Larry

I don't doubt that you've seen some of their proposals. I do doubt that you can articulate what type of system they'd put into place. In a nutshell, your assumption that any and all minimum standards would go away in a libertarian's dream system is probably not accurate.

No, they aren't proposing to get rid of ALL regulations.

Simply to have the states compete to see which state has the laws which most favor the insurance companies, the companies go to that state, and then sell insurance in all 50 states, ignoring the regulations of the other 49.

The slogan they're using, to sell this plan, is "allow people to buy across state lines".

Yeah, they want to kill it. At some point, they'll probably need to actually propose an alternative. Even poorly implemented ACA has changed the paradigm for what's acceptable, and taking away coverage isn't going to be viable w/o an alternative.

Well, I have seen some Republican proposals.

Mostly, they seem to consist of having the Feds declare that states can't regulate insurance any more, and saying that if your insurance company breaks one of the few remaining regulations, and you take them to court, and you prove your case, then they still can't be punished for cheating you.

This, they claim, will make things better for CONSUMERS.

With that said, the website is a huge setback, and it's not the only challenge. Ultimately deductibles, access to providers/hospitals, ability to process subsidies for poor enrollees, discontinuation of existing plan options and higher prices for private health plans are probably bigger risks to the ACA, in my opinion. All could suppress enrollment, leading to a death spiral, or have big effects on 2014 election.

 

All of those risks are real, but Obama will not let the program die under almost any scenario. It's more likely that if all of the above issues change public opinion, R's win a big 2014 election and force some D's to cave to change the program.

I agree with you, that the effects of website problems are much more significant as PR problems than actual threats to the program. (And that there are actual threats to the program working.)

And that PR problems could easily become real problems, given the political nature of things.

I do observe, though, that your closing statement seems to assume that the R's want to make the D's improve the program. They've made it very clear that they don't. Any change they suggest/force/whatever, will have the objective of killing it, or, failing that, to make it worse, so that then they'll have more ammo the next time they try to kill it.

Deleted post.

Elessar, for someone who talks about one side giving rational rebuttals and one side giving lies, I would like to point out that your post here is nothing but political stone throwing.

If you have a point on Obamacare that is factual and rational, make it. If you can rebut any post I have made on the reasons I don't like Obamacare (which by the way has nothing to do with the reasons in your posts) than rebut.

If anyone on this board as of late doesn't back up their posts, it's the left crowd. It's easy to say evil GOP bad bad bad. Those type of posts, like yours above, have no meat or substance.

If you want to debate Obamacare, lay out some things you think are good about it.

Perhaps if you read the first sentence in the post you quoted?

The impression I'm getting is that several of the mandates in Obamacare mean that people who weren't planning to need them, will have to pay more, but that people who did need them, will pay less.

There was an example posted here about some guy whose rates are going up. The article mentions that yeah, he's now getting coverage that he didn't have, before. (They mentioned maternity care, and mental health care for drug or alcohol addiction.) Things that he didn't have, before, and didn't need. (He's a single father. Unlikely to need maternity care.)

OTOH, I assume that people who did need maternity care, their rates will go down, because now there's more people paying into the "maternity care" pool.

I'm wondering if things like this, the pre-existing conditions rule, things like that, might well have the effect of making the cost of insurance "flatter".

Observing that the big bold claim at the top of the pretty picture reads "raise your health insurance premium".

But the fine print down in the corner reads "cost of future newly insured".

Pointing out that the article is an editorial written by a Republican Congressman.

Also pointing out that the OPM administers the health care plan for all government employees, and government retirees.

 

Under Obamacare, the Office of Personnel Management no longer has the authority to provide this premium subsidy.

 

I'm pretty confident that, if Obamacare had ruled that all current and retired federal employees immediately lost their health insurance, I would have heard about it before now. 

Also Larry, if you are deducting $80,000 on your parents return it's due to long term care, which is a totally different issue in the US. If it's just for medical expenses, then your Medicare really isn't working.

The main expenses were dad's nursing home, and mom's prescriptions. (Everything else was covered by Medicare, and their supplemental).

(And long-term care is medical expenses).

BTW, THIS is what I have been rallying about.

A family finally gets health insurance, pays their premium, and when they go to use it they will find out they aren't getting anything covered. They have to pay out of pocket anyways until they spend $5k-$6K.

Yes, we get it. Obamacare sucks because it has a deductible.

(And Medicare sucks, because, for most people, it doesn't).

Y'know what? My current plan has a deductible, too. So does yours.

Not sure I understand your question. Health care expenses were never tax deductible with the exception of portions that exceeded a percentage of your income. (Prior to H.S.A plans).

Under the ACA you can use an H.S.A plan to put money away tax free to pay for future healthcare expenses.

