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

[Tulane Skins Fan]

A fix that is being rejected,will not fix anything and is non-binding is not a fix....it is attempted ass covering

 

it is amusing to watch him crawfish though

 

 

 

Larry's little problem that 1,000 word posts cannot change is that it is now the Dems howling 

 

Look, I get that you will never be happy with Obama.  If he made his fix binding, you would have said it was government interference with the economy, and been asking who is john gault.  If its not binding, its not enough.

 

I get it.  We all get it.  You don't like anything Obama does.

 

It is not his fault that insurers canceled. It is not his fault that insurers/states are deciding not to accept his proposed fix. And I don't blame him for trying to reform healthcare. It was done in a giant leap vs small steps, but at least he addressed the issue. He gets credit for that, at least from me.

 

However, as a President, when you stand in front of the camera and repeat the same absolute line over and over again and it turns out (as always) the stated absolute isn't exactly absolute after-all, well that falls squarely in his/his teams lap.

 

I don't disagree.  Again, I said he was wrong to say that.  But, its spilled milk now.  And it seems like he's gone out and at least tried to fix the problem.  I don't see this as a blemish on his integrity when he does the right thing to try to fix it.

[twa]

Tulane I have supported a number of his actions.....I do not support the abomination that ACA is,nor the deceptions used to pass it though.

 

Can anyone tell me why the state ins commissioners were assuming that all new plans would comply with the Affordable Care Act and wrote the regs to reflect that?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/190996-state-health-commissioners-warn-obama-about

 

they also say the fix will simply cause more chaos and higher costs.....but that seems a feature with ACA 

 

 

If only we could be exempt instead of given the grandfathered ghost story

[Popeman38]

So, you're going with "when Obama made that statement, he guaranteed that he would not permit anybody else to make any decisions which affect you?

Did he guarantee that I wouldn't get laid off from work, too? Cause I liked my insurance when I had a job.

Or did he just guarantee that, if I got laid off, my employer (or somebody else) would continue paying for my health insurance, even though I don't work there, any more?

Really Larry? Really? The President made a statement about what affect ACA would have on existing insurance. Not what losing your job would do, or what a reversal of the laws of gravity would do, or the introduction of our lady bug overlords would do. He was talking about ACA. The ACA is what caused some of the cancellations (by caused, I mean the insurance companies decided not to offer the policy anymore). This resulted in some people, who liked their insurance, not being able to keep their insurance. That is a direct contradiction to what the President said.

[chipwhich]

Semantic Larry, you are like KlearGear.com thread you started.

We didn't semantically parse his statement correctly, and had we read the fine print he had embroidered on the inside of his tie we would have known the truth.

Larry your semantics are sometimes amusing, but in this case it's insulting to Americans.

But it supports your party And party support is all that matters round these parts.

 

 

One is the legal concept that a merchant can put anything they want, into a "contract" which they don;t even show to the consumer, and then claim that "you agreed to it", whether you did or not.

 

LOL

Edited November 22, 2013 by chipwhich

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Tulane I have supported a number of his actions.....I do not support the abomination that ACA is,nor the deceptions used to pass it though.

 

Can anyone tell me why the state ins commissioners were assuming that all new plans would comply with the Affordable Care Act and wrote the regs to reflect that?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/190996-state-health-commissioners-warn-obama-about

 

they also say the fix will simply cause more chaos and higher costs.....but that seems a feature with ACA 

 

 

If only we could be exempt instead of given the grandfathered ghost story

 

Name one thing you have supported of his.  And if you have a post of yours to support it, that would be great.

 

Maybe the state insurance commissioners are stupid.

 

I don't love Obamacare.  I think its better than the old system.  But we need at least a public option to do this the right way.

[ABQCOWBOY]

This Narative that the President did not promise that insurance companies would not change your plans, thus precluding most citizens from the Grandfather clause is failing and all you have to do is look at the polling numbers to confirm this.   The Democratic Party can try and ride that horse to the Prom but it's a lossing proposition IMO.

