Latest Entries »

Over 200,000 Doctors Avoiding Obamacare Plans

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


Obamacare puts physicians — especially the dwindling number of those in private practice — in an especially difficult financial situation, expecting doctors to eat the costs of patients who discontinue coverage and to simply take on more patients to make up for bottom-level reimbursements.


Exchange plans nationwide pay on average significantly less than plans in the private market and even Medicare, according to AAF. While private plans generally pay doctors $1.00 for performing a given service, Medicare averages just $0.80; exchange plans are allowing doctors just $0.60 for the same thing.


That puts Obamacare plans more in line with Medicaid reimbursements, AAF reports, and Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates have been driving doctors away for years


The low physician reimbursements are likely borne out of the administration’s strong-handed push to keep Obamacare premium hikes as low as possible. In order to keep price low, insurers have to cut costs somewhere; in exchanges, companies moved to covering just narrow networks with few in-network physicians and offering low reimbursement rates to doctors with the promise that if physicians work even more, they’ll recoup their losses.


Typical political program we all have to work harder and get less. What we need are even more government programs so that we all can work all the time for nothing. PARADISE! LIBERAL UTOPIA! Actually that sounds like Hell to me.


But the structure of the Affordable Care Act itself puts doctors who accept plans purchased on Obamacare exchanges at risk of never being paid at all. Obamacare requires insurers who sell plans on the exchanges to keep coverage active even after a customer has stopped paying their premiums, for an extra 90 days.


For the first 60 days after a customer has stopped paying but is still insured, the insurance company has to pay for any care the patient uses. But for any services used in the final 30 days before a customer’s insurance can be terminated, doctors that see those patients won’t be paid at all.


Yes sir, there you have it folks Obamacare. Promoting a program that promises FREE HEALTH care, except there is no such thing as FREE anything, someone has to pay the bill. And in the case of Obamacare, the only people fool-hardy enough to actually play by the rules are going to be the ones STUCK with all these unpaid bills, unless of course there are no more doctors or hospitals left to treat you since they have all gone bankrupt under Obamacare.

See on Scoop.itEagle Views

Edmund Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski:

While most of the attention has focused on the new health insurance
exchanges, the data indicate that a significant share of exchange
enrollments were likely the result of a substitution effect—meaning that
most of those who enrolled in new coverage through the exchanges during
the open enrollment period already had coverage through an
individual-market or employer-group plan. Given that increased
enrollment in Medicaid accounted for 71 percent of the net growth in
health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014, the inescapable
conclusion is that, at least when it comes to covering the uninsured,
Obamacare so far is mainly a simple expansion of Medicaid. [“Obamacare’s Enrollment Increase: Mainly Due to Medicaid Expansion,” by Edmund F. Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski, The Heritage Foundation, October 22]

And this would be a good time to remember that coverage does not
equal care, especially if you are in Medicaid. Kevin Dayaratna did an
extensive literature review a couple years ago, finding:

Academic literature has consistently illustrated that Medicaid
patients—adults and children—have inferior access to health care, and
notably poorer health outcomes, than privately insured patients. Due to
the program’s low reimbursement rates, more and more doctors are
refusing to even accept Medicaid. As a result, it is becoming
increasingly difficult for Medicaid patients to find access to primary
and specialty care physicians. [“Studies Show: Medicaid Patients Have Worse Access and Outcomes than the Privately Insured,” by Kevin Dayaratna, The Heritage Foundation, November 7, 2012]

Millennials continue to drive the shift toward Bible skepticism, but there’s good news in the midst of the indifference.


We are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our youth. Why is this the case? Perhaps one place we should look for the answers is to the very word itself. The bible teaches that is it the responsibility of parents to teach their children the things of God. With the continued break-up of the American family, and the absence of many fathers in the home we can see that one of the bedrocks of society has become fractured to the point of collapse.


Secular society is doing everything it can to negate the principles of Godly living in society, that includes the destruction of the home.


Not only are we allowing our homes to be decimated we are also promoting the very secular agenda that is driving this destruction. We back our children up and send them to institutes of secular learning and then we wonder why they are not interested in the things of God. These secular institutions are not interested in promoting the things of God but rather they promote the antithesis of Biblical principles.


If we really care about our youth then we as heads of households need to take back the education of our children and train them up in the way they should go because then when they are older they will not depart from these teachings.


We have proof that teaching children secularism has worked to alienate the Millennials from biblical teaching so then why won’t the reverse work just as well?

See on Scoop.itEagle Views

Allen Scott:

This extensive study on how Christians are the church and the need for a formal Church building is not supported by scripture. Personally I have felt for a long time that ‘true Christianity’ has been institutionalized and has left the biblical model of interactive personal ministry behind. We wonder why the established church is not flurishing while in oppressed societies home churches are growing by record numbers. Perhaps we need to rethink how we do church and actually become the church.

Originally posted on Biblicism Institute:

C H U R C H   R E F O R M    S E R I E S

By Biblicism Institute

To the well-versed, a ‘church service’ is in reality a show put together to entertain Christians. God never meant it to be so. The gathering of Christians is supposed to be an opportunity for all believers to edify and encourage one another.

“…not neglecting to meet together… but encouraging one another…” Hebrews 10:25

How are Christians supposed to edify and encourage one another?

When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up… Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should…

View original 4,856 more words

New research finds that non-citizens do vote, and this could be consequential in some races.


This report though flawed does show a correlation between non-citizen’s voting and election results. Although it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt this study does show a tendency for non-citizens to actually vote and most cast their votes for democrats.


This is really not surprising for those of us who believe that the democrats will stop at nothing to rig, steal, or fix an election even go as far as allowing multiple votes by the same person and to encourage the voting of non-citizens. This explains why any effort to  true the vote are met with strong opposition from the democrat party.


If there is no truth to these allegations they why are the democrats so hard set on making sure that illegal’s are mainstreamed to be treated as true American citizens. Although somewhat anecdotal this report shows that there is good possibility that non-citizens effected the outcome of at least 2 elections.


You can be assured that had non-citizens tended  toward voting for Republican candidates that the Democrat party would be doing everything possible to restrict their access to the polls not enabling it.


And that’s the way I see it! What say you?



See on Scoop.itEagle Views


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 338 other followers

%d bloggers like this: