New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[Captain Kremmen]

Yep that is why some of the news outlets use the truth-o-meter when covering candidates speeches out on the campaign trail.
Knowing this to be the case, I sincerely believe that what Obama set forth to do as far as Guantanamo, healthcare and immigration reform he actually believed he could do, but the hatred for this man because of his skin color has made these tasks almost impossible. Furthermore, I feel Obama has handled this racism with great dignity and it has not stopped him in trying to achieve the aforementioned goals.

On this side of the Atlantic, he has been almost universally admired and praised.
We are now disappointed and frustrated at his lack of progress.
But maybe, if what Tiassa says is true, we should never have expected anything from him.
All his fine words and great ideas about hope and change were just "campaign talk",
and in believing him we were unwittingly being racists.

 

[joepistole]

On this side of the Atlantic, he has been almost universally admired and praised.
We are now disappointed and frustrated at his lack of progress.
But maybe, if what Tiassa says is true, we should never have expected anything from him.
All his fine words and great ideas about hope and change were just "campaign talk",
and in believing him we were unwittingly being racists.

I think you are being overly cynical. Obama has certainly made mistakes, but who has not and who could do better? And that my friend is the crux of the problem. Our political system on this side of the Atlantic isn't working thanks to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, et al. and company.

 

[joepistole]

RomneyCare was the template of the slur and was coined by the democrats after the republican governor Mitt Romney who tried his own universal health care approach in the liberal state of Massachusetts. The Republicans copied the template, with ObamaCare not all that creative at that point.

As usual you have your facts screwed up. Romenycare was a term created by Democrats in response to the Republican Obamacare slur. It pointed out Romney’s hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the Republican Party on the issue of Obamacare. Thanks for yet again demonstrating how misinformed Republicans are.

RomneyCare worked and is still in effect since he struck a balance between the needs of business and needs of the poor, in a big government busy body state known as liberal Taxachusetts. ObamaCare has too high a percentage of big Government. It was doomed from the beginning since you need a higher percentage of competent people to get this done.

LOL…yeah and what percentage of “big government would that be? What is “big government” exactly and how much is too much and what specifically makes Obamacare too much and Romneycare just enough? You cannot answer those questions. Because basically you are just mindlessly repeating nonsense, it is what you do.

The bottom line is, elected officials are not always picked for their ability. They are picked for their yes man approach to their party since it takes a lot of money. They also are picked for their promises and their entertainment value. Picture a bunch of actors playing the roles of statesmen/women and needing them to get things done. Business men are not elected but gain by ability. Picture if we elected the new CEO of Google using a popularity contest. Google would be doomed since the actor may not be up for the task.

Are you really that ignorant? I guess you are. It’s obvious you know nothing of business. Politics is not limited to public officials. It happens in private industry as well.

The latest thing Obama is doing is allowing insurance companies to break the law to restore cancelled policies. Obama said he will look the other way and not enforce the law, since he does not wish to change the law. This is like saying rape will still be illegal, but I will tell the cops to look the other way and not enforce the law. This is Obama's real skill set; loopholes in Constitutional law. A president is supposed to uphold the law not tell people to ignore the law and he will pretend he did not see them. I would guess he will use tell the NSA and the IRS to pressure the insurance companies so they will break the law for him and he will look the other way so he does not see. Then he can claim he ddi not see this which technically is true. It is all about law loopholes.

You have been listening to too much right wing demagoguery from the right wing entertainment complex. You really need to start getting your information from credible sources…you know from people known to tell the truth rather than those who make a living telling lies.

The fact is Supreme Court rulings have given the POTUS and regulatory bodies great flexibility in implementing laws. Funny, I didn’t hear anyone from the right wing entertainment industry complain about the IRS interpreting the word “exclusively” as “mostly’ when it comes to funding right wing extremist PAC’s? So your very selective outrage is not very convincing to those with half a brain.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...atantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

The democrats had already used this look the other way procedure allowing banks to break the law to buy up failing banks a few years back. Now the government sees tax money and is deciding to retroactively punish them of listening to them. The insurance companies will learn from this and will say that they will obey the law because the liars will turn on them in the future. We live in a banana republic.

