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

[Duckus]

nonsense.  Utter nonsense.

 

Expanded medicaid is part of Obamacare.  Its the part that Cuccinelli sued about.  So, to suggest it isn't is, again, misleading.

 

 

It is amazing, isn't it? 

[Duckus]

My number was purely going from broken memory. 

 

So you have no hard numbers, sources, links - just your guess besides what you have randomly calculated in your head? Just want to be clear.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Duckus

[twa]

The bill is we save hundreds of billions over the first 10 years, and trillions over the second ten years.

Modest savings consider we spend 3-4 trillion a year on healthcare.

 

Is that what the CBO is saying now? 

[Wrong Direction]

So you have no hard numbers, sources, links - just your guess besides what you have randomly calculated in your head? Just want to be clear.

 

I followed that quote with my specific problems with the chart. Do you wish to address the rest of my post or are you just trying to be combative?

[Duckus]

I followed that quote with my specific problems with the chart. Do you wish to address the rest of my post or are you just trying to be combative?

 

So I take that as a "no"? 

 

I am not trying to be combative - so for forgive my tone if it comes across as such.

 

You started this discussion by refuting the study saying it was a lie and provided your numbers. I asked and confirmed your numbers came from your "broken memory" without any evidence or sources.

 

I then followed it up with another source - ACASignUps - a pretty solid source that has been tracking this stuff since the beginning.

 

You need to bring more if we are going to have an actual discussion. Facts, stats, links. Not just random numbers from space and questions. 

 

As for your questions:

 

1) Yes. ACA allowed sub-26 year olds to join parents insurance. Thus people who joined is included in the grand total. 

 

2) Yes, ACA gets credit for helping folks get get on the Medicaid. Millions went to the market place, filled out an application, and were then told they actually qualified for Medicaid. That is part of the law. 

 

3) The ACA requires insurance. It doesn't require where people get it from. People who got insurance off the market place to comply with the law are counted. That is standard in almost every single study out there. 

 

4) 10% seem fair. For your sake, lets take it out. So 20-25 million minus 700k = still good. 

 

5) Do you have a source for that 2 million number you mentioned from a good study?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Duckus

[Wrong Direction]

The bill is we save hundreds of billions over the first 10 years, and trillions over the second ten years.

Modest savings consider we spend 3-4 trillion a year on healthcare.

 

On paper, which is the problem everyone mentioned at the time.  Here's reality, and the reason for Boehner's lawsuit.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/11/great-unknown-obamacare-cost-unclear-amid-changes-to-law/

In the case of the employer mandate, the provision was delayed from 2014 until 2016 for employers with fewer than 100 workers. For larger companies, it was delayed by one year, and they were allowed to only have to cover 70 percent of their workers.

 

Further, individuals were given until April 15 to enroll in a health plan through the ObamaCare exchanges, and many will likely be able to skirt the law’s prescribed fine for going three months without insurance.

...

The law also counted on more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicare, including up to $150 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, but the president set those aside at the behest of Senate Democrats who feared angering seniors in an election year.

 

Capretta said it is "very dubious that some of these Medicare cuts can be sustained over a long period of time."

He also noted that even more Medicare cuts are planned but wonders if the impact will cause some of them to be pulled back as well.

 

"In fact, the actuaries who look at the numbers for the Medicare program have said that this cut is so deep that about 15 percent of the hospitals will drop out of the Medicare program by the end of the decade," he said.

 

With 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day for the next 20 years or so, that might be politically impossible to sustain.

 

You can't have it both ways. Medicare cuts have been theoretical for decades. That's why we have an annual "doc fix." It'll be interesting to see if politicians ever let the huge MA and hospital cuts go through.

 

BTW, Duckus, just saw your post. Running to a meeting now but plan to respond soon.

[Larry]

On paper, which is the problem everyone mentioned at the time. Here's reality, and the reason for Boehner's lawsuit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/11/great-unknown-obamacare-cost-unclear-amid-changes-to-law/

You can't have it both ways. Medicare cuts have been theoretical for decades. That's why we have an annual "doc fix." It'll be interesting to see if politicians ever let the huge MA and hospital cuts go through.

