Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

ZYDCOWBOY just making stuff up and Larry demanding quotes.

 

It's entirely possible this thread is going to cause a tornado in my office thanks to these fronts colliding.

[Larry]

I already said, it was posted on the ACA healthcare site.  Was changed in early 2013.

1). And nobody managed to notice this, and capture it, till after the evidence went away?

2). And this supposed page that you claim existed, but nobody saw, said that "health care was free"? Or it said that, for some people, health insurance might be little or no cost? Or that SOME PROCEDURES would be covered at no out of pocket?

My Walgreens, right now, has signs in the parking lot, advertising "free flu shots". (With "most insurance plans", in much smaller print). You feel like announcing how stupid the American people are, because Walgreens is LYING to them that "health care is free"?

[ABQCOWBOY]

1). And nobody managed to notice this, and capture it, till after the evidence went away?

2). And this supposed page that you claim existed, but nobody saw, said that "health care was free"? Or it said that, for some people, health insurance might be little or no cost? Or that SOME PROCEDURES would be covered at no out of pocket?

My Walgreens, right now, has signs in the parking lot, advertising "free flu shots". (With "most insurance plans", in much smaller print). You feel like announcing how stupid the American people are, because Walgreens is LYING to them that "health care is free"?

 

But that's not free.  It costs.  What did I say in my original post? 

 

"There are things that were not true but to be honest, the biggest "lie" was to allow so many Americans to believe that Healthcare was free.   It's not.  Even if you are one of the people who are not paying for it, it's still not free."

 

This is what I said.  This is true.  The Flue Shots you get at Walgreens are not free.  Neither is the Healthcare that people receive.  Somebody has to pay for it and just because it might not be you or somebody else, doesn't mean it's free.  It's not.

[Larry]

This is what I said.  This is true.

I know it's what you said.

And it's so completely bogus that it is impossible for me to believe that even you think it was ever said, or that even the most brain dead zombie would believe it.

Which is why you've been dodging my requests to find any evidence whatsoever that such a claim was ever made. (And the best you can some up with is "well, it existed somewhere, but nobody saw it, but I'm sure it was there"). Or that a single person believed it. (Which you have not even attempted to avoid, just not responded at all.)

In short, you imagine that people believe something, and you imagine that "Obama lied" to cause it, and you can't even support the second claim, let alone the first.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Larry

[ABQCOWBOY]

I know it's what you said.

And it's so completely bogus that it is impossible for me to believe that even you think it was ever said, or that even the most brain dead zombie would believe it.

Which is why you've been dodging my requests to find any evidence whatsoever that such a claim was ever made. (And the best you can some up with is "well, it existed somewhere, but nobody saw it, but I'm sure it was there"). Or that a single person believed it. (Which you have not even attempted to avoid, just not responded at all.)

 

 

Really?  You yourself reference FREE FLU SHOTS at your local Walgreens.   You tell me, are those completely free?  Do the manufactures of those shots just give them away? 

 

Yeah, Bogus.  Your story, you tell it.

[Larry]

Yeah, you're right.

Barack Obama has perpetrated a massive lie, to convince people that health care is completely free. To everybody. And people believed it, too.

And he did this without anybody noticing this lie, and has successfully gotten rid of the evidence, too.

So, what do you think? Did Obama manage to trick Walgreens, a company which is in the business of making money off of health care, that health care is actually free to everybody? Or is Walgreens part of Obama's conspiracy, and they're successfully fooling people that health care is completely free, to everybody, as part of Obama's plan?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah, you're right.

Barack Obama has perpetrated a massive lie, to convince people that health care is completely free. To everybody. And people believed it, too.

And he did this without anybody noticing this lie, and has successfully gotten rid of the evidence, too.

So, what do you think? Did Obama manage to trick Walgreens, a company which is in the business of making money off of health care, that health care is actually free to everybody? Or is Walgreens part of Obama's conspiracy, and they're successfully fooling people that health care is completely free, to everybody, as part of Obama's plan?

 

 

No.  I would not say that nobody noticed.   I would say that some notice.  I noticed. 

 

I think the administration played on the fact that it would be cheap and that it would save all kinds of money.  For some, it would be free, which is not true at all. 

 

It's going to be very expensive indeed, especially for some.  As to the Walgreens question, well, I think you should probably be the person to answer the questions you ask.  Heck, you think it's free.  Clearly, you know more about how it works then I do.  You tell us, how is it free?