LOL….this is a great example of what listening to too much right wing entertainment will do to a mind.

 

[Tiassa]

Stop Digging

But maybe, if what Tiassa says is true, we should never have expected anything from him.
All his fine words and great ideas about hope and change were just "campaign talk",
and in believing him we were unwittingly being racists.

Nope, just ignorant.

Here's the interesting thing about your whining, though: You still haven't answered the question.

Ignorance is one thing, but your deliberate refusal to answer the question is what reinforces the suspicion that it's more than "mere" stupidity.

It's a very simple question: Why now?

Your lashing out in lieu of answering the question is very suggestive.

 

[quinnsong]

On this side of the Atlantic, he has been almost universally admired and praised.
We are now disappointed and frustrated at his lack of progress.
But maybe, if what Tiassa says is true, we should never have expected anything from him.
All his fine words and great ideas about hope and change were just "campaign talk",
and in believing him we were unwittingly being racists.

All that he had hoped and hopes to achieve were and are more than just "campaign talk", but as you know Cap'n even if he had a Congress willing to give even an inch mistakes will happen. I was more upset with Obama for not pushing for Universal healthcare opting for the ACA than I am about technical issues with the website and not foreseeing just how many insurance companies did not meet basic requirements for healthcare coverage.

Just because you, I or your countrymen are frustrated with a lack of progress does not a racist make, what it does mean though that we Americans have an obstructionist problem that must be addressed if we are to move forward on any issue.

 

[joepistole]

Folks like the Captain are overlooking Obama’s accomplishments. He didn’t accomplish all that he hoped, but he has saved the world from economic calamity the likes of which have not been seen in almost a century. He rescued an economy on the verge of collapse. He took an economy which was shrinking at almost 10% and more with each passing month to one that has been steadily growing for more than 4 years now. He has recovered all the jobs which were lost during the recession which began in 2007. He ended one war and will end another next year. He was able to get congress to pass universal healthcare…something no president has been able to do despite a century of trying. He nabbed Bin Laden in less than 2 years…something the Bush Junior administration was not able to do in 8 years. He reduced the deficit by half.

So just because Obama has stumbled, just because he hasn’t achieved all that he had hoped for, it doesn’t mean he was or is a total failure. In truth, Obama has achieved a number of major accomplishments even while hobbled by Republicans in congress who conspired on the eve of his first inauguration to make his presidency a failure at all costs.

Obama has suffered a political setback here. But he is still right on the issues. The number of people who are supposedly adversely affected by the cancellation of substandard policies is a nit. I suspect most of them are either ignorant or are Republican Party operatives. And Obama needs to make that clear. He needs to move the discussion to the vast majority of people who are being helped by Obamacare. And he needs to get the website fixed.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Nope, just ignorant.

Here's the interesting thing about your whining, though: You still haven't answered the question.

Ignorance is one thing, but your deliberate refusal to answer the question is what reinforces the suspicion that it's more than "mere" stupidity.

It's a very simple question: Why now?

Your lashing out in lieu of answering the question is very suggestive.

Why now?
What are you blithering on about?
I know you think you've thought of something brilliant, but it's a senseless question.
Let me explain Time to you.
Things have always got to happen now.
They can't happen in the future or the past.
It's to do with the laws of nature Tiassa.

 

[Randwolf]

Why now?
What are you blithering on about?

I think the answer Tiassa's looking for is...

Why now? Because it's convenient.

Twice as good, half as black. It's really quite simple Cap'n...

 

[Michael]

Excerpts from President Obama’s November 7 interview with Chuck Todd.

Speaking about why his campaign website worked so well compared to the ACA site, Obama said:
You know, one of the lessons - learned from this whole process on the website - is that probably the biggest gap between the private sector and the federal government is when it comes to I.T. … Well, the reason is is that when it comes to my campaign, I’m not constrained by a bunch of federal procurement rules, right?

Obama later added that:
When we buy I.T. services generally, it is so bureaucratic and so cumbersome that a whole bunch of it doesn’t work or it ends up being way over cost.


--
--
I'm pretty sure Obama understands that the SAME economic rules apply to healthcare as well.

 

[Tiassa]

Excellent Birds

Why now? Because it's convenient.

