Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Rich you have educated me on the prescription drug issue. I was wrong before. Thanks for that.

 

[The Commish]

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Under the old system your FIL would be told, "sorry you didn't have coverage when you had diabetes diagnosed, so we won't cover that for the first year and may charge you more because of it" (if he's not flat out declined, which he could be).

Under the new system your FIL would be told, "no problem, come on and pay the same rate as everyone else who will subsidize you so that everyone can pay the same rate, and we'll cover your diabetes from day one"

He has type 2 diabetes and has no insurance. He claims that he can't get insurance, but I'm not sure that he knows about the one year thing. He doesn't pay much attention to doctors etc so I doubt he's looked into it.

 

[Rich Conway]

Rich you have educated me on the prescription drug issue. I was wrong before. Thanks for that.

Actually, this is a good example of a place where people who say "the free market failed" are wrong. The problem in this instance isn't the free market, because this bit of the market isn't free at all; it's actually a situation where government regulations have "failed" the consumer (they've benefited the drug companies, of course).

 

[TheIronSheik]

I think it's funny that the media is posting headlines like "Obamacare signs up twice as many in November" like it's something great. Just need 6.5 million more to reach that goal of 7 million.

 

[matttyl]

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Under the old system your FIL would be told, "sorry you didn't have coverage when you had diabetes diagnosed, so we won't cover that for the first year and may charge you more because of it" (if he's not flat out declined, which he could be).

Under the new system your FIL would be told, "no problem, come on and pay the same rate as everyone else who will subsidize you so that everyone can pay the same rate, and we'll cover your diabetes from day one"

He has type 2 diabetes and has no insurance. He claims that he can't get insurance, but I'm not sure that he knows about the one year thing. He doesn't pay much attention to doctors etc so I doubt he's looked into it.

He very well could be right, that he can't get insurance currently. It's true that even if he could right now, they wouldn't cover anything for the first year that has to do with his diabetes. At that point, he should just obtain an ACA plan that would cover it fully from day 1.

 

[matttyl]

I think it's funny that the media is posting headlines like "Obamacare signs up twice as many in November" like it's something great. Just need 6.5 million more to reach that goal of 7 million.

Exactly, a nationwide pool of insured of .5m will be a complete dumpster fire of a pool. They need to ramp that up big time to make the pool big enough to manage the risk. And not with the older and sicker folks, either.

 

[matttyl]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

 

[The Commish]

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Under the old system your FIL would be told, "sorry you didn't have coverage when you had diabetes diagnosed, so we won't cover that for the first year and may charge you more because of it" (if he's not flat out declined, which he could be).

Under the new system your FIL would be told, "no problem, come on and pay the same rate as everyone else who will subsidize you so that everyone can pay the same rate, and we'll cover your diabetes from day one"

He has type 2 diabetes and has no insurance. He claims that he can't get insurance, but I'm not sure that he knows about the one year thing. He doesn't pay much attention to doctors etc so I doubt he's looked into it.

He very well could be right, that he can't get insurance currently. It's true that even if he could right now, they wouldn't cover anything for the first year that has to do with his diabetes. At that point, he should just obtain an ACA plan that would cover it fully from day 1.

He won't pay those prices for it. He'll manage it on his own.

 

[The Commish]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

So stupid.

 

[Schlzm]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

So stupid.

 

[Slapdash]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

You've been complaining in this thread for a while about pediatric dental plans being needed even on plans that don't cover children. Why did it take you a week to realize that you needed to include it for your client? That makes no sense.

 

[The Commish]

mattyl....what are your thoughts on this. If the government provided catastrophic care for everyone as a baseline, then we as citizens could include "ala carte" items depending on our desires and needs on top of that coverage at our own expense? Need mental health help? Add it. Want more coverage other than the bare minimum? Add all you want.

 

[Tau837]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

So stupid.

 

[matttyl]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

You've been complaining in this thread for a while about pediatric dental plans being needed even on plans that don't cover children. Why did it take you a week to realize that you needed to include it for your client? That makes no sense.

We marked on the application that she has or will have dental coverage elsewhere (on a stand alone dental plan). They need proof of that other coverage before enrolling her in the medical plan (as they don't want to enroll people who won't be compliant). Since she hasn't yet purchased that other dental plan for her family (she plans to and have a 1/1/14 effective date for it), she doesn't yet have proof that she has it.

