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

[twa]

some expertise in that area you'd like to let us all in on?

it's not rocket science,or even as difficult as building a functional website or not lying to pass a bill..

 

but if ya want expert opinion, remove the prescript requirement to make access better

[skinsmarydu]

but if ya want expert opinion, remove the prescript requirement to make access better

Proceed,...whadda you know? What's the requirement, and what should be changed?  (I realize we're probably in the territory of "which state", where yours is doing everything it can, minus Wendy, to make women's choices obsolete.)  I'm not being contrary, just wanna know your ideas...in full, not just quips, if you could.

[twa]

Proceed,...whadda you know? What's the requirement, and what should be changed?  (I realize we're probably in the territory of "which state", where yours is doing everything it can, minus Wendy, to make women's choices obsolete.)  I'm not being contrary, just wanna know your ideas...in full, not just quips, if you could.

there are threads specific to that that I bothered with more than quips....read them, Wendy is nothing but a distraction.,like the PP clinics.

 

if ya need a distraction....

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363907/obamacare-schadenfreudarama-jonah-goldberg/page/0/1

[Wrong Direction]

Proceed,...whadda you know? What's the requirement, and what should be changed?  (I realize we're probably in the territory of "which state", where yours is doing everything it can, minus Wendy, to make women's choices obsolete.)  I'm not being contrary, just wanna know your ideas...in full, not just quips, if you could.

 

Anyone with a script can walk to the nearest Target, CVS, Walgreens, Wal Mart, Rite Aid or other local pharmacy and get some form of birth control very cheap by paying cash. Obama's mandate simply makes plans cover some form of birth control for free. So, for people with insurance, some form of birth control went from very cheap to free. Now 30 year old law students going to prestigious universities don't have to pay for very cheap birth control.

[chipwhich]

The most ironic thing is you aren't getting it for free now.  Everyone is paying more.  The person getting the "free" birth control is paying more.  There is this weird school of thought that if my insurance covers it, it is free.

[Elessar78]

There's a similar effect on breast pumps. Now the ACA provides a free one per pregnancy or per calendar year. But it has the unintended consequence that mothers who want one are now getting the top of the line one, when if they would've paid for it out of pocket they would not have paid that much for it. 

 

I knew about it because I'm on Extremeskins and I know everything about everything. My wife didn't know about it. She works in an office full of women who have are having babies and none of them knew about it. There's got to be lots of things like this.

 

Strangely, we had to get one because our old one finally broke. I called around (in my creepiest voice possible . . . "It puts the lotion on it's skin when it's told . . .") and every place I called said they didn't carry it or they would have to put me on a 6-month waiting list even if I paid out of pocket. My wife called her OB later that day and they called in a prescription (to one of the suppliers I contacted) and we had a new pump in 2 days. 

[Wrong Direction]

The most ironic thing is you aren't getting it for free now.  Everyone is paying more.  The person getting the "free" birth control is paying more.  There is this weird school of thought that if my insurance covers it, it is free.

 

Exactly.

 

The real issue here is the implied lie of Obama's policy. Obama didn't totally socialize birth control. It's not like all birth control is free, but that's what he wants women to think.

 

He simply said that insurance companies must offer a form of birth control for free. Well, some generic birth control medicines are already very cheap. IIRC, the nearest Target to Georgetown University offers some birth control for ~$20/month total price prior to any Obama action. Plans now simply have to cover a form of that for free, with the cost no doubt going right into premiums.

 

Obama created a rule for every insurance plan in America, regardless of religious affiliation or demographic being covered, to make sure that the few women whose plan didn't have access to covered birth control can now get some option for free. Huge solution for a very small problem. In other words, liberalism 101.

[chipwhich]

Exactly.

 

The real issue here is the implied lie of Obama's policy. Obama didn't totally socialize birth control. It's not like all birth control is free, but that's what he wants women to think.

 

Yes, there are only a couple of free birth control options.  A lot of birth control being prescribed today isn't free under Obamacare.

[SkinsHokieFan]

It is honestly hard to have a conversation about ACA.

The hysteria is overwhelming.

When RomneyCare rolled out on the exchange in MA only 123 people signed up the first month.

Now 96% of state is covered.

"The fact that people aren't signed up now is not at all interesting or important," Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jon Gruber said. "The success of health care reform has to be measured in months and years, not days and weeks."