Pointing out that there's a difference between "huge out of pocket expenses that aren't tax deductible" and "well, they have to exceed a portion of your income".

Speaking as someone who has filed tax returns for my parents, claiming like $80K a year in tax deductions because of medical expenses, for six years in a row, I'm pretty certain that if medical expenses weren't deductible, before, the IRS would have told me I couldn't do that.

Anybody got any support for this claim I keep seeing, that health care expenses are no longer tax deductible?

(Not that I think it matters, for most of the folks signing up for Obamacare. Since I assume the vast majority of them are in lower tax brackets, probably don;t itemize to begin with, and wouldn't get much back, if they did. But I'm really curious. Mostly because I assume that, if this were true, I would have heard a lot more complaining about it.)

Of those 97 plans, or there may be overlap, I don't know, but of all of those plans, every single one of them has a monthly deductible lower than the $1,288.24 my employer and I pay combined for family coverage.

Pointing out, you're comparing apples and oranges. (In this case, deductibles and premiums.)

(At least, I assume that your $1,300 number is the premium.)

----------

BTW, I can't use the exchange.

First, it's tough to find. Google "Florida health insurance exchange", and you get a slew of commercial web sites that have been set up to trick people into thinking that they're looking at what Obamacare set up.

Find the real one, and it tells me that I have to use a federal site. (Because my governor is trying to win points by intentionally making it hard for poor people to get health insurance, and claiming that it's Obama's fault.) \

(The federal site wasn't working, on the first. But it seems to be, now.)

I have to create a user ID to use the system. I cannot use any of the common user IDs I use on other systems, because they mandate that my user ID must contain a number.

I love sys admins who create obscure and arbitrary rules for user names and passwords. I probably have IDs on 50 computer systems, and every one of them has their own rules, completely arbitrarily imposed. Many of these sites I will go years at a time without accessing.

These rules cost the sys admin absolutely nothing to impose. And they do absolutely nothing for security. All they do is allow the sys admin to pretend like he's making things more secure.

And, they force me to take all of my user IDs and passwords, write them all down, and keep them next to my computer.

When I worked in the computer store, part of my job was to maintain the store's list of all of their user names and passwords. We would all keep it taped to our monitors.

Because some sys admin, somewhere, thinks that requiring his users to use a password which is 8-14 characters, and must contain letters, numbers, and punctuation, but only these kinds of symbols, and must change the password every six months, but is not allowed to change it sooner, and . . .

[/rant]

And then, I have to jump through elaborite hoops, to prove my identity, before it will allow me in. (Really? I can't find out how much health insurance costs, without proving ID?)

So they hit me with "Which of the following cities have you formerly lived in?" (One of the choices is the city which I told them, on a previous screen, is the one I currently live in.) "Which one of these models of cars have you owned?" "Which of these is a former employer?"

And then they tell me that I failed the identity test.

I must call Experian, to prove my identity.

Experian has a recording telling me that they're experiencing a high call volume, and call back some other time, and hangs up on me.

Dumb idea that's been in my head, for a while.

(The following presentation is yet another episode of Larry's Dumb Ideas. Brought to you by "dammit, I need a sponsor")

Maybe a mandate (not another mandate!). Urgent Care centers are now required to treat the indigent, at no cost, just like ERs are.

Now, the poor guy who can't pay a doctor, when he gets a sore, breaks a bone, or some other "medical problem but it's not a heart attack" can go to the urgent care, get treated, and the taxpayers get hit with a much smaller bill than the ER has. (Or whatever the payment method is that we use, now, when indigent people go to the ER.)

They get more access. More encouragement to get medical help before it's life threatening. The taxpayers get a smaller bill.

It's better than the old system for some, worse for others.  The some who find it better might find the costs to still be more than they can afford.

Yeah, the thought has occurred to me, to imagine some hypothetical minimum wage guy. (Or some guy who's not minimum wage, but he's still low income. Say, a plumber.)

The old system was:

He had no health insurance.

He never saw a doctor.

If something really bad hits him, he goes to the ER.

They hand him a bill for thousands of dollars, he can't pay it, it goes away.

The new system is:

He has health insurance, but he has to pay for it. (How much he has to pay depends on his income, but he has to pay something. His premium isn't zero.)

He now has insurance, but it doesn't pay anything unless he has thousands of medical bills, first.

He still can't pay those thousands of medical bills, anyway.

In short, it looks to me like the total impact of Obamacare, on a low income, uninsured, person, right now, will be:

1) He has to pay something, for insurance.

2) He can receive something, in return. If he chooses to go see a doctor, then his doctor visit, some vaccinations, maybe a few labs, will be covered, without a deductible.

3) And if he gets hit with something catastrophic, like a heart attack or some such, then, instead of getting a bill for a million dollars that he can't pay, he'll get a bill for $15,000, that he can't pay.

