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

[Bang]

Tired of these jackholes that purposely contort the truth throug hundreds of avenues of propaganda that exist to further contrort and obfusticate...  and then collectively call us stupid for

A/ Believing them

B/ not understanding them.

 

**** this ****ing country.

everything is a screw job.

EVERYTHING.

 

EVERYTHING.

 

~Bang

Edited November 11, 2014 by Bang

[Larry]

Not really new news but interesting to hear someone admit that it wasn't an accident that the bill was a jumbled incomprehensible mess.. From this article.

Stunning news flash:

Somebody claims that the Democrats deliberately tried to avoid having the words "tax increase" attached to Obamacare. And asserts that, if the label "tax increase" had been applied to it, it would have made it less likely to pass.

[chipwhich]

Stunning news flash:

Somebody claims that the Democrats deliberately tried to avoid having the words "tax increase" attached to Obamacare. And asserts that, if the label "tax increase" had been applied to it, it would have made it less likely to pass.

 

Where did "somebody" claim  that the Democrats did this in this article?  You can push your agenda, but stick to link in question.

[TheGoodBits]

Where did "somebody" claim that the Democrats did this in this article? You can push your agenda, but stick to link in question.

Umm...

"He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public."

[chipwhich]

Umm...

"He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public."

 

It's one of the advisers that helped implement Obamacare opining on transparency and getting health care reform passed and the reasons he thinks the bill was passed.  Nobody accused the democrats of deliberately doing anything.

 

Anyways, I still want to know where I got to vote the law in....I must have missed that lever.

Edited November 11, 2014 by chipwhich

[Tulane Skins Fan]

 

You could, but it all comes out in the wash.

 

 

This is what is being missed with all this.

 

You think without Obamacare that insurance companies would have kept your deductibles and premiums low.  However, that is not how health insurance has worked for the last fifty years.  Premiums and deductibles are always going up, and for the last twenty years or so, they've been going up faster than the rate of inflation.  And Obamacare does seem to have slowed down the across the board raise in both deductibles and premiums, as I understand.

 

Ultimately, the problem in the analysis is that you are assuming that a variable that was increasing at an astronomical rate would have remained a constant.  It would not have.

 

Obamacare does give you more options.  You can find another insurance company now more easily without switching jobs, for instance.

[TheGoodBits]

 

It's one of the advisers that helped implement Obamacare opining on transparency and getting health care reform passed and the reasons he thinks the bill was passed.  Nobody accused the democrats of deliberately doing anything.

 

 

 

Sure.. we're kind of arguing over semantics though. I never thought of it as a tax and still don't, but hey if it is to Judge Roberts then that's what's important I guess. 

[chipwhich]

This is what is being missed with all this.

 

You think without Obamacare that insurance companies would have kept your deductibles and premiums low.  However, that is not how health insurance has worked for the last fifty years.  Premiums and deductibles are always going up, and for the last twenty years or so, they've been going up faster than the rate of inflation.  And Obamacare does seem to have slowed down the across the board raise in both deductibles and premiums, as I understand.

 

Ultimately, the problem in the analysis is that you are assuming that a variable that was increasing at an astronomical rate would have remained a constant.  It would not have.

 

Obamacare does give you more options.  You can find another insurance company now more easily without switching jobs, for instance.

 

My issue has always been that I think Obamacare exacerbates the rate of movement to high deductible plans.  I also don't like where the industry is headed, granted it was heading there even without Obamacare.  I don't think people realize what these high deductible plans are leading too.  Which is essentially each one of us self insuring ourselves.  Meaning, the average healthy individual will pay for almost everything they need out of pocket via premiums and deductibles and health insurance will only kick in for catastrophes.

 

3 years from now, all those uninsured people will have sticker shock and not really get what they originally thought they wanted.  If that makes sense.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

 

My issue has always been that I think Obamacare exacerbates the rate of movement to high deductible plans.  I also don't like where the industry is headed, granted it was heading there even without Obamacare.  I don't think people realize what these high deductible plans are leading too.  Which is essentially each one of us self insuring ourselves.  Meaning, the average healthy individual will pay for almost everything they need out of pocket via premiums and deductibles and health insurance will only kick in for catastrophes.

 

3 years from now, all those uninsured people will have sticker shock and not really get what they originally thought they wanted.  If that makes sense.

 

 

I think you're kind of unfairly demonizing high deductible plans.  They make sense for some people.  For a healthy person who wants coverage for catastrophic coverage, but is willing to pay a higher deductible, it makes total sense.  

 

Nothing in Obamacare is forcing the market to allow less "low-deductible plans" or forcing people to pay for "high deductible plans."  You have more options now, that's it.  And because some people are choosing them, doesn't mean they are all stupid.

