So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[Upchurch]

These are the federal poverty guidelines:
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html

This is a subsidy calculator. If you plug in a Honolulu zip code for a family of two adults and more than three children making $120K, it tells you the subsidy will be zero.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=3&child-tobacco=0

Subsidy examples:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1738900

It just doesn't look to me like these subsidies are going to be as huge for people with good incomes as some people seem to think/hope/fear.

Thank you for the information.

 

[Ziggurat]

This isn't about whether the ACA is obviously positive or not. This is about a minority holding the nation's economy hostage unless they get their way.

The Republicans are the majority in the house, where budget bills rightfully originate. And there are two parties to this conflict, either one of which could stop the shutdown by making concessions. So it only makes sense to blame one party exclusively if you think only one party's position on the ACA is correct. Which you can do, I didn't actually claim otherwise, but it's rather arrogant to assume stupidity or malevolence are the only explanations for anyone who doesn't share your opinion on the matter.

 

[davefoc]

Implicit in your list of possibilities is that enacting the ACA will have obviously positive or even mostly neutral effects. If that assumption is removed, then your list becomes quite incomplete.

One of the things I normally like about your posts, dave, is that you're willing to understand other perspectives even when you don't agree with them. But this post doesn't live up to your normally high standards in that regard.

Thank you for the kind words.

I don't have an opinion on the ACA. My general view is that this kind of thing should be left to the states. I also think the two most important things that the federal government could do with regard to health care is eliminate the connection between employment and health insurance and begin the process of undoing policies that have driven health care costs up to deeply harmful levels. So, just based on my general view of the way things should be I suppose I am opposed to the ACA.

But regardless of my view or non-view about ACA, the Republican actions to hold the country hostage unless they get their way are stupid and harmful. This is not an argument about the ACA, this is argument for sanity and the rule of law. You wouldn't know that if you only listen to Republican partisans, but if the Democrats pulled a stunt like this there wouldn't be a single Republican partisan that would support them or see their efforts for anything other than what they would be, stupid, harmful, hypocritical and probably self serving.

I say hypocritical because clearly the Republicans don't give a crap about health care costs except to make them as high as possible to transfer as much wealth as possible to the drug companies, insurance companies and other medical providers that bribe them. The notion that Republicans are driven by their ideas about what is best for the country is transparently false. The allegedly fiscal conservative Republicans almost doubled the national debt under Bush. How many times did they threaten to shut the government down to stop that?

 

[Upchurch]

So it only makes sense to blame one party exclusively if you think only one party's position on the ACA is correct.

I think you are vastly oversimplifying the issue and ignoring the last 3 years of history or more.

 

[A'isha]

The Republicans are the majority in the house, where budget bills rightfully originate. And there are two parties to this conflict, either one of which could stop the shutdown by making concessions. So it only makes sense to blame one party exclusively if you think only one party's position on the ACA is correct. Which you can do, I didn't actually claim otherwise, but it's rather arrogant to assume stupidity or malevolence are the only explanations for anyone who doesn't share your opinion on the matter.

Then why isn't Boehner letting a "clean" CR be put to a vote in the full House?

 

[Bob001]

The Republicans are the majority in the house, where budget bills rightfully originate. And there are two parties to this conflict, either one of which could stop the shutdown by making concessions. So it only makes sense to blame one party exclusively if you think only one party's position on the ACA is correct. Which you can do, I didn't actually claim otherwise, but it's rather arrogant to assume stupidity or malevolence are the only explanations for anyone who doesn't share your opinion on the matter.

The thing is that the House has not been permitted to vote on a clean resolution, which would almost certainly pass. So a minority of the members of one party in one house of one of the three branches of government has paralyzed the government because it doesn't like legislation that was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President and even approved by the Supreme Court after a challenge, and on which the President ran for and won re-election. Malevolence and stupidity are the best explanations. When you have the governor of Texas talking about secession, you might throw in anarchy, sedition and treason.

 

[uke2se]

And there are two parties to this conflict, either one of which could stop the shutdown by making concessions.

This is demonstrably untrue. The Republicans can stop it without making concessions. The democrats might be able to stop it by fully giving in to Republican demands.

So it only makes sense to blame one party exclusively if you think only one party's position on the ACA is correct.

Nope. This isn't about the ACA. It's about a minority holding the nation's economy hostage unless they get what they want.

Which you can do, I didn't actually claim otherwise, but it's rather arrogant to assume stupidity or malevolence are the only explanations for anyone who doesn't share your opinion on the matter.

Stupidity or malevolence are the only two options for the House Republicans.

 

[Neally]

Using Oregon as an example,

A sampling of rates shows increases from 24 to 54%.

Most people don't qualify for subsidies:

Therefore many people have have had increases and most don't qualify for subsidies.


http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/what-will-obamacare-cost-you-map.html

Most 25-year-old non-smokers in California face higher premium costs under Obamacare, even when you take the subsidies into account.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/07/the-war-on-bros-exchange-subsidies-wont-protect-young-people-from-obamacares-higher-insurance-premiums/

Thousands of people will pay higher rates as a result of Obamacare despite subsidies.

