ObamaCare Deathwatch - it's no longer if, but when & how...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

It seems there are a good 5 to 10 threads where ObamaCare is the subject, or at least it has come into the discussion.  My aim here is to focus on the failed roll-out and the eventual total meltdown and collapse of ObamaCare; and the political implications for Obama and the Democratic Party.  

CBS News Director, John Dickerson has now come out and said that Obama is in a "credibility death spiral" with respect to ObamaCare.

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/21/john_dickerson_obama_headed_toward_credibility_death_spiral_over_obamacare.html

Consumer Reports rates ObamaCare "Don't even bother trying"

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/consumer-reports-dont-even-bother-trying-obamacare/

We all know I'm not much for predicting what people will do at the ballot box, but I simply cannot believe that ObamaCare is not in a permanent, irreversible meltdown- that it will NEVER be up and running EVER, and that it will finally implode.  The question is whether the Democrats and Obama will be sucked into the black hole?  That last one is trickier- my gut is, no- of course not.  Why would they ever be held accountable?  They've already screwed up the entire housing market and managed to blame it on such laughable culprits as "the free market"- why wouldn't they be able to say industry and the GOP "sabbotaged" ObamaCare or else it'd be fine?

[Peace Of Mind]

Oct 21, 2013 16:38:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It seems there are a good 5 to 10 threads where ObamaCare is the subject, or at least it has come into the discussion.  My aim here is to focus on the failed roll-out and the eventual total meltdown and collapse of ObamaCare; and the political implications for Obama and the Democratic Party.  

CBS News Director, John Dickerson has now come out and said that Obama is in a "credibility death spiral" with respect to ObamaCare.

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/21/john_dickerson_obama_headed_toward_credibility_death_spiral_over_obamacare.html

Consumer Reports rates ObamaCare "Don't even bother trying"

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/consumer-reports-dont-even-bother-trying-obamacare/

We all know I'm not much for predicting what people will do at the ballot box, but I simply cannot believe that ObamaCare is not in a permanent, irreversible meltdown- that it will NEVER be up and running EVER, and that it will finally implode.  The question is whether the Democrats and Obama will be sucked into the black hole?  That last one is trickier- my gut is, no- of course not.  Why would they ever be held accountable?  They've already screwed up the entire housing market and managed to blame it on such laughable culprits as "the free market"- why wouldn't they be able to say industry and the GOP "sabbotaged" ObamaCare or else it'd be fine?

I think this post just guaranteed it's success.

[Tennesseer]

that it will NEVER be up and running EVER

Reminds me of the poster who said with such conviction "Don't doubt me. Ever."

[Angel!]

Oct 21, 2013 16:38:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We all know I'm not much for predicting what people will do at the ballot box, but I simply cannot believe that ObamaCare is not in a permanent, irreversible meltdown- that it will NEVER be up and running EVER, and that it will finally implode.  

What exactly won't be up and running?  The federal exchange website?  You think glitches in the federal exchange website are going to cause the entire law to implode?  There are ways to sign up outside of the federal exchange website.

But I like that you and the GOP have shifted focus now that the whole defund or default debacle is over.    Frankly the ACA failings should have been the focus all along.  Although I still think you are off target in your complaints.  A website not working well is not a sign that the overall law sucks, you should really dig deeper.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 21, 2013 17:25:42 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Oct 21, 2013 16:38:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We all know I'm not much for predicting what people will do at the ballot box, but I simply cannot believe that ObamaCare is not in a permanent, irreversible meltdown- that it will NEVER be up and running EVER, and that it will finally implode.  

What exactly won't be up and running?  The federal exchange website?  You think glitches in the federal exchange website are going to cause the entire law to implode?  There are ways to sign up outside of the federal exchange website.

But I like that you and the GOP have shifted focus now that the whole defund or default debacle is over.    Frankly the ACA failings should have been the focus all along.  Although I still think you are off target in your complaints.  A website not working well is not a sign that the overall law sucks, you should really dig deeper.

1. A 'glitch' is when something works, but there are some kinks:

www.thefreedictionary.com/glitch

n.

1. A minor malfunction, mishap, or technical problem; a snag: a computer glitch; a navigational glitch; a glitch in the negotiations.

This is not a 'glitch'- it doesn't work at all.  At.  All.

Today, Obama gave out a 1-800 number and suggested people enroll the old fashioned way.  The 1-800 was immediately overwhelmed, and those that did get through were directed to the non-functioning website- which might be working in 42 days- and it was suggested that they try "off hours" like 2:00 a.m. - I kid you not.  Look it up.  Here are the Tweets...

twitchy.com/2013/10/21/whoops-president-infomercial-you-guys-just-use-the-phone-for-obamacare-guess-what-happens/

2.  Today, Jay Carney- mouthpiece for Obama- suggested, as a result of the aforementioned 'glitches', the Republican proposal to delay the ObamaCare mandate is now on the table.  So, yeah- you could say the debate is over.  ObamaCare WILL be delayed.  That's a guarantee.  Cruz was right. Obama & company were wrong.


thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/329651-carney-hedges-on-whether-obamacare-mandate-could-be-delayed

BONUS!

3. YOU were wrong.

[swamp]

Wasn't the website designed and implemented by a private contractor?   

I guess private companies fuck up too. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

They've already screwed up the entire housing market and managed to blame it on such laughable culprits as "the free market"- why wouldn't they be able to say industry and the GOP "sabbotaged" ObamaCare or else it'd be fine?

Screw Obamacare, I gotta hear the rational here.  The Dems caused the housing collapse?  Please elaborate.

[Virgil Showlion]

Today, Obama gave out a 1-800 number and suggested people enroll the old fashioned way. The 1-800 was immediately overwhelmed, and those that did get through were directed to the non-functioning website- which might be working in 42 days- and it was suggested that they try "off hours" like 2:00 a.m. - I kid you not.

At least it's helping to keep government spending under control.

[Deleted]

It seems there are a good 5 to 10 threads where ObamaCare is the subject, or at least it has come into the discussion. My aim here is to focus on the failed roll-out and the eventual total meltdown and collapse of ObamaCare; and the political implications for Obama and the Democratic Party.

 So you say... But I'd say, judging from your usual modus operandum, that your goal in creating this thread is to push aside all the other "5 or 10 threads" and consign them all to the scrap heap, while promoting this thread... but why?
 To stroke your ego, perhaps? to be the Alpha Poster?
 What are the odds of that being your primary motivation?

 How would "the smart money" wager on this?

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2013 18:41:23 GMT -5 @wrongsideof30 said:

Just for you, Paul.


{photo excised while i was posting}

 i don't recall the TPTB allowing photoshopped politicos in this forum.
 That said, it is a VERY well-done photo-shop piece... one of the best I've ever seen.

[Deleted]

I'd like to hear Obamacare supporters explain how and why they are OK with the massive deficits it is going to cause.

Of course, the latest CBO report says it will not add to the deficit, but it has since been made clear that this is due to the fact that the CBO had to use certain cost inflation rates that are basically impossible to sustain without rationing care.

Let's discuss.  Take your pick.  Rationed care or massive deficits.

(And while you're at it, explain to me how the medical devices tax makes sense....)

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 21, 2013 19:28:20 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I'd like to hear Obamacare supporters explain how and why they are OK with the massive deficits it is going to cause.

Of course, the latest CBO report says it will not add to the deficit, but it has since been made clear that this is due to the fact that the CBO had to use certain cost inflation rates that are basically impossible to sustain without rationing care.

Let's discuss.  Take your pick.  Rationed care or massive deficits.

(And while you're at it, explain to me how the medical devices tax makes sense....)

The CBO has always used a sort of "multiply by 2 and add $100 billion to get the actual number" rule in their deficit projections.

Actually, it would be interesting to run a regression on actual deficits versus CBO predicted deficits to see what those coefficients really are.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 21, 2013 19:31:36 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 21, 2013 19:28:20 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I'd like to hear Obamacare supporters explain how and why they are OK with the massive deficits it is going to cause.

Of course, the latest CBO report says it will not add to the deficit, but it has since been made clear that this is due to the fact that the CBO had to use certain cost inflation rates that are basically impossible to sustain without rationing care.

Let's discuss.  Take your pick.  Rationed care or massive deficits.

(And while you're at it, explain to me how the medical devices tax makes sense....)

The CBO has always used a sort of "multiply by 2 and add $100 billion to get the actual number" rule in their deficit projections.

always?

[Deleted]

I'm not sure if that is true or not.  But for example, spending increases in Medicare or Medicaid (can't remember which) have always supposed to be small, but the gov't always has to allow bigger increases.  So following the rules, the CBO is forced to predict slow increases even though they know it will not happen that way.

[jkapp]

Oct 21, 2013 19:28:20 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I'd like to hear Obamacare supporters explain how and why they are OK with the massive deficits it is going to cause.

Of course, the latest CBO report says it will not add to the deficit, but it has since been made clear that this is due to the fact that the CBO had to use certain cost inflation rates that are basically impossible to sustain without rationing care.

Let's discuss.  Take your pick.  Rationed care or massive deficits.

(And while you're at it, explain to me how the medical devices tax makes sense....)

The left doesn't care about deficits unless:

1. they are caused by a republican (I still don't know what happened to all the deficit hawks on the left during Bush's years...they just disappeared once Obama became president)

or

2. the deficits are from defense/war spending

Social programs can add trillions to the deficit and the left would ignore it, or outright defend it, until the day they died...

[Deleted]

I think you may be on to something.  I have yet to get any comments about the impending deficits from anyone who supports Obamacare.  I'm not holding my breath.  Let's just close our eyes and pretend it's not happening!

[Deleted]

Deficits are shrinking, no?

Deficits are necessary when there is a severe recession depression... that is when government should spend. Although i would have preferred more works programs and infrastructure to tax cuts and extended unemployment, etc...

Yes, i would prefer to spend on our citizens lives versus war in other countries...

Everyone spends too much... might as well see it spent in ways consistent with my views...

[Deleted]

Shrinking deficits and the fact that Obamacare will increase deficits really are unrelated.  And as I've pointed out before, when interest rates go back to normal, that by itself is a quick $200B added to the deficit.  Today's deficits are not "necessary" to help the economy get through a recession.  Extended "stimulus" only slows economic recovery by preventing efficient use of resources.

[Angel!]

Oct 21, 2013 19:28:20 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I'd like to hear Obamacare supporters explain how and why they are OK with the massive deficits it is going to cause.

Of course, the latest CBO report says it will not add to the deficit, but it has since been made clear that this is due to the fact that the CBO had to use certain cost inflation rates that are basically impossible to sustain without rationing care.

Let's discuss.  Take your pick.  Rationed care or massive deficits.

(And while you're at it, explain to me h the medical devices tax makes sense....)

I'm not OK with deficits. However I am OK with the spending on healthcare. Fortunately there are other ways to deal with deficits than to just cut the program. We could increase taxes and cut spending in other areas. I personally think healthcare should be a priority in this country and worth the cost, even if that means higher taxes.

As far as the medical device tax, all I know of it was your explanation of taxing the thing the taxes are supposed to be funding. Which does sound stupid. Although a great deal of healthcare spending still comes from individuals due to deductibles and such. So I'm not really sure how it all works out.

[Deleted]

So since there is basically no chance of cutting anywhere near enough spending to account for Obamacare as well as the extra $200B in interest we will be paying once interest rates go back up, that leaves taxes.  Who needs to pay those taxes?  The only people we're allowed to raise taxes on are the rich, and that is unsustainable.  30 years ago, EVERYONE was paying higher taxes.  Would you at least support that?

As for the medical device tax, yes, it is basically a tax on the rich and on employers to help fund everyone else's medical care.

Wouldn't you at least agree that Obamacare should have at least been designed to actually be fully funded?  But honestly, it never would have become law if it were designed that way.  Which means going back in time, the only law that could have been passed that did not result in deficit spending would have been one that was primarily designed to help bring down costs.  And if that had been done, we'd be in a much better place right now.

[Angel!]

I agree everyone should pay higher taxes. They need to start by getting rid of the Bush tax cuts.

I also agree that this (and for the most part every) law should be fully funded from the start. I think part of the problem is that this law was so huge that it is hard to truly estimate the costs. Since so much really comes down to how many get the subsidies, how many pay the penalty, and how many employers owe fines there are a lot of unknowns at this time.

[Deleted]

Obamacare was purposely structured to push the debt-creation beyond the initial 10-year CBO study and to artificially deflate future cost inflation.  In other words, they made it "unfunded" on purpose.

Don't you also agree that if Obamacare were fully funded and transparent on costs and taxes (like Obama claims he is), that it never would have passed Congress?

[mmhmm]

Oct 21, 2013 20:28:58 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Oct 21, 2013 19:28:20 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

I'd like to hear Obamacare supporters explain how and why they are OK with the massive deficits it is going to cause.

Of course, the latest CBO report says it will not add to the deficit, but it has since been made clear that this is due to the fact that the CBO had to use certain cost inflation rates that are basically impossible to sustain without rationing care.

Let's discuss.  Take your pick.  Rationed care or massive deficits.

(And while you're at it, explain to me h the medical devices tax makes sense....)

I'm not OK with deficits. However I am OK with the spending on healthcare. Fortunately there are other ways to deal with deficits than to just cut the program. We could increase taxes and cut spending in other areas. I personally think healthcare should be a priority in this country and worth the cost, even if that means higher taxes.

As far as the medical device tax, all I know of it was your explanation of taxing the thing the taxes are supposed to be funding. Which does sound stupid. Although a great deal of healthcare spending still comes from individuals due to deductibles and such. So I'm not really sure how it all works out.

I haven't taken the time to do any research on the medical device tax.  I will say not every little nest of doctors needs its own CAT scanner, its own MRI, it's own bone density scanner, etc., ad infinitum.  Yet, that's what's been happening.  Everybody wants their own nest of machines to add to income.  Once they've got it, there's a quantum increase in such tests ordered.  Sorry, but I've seen it.

[Angel!]

Oct 21, 2013 20:51:38 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Obamacare was purposely structured to push the debt-creation beyond the initial 10-year CBO study and to artificially deflate future cost inflation.  In other words, they made it "unfunded" on purpose.

Don't you also agree that if Obamacare were fully funded and transparent on costs and taxes (like Obama claims he is), that it never would have passed Congress?

Honestly, I really have no idea as to the answer to that question. I don't really recall, was the taxes and funding a huge discussion point? It basically got through without any republican support, would higher taxes have kept some of the dems from supporting it?

[Angel!]

Oct 21, 2013 20:55:45 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 21, 2013 20:28:58 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I'm not OK with deficits. However I am OK with the spending on healthcare. Fortunately there are other ways to deal with deficits than to just cut the program. We could increase taxes and cut spending in other areas. I personally think healthcare should be a priority in this country and worth the cost, even if that means higher taxes.

As far as the medical device tax, all I know of it was your explanation of taxing the thing the taxes are supposed to be funding. Which does sound stupid. Although a great deal of healthcare spending still comes from individuals due to deductibles and such. So I'm not really sure how it all works out.

I haven't taken the time to do any research on the medical device tax.  I will say not every little nest of doctors needs its own CAT scanner, its own MRI, it's own bone density scanner, etc., ad infinitum.  Yet, that's what's been happening.  Everybody wants their own nest of machines to add to income.  Once they've got it, there's a quantum increase in such tests ordered.  Sorry, but I've seen it.

Interesting take on the subject. I'm not sure how a small tax helps with this though since the costs will just be passed through to patients. I could see how having expensive equipment in every office drives up overall medical costs though.

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2013 17:25:42 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Oct 21, 2013 16:38:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We all know I'm not much for predicting what people will do at the ballot box, but I simply cannot believe that ObamaCare is not in a permanent, irreversible meltdown- that it will NEVER be up and running EVER, and that it will finally implode.  

What exactly won't be up and running?  The federal exchange website?  You think glitches in the federal exchange website are going to cause the entire law to implode?  There are ways to sign up outside of the federal exchange website.

But I like that you and the GOP have shifted focus now that the whole defund or default debacle is over.    Frankly the ACA failings should have been the focus all along.  Although I still think you are off target in your complaints.  A website not working well is not a sign that the overall law sucks, you should really dig deeper.

no.....

the fact that numbers arent coming out tells me that

rumors abound

i have heard 31k have signed up

i have heard 56k

i know 8 million hits on the site.....but that hasnt turned into actual policy holders so far

based on what i have read, they need what, 7 million people to sign up to make the numbers work?

the cost is turning a lot of folks away.....

and IF we see 1/3 of that number in the first year, i will be surprised

my guesstimate is less than 1 million signing up by end of next year......

and if that is anywhere close.....the program is in trouble

[Deleted]

The left doesn't care about deficits unless:

1. they are caused by a republican (I still don't know what happened to all the deficit hawks on the left during Bush's years...they just disappeared once Obama became president)

or

2. the deficits are from defense/war spending.

Social programs can add trillions to the deficit and the left would ignore it, or outright defend it, until the day they died...

 "$ Trillions for senseless killing, but not one cent for compassion!"

[Peace Of Mind]

I'd like to hear Obamacare supporters explain how and why they are OK with the massive deficits it is going to cause.

We've (our country) always been in debt.  We'll always be in debt.  A sick poor kid or one with cancer or take a little off the trillions owed?  Hmmm... how do I decide?

We're already paying for the poor and because they constantly use the ER it's more than we should be paying.  At least now they are forced to pay something and will have a regular doctor instead of the ER.  Maybe, just maybe, we'll break even at the very least but little innocent kids get help when they are sick.  I'm ok with that. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 21, 2013 21:22:37 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Oct 21, 2013 17:25:42 GMT -5 Angel! said:

What exactly won't be up and running?  The federal exchange website?  You think glitches in the federal exchange website are going to cause the entire law to implode?  There are ways to sign up outside of the federal exchange website.

But I like that you and the GOP have shifted focus now that the whole defund or default debacle is over.    Frankly the ACA failings should have been the focus all along.  Although I still think you are off target in your complaints.  A website not working well is not a sign that the overall law sucks, you should really dig deeper.

no.....

the fact that numbers arent coming out tells me that

rumors abound

i have heard 31k have signed up (first week total = not a rumor)

i have heard 56k (second week total = not a rumor)

i know 8 million hits on the site.....but that hasnt turned into actual policy holders so far (no policies until jan 1st = not a rumor)

based on what i have read, they need what, 7 million people to sign up to make the numbers work? (question = not a rumor)

the cost is turning a lot of folks away.....(now THERE is a rumor.  )

and IF we see 1/3 of that number in the first year, i will be surprised (your speculation = not a rumor)

my guesstimate is less than 1 million signing up by end of next year......(your guess = not a rumor)

and if that is anywhere close.....the program is in trouble (not a rumor)

conclusion: you definitely have heard ONE rumor. 

[Deleted]

 Speculation is often the seed of rumors.
 And speculators can be very devious.