mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 25, 2013 13:06:38 GMT -5
FYI, you can't really have a decent debate with a crazy person. Sigh...Probably why most everyone else has given up on this thread. You can't argue with someone that doesn't actually use facts. Add that to the endless "walls of text" posts and you've got a loser coming out of the gate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 5:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 13:13:28 GMT -5
Creates a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
Get into the weeds of why counterproductive market-based reform of an excludable quasi-public good is a shockingly stupid approach - particularly when compounded on a system already skewed badly in that direction - and it's a wall of text.
Don't, and your dismissed for the lack of facts in your assertion. I'm with Bliss Carmen on 'facts.'
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 13:23:37 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 13:29:26 GMT -5
There is a place where there MIGHT be a place for government. States could use the "Wind Pool" model hurricane-prone states use, or the FEMA NFIP model to cover that 8% who are actually rejected.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 13:34:20 GMT -5
A great- really an excellent post. Thank you. I'm glad you had the time and patience to respond- don't look for a constructive reply from Angel. She still will not admit that ObamaCare wasn't ready for prime time- she knew it so well, I was so misinformed, and we'd see on October 1st...well, we did. Will Miss Angel touch it? Not a chance. And if you have someone- who I will refrain from calling "crazy" because it violates the TOS, not because I don't think it- who won't admit the website doesn't work- insisting on calling it "glitchy"- I seriously doubt you will get a substantive response to any of the facts you supplied in your "wall of text" post.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 13:42:39 GMT -5
Thanks Mojo for actual thought-out responses with data and such. I will read it more thoroughly later, but will add a couple points.
1 - PBP was claiming that those with pre-existing conditions can't afford premiums. The fact is that their premiums are the same as everyone else's. So he could try to make the claim that all premiums are unaffordable, but can't call out those with pre-exisitng conditions because there is no longer any difference.
2 - It is absolutely a worse deal for the young, healthy schoo. This is good or bad depending on how you look at it. It does spread the cost equally, but you could question if that is fully fair when there isn't equal risk. Personally, I thought there should be the ability to charge those with pre-existing conditions more, but up to a limit. Have them priced slightly higher due to risk. It isn't what they did though. Although tobacco users are priced higher.
3 - Ok, it is millions. I guess it just doesn't bother me much. The laws regarding insurace changed. So some people are going to find that they need different insurance. I didn't think it would be millions, but this doesn't seem that surprising to me. If your insurance doesn't cover X,Y,Z and insurances are now required to cover X,Y,Z, then something is going to happen. They aren't losing access to health insurance, just told to find a new plan because the current plan doesn't meet regulations.
4 - I'm not saying underemployment isn't a problem, just that it is going to result in lower unemployment. We will have the same number of labor hours, just spread among more people. Is that a totally bad thing? Or do we prefer more unemployed & more fully employed? I actually don't know which is the better scenario. Frankly, if we can get to a point where unemployment isn't so high, then these companies won't find it as easy to split labor and this will be less of an issue.
5 - Interesting they are all health care jobs.
7 - Yeah, the website is fucked up. I guess I don't have much faith that even given an extra year it would have functioned better at the start. I don't know how easy it is to set up a perfect website that will have millions of users on the launch day. I kind of thought it was the expectation that there would be problems, although maybe not problems of this magnitude. It sucks, but given an extra year and a billion more dollars wasted, my guess is it still would have been a last minute rush with problems. That is my experience as a contractor, especially when we work govt projects.
