nancy Youssef's reporting suggests that these claims were also inaccurate. Given that the report's sources included a man whose account CBS News has already acknowledged was fraudulent, it's fair to question the sourcing of other claims in the report.
A full, complete, and independent investigation of the segment could provide answers to these and other questions about CBS News' reporting.
(more)
Link to McClatchy article:
Questions about ‘60 Minutes’ Benghazi story go beyond Dylan Davies interview; CBS conducting ‘journalistic review’
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/13/208446/questions-about-60-minutes-benghazi.html
[font size="3"] Yeah, but Lara Logan looks so sexy in her standard low cut, form fitting dress (the dress looks like a second skin!!) , who cares if it's legitimate journalism or not.. [/font]
Another Challenge To CBS' Benghazi Report (from McClatchy News) - Media Matters
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/13/another-challenge-to-cbs-benghazi-report/196888McClatchy News has offered a damning critique of 60 Minutes' now-retracted story on the September 2012 Benghazi attacks, pointing out that several aspects of the story feature minimal sourcing and contradict the statements of experts.
The report comes as CBS News discloses that a "journalistic review" of the heavily criticized October 27 segment, which featured a since-discredited "witness" and promoted his book on the attacks without disclosing that the book was published by a CBS division. CBS has declined to explain who is conducting that review, how it is being conducted, and whether its findings will be public.
During the segment, correspondent Lara Logan made a number of claims about the attack and its perpetrators, often sourced only with the statement "[w]e have learned" or with nothing at all. McClatchy News Middle East Bureau Chief Nancy Youssef's reporting suggests that these claims were also inaccurate. Given that the report's sources included a man whose account CBS News has already acknowledged was fraudulent, it's fair to question the sourcing of other claims in the report.
A full, complete, and independent investigation of the segment could provide answers to these and other questions about CBS News' reporting.
(more)
Link to McClatchy article:
Questions about ‘60 Minutes’ Benghazi story go beyond Dylan Davies interview; CBS conducting ‘journalistic review’
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/13/208446/questions-about-60-minutes-benghazi.html
[font size="3"] Yeah, but Lara Logan looks so sexy in her standard low cut, form fitting dress (the dress looks like a second skin!!) , who cares if it's legitimate journalism or not.. [/font]
November 13, 2013
The vast majority of Americans in each of 40-plus states surveyed say global warming is real, serious and man-made, and the concerns tend to be slightly higher in coastal or drought-stricken areas, says an analysis out today.
At least 75% of U.S. adults say global warming has been happening, but the Stanford University research found that 84% or more took that view in states recently hit by drought — Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas — or vulnerable to sea-level rise: Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.
Despite intense debate in Congress on global warming, the research found broad public agreement on the issue and its remedies. Most say past warming has been caused largely by human activities — ranging from a low of 65% in Utah to a high of 92% in Rhode Island. Most also back government curbs on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — from 62% in Utah to 90% in New Hampshire.
"The consistency of findings across states was especially surprising to me," says author and professor Jon Krosnick, director of Stanford's Political Psychology Research Group, adding the analysis is likely the first to offer state-by-state breakdowns. He plans to release the findings today on Capitol Hill.
(more)
75% of U.S. adults(84% in states most affected)say global warming hasbeen happening, is human caused
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/13/americans-greenhouse-gas-cuts-power-plants/3508001/The vast majority of Americans in each of 40-plus states surveyed say global warming is real, serious and man-made, and the concerns tend to be slightly higher in coastal or drought-stricken areas, says an analysis out today.
At least 75% of U.S. adults say global warming has been happening, but the Stanford University research found that 84% or more took that view in states recently hit by drought — Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas — or vulnerable to sea-level rise: Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.
Despite intense debate in Congress on global warming, the research found broad public agreement on the issue and its remedies. Most say past warming has been caused largely by human activities — ranging from a low of 65% in Utah to a high of 92% in Rhode Island. Most also back government curbs on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — from 62% in Utah to 90% in New Hampshire.
"The consistency of findings across states was especially surprising to me," says author and professor Jon Krosnick, director of Stanford's Political Psychology Research Group, adding the analysis is likely the first to offer state-by-state breakdowns. He plans to release the findings today on Capitol Hill.