 

Clinton, a leader of the Democratic Party, is saying that the President needs to honor his promise.  That is just not going to work IMO.   This is going to get much, much worse in the coming weeks and months.  When employer madates start kicking in, that's when the fur is going to start really coming off.  This business of less then 5% will be effected is going to seem like a silly move and anybody who supported this bill is going to pay a very heavy price. 

 

This is why, just today, the President announced that the Mandated Employer Healthcare piece of this Law will be put off till after the coming elections.   He knows that the country is going to come apart after that is put into play and that the Democratic Party will be savaged by the American People in the upcoming elections.   That's all politics and calling it anything else is just disengenuous.   None of this is going to help the Country IMO.  It's only going to make things worse.

[DaGoonie55]

I don't dislike Obama or what he has done so far, save for this ACA.  My disagreements with the Dems are semantic, as is my disdain for the GOP.  (I'm undecided - if that helps muddy it anymore)

 

He, and the Democratic party, are responsible for the ACA.  It is their bill, their pushed agenda.  Obama's main campaign point.  Therefore, the butterfly effect from it is his their (Dems) doing.  Perhaps, it is incidental that the shizz has hit the fan - either way they championed the bill.

 

My insurance changing is their fault.  My medical bills going from 4000 per year to almost 12000 is due to the ACA, and is their fault.

 

Maybe not directly, but call it an accessory to murder - and in my book that is enough to start a case against them.

 

If I slam on my brakes, another car careens off the road and into a store...I'm liable for damages.  Same applies here.

[twa]

Name one thing you have supported of his.  And if you have a post of yours to support it, that would be great.

 

Maybe the state insurance commissioners are stupid.

 

I don't love Obamacare.  I think its better than the old system.  But we need at least a public option to do this the right way.

The Obama raid

Wiretapping and data mining

Drone strikes

Fining companies for hiring illegals by raiding the books instead of the workers

I could go on for awhile

You can call the inc commissioners stupid while clinging to your partisanship.....they must deal with reality though

[ABQCOWBOY]

It did not help that one of the first things out of the President's mouth was, "Elections Have Consequences".

 

It is hard to expect the GOP to form partisanship with this Administration when this is what the ground rules were.   You simply can not expect to pass such sweeping forms of legislation, on partisan votes, and expect the other side to go along.   That statement basically signaled the GOP that the Democratic Party would be taking no prisoners and for most of this Adminstration's tenure, that has been the case.  

 

We have to somehow, right the ship but how do you convince anybody to buy into that when you have these kinds of things going on?  I don't know the answer to that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Latest Obamacare Enrollment Figures More Bad News For Washington, And Health Plans

Scott Gottlieb, Contributor 11/22/2013 @ 7:47AM |12,275 views

 

The standard refrain is that once the federal Obamacare web site gets fixed and matriculation gets on track nationally, things will improve.

 

But things are already supposed to be running smoothly in states like California. So the other possibility is that once healthcare.gov gets back on track, perhaps the broader enrollment trends could well mirror this state’s troubling experiences.

The problem, of course, is adverse selection. If only older, and by inference sicker individuals sign up for Obamacare, it will force the program’s costs – and in turn premiums – to rise. This will further discourage the younger, healthier members that the administration need’s to enroll into Obamacare to make the scheme viable.

The data released by Covered California (the California exchange) shows that, so far, 34% of total enrollment is comprised of people aged 55-64, the highest mix among age brackets. Another 22% of enrollees were aged 45-54. Therefore, 56% of California’s total exchange enrollment in October was people aged 45-64.

Yet California’s total population of residents that are aged 45-64 is only 25%. This means that a dramatically skewed percentage of older individuals (relative to the state’s total eligible pool) are the ones – so far — signing up for Obamacare.

Individuals aged 34 or under comprised just 28% of October exchange enrollment, well below the 49% of the total California population in this age range. The data includes enrollment in different Obamacare plans through October 31.

This could be especially bad news for the plans operating in California, particularly WellPoint, Kaiser, and Blue Shield & Health Net. They collectively account for 96.2% of the enrollment so far. Wellpoint is by far the most exposed, with a 28.1% share of the enrollment. Kaiser has 26.8% and Blue Cross Blue Shield at 25.6%.

