Obummercare keeps dying...and rightfully so.

[Munchmasterman]

An educated person would see that the 3% refers to,

"When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...th-misleading/

They received 3 pins because of,

"The 3 percent figure that Planned Parenthood uses is misleading, comparing abortion services to every other service that it provides. The organization treats each service — pregnancy test, STD test, abortion, birth control — equally. Yet there are obvious difference between a surgical (or even medical) abortion, and offering a urine (or even blood) pregnancy test. These services are not all comparable in how much they cost or how extensive the service or procedure is."
And,

"Non-government health services revenues refer to money collected for health care services, such as abortions, that are not covered by government programs. (The largest source of revenue for Planned Parenthood is government funding, but federal funds can’t be used for abortions. Planned Parenthood does not separate its federal and state funds in its annual report.)

Using this calculation, advocates and opponents of abortion rights have calculated somewhere between 15 percent and 37 percent of the organization’s annual non-government health services revenue comes from abortion services. Depending on which price you use, you can even get up to 55 percent. But this type of math is speculative and has limitations. For one, it does not take into account sliding payment scales for patients or reflect costs absorbed by insurance."

I responded to,

"Originally Posted by I B Hankering
No. You're buying the lie the dim-retards and Planned Parent Hood are propagating -- which is reinforced and guarded by the lib-retard editors at Wikipedia. The Congressional testimony established that 86% of PPH's commercial revenue is garnered through providing abortions"

I asked for proof about the congressional testimony and explained the method of editing Wiki.
You came back with this,

"An educated person would see that the sources were cited, and your lib-retard WaPo gave PPH 3 Pinocchios for their lies regrading what portion of their "for profit" enterprise is given over to providing abortions. BTW, PPH is one of the sites guarded by a team of lib-retard editors that prevent the entry of facts that conflict with their agenda."

WaPo's rating confirms the 3% figure misrepresents the abortion portion.
Maybe if you read the whole article you would see where 3 pins came from. WaPo doesn't mention any of your figures.
PPH is a non-profit org.

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1061700867]An educated person would see that the sources were cited, and your lib-retard WaPo gave PPH 3 Pinocchios for their lies regrading what portion of their "for profit" enterprise is given over to providing abortions. BTW, PPH is one of the sites guarded by a team of lib-retard editors that prevent the entry of facts that conflict with their agenda.


So we're back to you need to provide proof of your,
"Congressional testimony established that 86%" and your baseless claim about Wiki defense teams.

Too bad you keep up the bullshit. It's well established you only provide links when you "think" they help you.
Come on bud, prove you're right.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

An educated person would see that the 3% refers to,

"When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...th-misleading/

They received 3 pins because of,

"The 3 percent figure that Planned Parenthood uses is misleading, comparing abortion services to every other service that it provides. The organization treats each service — pregnancy test, STD test, abortion, birth control — equally. Yet there are obvious difference between a surgical (or even medical) abortion, and offering a urine (or even blood) pregnancy test. These services are not all comparable in how much they cost or how extensive the service or procedure is."
And,

"Non-government health services revenues refer to money collected for health care services, such as abortions, that are not covered by government programs. (The largest source of revenue for Planned Parenthood is government funding, but federal funds can’t be used for abortions. Planned Parenthood does not separate its federal and state funds in its annual report.)

Using this calculation, advocates and opponents of abortion rights have calculated somewhere between 15 percent and 37 percent of the organization’s annual non-government health services revenue comes from abortion services. Depending on which price you use, you can even get up to 55 percent. But this type of math is speculative and has limitations. For one, it does not take into account sliding payment scales for patients or reflect costs absorbed by insurance."

I responded to,

"Originally Posted by I B Hankering
No. You're buying the lie the dim-retards and Planned Parent Hood are propagating -- which is reinforced and guarded by the lib-retard editors at Wikipedia. The Congressional testimony established that 86% of PPH's commercial revenue is garnered through providing abortions"

I asked for proof about the congressional testimony and explained the method of editing Wiki.
You came back with this,

"An educated person would see that the sources were cited, and your lib-retard WaPo gave PPH 3 Pinocchios for their lies regrading what portion of their "for profit" enterprise is given over to providing abortions. BTW, PPH is one of the sites guarded by a team of lib-retard editors that prevent the entry of facts that conflict with their agenda."