 

The website hysteria is more amusing to me. Suddenly every person in the media has become an expert on delivering complex federal IT systems.

[skinsmarydu]

Anyone with a script can walk to the nearest Target, CVS, Walgreens, Wal Mart, Rite Aid or other local pharmacy and get some form of birth control very cheap by paying cash. Obama's mandate simply makes plans cover some form of birth control for free. So, for people with insurance, some form of birth control went from very cheap to free. Now 30 year old law students going to prestigious universities don't have to pay for very cheap birth control.

OK..."very cheap" is rubbers.

"Better" and "more expensive" are gels, pills, patches, IUDs, etc.

If you're a dude on the dating scene, or a married man who has agreed to not have any/more, you pick. And be willing to HELP in the grand scheme of things. It's called shared sacrifice. Trust me, most women would prefer to take or use nothing, but we must bear the burden of NOT doing what we were, according to some, meant to do.

Just ranting, not at anyone, just at the situation. And just my POV. Like if some of what I pay helps some guys get it on, whatever.

[nonniey]

Anyone with a script can walk to the nearest Target, CVS, Walgreens, Wal Mart, Rite Aid or other local pharmacy and get some form of birth control very cheap by paying cash. Obama's mandate simply makes plans cover some form of birth control for free. So, for people with insurance, some form of birth control went from very cheap to free. Now 30 year old law students going to prestigious universities don't have to pay for very cheap birth control.

The funny thing is oh yes they will pay for them. I'd bet that this particular mandatory addition will be added to premiums at a higher rate than individuals can aquire presently by paying for it themselves.

[Wrong Direction]

OK..."very cheap" is rubbers.

"Better" and "more expensive" are gels, pills, patches, IUDs, etc.

If you're a dude on the dating scene, or a married man who has agreed to not have any/more, you pick. And be willing to HELP in the grand scheme of things. It's called shared sacrifice. Trust me, most women would prefer to take or use nothing, but we must bear the burden of NOT doing what we were, according to some, meant to do.

Just ranting, not at anyone, just at the situation. And just my POV. Like if some of what I pay helps some guys get it on, whatever.

 

I'm not being clear. There are definitely pills that are very cheap both before and after Obama's mandate, but Obama's mandate doesn't require insurance companies to make things like IUDs free or cheap. That's the misrepresentation. Obama didn't do anything to make things like Mirena free.

 

And for the record, I'm all in favor of helping women get access to birth control. I just happen to think that this policy by Obama was 100% politically driven; part of his divisive plan to make women think R's don't like them. And I resent that.

[Duckus]

I agree that it's hard to have a conversation, but the hysteria isn't just made up conspiracy theories. Millions are being canceled, and the admin's own estimates are for something like 10x as many policies to be canceled next year. 

 

So far, the website has failed, premium and deductible costs are higher as opposed to lower, enrollment is low and cancellations are high. Provider networks resemble limited Medicaid provider networks. We know many more cancellations will come next year. 

 

I don't know if this law will ever work, but I'm becoming quite sure it won't work under its current structure. The law will be changed. Probably significantly, and probably with the support of a lot of Dems trying to save their butts.

 

I never said they were conspiracy theories. Some of the complaints and fears are absolutely legitimate. 

However, the fundamental problem is that we are making enormous assumptions about the law based on hours, days, weeks instead of months and years. 

 

The hysteria regarding the website is a great example.

The website hysteria is more amusing to me. Suddenly every person in the media has become an expert on delivering complex federal IT systems.

 

Yea, the website coverage has been mind-boggling to watch. 

[chipwhich]

I never said they were conspiracy theories. Some of the complaints and fears are absolutely legitimate. 

However, the fundamental problem is that we are making enormous assumptions about the law based on hours, days, weeks instead of months and years. 

 

The hysteria regarding the website is a great example.

 

The law has been around for a number of years.  I don't know what enormous assumptions you are referring to.  Now the website fiasco will clear up fairly soon, you might say the overreaction to that is unfair. 

[Duckus]

The law has been around for a number of years.  I don't know what enormous assumptions you are referring to.  Now the website fiasco will clear up fairly soon, you might say the overreaction to that is unfair. 

 

Enrollment numbers. 

Edited November 14, 2013 by Duckus

[chipwhich]

Enrollment numbers. 

 

Gotcha.  I am not worried about enrollment numbers at this point.