I just don't follow the connection that the federal website is fucked up = ACA has failed. It just means they need to fix it and that will eventually happen.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Oct 25, 2013 13:44:54 GMT -5
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Oct 25, 2013 13:45:55 GMT -5
Angel,
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 25, 2013 13:49:23 GMT -5
Creates a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. Get into the weeds of why counterproductive market-based reform of an excludable quasi-public good is a shockingly stupid approach - particularly when compounded on a system already skewed badly in that direction - and it's a wall of text. Don't, and your dismissed for the lack of facts in your assertion. I'm with Bliss Carmen on 'facts.' It's mox-nix to me, for what it's worth, Mojo ... unless the post is an article from another website, in which case our CoC says: Excerpt and link. However, if you think most posters actually read something that looks, at first glance, like a rewrite of Atlas Shrugged, you're mistaken.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 5:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 13:50:01 GMT -5
FYI, you can't really have a decent debate with a crazy person. I will sometimes discover after logging off that I was having a debate with an article from a major publication like Scientific American.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 13:53:43 GMT -5
If only republicans had just waited to jump on this rather than shutting down the govt. They may get exactly what they wanted, but they won't have suffered from all the negative public attention. Cruz was a moron. The republicans should have been running with this since 10/1, yet it got to be the backstory to their defunding drama. Even you took over a week to post anything about the website, it actually surprised me you were so slow on that - I guess it wasn't headlines the first few days. I'll admit I tried to play with it then and got sent to the queue and dropped several times due to all the users.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 13:57:33 GMT -5
Creates a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. Get into the weeds of why counterproductive market-based reform of an excludable quasi-public good is a shockingly stupid approach - particularly when compounded on a system already skewed badly in that direction - and it's a wall of text. Don't, and your dismissed for the lack of facts in your assertion. I'm with Bliss Carmen on 'facts.' It's mox-nix to me, for what it's worth, Mojo ... unless the post is an article from another website, in which case our CoC says: Excerpt and link. However, if you think most posters actually read something that looks, at first glance, like a rewrite of Atlas Shrugged, you're mistaken. I'll admit I rarely read the longer posts. I only read through Mojo's because it was in direct response to me and seemed to be an actual thoughtful, factual reply. A little better than getting a bunch of "NOPE"s with nothing further to back the statement.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 25, 2013 14:00:06 GMT -5
Most folks don't read the "walls of text", Angel. If people would just learn to, if nothing else, excerpt their quoted posts before going into their own harangues, it would make a huge difference, I think. The quoted post is already on the boards to be read. Excerpt it, include the Reply # and poster, and you're golden. *ETA: Mojo's post, by the way, wasn't one of the posts to which I was referring. His just happened to show up while I was comprising mine. While Mojo's was long enough to be rejected by many, it was covering questions point by point, and is understandable, if not enticing.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 14:02:54 GMT -5
Has anyone in Washington said otherwise? It is absolutely correct that many people will see their premiums go up. With the new regulations on pricing a lot of premiums are going to change in both directions. It is mostly the young and healthy (especially men) that will see their premiums rise. They used to be in a risk pool with cheap, healthy people & priced on the fact that they are young, healthy, and men. All that has changed. They are still cheaper because they are young, but being healthy & a man is no longer a factor and the pool has more expensive individuals joining. So their rates will go up. Several reports have shown that premiums are now more in line with group plan pricing. Which makes sense, because the individuals in the group and the pricing rules are a lot more similar to group plans now.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,244
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Oct 25, 2013 14:07:40 GMT -5
I have to admit that if someone posts a full page block of text I skip over it without reading. If someone is loading their post with circumlocutions, I will skip it even if it is short. However, in the process of all the skipping I have done, I noticed that everyone seems to accept it as a fact that the ACA is causing employers to cut hours on a massive scale. There are a lot of anecdotal stories about specific employers cutting hours, but the national jobs reports show that there hasn't been any shift toward part time labor on a national scale. blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/22/dont-blame-health-law-for-high-part-time-employment/
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Oct 25, 2013 14:10:31 GMT -5
not only are their rates going up, so are their deductibles, and they'll have to pay more to reach the same level of service. higher premiums, higher deductibles, lower percentage of coverage after Out of Pocket expense level is reached. from what I'm seeing, if i don't get a subsidy, the cheapest individual option for me is still unaffordable. trust me. i want it to work. i hope they can get it together. but I worry that the longer it's in effect, the more power the insurance companies will have, their best and brightest(who eclipse govt's BaB) will come up with ways to charge a lot more and deliver a lot less. i hope i'm wrong. i hope the insurance lobby doesn't overthrow the MIC, financial lobbies and take over the govt.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 14:13:42 GMT -5
I have to admit that if someone posts a full page block of text I skip over it without reading. If someone is loading their post with circumlocutions, I will skip it even if it is short. However, in the process of all the skipping I have done, I noticed that everyone seems to accept it as a fact that the ACA is causing employers to cut hours on a massive scale. There are a lot of anecdotal stories about specific employers cutting hours, but the national jobs reports show that there hasn't been any shift toward part time labor on a national scale. blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/22/dont-blame-health-law-for-high-part-time-employment/Interesting. We just keep hearing stories about how certain employers are cutting hours that I assumed there was at least somewhat of a national trend. Apparently not at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 14:20:52 GMT -5
Lol! Just admit it, you've got nothing. You hate the law but can't come up with something better. It sucks, but this is why Republicans are failing to kill the ACA. There is no better solution that keeps a free market aspect to insurance while ensuring everyone has access at the same time. And the old system sucks enough that many of us feel like going back would be a step backwards. as i was stuck in traffic last night, i was listening to Mark Levin... why?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 25, 2013 14:23:03 GMT -5
Studies show that getting pissed off can be addictive- how else does RW radio survive?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 14:24:17 GMT -5
the medicaid side is going to explode in numbers especially for those states that took the feds money and changed the requirements to get on medicaid and yes....this is going to be a budget buster for a lot of states dj doesnt agree.....he thinks it is no big deal....especially for california it is no big deal. your high end projection for 2020 was $1.3B. that might be a lot of money in Wyoming, but it would not run California for FIVE DAYS.some of the red state governors were thinking ahead imo thinking? doubtful, imo.maybe not popular now, but come another 5 years, and they will be the ones smiling i am in good health. i hope you are too, so i can remind you of the fact that you said this in 5 years. my prediction: most, if not all, of the red states will be on the ACA medicare expansion by 2018.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Oct 25, 2013 14:26:34 GMT -5
Since you threw out the single mom with two kids, making $30k earlier... hi.. *waves*. My employer offers insurance, so that eliminates subsidies. My individual plan is borderline to the Cadillac tax, so I'm guessing it is not crap. For now, insuring my son will save me from that tax, since as a family we are under the $27k limit (my daughter is over 18 and on her own now). Getting the insurance has never been an issue for me, but with a $1k deductible for each of us and an 80/20 split, actually getting healthcare is another thing. Don't get me wrong, I take my kid in for the stuff you mentioned, ear infections, well visits, etc. It's my responsibility as his parent to provide this for him. I skip it for myself, because even after the insurance discount, a simple appointment still runs around $150. I consider it pretty much catastrophic insurance. I just recently got done paying for my son's appendectomy from 2 year ago. I'm still making payments on an mri I had a year ago. Obamacare hasn't changed a thing for me, and it seems many people don't realize that affordable insurance premiums do not actually translate into affordable healthcare. This is true. Healthcare doesn't become free. But, it does become a lot easier to get treated if you have insurance. It is also a lot easier to deal with hitting your max-out-of-pocket that is in the 5-10K range than it is to figure out what to do if you don't have insurance and the treatment you need is going to be $40K. The ACA doesn't fix everything by any means. I just think it fixes a lot of issues and haven't heard better proposals to fix these issues. It may actually be too bad your company isn't dropping your insurance. For very low income folks, not just the premiums are being subsidized, but the copays and deductables are subsidized as well. Not sure if that would help you or not. I am not asking for free, I am asking how the ACA fixes your earlier concerns: "How does your plan help a single mom with 2 kids that makes 30K/yr? I understand that your plan would make insurance somewhat cheaper, but now you aren't covering well visits, vaccines, flu shots, ear infections. So insurance is slightly cheaper, although likely still not affordable to someone of that income level and it has tons more out-of-pocket costs. Suppose one of the kids has asthma. Does your plan cover the $400/month needed in asthma meds? Or does your plan only cover when the kid needs to be rushed to the ER and hospitalized for several days after the mom couldn't afford the maintenance medication that would work best and had to settle for cheap rescue inhalers?" And yes, it is too bad that my company isn't dropping my insurance, so instead of me paying for me and my child, taxpayers can subsidize us... What's worse is that I think that not only you are serious, but that you believe it is actually a good idea. Fyi, I wasn't complaining. We are managing. I am not looking for a handout, subsidies, free healthcare; I am proud of how far I have come, please do not drag me into dependence. I was simply stating some facts you didn't take into account. The ACA does not provide the fixes you think it does, and affordable insurance is not the same as affordable healthcare.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 14:28:44 GMT -5