Twice as good, half as black. It's really quite simple Cap'n...

See, the thing is that at some point we need to account for the idea that the same behaviors are frequently described differently if the individual behaving is black or white. This might simply be a coincidence, but given the way of things in these United States, that would be the more extraordinary outcome.

For generations, we have lamented various lies, distortions, and sleights that fall within vague boundaries of acceptability, but we've never really done anything about it. Sometimes we tolerate these statements for partisan reasons, sometimes for "we know what you meant" reasons, and sometimes inexplicably. Still, though, if absolute truth and falsehood from the God's Eye view is the ultimate arbiter, then when the hell did we adopt that standard? And what the hell is going on in our political culture where one side has no obligation whatsoever to truth?

The question of whether racism has a role in this bizarre, sudden expectation that the rules should change coincidentally with Obama's election is a difficult one, to be certain. But I do know there is a reason when people flee the question as our neighbor does. The broader phenomenon will be whatever it is, but those who refuse to entertain the most likely possibility under lex parsimonae don't have much to stand on.

I'm actually quite curious about this issue. Sure, we've always grumbled about this aspect of our politics, but why are we suddenly pretending it's some new, absolute outrage against human decency that has never occurred before?

That it is coincident with a racist tantrum in certain regions of the right wing is hardly conclusive, but it is hard to fathom the honest examination of these issues that would, as our neighbor prefers, pretend such a consideration—so obvious in light of other coincident behavioral patterns in the political culture—is immaterial.

 

[Michael]

When did my thread become about race?


The problem with healthcare in the USA is it's regulated by the government. Imagine back in the day when the Kings/Lords decided who got to do what. This means you were given permission to BE a bread maker. You didn't get to just become one and see if you could take business away from other's - THAT was considered unfair. Well, the types of people who don't like to compete use regulation to prevent competition. It's really not that difficult. Without competition quality is low and prices are high. Which is exactly what we have in the USA.

Think about how ridiculous it is to have 12 + 4 + 4 + 3 years of education to work as a general practitioner. And worse, are the massive cut offs preventing millions of students FROM ever working as a private practitioner. This means millions of hours and billions of dollars are totally wasted educating people just up to the point where they could go into medical service - all for nothing. Then they work at McDonald's.

It shouldn't be some bureaucrat deciding these things, it should be the free choice of individuals.

The AMA is private. It's called "Private" Practice for a reason. Stanford is a Private University - it's obviously more than qualified to train medical doctors. The problem is when we prevent other private groups from competing. In MI it resulted in such low numbers of doctors, you simply couldn't find one from MI, they almost all came from overseas. Which I have no problem with, but it illustrates where the problem was - with private group already on the inside then turning around and closing the door to competition - by using the federal government to prevent other private groups from ever evolving into being. This is why there are only MD and DO in the USA. And no DO in Australia - regardless if they are world leading surgeons.

Cities that are only 'allowed' to have two fMRI clinics.
Cities that restrict the number of hospitals.
States limiting the number and types of insurance companies.

All of this is done to prevent competition. Only the State can do this.

Overly expensive healthcare / disease-care in the USA is the inevitable outcome of federal and state regulations preventing competition. Again, the AMA is private. Stanford is private. It's possible to train and qualify private practitioners without ANY interference of the State and Federal Government at all. And then leave it up to free citizens to decide how much they value various qualifications by voting with their wallets.

It's really that simple.

With a free-market prices would come down, people wouldn't waste years (entire lives) trying to 'get in' to state-sanctioned programs (unless they really wanted in that program), and through competition new services would evolve and quality would be much higher than it is now (medial care is the #6 killer of Americans). Until Americans redefine the role of Government in society, then expect to pay more (much more) and receive less (much less).

 

[Tiassa]

Democratic Governors Make the Obvious Point

Dem Governors: It's not about web sites

The governors of three states—Washington, Kentucky, and Connecticut—where the Affordable Care Act was received as an opportunity instead of a curse have a few words for the nation. Governors Jay Inslee (D-WA), Steve Beshear (D-KY) and Dannel Malloy (D-CT) took to The Washington Post to remind:

In our states — Washington, Kentucky and Connecticut — the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” is working. Tens of thousands of our residents have enrolled in affordable health-care coverage. Many of them could not get insurance before the law was enacted.

