Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[DavidJames]

The perfect solution fallacy is perfect when reality conflicts with personal bias.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually, you may find it hard to believe, but Obamacare supporters find the numbers important because they represent people getting health care for the first time in years. I get that conservative nutters think that's meaningless, which is why you followed that paragraph up with:

Republicans should have focused more on the demographics from the get go rather than play hardball with the raw sign up numbers. The latter doesn't tell us anything beyond the fact that people signed up through the exchanges where as the former - with the way the ACA was framed out - has tangible impacts on the rates of insurance.

 

[Unabogie]

Republicans should have focused more on the demographics from the get go rather than play hardball with the raw sign up numbers. The latter doesn't tell us anything beyond the fact that people signed up through the exchanges where as the former - with the way the ACA was framed out - has tangible impacts on the rates of insurance.

Sure, if your goal is to win the politics of the argument instead of, get this, making sure more people can see a doctor and get healthy when they're sick.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sure, if your goal is to win the politics of the argument instead of, get this, making sure more people can see a doctor and get healthy when they're sick.

I find it absolutely incredible if not unsurprising that everyone wants to think that criticism of the ACA is always based on politics. Yep I get to see a doctor and I have my dental insurance back, probably cheaper than I can get elsewhere. I also pay the price for being forced to buy it at a point in time when my own finances are running thin, now I have to hope that rates remain relatively stable... maybe if the politics weren't a factor between ACA supporters and Repubs... something would get done properly.

 

[gnome]

I'm of the opinion that it's pretty well designed so that most of the time when finances are thin you usually have an affordable solution or at least are not under the mandate. Not perfectly so, and there is room for improvement in the law, but I'd say a large majority find it this way.

 

[Kestrel]

I'm of the opinion that it's pretty well designed so that most of the time when finances are thin you usually have an affordable solution or at least are not under the mandate. Not perfectly so, and there is room for improvement in the law, but I'd say a large majority find it this way.

The sharp cutoff of subsidies may cause problems for some families. If your family income is higher than expected and over 400% of the Federal Poverty Line, you no longer qualify for the subsidy. If you took it on a monthly basis, it has to be paid back when you file your tax return.

 

[gnome]

Yes, I prefer sliding scales.

On the other hand, compare that problem to needing to switch to COBRA at more than 100% of your original premium, and if you decide you're not getting it, you have to forego coverage for your existing condition for a year even when you DO get insurance again.

 

[Peephole]

The law was supposed to solve the problem of uninsured people.

Not it wasn't?

It was meant to do a whole range of things, among them alleviate the problem of the uninsured, lowering the number of uninsured from 55 million to 30 million. More could be accomplished by expanding Medicaid and instituting a public option, but those were made impossible by the right-winger loons.

 

[Unabogie]

Not it wasn't?

It was meant to do a whole range of things, among them alleviate the problem of the uninsured, lowering the number of uninsured from 55 million to 30 million. More could be accomplished by expanding Medicaid and instituting a public option, but those were made impossible by the right-winger loons.

True. Is was also supposed to solve the problem of rescission, which it did.

It was supposed to stop the problem of "pre-existing conditions", which it did.

It was supposed to expand coverage to as many Americans as possible, which the CBO correctly projected would reach 7 million in the first year, with 36,000,000 by 2017.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...-obamacare-will-be-covering-36-million-people

So by all accounts, the law is working.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not it wasn't?

It was meant to do a whole range of things, among them alleviate the problem of the uninsured, lowering the number of uninsured from 55 million to 30 million. More could be accomplished by expanding Medicaid and instituting a public option, but those were made impossible by the right-winger loons.

You mean Democrats?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You mean Democrats?

I think he meant Bush.

 

[jimbob]

You mean Democrats?

I think he meant Bush.

Are you joking?

The Tea Party has had an influence on the current Congressional Republican party. This is not a good influence.

You might dispute* whether the Tea Party are loons, but they are right wing.


*A lot have rather "eccentric" beliefs that tie in with their political outlook. And a lot are loons.

 

[barehl]

For those who have invested their world view in the idea that Obamacare is doomed to failure and will destroy the US, all I can say is that they will figure this out eventually.

