This article written by someone outside the group, looking in, and offering an "Opinion."
Below I'd like to offer my Opinion. . .
Sorry this is a bit long, but here is a partial list of the big items that I have an issue with on the PPACA.
Navigators...Trained and certified, but ACA Navigators are not required to pass a background check. Some state run exchanges require them, but not all. The Republican Obstructionist argument comes from the liberal talking point, let's be objective in our exploration here, please. The ACA grants provided to many states was inadequate, as it was unevenly distributed. Red states were offered considerable less than blue states (based on population).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323463704578495431991530040.htmlMedical Records: Those who go thru exchanges are permitting all their medical records to be recorded into a Gov't database managed by those who are excluded from HIPPA. Sure, I understand, that is a pretty bold statement I made. but it is based on PPACA section 1104 which give HHS Secretary free reign to make the rules. And, she did. . .
http://www.anthem.com/provider/noapplication/f1/s0/t0/pw_e196648.pdf?refer=ahpproviderHaving to report medical information to the IRS is, in of it self, a HIPPA violation. But, it will be required.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-09.pdf*note, this is the current form,
Health and Welfare home visits: Anyone who puts their children into the exchange could be subject to home visits to inspect the health and welfare of these children (no warrants needed). Each state, and many localities, have a Child Protective Services (or named something similar). A healthcare provider is already required, by law, to report suspected events of abuse. Many question the tactics used by many CPS's (but, that is an all different topic). A family shouldn't have to surrender their 4th amendment rights obtaining health care. Then, there's the issue of what is the acceptable standard (Manhattan is very different than Louisiana swamp). Wouldn't you agree this may be better handled locally than one-size-fits-all federal view?
MIECHV is authorized under the Social Security Act, Title V, Section 511 (42 USC 711), as amended by Section 2951 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. No. 111-148).
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title05/0511.htmMassive Cancellation by Gov't mandate and insurers declining to participate in the exchanges:
There are a number of good sources on this one. AP story -->
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/29/AP-Many-Will-Have-Insurance-Cancelled-...
There is also massive indirect cancellations caused by PPACA. The impact has already been felt, by the companies offering plans less than what the Gov't has approved or provide the price point dictated as acceptable to participate. You can google any of these, they are all in the news.
California - Aetna, UnitedHealth, and Anthem Blue Cross are cancelling all subscribers in this state. Right now 58,000 have received notices and being forced to the exchange. There are more to come.
Missouri - The state's largest hospital system BJC Healthcare system (13 hospitals- and the states renowned St. Louis Children's hospital)will not be covered by the exchanges largest insurer. 79,000 people affected.
Connecticut - Aetna (the nations 3d largest insurer) is pulling out, cancelling policies. They just can't offer plans at the demanded price point for the higher service level.
Maryland - Aenta/Coventry are not offered on the exchanges, because they cannot meet the price point demanded to participate. So, No Subsidy for you 13,000 guys and gals.
South Carolina - Medical Mutual of Ohio decided to leave the state entirely in July due to Obamacares vast and quite complex new regulations. 28,000 ouch.
New York - Aenta pulling out of the exchanges there too. No subsidies.
New Jersey - again Aetna opting to not be in the exchange, 1.1 million no subsidies for you. Many are on Company plans, which may throw them to the exchanges.
Iowa - Wellmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield - the states largest insurer, who sells 86% of individual policies decided not to participate in the exchange--no subsidies, sorry.
I'm sorry it's such a long list, there's more...
Georgia - Only five insurers are participating in the exchanges. Many have decided not to participate.
Wisconsin - Two of the three largest insurers are opting out.
I could go on. In the immortal words of Bill Clinton "I feel your pain."
Subsidies: Isn't nice that the Gov't provides subsidies for people to purchase health insurance.
First the definition of subsidies, "Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subsidiesFollowing that Gov't only gets money is by collecting it from others (well since we having difficulty selling T bills they are printing money like crazy--Qualative Easing is another subject). So, yes, collecting money from some to distribute to others does sound like wealth redistribution. Some redistribution can be defended as in the "public interest". Oil & Farm subsidies have very in-depth reasoning defending them. Student loans are repaid- not a subsidy. Nor is the Veterans Admin. -- I'm a veteran and it is an earned benefit for having served. There are numerous subsidies in our daily life, does that mean that any/or all of them can be defended as "in the public interest"?
The Gov't does has new insurance programs: Medicare, Medicaid, SS disability, Worker's Comp. Now, there's a new one, where you will find such quotations as, "Section 1101(g) of the Act does not specify exactly how HHS should allocate funds for the purpose of this program."
This is a good read, check out the eligibility requirement.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-30/pdf/2010-18691.pdf