He's still not going to see a doctor for anything that isn't covered, outside the deductible, because he can't afford the deductible.

The only time he gets money out of his insurance, so to speak, is those things that don;t count towards the deductible.

----------

Now, yeah, some other hypothetical guy, say a lower middle class guy, some guy who CAN get hit with a $20K medical bill, and not technically be forced into bankruptcy? That guy needs insurance.

But, the guy who literally makes just enough money to live? Insurance doesn't really help him, much, because he's already immune from medical bills, anyway.

something I haven't heard of...are other states requiring proof of credit scores?

 

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/credit-scores-impacting-new-affordable-care-act-insurance-plans/-/1637132/22341034/-/l0jmq3z/-/index.html

 

Many people signing up for health care in Florida through the Affordable Care Acthave been shocked when they have to give proof of their credit score before they finish the process.

I think insurance companies have been allowed to consider credit rating as part of their pricing, for years. 

How well you pay your bills is important to them. 

Never heard of them asking the applicant to provide them, though.  Assumed they simply take your information, and then they check your credit, themselves.  The applicant simply isn't aware that it's happening. 

Will not eat a dinner that the cook will not eat. Therefore why should I take part in a program prepared by politicians even though they themselves will not sign up for.

Just Sayin'

So, you're saying that Congress should vote to give every American the same health care plan that members of Congress get? 

Just sayin'. 

I think everybody on Food Stamps should receive the same quality of food as the Senate Dining Room, too. 

(Haven't ever read the whole long quote, let alone the article linked.)

Yeah, I suspect that it's possible that the biggest impact the law will have, will be to make shopping more transparent. Between allowing people to make apples to apples comparisons, to allowing them to switch carriers without a penalty, I think it should do a whole lot to encourage private market competition.

I will also observe, though, that that might not be all good. With everybody competing on the exchanges, we all know that they're going to be competing on price. Who has the cheapest plan at the "silver" level, or whatever?

I've seen the impact of such "price is the only factor" competition when I was with a small computer store.  Everything got sacrificed in the name of the lowest price.  Companies that used to have carry-in, three year warranties, went to one year warranties, "you have to ship it back to us for service" warranties, and then "call India, spend four hours with them troubleshooting your own computer, and then India will ship you the part.  When it comes in, call India again, and they'll talk you through replacing your own parts, yourself" 

Now days, I see that computers come with 90 day warranties. 

Want another place to look?  Look at what "price-only" competition has done to air travel. 

Companies are going to be under tremendous pressure to cut every corner they can, to fight for lower prices.  Anything they can do, to still just barely meet the legal minimum coverage (on paper). 

In short, I anticipate both good and bad consequences, from this new-found competition. 

I like to think that the market will support companies that offer quality.  But I've seen enough to know that it isn't guaranteed. 

Once saw a book of "Rules For Dogs" 

Only one I thought was funny was "Lick the children's faces.  There might be food on them." 

DENIED!!!!

I have no idea how to use this new bloody board...

On the old board, you couldn't embed YouTube videos with the "https" prefix. Had to be "http".

HuffPo: Florida Accidentally Banned All Computers, Smart Phones In The State Through Internet Cafe Ban: Lawsuit

When Florida lawmakers recently voted to ban all Internet cafes, they worded the bill so poorly that they effectively outlawed every computer in the state, according to a recent lawsuit.

In April Florida Governor Rick Scott approved a ban on slot machines and Internet cafes after a charity tied to Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll was shut down on suspicion of being an Internet gambling front -- forcing Carroll, who had consulted with the charity, to resign.

Florida's 1,000 Internet cafes were shut down immediately, including Miami-Dade's Incredible Investments, LLC, a café that provides online services to migrant workers, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Note:  This is one of those "A Lawsuit claims . . . " stories. 

But, the article does contain this: 

The ban defines illegal slot machines as any "system or network of devices" that may be used in a game of chance.

Y'all are trying to kick me off Tailgate, aren't ya? 

(Bus pic)

the participation rate has a lot to do with how much people spend on health expenses and other things

 

you are certainly buying generic drugs if it is coming out of your pocket, as well as putting off or doing w/o medical care when possible

 

but hey,don't let reality intrude

So, what you're saying is that your nifty chart shows that health care costs have been going down since '03, right? It being so well and demonstrably correlated with health care costs, huh?

In fact, I guess that according to this nifty chart,

health care costs have been going down since 2000, right? 

And I guess we should ignore the pesky fact that a good part of that declining participation rate is because the Baby Boomers are getting old, and retiring. Cause everybody knows that old retired people spend less on health care, right?

Oh, look! A piece of good news gets posted, and in rushes twa with a nifty chart which says absolutely nothing about the topic, but hey, it's bad.