... and others livin the Far Left fantasy, I give you Elizabeth Warren -

Chris Matthews raised many good middle-class points in his interview. He shares the frustration of every liberal: Why isn’t more being done? Why aren’t we building things? Why don’t we have the smell of pouring cement in a nation where the infrastructure is crumbling? Where is the hope for the unemployed and underemployed white guy in Scranton and the prospect of a job for that black kid wanting to work? Where is equal access to health care and education that form the platform from which upward mobility is launched? Where are research programs that ensure there is a pipeline of projects to feed an economy with ideas and prospects for progress and employment?

In the interview, Matthews acknowledged that the Democratic message is the message that speaks to all these issues and that the Democratic Party is the party with the platform from which these goals are accomplished. However, he displayed his characteristic righteous indignation against the president, Elizabeth Warren and the Democratic Party. It seemed as if he did not understand the legislative process he was a part of under Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill for many years.

"I don’t understand the union movement," Matthews said. "Why aren’t they bitching and moaning and complaining every day? We want big construction projects. And the president of the United States is not doing it. I don’t hear him talking about it. He talks about one thing one day, something the next day. But I tell you, I don’t hear you [Senator Elizabeth Warren], getting it done. The Democrats control the U.S. Senate. The Democrats control the White House. When are you going to do what you just said you would like to do?"

If that is not the most nonsensical rant from a journalist, what is? Matthews clearly angered Warren, as you can see beneath the fold.

"Stop this," Warren said to Matthews. "We just voted on this last week. You just stop and think about it. Because all the things you’ve talked about every time we get up and talk about helping education … we talk about roads and bridges … we talk about NIH research … the Republicans say the exact same thing … there is not enough money … and then they say they are going to fight to protect every tax loophole that currently exist that permits billionaires to pay at a lower tax rate than their secretaries. They fight to protect every subsidy …."

After spelling out what Matthews already knows, he replies again that the Democrats control the White House and the Senate. Warren then re-schools him on why that is not enough. What she said at the end is what is important.

"You don’t just wash your hands and say nobody is doing this," she said. "You have one side that is trying to fight for it. We’ve got to get out there and fight. And our only chance is if we can engage enough people at the grassroots level. Enough people to say, 'What do you mean, you are choosing billionaires over students? What do you mean that you are saying you are going to continue to do subsidies for big oil but there is no money for roads and bridges?' Those are the choices right now that the Republicans and the Democrats are fighting in Congress. Which way are we going to go? Look, we are fighting back. We are fighting for what we believe in. We are fighting to build a future for America. We can’t do it by ourselves. We need people across this country to help push on the Republicans."

Warren is right. Chris Matthews’ attack on Democrats for inaction is not the answer. Informing folks as to the major cause for inaction is. It is a disservice to all Americans that Matthews fails to put all the obstruction into context. Our journalists continue their willful incompetence at the expense of middle-class America.

I don't think it's just the journalists. It is also those on the Far Left that refuse to come out of their fantasy land, roll up their sleeves, and actually get something Progressive DONE, rather than bitching about those that actually do because its not fantasy perfect.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/25/...lt-but-obamas/

The U.S. economy shrank at an annual rate of 2.9 percent during the first three months of 2014...

A normal observer would look at that number and be disappointed, given that it was posted nearly 5 years into an alleged economic recovery. The leftist online illiterati, however, is decidedly abnormal. Here’s how they spun the news...

These commentators seized on the fact that health care spending rose enough to offset contraction elsewhere. Forget that Obamacare promised to drastically reduce long-term health care spending: this spike was great news...

Fast forward to this morning, when the final GDP numbers showed that the economy actually shrank by 2.9 percent, the biggest drop since the devastating recession of 2008 and 2009. Bad news, right? Nobody could possibly be happy about an economy that shrank...

Your friendly White House apologists at at TNR and Vox found some pretty awesome news, though... That’s right: according to the best and the brightest, the terrible economic report today is actually good news...

For those keeping score at home, when health care spending increases and props up GDP, it’s a good thing. When health care spending falls and subtracts from GDP, it’s a good thing. And when the economy significantly shrinks when it’s supposed to be rapidly growing, it’s a good thing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...2d4_story.html

...when the health-care law went into effect, Settles acted quickly. ...he offered health insurance to dozens of his employees to comply with the Affordable Care Act, which requires all but the smallest businesses to extend coverage to their full-time workers. He put in new systems to track employee hours and provide the data to the government. All this well before the employer mandate kicks in next year.

