There's gonna be a lot more surprises than that.
My wife has already been told to sign up for obamacare as her insurance is going soon. Yay. Nothing affordable about this crap
Bu.....but......Obama said you could keep your insurance if you liked it.
|
My wife has already been told to sign up for obamacare as her insurance is going soon. Yay. Nothing affordable about this crapBu.....but......Obama said you could keep your insurance if you liked it.
Yes, obviously Obama should have written into the law that any company offering health care at the time had to keep the same plan, at the same cost forever. That would have worked.
Seriously, I do wonder how many people losing insurance and having it blamed on the ACA would have lost it anyway. Or maybe just gotten a crappier more expensive plan. It's not like that hasn't been happening for years. But now it's all Obamacare's fault.
Or just maybe it IS his fault because he made it a win-win for business. no matter how much you like him he may have borked a bunch of workers.
It is his fault, because he constantly proffered this pandering lie to get people to vote for him. I had somebody tell me on facebook rebuke me with "yeah; the IRS should keep their insurance because they like their insurance." Well, Andrew R's wife liked her insurance.
Obama lied.
Enough people sucked for his b%*&*@*$.
He's responsible for that.
Really, what did people think?
I don't know what everybody thought, but I thought he was full of crap.
|
|
Or just maybe it IS his fault because he made it a win-win for business. no matter how much you like him he may have borked a bunch of workers.My wife has already been told to sign up for obamacare as her insurance is going soon. Yay. Nothing affordable about this crapBu.....but......Obama said you could keep your insurance if you liked it.
Yes, obviously Obama should have written into the law that any company offering health care at the time had to keep the same plan, at the same cost forever. That would have worked.
Seriously, I do wonder how many people losing insurance and having it blamed on the ACA would have lost it anyway. Or maybe just gotten a crappier more expensive plan. It's not like that hasn't been happening for years. But now it's all Obamacare's fault.
How is it a win-win? Now, if they dump coverage they either have to jump through a bunch of hoops which will hurt their business in most cases or pay a penalty. Before, if they dumped coverage, they were done. No one got hurt but the employees. I just don't see the big incentive.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there will be waves of companies ditching insurance. We'll see.
Wavers will be had, slashing hours will be done. He set it up poorly if it's intent was to help the average person. As another tax handout it works great unless you are a taxpayer.
Forbes on the individual mandate
"The fact that many prominent Republicans and conservatives supported the mandate does not, by any stretch, mean that conservatives did as a whole. Peter Ferrara, a Heritage Foundation alumnus, takes credit for “killing” the Heritage plan after he left the think-tank.
Ferrara correctly points out that a key flaw with the individual mandate is that the government is then required to define what types of insurance qualify for the mandate, and government will always be tempted to require costly, comprehensive insurance:
I had been close friends up until then with Stuart Butler, even double dating a couple of times with our girlfriends and then wives. Before he became Director of Domestic Policy [at the Heritage Foundation], Heritage had offered the job to then another friend of mine, Tony Pellechio. But I wanted Stuart to get it, because I thought Stuart was more hard core. So I talked Tony out of taking the job when he came to me to ask what I thought he should do. Sure enough, Stuart was next in line. Stuart does not know about this history almost 30 years ago to this day.
Stuart had no response to my objections to the individual mandate. But he was passionately devoted to the brilliance of the Heritage health plan. I told him it was so close to the Hillary plan, and so poorly framed as an alternative, that I predicted that President Clinton would come to point to it as the GOP alternative plan, and seek to get the Hillary plan passed as a compromise just ironing out the differences (employer pays or worker pays, generous health insurance or cheap health insurance).
Sure enough, a year later, as the Hillary plan was about to go down to defeat, President Clinton arose to point to the Heritage plan as the true GOP alternative, and offer to pass health reform by just ironing out the differences. Fortunately by then, I had already killed the Heritage health plan.
Well, I guess I won’t be going to Peter for job advice, but his policy critique of the individual mandate was correct then, and is correct now. And Stuart agrees with it.
In 1994 Sen. Don Nickles (R., Okla.) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.) turned the Heritage plan into a bill. Peter Ferrara and others, such as Tom Miller at the Cato Institute, rallied other conservatives against the plan. “By endorsing the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage,” wrote Miller, “Nickles-Stearns undermines the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against all-intrusive governmental control of health care.”