BTW, Duckus, just saw your post. Running to a meeting now but plan to respond soon.

So your point is, the law has been changed, therefore the only cost estimate we have must be ignored and replaced with whatever claims we want?

[Wrong Direction]

So your point is, the law has been changed, therefore the only cost estimate we have must be ignored and replaced with whatever claims we want?

 

You're not very good at deriving points. They would be as follows:

 

1. The administration is claiming the bill will actually save a lot of money. Those claims are based on revenue generating mechanisms which, to some degree, have been delayed. So, the net cost of the bill will be higher than CBO estimates, and we don't know how much higher because the delays are not actually in law.

 

2. The cost of the law was based on a complex mix different requirements. The president has unilaterally decided to delay some of the unpopular parts of the law. What if every president decided to do that? It makes the legislative process meaningless. The President has unilaterally chosen to add a lot of spending without Congress' approval. Actually, that's technically not true. He's chosen not to collect revenue without Congress' approval. Could anyone imagine Bush choosing not to enforce tax laws on the rich or on businesses? That's essentially what Obama has done here. 

[twa]

So your point is, the law has been changed, therefore the only cost estimate we have must be ignored and replaced with whatever claims we want?

 

hey it works for building contractors

[Larry]

You're not very good at deriving points. They would be as follows:

 

1. The administration is claiming the bill will actually save a lot of money. Those claims are based on revenue generating mechanisms which, to some degree, have been delayed. So, the net cost of the bill will be higher than CBO estimates, and we don't know how much higher because the delays are not actually in law.

Have you mentioned any of said "revenue generating mechanisms"?

Cause what I saw was "Obama has delayed the employer mandate".

 

 

2. The cost of the law was based on a complex mix different requirements. The president has unilaterally decided to delay some of the unpopular parts of the law. What if every president decided to do that?

Which may be an excellent argument why Presidents shouldn't selectively enforce or waive laws. (I'd even agree with you.) (In most cases. Sometimes, a law sucks, and it shouldn't be enforced. But hopefully those cases are rare.)

But has nothing to do with saying therefore we should completely ignore the only cost estimate we've got.

[Wrong Direction]

 

1) Yes. ACA allowed sub-26 year olds to join parents insurance. Thus people who joined is included in the grand total. 

 

2) Yes, ACA gets credit for helping folks get get on the Medicaid. Millions went to the market place, filled out an application, and were then told they actually qualified for Medicaid. That is part of the law. 

 

3) The ACA requires insurance. It doesn't require where people get it from. People who got insurance off the market place to comply with the law are counted. That is standard in almost every single study out there. 

 

4) 10% seem fair. For your sake, lets take it out. So 20-25 million minus 700k = still good. 

 

5) Do you have a source for that 2 million number you mentioned from a good study?

 

 

1. The ACA did allow up to 26 years old, but that number cited includes 19-26 year olds. Prior law allowed people up to 22, I believe. Additionally, by allocating everyone on their parent's insurance, you're assuming that none of those people would be working with their own insurance. As I said, the actual amount is probably unknowable. Perhaps that's the reason for such a large range (1.5 million people).

 

2. But they already qualified for Medicaid prior to the ACA. I agree that the media and website might have been a help, but the ACA didn't cover those millions.  

 

3. So you're attributing those numbers to the mandate? I honestly hadn't even considered that. I think the massive amount of media here is what drove so much enrollment. That's not a bad thing, but I've seen this in the past with healthcare in general. For example, more people got influenza vaccinations when the swine flu was going around. It was free beforehand, but people went because of media. The inflated usage wasn't sustainable because the media circus wasn't sustainable. 

 

4. I don't know what the number is, but I think I said the enrollment picture was good, just not as glowing as proposed.

 

5. Here's one citation. Note that this link is generally supportive of the ACA, but the number is still 2.6 million.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/policy-notifications-current-status-state-204701399.html

 

According to this, it was 4.7 million canceled.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/06/the-gop-claim-that-more-americans-have-lost-insurance-than-gained-it-under-obamacare/

Have you mentioned any of said "revenue generating mechanisms"?