People keep asking us why our states have been successful. Here’s a hint: It’s not about our Web sites.

Sure, having functioning Web sites for our health-care exchanges makes the job of meeting the enormous demand for affordable coverage much easier, but each of our state Web sites has had its share of technical glitches. As we have demonstrated on a near-daily basis, Web sites can continually be improved to meet consumers’ needs.

The Affordable Care Act has been successful in our states because our political and community leaders grasped the importance of expanding health-care coverage and have avoided the temptation to use health-care reform as a political football.

In Washington, the legislature authorized Medicaid expansion with overwhelmingly bipartisan votes in the House and Senate this summer because legislators understood that it could help create more than 10,000 jobs, save more than $300 million for the state in the first 18 months, and, most important, provide several hundred thousand uninsured Washingtonians with health coverage.

In Kentucky, two independent studies showed that the Bluegrass State couldn’t afford not to expand Medicaid. Expansion offered huge savings in the state budget and is expected to create 17,000 jobs.

In Connecticut, more than 50 percent of enrollment in the state exchange, Access Health CT, is for private health insurance. The Connecticut exchange has a customer satisfaction level of 96.5 percent, according to a survey of users in October, with more than 82 percent of enrollees either “extremely likely” or “very likely” to recommend the exchange to a colleague or friend.

In our states, elected leaders have decided to put people, not politics, first.​

And they take turns pointing to individual success stories in their states:

One such person is Brad Camp, a small-business owner in Kingston, Wash., who received a cancellation notice in September from his insurance carrier. He went to the state exchange, the Washington Healthplanfinder, and for close to the same premium his family was paying before got upfront coverage for doctor’s office visits and prescription drug , vision and dental coverage. His family was able to keep the same insurance carrier and doctors and qualified for tax credits to help cover the cost.

Since Howard Stovall opened his sign and graphics business in Lexington, Ky., in 1998, he has paid half the cost of health insurance for his eight employees. With the help of Stovall’s longtime insurance agent and Kentucky’s health exchange, Kynect, Stovall’s employees are saving 5 percent to 40 percent each on new health insurance plans with better benefits. Stovall can afford to provide additional employee benefits, including full disability coverage and part of the cost of vision and dental plans, while still saving the business 50 percent compared with the old plans.

In Connecticut, Anne Masterson was able to reduce her monthly premiums from $965 to $313 for similar coverage, including a $145 tax credit. Masterson is able to use her annual premium savings of $8,000 to pay bills or save for retirement.

These sorts of stories could be happening in every state if politicians would quit rooting for failure and directly undermining implementation of the Affordable Care Act — and, instead, put their constituents first. Health reform is working for the people of Washington, Kentucky and Connecticut because elected leaders on both sides of the aisle came together to do what is right for their residents.​

And that really is the story.

Yes, we get that some people don't like the law. We get that some people don't like the law because Democrats made it happen instead of its original Republican vanguard. We get that there are problems demanding both fixes and answers as to why things went wrong.

But here's the thing: If you have been part of the faction that has been campaigning, politicking, and working so hard to sabotage the law and hurt so many people, you don't get to complain.

I mean, sure, you get to vote, and all that, but if you've been backing Republican efforts to wreck the PPACA, nobody has any obligation to take you seriously in the current discussions.

Unfortunately, that's an untenable situation, as virtually the entire Republican party and its supporters are disqualified.
____________________

Notes:

Inslee, Jay, Steve Beshear and Dannel P. Malloy. "How we got Obamacare to work". The Washington Post. November 17, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. November 17, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2532bc-4e42-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html

 

[Tiassa]

Oo-oh That Smell, Can't You Smell That Smell?

The Winds of Reality

Sunday morning saw House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi refusing to back down from David Gregory's Meet the Press inquiry about statements made in the past:

“I stand by what I said,” the California Democrat told anchor David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” responding to two old interviews — one from 2009 and one from 2010 — in which she said that if individuals liked their existing health insurance policies, they could keep them, and that the Affordable Care Act needs to pass in order for the public to see what’s in the bill.

