Some good news for Obamacare?

[chrisberb]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/2803674...l#.U5o-kvldV8E

Ten health insurers have applied to be part of the Affordable Care Act’s online marketplace in 2015 for Illinois, including for the first time, the state’s second-largest insurer, UnitedHealthcare.

And 504 health insurance plans were submitted to the Illinois Department of Insurance for 2015, including 306 individual plans and 198 plans for the small group insurance marketplace, the department said Thursday. Last year – the first year the ‘Obamacare’ marketplace existed – eight insurers offered 165 plans, including 120 individual plans and 45 small group plans.

More providers, and upwards of 60% more plans to choose from. I know this is only for one state, but this could be a sign of things to come.
Just happened to see the article online, but do any of you have any indication of how the law is doing in your respective states?

[Rukentuts]

Ironically we also had good news about Obamacare today.

[Wells]

Yeah there's been a lot of good news coming out of the program. Kentucky saw their uninsured numbers cut by like half.

[Rukentuts]

Would be interesting to weigh the statistics from the states that had exchanges to those that actively work to undermine the law.

[Payday]

Yeah that's nice but what about Benghazi?

[araine]

Yeah there's been a lot of good news coming out of the program. Kentucky saw their uninsured numbers cut by like half.

And it is hilarious to see Mitch running on how different KYNECT is vs Obamacare when it is the same thing. Republicans know Obamacare is a success story thats why they dont talk about it much anymore

[-aiko-]

Yeah that's nice but what about Benghazi?

BERGDHAZI! BERGDHAZI! BERGDHAZI!

Down with Obama's tyranny!

[araine]

Yeah that's nice but what about Benghazi?

What about those hundreds upon hundreds that died under republicans in the White house? If anything you should say what a damn fine job this administration have done to cut down the amount of losses of US citizens abroad in attacks on consulates and embassies. Remember we had 13 attacks on US offices abroad and 60 deaths during the GW Bush years alone compare that to 1 attack and 4 deaths and we can see what GOP and the far right is doing is nothing but trying to politicize a tragedy, and forgetting how the world looked just a few years ago.

And remember those 13 attacks and 60 deaths are the lowball number pending on how we view the attacks etc i can legitimate claim up to 87 deaths and 39 attacks pending on how we define attack and if we consider US citizens dying or allow other citizens to be counted as victims in an embassy attack.

So yeah Benghazi isnt much of an issue until you start showing some real outrage over those other 60 people that died under Bush.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Obamacare is going to be a massive failure!"

"Wait until it actually gets into full swing."

"You mean after it crashes the economy?!"

[Shadowmelded]

So yeah Benghazi isnt much of an issue until you start showing some real outrage over those other 60 people that died under Bush.

It was a joke

[Poopymonster]

What about those hundreds upon hundreds that died under republicans in the White house? If anything you should say what a damn fine job this administration have done to cut down the amount of losses of US citizens abroad in attacks on consulates and embassies. Remember we had 13 attacks on US offices abroad and 60 deaths during the GW Bush years alone compare that to 1 attack and 4 deaths and we can see what GOP and the far right is doing is nothing but trying to politicize a tragedy, and forgetting how the world looked just a few years ago.

And remember those 13 attacks and 60 deaths are the lowball number pending on how we view the attacks etc i can legitimate claim up to 87 deaths and 39 attacks pending on how we define attack and if we consider US citizens dying or allow other citizens to be counted as victims in an embassy attack.

So yeah Benghazi isnt much of an issue until you start showing some real outrage over those other 60 people that died under Bush.

Dick Cheney upon hearing about 4 dead in an embassy assault was quoted as muttering "Damn amatuers" before turning to drain the blood of another Thai girl flown in to his faux-transylvanian castle/dude ranch.

[xindralol]

Dick Cheney upon hearing about 4 dead in an embassy assault was quoted as muttering "Damn amatuers" before turning to drain the blood of another Thai girl flown in to his faux-transylvanian castle/dude ranch.

about your sig: you may want to google statistics for lung cancer survival ...

anyway, health insurance going up is a forseeable consequence of the ACA, and not something to celebrace - it simply means there's no more greavious techinical hurdle preventing people from signing up. it has nothing to do with whether it's actually successful.
if you tell people to do something or face consequences that should actually be unconstitutional it's only a matter of time until enough people submit which is hardly a reason to celebrate.

the ACA is a done deal at this point; it's not gonna get repealed even if we get another republican president to succeed obama. that's doesn't mean nothing can be done but it should be recognized that the majority of the damage it can cause is unavoidable at this point.

[Spectral]

Personally, I'm going to be unenthusiastic about any narratives regarding the effect of the Act until we're a few years down the road and have some better evidence on effects on both health outcomes and cost.