But unlike Settles’s other experiments, this one hasn’t been great for his business. He put raises and expansion plans on hold as he figured out the cost and logistics of making the changes. To his surprise, his employees have not leaped at the chance to get health insurance. And he is still trying to figure some things out — for example, how to safeguard employee information that must now be reported to the Internal Revenue Service...

A number of businesses, including Regal Entertainment and SeaWorld, have reduced hours for part-time workers to fewer than 30 a week — the law’s definition of full time — to avoid having to offer them health insurance. Other companies say they are holding back on hiring to avoid the insurance requirement...

What a shock.

...Settles, owner of the three Boise restaurants, which together employ 200 people, many of the hardest decisions are over. He has long provided free health insurance to his salaried employees. Last fall, he offered a similar deal to about 60 of his part-time, hourly-wage workers: If they increased their schedules to 39 hours a week, they would get free health insurance.

To his dismay, all but a handful turned him down. Most said they liked the lighter schedules or quit to work slightly higher-paying jobs, even though the health insurance he was offering was worth more, he said.

But on the bright side, after crunching the numbers, he has figured out that expanding health insurance will not break the bank...

It'd be sort of hard for it to do so, since no one wants it.

...He is again considering growing his business. In the end, he has a mixed but decidedly dim view of the health law...

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pag...xtensions/899/

...the Affordable Care Act's 2014 enrollment deadline was extended once again...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The only story in [the 2000] election was the way it ended - with the SCOTUS calling the election for Bush while the votes were still being counted. Nothing else matters...

-Nope! What matters is that after their own analysis, even the freakin' New York Times finally was finally forced to admit that GWB would have won no matter how many times they counted. It must have killed them to admit it. It must have killed you, because you wiped that from your memory, too!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Note: vote fraud, when it does occur, is nearly impossible for the party not in charge of the polls...

-Strange. Any polling place I've ever gone to had representatives from both major parties who were supposed to verify that you are who you are (when I was in PA, it was usually the nice Democrat lady who lived on Dreshertown Road). However, one party does determine the type of ballot used, the overall EFFICIENCY of the polling, etc...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...they were so careful that the lines in urban (but not suburban or rural) precincts stretched out for hours...

-Translation: Polls run by Elephants are efficiently run; polls run by Donkeys are a$$-ed up. This is an endorsement of Donkey politicians?!

You must have already forgotten! The Dem' polls in Ohio were screwed up in 2010, just like the Dem polling stations in FL back in 2000!

You just made my point!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...the GOP and today's profits-only private enterprise will go to any length to not insure workers...

-Because health insurance is a ridiculous amount of compensation for some people. With Obamacare, it's going to be even more expensive.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...Here in Virginia, they had to bribe a Democratic member of the State Senate to retire, so they could block Medicaid expansion...

-To avoid the future boondoggle which will get them Federal taxpayer bennies, get them hooked, and then leave them screwed. Stay in VA, Mr. Horn. That state might actually stand a chance.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/25/...lt-but-obamas/

The U.S. economy shrank at an annual rate of 2.9 percent during the first three months of 2014...

News reports confirmed that the principle reason for the shrinkage was the bad winter storms. Not a very common occurance for an economic decline to be caused by this. NO, it is not health care reform, but YOU GUYS who caused this decline, with your global warming denialism.

But there's some hope from your side of the aisle. The big business tycoons who pay your campaign bills are starting to wake up that global warming is bad for business, and are starting to call for a carbon tax. Last night Hank Paulson said so on the Newshour.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/forme...-change-risks/

HENRY PAULSON: Judy, just to step back for one minute and make a huge point about this study, this study is bipartisan, Republicans, Democrats…

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

HENRY PAULSON: … Treasury Secretary George Shultz, Bob Rubin, et cetera.

So what we do is, we don’t focus on solutions in the study. I will get to me and the carbon tax in a minute. But — but we’re starting in the middle here. We’re — what we want to do is just understand the risks, use business-type methodologies, start a fact-based discussion on the science and on the economics. And I think that there are — I know many, many Republicans, CEOs of companies, political leaders that are ready for a fact-based discussion.

Now, in terms of the carbon tax, which is a fee on — you know, that companies pay that emit carbon, this is, I think, the most efficient way to change the behaviors and creates incentives for new clean energy technologies.

