• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

Fudbucker said:
"Gruber also pointed to deliberate efforts by the administration and congressional backers to include mandates and subsidies for insurance rather than levying what might be called a “tax.”
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the [health-care] mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that,” he explained.
“If you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”

I'm going to say that that's prima facia pretty damning, but notice how I talked about an investigation, which implies getting to the truth of the matter?

Obviously, if there was no way to write the ACA that wasn't confusing, I can possibly accept taking advantage of that confusion.

HOwever, if it turns out the law could have been written much simpler, and DELIBERATELY WAS MADE CONFUSING in order to trick people, then it should be overturned immediately.
Click to expand...


Trick them HOW? Can you answer this simple question? What part of the law was made confusing to you, especially the part that would involve the CBO? Also, Gruber wasn't involved in the writing of the law, at all. So really, this is silly.
 
Fudbucker said:
Seriously? Are you that obtuse? Do you not know what "needlessly" means?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a completely subjective term that has no meaning in terms of law. I've already asked you a few times. Which part of the law do you feel confused by? If you can't even name the section of the law in question, then you're just adding noise.
 
Unabogie said:
Trick them HOW? Can you answer this simple question? What part of the law was made confusing to you, especially the part that would involve the CBO? Also, Gruber wasn't involved in the writing of the law, at all. So really, this is silly.
Click to expand...
Where have you been getting your news from?

The New York Times says he helped write the law, hell, he even says himself he helped write the law.

He was even paid $400,000 to consult, what do you think he was consulting on, what color drapes should be hung in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House?

According to the New York Times, “the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.” Later the above video, Gruber boasts of having written part of the PPACA. He boasts to the Times, “I know more about this law than any other economist.” He’s probably right about that.
Click to expand...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...ans-your-citizens-dont-get-their-tax-credits/
 
The mandate requires US residents to have comprehensive health insurance that meets certain standards. If your family is not covered by employer or government provided insurance, you are required to purchase a policy. That should not be hard to understand.

Insurance pricing is now based on only three questions:
  1. What is your age?
  2. Where do you live?
  3. Do you use tobacco products?
As a result, the lucky people with no pre existing conditions may see a modest increase in price. The cost for men will go up a bit, women may see a drop in premiums. Insurance costs still depend on age, but the cost range has been limited to a 3 to 1 ratio. (The actual cost ratio is closer to 5 to 1). Policies for the young will be more expensive, policies for older Americans a bit less.

The part most people don't seem to grasp is that insurance premiums are based on the risk of medical expenses. If your insurance premiums tripled, it is because the old policy allowed the insurance company to walk away when the bills got really serious. All ACA compliant policies have an out of pocket maximum of $6,700 or less for an individual. Your insurance company will be on the hook for 100% of all medical expenses beyond that point.
 
Unabogie said:
Which part of the law do you feel confused by?
Click to expand...
Explain to all of us, please:
1) Exactly how the subsidy amount is calculated, and
2) Exactly how the transfer payment between carriers is calculated

You seem to feel that the entire law is crystal clear... so this should be easy for you.

ETA: The first one is actually very well defined in the law itself, but I might be willing to give you some slack on the second, since it required additional regulations after 3/23/2010 be developed.
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
As a result, the lucky people with no pre existing conditions may see a modest increase in price. The cost for men will go up a bit, women may see a drop in premiums. Insurance costs still depend on age, but the cost range has been limited to a 3 to 1 ratio. (The actual cost ratio is closer to 5 to 1). Policies for the young will be more expensive, policies for older Americans a bit less.
Click to expand...

If by "modest" you mean "200% and loss of dental coverage" then sure. Young people got screwed. Young men exceptionally so.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Explain to all of us, please:
1) Exactly how the subsidy amount is calculated, and
2) Exactly how the transfer payment between carriers is calculated

You seem to feel that the entire law is crystal clear... so this should be easy for you.
Click to expand...

Nope, I never claimed every part of the law was clear to the layman nor that I was an expert on anything. I claimed it was online for anyone to examine for more than a year and therefore the claims that the law was passed in some obfuscatory way are silly.

Interestingly for your first question, the people at Valuepenguin were able to write up an explanation, so it's obvious that for people versed in health insurance it was easy to find all those answers.

http://www.valuepenguin.com/understanding-aca-subsidies
 
Unabogie said:
Nope, I never claimed every part of the law was clear to the layman nor that I was an expert on anything. I claimed it was online for anyone to examine for more than a year and therefore the claims that the law was passed in some obfuscatory way are silly.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Okay, but that certainly didn't seem to be what you were asking. Be moar clearer next time. Because you certainly seemed to be implying that the law was clear, and that whatsisname ought to be able to understand it, and then you seemed to be chastising him for not being able to specifically point out a section of the law that was confusing enough...

Unabogie said:
Interestingly for your first question, the people at Valuepenguin were able to write up an explanation, so it's obvious that for people versed in health insurance it was easy to find all those answers.

http://www.valuepenguin.com/understanding-aca-subsidies
Click to expand...
Interesting that your response doesn't even include a teensy attempt at explaining it yourself, just a link to someone else explaining it... but whatever.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Interesting that your response doesn't even include a teensy attempt at explaining it yourself, just a link to someone else explaining it... but whatever.
Click to expand...