Pelosi’s appearance on the widely watched Sunday talk show comes at a critical time for Democrats, who are being accused of breaking promises to constituents as millions have received notices that their old insurance plans have been canceled because they don’t comport to the new standards of Obamacare, and the enrollment website HealthCare.gov has been riddled with glitches that have prevented those with canceled policies from easily shopping for new ones.

(Dumain)​

And while that tone might seem a bit defiant in the wake of the president's retreat, the reality is that the former House Speaker is standing the line where Obama cannot.

The reality, as Dean Baker noted is the president did not lie about keeping health plans. The political quandary, of course, is that this detail doesn't really matter.

President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye.

First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.

The plans being terminated because they don’t meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.

However if the insurers didn’t tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.

In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.

In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan.

As a practical matter, there are many plans that insurers will opt to drop for market reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the ACA. It’s hard to see how this could be viewed as a violation of President Obama’s pledge. After all, insurers change and drop plans all the time. Did people who heard Obama’s pledge understand it to mean that insurers would no longer have this option once the ACA passed?​

The reality is that the political discourse is seeking to blame the White House for calculated decisions made by private sector executives. The political problem is that people—consumers, voters, media—are running with the compressed narrative because it is more spectacular. As Baker notes:

On closer inspection, the claim that President Obama lied in saying that people could keep their insurance looks like another Fox News special.​

This is the simple reality.

There is also, however, a human reality. Jason Linkins reminds:

But the funny thing about everyone who's since reduced this whole idea to "Obama's healthcare law is exactly like that time President George W. Bush and his administration failed to respond to a disaster that killed many hundreds of people," is that they are also right. Obama will pay the same personal cost over the Affordable Care Act's bungled rollout as Bush did for his Katrina response. Which is to say, no cost at all.

I don't think people actually realize just how toothless the whole "Obama's Katrina" metaphor really is. Yes, it's pretty exciting to have so many people finally admit that Bush's Katrina response was a bad thing. But what are they really saying? Basically, this: "Oh, man, if things keep going the way they're going, President Obama runs the risk of ending up a super-wealthy American celebrity who will want for nothing and whose family will always have health insurance." I've said this before, but I will happily roll out a crappy website that everyone hates if I could get the same deal.

For me, the promulgation of an "Obama's Katrina" metaphor firmly underscores the basic lack of real stakes involved for all of the people having that conversation. Obama is going to live well and without concern for the rest of his life. The vast majority of the lawmakers involved in the ongoing debate over the matter will as well. So will most of the pundits currently batting this meme back and forth. They'll all be fine. Really, super fine, actually. They're going to have terrific, largely worry-free lives.​

The people at the forefront of this argument don't have the same stakes as the people suffering for the politics:

A July 2009 study conducted by Families USA found that between January 2008 and December 2010, in the teeth of the economic downturn, over 44,000 Americans were receiving notice that they'd be losing their health insurance every week. The same people breaking story after story about those losing their coverage now had better things to do back when it really mattered. As with almost any story that we could tell about the rampant, constant, tragic economic insecurity of the average American, it only seems to swell up as a Thing That Matters when such plight can play a role in the Beltway parlor game of who's winning and who's losing.

That's what makes the whole "Obama's Katrina" construction such a multi-layer insult to normal people. It makes the assumption that Bush actually suffered some real material loss in the hurricane that hit New Orleans. He didn't. It further assumes that some similar hardship is coming to Obama's doorstep. This is only true if we define "hardship" as "no hardship at all." It glibly trivializes the real people who have suffered in both instances -- those who suffered some sort of devastation in the Gulf region, or those who have been dealt a hard blow in the insurance market. Finally, it only underscores the wholly transient nature of the media's concern for the welfare of ordinary people. If their suffering can't be translated into a telenovela about the electoral troubles of affluent political celebrities, it doesn't merit coverage.​

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans started pushing for single-payer just so they could complain when the Democrats took them up on the offer. Which is, in truth, about how absurd this whole situation seems. But, hey, what's a bit of human suffering here and there compared to the superficial gratification so important to our neighbors for whom truth and reality are simply insufficient.
____________________

Notes:

Dumain, Emma. "Pelosi Dismisses Obamacare Defections, Defends Statements". 218. November 17, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. November 17, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/pelosi-dismisses-obamacare-defections-defends-statements/

Baker, Dean. "No, Obama didn’t lie to you about your health care plan". Salon. November 15, 2013. Salon.com. November 17, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_obama_didnt_lie_to_you_about_your_health_care_plan_partner/

Linkins, Jason. "So, About That Whole 'Obama's Katrina' Thing". The Huffington Post. November 15, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. November 15, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/obamacare-hurricane-katrina_n_4283628.html

 

[joepistole]

The Winds of Reality

Sunday morning saw House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi refusing to back down from David Gregory's Meet the Press inquiryt about statements made in the past:

“I stand by what I said,” the California Democrat told anchor David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” responding to two old interviews — one from 2009 and one from 2010 — in which she said that if individuals liked their existing health insurance policies, they could keep them, and that the Affordable Care Act needs to pass in order for the public to see what’s in the bill.

Pelosi’s appearance on the widely watched Sunday talk show comes at a critical time for Democrats, who are being accused of breaking promises to constituents as millions have received notices that their old insurance plans have been canceled because they don’t comport to the new standards of Obamacare, and the enrollment website HealthCare.gov has been riddled with glitches that have prevented those with canceled policies from easily shopping for new ones.

(Dumain)​

And while that tone might seem a bit defiant in the wake of the president's retreat, the reality is that the former House Speaker is standing the line where Obama cannot.

The reality, as Dean Baker noted is the president did not lie about keeping health plans. The political quandary, of course, is that this detail doesn't really matter.

President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, there is much less here than meets the eye.

First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.

The plans being terminated because they don’t meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.

However if the insurers didn’t tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies, not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.

In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation. As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.

In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan.

As a practical matter, there are many plans that insurers will opt to drop for market reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the ACA. It’s hard to see how this could be viewed as a violation of President Obama’s pledge. After all, insurers change and drop plans all the time. Did people who heard Obama’s pledge understand it to mean that insurers would no longer have this option once the ACA passed?​

The reality is that the political discourse is seeking to blame the White House for calculated decisions made by private sector executives. The political problem is that people—consumers, voters, media—are running with the compressed narrative because it is more spectacular. As Baker notes:

On closer inspection, the claim that President Obama lied in saying that people could keep their insurance looks like another Fox News special.​

This is the simple reality.

There is also, however, a human reality. Jason Linkins reminds:

But the funny thing about everyone who's since reduced this whole idea to "Obama's healthcare law is exactly like that time President George W. Bush and his administration failed to respond to a disaster that killed many hundreds of people," is that they are also right. Obama will pay the same personal cost over the Affordable Care Act's bungled rollout as Bush did for his Katrina response. Which is to say, no cost at all.

I don't think people actually realize just how toothless the whole "Obama's Katrina" metaphor really is. Yes, it's pretty exciting to have so many people finally admit that Bush's Katrina response was a bad thing. But what are they really saying? Basically, this: "Oh, man, if things keep going the way they're going, President Obama runs the risk of ending up a super-wealthy American celebrity who will want for nothing and whose family will always have health insurance." I've said this before, but I will happily roll out a crappy website that everyone hates if I could get the same deal.

For me, the promulgation of an "Obama's Katrina" metaphor firmly underscores the basic lack of real stakes involved for all of the people having that conversation. Obama is going to live well and without concern for the rest of his life. The vast majority of the lawmakers involved in the ongoing debate over the matter will as well. So will most of the pundits currently batting this meme back and forth. They'll all be fine. Really, super fine, actually. They're going to have terrific, largely worry-free lives.​

The people at the forefront of this argument don't have the same stakes as the people suffering for the politics:

A July 2009 study conducted by Families USA found that between January 2008 and December 2010, in the teeth of the economic downturn, over 44,000 Americans were receiving notice that they'd be losing their health insurance every week. The same people breaking story after story about those losing their coverage now had better things to do back when it really mattered. As with almost any story that we could tell about the rampant, constant, tragic economic insecurity of the average American, it only seems to swell up as a Thing That Matters when such plight can play a role in the Beltway parlor game of who's winning and who's losing.