But the reason I am suggesting that is because, as you look at these risks, you see that some of the risks — you know, some of the costs are already baked in.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But in terms of the carbon tax, there’s already pushback from conservatives. You’re not surprised to hear that. They are saying, first of all, they don’t believe the climate change threat is as serious as you say it is. And, secondarily, they say a tax is the last thing Americans need, another levy on business owners.

HENRY PAULSON: Right.

And that was why the tax proposal was one I made in an op-ed I wrote. In terms of this study, the study is going to be one that’s a lot harder to attack. And I think that people are going to welcome it, because it’s very rigorous. We look at best cases. We look at worst cases. We use very standard business risk analysis methodology.

And, so, one of the things we’re calling on — and we’re focused on business here. And there’s three things that I think businesses need to do. And, first, when they make investments, they need to, I think, be very conscious of the climate risks, in terms of the kinds of facilities they build, where they build them, and because these are long-term investments and it makes a — it makes a big difference.

Secondly, I think investors need to call on businesses. And businesses, in my judgment, need to start making disclosures of the CO2 emissions, of where they’re — you know, possibly stranded assets, so that investors can look at these risks, and I would like to see the SEC do something there. And, then, thirdly…

JUDY WOODRUFF: Securities and Exchange Commission.

HENRY PAULSON: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s the government proposal again.

HENRY PAULSON: Yes, in terms of requiring that, because that, again, would really start a very serious discussion about this.

And then, thirdly, working on policies that will help us avoid these really adverse risks. So, when I say to people, and they say, well, we don’t — why should we do something so dramatically? We want more facts. And I’m saying that’s radical risk-taking, taking this cautious approach, because if you wait until you have all the facts, it will be too late.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

News reports confirmed that the principle reason for the shrinkage was the bad winter storms...

-Yes, because bad winter storms have never occurred before.

In the USSR, it was amazing how often their harvests suffered from droughts, and just as amazing how quickly the deleterious effects of those droughts ended when communism collapsed.

So, that means that the 2.9% should be balanced by a, say, 4.9% gain in the spring, right?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Yes, because bad winter storms have never occurred before.

In the USSR, it was amazing how often their harvests suffered from droughts, and just as amazing how quickly the deleterious effects of those droughts ended when communism collapsed.

So, that means that the 2.9% should be balanced by a, say, 4.9% gain in the spring, right?

You guys are the problem. You are why so many species are dying, flood waters are rising, droughts are increasing, storms are threatening... gimme shelter from the likes of YOU.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You guys are the problem. You are why so many species are dying, flood waters are rising, droughts are increasing, storms are threatening... gimme shelter from the likes of YOU.

-Ridiculous. Species have always died, and hurricane intensity has been down the last few years.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...2d4_story.html

...when the health-care law went into effect, Settles acted quickly. ...he offered health insurance to dozens of his employees to comply with the Affordable Care Act, which requires all but the smallest businesses to extend coverage to their full-time workers. He put in new systems to track employee hours and provide the data to the government. All this well before the employer mandate kicks in next year.

But unlike Settles’s other experiments, this one hasn’t been great for his business. He put raises and expansion plans on hold as he figured out the cost and logistics of making the changes. To his surprise, his employees have not leaped at the chance to get health insurance. And he is still trying to figure some things out — for example, how to safeguard employee information that must now be reported to the Internal Revenue Service...

A number of businesses, including Regal Entertainment and SeaWorld, have reduced hours for part-time workers to fewer than 30 a week — the law’s definition of full time — to avoid having to offer them health insurance. Other companies say they are holding back on hiring to avoid the insurance requirement...

What a shock.

...Settles, owner of the three Boise restaurants, which together employ 200 people, many of the hardest decisions are over. He has long provided free health insurance to his salaried employees. Last fall, he offered a similar deal to about 60 of his part-time, hourly-wage workers: If they increased their schedules to 39 hours a week, they would get free health insurance.

To his dismay, all but a handful turned him down. Most said they liked the lighter schedules or quit to work slightly higher-paying jobs, even though the health insurance he was offering was worth more, he said.

But on the bright side, after crunching the numbers, he has figured out that expanding health insurance will not break the bank...

It'd be sort of hard for it to do so, since no one wants it.

...He is again considering growing his business. In the end, he has a mixed but decidedly dim view of the health law...

