Obamacare Tyrannically Taking Away FREEDUMBZ to Have Diabetes

The health care law aimed to bring many of the most disadvantaged Americans into the medical system by expanding access to Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But with the release of federal health data still months away, it was impossible to know whether the new coverage was having any effect in identifying and treating critical health problems such as diabetes and high blood pressure. In the new study by Quest Diagnostics, a medical testing company, researchers analyzed laboratory test results from all 50 states in the company's large database over two six-month periods. In the states that expanded Medicaid, the number of Medicaid enrollees with newly identified diabetes rose by 23 percent, to 18,020 in the first six months of 2014, from 14,625 in the same period in 2013. The diagnoses rose by only 0.4 percent — to 11,653 from 11,612 — in the states that did not expand Medicaid.

Dr. David M. Nathan, director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, said earlier detection — particularly among the poor, who are more likely to have the disease without knowing it — is the first step in preventing some of the most severe long-term consequences and saving dollars and lives. He pointed out that diabetes rates tended to be highest in the Southern states that did not expand Medicaid, and that full insurance coverage there would likely produce an even stronger effect. "This suggests that states that are accepting this kind of coverage are doing their populations a huge favor," he said, adding that the health care law was the most plausible explanation for the findings. "I couldn't find anything that sounded like a false note," he said of the study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/science/with-expansion-of-medicaid-some-states-are-identifying-more-new-diabetes-cases.html?_r=0

Objective, scientific proof that republican policy is bad for Americans.

My five plus years of visiting hospitals has exposed me to the horrors of the disease of diabetes.......this is a great laurel for the ACA......real facts, real results, and people getting needed care before expensive tragedies of neglect. At some point every Republican must wake up to the facts......at least three of my best friends are suffering from diabetes and hate President Obama......I am going to be bringing this subject up shortly......I heard this on the radio the other day and it was a stunning fact which blows away any myths........at least for rational people.

There are some real positives to the ACA but there are still issues related to its complexity. Expanded Medicare would have been easier to implement and I suspect would have cost less in the long run due to a simplified infrastructure.

Continued tweaks need to made to the ACA to make it a true success, probably take a few more years though. The R's need to get over it and work with the administration to resolve pending issues.

"Half of people with ObamaCare subsidies will owe on their taxes"

"Half of all households that received ObamaCare tax credits last year will likely owe money to the federal government, a new study found.
Nearly all families that received tax credits will either owe money or receive extra money because their tax filings had changed after they calculated their ObamaCare subsidies, according to a new report by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Only 4 percent of households received the correct subsidy, according to the report, which uses data from the national Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Out of those who will have to repay, the average amount owed is $794, the study found. Out of the 45 percent of people receiving money back, the average refund is $773.

Some households will be paying back the majority of their tax credit. Middle-income households — with income between 300 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level – will repay about 65 percent of their tax credit.

Between 4.5 million and 7.5 million households received tax credits in 2014. This year’s tax season marks the first time that people will have to account for their ObamaCare subsidies or pay penalties for lacking coverage.
Under ObamaCare’s first year, people buying insurance received subsidies in advance based on their tax returns from 2012, which was the most recent year available.

People with the middle-level incomes were more likely to owe money — and to owe more.

There are some limits for how much money an individual or family would have to repay if their tax credits were too large. For example, families making less than 300 percent of the poverty level will not pay back more than $1,500. Anyone with an income greater than 400 percent of the poverty level has no cap on repayment."

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/236757-half-of-people-with-obamacare-subsidies-will-owe-money

Sure, Republicans don't have a replacement for Obamacare, but they do promise to pray for you when you can't afford your cancer treatment.- Tea Party Cat

Only at a "Christian" university can one expect to hear 1000's of young people cheering for millions losing health insurance.- Kona Lowell

A massive expansion of insurance programs like Medicaid and a drop in emergency room visits saved hospitals at least $7.4 billion over the last year, the Obama administration announced Monday.

With millions more people covered under ObamaCare last year, hospitals faced fewer bills from patients who lacked insurance and were unable to pay. Hospitals also saw fewer emergency room visits, which rack up far higher costs and often leave hospitals with the tab.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/236603-hhs-hospitals-saved-billions-under-obamacare#.VRCxeH64hpw.facebook

So, let's review ...

Individuals are saving money under Obamacare.

The federal government is saving money under Obamacare.

Now, hospitals are saving money under Obamacare.

Win-win-win, amirite?

Fraid not, cause people still have to pay taxes.

Thanks a lot, Obummer.

"There are some real positives to the ACA but there are still issues related to its complexity. Expanded Medicare would have been easier to implement and I suspect would have cost less in the long run due to a simplified infrastructure.

Continued tweaks need to made to the ACA to make it a true success, probably take a few more years though. The R's need to get over it and work with the administration to resolve pending issues..."

I could not agree more with that statement, but a push for it at the time would have meant no change at all, IMHO...and there was a pressing need to control costs and make healthcare available to more people. The cost spiral and the inability of many people...usually the sickest...to get coverage...that was a travesty.