Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[Virus]

Whatever. I just called you on your bad habit of regurgitating Fox News bs. You don't like it, I get that. Remember when you falsely claimed that the ClimateGate code was "error prone"? And I challenged you to back that up? I asked you for a specific line number and what the bug was? Where had you heard that and why did you parrot that like it was a fact you knew? Didn't you think to yourself that you were offering nothing but repeated talking points?

Face it. You spew dogma that you hear elsewhere and rarely bother to check if it's true or not.

This is why I have you on ignore.

You could have just said you don't know how many enrolls into the system are actually going to be the people who pay for it.

 

[rcfieldz]

When do they start the giveaway incentives?

 

[Unabogie]

When do they start the giveaway incentives?

They already have. They're giving away free "not dying". It's a hit with the moochers.

 

[bynmdsue]

Obama Roi has descended from the mountaintop to dispense more goodies to you, his loyal peasantry! The Benevolent One has postponed the enrollment period next year for one more month, moving it from before the election until after the election! Huzzah! For reasons that can't possibly be nakedly political, no, not at all. It's just Obamacare is so goddamn awesome, you need to wait a wee bit longer. He's building buzz, as it were.

 

[plague311]

Obama Roi has descended from the mountaintop to dispense more goodies to you, his loyal peasantry! The Benevolent One has postponed the enrollment period next year for one more month, moving it from before the election until after the election! Huzzah! For reasons that can't possibly be nakedly political, no, not at all. It's just Obamacare is so goddamn awesome, you need to wait a wee bit longer. He's building buzz, as it were.

 

[eeyore1954]

I'm having trouble understanding your point.

Do you mean Medicaid?

I meant medicaid and my point was there have been very few paying customers out of a pretty large pool of people who will be fined if they do not sign up.

 

[eeyore1954]

They already have. They're giving away free "not dying". It's a hit with the moochers.

Considering it is such a good incentive there have not been many takers yet.

 

[Unabogie]

I meant medicaid and my point was there have been very few paying customers out of a pretty large pool of people who will be fined if they do not sign up.

But if you look at the history in MA, only 123 people signed up in the first month.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/...out-is-messy-you-should-have-seen-romneycare/

But now, fully 98% of people in the state are covered. Why would a national plan break this precedent and why would we expect different numbers?

The fact that nearly 9,000 people signed up in KY, which is a huge increase from the month before, means that people are signing up. And since the deadline to sign up is still months away, it's normal for people to wait for things to shake out before deciding.

 

[eeyore1954]

But if you look at the history in MA, only 123 people signed up in the first month.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/...out-is-messy-you-should-have-seen-romneycare/

But now, fully 98% of people in the state are covered. Why would a national plan break this precedent and why would we expect different numbers?

The fact that nearly 9,000 people signed up in KY, which is a huge increase from the month before, means that people are signing up. And since the deadline to sign up is still months away, it's normal for people to wait for things to shake out before deciding.

If ACA stays in law (which I fully expect) eventually most people will sign up as the penalties increase. Some because they feel they need it but others because it is the law.
Massachusetts has a low uninsured rate but I think they were half the national average before RomneyCare.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If ACA stays in law (which I fully expect) eventually most people will sign up as the penalties increase. Some because they feel they need it but others because it is the law.
Massachusetts has a low uninsured rate but I think they were half the national average before RomneyCare.

Individuals purchasing individual coverage in Massachusetts is about the same as the current national average. If ObamaCare works like RomneyCare, then we shouldn't expect to see any significant increases in the individual market.

 

[bynmdsue]

The mighty hand of Obama Roi cannot be stayed! Now the enrollment period for this year ends not on the 15th of December but on the 23rd! An Obamamas miracle! Or acknowledgment that ****** website won't be working when they said it would. Again.

But good news from Kalifornia, 80,000 people have registered! Yay! And since Covered California has rejected Obama Roi's magnanimous indulgence of allowing insurers to ignore the law 1.1 million people will lose their coverage on January first. That's the thing in gambling, sometimes you're up and sometimes you're 1,020,000 in the hole.

 

[Unabogie]

If ACA stays in law (which I fully expect) eventually most people will sign up as the penalties increase. Some because they feel they need it but others because it is the law.
Massachusetts has a low uninsured rate but I think they were half the national average before RomneyCare.

Individuals purchasing individual coverage in Massachusetts is about the same as the current national average. If ObamaCare works like RomneyCare, then we shouldn't expect to see any significant increases in the individual market.

Then why is Newtons Bit buying his new insurance? He's already told us that he's young and healthy and doesn't need a doctor. So he's a perfect test case for someone who would "save money" by just eating the fine.

Strangely, he's apparently opting for coverage.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

All I know is based on estimates using my income and all... I apparently get a smashingly cheap deal for a silver plan... "cheap" as in 88% of my coverage would be subsidized. I'd have to verify by actually signing up when the site's no longer comatose, but I find it interesting to get an idea of literally how heavy the subsidies might be.