Well, this one hits close to home. I love Bardenay's food and drinks, and I now I like them even more now that I read that the owner has made a good faith effort to get his employees insured. Nonetheless, I don't feel very sympathetic for the notion that it's hampered business (not that Settles is necessarily looking for the sympathy). If you don't compensate your employees well enough, you don't really deserve to expand your business until you do.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Ridiculous. Species have always died, ...

Check out Elizabeth Kolbert's book The Sixth Extinction. A sobering read.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Ridiculous. Species have always died, and hurricane intensity has been down the last few years.

See. You guys are the problem. I guess it's OK if our species dies too. It's just another species; easy come easy go. But what right to WE have to kill off species?

The last few years is not a trend. Tell that to hurricane Sandy victims and Hurricane Katrina victims, and Typhoon Haiyan victims. I don't think so, JDG. Storms, floods, droughts, fires; the world is being cooked; all so you guys can save a few bucks for fossil fuel company CEOs.

This 4T is the first that is a Winter both figuratively and literally.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/25/...lt-but-obamas/

The U.S. economy shrank at an annual rate of 2.9 percent during the first three months of 2014...

A normal observer would look at that number and be disappointed, given that it was posted nearly 5 years into an alleged economic recovery. The leftist online illiterati, however, is decidedly abnormal. Here’s how they spun the news...

These commentators seized on the fact that health care spending rose enough to offset contraction elsewhere. Forget that Obamacare promised to drastically reduce long-term health care spending: this spike was great news...

Fast forward to this morning, when the final GDP numbers showed that the economy actually shrank by 2.9 percent, the biggest drop since the devastating recession of 2008 and 2009. Bad news, right? Nobody could possibly be happy about an economy that shrank...

Your friendly White House apologists at at TNR and Vox found some pretty awesome news, though... That’s right: according to the best and the brightest, the terrible economic report today is actually good news...

For those keeping score at home, when health care spending increases and props up GDP, it’s a good thing. When health care spending falls and subtracts from GDP, it’s a good thing. And when the economy significantly shrinks when it’s supposed to be rapidly growing, it’s a good thing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...2d4_story.html

I realize that this is beyond your ideological blind stupidity to grasp, but others may profit.

The economy shrunk because of demand leakages caused in large part by morons like you that put politics ahead of country. Increasing payroll taxes, shutting down the govt, and stopping unemployment insurance are each stupid and evil even in better times, but in a demand-starved economy the combination is completely asinine.

The exact opposite of that stupidity is Obamacare. I'm not sure if it's your ideological blindness or your dimwitted-ness that keeps you unable to grasp, but let me try to give you a clue. There's a big difference between any and all non-federal spending (e.g. people paying for their healthcare) and federal spending (e.g., federal subsidized insurance that is the source of the increased health spending) - the former results in real borrowing by non-federal entities; the latter poses no real debt to anyone.

This would be a "duh" moment for most readers, but unfortunately, not for you - like I said, you are a moron.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I realize that this is beyond your ideological blind stupidity to grasp, but others may profit.

The economy shrunk because of demand leakages caused in large part by morons like you that put politics ahead of country. Increasing payroll taxes, shutting down the govt, and stopping unemployment insurance are each stupid and evil even in better times, but in a demand-starved economy the combination is completely asinine.

The exact opposite of that stupidity is Obamacare. I'm not sure if it's your ideological blindness or your dimwitted-ness that keeps you unable to grasp, but let me try to give you a clue. There's a big difference between any and all non-federal spending (e.g. people paying for their healthcare) and federal spending (e.g., federal subsidized insurance that is the source of the increased health spending) - the former results in real borrowing by non-federal entities; the latter poses no real debt to anyone.

This would be a "duh" moment for most readers, but unfortunately, not for you - like I said, you are a moron.

Did the payroll tax increase in the first quarter of 2014?

Was there a government shutdown in the first quarter of 2014?

And isn't calling someone who disagrees with you a "moron" a large part of the problem in this country?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Did the payroll tax increase in the first quarter of 2014?

Was there a government shutdown in the first quarter of 2014?

Yes (or was it 2013, I've lost track), and no, so I guess things are looking up????

And isn't calling someone who disagrees with you a "moron" a large part of the problem in this country?

I think it's a close call, whether calling people who disagree with you "morons" is a large part of the problem, or that there are too many morons now is a large part of the problem.