(more)
November 13, 2013
The Obama administration released October’s enrollment numbers for HealthCare.gov on Wednesday afternoon, providing the first official glimpse into the administration’s progress towards implementing the Affordable Care Act. Here is the breakdown:
Though the figures fall short of the 500,000 private enrollees the administration had predicted would take-up private coverage before the launch, the numbers come in the midst of highly-publicized technical difficulties with HealthCare.gov, during which neither the administration nor its allies could deploy a public campaign urging uninsured people to sign-up for coverage.
.... Officials point to the fact that just 123 people enrolled in Commonwealth Care — the Massachusetts health care exchange for subsidized care — during its first month in February of 2007 and after the first four months, just 15,560 of an estimated 80,000 uninsured who qualified for coverage signed up.
Here is a chart of enrollment for Commonwealth Care in 2007, the low-income program:
(more)
Let's see, after one month, 123 enrolled. After six months, 20,000. So, if that's an indicator then 106,000 would become, after six months (end of March 2014) 6 million.
The Official Obamacare Numbers And What They Mean For The Future Of Health Care Reform
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/13/2936311/100000-people-enrolled-private-obamacare-plan-administration-officials-claim/The Obama administration released October’s enrollment numbers for HealthCare.gov on Wednesday afternoon, providing the first official glimpse into the administration’s progress towards implementing the Affordable Care Act. Here is the breakdown:
•106,185: filled out the application and have selected a plan through a federally run or state run exchange.
•79,391: filled out the application and have selected a plan through a state-run exchange.
•26,794: filled out the application and have selected a plan through a federal exchange.
•846,184: filled out the application but have not yet selected a plan
•1,509,883: individuals applying for coverage with completed applications
•1,081,592: total individuals eligible to enroll in an exchange plan
•396,261: eligible for Medicaid or CHIP.
•Enrollees by state: California 35,364; Federal exchange 26,794; New York 16,404; Washington 7,091; Kentucky 5,586.
Though the figures fall short of the 500,000 private enrollees the administration had predicted would take-up private coverage before the launch, the numbers come in the midst of highly-publicized technical difficulties with HealthCare.gov, during which neither the administration nor its allies could deploy a public campaign urging uninsured people to sign-up for coverage.
.... Officials point to the fact that just 123 people enrolled in Commonwealth Care — the Massachusetts health care exchange for subsidized care — during its first month in February of 2007 and after the first four months, just 15,560 of an estimated 80,000 uninsured who qualified for coverage signed up.
Here is a chart of enrollment for Commonwealth Care in 2007, the low-income program:
(more)
Let's see, after one month, 123 enrolled. After six months, 20,000. So, if that's an indicator then 106,000 would become, after six months (end of March 2014) 6 million.
November 13, 2013
Steve Lipsky, a Texas homeowner, has found himself at the center of a $3 million lawsuit for defamation from an oil and gas company, after he exposed the company for contaminating his water supply with methane and benzene.
Despite his attempts to avert the expensive legal entanglement, Julie Dermansky reports at DeSmogBlog that last month the Fort Worth Court of Appeals allowed the defamation case to move forward.
Lipsky sued Range Resources originally in 2011, prompted by an Environmental Protection Agency order that Range Resources endangered Texas residents’ health. His case was dismissed, because the presiding judge claimed there was no jurisdiction, but Range Resources took the unusual step of countersuing Lipsky for libel. It alleged that Lipsky and others conspired to get “the EPA and the media to wrongly label and prosecute Range as a polluter of the environment.” The company said that his public video of Lipsky lighting on fire a methane-filled hose escaping from his water well was an unfair portrayal, even though Lipsky maintains he can still set the water on fire in a video from October.
“The hose was used in the interest of safety, not to deceive anyone,” Lipsky told DeSmogBlog, before lighting fire at the end of the hose again. But according to Range Resources and the judge who dismissed Lipsky’s lawsuit in 2012, Lipsky could not possibly light his water on fire. The video “was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media with a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning,” the judge wrote at the time.
(more)
Texas Homeowner Battles $3 Million Defamation Lawsuit For Exposing Fracking Company’s Pollution
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/08/2913651/steve-lipsky-range-resources/Steve Lipsky, a Texas homeowner, has found himself at the center of a $3 million lawsuit for defamation from an oil and gas company, after he exposed the company for contaminating his water supply with methane and benzene.
Despite his attempts to avert the expensive legal entanglement, Julie Dermansky reports at DeSmogBlog that last month the Fort Worth Court of Appeals allowed the defamation case to move forward.