So she has to buy dental coverage for her entire family before being able to get medical insurance for herself.

 

[matttyl]

mattyl....what are your thoughts on this. If the government provided catastrophic care for everyone as a baseline, then we as citizens could include "ala carte" items depending on our desires and needs on top of that coverage at our own expense? Need mental health help? Add it. Want more coverage other than the bare minimum? Add all you want.

I think something like this could work, and would be far cheaper than what we're doing here. The question is, what's "catastrophic care".

Since emergency rooms can't deny anyone care, regardless if they have coverage or not....don't we currently already have a system like this?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

mattyl....what are your thoughts on this. If the government provided catastrophic care for everyone as a baseline, then we as citizens could include "ala carte" items depending on our desires and needs on top of that coverage at our own expense? Need mental health help? Add it. Want more coverage other than the bare minimum? Add all you want.

I think something like this could work, and would be far cheaper than what we're doing here. The question is, what's "catastrophic care".

Since emergency rooms can't deny anyone care, regardless if they have coverage or not....don't we currently already have a system like this?

Emergency rooms can't deny lifesaving care, but they also will do everything in their power to collect the cost of those services from people. When people can't pay, and likely have their credit destroyed in the process, the loss is worked back into the cost of care for everyone else.

I'd say that's a pretty far cry from society agreeing to mutually cover our basic health needs.

 

[timschochet]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

matttyl, there's something I don't understand about your story. If pediatric dental care is mandated, then why is it an option on the application?

 

[timschochet]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

You've been complaining in this thread for a while about pediatric dental plans being needed even on plans that don't cover children. Why did it take you a week to realize that you needed to include it for your client? That makes no sense.

We marked on the application that she has or will have dental coverage elsewhere (on a stand alone dental plan). They need proof of that other coverage before enrolling her in the medical plan (as they don't want to enroll people who won't be compliant). Since she hasn't yet purchased that other dental plan for her family (she plans to and have a 1/1/14 effective date for it), she doesn't yet have proof that she has it.

So she has to buy dental coverage for her entire family before being able to get medical insurance for herself.

Didn't see this post. OK, that makes more sense.

 

[Rich Conway]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

matttyl, there's something I don't understand about your story. If pediatric dental care is mandated, then why is it an option on the application?

Well, it is a government form, so...

 

[Big 'N Tasty]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

matttyl, there's something I don't understand about your story. If pediatric dental care is mandated, then why is it an option on the application?

Well, it is a government form, so...

Same reason why an application of a guaranteed issued, non-underwritten application was originally 19 pages long. All they need to know is income, age, location, and smoking status. I think they have it down to six or seven pages now, but really...thing should be about a half page long.

 

[tri-man 47]

So I took an application for a 28 year old married female. She already had individual coverage for herself, her husband and son, but it didn't have maternity coverage for her. So she wanted an ACA plan that would have maternity covered, so that they could get pregnant and have the delivery covered. We completed the application, and I submitted it on December 4. Today I call it to see where they are in enrollment, and I was told that since she didn't select a pediatric dental plan that they weren't going to enroll her. Pediatric dental is now a mandate, remember. I said that she wasn't enrolling her child on this plan, that he would stay on their current plan and that adding pediatric dental would be a waste since there aren't any children on the plan for the benefit to apply toward.

It doesn't matter, it's mandated to be included and they won't process an application without it.

matttyl, there's something I don't understand about your story. If pediatric dental care is mandated, then why is it an option on the application?

Well, it is a government form, so...

Like this one?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-macnelly-tax-htmlpage,0,7414075.htmlpage

 

[Sarnoff]

I think it's funny that the media is posting headlines like "Obamacare signs up twice as many in November" like it's something great. Just need 6.5 million more to reach that goal of 7 million.

The Dept. of Health and Human Services released its latest enrollment report for the Obamacare exchanges. According to the report, 364,682 selected a plan among all the exchanges. 137,204 selected plans in the federal exchanges and 227,478 selected plans on state exchanges.

Those numbers means that the selection of plans increased in November compared to October. But it also means the exchanges are on track to fall short of the enrollment targets of 3,923,000 for the federal exchanges and 7,066,000 for all exchanges.