 

Now, how bout that guy Gruber?  What about what he has said?  Is he lying? 

Edited November 18, 2014 by ABQCOWBOY

[nonniey]

From BV

 

Obamacare Inflates Its Numbers. I Feel Sick.

 

"I’ve complained at great length about the Barack Obama administration’s lack of transparency surrounding the Affordable Care Act. But I don’t even know what to say about this latest revelation, courtesy of Bloomberg News’s own Alex Wayne: The administration counted stand-alone dental plans in order to claim that 7.3 million people had signed up during the first open enrollment period. Without the addition of the dental plans, enrollment would have very slightly missed its target of 7 million enrollees. Moreover, simple arithmetic indicates that it is still counting them in its current claims about enrollment.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell seems to be saying that this was some sort of mistake. And it’s possible that this is all it is. But I would be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt if the administration hadn’t otherwise been managing enrollment data so aggressively, releasing good figures as soon as it had them but sitting on bad data as long as possible, and ceasing to issue regular reports as soon as open enrollment stopped and the numbers began to decline rather than rise.

If it was deliberate, this is not your standard political puffery. It’s pathological, like your college roommate who doesn’t just inflate her number of boyfriends or exaggerate some details for the sake of a funnier story, but also insists that she is in the CIA. The numbers would have been rounded up to 7 million anyway, because they missed by something like 3,000 people. Adding in a bunch of unrelated plans, with all the attendant risk of being exposed and embarrassed, seems flatly insane. In fact, this is the most compelling reason to believe that it was a mistake.

If it was a mistake, however, I’m not sure how much better that is supposed to make us feel. For the administration to have this poor a handle on its own data while attempting to make over almost one-fifth of the U.S. economy is a lot more frightening than some rather pedestrian lies."

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-20/getting-to-the-root-of-obamacares-inflated-numbers

Edited November 21, 2014 by nonniey

[twa]

bills are coming due....who is gonna pay them?

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-exchanges-finances-face-test-second-year/

 

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The federal government shelled out billions of dollars to get health insurance marketplaces going in the 14 states that opted to run their own. Now they must act like true marketplaces and start paying for themselves.

Under President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, state-run health insurance exchanges need to be financially self-sustaining starting in January. Some appear to be on that path, while others have shaky funding models or even none at all.

Some states, prohibited from using state money, are imposing fees on plans sold on the marketplaces. Others are spreading costs more widely – which, in one instance, has drawn a federal lawsuit.

Rhode Island received high marks for the smooth rollout of HealthSource RI amid last year’s stumbles by the federal government, and the agency director says the state’s health care reform “revolution” has begun. But the state does not have a way to pay for the exchange’s long-term operations, and some lawmakers in the state General Assembly have suggested shifting to the federal exchange.

The cost to operate Rhode Island’s exchange is estimated at $17 million a year, although an earlier estimate pegged the cost at $24 million. Republican state Rep. Patricia Morgan introduced a bill last session to transfer its operations to the federal government, but the legislation was held for further study.

“Think of what we can do with $24 million,” she said.

Some states have decided to tap existing revenue.

New York is relying on two agencies’ general revenue, while Maryland is using money from an existing 2 percent tax on insurance plans. Republican Delegate Anthony O’Donnell, a critic of Maryland’s decision to create its own exchange, said he continues to question its sustainability. He said last week that he is concerned “about the entire structure and that it may collapse of its own weight.”

To cut costs, Colorado’s state-run exchange has reduced overall spending 18 percent, including on technology and marketing. It’s imposing a 1.4 percent fee on monthly premiums for its plans but also approved charging a $1.25-a-month “general market” fee on all individual and small group policies, including those sold outside the state exchange.

[Larry]

Kinda tangentially on topic, but . . . .

 

I just signed mom up for Medicare D. 

 

 

She signed up for drug insurance some time ago, which led, through a series of incidents, to a real ****ing match between mom, her doctor, and her pharmacy.  Which caused me to just decide to do without prescription insurance, for the last several years. 

 

 

So, for the last several years, she's just been paying full retail for her prescriptions.  

 

Well, the money's getting a bit tighter.  So I decided to go ahead and sign her up for coverage.  

 

First, I had to wait six months.  Apparently, it's actually illegal for her to pay cash for her drugs, for the first half of the year, and then sign up for insurance for the second half of the year.  

 

So, she keeps paying full retail, for the next six months.  Then the "enrollment period" opens up, and I sign her up.   