I can't include a teensy attempt at explaining Quantum Field Theory myself, but can link to someone else explaining it. Does that mean physicists are obfuscating?
 
ehcks said:
I can't include a teensy attempt at explaining Quantum Field Theory myself, but can link to someone else explaining it. Does that mean physicists are obfuscating?
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow at all...

Let's see...

If Bob claims that QFT is complex, and you insist that Bob show you any part of QFT that is complicated, indeed you say "What part of it don't you understand?" Then you go on to say "I see you can't point out any part of QFT that is confusing to you... "

In doing so, you're implicitly claiming that you DO actually understand QFT, and you're furthermore implying that Bob is being *dishonest* in his claim that it is complex and hard to understand.

So if someone else, say a kitty cat belonging to Emily, comes along and asks you to explain one specific part of QFT, and the best you can do is say "well so-and-so managed it in his thing over there, and besides, I never said it wasn't complicated..."

Well, then I'd say that kitty should be allowed to look a little askance in your direction.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Hmm. Okay, but that certainly didn't seem to be what you were asking. Be moar clearer next time. Because you certainly seemed to be implying that the law was clear, and that whatsisname ought to be able to understand it, and then you seemed to be chastising him for not being able to specifically point out a section of the law that was confusing enough...


Interesting that your response doesn't even include a teensy attempt at explaining it yourself, just a link to someone else explaining it... but whatever.
Click to expand...

You maybe missed the gist of the discussion. Fudbucker was saying that the right wing freakout over Grubergate was legitimate, and that if the law was "written to be confusing, it should be struck down". This struck me as silly, especially if he couldn't even articulate which part he thought was obfuscated. I wanted to know what part he found confusing so that we could see if there were freely available explanations, such as the one I found for your question. If there were, then claiming those that the law should be struck down over a part of the law that's freely available and has been all along makes no sense.
 
In some ways Gruber was right. Many Americans are confused by the simplest of math problems. Look at how many people don't understand the difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates.

The subsidy isn't that hard to understand. It's based on the second lowest cost Silver plan available in your area. It will bring the cost of that plan down to a specified fraction of family income, ranging from 2% for incomes below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level to 9% for incomes at 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Families with incomes less than 250% of FPL are also eligible for special versions of Silver plans with lower copays, deductibles and out of pocket maximums.

The subsidies are a bit complex, but not exactly rocket science.
 
Unabogie said:
Nope, I never claimed every part of the law was clear to the layman nor that I was an expert on anything. I claimed it was online for anyone to examine for more than a year and therefore the claims that the law was passed in some obfuscatory way are silly.

Interestingly for your first question, the people at Valuepenguin were able to write up an explanation, so it's obvious that for people versed in health insurance it was easy to find all those answers.

http://www.valuepenguin.com/understanding-aca-subsidies
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. You are saying the law was available online for a year before it was passed?
 
Unabogie said:
You maybe missed the gist of the discussion. Fudbucker was saying that the right wing freakout over Grubergate was legitimate, and that if the law was "written to be confusing, it should be struck down". This struck me as silly, especially if he couldn't even articulate which part he thought was obfuscated. I wanted to know what part he found confusing so that we could see if there were freely available explanations, such as the one I found for your question. If there were, then claiming those that the law should be struck down over a part of the law that's freely available and has been all along makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Well, there goes the last shred of respect I had for you. What I said was:

"I don't care if it was posted online for 14 years. If they deliberately designed the ACA to be confusing, in order to sell it to a "stupid" public, that's a subversion of the democratic process. You wouldn't stand for the GOP doing that, nor should you. It's terrible. It's nothing but "Big Brother knows best".

An investigation should be done, and if it turns out the ACA was made needlessly complicated, it should be struck down."
Click to expand...

If ANY law is found to have been made overly confusing or complicated in order to fool the public into accepting it, that law should be declared null and void, on the spot.
Click to expand...


Of course, you could always do the right thing and apologize for misquoting me, and misstating my position... but I'm not holding my breath.

In anycase, you certainly haven't dissuaded me by attacking a strawman of my argument. Laws should not be made NEEDLESSLY complicated TO FOOL THE PUBLIC. I don't care if it's a personhood bill or Obamacare.

It also doesn't help that Obama was awarded Politifact's Lie of the Year award for lying about... you guessed it: Obamacare.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

You'd have to be an idiot or a partisan hack to be comfortable with A) how Obamacare was presented to the public ("if you like your plan, you can keep your plan) and B) how the legislation was actually written.
 
Fudbucker said:
Well, there goes the last shred of respect I had for you. What I said was:






Of course, you could always do the right thing and apologize for misquoting me, and misstating my position... but I'm not holding my breath.

In anycase, you certainly haven't dissuaded me by attacking a strawman of my argument. Laws should not be made NEEDLESSLY complicated TO FOOL THE PUBLIC. I don't care if it's a personhood bill or Obamacare.

It also doesn't help that Obama was awarded Politifact's Lie of the Year award for lying about... you guessed it: Obamacare.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

You'd have to be an idiot or a partisan hack to be comfortable with A) how Obamacare was presented to the public ("if you like your plan, you can keep your plan) and B) how the legislation was actually written.
Click to expand...

Some of the things that Gruber was talking about, like the free money that Massachusetts received, could be excised from the bill without destroying the rest of it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom