Yep. Do you think it is a coincidence? When did the "out of pocket" triple last time?
Good for you. Too bad that this is not the case for : Hawaii (tripled costs) and California, NH, Massachusetts and Maine (doubled).
New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Yep. Do you think it is a coincidence? When did the "out of pocket" triple last time?
Good for you. Too bad that this is not the case for : Hawaii (tripled costs) and California, NH, Massachusetts and Maine (doubled).
16 Words
Was he telling the truth? Far from it.
Millions of Americans are losing their health insurance as a result of Obamacare. Many of them are finding that the new policies that comply with the President's new law are much more expensive, have higher deductibles, and do not allow them to continue to see their doctors.
For some people, this could be a matter of life and death.
Worse yet, the Obama administration knew the president was not being truthful when he uttered those 16 words and he was advised by his fact checkers to modify his statement in such a way that it would be consistent with the truth:
The Washington Post has given the president four pinochios (it's worst rating)
Misleading? Interesting. Let's talk about misleading the public:
That's a pretty strong statement. You'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what. And this wasn't some off the cuff statement. This was repeated by the president over and over.
[video=youtube;JCUpJDzyRnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUpJDzyRnY[/video]
Was he telling the truth? Far from it.
Millions of Americans are losing their health insurance as a result of Obamacare. Many of them are finding that the new policies that comply with the President's new law are much more expensive, have higher deductibles, and do not allow them to continue to see their doctors.
For some people, this could be a matter of life and death.
Worse yet, the Obama administration knew the president was not being truthful when he uttered those 16 words and he was advised by his fact checkers to modify his statement in such a way that it would be consistent with the truth:
The Washington Post has given the president four pinochios (it's worst rating)
Please don't pretend that you have the well-being of the insured at heart. That gets 4 crocodile tears. The ACA is a band-aid on a crappy system. Republicans don't even want that, they liked it when insurance companies could cancel you for having a pre-existing condition like cancer. And they withheld experimental cancer medicine trials by shutting down the government.
According to you they did. But from what I can see they didn't. All you are doing is mindlessly repeating right wing nonsense which is rooted in a number of logical fallacies. You have not been able to make a causal link between your claims and Obamacare. You have not been able to even make a rational argument.
Obamacare is not a band aid, it's meant to destabilize our current system in the hopes of creating a public demand for action that might result in a single payer system.
Are you joking? You don't find it in anyway inappropriate for the President to provide a 2-5 year all expense TAX PAYER FUNEDED vacation "Ambassadorship" to a wealthy political donor? You don't find that immoral in the least? You don't think Ambassadorships should be awarded on MERIT and not on political connection and donation?
WTF?
What's wrong with you? People work their entire lives with the intention (misguided as it is) of doing public service for the good of the nation. They study 12 hours a day for 12 + 8 years and when the time comes and they apply for the job, people like your hero Oblahma passes them by and instead gives the job (that they rightfully worked) to one of his well-connected political donors?
You don't find Cronyism a problem?
Really?
Joe, you're a wonderful example of why States: democracies, republics, empires, kingdoms, what have you - fail. The moral fiber of the nation is so low that when you're not looking to flip houses back to the poor in Detroit you're cheering on cronism over that of meritocracy. When society turns in on itself, people like you stand there staring dumbstruck out their palace window wondering just what the f*ck is happening. I mean Geez, we gave the ObamaCare, what more do those people want from us?
Misleading? Interesting. Let's talk about misleading the public:
That's a pretty strong statement. You'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what. And this wasn't some off the cuff statement. This was repeated by the president over and over.
Was he telling the truth? Far from it.
Millions of Americans are losing their health insurance as a result of Obamacare. Many of them are finding that the new policies that comply with the President's new law are much more expensive, have higher deductibles, and do not allow them to continue to see their doctors.
For some people, this could be a matter of life and death.