WaPo's rating confirms the 3% figure misrepresents the abortion portion.
Maybe if you read the whole article you would see where 3 pins came from. WaPo doesn't mention any of your figures.
PPH is a non-profit org.

An educated person would see that the sources were cited, and your lib-retard WaPo gave PPH 3 Pinocchios for their lies regrading what portion of their "for profit" enterprise is given over to providing abortions. BTW, PPH is one of the sites guarded by a team of lib-retard editors that prevent the entry of facts that conflict with their agenda.


So we're back to you need to provide proof of your,
"Congressional testimony established that 86%" and your baseless claim about Wiki defense teams.

Too bad you keep up the bullshit. It's well established you only provide links when you "think" they help you.
Come on bud, prove you're right.

You've earned exactly the same rating WaPo gave to PPH:

[Munchmasterman]

So you're saying healthcare.gov hasn't been updated? The official government site.

Sorry to crush you again but, (from your link)

"The suit was brought by The Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) alleging that the abortifacent mandate was a violation of religious liberty. North Dakota District Chief Judge Hovland agreed saying the CEA and its “members will suffer irreparable harm to their ability to practice their religious beliefs” if the mandate were to remain in place.

The Trump administration paved the way for the ruling back in 2017 via a rule change that said businesses were exempt from the mandate if it ran counter to their religious beliefs.

The Trump administration announced today that employers will now be exempt from the federal requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraception in their health insurance plans if it conflicts with their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. This now limits a rule created under the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act that required that employers, including non-church religious organizations, must cover all forms of contraception, from birth control pills to abortion drugs and devices at no cost to the employees

is from 2017! Can you read? You don't even know what the article is about.

Earlier this week it was an article from 2004 or 2005 you tried to use to prove hospitals closing over the last 20 years.

You're my new favorite Dunning-Kruger effect poster child.
Now is a good time to post a link to me supporting socialism.

Or you can just keep lying. And knowing how lazy you are, we know which you'll choose.

This just in. You continue to be clueless.

Originally Posted by bb1961

You need to get up-to-date on your information...that shit is before Trump dismantled that shove down your throat approach.
I know you like that approach...all socialist do like to force their failed ideology on the populace. The people of Venezuela are the latest example...starving, dying and fleeing the country with what little they have. Ain't that grand MUNCHY.
Again...down goes MUNCHY...down goes MUNCHY...down goes MUNCHY!!
Liberalism is a gutless choice.Thank you for choosing...

[Munchmasterman]

You get easier to beat by the day.

Now close that basement door behind you.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You've earned exactly the same rating WaPo gave to PPH:

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You get easier to beat by the day.

Now close that basement door behind you.

You get another of WaPo's three Pinocchios for continuing to ignore that WaPo gave PPH three Pinocchios for telling the same lie you're trying to sell.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by bb1961

This unconstitutional nightmare may die before it reaches the SCOTUS. The left in going to go insane over their biggest Gumment power grab in many years. Die baby die!!

The Trump administration announced today that employers will now be exempt from the federal requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraception in their health insurance plans if it conflicts with their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. This now limits a rule created under the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act that required that employers, including non-church religious organizations, must cover all forms of contraception, from birth control pills to abortion drugs and devices at no cost to the employees.

https://www.redstate.com/slee/2019/0...-keeps-losing/

The republicans have said for years that the ACA would get crushed from its own weight. Yet, the ACA is alive and well. As long as health insurance companies continue to sell health insurance policies at HealthCare.Gov and the subsidy to help families and indvidiuals pay for their premiums is still available the ACA will survive. The subsidy to help pay the premium cannot be removed by executive order. That was hard coded into the ACA law.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The republicans have said for years that the ACA would get crushed from its own weight. Yet, the ACA is alive and well. As long as health insurance companies continue to sell health insurance policies at HealthCare.Gov and the subsidy to help families and indvidiuals pay for their premiums is still available the ACA will survive. The subsidy to help pay the premium cannot be removed by executive order. That was hard coded into the ACA law.

It survives ONLY on subsidies...you proud socialist...and those are getting less and less.
Liberalism is a gutless choice...thank you for choosing.

Don't forget to take the fork in the road.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The republicans have said for years that the ACA would get crushed from its own weight. Yet, the ACA is alive and well. As long as health insurance companies continue to sell health insurance policies at HealthCare.Gov and the subsidy to help families and indvidiuals pay for their premiums is still available the ACA will survive. The subsidy to help pay the premium cannot be removed by executive order. That was hard coded into the ACA law.

