Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out of Obamacare Exchanges

Screen Shot 2014-02-03 at 11.20.18 AM

By Barbara Boland

Over 214,000 doctors won’t participate in the new plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA,) analysis of a new survey by Medical Group Management Association shows. That number of 214,524, estimated by American Action Forum, is through May 2014, but appears to be growing due to plans that force doctors to take on burdensome costs. It’s also about a quarter of the total number of 893,851 active professional physicians reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In January, an estimated 70% of California’s physicians were not participating in Covered California plans.

Here are some of the reasons why:

1. Reimbursements under Obamacare are at bottom-dollar – they are even lower than Medicare reimbursements, which are already significantly below market rates. “It is estimated that where private plans pay $1.00 for a service, Medicare pays $0.80, and ACA exchange plans are now paying about $0.60,” a study by the think-tank American Action Forum finds. “For example, Covered California plans are setting their plan fee schedules in line with that of Medi-Cal-California’s Medicaid Program-which means exchange plans are cutting provider reimbursement by up to 40 percent.”

2. Doctors are expected to take on more patients to make up for the lost revenue, but that’s not happening, because primary care doctors already have more patients than they can handle. “Furthermore, physicians are worried that exchange plan patients will be sicker than the average patient because they may have been without insurance for extended periods of time, and therefore will require more of the PCPs time at lower pay,” says the study.

The study also points to two reasons that doctors might not get paid at all:

3. An MGMA study indicates that 75% of ACA patients that had seen doctors had chosen plans with high deductibles. Given that most of the patients are low-income, doctors are concerned that the patients cannot meet the deductibles and they will get stuck with the bill.

4. HHS requires that insurers cover customers for an additional 90 days after they have stopped paying their premiums: the insurer covers the first 30 – but, it’s up to the doctor to recoup payment for the last 60 days. This is the number one reason providers are opting to not participate in the exchange plans. Currently, about a million people have failed to pay their premiums and had their plans canceled.

So, Obamacare is asking doctors to take on sicker patients for less money, with the risk of not getting paid at all? No wonder doctors are running from these plans!

OUCH! This New ObamaCare Study Just Released Will Make Democrat Spin Doctors Utterly Sick

Screen Shot 2014-10-29 at 4.26.11 PM

NORVELL ROSE — OCTOBER 28, 2014
Obamacare vote

Maybe Barack Obama and his loyal media spin doctors — like the ObamaCare cheerleaders at the New York Times — knew the results of this new study would cast a very dark shadow over the president’s health care takeover scheme…and possibly the critical midterm elections.

Maybe that’s why the Times just published a lengthy report with a conclusion that runs completely counter to the real-world experiences of so many Americans. The paper’s finding?

…the Affordable Care Act has largely succeeded in delivering on President Obama’s main promises….
One of the data points the New York Times uses in offering its cheerful defense of ObamaCare is that the number of Americans without health insurance has fallen significantly.

However, as numerous analysts have observed, many of those added to the ObamaCare insurance rolls are people who have signed up for Medicaid…which means taxpayers will be subsidizing much of their health care.

And now, to add insult to injury, a new study finds that, just because you may have an ObamaCare health plan, doesn’t mean you’ll have a doctor who will accept it. So, contrary to what ObamaCare proponents like those at the Times suggest, there’s not necessarily a great benefit in more people being covered if those people can’t find doctors to treat them.

Via the Daily Caller:

The number of physicians nationwide that are declining to accept health plans from ObamaCare exchanges is growing, according to a study from the American Action Forum.

As of May 2014, over 214,000 doctors wouldn’t participate in ObamaCare plans, and that number may be growing, according to AAF, a free-market think tank in Washington.

While some ObamaCare kinks have been worked out over the past year, exchange plans remain as unfriendly to doctors as ever.
USA Today digs even deeper into the fundamental ObamaCare problem of people having a terrible time trying to find doctors who will take them as patients:

Because these [ObamaCare] exchange plans often have lower reimbursement rates, some doctors are limiting how many new patients they take with these policies, physician groups and other experts say.
The usatoday.com article explains that insurers are moving to smaller networks of doctors and hospitals in their exchange plans. These “narrow networks” help them reduce costs, but they can also lead to significant problems when consumers look for doctors who will take them.

So, will the ongoing problems with ObamaCare figure into voters’ decisions in the upcoming midterms? The Washington Post seems to think not.

But given the new findings just reported on plan-holders doctor difficulties, the Post’s dismissal of health case as an election issue may prove a bit premature.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/ouch-this-new-obamacare-study-just-released-will-make-democrat-spin-doctors-utterly-sick/#118u3HftKB5sxVdo.99

OBAMACARE: INFERIOR PRODUCTS AT HIGHER PRICES

Screen Shot 2014-10-28 at 7.37.49 PM

You can keep your plan if you’re willing to pay four times as much

Daniel Payne | October 28, 2014

Last week I received nasty but not-entirely-unanticipated news: my insurance carrier, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, is amending my current plan effective January 1, 2015. Come the New Year, I can keep my current plan—a low-premium, high-deductible setup meant to cover major medical expenses and not much else—except it won’t actually be my “current” plan. My premium will be almost quadrupling, from $55 per month to just over $200 per month.