That's what makes the whole "Obama's Katrina" construction such a multi-layer insult to normal people. It makes the assumption that Bush actually suffered some real material loss in the hurricane that hit New Orleans. He didn't. It further assumes that some similar hardship is coming to Obama's doorstep. This is only true if we define "hardship" as "no hardship at all." It glibly trivializes the real people who have suffered in both instances -- those who suffered some sort of devastation in the Gulf region, or those who have been dealt a hard blow in the insurance market. Finally, it only underscores the wholly transient nature of the media's concern for the welfare of ordinary people. If their suffering can't be translated into a telenovela about the electoral troubles of affluent political celebrities, it doesn't merit coverage.​

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans started pushing for single-payer just so they could complain when the Democrats took them up on the offer. Which is, in truth, about how absurd this whole situation seems. But, hey, what's a bit of human suffering here and there compared to the superficial gratification so important to our neighbors for whom truth and reality are simply insufficient.
____________________

Notes:

Dumain, Emma. "Pelosi Dismisses Obamacare Defections, Defends Statements". 218. November 17, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. November 17, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/pelosi-dismisses-obamacare-defections-defends-statements/

Baker, Dean. "No, Obama didn’t lie to you about your health care plan". Salon. November 15, 2013. Salon.com. November 17, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_obama_didnt_lie_to_you_about_your_health_care_plan_partner/

Linkins, Jason. "So, About That Whole 'Obama's Katrina' Thing". The Huffington Post. November 15, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. November 15, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/obamacare-hurricane-katrina_n_4283628.html

That is spot on Tiassa. After 4 years House Republicans are beginning to work on their healthcare plan. I guess that tells you how serious they are about healthcare reform. Four years after the fact and a POTUS election they figure they might need a healthcare plan...lol. But of course it really isn't much of a plan...tax deductions, spending accounts, interstate insurance (something currently possible, but the Republican version would reduce insurance regulation and the financial integrity of insurance companies like they did when they deregulated the banks which led to The Great Recession of 2007), limiting malpractice suits and high risk pools. The so called Republican plan does nothing to improve accessibility or make health insurance more affordable or control the out of control US healthcare costs or make the US healthcare system more efficient and effective...some of them small details again. The Republican healthcare plan basically amounts to healthcare rationing based on income. For Republicans, if you are a poor working stiff your are just shit out of luck when it comes to many things including healthcare.

 

[Grumpy]

The problem for the GOP is that Obamacare IS the Republican plan, it was cooked up at the Heritage Foundation "Think" Tank and follows the implementation in Massachusetts of Romneycare. All three are virtually identical. So there must be another problem they are having with the ACA. I think it's almost entirely because of Obama Derangement Syndrome, their inner "whiteness" causes them to lose their reason, their honor and their regard for the people they represent because there's a black man who beat them in the presidential election, twice. It's straight out nullification of the will of the American people as was expressed in those elections. The House Republicans hold their majority because of rigged elections, the Democrats had more than a million more votes but got fewer delegates from the Red States due to gerrymandering and the attempts by Republicans to suppress votes or change the voting laws are outrageous(Thanks "Justice" Rogers). Their "make him a one term President" strategy didn't work, their kill Obamacare strategy didn't work, so now they're on a "you got your crappy insurance cancelled" strategy. Their next one will be to Impeach Holder. They won't stop until they are kicked to the curb. Reid needs to buy a spine.

Grumpy

 

[Tach]

the Democrats had more than a million more votes but got fewer delegates from the Red States due to gerrymandering and the attempts by Republicans to suppress votes or change the voting laws are outrageous(Thanks "Justice" Rogers).

Who is Justice "Rogers"? Did the SCOTUS just get a new member?

Grumpy

I see.

 

[Tiassa]

Secondhand?

Reid needs to buy a spine.

I was hoping the one he found laying around for the debt ceiling standoff would continue to serve him well.

The biggest gamble is validating the denigration of our political system. Reid is trying to play traditional hardball with people who have no use for the rules of the game.