Ferrara convinced 37 leaders of the conservative movement, including Phyllis Schlafly, Grover Norquist, and Paul Weyrich, to sign a petition opposing the bill. “To this day,” Peter writes, “my relationship with Stuart Butler and Heritage has never recovered.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't wait until they fix the current craptastic technical problems of the system and people start realizing not just that they have been had, but by how MUCH they've been had.
Or just maybe it IS his fault because he made it a win-win for business. no matter how much you like him he may have borked a bunch of workers.
He could have borked them less with single payer or a public option...
I can't remember the source, but a US senator or rep from the Dems said Obamacare is simply the first step to making the US have a universal healthcare system.
Then again, I place little faith in that. A better solution is to work within Obamacare, and even the Republicans could work within that system. Think of it, rather than fight and come across as the angry old party of "NO NO NO," they could come up with actual reforms that work within the system to make it better, showing off that "Hey, we made those bad and nasty parts go away within an outline we originally proposed! We are a party that can compromise to make you, our constituents, happy and healthy!" The Dems get the points for enacting it, Reps get the points for streamlining and making it better. Win-win.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Win-win.
Sometimes, it's more important that the opponent lose than you win. It's a sentiment you find most commonly in pre-school and politics.
A public option might have been possible, if a completely different approach had been taken to writing the bill. But they were still in the "start with a compromised proposal and compromise even farther from there in order to win some bipartisan support" phase that never really worked.
Its the golden mean fallacy, which is like kyrptonite to democrats...
I cant wait for the insurance companies to start dumping spouses from plans when they see the spouse can get it from the company they work for (Google UPS). I cant wait for the premiums to skyrocket! I cant wait when people sign up for plans and the only doctor to see them will take them an hour+ to drive too. I cant wait for more and more unions to start crying. I cant wait for unemployment to go up and most new jobs to be part time. I cant wait for the suffering and wailing.
For the most part the government does not do things better than private institutions (schools, hospitals, the mail). I cant wait for the excuses. For most of you you should google your state/town and look at the tax returns. Look at the general fund and see how much money they get from your taxes and how much goes into education and tell me that your not better off sending your kids to private school. Tell me your not better off going to the private/religious hospital. Tell me your better off with state run healthcare (Romneycare) than a nice private plan.
I cant wait for we would be better off with a single payer system. No thanks! Get rid of the mandate, the medical tax and a lot of the BS and for those people who to go the emergency room for severe injurys/flu etc find a way so they are not penalized for life.
So you want people to be sick, broke, out of work and starving just so you can say "I told you so" ?
If you're willing to make it a self fulfilling prophecy the republicans are hiring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This policy, like all policies predicated on the notion that people will not behave in their own financial self-interest, will need so many adjustments, re-writes, lawsuits and SCOTUS rulings that if it does survive them, it will be unrecognizable when it does. While that decades-long process goes on, many, many people will suffer needlessly.
It may well prove that in the long run what emerges from the ashes of Obamacare may well be a workable single-payer universal health care system that actually provides health care at a reasonable cost and with positive benefits for the public.
If so it will be the first one in human history to do so.
But that's basically what Obama and the democrats are hoping for. They know that the existing law is a mess. They know there will be pain and suffering for years. They believe that they are taking the right long-term view.
But they may be miscalculating. Time will tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, some of you who are so vigorously supporting this law now, will be amongst the suffering in the near future. When that happens I will not be "happy" to see you suffer. But I might very well be so sorely tempted that I could well resort to an "I told you so" or two.
I apologize in advance.
This policy, like all policies predicated on the notion that people will not behave in their own financial self-interest...
Nit-pick: There is a fairly substantial amount of research in economics that demonstrates that people often do not act in their own financial self-interest -- though admittedly they believe they are doing so. Things like loss aversion, for example.
In general, though, I agree -- if you want to predict behavior, look at the (often financial) incentives.
This policy, like all policies predicated on the notion that people will not behave in their own financial self-interest, will need so many adjustments, re-writes, lawsuits and SCOTUS rulings that if it does survive them, it will be unrecognizable when it does. While that decades-long process goes on, many, many people will suffer needlessly.