In the table below I’ve taken the daily rate of enrollment plan selection for all exchanges in November and assumed they continued through March 31. I also assumed that the rate quadruples in the two weeks prior to Dec. 23 the deadline for purchasing a plan that begins coverage on Jan.1 I also assumed that the rate quadruples in the two weeks before March 31 when the open enrollment period ends. I then applied the rates to both the federal exchanges and all exchanges.

Projected Enrollment and Shortfall by End of March

..................Federal Exchanges All Exchanges

Projection........ 2,196,502.............4,013,880

Targets............. 3,923,000............7,066,000

Shortfall...........-1,726,498 ......... -3,052,120

The federal exchanges fall about 44% short of the enrollment target and all exchanges fall about 43% short. The only question is whether the shortfall will be distributed evenly among all age groups? Probably not. In states where we have information, such as Colorado, Kentucky, and California, enrollment of 18-34-year-olds are falling far short of 35% rate that the Obama Administration estimate it needs.

 

[The Commish]

mattyl....what are your thoughts on this. If the government provided catastrophic care for everyone as a baseline, then we as citizens could include "ala carte" items depending on our desires and needs on top of that coverage at our own expense? Need mental health help? Add it. Want more coverage other than the bare minimum? Add all you want.

I think something like this could work, and would be far cheaper than what we're doing here. The question is, what's "catastrophic care".

Since emergency rooms can't deny anyone care, regardless if they have coverage or not....don't we currently already have a system like this?

Well, the pitching in by all part is missing today.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think it's funny that the media is posting headlines like "Obamacare signs up twice as many in November" like it's something great. Just need 6.5 million more to reach that goal of 7 million.

The Dept. of Health and Human Services released its latest enrollment report for the Obamacare exchanges. According to the report, 364,682 selected a plan among all the exchanges. 137,204 selected plans in the federal exchanges and 227,478 selected plans on state exchanges.

Those numbers means that the selection of plans increased in November compared to October. But it also means the exchanges are on track to fall short of the enrollment targets of 3,923,000 for the federal exchanges and 7,066,000 for all exchanges.

In the table below I’ve taken the daily rate of enrollment plan selection for all exchanges in November and assumed they continued through March 31. I also assumed that the rate quadruples in the two weeks prior to Dec. 23 the deadline for purchasing a plan that begins coverage on Jan.1 I also assumed that the rate quadruples in the two weeks before March 31 when the open enrollment period ends. I then applied the rates to both the federal exchanges and all exchanges.

Projected Enrollment and Shortfall by End of March

..................Federal Exchanges All Exchanges

Projection........ 2,196,502.............4,013,880

Targets............. 3,923,000............7,066,000

Shortfall...........-1,726,498 ......... -3,052,120

The federal exchanges fall about 44% short of the enrollment target and all exchanges fall about 43% short. The only question is whether the shortfall will be distributed evenly among all age groups? Probably not. In states where we have information, such as Colorado, Kentucky, and California, enrollment of 18-34-year-olds are falling far short of 35% rate that the Obama Administration estimate it needs.

When ever I'm in need of hard hitting analysis I always turn to Amy Ridenour's Conservative Blog. If you've heard the name before, she was Jack Abramoff's right hand at the NCPPR before he was indicted and jailed.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/voucher_mania_why_the_right_is_diseased_and_out_of_ideas/

I'm not going to post this entire article, since it's highly partisan (progressive) and only touches on Obamacare a little bit, but this guy from Salon makes an interesting analogy: if we were to change our public school system to school vouchers, or change Medicare to a retirement voucher system, the way Republicans have been pushing for years, how much different would these programs look from Obamacare?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes I read that. Companies have been shifting the burden to employees for a long time. Between 2000 and 2009 employee share doubled, wages didn't come close. The law makes this easier for your company to shift the burden from itself to your wife's employer. Same for all of those considering. That has never been denied. But that is not the same as the burden of the law is what is forcing these cost saving items on employees [ETA: like a gun is pointing their head].

If you believe that, how can you say the law isn't at least partially to blame for this happening.