 

Today, she gets a letter from HHS. 

 

Seems that their records indicate that she hasn't been using Medicare D for more than 60 days.  They need her to either prove, under oath, that she has been using insurance to buy her drugs, . . .

 

Or else they're going to change her a penalty, every month for the rest of her life.  Because she hasn't been having the government subsidize her prescriptions. 

 

Which is causing me to try to wrap my mind around at least two questions: 

 

1)  Why does she need to be punished, for not using a government-subsidized program? 

 

2)  And how come I've never heard a single person complain about the fact that Medicare D contains an individual mandate? 

Edited November 26, 2014 by Larry

[twa]

I've complained plenty about Medicare mandates,   Obamacare simply moved dealing with govt idiots up a bit for me.

 

If I coulda signed the wife up w/o me I'd still be private till Medicare mandates the switch

[twa]

  true or false?

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

 

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Ads by Adblade

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/#ixzz3KEZCvPBQ 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[kvarlo12000]

  true or false?

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

 

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Ads by Adblade

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/#ixzz3KEZCvPBQ 

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Elections have consequences.

[Larry]

Elections have consequences.

 

Y'know, I've always loathed that slogan. 

 

Mostly because every time it's used, what I hear is an eight year old saying "Ha, ha.  My side won.  Now we get to do whatever we want, and you can't stop us!" 

 

And because, on a more adult level, (but only slightly), because it gets thrown around by people who seem to think it means they don't have to actually make any point that's more adult than the one I just paraphrased. 

 

There may be more childish "arguments" used, in our political discourse.  But offhand, I can't think of one. 

[@DCGoldPants]

 

#SlamDunk

Edited January 28, 2015 by @SkinsGoldPants

[Busch1724]

SGP, nice video in theory. However, why hasn't the republican party advanced traction on these issues? I have no idea, but it's been years and there has been no concrete solution proposed on the house or senate floor. The video provides great rhetoric, but what about action?

[Wrong Direction]

1)  Why does she need to be punished, for not using a government-subsidized program? 

 

2)  And how come I've never heard a single person complain about the fact that Medicare D contains an individual mandate? 

 

You haven't heard about it for a few reasons:

 

1. "Conservatives" have generally been against Part D even though it was passed by a R president and congress. So, while generally opposed, the specifics haven't been harped upon because party loyalty.

 

2. It's not a mandate, it's a penalty. The concept behind a penalty is that your mom benefits from the pooled insurance she'll get. If she wants the benefits of that pooled insurance, she shouldn't wait until she gets sick to get it. If everyone did that, you get adverse selection. However, this is different than the ACA because you only pay the Part D penalty if you choose to benefit from Part D. In the ACA, you pay a fee no matter what. In Part D, they're using it as an incentive to join sooner. In the ACA, they're forcing you to pay whether you want the coverage or not. 

 

3. Re: free stuff, appropos of nothing, I'll never forget this interview.

[@DCGoldPants]

SGP, nice video in theory. However, why hasn't the republican party advanced traction on these issues? I have no idea, but it's been years and there has been no concrete solution proposed on the house or senate floor. The video provides great rhetoric, but what about action?

 

That was the point. They were asked 3 times for an alternative.

[tshile]

3. Re: free stuff, appropos of nothing, I'll never forget this interview.

we need an updated interview that includes healthcare and college.

[Larry]

1. "Conservatives" have generally been against Part D even though it was passed by a R president and congress. So, while generally opposed, the specifics haven't been harped upon because party loyalty.

Oh, horse pucky.

Show me the list of GOP Attorney Generals who've spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money, going to court to argue that getting people health insurance is unconstitutional.

Show me the list of Red States who chose to deny their citizens access to a federal program that their taxes have paid for, because it's against their principal (ot allow some other politician to get the credit for doing something).

Show me the 300 times Congress has voted to repeal it.

"Conservatives" complained about Medicare D, when it became to the party's political advantage to make token protestations about it. When people pointed out that they're hypocrites, then they announce that "well, you can't really hold me responsible for the programs that I voted for".

In short, wghen they wanted to get the credit for something, while denying responsibility for it.

 

2. It's not a mandate, it's a penalty.

 

 

Funny.  I could have sworn that I've been told for years, that charging people money for failing to do something, was a mandate. 

 

(Well, that is, until they decided to be outraged over claiming the SC ruled that Obamacare (not the fee.  Obamacare.) was a tax.) 

