Health reform plan for 'uninsurables' winds down

The MSM title (that is posted above) for this article is deceptive, the program isn`t winding down it`s being suspended 10 months early because the government miscalculated the true cost of the program.

WASHINGTON -- Citing financial concerns, the Obama administration has begun quietly winding down one of the earliest programs created by the president's health care overhaul, a plan that helps people with existing medical problems who can't get private insurance.


The enrollment suspension will take effect immediately in 23 states where the federal government administers the program, ....

Enrollment around the country has been lower than expected, partly because some people could not afford the premiums. But individual cases have turned out to be costlier than originally projected.

the program has spent about $2.4 billion in taxpayer money on medical claims ....Congress allocated $5 billion to the plan.... we are implementing a nationwide suspension of enrollment."

Designed as a stopgap solution until the law's full consumer protections are in effect next year....Starting next January 1, insurance companies will no longer be able to turn anyone away because of poor health.

vitals.nbcnews.com...

I think this an example of how and why obamacare will be a failure.

They had to suspend this program 10 months before it`s planned ending date because they miscalculated the true costs of the program.

They had fewer people join the program than what they budgeted for and planned for but they still had to suspend the program 10 months early.
It doesn`t say when the program started but if the number of people they expected to join the program had actually joined then the program would have been suspended much sooner than now.

one of the reasons given for the low enrollment is that people couldn`t afford the payments.

I`m sure that, just like obamacare, this program looked real good in theory but in reality they grossly miscalculated.

I think this is just a small example of how much of a failure obamacare is going to be.
in theory obamacare looks good on paper to them but when it gets rolling and they see how much money it`s costing the government ( taxpayers) they will have only 2 choices:
1) ration healthcare
2) massive tax and premium increases

I believe obamacare is going to cost 10 times more than they have calculated and will cover 90% fewer people than they have calculated.

There`s no reason to believe that it will work the way they have said it will, the program in this article is a perfect example.They completely miscalculated this little $5 billion program,obamacare will be on a much more massive scale than this program and a much more massive miscalculation and failure.

The surest way to make something 10x more complex and 100x more costly is to get the Government involved, has been and always will be the case.

Health care will be no different.

You do know this isn't "Obamacare" It is a patch until the healthcare act kicks in. The funding is different and people who could not have gotten insurance were insured. You are lucky you don't have to depend on a program like this. Oh right there are no other programs like this.

Originally posted by spyder550
You do know this isn't "Obamacare" It is a patch until the healthcare act kicks in. The funding is different and people who could not have gotten insurance were insured. You are lucky you don't have to depend on a program like this. Oh right there are no other programs like this.

right, it`s a "small" scale government funded and operated healthcare insurance program that was grossly miscalculated. since the government has proven time and time again (including this program) that they are incapable of even playing in the minor leagues then why should we expect that they will be successful in the major leagues?

This little $5 billion stopgap program is minor league compared to obamacare which is going to be major league.

They didn`t plan for this program to fail i`m sure that when they planned this program they thought they had covered all their bases but obviously they miscalculated a lot of things.When they planned this program they knew it wasn`t obamacare, they knew the funding was different and yet even with their best intentions and best planning they still miscalculated.
If they used the same care and competence when they planned obamacare as they did with this program then we can be certain that the results won`t be much different.

Since this was just a temporary stopgap program the government had the option of shutting it down 10 months early when things went bad, but they won`t have that luxury with obamacare.When obamacare goes bad we are stuck with it there won`t be any shutting it down early.

This IS AMERICA (btw not an anti-US thing, just related to the healthcare)

news.bbc.co.uk...

Anyone that feels the need to disagree with the article or say a national subsidised health plan isn't needed is lacking empathy for their fellow Country man, woman or child.

We in the UK pay £30 for all prescription med's for a three month period; and have hospital care free of charge, no matter if you are the PM or are out of work. We treat the health of people as paramount, beyond the £ value or ability to pay, to a degree. Please don;t get me wrong, our NHS IS NOT perfect, it has it's problems but people do get medical treatment not based on the ability to pay.

reply to post by Tykonos


Link

Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards Forty-three hospital patients starved to death last year and 111 died of thirst while being treated on wards, new figures disclose today.

Yeah no thanks, I'll pay for my health care myself.

From the Guardian online:

The death toll was disclosed by the Government amid mounting concern over the dignity of patients on NHS wards.

They will also fuel concerns about care homes, as it was disclosed that eight people starved to death and 21 people died of thirst while in care.

Originally posted by Tykonos
This IS AMERICA (btw not an anti-US thing, just related to the healthcare)

news.bbc.co.uk...

Anyone that feels the need to disagree with the article or say a national subsidised health plan isn't needed is lacking empathy for their fellow Country man, woman or child.

We in the UK pay £30 for all prescription med's for a three month period; and have hospital care free of charge, no matter if you are the PM or are out of work. We treat the health of people as paramount, beyond the £ value or ability to pay, to a degree. Please don;t get me wrong, our NHS IS NOT perfect, it has it's problems but people do get medical treatment not based on the ability to pay.

edit on 17-2-2013 by Tykonos because: (no reason given)

I don`t have a problem with national subsidized health care, I have a problem with who is going to manage it. The government continues to prove that they are wholely incompetent to plan,set up and manage anything in an cost effective and efficient manner.

reply to post by Carreau


Yeah, yeah, I really get you.Our NHS; It HAS its problems. No amount of money will give everyone a cure or standard of care to each person.
Our NHS IS FLAWED. No doubts about that but the basis is health care for everyone regardless of personal wealth.

In every system, you will have flawes or sub-standard service but to me it is the standard they strive to achieve.

What do you think to a UK charity providing basic heath-care to your fellow American?

Not good I'm sure. No Amreican should have to resort to 'charity' to provide basic health-care. You're people deserve better.

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by Tykonos
This IS AMERICA (btw not an anti-US thing, just related to the healthcare)

news.bbc.co.uk...

Anyone that feels the need to disagree with the article or say a national subsidised health plan isn't needed is lacking empathy for their fellow Country man, woman or child.

We in the UK pay £30 for all prescription med's for a three month period; and have hospital care free of charge, no matter if you are the PM or are out of work. We treat the health of people as paramount, beyond the £ value or ability to pay, to a degree. Please don;t get me wrong, our NHS IS NOT perfect, it has it's problems but people do get medical treatment not based on the ability to pay.

edit on 17-2-2013 by Tykonos because: (no reason given)

I don`t have a problem with national subsidized health care, I have a problem with who is going to manage it. The government continues to prove that they are wholely incompetent to plan,set up and manage anything in an cost effective and efficient manner.

edit on 17-2-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

Who manages it? Isn't it better for such a fundamental thing as basic heath-care to be entrusted to the people you democratically elect rather than a private organisation who is wholey in it for profit?

reply to post by Tykonos


Look I'm not talking about bad health care or lack of health care, I'm talking about a system so broke that people fail to receive food and water to the point of death. Striving for standards? If dogs at a government shelter died from lack of food and water the public would be screaming, but this can happen to your countrymen and you brush it off as "hey it's better than nothing".

The problem with government run anything is that there is no incentive to do better. And the citizens have no real recourse if they are abused.