Here is the post that started this discussion-

There's no way to "win" here when the rules are arbitrary and defined as "better" or "worse". I know a few folks in the same situation as you. Their employers are making financial decisions based on how they understand ACA and how they think it will affect them. Politically, people will argue "well, that's your EMPLOYER making those decisions, not ACA" and I suppose technically they are right. However, without ACA, they wouldn't have to make the decisions at all. It's sorta like a person having a gun pointed at their head and "choosing" to give the money in exchange for their life. It should be noted that I DO NOT BELIEVE aca is life threatening. Trying to give another example of where "choice" is really an illusion. That's the best I could come up with while typing.

If the ACA is to be blamed for this at all it is because it allows cover to the businesses. And if this decision made economic sense for the business with the ACA it made economic sense without it. Maybe the ACA moved the decision forward, but it is silly to suggest that the business would never have made it all. And you are correct the gun analogy is absolutely stupid.

 

[Sarnoff]

When ever I'm in need of hard hitting analysis I always turn to Amy Ridenour's Conservative Blog. If you've heard the name before, she was Jack Abramoff's right hand at the NCPPR before he was indicted and jailed.

Thanks for confirming that it was all correct, Tommy, since all you could come up with to rebut it was an ad hominem attack.

 

[Statorama]

Obama: Okay, how about we try this Republican idea for handling the problem in a more market based way?

It was a DISCARDED Republican idea. This idiocy that liberals cling to in an effort to drag Republicans into their cesspool is pathetic.

 

[tommyGunZ]

When ever I'm in need of hard hitting analysis I always turn to Amy Ridenour's Conservative Blog. If you've heard the name before, she was Jack Abramoff's right hand at the NCPPR before he was indicted and jailed.

Thanks for confirming that it was all correct, Tommy, since all you could come up with to rebut it was an ad hominem attack.

Confirm what? That an anti-Obama conservative blogger who works for the disgraced NCPPR can make up assumptions and do basic multiplication?

 

[Statorama]

Obamacare's troubling sign-up numbers

Older clients, aged above 40, comprise 60 percent of the new Obamacare customers at one of his client health-care companies, Laszewski told The Daily Caller.

The skew is “very, very bad,” said Laszewski, who is president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, Inc…

Precise predictions are impossible because the Obamacare system is so new, and executives do expect a surge of people to join in the next two weeks, Laszewski said.

But the apparent lack of young people “is a very poor omen,” Laszewski said.

 

[Joe T]

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/voucher_mania_why_the_right_is_diseased_and_out_of_ideas/

I'm not going to post this entire article, since it's highly partisan (progressive) and only touches on Obamacare a little bit, but this guy from Salon makes an interesting analogy: if we were to change our public school system to school vouchers, or change Medicare to a retirement voucher system, the way Republicans have been pushing for years, how much different would these programs look from Obamacare?

So don't leave us hanging, what was the interesting analogy???

 

[timschochet]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/voucher_mania_why_the_right_is_diseased_and_out_of_ideas/

I'm not going to post this entire article, since it's highly partisan (progressive) and only touches on Obamacare a little bit, but this guy from Salon makes an interesting analogy: if we were to change our public school system to school vouchers, or change Medicare to a retirement voucher system, the way Republicans have been pushing for years, how much different would these programs look from Obamacare?

So don't leave us hanging, what was the interesting analogy???

If we had privatized Medicaid or school vouchers, they would look much like Obamacare.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/voucher_mania_why_the_right_is_diseased_and_out_of_ideas/

I'm not going to post this entire article, since it's highly partisan (progressive) and only touches on Obamacare a little bit, but this guy from Salon makes an interesting analogy: if we were to change our public school system to school vouchers, or change Medicare to a retirement voucher system, the way Republicans have been pushing for years, how much different would these programs look from Obamacare?

That's right, the original idea was to push Medicare into the private sector as has been suggested with Social Security (an idea I like by the way but which will never return) - the problem is you have a conservative concept implemented by Democrats who don't believe in the underpinning structure, so there are billions in subsidies, faked budget numbers, scores (hundreds?) of ad hoc exemptions, a non-mandatory mandate, and on and on. Awful.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/voucher_mania_why_the_right_is_diseased_and_out_of_ideas/

I'm not going to post this entire article, since it's highly partisan (progressive) and only touches on Obamacare a little bit, but this guy from Salon makes an interesting analogy: if we were to change our public school system to school vouchers, or change Medicare to a retirement voucher system, the way Republicans have been pushing for years, how much different would these programs look from Obamacare?

So don't leave us hanging, what was the interesting analogy???