Worse yet, the Obama administration knew the president was not being truthful when he uttered those 16 words and he was advised by his fact checkers to modify his statement in such a way that it would be consistent with the truth:
The Washington Post has given the president four pinochios (it's worst rating)
Unfortunately Republicans and their dittohead squads have been spreading a lot of misinformation about Obamacare….up to and including death panels.
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17, 2013, 5:09 pm Comment
Obamacare Is the Right’s Worst Nightmare
News from New York: it looks as if insurance premiums on the individual market are going to plunge thanks to Obamacare. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; in fact, the New York experience perfectly illustrates why Obamacare had to look the way it does. And it also illustrates why conservatives should be terrified about this legislation, as it takes effect. Americans may have had a lot of misgivings in advance, thanks to vast, deliberately spread misinformation. But I agree with Matt Yglesias — unless the GOP finds even more ways to sabotage the plan, this thing is going to work, it’s going to be extremely popular, and it’s going to wreak havoc with conservative ideology.
To understand what’s happening in New York, you have to start with what almost everyone at least pretends to believe: Americans shouldn’t find it impossible to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions that aren’t their fault. Two decades ago, New York tried to deal with this by imposing community rating: insurance is available to everyone, and the price doesn’t depend on your medical history.
The problem was that this created a death spiral: young, healthy people didn’t buy insurance, worsening the risk pool, driving up premiums, driving out more relatively healthy people, etc., until you were left with a rump of very ill people paying very high rates.
How do you deal with this? Well, ideally, Medicare for all. But since that wasn’t going to happen, you improve the risk pool by requiring everyone to buy insurance — the individual mandate. And since some people won’t be able to afford that, you also offer subsidies. Voila! ObamaRomneycare!
Where does the money for the subsidies come from? Partly by reducing corporate welfare: reducing overpayments for Medicare Advantage, reducing tax breaks for very generous insurance plans; partly with new taxes on the wealthy.
And while a few people will be hurt — young, healthy individuals too affluent to qualify for subsidies, wealthy taxpayers, etc. — a much larger number of people will be helped, some of them enormously.
Does this amount to “redistribution”? Well, yes — not as an end in itself, but yes, a lot of people will be made better off at the expense of an affluent few.
And Yglesias is right: there will be bobbles along the way, but this is going to become an immensely popular program. By the time Liz Cheney challenges Hillary Clinton’s reelection campaign, there will be signs at the rallies declaring “Don’t let the government get its hands on Obamacare!”
Conservatives are right to be hysterical about this: it’s an attack on everything they believe — and it’s going to make Americans’ lives better. What could be worse?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/obamacare-is-the-rights-worst-nightmare/?_r=0
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/
And then we have issues with the lazy yellow journalists.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/29/ra...rting-is-freaking-people-out-about-obamacare/
Rash of Lazy, Sensational Reporting is Freaking People Out About Obamacare
October 29, 2013
by Joshua Holland
A rash of sensational, context-free reporting is needlessly alarming the public about what’s happening in America’s health insurance markets as a result of Obamacare. Making matters worse, it’s set against a backdrop of relentless, intentional misinformation from the law’s opponents. It should come as no surprise that many Americans are anxious about a law most know little about other than what they catch on short TV news segments.
Erik Wemple, media critic for the Washington Post, noted that a Florida woman named Wanda Barrette, who claimed that her insurance premiums were increasing ten-fold – from $54 per month to $591 — was interviewed by CBS and three different Fox TV shows (many conservative outlets like The Weekly Standard also picked up the CBS report). Wemple interviewed the woman himself and found that the story didn’t convey that she was losing “a pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick ‘plan.’”
Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover “extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,” says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? “Outpatient only,” responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care. On the other hand, says Barrette, it does cover “most of my generic drugs that I need” and there’s a $50 co-pay for doctors’ appointments. “It’s all I could afford right now,” says Barrette.
When asked if she ever required hospitalization, Barrette says she did. It happened when she was employed by Raytheon, which provided “excellent benefits.” Ever since she left the company and started working as an independent contractor, “I haven’t been hospitalized since then, thank God.”
It was good reporting. But even Wemple only mentioned in passing that the woman “may be eligible for subsidies.” In doing so, he buried the lede — according to Kaiser’s subsidy calculator, and presuming Barrette doesn’t smoke, she would be eligible for a bronze plan, which guarantees free preventive care and coverage for hospitalizations, for only $97 per month — one-sixth of that headline number that’s making the rounds (a silver plan, with more extensive coverage, would cost her $209 after subsidies).
That story was far from alone in hyping a “trainwreck” narrative without giving equal time to the law’s benefits. Front-and-center today is an NBC “investigation” that’s been getting an enormous amount of attention, especially in conservative circles. It supposedly reveals that the Obama administration knew in advance that millions of insurance plans would be cancelled even as the president repeatedly promised Americans, “if you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan.”
But this purported ‘smoking gun’ only tells us the obvious: that the administration, like every health care expert in the world, knew that within the individual market there were insurance plans that don’t meet minimal standards of coverage – plans that would likely leave their purchasers bankrupt should an accident or serious illness befall them. (Perhaps Obama should have said, “if you have a plan that isn’t a ripoff and doesn’t leave you entirely exposed to risk, you can keep it.”)
And it should come as no surprise that some people will have to pay more for better coverage, but that, too, is a story that requires considerable context that’s been lacking in a lot of recent reporting.
Here’s an excerpt from NBC’s report:
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
And here’s some of what’s missing from this report and many others like it…
Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic points out that there will, indeed, be some people who lose coverage, and some will have to pay higher rates, but many others are going to experience “rate joy” – a story that’s been getting far less attention…
Obamacare is transforming one part of the existing health insurance market, in ways that will force some people to pay more than they do now. But that’s only part of the story. Many other people, quite possibly the majority of people in that market, will pay less than they do now. And even those paying more will be getting more comprehensive, more secure insurance.
Read the whole piece – it’s a good primer on everything that’s happening to our insurance markets as a result of Obamacare.
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones argues that the universe of people who will be adversely affected by cancellations is probably pretty small…
[These stories don't] describe a huge demographic—people who are just barely above the subsidy threshold and currently have individual coverage and are young enough to see premium increases—but there’s no question they exist…
It’s not clear how many people are genuinely going to get hit by sticker shock. In most of the stories I’ve read… people are simply taking the word of their insurance company about how much a new policy will cost. They may find out that things are better once they actually shop around and check out the subsidies they qualify for. Others may find that the higher premiums pay for themselves in lower out-of-pocket expenses throughout the year…
Right now, even in places like California that have working exchange sites, a lot of people are still guessing about how Obamacare will actually affect them…. Better benefits and federal subsidies are going to have a big impact, and that impact probably won’t be clear until Obamacare has actually been up and running for a while.
As for the “rate shock” some will experience, Josh Barro offered some much-needed perspective at Business Insider…
Once Obamacare is implemented, America’s health insurance system will be a thicket of subsidies and transfers that benefit some people and harm others….
But here’s the thing: Before Obamacare, our health insurance system was already a thicket of subsidies and transfers. The law doesn’t simplify the system, but it does make the thicket of subsidies and transfers more sensible: directed more at people who have low incomes or high health needs, and greatly shrinking the share of the population that doesn’t have health coverage at all. Making the thicket more sensible will mean that some people’s costs go up, producing “rate shock”…
The Los Angeles Times looked at how many Californians who currently get health insurance through the individual market are facing higher premiums. But here’s the most important part of the article:
A number of factors are driving up rates. In a report this year, consultants hired by the state said the influx of sicker patients as a result of guaranteed coverage was the biggest single reason for higher premiums. Bob Cosway, a principal and consulting actuary at Milliman Inc. in San Diego, estimated that the average individual premium in 2014 will rise 27% because of that difference alone.
It’s a lot cheaper to provide health insurance coverage if you exclude a lot of the people who need it most. Making insurance available to people with pre-existing health conditions costs money. Obamacare funds this transfer to the chronically ill in part by raising premiums on healthy people.
And Igor Volsky, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, notes that people in the individual insurance market were seeing their plans changed frequently prior to the existence of Obamacare…
The cancellations are a result of so-called grandfather rules promulgated by President Obama’s Health and Human Services. The rule exempts health insurance plans in existence before March 23, 2010 — the day the Affordable Care Act became law — from many of the new regulations, benefits standards and consumer protections that new plans now have to abide by, but says that policies could lose their designation if they make major changes…
The naturally high turnover rate associated with the individual market means that it’s highly unlikely that individuals would still be enrolled in plans from 2010 in 2014. In fact, the Obama administration publicly admitted this when it issued the regulations in 2010, leading Republicans like Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) to seize on the story in order to push for repeal of the grandfather regulations.
In the end, lazy stories of “sticker shock” and cancellations by reporters uninterested in the details of public policy only offer the sensational half of a complicated story, and that’s providing a big assist to opponents of the law. As Greg Sargent noted in The Washington Post after the government shutdown proved disastrous for their cause, Republicans “are now hoping to put that behind them by launching a series of coordinated, seemingly serious House investigations into what has gone wrong with Obamacare.” In the House, they’re introducing the ‘Keep Your Health Plan Act,’ which would guarantee that insurers could continue to rip off consumers.
And CBS, after breathlessly offering the meaningless factoid that three times as many people are receiving cancellation notices than have signed up for Obamacare so far (never mind that a grand total of 123 people signed up for “Romneycare” during its first month in Massachusetts), tells us that “the White House is on the defensive trying to explain it.” They could use a little help from a responsible Fourth Estate.”
I don't believe that, but it does sound good. I hope it works.
(and it's not like we had a system which could be described as anything other than a massive racket)
Let's see, we could (A) restrict free-speech or (B) limit government.
Sorry Joe, I'm going to have to go with (B). Limit government such that it mainly serves ONLY to ensure a proper judicial system functions and that the defense of the nation is attended to (I don't know about you but I'm not worried about Canada or Mexico invading any time too soon) and then guess what Joe? No one's going to pay millions over to these political sociopaths that make up Government - because there'd be no point in doing so - because they'd get nothing in return.
Limiting free-speech isn't going to stop one group of sociopaths from buying off the other. Which is why sociopaths like Hitlery just cashed in $400,000 this week giving a couple speeches to GoldmanSux. You know, because GoldmanSux needs Hitlery's advice on how to run their criminal banking syndicate.
Give me a F*cking break Joe.
You can't HAVE Government Cronyism without a Government that has the power to legally take from one group and give to another. The two go together like hand into glove. SO, no, I don't want to limit the first amendment - I want to limit the Government's influence. You're NEVER going to stop scum like Hitlery from floating over to a toilet like GoldmanSux and swimming along with all the other turds. You'll never stop ass-faces like Tony Blair from working for Banksters like JP Morgan.
As they say: Turds of a smeller, float together.
Um, not Michael doesn't not think the plutocrats should determine if you have healthcare, but does think the free-market should. Think of it like this. Suppose you wanted a job. You invested in yourself, you look for a job. It's not 'plutocrats' who determine if you're going to find a job and at what price - it's the free-market. That you may not get a job doing what you want to do, isn't due to the 'plutocrats', it's due to the fact people do not want your service at the price you're willing to sell it at. If you really really really want to be a Pop Star, but your butt-ugly and can't sing, there's really not much money for you in the Pop Star industry. That's not the fault of anyone. No one is directly attacking you. Free people freely decided that they don't want what you're selling. That's the free-market, not a plutocrat. Do we have a problem with oligarchs in the USA? Yes we do - thanks to the Government they bought and directed against us. The fact is, a whole hell of a lot of oligarchs were about to go bust in 2008, and they used the Government to bail themselves out - at you and your children and your grandchildren and their children's expense. The same Government you want to help the poor, who made a big show of the "Shut Down" - just cut welfare last week. The same Government you want to bring peace to the world, invaded Iraq over a lie (yes, even including Hitlery). The same Government you want to help you, bailed out the top 1% who've been racking it in ever since. They can't help it, they're sociopaths. What's your excuse? Sociopaths are like the proverbial scorpion that'll sting you half way across the river - it's their nature. I don't blame sociopaths for being who they are. I want to structure society in a way that limits the damage they can cause.
But, I would like to know how you define 'Conservative'.
Michael is
- atheist
- supports female choice
- supports ending the wars
- supports freedom to use drugs
- supports the freedom of gays to marry (the State should have no influence at all on marriage)
- has a multiracial family
- supports fiscal responsibility
- would like to see Bush and Cheney sued for war crimes
- attended and partook in a traditional ceremony to mountain god recently (I may not believe in them, I still like the ceremonies)
- supports ending the Federal Reserve
- supports the 4th amendment and ending the NSA.
- supports ending the IRS
- doesn't own a gun
So, exactly how is Michael a "Conservative"?
LOL, no Michael that is a false choice, you rail about government corruption but then you are steadfastly opposed to doing anything about it. Reducing the size of government doesn’t eliminate corruption. Point in fact it makes it worse. Eliminating government doesn’t eliminate political power. It just masks it and makes it more difficult to control.
And you don’t need to impede free speech in order to eliminate corruption. What is needed is more free speech. ..give voice to the many and not just the few.
Semantics. Come Jan 1, they DO. ALL of them.
No your claims just do not make sense for all of the aforementioned reasons. Obamacare does not take over health insurers. It doesn't create their insurance policies. It does create minimum standards for those policies. Insurance companies can offer minimum insurance or maximum insurance or anything in between. If we are to believe you, all the insurers in your area have opted for Bronze level plans only. I find that hard to believe. I live in a red state that has refused Medicare expansion and even I have a choice of Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze healthcare plans. And as I have pointed out, my insurance next year has a $250 deductible and a $1,000 annual out of pocket cap which is clearly a much better deal than what you claim your insurers are offering. So clearly my insurer has chosen to offer me more than your health insurer has decided to offer you. That has nothing to do with Obamacare as you had claimed. It has everything to do with insurers.
It isn't semantics. It's facts and reason. It's not about using illogical arguments in order to justify partisan falsehoods.
False, I claimed no such thing.
The Undiscovered Excrement
Nomination: Excrement of the Year
That, sir, is an achievement in the fertilizer spinning industry.
The concession to the alternative to single-payer is now an attempt to sabotage the nation in order to create demand for single-payer, which is why the original supporters of the individual mandate idea have now turned on it and are doing everything in their power to make certain the new system fails.
Which, of course, will lead to demand for single-payer.
Sorry, dude. This one's all on the hardliners. Republicans could have been helpful. They could have acknowledged the president's massive concession in taking single-payer off the table in favor of the Republican plan. They could have actually been honest, unlike Sen. Enzi, who bragged of his bad faith.
When it became apparent there were some problems with various formulations, and some drafting errors in the final bill, Republicans could have been helpful in trying to fix the issues, but they preferred to stall in hopes that people would be hurt.
That's right. They're hoping people get hurt.
That's how sleazy American conservatives have gotten. I mean, we've always suspected a certain malice in their hearts, but now that they're pinning it to their sleeves, there just isn't much doubt.
Republicans need people to get hurt in order to advance their policy agenda. They are actively sabotaging efforts to not hurt people.
And yet you have managed to craft a sentence that erases all of that.
I can at least give credit where it is due.
Your argument is excrement of possibly undiscovered high grade.
Well done. (No, really, sincerely. I might find your representation of history and methods of argument indecent, but that was finely executed.)
Nomination: Excrement of the Year
Madanthonyayne said:
That, sir, is an achievement in the fertilizer spinning industry.
The concession to the alternative to single-payer is now an attempt to sabotage the nation in order to create demand for single-payer, which is why the original supporters of the individual mandate idea have now turned on it and are doing everything in their power to make certain the new system fails.
Which, of course, will lead to demand for single-payer.