Cause what I saw was "Obama has delayed the employer mandate".

 

Read the article. It mentioned delaying the employer mandate, delaying Medicare Advantage cuts and enforcement of the penalty. Then it speculated about other Medicare cuts that aren't yet scheduled.

[twa]

Houston, we have a problem

 

http://thehayride.com/2014/07/obamacare-lie-touted-by-landrieu-is-now-a-reality-in-louisiana/

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) previous claims that Obamacare will “drive down costs” are falling apart before her eyes, as healthcare providers announced that they expect health insurance premiums to increase by double-digits, something Landrieu once called a fabrication by the opposition.

 

 

seeing reports of increases from many states....OOPS???

[Larry]

The price of health insurance is going up? 

 

That never happened, before Obama. 

[twa]

The price of health insurance is going up? 

 

That never happened, before Obama. 

 

Someone said it would save money and lower premiums......oops

[skinsmarydu]

Houston, we have a problem

 

 

 

seeing reports of increases from many states....OOPS???[/size]

Are you referring to the states like yours & mine & Mrs. Landrieu's whose governors refused the Medicaid expansion?

[twa]

Are you referring to the states like yours & mine & Mrs. Landrieu's whose governors refused the Medicaid expansion?

 

I don't see that as a problem , and a solution is available and offered 

 

the rates are going up in states that expanded medicaid as well....such as NY

[Tulane Skins Fan]

 

the rates are going up in states that expanded medicaid as well....such as NY

 

Look man, rates are always going up.  Always.  The goal was to slow the rate of increase, not to decrease the cost on a dollar per dollar level.  And of course, the other goal was to get people insured.  

[chipwhich]

Look man, rates are always going up.  Always.  The goal was to slow the rate of increase, not to decrease the cost on a dollar per dollar level.  And of course, the other goal was to get people insured.  

 

Actually the goal was to get everyone insured.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually the goal was to get everyone insured.

 

well, the goal was to expand that.  I agree that was the number one goal.  But, I don't think they ever said we would have 100% insured either.  

 

Plus, they couldn't foresee republican governors cutting off their noses to spite Obama's plan to expand that care.

[Larry]

Actually the goal was to get everyone insured.

Oh, that was certainly one of them.

But let's face it, there were whole bunches of glorious benefits that were waved around. (And yeah, saving money certainly was a big one.)

well, the goal was to expand that.  I agree that was the number one goal.  But, I don't think they ever said we would have 100% insured either.

Oh, I think it's guaranteed that it was said.

Politicians love grand, sweeping, statements.

 

Plus, they couldn't foresee republican governors cutting off their noses to spite Obama's plan to expand that care.

True, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the point.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't think anyone ever said we'd have 100% of americans insured.  If you can find someone saying otherwise, I guess I'd accept that.

[LadySkinsFan]

It's ****ing insurance, people, of course the rates are going to go up, just like they always have.

[chipwhich]

It's ****ing insurance, people, of course the rates are going to go up, just like they always have.

 

Well the point is Obama said it would cause premiums to go down.  Of course some of us weren't stupid enough to believe that.  Glad everyone agrees now. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Which is why I'm not buying insurance.  I have just over 2 years until Medicare kicks in for me.  The penalty is less than the premiums would be.

Edited July 18, 2014 by LadySkinsFan

[twa]

well, the goal was to expand that.  I agree that was the number one goal.  But, I don't think they ever said we would have 100% insured either.  

 

Plus, they couldn't foresee republican governors cutting off their noses to spite Obama's plan to expand that care.

odd, these don't look like that

EDITORIAL: Obamacare fiascos in Minnesota, Maryland, Nevada, elsewhere

Billions chase billions trying to fix unworkable state exchanges

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/18/editorial-obamacare-fiasco-in-minnesota/#ixzz37wfU3a9P

The federal website that sucked and cost three times the projection was probably Bushes fault as well