 

[uke2se]

Thousands of people will pay higher rates as a result of Obamacare despite subsidies.

How many, and how does it compare with the amount of people that will finally be able to get health insurance? I.e, do the costs outweigh the benefits for society at large?

 

[DavidJames]

So, even if Forbes is correct and 1000's will pay more, hundreds of thousands will pay the same or less. Then there are those who can get insurance now who couldn't before.

So again I ask you, where is the detail unbiased analysis of the full impact. Some people get sick from some vaccines, does that make them bad?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Using Oregon as an example,

A sampling of rates shows increases from 24 to 54%.

[qimg]http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq12/kendal_056/rank_zps49647b38.png[/qimg]

Most people don't qualify for subsidies:

[qimg]http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq12/kendal_056/eleg_zpsb0686a29.png[/qimg]

Therefore many people have have had increases and most don't qualify for subsidies.


http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/what-will-obamacare-cost-you-map.html

Most 25-year-old non-smokers in California face higher premium costs under Obamacare, even when you take the subsidies into account.

[qimg]http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/06/CA-HIX-25-net-subsidies.png[/qimg]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/07/the-war-on-bros-exchange-subsidies-wont-protect-young-people-from-obamacares-higher-insurance-premiums/

Thousands of people will pay higher rates as a result of Obamacare despite subsidies.

What a weird graph. Shopping at www.coveroregon.com shows much lower numbers.

 

[Kestrel]

What a weird graph. Shopping at www.coveroregon.com shows much lower numbers.

I find that with a lot of anti Obamacare stuff on the web. When you go to the source and check the numbers, they don't seem to ad up.

The insurance plans on the exchange will cost me a bit more. My current plan has the same deductible as the Bronze plans, but does not have an out of pocket cap. Nor does it cover physical therapy or prescription drugs. Also, my current premium was based on having no pre existing conditions. Most people my age have at least one.

 

[SkepticalDrew]

Using Oregon as an example,

A sampling of rates shows increases from 24 to 54%.

I find their methodology to me lacking. Give me all the data and how it's weighed, then I might give a crap. Especially considering it's from The Manhattan Institute. Because you can do an awful lot of funny stuff with statistics when you have an agenda to push.

Questioning the source in this matter is not an ad hominem attack. It's critical thinking 101.

 

[Upchurch]

Thousands of people will pay higher rates as a result of Obamacare despite subsidies.

Wait, are these actual numbers or hypothetical numbers based on demographics? Because it looks like the latter.

Also, I notice that even though you use yourself as an example, you do not support it with any real information, just assertions and hand waving.

Do you make over four times the poverty line? Do you get insurance through your employer? What was your premium now and what was it last month?

 

[Upchurch]

So, even if Forbes is correct and 1000's will pay more, hundreds of thousands will pay the same or less. Then there are those who can get insurance now who couldn't before.

More to the point, is that last group being included in the "thousands" who will pay more in premiums? If so, and I think those people would agree with me: GOOD!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Even if my premiums increase 5x it's a good deal since there is no cap on the benefit. With the ACA I'm not an accident or illness away from bankruptcy.

 

[Travis]

Of course, because the problems from Obamacare that thousands of other people are going through, aren't your problem. The important thing is that you got yours.

Things like the people without health insurance that have had their hours reduced because of the employer required Obamacare coverage. Now they still have no insurance AND lower income.

Oh and the thousands of people that have higher insurance costs due to Obamacare required additional coverage added to their policy. Stuff they don't want or need.

But hey, don't you worry your little self about them. You got yours.

Oh yeah. I got mine! I now have the ability to purchase health insurance. What a freaking parasite I am!

Oh. But you think that I shouldn't be able to because some companies are acting without morals or ethics and cutting down on working hours?

Wow.

So what other basic things should we do without because of a lack of ethics from companies? Should we stop using bridges because we can't count on companies actually building them to code? Should we stop buying food from supermarkets because we can't count on companies not spraying them with poison?

My point being that we shouldn't end highly beneficial programs just because some companies out there are unscrupulous and will game the system. What we should do is make it so they can't game the system! That's a solution to the problem you brought up. Not going back to the same terrible system we had before where tens of millions of tax paying citizens such as myself are completely unable to buy health insurance because of pre-existing health problems.

Using Oregon as an example,

Thousands of people will pay higher rates as a result of Obamacare despite subsidies.

And you know what? We pay higher prices for gasoline because we implement safety laws for workers that drill for oil and transport it to refineries. Should we repeal basic worker safety laws?

 

[thaiboxerken]

One negative about the implement of the ACA is that Greg's Anatomy won't have the financial aspect to dramatize..?

 

[jj]

Using Thousands of people will pay higher rates as a result of Obamacare despite subsidies.

And hundreds of thousands will pay substantially less.

Your cherrypicking is noted, and dismissed for the misleading abuse of statistics that it is.

 

[Bob001]

Millions of the poorest people won't get health insurance because their Republican state governments are refusing to expand Medicaid under the ACA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/h...ted=all&gwh=23E647D35521B5965D6F7D04468EF260&