It does continue to die of it's own weight. Insurers are slowly fleeing from offering ACA policies nationwide. It was front loaded with goodies to attract the masses and as the continued subsidies dwindle, insurers are getting out of the ACA business. Once a break even point for the insurers is crossed they leave the market.

It will continue to die of it's own. Unfortunately for the Obama cronies, Hillary is not in office to swoop in and "save" it with a more detailed government takeover, which was Obama's stated plan all along. He knew it was destined for failure and was only a stepping point to government takeover.

Gladly for the rest of us, it isn't working out that way.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by bb1961

It survives ONLY on subsidies...you proud socialist....
Liberalism is a gutless choice...thank you for choosing.

Do you have a problem when the Federal Government sends GM a subsidy every month? The same subsidy Trump proposed to stop sending when GM announced plans to close a plant in Ohio that makes the Chevy Malibu. You never complained about the government sending a subsidy to company where the CEO gets paid 10 million in base salary. How come no complaints about that you PROUD Socialist!!!

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Do you have a problem when the Federal Government sends GM a subsidy every month? The same subsidy Trump proposed to stop sending when GM announced plans to close a plant in Ohio that makes the Chevy Malibu. You never complained about the government sending a subsidy to company where the CEO gets paid 10 million in base salary. How come no complaints about that you PROUD Socialist!!!

You must not read many of my posts...I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT!!
In regards to what a company pays their CEO or anyone else is not my business or anyone else's...yours included!!

The less Gumment the better...hense die Obummercare die!!
Please provide any of my posts where I endorse socialism ANYWHERE...I detest socialism.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by eccielover

It does continue to die of it's own weight. Insurers are slowly fleeing from offering ACA policies nationwide.

Hillary is not in office to swoop in and "save" it with a more detailed government takeover, which was Obama's stated plan all along. He knew it was destined for failure and was only a stepping point to government takeover.

Can you name some of these companies that are slowy leaving? BCBS is a large health insurance company and they are still around and selling policies on the HealthCare.gov in most states. There is at least one health insurance provider in every single county in the USA. According to the reputards Obamacare was supposed to be dead already. For 2020 the signup period begins in Nov 2019

Obama did not try to get rid of Group Health insurance from the employer. In fact if your employer offers you health insurance you are not eligible to go to HealthCare.Gov and buy an Obamacare policy. You post so much nonsense with zero backup. You don't even know the basic rules.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Can you name some of these companies that are slowy leaving? BCBS is a large health insurance company and they are still around and selling policies on the HealthCare.gov in most states.

I will retract my statement for the current year, but as you can see it stood as a trend of fleeing from 2014 through 2018, the lowest apparent participation year. I hadn't checked in the last several months so I see a small trend reversal. But in 2019, we are still off the average from when it started, and only just ahead of the low in 2018.

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/is...ces-2014-2019/

Since the Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces opened in 2014, there have been a number of changes in insurer participation as companies entered and exited states and also changed their footprint within states.

In 2014, there were an average of 5.0 insurers participating in each state’s ACA marketplace, ranging from one company in New Hampshire and West Virginia to 16 companies in New York. (Note that we consider affiliated insurers serving the same areas as one insurer.) 2015 saw a net increase in insurer participation, with an average of 6.0 insurers per state, ranging from one in West Virginia to 16 in New York. In 2016, insurer participation changed in a number of states due to a combination of some new entrants and the failure of a number of CO-OP plans. In 2016, the average number of companies per state was 5.6, ranging from one in Wyoming to 16 in Texas and Wisconsin. In 2017, insurance company losses led to a number of high profile exits from the market. The average number of companies per state in 2017 was 4.3, ranging from one company in Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming to 15 companies in Wisconsin.

Although insurance company profits improved during 2017, a number of insurers exited the market or reduced their service area going in to 2018, likely driven in part by legislative and regulatory uncertainty. The average number of companies per state in 2018 was 3.5, ranging from one company in eight states (Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming) to more than 10 insurers in three states (Wisconsin, California, and New York). In 2018, 48% of enrollees (living in about 18% of counties) had a choice of three or more insurers. Despite concerns earlier in the year, there were no counties without at least one insurer in 2018.

Insurance company margins have continued to improve during 2018, and a number of insurers entered the market or expanded their service area for 2019. The average number of companies per state in 2019 is 4.0, ranging from one company in five states (Alaska, Delaware, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Wyoming) to more than 10 companies in three states (California, New York and Wisconsin). In 2019, 58% of enrollees (living in about 23% of counties) have a choice of three or more insurers, up from 48% of enrollees in 2018.1

Although there are an average of 4.0 insurance companies per state, many insurers do not participate statewide. Insurer participation varies greatly within states, and rural areas tend to have fewer insurers. On average, metro-area counties have 2.3 insurers participating in 2019, compared to 1.8 insurers in non-metro counties. In 2018, 87% of enrollees lived in metro counties.

And I see the main reason for the change that's coming is directly related to their increasing balancing of premiums, particularly on the backs of those without subsidies, and their continued pressure of keeping out of pocket costs(deductibles/etc.) high, thus increasing profits.

Both opposite of the goals of Obamacare. A test is still to come too with the adjustments that occur with the elimination of the mandate.

But as a whole, the provisions of the Obamacare continue to be gutted and all of it's "ideals" are dying on the vine with increasing costs/etc.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by bb1961

In regards to what a company pays their CEO or anyone else is not my business or anyone else's...yours included!!

It is when the Federal Government sends them a subsidy that comes from my taxes.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I will retract my statement for the current year, but as you can see it stood as a trend of fleeing from 2014 through 2018, the lowest apparent participation year. I hadn't checked in the last several months so I see a small trend reversal. But in 2019, we are still off the average from when it started, and only just ahead of the low in 2018.

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/is...ces-2014-2019/




And I see the main reason for the change that's coming is directly related to their increasing balancing of premiums, particularly on the backs of those without subsidies, and their continued pressure of keeping out of pocket costs(deductibles/etc.) high, thus increasing profits.

Both opposite of the goals of Obamacare. A test is still to come too with the adjustments that occur with the elimination of the mandate.

But as a whole, the provisions of the Obamacare continue to be gutted and all of it's "ideals" are dying on the vine with increasing costs/etc.

Four things:
1. Your article said the same thing I did, in 2018 there was at least one health insurance provider in every county in the USA.

2. In 2014 a lot companies lost money selling policies at Health Care.Gov. However, according to your article companies MADE profit in 2017.

3. Before the ACA law was passed people with pre-existing conditions could not even purchase health insurance in the individual market even if they could afford to. Twenty million citizens got health insurance who did not have it before the ACA was implemented.

4. From your own article there is enough health insurance companies participating. Couple that with the fact that Trump can't remove the subsidy to help pay premium with an executive order, the ACA will be here to stay. If the ACA was going to collapse from its own weight, that would have already happened.

[bb1961]

Chart of the Day

Vox Obamacare 2020. This is maybe the simplest way to think about how Trump is going to change the insurance market. About 15 million people buy ACA-compliant coverage right now.
Over time, as rates rise and Trump opens up more routes to non-ACA coverage, we would expect the people who receive the law's subsides (about 8.7 million) to stick around. But the 6.7 million who don't receive assistance are the ones likely to exit, as premiums become unaffordable. The only nonsubsidized people likely to stay are the ones who most need the robust ACA coverage.


More proof the SOCIALIST dream..the ones that TAKE the most get the most...is DYING!!

These numbers tell the story: People who received the most assistance were far more likely to sign up on the law’s marketplaces than people who received less aid or none at all.
Avalere Some of those higher-income people bought insurance off the law’s markets. But there, too, evidence suggested that people who didn’t receive federal assistance were starting to fall off as Trump took office and rates were still rising.


Your love of taking frim others for your own benefit!!



WSJ/Oliver Wyman The ACA had become, in practice, a way to insure lower-income Americans and to protect people against discrimination for their medical history. But the tradeoff was that insurance had become unaffordable or undesirable for the younger and healthier people asked to pay higher rates and for people who didn’t receive the law’s generous financial aid.


The healthy younger people were FORCED to buy insurance to "SUBSIDIZE the generous financial aid to the pooooooor"...if that ain't socialism what is!!


The Socialist liberal take in closing.....

“What we’re talking about here, this thing over a period of years, transitioning to a high-risk pool versus short-term medical,” Laszewski said. “Can it work? Yeah, we just stashed the sick people in Obamacare. It’ll become a backwater Medicaid.”