[Itisamuh]

Yeah there's been a lot of good news coming out of the program. Kentucky saw their uninsured numbers cut by like half.

At the expense of others. Classic liberal ingenuity, my insurance costs go up so some lazy bum can get his for free. Good news indeed.

[Spectral]

At the expense of others. Classic liberal ingenuity, my insurance costs go up so some lazy bum can get his for free. Good news indeed.

The ACA had little or no effect on "lazy bums", who were already covered through government programs. The primary groups that were uninsured that become insured are people with jobs, but not much income.

[chrisberb]

At the expense of others. Classic liberal ingenuity, my insurance costs go up so some lazy bum can get his for free. Good news indeed.

Classic conservative ingenuity, Fuck you I got mine.

[LegendsnDreamz]

about your sig: you may want to google statistics for lung cancer survival ...

anyway, health insurance going up is a forseeable consequence of the ACA, and not something to celebrace - it simply means there's no more greavious techinical hurdle preventing people from signing up. it has nothing to do with whether it's actually successful.
if you tell people to do something or face consequences that should actually be unconstitutional it's only a matter of time until enough people submit which is hardly a reason to celebrate.

the ACA is a done deal at this point; it's not gonna get repealed even if we get another republican president to succeed obama. that's doesn't mean nothing can be done but it should be recognized that the majority of the damage it can cause is unavoidable at this point.

The ACA, was a watered down starting point thanks to the right. If the Republicans had actually done their job in good faith and worked with the rest of the politicians to hammer out a GOOD bill, we would be better off now. As mentioned however it is a starting point, and this bill should be seen as something to improve not to repeal. For once lets all be adults and just admit the only real problem about this bill, is that Obama's name is slapped on it. Which has been proven time and time again when Republicans even openly saying "just say no." Or in the least do the opposite.

[Felya]

Personally, I'm going to be unenthusiastic about any narratives regarding the effect of the Act until we're a few years down the road and have some better evidence on effects on both health outcomes and cost.

Yeah, I'm waiting for the next step to make ACA better. I always saw ACA as a first step in fixing the system. I support ACA because it's better than what we had, but it's not a complete solution on it's own right. I don't know how long it would take for me to get frustrated that it's not getting better, but with current political climate, my expectations are not for the near future.

I'm ready for ACA to be the norm, so it can get treated like the system we had before it. By that, I mean there would be scrutiny that calls for improvement, instead of repeal. The push and pull of great news to bad news about ACA just prolongs this limbo of it being the law of the land, yet still needing promotion, which inhibits action to make it better.

- - - Updated - - -

At the expense of others. Classic liberal ingenuity, my insurance costs go up so some lazy bum can get his for free. Good news indeed.

Yes, let's just ignore people like independent contractors, who were paying into the system, but were getting jack shit as far as subsidies. While you might have been enjoying your employer receiving a 1.4$ credit for each 1$ spent on your insurance, the lazy bums who make up a lot of Microsoft and Amazon development, were just paying for it. But, yeah... I'm a lazy bum because I fill out a 1099 instead of a W2...

[Raeph]

Time will tell depending on the results of Pruitt vs Sebelius and Halbig et al vs Sebelius.

Both cases are challenging the legality of the IRS rule allowing subsidies in the states that opted for the federal government to set up the health care exchange, instead of the state.

The Pruitt case also could rule that large corporations (greater than 50 full times) in states that didn't have a state level exchange can't be penalized under the statute for not providing insurance to their employees.

The Halbig case argues that the plain language of the law only allows premium assistance, and the taxes imposed to support them, only applies in states with State exchanges.

Depending on the ruling on either one, or both, "Obamacare" may end up only applying to 16 states and the District of Columbia, considering how the courts want to read section 1401, 1311 and 1321 of the ACA language.

Time will tell, though I'm not sure if either one is on the Supreme Court Docket for this year or next.

[chrisberb]

Time will tell depending on the results of Pruitt vs Sebelius and Halbig et al vs Sebelius.

Both cases are challenging the legality of the IRS rule allowing subsidies in the states that opted for the federal government to set up the health care exchange, instead of the state.

The Pruitt case also could rule that large corporations (greater than 50 full times) in states that didn't have a state level exchange can't be penalized under the statute for not providing insurance to their employees.

The Halbig case argues that the plain language of the law only allows premium assistance, and the taxes imposed to support them, only applies in states with State exchanges.

Depending on the ruling on either one, or both, "Obamacare" may end up only applying to 16 states and the District of Columbia, considering how the courts want to read section 1401, 1311 and 1321 of the ACA language.

Time will tell, though I'm not sure if either one is on the Supreme Court Docket for this year or next.

I'm sure the residents of the 34 states without their own state exchanges are gonna jump for joy if they get screwed over. And i'm sure it'll get spun to be Obama's fault too