 

If you think that it does, then you are just arguing that the health insurance market place is irrational.  Now, I might accept that... but that leads people to advocate for single payor and/or public option insurance.   

[Wrong Direction]

The politics of of the ACA remain fascinating if you pay attention. The Kaiser Family Foundation came out yesterday and said that average premiums are down by 2%. This is a very positive development. I suspect the weighted numbers (based on actual enrollment, not lists of plans on a website) will show that a lot of people will have significant premium increases, and that some will have premium decreases. That's to be expected in year two. I expect much more stability next year. This is a marketplace that's becoming established, and the competition between plans will better moderate prices over time than single payer ever could, IMO. R's should actually like this, and it definitely puts the administration on stronger ground, particularly in 2 years when Hillary or someone else has to stand on stage and discuss the ACA.

 

With this said, the supreme court challenge is a huge risk to the bill. It could very much undermine the law. If it does, Obama will have another massive failure on his hands, but it will also result in the R's in all of those states being put under real pressure to expand coverage, and Congress will be under real pressure to have an alternative. It's anyone's guess who takes the blame if subsidies are struck down and millions of people lose insurance, but there will be hell to pay either way.

 

This dichotomy where, on one hand the marketplace is stabilizing and on the other hand it could be destroyed, along with a Republican Congress which has a lot to prove, creates an interesting opportunity, IMO.

 

If I'm the R's and I'm Obama, now presents yet another opportunity for a big deal. They've failed us over and over, so I'm not optimistic, but the R's could potentially get a lot of good, substantive changes to this law and Medicare (big part of law) in exchange for giving Obama's law statutory legitimacy and coverage expansions (something different than current Medicaid expansions). If neither are willing to deal early next year, that means each are gambling on the outcome of the supreme court's case.

 

What's more likely, IMO, is the R's plan to watch the ACA crash and burn at the supreme court and then start passing alternative fixes. They'll gamble that more people will be against offering exchanges (which they'll argue are failing), and thus the politics will make the ACA fail.

 

In the meantime, Obama will gamble that the ACA survives this legal challenge, the law stabilizes and steadily becomes more popular, and R's get none of the big changes they want.

 

Two more years of gridlock, with the next generation President left to deal with whatever's happening at the time.

[Larry]

The politics of of the ACA remain fascinating if you pay attention. The Kaiser Family Foundation came out yesterday and said that average premiums are down by 2%. This is a very positive development. I suspect the weighted numbers (based on actual enrollment, not lists of plans on a website) will show that a lot of people will have significant premium increases, and that some will have premium decreases. That's to be expected in year two. I expect much more stability next year. This is a marketplace that's becoming established, and the competition between plans will better moderate prices over time than single payer ever could, IMO.

I've had a theory since this law first started to emerge from the fog that perhaps the most important part of the plan is the exchanges. Simply because it really pressures the insurance companies to compete against each other, in a relatively apples-to-apples competition.

now, the potential "unintended bad results" category, I think a potential problem is, it encourages them to compete pretty much solely on price. And cheapest is not always best.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I've had a theory since this law first started to emerge from the fog that perhaps the most important part of the plan is the exchanges. Simply because it really pressures the insurance companies to compete against each other, in a relatively apples-to-apples competition.

now, the potential "unintended bad results" category, I think a potential problem is, it encourages them to compete pretty much solely on price. And cheapest is not always best.

 

You can argue about the most important part, but of course the exchanges are a huge part.  They are a pro-competition market place that republicans should love.  The simple truth is that if Romney was president and proposed and passed this, republicans would love it.  But because a democrat did, they played politics and demonized it.  

 

You are not totally right about encouraging competition strictly on price.  There are gold, silver and bronze plans if you go through the exchanges.  You can choose amount options within those categories.  So there is competition based on price, but also based on benefits.  

[ABQCOWBOY]

You can argue about the most important part, but of course the exchanges are a huge part.  They are a pro-competition market place that republicans should love.  The simple truth is that if Romney was president and proposed and passed this, republicans would love it.  But because a democrat did, they played politics and demonized it.  

 

You are not totally right about encouraging competition strictly on price.  There are gold, silver and bronze plans if you go through the exchanges.  You can choose amount options within those categories.  So there is competition based on price, but also based on benefits.  

 

I don't think so.  One of the big drawbacks for Romney, in the last election, was that he implemented a similar design, while Governor.  

 

As an aside, Romney is on record as saying he would not support a plan like the ACA, had he been elected. 

[twa]

there are certainly way   different plans available, my main issue (aside from the mandate) is the required coverages

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't think so.  One of the big drawbacks for Romney, in the last election, was that he implemented a similar design, while Governor.  