Sorry, dude. This one's all on the hardliners. Republicans could have been helpful. They could have acknowledged the president's massive concession in taking single-payer off the table in favor of the Republican plan. They could have actually been honest, unlike Sen. Enzi, who bragged of his bad faith.
When it became apparent there were some problems with various formulations, and some drafting errors in the final bill, Republicans could have been helpful in trying to fix the issues, but they preferred to stall in hopes that people would be hurt.
That's right. They're hoping people get hurt.
That's how sleazy American conservatives have gotten. I mean, we've always suspected a certain malice in their hearts, but now that they're pinning it to their sleeves, there just isn't much doubt.
Republicans need people to get hurt in order to advance their policy agenda. They are actively sabotaging efforts to not hurt people.
And yet you have managed to craft a sentence that erases all of that.
I can at least give credit where it is due.
Your argument is excrement of possibly undiscovered high grade.
Well done. (No, really, sincerely. I might find your representation of history and methods of argument indecent, but that was finely executed.)
This is the problem, the people that make up Government are Authoritarian by nature. They see everything through this lens. Which means, when presented with an option of using free-market voluntarism or using the State to 'fix' a problem (one that their predecessors in office caused - on purpose) they will always side with the State. They simply can't imagine a world where THEY are the problem. Of course they want to go to a single payer system to fix the broken healthcare system. Imagine the power over Life and Death. Of course they want that power. What else would they want?
Just imagine those Chicago Public Housing Slums back when they had a fresh coat of paint on them. No one could have imagined the crime-riddled housing hellholes they'd evolve into. The ObamaCare website - that's with the fresh coat of paint. I shudder to imagine what this thing is going to look like in 2040, if it manages to last that long.
This is all gibberish. Limiting government alone isn't enough, we need sound money and private property rights. If we must live with one, then we need a government that upholds the law, not breaks it.
You seem to think we need the Government to solve all our problems. You're wrong. Dead Wrong. Just think of the TRILLIONS wasted on the War Machine from the Korean War until now. Imagine how different life would be if we had invented that money productively instead. Imagine all the dead children droned to death this last year. We do NOT need more Government. We CAN solve our problems ourselves - without resorting to force. I know this is a very very very hard concept for you to get your mind wrapped around, but I promise, much like calculus, it's a lot easier than it may seem. It's really simple. We can solve these problems ourselves. Sound money, private property, law and NAP. It's that simple.
But, don't worry, the first Law of the State, is the State always grows. So, you're going to get more intrusive government, not less - you needn't worry of that my friend, much much much much MOAR. AND regardless of what you think is going to happen, the rich ARE going to use the State against people like you and I. That's a simple fact. So, try not to taste too much ash while you wave your "I Love Hitlery 2016" Flag.
You don't have to be a government to be authoritarian.
The robber barons who hired Pinkerton agents to rough up and kill employees did a pretty good job of being authoritarian without government assistance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States
This doesn't even make any sense. All citizens are protected under the US Constitution and everyone enjoys (what's left) of the first amendment. This doesn't mean you're allowed to walk into Harvard (private property) and into a class room and start ranting about how much you love Obama and can't wait for Hilary to run in 2016. But, in you allowed to do so from your own private property. You can also do so in public forum, youtube, etc... no one is restricting your 'free speech'.
What is your opinion on Hitlery being bought off with a pretend speech to GoldmanSux to the tune of $400,000. DO you think that THIS should be illegal or legal?
No, those were not authoritarian (use of legal authority) they were criminal (against legal authority). Sorry Joe, dredging up boogeyman 'Robber Barron' from over a hundred years ago isn't helping your argument. The fact is ONLY the Government can legally rough up and kill people - and does on a daily bases through War on Terror and War on Drugs. The Government IS the Robber Barron Joe. It Robs from the Worker each and every day - through inflation, bond-sales and outright theft (IRS income tax). The so-called Robber Barron would blush at the Terrorism our Government gets away with.You don't have to be a government to be authoritarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States