If we had privatized Medicaid or school vouchers, they would look much like Obamacare.

Stop saying obamacare is "privatized" - it's not.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Anyone have any theories on whether this is obtuseness on Tim's part or just plain inability to comprehend what's going on here?

 

[tommyGunZ]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Are you just realizing this? It's been the basic tenet of conservative politics for a long time now - blame gov't for societies' ills, fight any/all gov't solutions (cause heaven forbid collective action actually WORK and people see that gov't can help), and if/when policies fail due to conservative opposition, celebrate the failing as proof that gov't is BAAAAAAD.

Think about it. Then current Republican platform really consists of 1 basic issue - Gov't IS the problem. The party's elected officials don't even believe in the jobs that they are elected to do.

 

[Sand]

When ever I'm in need of hard hitting analysis I always turn to Amy Ridenour's Conservative Blog. If you've heard the name before, she was Jack Abramoff's right hand at the NCPPR before he was indicted and jailed.

Thanks for confirming that it was all correct, Tommy, since all you could come up with to rebut it was an ad hominem attack.

Confirm what? That an anti-Obama conservative blogger who works for the disgraced NCPPR can make up assumptions and do basic multiplication?

Oh, ok, just your basic libel. Move on, then.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Obama: Okay, how about we try this Republican idea for handling the problem in a more market based way?

It was a DISCARDED Republican idea. This idiocy that liberals cling to in an effort to drag Republicans into their cesspool is pathetic.

Yeah, it was discarded as soon as it became a centerpiece of a Democrat reform bill.

It's fair to say that it wasn't ever universally embraced on the Republican side. The libertarian leaning/Cato elements never really backed expanding coverage via mandate, but it also never really existed anywhere in Democratic policy debate until the centrist Democrats in the House backed away from supporting a public option as the other means pursue near-universal coverage and dealing with the problem of pre-existing conditions and adverse selection. It was solidly in the main stream of Republican debate on Healthcare reform until 2009/10.

 

[Joe T]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Anyone have any theories on whether this is obtuseness on Tim's part or just plain inability to comprehend what's going on here?

I try to give him some credit that he knows what is going on here. My theory is always he attempts to shift focus of what is really going on here to an unrelated hypothetical scenario with some sort of circular logic that he will debate for at least the next 3 pages.

Tread lightly.

 

[Sarnoff]

Obamacare's troubling sign-up numbers

Older clients, aged above 40, comprise 60 percent of the new Obamacare customers at one of his client health-care companies, Laszewski told The Daily Caller.

The skew is “very, very bad,” said Laszewski, who is president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, Inc…

Precise predictions are impossible because the Obamacare system is so new, and executives do expect a surge of people to join in the next two weeks, Laszewski said.

But the apparent lack of young people “is a very poor omen,” Laszewski said.

Neil Munro is unable to disprove he spent a weekend in a Motel 6 with two sheep and a labrador retriever. [/tommygunz]

 

[Sarnoff]

BTW - Not one person has signed up in Oregon's exchange.

Not one.

Obviously, this is the fault of the Republican governor, who intentionally mangled the system to ensure failure.

Right?

Wait, Oregon is up to 44 enrollees for the month. Success! It only cost them $6,818,182 per sign-up.

 

[Stinger Ray]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Apparently Obama and the people that voted/support this didn't think the signups would be difficult.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/voucher_mania_why_the_right_is_diseased_and_out_of_ideas/

I'm not going to post this entire article, since it's highly partisan (progressive) and only touches on Obamacare a little bit, but this guy from Salon makes an interesting analogy: if we were to change our public school system to school vouchers, or change Medicare to a retirement voucher system, the way Republicans have been pushing for years, how much different would these programs look from Obamacare?

That's right, the original idea was to push Medicare into the private sector as has been suggested with Social Security (an idea I like by the way but which will never return) - the problem is you have a conservative concept implemented by Democrats who don't believe in the underpinning structure, so there are billions in subsidies, faked budget numbers, scores (hundreds?) of ad hoc exemptions, a non-mandatory mandate, and on and on. Awful.

I actually think this is a very apt analysis. Well done.

But- I'm not sure you can make the claim that if Republicans had done it, none of those things would have occurred. Every problem with Obamacare that you mentioned is a product of government involvement in the private sector. Not Democrats or Republicans, but government.