The million dollar question if that pans out I suppose is... am I supposed to be happy? I'm young... but I know damn well taking an 88% subsidy means I'm not contributing to the money pot for this law... Is this what people refer to when it's generosity with other people's money?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I'm young... but I know damn well taking an 88% subsidy means I'm not contributing to the money pot for this law... Is this what people refer to when it's generosity with other people's money?

You are going to be contributing to the money pot. Just not as much as somebody with a higher income would be. Society as a whole will be contributing the rest on your behalf (in the form of subsidies). But this isn't a matter of being generous with other people's money.

Society benefits from making sure that you have health insurance. It is unfortunate that for so long people in the US have been ignoring the demonstrable fact that having a substantial portion of the population with no health insurance costs the nation a lot of money. We can pay in the form of higher medical costs due to people using the ER as their only point of care, and not seeking medical treatment until their condition becomes critical because of the cost, and loss of general productivity and costs associated with bankruptcy and people being disabled due to health problems that could have been treated effectively if the victim had been able to afford treatment. Or we can pay by subsidizing health care for those who cannot afford it. Even if we put aside any questions of morality, ethics, or whether healthcare is a "right", simply from a purely financial point of view, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that the latter is much more fiscally efficient than the former. It's one of the reasons (though not the only one) that the US has, by far, the highest healthcare costs of any 1st world country.

 

[plague311]

You are going to be contributing to the money pot. Just not as much as somebody with a higher income would be. Society as a whole will be contributing the rest on your behalf (in the form of subsidies). But this isn't a matter of being generous with other people's money.

Society benefits from making sure that you have health insurance. It is unfortunate that for so long people in the US have been ignoring the demonstrable fact that having a substantial portion of the population with no health insurance costs the nation a lot of money. We can pay in the form of higher medical costs due to people using the ER as their only point of care, and not seeking medical treatment until their condition becomes critical because of the cost, and loss of general productivity and costs associated with bankruptcy and people being disabled due to health problems that could have been treated effectively if the victim had been able to afford treatment. Or we can pay by subsidizing health care for those who cannot afford it. Even if we put aside any questions of morality, ethics, or whether healthcare is a "right", simply from a purely financial point of view, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that the latter is much more fiscally efficient than the former. It's one of the reasons (though not the only one) that the US has, by far, the highest healthcare costs of any 1st world country.

That was very educational, and really answered one of my nagging questions about this whole thing. I've always fully supported Obamacare, despite wanting (as everyone does) a single payer UHC. Seeing someone explained the "method behind the madness" persay, is helpful. Thank you.

 

[Fudbucker]

You are going to be contributing to the money pot. Just not as much as somebody with a higher income would be. Society as a whole will be contributing the rest on your behalf (in the form of subsidies). But this isn't a matter of being generous with other people's money.

Society benefits from making sure that you have health insurance. It is unfortunate that for so long people in the US have been ignoring the demonstrable fact that having a substantial portion of the population with no health insurance costs the nation a lot of money. We can pay in the form of higher medical costs due to people using the ER as their only point of care, and not seeking medical treatment until their condition becomes critical because of the cost, and loss of general productivity and costs associated with bankruptcy and people being disabled due to health problems that could have been treated effectively if the victim had been able to afford treatment. Or we can pay by subsidizing health care for those who cannot afford it. Even if we put aside any questions of morality, ethics, or whether healthcare is a "right", simply from a purely financial point of view, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that the latter is much more fiscally efficient than the former. It's one of the reasons (though not the only one) that the US has, by far, the highest healthcare costs of any 1st world country.

Very well put, and I agree with everything. Let me play devil's advocate:

I can't. I can't think of any arguments for going back to the way things were. They all fall apart, even under cursory examination.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

If you think it is bad now, it is going to get a lot worse. I am not a member of either party, despise both of them, and am sick of this false dichotomy framing of every god damned issue with Republican spin vs. Democratic spin.

Congress no longer reads the Acts they vote on that are written by lobbyists, let alone the voters, and the debates are usually misguided theoretical scuffles having little to do with what is actually in the law nobody is reading.

In this case the insurance company lobbyists wrote up what they thought would be a money printing machine for themselves. But they took a bad gamble here and it is going to be a train wreck of historical dimensions. What they banked on was government coercion of the young and healthy being successful. But both Obama and the democrats who pushed this bill through are already backing out of the very things the insurance companies needed for this to be successful.

I took most of my statistics courses during my PhD studies in an actuarial science department at the University of Iowa. What is going to happen is young people will correctly choose not to pay for insurance that makes no economic sense for them, and the profile of enrollees is going to be skewed to clients representing large payouts. That no-brainer has already proved out.

Since the insurance companies will not have the young healthy pool paying money into the system to cover the older, sicker people then the insurance companies will have to raise rates to reflect the actual costs of care plus the administrative costs and profit margin. It has been called the death spiral for that reason. The higher the rates go, the more people that drop out on the young end of the scale, making rates go even higher for those who stay in.