Of course, folks who don't listen to or read those who disagree with them, and just call them names instead, might become morons (too narrow-minded).

But I think the FOX News viewers are more likely to be of this type than PBS viewers.

And what do you call those who compulsively write in red ink?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Did the payroll tax increase in the first quarter of 2014?

Was there a government shutdown in the first quarter of 2014?

And isn't calling someone who disagrees with you a "moron" a large part of the problem in this country?

There was a big increase in 2014 as well as 2013; it's just more 'stealthy' -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwo...king-paycheck/

The shutdown was in October 2013; most economist see a 3-4 month lag in the full impact of that putting it into early Q1 2014. On top of that, 1.2 million people had their unemployment checks end on January 1. Further federal deficit spending has dropped like a rock. These things are more than additive; they're synergistic.

For anyone to have income; someone else has to spend. It's not rocket science.

In better times, we might have the luxury to believe that calling morons, morons, is part of the problem.

In these times, the problem is simply too many morons.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/health-...e-clearing-up/

...Tuesday’s reportfrom the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General says there were 2.9 million data inconsistencies, and 2.6 million of those could not be resolved, mostly due to technology issues that had to be ironed out. It notes most of the data inconsistencies centered around problems with information regarding citizenship to determine whether applicants were eligible for health coverage, and whether those applicants’ incomes were low enough so they could receive subsidies.

It was unclear, however, how many of the 8 million people who applied for Obamacare between October and March were responsible for the data problems...

-Like names and SSN's?

http://nypost.com/2014/06/29/ending-...r-gravy-train/

...Gina Farrissee, assistant secretary for human resources at the VA, told Congress that executive bonuses “are awarded only after a rigorous and diligent review.” Nonsense.

The regional director overseeing the Pittsburgh VA collected a $63,000 award in 2012 shortly after six vets treated there died needlessly from legionella, an infection traced directly to poor maintenance of the facility.

The General Accountability Office investigated VAs nationwide and reported in July 2013 that doctors get bonuses regardless of work quality. A radiologist cited for mistakes reading mammograms got an $8,216 bonus, even though a professional-standards board deemed him unqualified to continue his current duties.

A surgeon suspended for 14 days for abandoning a patient on the operating table and leaving the medical center, with only unsupervised residents to complete the procedure, still got an $11,189 annual bonus...

Originally Posted by playwrite

... The economy shrunk because of demand leakages caused in large part by morons like you that put politics ahead of country. Increasing payroll taxes, shutting down the govt, and stopping unemployment insurance are each stupid and evil even in better times, but in a demand-starved economy the combination is completely asinine...

1) These people were on unemployment for over a year. Time to put down the Nintendo.

2) "Shutting down the government": The only parts that got shut down were the parts that Obama wanted to shut down.

3) PW's argument WRT the SS Ponzi Scheme is that it is NOT a welfare scheme. Well, if they get the same bennies without contributing the same, then it is. Case closed.

The point of the article is that Progressives were now blaming the weather, just like the old Soviets. Yummy!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... data inconsistencies...

Data inconsistencies! Whoo-hoo!
Right up there with lost e-mails!

One can smell the desperation coming from the clown car.

Pretty funny.

http://time.com/2950961/obamacare-health-care-obama/

20 Million Americans Get Insurance Under Obamacare, Report Says

About 20 million Americans have gained health insurance or enrolled in new insurance under the health care reform law, according to a new report.

The report from the Commonwealth Fund, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, credits President Barack Obama’s health reform law with an estimated 20 million enrollments as of May 1. The report looks at both people who gained coverage through insurance marketplaces, and people who gained coverage due to provisions in the Affordable Care Act (such as those qualifying for Medicaid and those now covered through the Children’s Health Insurance Program).

The authors estimate that 7.8 million people under 26—who are now allowed to be covered as dependents on their parents’ plans—have enrolled. They also report that 8 million people were enrolled in coverage via new health insurance marketplaces and five million purchased coverage directly from insurers.

Good to see at least one venue of the mass media catching up to what the wonks already knew (even though the mass media's number is still an underestimate) -

http://acasignups.com/

Good to see they're not completely ceding the space to the desperate moron reporting from the clown car of "data inconsistencies"

I feel so bad for the clowns , and their sad -



Not really -

"It turns out many of the Obamacare insurance plans have extremely narrow provider networks. As the Associated Press is just discovering, “Consumers realize they bought plans with limited doctor and hospital networks, some after websites that mistakenly said their doctors were included.” If you have cancer and want treatment at one of the elite cancer centers, good luck. Many of the nation’s top cancer hospitals are out of network under Obamacare plans. Walter White discovered this in the first season of Breaking Bad. He had to go out of network for his cancer care, cooking meth to pay for it."

