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

[chipwhich]

Ah, a new approach

I agree

Vote differently, why don'tcha? Give somebody else a chance

 

I just prefer preciseness to my posting and my decision making.  I don't have a party, just an opinion.

 

BTW, pointing out that Obamacare isn't the reason you had to make the phone call to LabCorp isn't a negative comment towards Obamacare, don't be so defensive.

[skinsmarydu]

If you noticed, chip, I wasn't talking to you.

[chipwhich]

If you noticed, chip, I wasn't talking to you.

 

I see, I was hoping not to get labeled.

[skinsmarydu]

I was just giving some facts, in case anyone else gets a bill that is similar, and has insurance...so they know not to freak out, just make the phone call & handle it...it's covered.  That's all.  Just trying to be helpful.

 

To directly quote something I directly said by quote to another poster and bow up because you think it was about you is just silly.  

[twa]

Vote differently, why don'tcha? Give somebody else a chance

 

I vote differently all the time, especially for new blood

 

been trying to get rid of my congressman for a decade 

[Duckus]

A couple of interesting things:

 

1) New report estimates 20 million people   have gained insurance through marketplaces and provisions in the Affordable Care Act. 

 

http://time.com/2950961/obamacare-health-care-obama/

 

2) A new survey reports that Republicans who have ACA insurance love it, overwhelmingly.

 

" 74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought. Overall, 77 percent of people who had insurance prior to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act said they are pleased with the new coverage they obtained in the last year."

 

3) Anti-Obamacare ads backfire: How right-wing TV attacks may have helped ACA

 

Almost a half billion spent on negative ACA, but it might have had the opposite effect. Interesting article. 

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/10/anti_obamacare_ads_backfire_how_right_wing_tv_attacks_may_have_helped_aca/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[Wrong Direction]

A couple of interesting things:

 

1) New report estimates 20 million people   have gained insurance through marketplaces and provisions in the Affordable Care Act. 

 

2) A new survey reports that Republicans who have ACA insurance love it, overwhelmingly.

 

1. I think the 20 million number is a good example of "Lies, damn lies and statistics." We were told that historical survey data methods regarding health coverage are changing and to disregard new surveys in this areas (as they relate to old surveys), but now it seems people are using them to fit their political needs. 

 

I think the hard numbers would be something like 8 million total enrollees in the exchanges and Medicaid, minus whatever amount (2 million?) who previously had coverage that was canceled. Then there are soft numbers which could be attributed to the news around the ACA more than any new coverage provided by the ACA. These are people who enrolled in Medicaid but were already eligible, and other people who enrolled in private exchanges (which apparently exist and are now larger than anyone expected). 

 

2. The satisfaction data is good for the ACA. While not at the levels of program like Part D (90%), I'd say satisfaction rates are still high enough to make the law very hard to undo. 

[Duckus]

1. I think the 20 million number is a good example of "Lies, damn lies and statistics." We were told that historical survey data methods regarding health coverage are changing and to disregard new surveys in this areas (as they relate to old surveys), but now it seems people are using them to fit their political needs.

I think the hard numbers would be something like 8 million total enrollees in the exchanges and Medicaid, minus whatever amount (2 million?) who previously had coverage that was canceled. Then there are soft numbers which could be attributed to the news around the ACA more than any new coverage provided by the ACA. These are people who enrolled in Medicaid but were already eligible, and other people who enrolled in private exchanges (which apparently exist and are now larger than anyone expected).

That number is absolutely laughable. 20 is actually conservative. If you want we could go by ACA Sign-ups numbers - which has been pretty spot on. Where are you getting your estimates from?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Duckus

[twa]

and what is the bill for this?

 

I'm happy 

[TradeTheBeal!]

and what is the bill for this?

 

I'm happy 

 

The bill is less than the bill for Iraq.  Far less.  Far, far less.

 

/thread hijack

[twa]

The bill is less than the bill for Iraq.  Far less.  Far, far less.

 

/thread hijack

 

Link? 

 

we need to quit delaying the employer mandate....I have needs that need funded 

[chipwhich]

I would love to see the original estimate of the Iraq war cost, the original estimate of the ACA then the real costs a decade later.

 

Should warm the soul. 

[twa]

I would love to see the original estimate of the Iraq war cost, the original estimate of the ACA then the real costs a decade later.

 

Should warm the soul. 

 

 

I must say age has it's benefits....ya'll have fun 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-lowers-uninsured-108789.html?hp=l1

 

Stupid facts and consensus.  

[chipwhich]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-lowers-uninsured-108789.html?hp=l1

 

Stupid facts and consensus.  

Well I would hope so, otherwise it serve no purpose at all.  Who claimed no uninsured were covered?

[Duckus]

Well I would hope so, otherwise it serve no purpose at all.  Who claimed no uninsured were covered?