[Duckus]

As for those being effected by the law - I do feel for them. It sucks. 

 

But perspective is important.

~5 million Americans will find their plans are cancelled for not meeting minimum standards. Some of those will be eligible for subsides. Some won't - mostly healthy, middle class, young people. 

 

~5 out of 315 million citizens = 1.59% of the population.

In comparison, the recent cuts to SNAP (food stamps) effected an estimated 47 million people = 1/7 Americans or 14%.

 

Those cuts effecting the countries poorest citizen were framed as simply a "hard decisions" we had to make for the finical security of our country.

 

Strangely, we as a country were comfortable with that sacrifice, but a law effecting less than 2% of folks 400% above the poverty line is unfathomable.

 

Changing our health care system won't be painless. Some folks will feel it more than others. It sucks, but it is part of being a member of a society. 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2013 by Duckus

[chipwhich]

 

Strangely, we as a country were comfortable with that sacrifice, but a law effecting less than 2% of folks 400% above the poverty line is unfathomable.

 

Apples to Oranges.  What is unfathomable is the collection of parts.

Anyways, the fix is in.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/14/news/economy/obamacare-insurance/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Duckus]

Apples to Oranges.  What is unfathomable is the collection of parts.

Anyways, the fix is in.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/14/news/economy/obamacare-insurance/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

I am very weary of that "fix" - doesn't it just cause a much bigger problem?

 

From Politico:

 

Jonathan Gruber, one of the authors of the Massachusetts health plan and an MIT economics professor, says such an idea is impractical. There is no “free lunch” in which people can just decide not to join the Obamacare plans, which were priced on the assumption that the insurers would get a certain number of customers.

 

The White House is “just reacting to one broken promise by imposing a much larger and harmful one: our promise to insurers that if they priced fairly, we would deliver a broad pool of insured,” Gruber wrote in an email. “If you allow the healthy enrollees to stay out in their old policy, the insurers lose money and the program falls apart.”

 

It gets worse, Gruber said. If the Affordable Care Act scheme falls apart, Obama is breaking the promise to the 30 million uninsured who don’t get to participate in a balanced insurance pool. 

 

[chipwhich]

I am very weary of that "fix" - doesn't it just cause a much bigger problem?

 

From Politico:

 

I think it just pushes the problem down the road.  Doesn't "fix" anything.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Apples to Oranges.  What is unfathomable is the collection of parts.

Anyways, the fix is in.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/14/news/economy/obamacare-insurance/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Why is that apples to oranges?

[twa]

I think it just pushes the problem down the road.  Doesn't "fix" anything.

 

it does not even do that, it simply tries to address political consequences....the ins companies in the exchange are facing serious problems if enrollment of the healthy does not increase

 

add

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/insurance-industry-rips-white-house-obamacare-fix

 

“This doesn’t change anything other than force insurers to be the political flack jackets for the administration,” said an industry insider. “So now when we don’t offer these policies the White House can say it’s the insurers doing this and not being flexible.”

Edited November 14, 2013 by twa

[Larry]

And for the record, I'm all in favor of helping women get access to birth control. I just happen to think that this policy by Obama was 100% politically driven; part of his divisive plan to make women think R's don't like them. And I resent that.

I rather agree with you.

Only reason why I can see that this coverage is mandated, is political.

(Well, I could see an assertion that preventing pregnancies is a lot cheaper than paying for them. But I doubt that's the motive.)

[chipwhich]

Why is that apples to oranges?

 

Cuts in food stamp programs have nothing to do with the complexity of the new health care laws and people suddenly losing their insurance and the ramifications on the whole health care systems known as the ACA.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Cuts in food stamp programs have nothing to do with the complexity of the new health care laws and people suddenly losing their insurance and the ramifications on the whole health care systems known as the ACA.

 

Isn't it people losing benefits due to new government law?

it does not even do that, it simply tries to address political consequences....the ins companies in the exchange are facing serious problems if enrollment of the healthy does not increase

 

add

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/insurance-industry-rips-white-house-obamacare-fix

 

“This doesn’t change anything other than force insurers to be the political flack jackets for the administration,” said an industry insider. “So now when we don’t offer these policies the White House can say it’s the insurers doing this and not being flexible.”

 

So, the GOP screamed for this for a week, and then when they got it, they say its terrible.

 

Goalposts everyone.

 

This is why politics is dumb.  This right here.