Lipsky sued Range Resources originally in 2011, prompted by an Environmental Protection Agency order that Range Resources endangered Texas residents’ health. His case was dismissed, because the presiding judge claimed there was no jurisdiction, but Range Resources took the unusual step of countersuing Lipsky for libel. It alleged that Lipsky and others conspired to get “the EPA and the media to wrongly label and prosecute Range as a polluter of the environment.” The company said that his public video of Lipsky lighting on fire a methane-filled hose escaping from his water well was an unfair portrayal, even though Lipsky maintains he can still set the water on fire in a video from October.
“The hose was used in the interest of safety, not to deceive anyone,” Lipsky told DeSmogBlog, before lighting fire at the end of the hose again. But according to Range Resources and the judge who dismissed Lipsky’s lawsuit in 2012, Lipsky could not possibly light his water on fire. The video “was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media with a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning,” the judge wrote at the time.
(more)
November 12, 2013
Synthetic crude oil hasn’t yet entered the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, but a report released Tuesday by non-profit consumer rights group Public Citizen says the pipes are already bending, sagging and peeling to the point of a possible spill or leakage of toxic tar sands.
Drawing on the accounts of landowners, citizens and former workers of TransCanada, the report documents alleged construction problems and engineering code violations along the Texas portion of the pipeline, proved by what the group says is a staggering amount of excavations to correct dents and patch holes. Public Citizen is calling on the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration to review TransCanada’s construction quality assurance records for possible federal violations, and perform a complete re-testing of the pipeline to see if the repairs work.
“The government should investigate, and shouldn’t let crude flow until that is done,” Public Citizen’s Texas office director Tom Smith said in a statement. “Given the stakes — the potential for a catastrophic spill of hazardous crude along a pipeline that traverses hundreds of streams and rivers and comes within a few miles of some towns and cities — it would be irresponsible to allow the pipeline to start operating.”
One of the landowners cited in the study is David Whitley, a self-described “go-along guy” who owns an 80-acre plot of land in Texas which the pipeline crosses.
(more)
TransCanada Has Already Had To Fix 125 Dents And Sags In Southern Keystone Pipeline
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/12/2926341/transcanada-keystone-fixes-report/Synthetic crude oil hasn’t yet entered the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, but a report released Tuesday by non-profit consumer rights group Public Citizen says the pipes are already bending, sagging and peeling to the point of a possible spill or leakage of toxic tar sands.
Drawing on the accounts of landowners, citizens and former workers of TransCanada, the report documents alleged construction problems and engineering code violations along the Texas portion of the pipeline, proved by what the group says is a staggering amount of excavations to correct dents and patch holes. Public Citizen is calling on the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration to review TransCanada’s construction quality assurance records for possible federal violations, and perform a complete re-testing of the pipeline to see if the repairs work.
“The government should investigate, and shouldn’t let crude flow until that is done,” Public Citizen’s Texas office director Tom Smith said in a statement. “Given the stakes — the potential for a catastrophic spill of hazardous crude along a pipeline that traverses hundreds of streams and rivers and comes within a few miles of some towns and cities — it would be irresponsible to allow the pipeline to start operating.”
One of the landowners cited in the study is David Whitley, a self-described “go-along guy” who owns an 80-acre plot of land in Texas which the pipeline crosses.
(more)
November 8, 2013
... Beijing Shougang LanzaTech New Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd. has earned RSB's sustainability certification for the joint venture's facility that converts waste steel mill gases to sustainable biofuels. The RSB is a global sustainability standard and certification system for biofuels and biomaterials production. The facility, which utilizes LanzaTech technology, is the first RSB-certified biofuel plant in China, and the first of its kind anywhere to receive this key certification for industrial carbon capture and utilization.
"The joint venture uses a process that creates a sustainable biofuel and does so by efficiently reusing greenhouse gases that would have otherwise been released into the atmosphere," said Peter Ryus, RSB Services' CEO. "This solution, which does not impact the food chain or land use, meets the RSB principles and practices and serves as an example of how continued innovation in the industry will lead to sustainable biofuels in the future. We are honored to be working with LanzaTech and their joint venture partners on greenhouse gas reduction and global sustainability improvements."
RSB certification shows the joint venture's commitment to environmental improvements through a novel biological approach that converts waste carbon emissions from steelmaking into biofuels and chemicals. Using the RSB methodology and assumptions based on commercial production, it is estimated that ethanol from the process may reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent compared to petroleum fuels.