Walter White and the narrow networks of Obamacare

The president is certainly pro-choice when it comes to abortion and other women’s health issues. But what happens to women in New York City who need cancer treatment and “choose” world-renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital? Good choice if they happen to have insurance through either of two of the nine insurers in New York City where Sloan Kettering is in network. Otherwise, choose somewhere else, and good luck.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/06/walter-white-narrow-networks-obamacare.html?utm_content=buffer8484e&utm_medium= social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Originally Posted by Deb C

"It turns out many of the Obamacare insurance plans have extremely narrow provider networks. As the Associated Press is just discovering, “Consumers realize they bought plans with limited doctor and hospital networks, some after websites that mistakenly said their doctors were included.” If you have cancer and want treatment at one of the elite cancer centers, good luck. Many of the nation’s top cancer hospitals are out of network under Obamacare plans. Walter White discovered this in the first season of Breaking Bad. He had to go out of network for his cancer care, cooking meth to pay for it."

Walter White and the narrow networks of Obamacare

The president is certainly pro-choice when it comes to abortion and other women’s health issues. But what happens to women in New York City who need cancer treatment and “choose” world-renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital? Good choice if they happen to have insurance through either of two of the nine insurers in New York City where Sloan Kettering is in network. Otherwise, choose somewhere else, and good luck.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/06/walter-white-narrow-networks-obamacare.html?utm_content=buffer8484e&utm_medium= social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I spent some years of my life pursuing "managed-care" contracts for my commercial clinical laboratory corporation. (I retired from Quest Diagnostics.)

It turns out that virtually EVERYONE is limited to certain providers if they have commercial insurance. It further turns out that most commercial insurance carriers have contracts with hospitals, pharmacies, clinical labs, imaging centers, etc. These contracts, at minimum, cause patients to have to pay more if they go outside of network.

This is nothing new. Hell, if ALL cancer patients could go to Sloan-Kettering, why wouldn't they?

The problem is that in a given geography, the spectrum of choices can be anemic (pun intended). For example, in New Mexico, there is the Presbyterian integrated healthcare organization, the Ardent for-profit corporate system known as Lovelace, and the University of NM healthcare system. The rest, such as "St. Victims" up in Santa Fe are micro players.

Thus, the claim from the Righties that things would be better if insurance companies could "compete across state lines," is pretty much hogwash. The existing contracts make the system very sticky, that is, changes in insurance carriers and changes in provider networks occur at a snail's pace because it is difficult to break business relationships and invest in the bricks and mortar needed to provide medical care. Changes certainly do occur, but they are not predictable, nor even rational at times.

The notable exception to all this is Medicare! Most providers accept Medicare. Yeah, I know, y'all say that doctors are going to quit accepting it, but it's hard to simply give up half of your marketplace. And, for the most part, Medicare pays off pretty well, maybe too well, and maybe in the wrong way - procedure based.

Originally Posted by TnT

I spent some years of my life pursuing "managed-care" contracts for my commercial clinical laboratory corporation. (I retired from Quest Diagnostics.)

It turns out that virtually EVERYONE is limited to certain providers if they have commercial insurance. It further turns out that most commercial insurance carriers have contracts with hospitals, pharmacies, clinical labs, imaging centers, etc. These contracts, at minimum, cause patients to have to pay more if they go outside of network.

This is nothing new. Hell, if ALL cancer patients could go to Sloan-Kettering, why wouldn't they?

The problem is that in a given geography, the spectrum of choices can be anemic (pun intended). For example, in New Mexico, there is the Presbyterian integrated healthcare organization, the Ardent for-profit corporate system known as Lovelace, and the University of NM healthcare system. The rest, such as "St. Victims" up in Santa Fe are micro players.

Thus, the claim from the Righties that things would be better if insurance companies could "compete across state lines," is pretty much hogwash. The existing contracts make the system very sticky, that is, changes in insurance carriers and changes in provider networks occur at a snail's pace because it is difficult to break business relationships and invest in the bricks and mortar needed to provide medical care. Changes certainly do occur, but they are not predictable, nor even rational at times.