It may well prove that in the long run what emerges from the ashes of Obamacare may well be a workable single-payer universal health care system that actually provides health care at a reasonable cost and with positive benefits for the public.
You mean like most of Europe and some of Asia? They pay less for health care and have comprable, often better, coverage. At least until you get into top of the line care, where the US wins but pays through the roof for it so most people can't afford it.
If so it will be the first one in human history to do so.
Not really. See above.
But that's basically what Obama and the democrats are hoping for. They know that the existing law is a mess. They know there will be pain and suffering for years. They believe that they are taking the right long-term view.But they may be miscalculating. Time will tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you believe that the "universal health care" in Europe and Asia is actually providing health care without interminable delays and rationing of procedures, drugs and services, then there''s really no point discussing it with you.
And when that starts happening here, I suppose you'll be surprised. Oh well.
If you believe that the "universal health care" in Europe and Asia is actually providing health care without interminable delays and rationing of procedures, drugs and services, then there''s really no point discussing it with you.
And when that starts happening here, I suppose you'll be surprised. Oh well.
No more so than insurance companies here. In fact, not only is it a lot less of a problem there. Reports I see show delays for seeing doctors to be shorter (wait lists in the US for primary care physicians can already exceed 2 years), costs of prescriptions lower (because the government bargains down prices en mass, the US is subsidizing the rest of the world), and since care is paid for based off of results instead of procedures overall costs go down.
The US currently has the most broken health care system of the industrialized world. It can't really go down for most people.
Like I said, you seem to be one of those that will fall into the "OMG, REALLY!?!" reaction when all this defecated material hits the rapidly spinning turbine blades.
Maybe it will be educational for you. I hope so.
And if it works out well for caineach and others? What then? Or are you going to focus on those for whom it doesn't work?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Freehold, I think I have been clear in stating that I consider this to be a clusterf*** of monumental proportions. The law is so poorly written that people are even now, almost four years later, discovering major problems with it. The promises that were made have already been demonstrated to have been pure political pandering and not commitments that would be delivered.
The latest estimates I've seen still show that in the BEST case, at least 30 million currently uninsured will REMAIN uninsured when this goes live, and that was the PRIMARY reason for passing the law.
It's a travesty, pure and simple. It was never anything but political opportunism as a way to kick down the door to create an ultimate single-payer system. And that's all that Obama and the Democrats intend to do with it.
The transition between now and when something stable finally arrives will be particularly painful for the lowest income Americans who will see their premiums rise, their doctors removed from their list of available doctors and their co-pays and deductibles go up beyond what their budgets will allow.
The secondary effects such as businesses laying off employees and building a workforce of part time workers is just now beginning, that will accelerate as the financial incentives for doing so pile up.
You guys can support this travesty all you like. It's a travesty and the next few years will be a godawful mess. The media will do all they can to blame Republicans, but there is only so much they can do to protect the man and party whose name is on the law.
It's going to be a helluva ride.
If you believe that the "universal health care" in Europe and Asia is actually providing health care without interminable delays and rationing of procedures, drugs and services, then there''s really no point discussing it with you.
And when that starts happening here, I suppose you'll be surprised. Oh well.
We ration here. Many uninsured patients cannot get treatment for terminal illnesses (as opposed to immediately life-threatening injuries).
They spend less, yet enjoy better outcomes. Those are facts.
If you believe that the "universal health care" in Europe and Asia is actually providing health care without interminable delays and rationing of procedures, drugs and services, then there''s really no point discussing it with you.
And when that starts happening here, I suppose you'll be surprised. Oh well.
We ration here. Many uninsured patients cannot get treatment for terminal illnesses (as opposed to immediately life-threatening injuries).
They spend less, yet enjoy better outcomes. Those are facts.
We'll see how you feel about your "facts" over the course of the next few years.
I'm not wholly opposed to the GOALS of Obamacare. I am disgusted by the MEANS they took to accomplish it.
Like I said, you seem to be one of those that will fall into the "OMG, REALLY!?!" reaction when all this defecated material hits the rapidly spinning turbine blades.
Maybe it will be educational for you. I hope so.
I never said I supported Obamacare. I said it will be better than what we had, and I think your doom and gloom is gonna be more or less unfounded (assuming they get the kinks out of the servers for the rollout of one of the lesser parts of it). I am arguing against your accusations that government run health care is worse for citizens, because in pretty much every other country that does it that is the opposite of true.
Tell you what Cain. Let's check back in six months from now and see whose predictions actually ended up closer to the mark.
Deal?
We'll see how you feel about your "facts" over the course of the next few years.
I'm not wholly opposed to the GOALS of Obamacare. I am disgusted by the MEANS they took to accomplish it.
Putting "facts" in quotations doesn't change them. The data on the cost, mortality and morbidity advantages of universal health care are readily available.
Whether or not the ACA ultimately does more harm than good is a completely separate question.
The ACA - like many left-leaning programs - is a beautiful idea that works well in theory. However, once it comes into contact with human nature, self-interest, and rational actors, its flaws become glaringly apparent. It's fairly simple actuarial math at work here. All the laws in the world can't increase costs dramatically - not to mention a cap on profits - on insurance companies without forcing a major give in premiums and deductibles. Human nature will result in the actuarial death spiral that will drive costs up further.
I seriously don't get people pointing to say, Canadian health care as a terrible fate to be avoided.
I can understand arguing that U.S. demographics are different enough to make adoption of such a system impractical. I can understand arguing that Canada (or the UK, or France, or Japan etc.) benefit from the U.S. doing the heavy-lifting in terms of R&D. I can even understand arguing that the U.S. provides better care at the top end (i.e. to the wealthy). But collectively, the U.S. spends more and gets less -- the data are very clear.
The ACA - like many left-leaning programs - is a beautiful idea that works well in theory. However, once it comes into contact with human nature, self-interest, and rational actors, its flaws become glaringly apparent. It's fairly simple actuarial math at work here. All the laws in the world can't increase costs dramatically - not to mention a cap on profits - on insurance companies without forcing a major give in premiums and deductibles. Human nature will result in the actuarial death spiral that will drive costs up further.
I don't suppose you care to explain the mechanisms by which you see this happening? They are not glaringly apparent to me.
Because the basic idea (get everyone into the pool, or force them to pay a penalty to help defray the inevitable cost of treatment) seems sound.
Tell you what Cain. Let's check back in six months from now and see whose predictions actually ended up closer to the mark.
Deal?
this is what I was talking about earlier.
Just to clarify, wouldn't you be among those that would fight a single-payer system even more heavily, than the Tea Party crusaded against the ACA?
That would depend on what the actual system was designed to do, and how well it was constructed to accomplish it.
|
If you believe that the "universal health care" in Europe and Asia is actually providing health care without interminable delays and rationing of procedures, drugs and services, then there''s really no point discussing it with you.
And when that starts happening here, I suppose you'll be surprised. Oh well.
How odd our health care system here seems to be holding up just fine (I live in Scotand just so you know.)
Kevin, there are plenty in the USA who argue to this day that the US Health Care system pre-Obamacare was "holding up just fine".
Are you suggesting that there are no critics of the European health care system(s)? Or are you suggesting all such criticisms are baseless?
Not that I care. I never should have popped into this discussion. Reality will intrude on many people's lives in the near future, and it is that reality that will change their minds, not my predictions.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part the government does not do things better than private institutions (schools, hospitals, the mail).
As someone who lives in a country were several goverment run things were privatised (Rail, Power, telecomunications and as we speak the mail to name a few) I can honestly say that in every case services have gotten worse and more expensive
In the USA i prefer my private healthcare, mail service, hospitals. Not sure what would happen if telephone/cable went government controlled. Would assume it would be PBS style tv with more of a government slant than it is now. Would love more private competition for Cable.
I'm already feeling the pain for the new healthcare law and i have a private plan. Premiums skyrocket in last 3 years and safe to assume they will ocntinue to rise. Forget the website problems although there really is no excuse for the amount of money the poured into it and they had 3 years to be ready for it.
I think a lot of people who dont want the coverage or get booted from their companies plans are going to be very upset on the premiums (after the first year). I never hear great things from doctors on the government payments and i would assume its safe to assume there isnt/wont be enough doctors for this idea.