In addition, the joint venture partners anticipate that the process will improve local air quality by materially reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate emissions. The technology has the potential of making a significant global impact by reusing up to 150 million tonnes of CO2 from the global steel industry alone.
(more)
Chinese Facility using LanzaTech technology makes ethanol from steel mill CO2 emissions
[font size="3"]"Beijing Shougang LanzaTech New Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd. has earned RSB's sustainability certification for the joint venture's facility that converts waste steel mill gases to sustainable biofuels."[/font]
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/10432/facility-using-lanzatech-technology-earns-rsb-certification
... Beijing Shougang LanzaTech New Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd. has earned RSB's sustainability certification for the joint venture's facility that converts waste steel mill gases to sustainable biofuels. The RSB is a global sustainability standard and certification system for biofuels and biomaterials production. The facility, which utilizes LanzaTech technology, is the first RSB-certified biofuel plant in China, and the first of its kind anywhere to receive this key certification for industrial carbon capture and utilization.
"The joint venture uses a process that creates a sustainable biofuel and does so by efficiently reusing greenhouse gases that would have otherwise been released into the atmosphere," said Peter Ryus, RSB Services' CEO. "This solution, which does not impact the food chain or land use, meets the RSB principles and practices and serves as an example of how continued innovation in the industry will lead to sustainable biofuels in the future. We are honored to be working with LanzaTech and their joint venture partners on greenhouse gas reduction and global sustainability improvements."
RSB certification shows the joint venture's commitment to environmental improvements through a novel biological approach that converts waste carbon emissions from steelmaking into biofuels and chemicals. Using the RSB methodology and assumptions based on commercial production, it is estimated that ethanol from the process may reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent compared to petroleum fuels.
In addition, the joint venture partners anticipate that the process will improve local air quality by materially reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate emissions. The technology has the potential of making a significant global impact by reusing up to 150 million tonnes of CO2 from the global steel industry alone.
(more)
November 8, 2013
Panic of 1819, a U.S. recession with bank failures; culmination of U.S.'s first boom-to-bust economic cycle
Panic of 1825, a pervasive British recession in which many banks failed, nearly including the Bank of England
Panic of 1837, a U.S. recession with bank failures, followed by a 5-year depression
Panic of 1847, United Kingdom
Panic of 1857, a U.S. recession with bank failures
Panic of 1866, Europe
Panic of 1873, a U.S. recession with bank failures, followed by a 4-year depression
Panic of 1884, United States and Europe
Panic of 1890, mainly affecting the United Kingdom and Argentina
Panic of 1893, a U.S. recession with bank failures
Australian banking crisis of 1893
20th century[edit]
Panic of 1907 a U.S. economic recession with bank failures
Great Depression, the worst systemic banking crisis of the 20th century
Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s in the U.S.
1998 collapse of Long-Term Capital Management
Oh and Charlie, please knock the dust off your knees and clean yourself up, when you come out of script meetings with your GOP handlers, would you.
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60293244
Charlie Rose has been chanting more GOP horseshit again (yeah, so what else is new?)
... since the ACA website has had such problems getting started, Rose has been reciting with untempered glee, "I guess this shows the Government can't do big complex tasks," -- implying the private sector can.
Well, gee charlie you mean big complex tasks like, ohhhhh sending a man to the moon (and doing it in LESS than 10 yrs from concept to accomplished fact?, or something like ohhhh, the manhatten project???
Of course, private industry is tops at handling complex tasks like, oh say the Financial Collapse of 2008 (OH I FORGOT THE GOVERNMENT PREVENTED A TOTAL COLLAPSE FROM HAPPENING BY BAILING OUT THE BANKS ASSES!). Yeah, those banksters were SOOOOO MASTERFUL IN HANDLING CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS. So masterful they needed the Government to come in and catch them before they caused a worldwide economic disaster.
Of course you might say I am picking on banks and mentioning a rare event as evidence.... ah, but bank crises are not that rare and that is why Franklin Roosevelt set up the Federal Reserve, because it was clear to any rational person (that leaves out Mr. Magoo - Alan Greenspan and M. Friedman) that businessmen (incl. bankers) can not be trusted to control themselves when handling other people's money.