And- more importantly, while everything you mentioned is bothersome and creates problems, again I have to stress that the most important factor underlying Obamacare's problems is that we are attempting to equalize the cost of insurance for those who have pre-existing conditions. That is an element that seemingly everyone, conservatives and progressives alike, seem to want, yet that is the element which is creating 90% of all the problems. If you don't believe me on this, just read matttyl's posts on this subject from earlier today.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Apparently Obama and the people that voted/support this didn't think the signups would be difficult.

This is so dumb, all of it.

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult.

And yet the Demos did it anyway.

How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this?

Which just invites the questions as to whether they actually have the money to spend on insurance (they may not) and if they do and have worked so hard to earn it, why in the hell is the government making them do something they don't want to do?

They think they're going to live forever.

Practically speaking, they are - it will likely be another 40-70 years.

Unless the penalty is much harsher

It's not even "harsh" to begin with, it's not even an actual "mandate."

what's their motivation?

The millions our government is spending to persuade them like to do so via advertising, like it was a scooter purchase or something or maybe Axe deodorant.

gleeful

Americans should not be happy that they said 'told you so' to their own elected representatives and now they've been proven right, so much so that this very bad idea may never come to enough fruition to personally harm them?

for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Geez loueeze, Tim has said that he opposes the ACA, that its bad for the country, and here he is saying that it's causing pain to the middle class, and yet he still refuses repealing it or doing a repeal and replace. Absurd.

 

[timschochet]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Apparently Obama and the people that voted/support this didn't think the signups would be difficult.

That's what they said. I think there are 3 alternatives here :

1. They were lying to the public about this, and figured that when the time came around they would find a way to solve it.

2. They were lying to themselves about this, and hoping for the best.

3. They are stupid.

Given these choices, I go with #2. What do you think?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Apparently Obama and the people that voted/support this didn't think the signups would be difficult.

That's what they said. I think there are 3 alternatives here :

1. They were lying to the public about this, and figured that when the time came around they would find a way to solve it.

2. They were lying to themselves about this, and hoping for the best.

3. They are stupid.

Given these choices, I go with #2. What do you think?

I love it.

Imagine telling your significant other this after cheating on them - "hey it's not like I lied to you, I merely lied to myself and hoped for the best."

That's better? I guarantee you, it's a whole lot worse.

 

[Stinger Ray]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Apparently Obama and the people that voted/support this didn't think the signups would be difficult.

That's what they said. I think there are 3 alternatives here :1. They were lying to the public about this, and figured that when the time came around they would find a way to solve it.

2. They were lying to themselves about this, and hoping for the best.

3. They are stupid.

Given these choices, I go with #2. What do you think?

But didn't you say over and over Obama hasn't lied about anything regarding Obamacare?

 

[Dr Oadi]

We all knew the signups were going to be difficult. How to get young healthy people to spend their hard-earned money on this? They think they're going to live forever. Unless the penalty is much harsher, what's their motivation?

What continues to strike me as bizarre though is how many of you seem to be gleeful over this fact. Don't you get that for every young person that doesn't sign up, it means more pain for the middle class?

Apparently Obama and the people that voted/support this didn't think the signups would be difficult.

That's what they said. I think there are 3 alternatives here :1. They were lying to the public about this, and figured that when the time came around they would find a way to solve it.

2. They were lying to themselves about this, and hoping for the best.

3. They are stupid.

Given these choices, I go with #2. What do you think?

But didn't you say over and over Obama hasn't lied about anything regarding Obamacare?

He didn't lie. He simply misspoke.

 

[jonessed]

Obama: Okay, how about we try this Republican idea for handling the problem in a more market based way?

It was a DISCARDED Republican idea. This idiocy that liberals cling to in an effort to drag Republicans into their cesspool is pathetic.

Yeah, it was discarded as soon as it became a centerpiece of a Democrat reform bill.

It's fair to say that it wasn't ever universally embraced on the Republican side. The libertarian leaning/Cato elements never really backed expanding coverage via mandate, but it also never really existed anywhere in Democratic policy debate until the centrist Democrats in the House backed away from supporting a public option as the other means pursue near-universal coverage and dealing with the problem of pre-existing conditions and adverse selection. It was solidly in the main stream of Republican debate on Healthcare reform until 2009/10

No it wasn't.