The uninsured has fallen steadily and has now reached parity with the way it was in 2008. So, at this point, the ACA has broken even. However, this is not the peak or even close to the top. Another million will come in with the extra two weeks of signup. And, probably after the elections in 2014, more states will accept expanded medicaid. The States pretty much have no choice since 90% of the money is free and hospitals will go bankrupt without it. And, then of course, the employer mandates kick-in in 2015. There is no going back in spite of delusional statements from people like Paul Ryan. Even Fox which had a daily quota for using the phrase "the failure of Obamacare" is now easing off before their credibility is damaged any worse than it already has been. Their lack of honesty is so obvious that SNL even did a sketch with Fox showing a graph with 7.1 million depicted as being a lot lower than 7.0 million.

And, the news for Republicans is far worse than anyone is admitting yet. Republicans have invested every last ounce of effort and rhetoric into destroying the ACA since 2009. How do you now admit that you've just wasted five years swatting at shadows and charging windmills? Some will not survive this. The most obvious Republican with his head on a chopping block is Mitch McConnell. But it is far worse than that. Not only does this remove the only real plank in the Republican platform but it finally breaks the stranglehold on small business. The economy will be in much better shape by 2016 with unemployment much better than today. This does not bode well for Jeb Bush.

 

[Kestrel]

The employer mandate is in effect now. The penalties for not complying were delayed until next year.

ETA: GOP candidates will still be running against Obamacare in 2014 and 2016. If nothing else, it will be a talking point in the primaries. The party has invested too much in portraying Obamacare as a disaster to admit that it is working as designed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Are you joking?

The Tea Party has had an influence on the current Congressional Republican party. This is not a good influence.

You might dispute* whether the Tea Party are loons, but they are right wing.


*A lot have rather "eccentric" beliefs that tie in with their political outlook. And a lot are loons.

Obamacare was passed when the Democrats had a super-majority. The concessions made (such as eliminating the public option) were done to get all the Democrats on board.

 

[Unabogie]

More terrible news for conservatives. Even more people have gotten coverage than previously thought?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/rand-obamacare-study-employer-insurance

The ranks of the takers just keeps growing!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm a conservative.

I do not take this as terrible news - I want this to work out, giving affordable care to many who could not get it before while lowering rates for most others.

I suspect the really terrible news lies in the future, with rate hikes, insurance company bailouts, restrictions on where and from whom you can actually get health care, further reduced benefits under Medicare*, or some combination of all four.

Hope I'm wrong, and that none of those come to pass. I really do.


*In four months I'll be eligible for Medicare, so when I hear of funding cuts, it's starting to affect me personally.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm a conservative.

I do not take this as terrible news - I want this to work out, giving affordable care to many who could not get it before while lowering rates for most others.

I suspect the really terrible news lies in the future, with rate hikes, insurance company bailouts, restrictions on where and from whom you can actually get health care, further reduced benefits under Medicare*, or some combination of all four.

Hope I'm wrong, and that none of those come to pass. I really do.


*In four months I'll be eligible for Medicare, so when I hear of funding cuts, it's starting to affect me personally.

I believe you on this, trust me. The problem is that this is the conservative, market based plan. That's the reason why five years later, the GOP has yet to provide a coherent "replacement" for Obamacare. It's because every problem with the conservative plan requires a solution that's more liberal. There's no magic market fairy that will come along and incentivize doctors to take less money than they can get, or incentivize insurance companies to expand their networks. They need to make a profit, and their policies will gravitate to wherever there's extra money to be made.

You want more doctors in network? Lose a little "freedom" and require all hospitals to accept all plans (including Medicare and Medicaid) as a condition of their licenses.

You want lower deductibles? Outlaw deductibles and bake the price into the premiums.

You want lower premiums? Cut out insurance companies who are legally taking 20% as profit off the top.

You want lower hospital costs? Mandate price controls.

In fact, the more problems you discover, the more that the single payer solution, which other countries use, will let us pay half as much and get the same quality of care.

The ACA was the compromise that incorporated all of the conservative ideas into the patchwork you see now.

As a conservative, I suggest you contact your conservative representatives and tell them that you support single payer, and that Medicare should be available to all Americans.

 

[Ziggurat]

You want lower premiums? Cut out insurance companies who are legally taking 20% as profit off the top.

This "statistic" is wrong. Not a little bit wrong, but wildly wrong. So wrong, and so obviously wrong, that I'm left wondering not where this lie came from, but how you ever believed it.

 

[plague311]

This "statistic" is wrong. Not a little bit wrong, but wildly wrong. So wrong, and so obviously wrong, that I'm left wondering not where this lie came from, but how you ever believed it.

So...do you have any reading material that might prove as much?