The notable exception to all this is Medicare! Most providers accept Medicare. Yeah, I know, y'all say that doctors are going to quit accepting it, but it's hard to simply give up half of your marketplace. And, for the most part, Medicare pays off pretty well, maybe too well, and maybe in the wrong way - procedure based.

TNT, I have two major medical issues that require specialists. Thank God that I'm on Medicare because if I was forced into some of these ACA programs, I'd be screwed. Two ladies from our chronic illness support group have died because their care being limited to hospitals that weren't specialized with our illness. If you, or one of your loved ones, needed a specialty hospital, I bet a dime to a doughnut that you would do everything possible to see that the best care and procedures were available. Would you be alright with second best care if your life was at stake? Everyone deserves the best care possible, not just the wealthy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Data inconsistencies!...

-If you like your insurance, you can keep it!

If you like your doctor, you can keep him!

Obamacare will save money!

I wonder how many months it'll be before PW is eating his words?

Again?

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/0...ng-obamacare/1

It might seem odd that Joanna Coles, editor in chief of Cosmopolitan, was invited to the White House for lunch...
But Coles had a big favor coming to her. In 2013, she publicly pledged her magazine's ad space and editorial content to help promote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare...

It would have been one thing if the magazine had exercised any degree of creativity or editorial tie-in while touting the law... But alas, Cosmo's Obamacare headlines have all the joie de vivre one expects of diktats from the Ministry of Information: "5 Important Questions About the Affordable Care Act"; "Valerie Jarrett: 'All Insurance Plans Are Required to Cover Contraception"; "What the Affordable Care Act Means for Women With Pre-Existing Conditions"; and the hilariously defensive "Fox News Wrongly Believes Obamacare is 'Advertising' in Cosmopolitan."

So instead of earning money for disseminating White House press releases, Cosmo settled for a cheap date in the West Wing.

...According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in April, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made a phone call last year soliciting funds for Obamacare's flagging Enroll America initiative from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which promptly coughed up $13 million for the effort... HHS also solicited Kaiser Foundation Health Plans and Hospitals, Ascension Health, and Johnson & Johnson for nonfinancial help with Obamacare's enrollment plan, which is problematic when you consider that HHS also regulates these same organizations...

Aside from inappropriately wielding the implicit threat of its regulatory powers, HHS also spent heavily to shape the debate about Obamacare, with arguably effective yet still problematic results...

...the Urban Institute, a liberal think tank, has been churning out a series of uniformly positive studies on the beneficial effects of Obamacare... what's almost never mentioned in the press coverage is how they were funded. Since 2010, the Urban Institute has received $58,942,510 in grants directly from HHS, according to USA­Spending.gov.

...the problem with using tax dollars for Obama­care propaganda is that we don't know what we don't know... There's more than enough evidence of malfeasance to warrant concern, yet as we've seen with the Urban Institute and Jonathan Gruber, the media are pretty incurious about where all this pro-Obamacare information is coming from...

This statement:

Originally Posted by TnT

The problem is that in a given geography, the spectrum of choices can be anemic (pun intended)...

...really doesn't support this statement:

Originally Posted by TnT

...Thus, the claim from the Righties that things would be better if insurance companies could "compete across state lines," is pretty much hogwash...

...you seem to be confusing an insurance plan with the place that medical care actually occurs.

in and day and imagine how long it would have taken if it had as many naysayers as the ACA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-most-needed/

State health insurance marketplaces that offered consumers very few health plan choices in 2014 are starting to add more insurers — slowly, in most cases. But this is a sign that insurers are feeling confident about the second year of the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion.

The development is important for a few reasons. For one, recent research suggests that more competition in the exchanges could help temper premium increases. Other new analysis shows that exchange plans, on average, are cheaper than individual plans offered outside the insurance marketplaces. And given the narrow networks in exchange plans, more insurers could mean better access to providers.

In New Hampshire, the exchange's only insurer last year had excluded 10 of 26 hospitals in the state from its network, meaning the exchange's customers were limited in their choice of care providers. In 2015, though, New Hampshire will have five insurers selling individual and family health plans on the exchange, state officials announced this week. That also includes the expansion of two non-profit, co-op plans that received start-up funding from the Affordable Care Act.