There are a few other options available to me. I could enroll in my employer’s coverage, but that, too, would cost me a little over $200 per month. I could seek insurance through one of the Obamacare exchanges, on which I would qualify for a tax subsidy for my plan, but—so far as I can tell in the dense, unworkable digital jungle of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) marketplaces—the cheapest plan I could find would jack my deductible up by an enormous $1,350.

This is the essence of Obamacare: delivering inferior products at higher prices. And while it’s been somewhat satisfying to watch the ACA’s disastrous first year, at heart this is a deeply distressing and worrisome sign of things to come. This is your money, your family’s health, and your liberty—all sacrificed so that a bunch of inept bureaucrats could score points wheeling out “healthcare reform” and help you buy things you simply don’t want to buy.

On its face this may seem like a standard, garden-variety failure of progressive statism. But the Obamacare mess isn’t simply a problem of the left; the right is complicit, too.

The star reform effort that Republicans put forward in 2012 proposed a healthcare plan that was, at its core, functionally identical to Obamacare (and lest we forget, as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney implemented what ended up being the blueprint for Obamacare). Things are looking no better in 2014, as even Virginia’s supposedly super-conservative Senate candidate Ed Gillepsie proposes a healthcare reform plan that’s a mess of tax credits, pre-existing condition provisions, and “state-run high risk pools.” Small-government touting politicians seem to have accepted the left’s central premise about healthcare reform: Whatever shape it takes, the state must be in control.

Both conservatives and liberals are avoiding useful and substantial reform efforts in favor of washed-out, middle-of-the-road policies that make every aspect of the healthcare system genuinely worse. But for healthcare reform to have any measurable effect, it needs to be driven by a concrete set of political actions that dispense with the absurdly complicated and overlarge technocratic bureaucracy that has sprung up around Obamacare.

The right, for one, needs to dispense with any notion of moderation when it comes to cleaning up America’s insurance disaster and offer a serious set of proposals to strip away the deleterious effects of government meddling in the healthcare market. As Virginia Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis points out, “Real healthcare reform begins with deregulation.” If you’re a small-government politician and you’re not supportive of aggressively stripping away the useless, costly, and counterproductive framework of modern American healthcare, you probably shouldn’t be listened to.

And the left? It should get away from the messy and embarrassing disaster of Obamacare and instead advocate for what it truly desires: a government-administered, single-payer healthcare system. Indeed, many politicians, including Barack Obama himself, have mentioned that single-payer is their preferred healthcare scheme. And it’s worth pointing out that single-payer system would at least be less horrendously complicated than the ACA.

As Peter Suderman recently pointed out, Obamacare’s cheapest “bronze” plans are rising in price next year, anywhere from 16 percent to 64 percent; meanwhile, the price of its middle-of-the-road “silver” plans will decrease on average by one percent—though in some places the price will rise. Four years after it passed, nearly three-quarters of Americans are still terribly confused by this law. As bad as government-run, single-payer healthcare may be, it would at least be simpler and more straightforward than this debacle.

We need clear and decisive options, in other words—not this half-assed, heavy-handed, piecemeal kind of thing. If you want the genuine affordability, the abundant choices, and the freedom offered by a free-market solution, then fight for it. Alternately, if you want the expensive, bloated, and low-quality—yet dependable and widespread—system of universal healthcare, then advocate for that. But spare us from Obamacare, or anything like it. It is a worthless disaster of a law, and it is only getting worse.

Voting by Non-Citizens Tips Balance for Democrats…1,400+ In Just One State

Screen Shot 2014-10-28 at 5.05.35 PM

“Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens?” That is the question posed by political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest, who answer in a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies: “Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.” And, the researchers note, 80% of non-citizen votes go to Democrats.

The estimated percentage of non-citizens voting is small, especially in midterms: “Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,” Richman and Earnest wrote in the Washington Post. Yet that small percentage “was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.”

They single out the close election for U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008, in which a victory for incumbent Republican Norm Coleman was reversed in a controversial recount that gave the win to comedian Al Franken. Non-citizen votes, they say, could quite easily have been the reason for Franken’s win–and therefore were the reason Democrats could count on a “60th vote” for Obamacare, which passed the Senate in late 2009:

Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections revealed Friday that it looked at data from the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles and Department of Homeland Security and found that 1,425 are likely non-citizens and therefore ineligible to vote.

Of those non-citizens on the voting rolls, the State Board of Elections confirmed that 109 illegal immigrants who have been shielded from deportation and allowed to obtain work permits and drivers licenses through President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, are included in the voting rolls. They are also ineligible to vote.

The revelation comes with the midterm elections less than two weeks away, including a squeaker U.S. Senate race between incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan (NC-D) and state House Speaker Thom Tillis, a Republican.