 

Well, lots of people. In fact it was an enormous talking point on the right when the CBO report was released several months ago.

 

One was Charles Krauthammer.

 

So here we're going to go through a complete revolution of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, the dislocation of doctors, hospitals, patients, and plans everywhere, including insurers, in order to achieve a result in a decade where we have essentially the same number of uninsured. 

 

[chipwhich]

Well, lots of people. In fact it was an enormous talking point on the right when the CBO report was released several months ago.

 

One was Charles Krauthammer.

 

Gotcha.  I wasn't familiar with that so I took the link out of context with regards to the context of Charles Krauthammer.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well I would hope so, otherwise it serve no purpose at all.  Who claimed no uninsured were covered?

 

Basically every house republican claimed it.  Oh, and even recently they have argued that people signing up were not previously uninsured, just people "forced" to buy  different healthcare.

 

To suggest that this hasn't been an argument that GOP officials and even you and other republican posters on this site hasn't made is misleading.  

[twa]

we do still have essentially the same number , it is simply expanded medicaid largely driving it.

 

we paid for their care before,now we just pay more and give them extras

 

the real question will be does it save money and improve health.....not uninsured that we pay for vs insured we pay for 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

we do still have essentially the same number , it is simply expanded medicaid largely driving it.

 

we paid for their care before,now we just pay more and give them extras

 

the real question will be does it save money and improve health.....not uninsured that we pay for vs insured we pay for 

 

No, we do not have essentially the same number.

 

Second, if its expanded medicaid, who cares?  That is part of Obamacare.  

[chipwhich]

Basically every house republican claimed it.  Oh, and even recently they have argued that people signing up were not previously uninsured, just people "forced" to buy  different healthcare.

 

To suggest that this hasn't been an argument that GOP officials and even you and other republican posters on this site hasn't made is misleading.  

 

I don't pay attention to the politicians.  The only thing misleading is your insinuation that I ever posted on that specific topic with regards to Obamacare.  I didn't

[twa]

No, we do not have essentially the same number.

 

Second, if its expanded medicaid, who cares?  That is part of Obamacare.  

 

the number changed because of the way we pay, shuffling the deck chairs does not a recliner make.

 

wtf isn't a part of Obamacare now????  ....must be the delayed mandates 

 

 

simply looking where the most change reported clearly shows expanded medicaid is the large driver

 

 

 

ya better hope it saves money 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

the number changed because of the way we pay, shuffling the deck chairs does not a recliner make.

 

wtf isn't a part of Obamacare now????  ....must be the delayed mandates 

 

 

simply looking where the most change reported clearly shows expanded medicaid is the large driver

 

 

 

ya better hope it saves money 

 

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.

 

The first part makes no sense at all though.  That's not what happened.  The number wasn't just reshuffled.  The consensus among everyone, including republican healthcare advocates, is that a significant amount of people are newly insured because of Obamacare. 

 

As far as saving money... no i don't have to hope that.  No one ever made that promise.  Obama never made that promise.  It came out of the CBO as a projection.  But whether it saves money or costs money, Obamcare is a step in the right direction for healthcare in this country.

I don't pay attention to the politicians.  The only thing misleading is your insinuation that I ever posted on that specific topic with regards to Obamacare.  I didn't

 

You never went back and said that people were having their policies cancelled and being forced to buy on the exchange?  I recall you did, but if you say you didn't fine.  

 

You don't think that Obamacare caused insurance companies to cancel individuals plans and force them onto the exchange?  Or do you?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Tulane Skins Fan

[JMS]

and what is the bill for this?

 

I'm happy

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.

[Wrong Direction]

That number is absolutely laughable. 20 is actually conservative. If you want we could go by ACA Sign-ups numbers - which has been pretty spot on. Where are you getting your estimates from?

 

 

My number was purely going from broken memory. From the chart you included, I have several points.

 

1. The sub-26ers column is very misleading. Just because they have coverage through their parents doesn't mean that they have any coverage because of the ACA. There's a distinction there, with no number actually knowable. There's also a large range of possible people covered, and I'm not sure why.

 

2. The 2.42 and 1.19 million bulk Medicaid are coincident to the ACA. The argument could be that media focus on the ACA made more people look, but the coverage was available prior to the ACA.

 

3. How can the ACA take credit for the 5.8+ off exchange QHPs? This is a genuine question. How about the other 2.2 million documented QHPs? 

 

4. The chart seems to take credit for the ~800k who are unpaid. I guess the chart is looking for best case, so I get it, but these are people who very well might not have any coverage at this point.

 

5. The chart doesn't show the number of people who lost coverage because of the ACA.

 

What it does show is how the data are being gamed to tell an inflated story. I'm not saying it's all bad news. What I am saying is this is sort of like the 3.0 student telling everyone they were the valedictorian. 

Edited July 11, 2014 by Wrong Direction