The vast majority of people who are enrolling in the plans are not eligible for premium subsidies. So they are paying hefty fees for the coverage. The younger people fall into income bands where they would be eligible for subsidies in higher proportions. But they aren’t the ones enrolling. This should also be worrisome.

How could this be interpreted? It would seem to suggest that the older folks who have enrolled so far have concluded that they are especially likely to tap the healthcare services offered by the plans, making it worth the high cost.

In total, only 16% of the people who enrolled in Covered California in October were eligible for premium and cost-sharing subsidies. The figures break down this way: 4,852 of the people enrolling in plans got subsidies, versus 25,978 that did not.

For November, things don’t look much better. Covered California said that 79,891 residents had selected a plan though November 19. This suggests that 20,000 people have signed up over the last week. While enrollment is picking up, the pace is still far to slow to enable the state to hit its target of 300,000 enrollees by January.

 

Click here to read the entire article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/11/22/latest-obamacare-enrollment-figures-more-bad-news-for-washington-and-health-plans/

[Larry]

Just curious. Does Obamacare mandate that all ages get charged the same price?

I would assume that the price charged for people age 55-65, is based on the typical amount of claims that people aged 55-65 have, and that the prices for people aged 25-35 would be completely irrelevant, because their rates are based on how much they typically have.

Now, I've read that Obamacare mandates that gender can't be used for pricing. (A move which I consider to be pretty blatant political pandering.) But I don;t think it made a similar mandate for age.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just curious. Does Obamacare mandate that all ages get charged the same price?

I would assume that the price charged for people age 55-65, is based on the typical amount of claims that people aged 55-65 have, and that the prices for people aged 25-35 would be completely irrelevant, because their rates are based on how much they typically have.

Now, I've read that Obamacare mandates that gender can't be used for pricing. (A move which I consider to be pretty blatant political pandering.) But I don;t think it made a similar mandate for age.

 

Really not sure Larry.   I mean, I'm certain that all of these things, plus a person's economic situation will impact the costs associated.  I mean, regardless of age, some will qualify for deductables and some will not.  Also, the level of plan you get will obviously cost more I would think.  

 

Lots of questions, not enough answers for me, I'm sorry to say.

[chipwhich]

I would assume that the price charged for people age 55-65, is based on the typical amount of claims that people aged 55-65 have, and that the prices for people aged 25-35 would be completely irrelevant, because their rates are based on how much they typically have.

 

Your assumption would be totally wrong, which is why the is such a train wreck.

 

Larry the fact that you don't grasp that basic concept means you have no understanding of the ACA at all.  No wonder you continue to defend it.  But how you can defend something with no understanding leaves me SMH.

Edited November 22, 2013 by chipwhich

[Larry]

Your assumption would be totally wrong, which is why the is such a train wreck.

So, provide some facts.

You asserting that people aged 60 and 30 pay the same rate? They all go into one big bucket, then they all come out?

Pray tell us. The rates they charge people aged 55-65 is based on what?

[chipwhich]

So, provide some facts.

You asserting that people aged 60 and 30 pay the same rate? They all go into one big bucket, then they all come out?

Pray tell us. The rates they charge people aged 55-65 is based on what?

Larry it's a GROUP rate everyone pays the same.

This is why the GROUP rate will be so HIGH because of this fiasco because young people aren't signing up to bring the GROUP rate down, old people are signing up which makes the GROUP census go up and raises prices.

The fact that you don't understand this really dumbfounds me, for as much horn blowing you have been doing in here.  You don't even get what the issue is and why everyone is concerned.  You are living on assumptions.

[Larry]

Larry it's a GROUP rate everyone pays the same.

So, to gets things straight: Yes, you are asserting that every person on Obamacare (or at least, every person who signs up for Plan X), pays exactly the same rate?

Wonder why they demand people's age, before they'll tell them the price, then. (At least, I seem to remember them demanding mine, the one time I tried to make it through the system.)

[chipwhich]

So, to gets things straight: Yes, you are asserting that every person on Obamacare (or at least, every person who signs up for Plan X), pays exactly the same rate?