In the early years the insurance companies got three provisions into the law that guaranteed their losses, if any, would be subsidized by taxpayers. But the taxes required to fund that given the certainty of the death spiral are staggering and something that will require taxing everyone heavily or vastly more unsustainable borrowing by the government. They are supposed to be phased out so rates will have to be much higher when the taxpayers are not bailing them out.

The high rates millions of people are already facing are going to look like peanuts compared to the rates in the out-years, and that is why it was so important to delay 2014 enrollment until after the next election. Insurance companies will be re-setting their rates then based upon what is guaranteed to be a high risk pool of insured rather than what they thought congress and the president were going to secure for them by coercion.

Obama has already proven that he will do what is politically expedient at the moment like extending deadlines for the employer and now individual mandate. He thinks he can somehow bypass all the state insurance commissions and simply by fiat tell insurance companies to go along with whatever today's new political decision is. But setting insurance rates requires a stable law upon which actuarial rates can be determined and approval by the state commissions. It took months and months to both estimate rates based upon what they thought congress was delivering to them by coercion, design all of their computer and administrative systems to accommodate, and go through insurance commissions for approval. Obama has already proven either incredibly ignorant of how the insurance industry works or a liar.

Now it is utter chaos and the only thing that is for sure is the death spiral and cancellation of millions of policies that do not comply with Obamacare mandates. The individual market is nothing compared to what is going to happen when all of the employer based insurance policies are cancelled.

The back end of the Obamacare computer nightmare has not even STARTED. This is the part of the system that actually administers the system and gets money paid out to the insurance companies. In some respects this is more complicated than the front end of the system that they have screwed up so badly. The fact they have not even started yet on a system that is supposed to be in full operation shortly is just incredible.

With the front end not even working properly yet, the law in a state of constant flux, the back end not even started yet, millions of policies being cancelled, this is going to be an epic crisis. Partisan politics has to be set aside now because this nation is in serious trouble with something vitally important to everyone.

Whether Obama lied or is an ignorant fool about his own signature law is irrelevant. His promises of keeping your insurance when the whole point of the law was to replace everyone's insurance with much greater coverage than they wanted and the promise about keeping your doctor - those were false and his recent so-called administrative fixes guarantee the death spiral and yet more panic responses by Obama.

His claim that he was not "directly informed" of the nonfunctional website - same thing there. It is either a lie or monumental incompetence to not be actively managing the thing alleged to be your singular accomplishment. How does this bode for the future? The defenses offered insofar as this being a hugely complicated venture are also telling for how incapable the peddlers of this excuse are in seeing what it means for the future: Obama and the Democrats were delusional about how easy this was going to be but then turn that around on everyone else! As if the critics were the ones who were saying this was going to be easy! Well just look how the next promise about the website being ready at the end of this month so easily tripped off his lips. I guess in December he will be telling us that we again are the ones guilty of underestimating how enormous this problem was.

People who poo-poo it as "just a website" problem are delusional. This website is the means of running the god damned program. It's like pretending the wiring of the space shuttle is just decoration. As if it will fly just fine even with the wiring non-functional. Hoping that paper applications will save the day is delusional not just because it ultimately requires a functional computer system anyway, but because of the ignorance in how this stretches the period of time required to accomplish anything while simultaneously chirping about how it will all be better in a month. It is surreal.

When millions of individuals and employers face the sticker shock that is absolutely guaranteed to come there will be more political panic and more ill-conceived "fixes".

By looking at other industries we can predict some other kinds of things that will happen like medical clubs springing up to evade the system entirely or whatever. There will be early retirements by doctors who aren't going to want participating just like they have been dropping out of medicare. The insurance companies will not only be raising rates, but cutting payments to doctors, eliminating specialists or hospitals specializing in advanced treatments.

All of this is a consequence of a bad law, not a bad website. The problems in the website are absolutely a function of that bad law. Many at this forum eagerly support a national single-payer system and are misguided in applying that support to a law that isn't even remotely such a system.

 

[Blue Mountain]

AlaskaBushPilot, both Germany and Switzerland have a very similar model to that being rolled out in ObamaCare. Both countries require their citizens to purchase insurance from private providers and set minimum standards for the policies. (Unfortunately, the relevant Wikipedia articles on healthcare in Germany^WP and healthcare in Switzerland^WP do not address how the government enforces the requirement to purchase insurance.)

And yet neither system is a train wreck.Why do you think the experience in the United States will be so much worse?

 

[Ziggurat]

And yet neither system is a train wreck.Why do you think the experience in the United States will be so much worse?

Because of how the law was crafted, how it was passed, and how it's being implemented. Those conditions do not match your example. The website disaster is not an anomaly, it's what we should expect.

The fact that something can be done doesn't mean that anyone who tries it will succeed.

 

[Fudbucker]

Because of how the law was crafted, how it was passed, and how it's being implemented. Those conditions do not match your example. The website disaster is not an anomaly, it's what we should expect.

The fact that something can be done doesn't mean that anyone who tries it will succeed.

But, American Exceptionalism!

Seriously, though, problems that pop up will be fixed. It's not like the ACA has never been implemented before...
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/commissions-and-initiatives/healthcare-reform/