I think, however, we're going to be surprised next year. Right now much of our electoral outcomes depends on mobilization. And while the hard right is riding a crest these days, it's still an insufficient wave. As Chris Cillizza reported yesterday:

"Republicans need to understand that their political problems are neither tactical nor transitory," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "They are structural and demographic. The hard truth is the GOP coalition constitutes a shrinking portion of the electorate. To change that daunting reality, Republicans must appeal to groups that are currently outside their ranks or risk becoming a permanent minority."​

____________________

Notes:

Cillizza, Chris. "Obamacare failures are not a cure for the GOP". The Fix. November 17, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. November 18, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...252392-4f2d-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

 

[Write4U]

I would expect American voters to hold their Presidents to account, no matter whether they are black or white.
I would expect your leaders to tell the truth whether they are on the campaign trail or not.
I hope that you are a cynic, otherwise your political system is rotten to the core.

Your stance reminds me of Zionists, who consider any criticism of Israel's behaviour in the Middle East as anti-semitism.
You do the same, only it's Obama and racism.
Look, I hope this scheme works. God knows the poorest people need it.
But so far it's a bit of a fuck up.

"Twice as good, half as black"
That's a new phrase to me.
What does it mean?

Added later.
I now get the half as black bit.
He can't say much about black issues, because he would be seen to be biased.

But who does he have to be twice as good as?
Bush?
A carrot dangled from a stick would be a better President than that idiot.

Well for those who have not followed the actual work done by the Obama administration and keeping promises made, this may come as a surprise,
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/?page=1

But these accomplishments are never discussed, because that would validate Obama as having kept most of his promises and that would make him a reasonably good president .

 

[Michael]

The Affordable Care Act has been successful in our states because our political and community leaders grasped the importance of expanding health-care coverage and have avoided the temptation to use health-care reform as a political football. In our states, elected leaders have decided to put people, not politics, first.

Anyone who can read this tripe and not barf must have a strong stomach. There are no 'Political Leaders', there's only Civil Servants. The fact that Americans see their Servants as their Leaders speaks volumes. That these demagogues refer to themselves NOT as Servants but as Leaders, is sickening.

IMO anyone who thinks that the very same people who rigged the healthcare FOR the profit of the healthcare 'industry' are now going to make it less profitable and 'save' the taxpayer money - is smoking crack. I'm sure public housing looked semi-reasonable 40 years ago. Today's Public Housing is tomorrows Public Healthcare. Thank the Gods I have a hand in training and know physicians personally.

The fact is, the AMA is private. The top 5 Universities are private. Some of the best medical doctors in the world are trained and certified by entirely private organizations (example: the AMA and Stanford). The problem comes in when these same people CLOSE THE DOOR to their own kids and neighbors and other's who want to compete with them. The ONLY way the AMA was able to do this was by buying off the very same people you think are going to 'fix' healthcare. Talk about asinine.

The answer is simple, allow so-called "Free" Americans the "Freedom" to chose their own healthcare needs and to offer their own healthcare services. Then you'll see the prices come down and the quality go up.

 

[Michael]

Princeton University says it will distribute a meningitis vaccine - one vaccine that hasn't been approved in the US by the FDA.

*GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASP*
*Choke*
*Hyperventilate*

A private group of Citizens coming together AND deciding on their OWN healthcare needs??? Without first seeking permission from their POLITICAL LEADERS in the magical land called THE Federal Government?!?!? HolyShit, it's as if someone over there at PU is thinking for themselves. How SHOCKING!!! Hold me Mommy!!!

I'm serious, just read the article, the authors write as if they're watching horror movie. OMG, OMG, OMG ... ... people is giving out medicine... Holy Water... that is 'Unapproved by our Political Leaders'. OMG OMG OMG... will the Earth open up and the Gates to Hell swallow us all???? Mommy mommy MOMMY!?!?!? I'm scared!!!

Pray to the Gods children!
Oh Please Lord, let this Unapproved by our Political Master's magic-water heal the sick and cure the lame.
May the Lord have mercy on us little Peons for this Treasonous Discretion against out Political Masters..... thinking for ourselves and solving a problem on our own. Please forgive us this SIN against our Betters in Washington.....

Heaven Save Us All.....


Seriously, the State of the American public would best be described as pathetic.