not only are their rates going up, so are their deductibles, and they'll have to pay more to reach the same level of service. higher premiums, higher deductibles, lower percentage of coverage after Out of Pocket expense level is reached. from what I'm seeing, if i don't get a subsidy, the cheapest individual option for me is still unaffordable. trust me. i want it to work. i hope they can get it together. but I worry that the longer it's in effect, the more power the insurance companies will have, their best and brightest(who eclipse govt's BaB) will come up with ways to charge a lot more and deliver a lot less. i hope i'm wrong. i hope the insurance lobby doesn't overthrow the MIC, financial lobbies and take over the govt. Deductibles can be difficult to compare. What one company covers without a deductible another may not. Deductibles have gone up, but there is a lot more stuff that is mandatory to cover at 100% even if you haven't hit your deductible, so the deductible does not apply to as much and then you have to look at what does and does not go under the deductible. For example, my deductible is $4k and NOTHING is covered (except those mandatory items) until I hit my deductible. Another plan might have an $6K deductible, but might just require a copay for medications, ER visits, doc visits, etc. You can't just say that a $6K deductible is worse because most of the run of the mill stuff you will use the insurance for is covered outside of the deductible. An ER visit for this person would just cost the $250 (or whatever) copay, whereas for me, it could cost the entire $4K deductible. My point is you can't do a dollar for dollar comparison of deductibles because there are too many other factors in determining if the deductible is truly high or not. There should be full coverage after you reach out-of-pocket. I assume you mean the deductible. It sucks if you can't find something affordable. I do think applying the 9.5% to only those under 400% was a mistake. It leaves a big affordability gap for those that are older and don't have kids. I don't know if this was intentional or merely overlooked. But, I do see it as an issue and it sucks.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 14:29:22 GMT -5
FYI, you can't really have a decent debate with a crazy person. oh, he is not crazy. he is simply carrying the water for his masters.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 14:32:10 GMT -5
Sigh...Probably why most everyone else has given up on this thread. You can't argue with someone that doesn't actually use facts. Add that to the endless "walls of text" posts and you've got a loser coming out of the gate. he is using "Gish's Gallup" rhetorical technique. the same one Romney used in the first debate. however, in the internet age, the facts will eventually catch up with you, no matter how voluminous your diarrhea.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 14:36:21 GMT -5
If only republicans had just waited to jump on this rather than shutting down the govt. They may get exactly what they wanted, but they won't have suffered from all the negative public attention. Cruz was a moron. The republicans should have been running with this since 10/1, yet it got to be the backstory to their defunding drama. Even you took over a week to post anything about the website, it actually surprised me you were so slow on that - I guess it wasn't headlines the first few days. I'll admit I tried to play with it then and got sent to the queue and dropped several times due to all the users. and the defunding drama is apparently going to be replayed at least once before next November = even less time to criticize ObamaCare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 5:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 14:37:57 GMT -5
Thanks Mojo for actual thought-out responses with data and such. I will read it more thoroughly later, but will add a couple points. 1 - PBP was claiming that those with pre-existing conditions can't afford premiums. The fact is that their premiums are the same as everyone else's. So he could try to make the claim that all premiums are unaffordable, but can't call out those with pre-exisitng conditions because there is no longer any difference. 2 - It is absolutely a worse deal for the young, healthy schoo. This is good or bad depending on how you look at it. It does spread the cost equally, but you could question if that is fully fair when there isn't equal risk. Personally, I thought there should be the ability to charge those with pre-existing conditions more, but up to a limit. Have them priced slightly higher due to risk. It isn't what they did though. Although tobacco users are priced higher. 3 - Ok, it is millions. I guess it just doesn't bother me much. The laws regarding insurace changed. So some people are going to find that they need different insurance. I didn't think it would be millions, but this doesn't seem that surprising to me. If your insurance doesn't cover X,Y,Z and insurances are now required to cover X,Y,Z, then something is going to happen. They aren't losing access to health insurance, just told to find a new plan because the current plan doesn't meet regulations. 4 - I'm not saying underemployment isn't a problem, just that it is going to result in lower unemployment. We will have the same number of labor hours, just spread among more people. Is that a totally bad thing? Or do we prefer more unemployed & more fully employed? I actually don't know which is the better scenario. Frankly, if we can get to a point where unemployment isn't so high, then these companies won't find it as easy to split labor and this will be less of an issue. 