 

As an aside, Romney is on record as saying he would not support a plan like the ACA, had he been elected. 

 

That was only a drawback because the GOP had demonized obamacare.  What I meant was, that if Romney had implemented Obamacare, i.e. Romneycare, instead of Obama, the GOP would have loved it.

 

So, youre absolutely clear that this is all political crap: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm

 

A 2009 op-ed before any healthcare reform was proposed by Obama.  Mitt Romney urges him to use Massachusetts as a model.  Obama complies, GOP loses mind.

[TheGoodBits]

That was only a drawback because the GOP had demonized obamacare.  What I meant was, that if Romney had implemented Obamacare, i.e. Romneycare, instead of Obama, the GOP would have loved it.

 

So, youre absolutely clear that this is all political crap: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm

 

A 2009 op-ed before any healthcare reform was proposed by Obama.  Mitt Romney urges him to use Massachusetts as a model.  Obama complies, GOP loses mind.

 

How had I never read that op-ed? Wow. 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

How had I never read that op-ed? Wow. 

 

One word: Politics.  A synonym for "politics" is "bull ****" by the way.

[Wrong Direction]

I prefer to talk about the policy more than the politics. There are legitimate policy disagreements. However, the politics on both sides are incredibly ugly. 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I prefer to talk about the policy more than the politics. There are legitimate policy disagreements. However, the politics on both sides are incredibly ugly. 

 

That's not true.  The politics on ONE side are incredibly ugly and disingenuous.

 

The problem is that we, as a country, have never had a debate on the policy.  We had a debate about whether the government can force you to eat broccoli, for example.  Not particularly substantive.  Now, we are going to have a debate on what the meaning of the word "State" is.  Not particularly substantive.  

 

I'm sorry, you can say you disagree with the policy, but 100% of republican disapproval has been on things other than policy.  Its been about crap.

 

And for final measure, this was GOP policy before it passed.  100% of it.  This was the GOP plan for healthcare reform.  You got what you wanted if you were the GOP, and then you played politics for the next five years, nothing but politics.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That was only a drawback because the GOP had demonized obamacare.  What I meant was, that if Romney had implemented Obamacare, i.e. Romneycare, instead of Obama, the GOP would have loved it.

 

So, youre absolutely clear that this is all political crap: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm

 

A 2009 op-ed before any healthcare reform was proposed by Obama.  Mitt Romney urges him to use Massachusetts as a model.  Obama complies, GOP loses mind.

 

 

Not true.  It was a draw back because there is a significant segment of the U.S. that did not believe the Government could effectively run something like Obamacare, there was a significant segment of the U.S. that believed they were being sold a bill of goods and there was a significant segment of the U.S. that believed this would ultimately result in a poorer quality of care.  

 

So far, that segment has yet to be proven wrong. 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Not true.  It was a draw back because there is a significant segment of the U.S. that did not believe the Government could effectively run something like Obamacare, there was a significant segment of the U.S. that believed they were being sold a bill of goods and there was a significant segment of the U.S. that believed this would ultimately result in a poorer quality of care.  

 

So far, that segment has yet to be proven wrong. 

 

Right, so you said the same thing when Romney implemented it.  Actually, when Romney wrote that op-ed telling Obama to implement it nationwide, you were against Romney's request at the time, right?

 

Uh huh.

 

Oh, and all three of those things have been proven wrong so far.  

[ABQCOWBOY]

Right, so you said the same thing when Romney implemented it.  Actually, when Romney wrote that op-ed telling Obama to implement it nationwide, you were against Romney's request at the time, right?

 

 

No.  I said nothing because I don't live in Massachusetts.  That's the only place, that I am aware of, the Romney has implemented anything.   However, if you are asking me if I was in favor of ACA, I will tell you that I have never been in favor of it.  A point that I am pretty well established with on this board.

Edited November 12, 2014 by ABQCOWBOY

[chipwhich]

I'm sorry, you can say you disagree with the policy, but 100% of republican disapproval has been on things other than policy.  Its been about crap.

 

So your position is there has been nothing to have disapproval on, every disapproval was crap.

Wow that is laughable.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Uh huh.

 

Oh, and all three of those things have been proven wrong so far.  

 

 

Perhaps you should take out an add on this because according to this, Americans don't think so.

 

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/178094/say-health-law-hurt-instead-helped.aspx

Edited November 12, 2014 by ABQCOWBOY

[Predicto]

Perhaps you should take out an add on this because according to this, Americans don't think so.

 

 

 

 

Not surprising.  In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Americans (left and right) are just about as well-informed on complicated policy issues as, well, you are.  You are not the only one who lives in a world of talking points and truthiness.... err.... common sense.

 

But we can agree to disagree of course.