Then there's West Virginia, a poorer state and one of the least healthy in the country — not exactly an attractive market for insurers. Just one insurer sold 2014 exchange plans, but a second insurer from Kentucky, another co-op, will join in 2015. Kentucky Health Cooperative, which signed up 75 percent of the approximately 82,000 people who selected private plans in Kentucky's exchange, will sell plans statewide in West Virginia next year.

The two insurers selling individual plans on Maine's exchange will be joined by a third in 2015, the state announced this week. The two insurers selling in 2014 have proposed average rate increases of .1 percent and 3.1 percent, well below what's been offered in other states so far.

Although Washington state had one of the more successful individual exchanges this year, it never fully launched an insurance marketplace for small businesses — just one insurer sold health plans in a couple of counties in 2014. At least one insurer, Moda Health, has applied to sell statewide on the small business exchange in 2015, according to Washington state's insurance department.

The plan offerings could obviously be more robust in these marketplaces, and they may continue to grow in the coming years. For now, though, this seems to be a positive sign for the health-care law.

When the odds are stacked against you, there's two choices. One is to grit your teeth and get things done by hook or by crock.

The other is simply to bitch and be a victim.

More here -

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washingt...h/Reform/44799

ACA Networks to Include More Docs in 2015

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is seeking to broaden the provider networks offered under the health plans sold in the Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges.

Starting in 2015, health plans' provider networks must contain at least 30% of that area's "essential community providers" -- safety-net and other providers who serve mostly low-income or disadvantaged populations, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said Friday.

That number is an increase from the 20% required in 2014.

"We encourage issuers and [federally qualified health centers], as well as other [essential community providers], to develop mutually beneficial business relationships that promote effective care for medically underserved and vulnerable populations," CMS wrote in a letter to insurers who intend to sell on the ACA's federal exchange. "We intend to assess available data to understand the degree to which such patients are cared for effectively and to inform our future regulatory approach."

The change is a reaction to complaints this year that health plans' provider networks were too limited and hindered patients' choice of where they could seek care.

CMS stated that health plans must show evidence that they have reached out to such providers with a contract for services.

It will also determine if a plan provides "reasonable access" to providers itself rather than relying on states, plans own determinations, or an insurer's accreditation.

Looks like more sad coming for Obama haters and Obamacare hatin deadenders.

I feel so bad for them!

The sad just keeps coming for the ACA haters. I like that.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow! ...

1) No mention of how many of those WANTED health insurance.

2) I noticed that PW hasn't bothered to find a chart which extends the percentage to 2007, before the recession.

3) Oh:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/some-...LEFTTopStories

Months after the sign-up deadline, thousands of Americans who purchased health insurance through the Affordable Care Act still don't have coverage due to problems in enrollment systems...

I'm sure PW's first impulse will be to say "nothing to see here..."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ama-mark-steyn

...he passed a new law at a press conference. George III never did that. But, having ordered America’s insurance companies to comply with Obamacare, the president announced that he is now ordering them not to comply with Obamacare. The legislative branch (as it’s still quaintly known) passed a law purporting to grandfather your existing health plan. The regulatory bureaucracy then interpreted the law so as to un-grandfather your health plan. So His Most Excellent Majesty has commanded that your health plan be de-un-grandfathered...

“I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this,” mused former Vermont governor Howard Dean. But he’s obviously some kind of right-wing wacko... Congress offered to “pass” a “law” allowing people to keep their health plans. The same president who had unilaterally commanded that people be allowed to keep their health plans indignantly threatened to veto any such law to that effect: It only counts if he does it — geddit? As his court eunuchs at the Associated Press obligingly put it: “Obama Will Allow Old Plans.” It’s Barry’s world; we just live in it...

Obama is the first to order that his omelet be unscrambled and the eggs put back in their original shells. Is this even doable? No. That’s the point. When it doesn’t work, he’ll be able to give another press conference blaming the insurance companies, or the state commissioners, or George W. Bush . . .

Marie Antoinette, informed that the peasantry could no longer afford bread, is alleged to have responded, “Let them eat cake.” There is no evidence these words ever passed her lips, but certainly no one ever accused her of saying, “If you like your cake, you can keep your cake,” and then having to walk it back with “What we’re also discovering is that cake is complicated to buy.” That contribution to the annals of monarchical unworldliness had to await the reign of Queen Barry Antoinette, whose powdered wig seems to have slipped over his eyes...