5 - Interesting they are all health care jobs. 7 - Yeah, the website is fucked up. I guess I don't have much faith that even given an extra year it would have functioned better at the start. I don't know how easy it is to set up a perfect website that will have millions of users on the launch day. I kind of thought it was the expectation that there would be problems, although maybe not problems of this magnitude. It sucks, but given an extra year and a billion more dollars wasted, my guess is it still would have been a last minute rush with problems. That is my experience as a contractor, especially when we work govt projects. I just don't follow the connection that the federal website is fucked up = ACA has failed. It just means they need to fix it and that will eventually happen. For the record, Angel - and these will be brief and might be my last word (stop cheering) for a few days - 1. I agree that the markup from least to greatest premium is reduced by ACA reform, but I think a lot of that is because of the mandated ingredients of bronze-level plans. I think your view of what healthcare insurance should optimally cover is closer to that of Kathleen Sebelius, while mine hews more closely to that of Michele Malkin - but the difference in my view is a function of affordability; ideally, in a world where healthcare is delivered by talking weasels from the back of a flying unicorn, I'd absolutely want soup-to-nuts healthcare provision (not insurance) to be a universal civic right under the social contract. I also don't think it was such a significant markup for a significant market segment as ACA supporters claim. 2. It was already the case that premium increases were weakly correlated with risk. Insurers already lost money on high-risk insureds, sometimes a lot of money. They already padded that risk by fleecing low-risk insureds. That's what actuaries are for. I don't think we're going to see much of an improvement in risk/premium correlation as a relative measure, and I'm grimly confident we'll see out-of-pocket cost increases as an absolute measure. Which would promote savvier healthcare shopping if other elements didn't conspire to make choice of provider more constrained post-reform (because healthcare provision is still rivalrous, even if PPACA makes it theoretically non-excludable; and one of the perverse outcomes of PPACA is that the most vulnerable insured population of Medicaid recipients is made more rather than less excludable by the reform). 3. The problem isn't substantive, I agree. But the optics are politically toxic. You are going to hear that "keep your healthcare plan" trope ad nauseam, because so many voters will feel like they haven't kept their healthcare plan. They'll be angry at their employers and their insurers, yes, but they won't be able to vote with their feet (again, the market forces introduced by PPACA make this harder to do; that's a contestable assertion we can come back to when we have more data, but I expect to see diminishing contribution and a dwindling market share in the privately-insured individual market which is where the savings are). They will be able to lodge a protest vote at the ballot-box, historically a function of mid-term elections. 4. From a poverty and mobility perspective, I think it is a bad thing, yes. It's a very knotty problem with a lot of cofactors, and public policy has to be coordinated across a lot of fronts in short-term unpopular ways to address it. Most poor people are not poor out of choice; too many policy provisions to give them opportunity are uncoordinated to the point of being counterproductively tokenistic. This, imo, is the single biggest social policy challenge confronting the United States, and it's not taken seriously - not least because it's politically convenient to spread 100,000 FTEs across 135,000 bodies. Even more soapbox-y for me than healthcare reform, this one. 5. Particularly interesting in view of the critique that PPACA expands coverage but reduces provision of healthcare. It makes for-profit healthcare provision less profitable, in several ways, and so less desirable. It skews the insured population, and hence the population most likely to seek care, toward the highest-risk population, and hence the population most likely to yield a lawsuit against a provider. This and other factors make medicine less attractive, and the existing shortage of medical professionals becomes another problem of affordable healthcare delivery worsened by the reform. 7. I've only ever been involved with IT contracts in the government sector from the government side, but they've all been horrendous screw-ups. Part of the problem with healthcare.gov, oddly enough, seems to have been the understandable bunker mentality of the administration, prizing loyalty over actual technical development ability. But the facts will emerge on that. I agree that the website implementation fiasco no more reflects the Obama administration's ability to govern more globally than did the Katrina fiasco reflect that of the Bush administration. I think it has the same potential to torpedo faith in Obama's government as a matter of optics, but we'll see to what extent that is realized: the President enjoys a larger reservoir of goodwill from a broader base than did his predecessor. My criticisms of PPACA stem from my assessment, based on past performance of state-level reforms, of its impact on affordability and availability of healthcare. I will go on record: I will be very happy indeed if the average American has better access to more affordable healthcare provision in 2016 than in 2012. That will be a legacy of which Obama, and more pertinently Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, can be proud. I don't see how it can happen without some monstrous Enronesque hidden opportunity cost elsewhere, especially given demographic and socioeconomic trends on other important metrics, nationally and internationally. But I'm not rooting for it to fail, so much as essentially unable to see it doing anything else. And repealing it will also make it worse, at this point. That's on the record, too.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 14:38:01 GMT -5