Bank Crises - Wkipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises
Panic of 1819, a U.S. recession with bank failures; culmination of U.S.'s first boom-to-bust economic cycle
Panic of 1825, a pervasive British recession in which many banks failed, nearly including the Bank of England
Panic of 1837, a U.S. recession with bank failures, followed by a 5-year depression
Panic of 1847, United Kingdom
Panic of 1857, a U.S. recession with bank failures
Panic of 1866, Europe
Panic of 1873, a U.S. recession with bank failures, followed by a 4-year depression
Panic of 1884, United States and Europe
Panic of 1890, mainly affecting the United Kingdom and Argentina
Panic of 1893, a U.S. recession with bank failures
Australian banking crisis of 1893
20th century[edit]
Panic of 1907 a U.S. economic recession with bank failures
Great Depression, the worst systemic banking crisis of the 20th century
Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s in the U.S.
1998 collapse of Long-Term Capital Management
Oh and Charlie, please knock the dust off your knees and clean yourself up, when you come out of script meetings with your GOP handlers, would you.
http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60293244
November 7, 2013
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance
Over the past few weeks, insurers have been sending out hundreds of thousands of notices alerting customers that their current plans won't comply with the ACA as of January 1 and that the owners of these plans need to find alternatives. Republicans and conservatives pointed to the development as evidence that Obama lied. Several prominent right-wingers who were covered under these plans, including Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, have helped fuel this outcry. When Malkin got her cancelation notice, she went on the Twitter warpath. She later wrote a piece for the National Review slugged, "Obama lied. My health plan died." Malkin had a high-deductible plan from Anthem Blue Cross that doesn't meet the minimum coverage requirements created by the ACA. So she has to get a new plan on the state health exchange. Malkin blamed Obamacare for destroying the individual insurance market.
The media have covered these complaints with gusto, as if the cancelations are a genuine crisis and indication of a failure of Obama's health care law. The ACA was designed specifically to prevent insurance companies from peddling lousy insurance plans and to force these firms to replace these subpar products with affordable plans providing better and effective coverage. The plans being canceled are ending because they offered insufficient coverage—and only a few years ago both Rs and Ds were upset about these kinds of plans. But there's been collective amnesia about the shoddy plans that GOPers have happily exploited in recent days. Perhaps Obama should have said, "Those of you who obtain insurance on the individual market can keep your plans unless it’s the sort of rip-off plan the ACA will forbid. Otherwise, you will be offered new options that actually give you decent coverage at a decent price."
Here's what led to the current situation: In the early aughts, the number of people with employer-based coverage declined dramatically. That left an increasing number of Americans uninsured and about 30 million adults underinsured and at serious financial risk. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that between 2003 and 2010, the number of underinsured Americans nearly doubled.
The fastest growing group of underinsured was people in households around the national median income, the $40,000 to $50,000 annual income range—folks who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but who don't have employer-sponsored plans or who can't afford the ones they're offered. Insurance companies jumped into the void with a lot of products Consumer Reports dubbed "junk insurance." These were plans that barely qualified as insurance because they had very low caps on coverage or weren't even really insurance at all. Many were merely medical discount programs that didn't protect against health-related financial calamity. Insurance companies, including many of the biggest, marketed these products aggressively and often misleadingly—which was made easier by the lack of disclosure requirements in the sale of health insurance. Regulators struggled to protect consumers because so many of the junk plans were perfectly legal.
The Real Story Behind the Phony Canceled Health Insurance Scandal - MotherJones
Insurance companies ripped off Americans for years with lousy health plans. Obamacare was designed to fix that.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance
Over the past few weeks, insurers have been sending out hundreds of thousands of notices alerting customers that their current plans won't comply with the ACA as of January 1 and that the owners of these plans need to find alternatives. Republicans and conservatives pointed to the development as evidence that Obama lied. Several prominent right-wingers who were covered under these plans, including Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, have helped fuel this outcry. When Malkin got her cancelation notice, she went on the Twitter warpath. She later wrote a piece for the National Review slugged, "Obama lied. My health plan died." Malkin had a high-deductible plan from Anthem Blue Cross that doesn't meet the minimum coverage requirements created by the ACA. So she has to get a new plan on the state health exchange. Malkin blamed Obamacare for destroying the individual insurance market.