Wonder why they demand people's age, before they'll tell them the price, then. (At least, I seem to remember them demanding mine, the one time I tried to make it through the system.)

 

Larry, a census is formed as part of the group to show the AGE and the HEALTHINESS of the GROUP.

 

So yes, everyone pays the same rate no matter the age.

 

The problem is that if only sick and old people sign up and young people pay the fine, the AGE and HEALTHINESS of the GROUP will be terrible and insurance rates will be terrible.  The initial census was assuming a certain number of signups and a speculated census.

If only the sick sign up this year, and everyone gets pushed off until later, the rates will be astronomical...which will then make healthy people even less likely to sign up.

In the end, the health care companies need a real census to base pricing on, if that is only the old and sick, prices will adjust, if the young people decide to jump in, that will reduce prices.

 

Under the ACA/Obamacare, you aren't DISCRIMINATED against based on AGE or pre existing conditions.

That's the whole crux of the law.

[Larry]

Larry, a census is formed as part of the group to show the AGE and the HEALTHINESS of the GROUP.

 

So yes, everyone pays the same rate no matter the age.

Funny, the web page is telling me that my prices will me based on age. location, (something else, I forget what), and smoking.

(Wonder how Obama wrote a health care law that "discriminates" against smokers.)

Granted, with the way they ration information, it looks like it would be hard to pin down, though.

[twa]

Funny, the web page is telling me that my prices will me based on age. location, (something else, I forget what), and smoking.

(Wonder how Obama wrote a health care law that "discriminates" against smokers.)

Granted, with the way they ration information, it looks like it would be hard to pin down, though.

it varies by exchange and location,I believe older folk can be charged up to 3x the 20+ rate

as far as smoking in Texas they can charge up to 50% more

different schedules all over and since the prices seem to be shifting who the hell knows

[chipwhich]

Funny, the web page is telling me that my prices will me based on age. location, (something else, I forget what), and smoking.

(Wonder how Obama wrote a health care law that "discriminates" against smokers.)

Granted, with the way they ration information, it looks like it would be hard to pin down, though.

 

Well your group isn't a "nationwide" group, it's based on location just like all insurance is now.  So someone in Florida will pay different then someone in New York City or Alaska.  I am not sure how they price by location.

And I was incorrect, so I apologize.  There is some age bands in Obamacare which will cost older people more and younger people less, the band shields the different groups, but the group as a WHOLE, all age bands will be priced based on younger healthier people applying.  So the whole group gets punished if young people don't sign up.  I hadn't realized there were age bands until today, but it appears to be only 3 groups and is meant to keep prices down on older people.  Again, this assumes the young and healthy participate.

[Larry]

it varies by exchange and location,I believe older folk can be charged up to 3x the 20+ rate

That would explain things. If different ages were charged differently, but there's cap, or some other artificial constraint.

And I assume prices change based on location, because health care costs may change based on location.

Starting to look like at least part of the problem is that whole thing about "good intentions". Attempts to artificially help certain demographics. (At the expense of others.)

(Although, when I see them trying to artificially lower prices for women, I assume it's payback for women voting Democrat. But then, trying to artificially lower rates for people in their 50s, by raising prices on people in their 20s? The young folks are a D constituency.)

Edited November 23, 2013 by Larry

[twa]

they stay in college or their parents basement and therefore don't earn enough to care.

besides he can always just legalize pot to keep them in the fold

rate chart

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/knowyourrates/index.htm

[chipwhich]

rate chart

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/knowyourrates/index.htm

 

That's a good chart.

On the bright side, the Republicans don't have to shut down the Government again.  The Dem's set the table for them and they didn't even know it.

The next couple elections will be classic.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Republicans need Obamacare’s exchanges to work

http://wapo.st/1enSJ3G

I think this article is very important to this debate. It talks about the two debates in health care and points out how politics, and nothing else, twisted this debate. It also demonstrates that Republicans do have ideas on half care, but have abandoned them for the purpose of political expediency.

[twa]

propaganda from the pet media to frame the debate

 

I'd say they need the exchanges to work so people can see how much ACA sucks