I have to admit that if someone posts a full page block of text I skip over it without reading. If someone is loading their post with circumlocutions, I will skip it even if it is short. However, in the process of all the skipping I have done, I noticed that everyone seems to accept it as a fact that the ACA is causing employers to cut hours on a massive scale. There are a lot of anecdotal stories about specific employers cutting hours, but the national jobs reports show that there hasn't been any shift toward part time labor on a national scale. blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/22/dont-blame-health-law-for-high-part-time-employment/correct. in fact, this problem peaked before ObamaCare was even enacted. it has been correcting since then, albeit slowly.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 14:39:57 GMT -5
This is true. Healthcare doesn't become free. But, it does become a lot easier to get treated if you have insurance. It is also a lot easier to deal with hitting your max-out-of-pocket that is in the 5-10K range than it is to figure out what to do if you don't have insurance and the treatment you need is going to be $40K. The ACA doesn't fix everything by any means. I just think it fixes a lot of issues and haven't heard better proposals to fix these issues. It may actually be too bad your company isn't dropping your insurance. For very low income folks, not just the premiums are being subsidized, but the copays and deductables are subsidized as well. Not sure if that would help you or not. I am not asking for free, I am asking how the ACA fixes your earlier concerns: "How does your plan help a single mom with 2 kids that makes 30K/yr? I understand that your plan would make insurance somewhat cheaper, but now you aren't covering well visits, vaccines, flu shots, ear infections. So insurance is slightly cheaper, although likely still not affordable to someone of that income level and it has tons more out-of-pocket costs. Suppose one of the kids has asthma. Does your plan cover the $400/month needed in asthma meds? Or does your plan only cover when the kid needs to be rushed to the ER and hospitalized for several days after the mom couldn't afford the maintenance medication that would work best and had to settle for cheap rescue inhalers?" And yes, it is too bad that my company isn't dropping my insurance, so instead of me paying for me and my child, taxpayers can subsidize us... What's worse is that I think that not only you are serious, but that you believe it is actually a good idea. Fyi, I wasn't complaining. We are managing. I am not looking for a handout, subsidies, free healthcare; I am proud of how far I have come, please do not drag me into dependence. I was simply stating some facts you didn't take into account. The ACA does not provide the fixes you think it does, and affordable insurance is not the same as affordable healthcare. Well, in my scenario the Mom isn't getting insurance through her work. Which is why she can't afford insurance. The ACA helps her because she will be eligible for subsidized premiums, much like your workplace provides you with subsidized premiums. It puts her on equal footing as those with jobs that provide insurance. And yes, I am serious about your workplace dropping your insurance. I am really confused how you supposedly have a cadillac plan, but pay so much out of pocket. Regardless, you would be eligible for lower deductibles and such on the exchange. I guess it is all how you look at it, but I don't really consider it a handout. I think healthcare is a right, not only for those that can afford it. Kind of like schools. You don't pay an equal amount towards public schools, but your kids still get an education, basically subsidized by the richer taxpayers. I think healthcare should be similar. Everyone pays what they can afford, but all have access to at least basic healthcare. I mean do you beat yourself up over your subsidized schooling? Or subsidized roads? At your income you are paying very little in taxes compared to most, so you aren't technically paying for your fair share of many govt provided services. Most see schooling and roads as something that should be available to everyone. I see healthcare in the same way. I think it is sad when people suffer because they can't afford to go to a doctor or take the medication they need.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 14:41:38 GMT -5
Add that to the endless "walls of text" posts and you've got a loser coming out of the gate. he is using "Gish's Gallup" rhetorical technique. the same one Romney used in the first debate. however, in the internet age, the facts will eventually catch up with you, no matter how voluminous your diarrhea. Funny. I have never heard that before and had to look it up. Yes, that does seem to be exactly what he is doing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 5:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 14:42:55 GMT -5
as i was stuck in traffic last night, i was listening to Mark Levin... why? because it's at least a 90 minute commute, and even though Mark can be ornery, he does have a few good points he believes in a constitutional republic he believes in a lot of the same ideals i do and i may actually hear or learn something i didnt know and it sure in the hell beats listening to top 40 music nowadays
|
|