The media have covered these complaints with gusto, as if the cancelations are a genuine crisis and indication of a failure of Obama's health care law. The ACA was designed specifically to prevent insurance companies from peddling lousy insurance plans and to force these firms to replace these subpar products with affordable plans providing better and effective coverage. The plans being canceled are ending because they offered insufficient coverage—and only a few years ago both Rs and Ds were upset about these kinds of plans. But there's been collective amnesia about the shoddy plans that GOPers have happily exploited in recent days. Perhaps Obama should have said, "Those of you who obtain insurance on the individual market can keep your plans unless it’s the sort of rip-off plan the ACA will forbid. Otherwise, you will be offered new options that actually give you decent coverage at a decent price."
Here's what led to the current situation: In the early aughts, the number of people with employer-based coverage declined dramatically. That left an increasing number of Americans uninsured and about 30 million adults underinsured and at serious financial risk. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that between 2003 and 2010, the number of underinsured Americans nearly doubled.
The fastest growing group of underinsured was people in households around the national median income, the $40,000 to $50,000 annual income range—folks who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but who don't have employer-sponsored plans or who can't afford the ones they're offered. Insurance companies jumped into the void with a lot of products Consumer Reports dubbed "junk insurance." These were plans that barely qualified as insurance because they had very low caps on coverage or weren't even really insurance at all. Many were merely medical discount programs that didn't protect against health-related financial calamity. Insurance companies, including many of the biggest, marketed these products aggressively and often misleadingly—which was made easier by the lack of disclosure requirements in the sale of health insurance. Regulators struggled to protect consumers because so many of the junk plans were perfectly legal.
November 7, 2013
A new poll released on Wednesday finds that uninsured Americans are increasingly interested in Obamacare, despite the ongoing technological problems plaguing the websites that allow them to sign up for health insurance plans. The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 42 percent of Americans who currently lack insurance intend to enroll in a plan under Obamacare — a slight uptick from last month, when 37 percent of that population indicated they wanted to enroll. Overall public support for the health reform law also rose from 44 percent to 47 percent.
And that’s just the latest poll to find that Obamacare isn’t losing ground among the public, despite a month of headlines that have bemoaned its exchanges as a total disaster and warned Americans that it may cause them to get booted from their current insurance plan. At the end of last month, a Gallup poll found that Americans were “slightly more positive” about the health reform law after three weeks of its rocky roll-out than they were right before the exchanges launched. Around the same time, both a Washington Post poll and a Pew Research Center poll found that public opinion about Obamacare hadn’t taken a nosedive despite the frustrating issues with the website glitches.
In all of that polling, respondents tend to agree that it’s been a bad roll-out. So why isn’t support for the law completely tanking?
One of the Ipsos pollsters, Chris Jackson, offered up a plausible theory: Americans are finally having a personal experience with health reform. “The launch of the exchanges, that’s the first real world event for a lot of people,” he told Reuters. “There’s been this sense that once people got familiar with it, public opinion would start to move in its direction.”
(more)
Why Obamacare Isn’t Losing Popularity Even After A Month Of Really Bad Press
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/06/2900771/obamacare-public-opinion-press/A new poll released on Wednesday finds that uninsured Americans are increasingly interested in Obamacare, despite the ongoing technological problems plaguing the websites that allow them to sign up for health insurance plans. The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 42 percent of Americans who currently lack insurance intend to enroll in a plan under Obamacare — a slight uptick from last month, when 37 percent of that population indicated they wanted to enroll. Overall public support for the health reform law also rose from 44 percent to 47 percent.
And that’s just the latest poll to find that Obamacare isn’t losing ground among the public, despite a month of headlines that have bemoaned its exchanges as a total disaster and warned Americans that it may cause them to get booted from their current insurance plan. At the end of last month, a Gallup poll found that Americans were “slightly more positive” about the health reform law after three weeks of its rocky roll-out than they were right before the exchanges launched. Around the same time, both a Washington Post poll and a Pew Research Center poll found that public opinion about Obamacare hadn’t taken a nosedive despite the frustrating issues with the website glitches.
In all of that polling, respondents tend to agree that it’s been a bad roll-out. So why isn’t support for the law completely tanking?
One of the Ipsos pollsters, Chris Jackson, offered up a plausible theory: Americans are finally having a personal experience with health reform. “The launch of the exchanges, that’s the first real world event for a lot of people,” he told Reuters. “There’s been this sense that once people got familiar with it, public opinion would start to move in its direction.”
(more)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