Edited January 29, 2015 by Larry

[Wrong Direction]

SGP, nice video in theory. However, why hasn't the republican party advanced traction on these issues? I have no idea, but it's been years and there has been no concrete solution proposed on the house or senate floor. The video provides great rhetoric, but what about action?

 

The short answer is: for the same reasons it hasn't happened any other time in history except during Johnson's great society and Obama's ACA...because putting your name behind a bill with a million specifics that you know cannot pass is political suicide. 

 

This is why the Democrats never did it during Bush, and why they abandoned it during Clinton. They passed catostrophic coverage in a bi-partisan manner in the 80's, but no party wanted to won the costs so they repealed the bill. Historically, this stuff only happens when super majorities and the President are in the same party. That's how we got Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA.

 

If/when the R's put their name to an actual bill, it will be a massive political risk. They're unlikely to hold their caucus together because special interests will beat it to death and that will also give cover for D's to oppose and likely filibuster.

 

The bigger story would be if they actually do achieve party unity for any substantial bill. My best guess is they'll only be able to chip away at the ACA in legislative form, and simply keep referring to the fact the President won't pass what they really want to do beyond that.

 

The only procedural way around this that I can think of is if the R's originate a framework in the Senate. In theory, this framework might not need as many specifics, and D's would still likely filibuster, so the political price might not exist. This is just a guess though. The Senate usually plays the role of legislative body that takes House frameworks and puts them into actual legislative language, so I'm not sure how/if this could be done.

[Larry]

The short answer is: for the same reasons it hasn't happened any other time in history except during Johnson's great society and Obama's ACA...because putting your name behind a bill with a million specifics that you know cannot pass is political suicide.

I wholly agree with you.

Politicians absolutely hate being specific. About anything.

Because, when you get specific, then any choice you make, is going to tick off some voter who felt sure that you agreed with him.

That's why political candidates spend vastly more time trying to define their opponent, than they do defining themselves.

That's why people who the voters know absolutely nothing about, (or at least, nothing about their political policies), do so well in public opinion polls.

[twa]

Oh, horse pucky.

Show me the list of GOP Attorney Generals who've spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money, going to court to argue that getting people health insurance is unconstitutional.

Show me the list of Red States who chose to deny their citizens access to a federal program that their taxes have paid for, because it's against their principal (ot allow some other politician to get the credit for doing something).

 

 

Most would flip if given control of the funds(which is what medicaid expansion opposition is really over)

they will certainly fight over directing billions in spending

Edited January 29, 2015 by twa

[Wrong Direction]

 

In short, wghen they wanted to get the credit for something, while denying responsibility for it.

 

 

Funny.  I could have sworn that I've been told for years, that charging people money for failing to do something, was a mandate. 

 

(Well, that is, until they decided to be outraged over claiming the SC ruled that Obamacare (not the fee.  Obamacare.) was a tax.) 

 

I'll never argue that politicians don't act like politicians, so that last point on the first question is something I can agree with. On the other hand, you're clearly trying to equate the legal fights around the ACA and Part D, while not making the case that they're in any way similarly problematic. Show me the legal case against Part D and maybe I'll engage.

 

Re: the difference between a penalty and a mandate, if you don't understand it, I don't know what to tell you. As a matter of free will, you never pay a dime under Part D unless you want to. Under the ACA, you have to, no matter what  you choose, and that was only found to be constitutional when the court said it could be construed as a tax, even though every politician on the left explicitly say it's not a tax.  

[Wrong Direction]

Politicians absolutely hate being specific. About anything.

 

Right. By making this point, I'm trying to differentiate between the substance of healthcare reform (which I think R's are very capable of engaging) and the politics of it (which I think R's are trying to navigate a minefield).

 

The one strategic saving grace that the R's have is that the ACA already exists. In theory, they could put together a set of reforms that is more conservative than what Obama did and declare victory. However, that would have the appearance of validating the rest of what is by any measure a big government program, and that's where politics come in again. However, it does allow the R's to pick off many lobbies in the process. For example, their bill would likely cost less, but that would allow them to minimize (though not eliminate) new taxes and payment cuts in Medicare. In other words, I suspect they're weighing the offsets to see if they can make the politics work.

 

Boehner says they'll have a bill. I don't believe him, but it would be pretty amazing if they actually got a bill through the House on an actual vote. The politics of the matter are just too dangerous, I think.