EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 13, 2013 0:19:51 GMT -5
i am kinda wondering what this distinction even means. what is the #2 lie? Top lies by vote count: If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Obama repeatedly made this claim in previous years; back then we rated it Half True. When people got cancellation notices in the individual market this year, Obama claimed, "What we said was, you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed." That got a Pants on Fire. 59% Congress is exempt from the health care law. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said, "President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception" to Obamacare during an August speech in Iowa. False. 8% The IRS will keep a database of health secrets. In May, Michele Bachmann gave a TV interview in which she claimed the IRS is going to be "in charge" of "a huge national database" on health care that will include Americans’ "personal, intimate, most close-to-the-vest-secrets." Pants on Fire. 7% No U.S.-trained doctors will accept Obamacare. In an October column, Ann Coulter wrote, "No doctors who went to an American medical school will be accepting Obamacare." Pants on Fire. 7% And a few others www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-readers-poll-results-2013/
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 13, 2013 10:16:20 GMT -5
I understand it is no longer referred to as Obamacare. The new name is Obummercare.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,495
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2013 10:49:29 GMT -5
I understand it is no longer referred to as Obamacare. The new name is Obummercare. how productive.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 13, 2013 10:52:22 GMT -5
I understand it is no longer referred to as Obamacare. The new name is Obummercare. how productive. And the ACA is?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,495
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2013 11:03:05 GMT -5
your apology is accepted.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 13, 2013 14:44:12 GMT -5
Given that Obama isn't on the ballot this year, I prefer the nomenclature that reminds every voter that Democrats believed this reform would make healthcare "affordable."
I may have missed it, but has anybody else seen the guesstistic that 13 Americans have lost insurance for every one that HHS is (falsely*) claiming has enrolled?
(*It's a false claim because they're not enrolled until they've paid their first premium. Brilliantly, healthcare.gov isn't set up to perform this crucial function; neither is it consistently reporting to insurers who has "signed up" through the government portal." As many as 90% of the underwhelming total reported as having enrolled may not, in fact, be enrolled.)
But nobody knows, because HHS is either not tracking or not sharing that data. Thanks again, Most Transparent Administration In History.
On the Politifact issue, I seem to remember a rather important ruling regarding Mitt Romney's accurate claim that millions would lose healthcare insurance as a result of Obamacare reform. Politifact then upheld the President's now-discredited "Lie of Three Years Ago," because then the President had an election to win.
The contempt with which truth is held by people who purport to rely on it as some sort of objective standard is dismaying. These people would not know truth if it increased their healthcare costs 40% while reducing both the quality and scope of actual healthcare provision. In fact, these people won't know that truth. They'll claim it's a step towards universal healthcare, or some such nonsense.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 13, 2013 15:56:10 GMT -5
I haven't been following this since the start of November. Is the website finally working at least?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,495
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2013 16:10:45 GMT -5
I haven't been following this since the start of November. Is the website finally working at least? let me answer it this way: that is not the current complaint.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 13, 2013 16:13:21 GMT -5
Yep, and the President's was lie #1. Palin is not in office, nor is Romney. Do not underestimate the headline from Politifact. No one has to be ìn office to win the award. Palin's lie was so big, they created an award for ìt! The most liberal person I know- and I'm talking hard-core progressive here, and not a dummy, either- had this to say about this: He's a First Assistant Director at Maron right now- has worked at VH1 (Single Ladies) and numerous other shows.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 13, 2013 16:15:46 GMT -5
I haven't been following this since the start of November. Is the website finally working at least? let me answer it this way: that is not the current complaint. What is the current complaint? Low enrollment? More Americans being kicked off their old plans? Rising premiums? All of the above?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,495
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2013 16:19:00 GMT -5
let me answer it this way: that is not the current complaint. What is the current complaint? Low enrollment? More Americans being kicked off their old plans? Rising premiums? All of the above? the kicked off one is the howl of discontent du jour. but low enrollment grumbling is still out there, as well.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 13, 2013 16:19:40 GMT -5
If by working you mean letting people get online, then sort of.
They're being diverted into queues rather than getting error messages, which probably makes them feel much better about the experience.
A larger number of them are now able to complete the process successfully, although completing the process (a) doesn't complete the process, since they still have to pay a premium and they can't do that through the website; and (b) doesn't mean that the website successfully gets their information correctly put through to the insurer.
The numbers claimed by HHS as having "enrolled" assume that the wastage due to (a) and (b) is cumulatively zero. This is not the case.
The numbers are also bolstered heavily by the state exchanges operating in a minority of states, chiefly in New York and California. In both of those states, Medicaid uptake outstrips private insurance uptake, and in both states many more people have lost their existing healthcare insurance than have signed up for new insurance.
The numbers are also far below what the government had projected and what the economics demands for the exchanges to remain viable without truly massive taxpayer subsidy to the corporate insurers. Fortunately for the corporate insurers, massive taxpayer subsidy is exactly what they're in line to receive.
There are plenty of complaints about the website. Its performance on the meaningless metrics HHS has decided to measure itself by has been contested by independent watchdogs (HHS claims the site responds in less than a second; times over 18s have been reported in Wisconsin, where the northernmost counties have no participating hospitals in any exchange plans).
It has always been the case that the website was a very minor element of the whole picture. It was a badly screwed-up element that hurt the optics of the rollout, but the problem was always that there was no realistic way the reform could work as advertised: the math and the psychology both mitigated against it. HHS must have an idea, but isn't saying, what the risk profile of the signed-up population is. The smart money says its riskier than the pre-reform population, which is good news for everybody who'd like to pay higher premiums next year to go with their larger coinsurance and deductible for less choice of doctors and hospitals.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,495
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2013 16:20:29 GMT -5
No one has to be ìn office to win the award. Palin's lie was so big, they created an award for ìt! The most liberal person I know- and I'm talking hard-core progressive here, and not a dummy, either- had this to say about this: He's a First Assistant Director at Maron right now- has worked at VH1 (Single Ladies) and numerous other shows. it just goes to show you the ignorance of even some liberals, i guess. as VB showed, NBC reported on this. that is not "crickets".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 13, 2013 16:21:06 GMT -5
I haven't been following this since the start of November. Is the website finally working at least? Short answer: No. My understanding is that 30% to 40% of it isn't even built out yet. It has effectively ZERO in the way of security- and all the credible experts agree that since security (true) wasn't built into it (like it wasn't even a consideration) from the start, it MUST be scrapped and started over. Further, the deadline has been pushed back AGAIN from December 23rd until midnight January 1st. The whole thing needs to be delayed JUST because of the website issues, and the other features of the law are almost completely unworkable. There's going to have to be a major "reform" (read: substantively, no matter what it's called, a repeal), or fully, openly, and transparently repealed.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 13, 2013 16:31:22 GMT -5
If by working you mean letting people get online, then sort of. They're being diverted into queues rather than getting error messages, which probably makes them feel much better about the experience. A larger number of them are now able to complete the process successfully, although completing the process (a) doesn't complete the process, since they still have to pay a premium and they can't do that through the website; and (b) doesn't mean that the website successfully gets their information correctly put through to the insurer. The numbers claimed by HHS as having "enrolled" assume that the wastage due to (a) and (b) is cumulatively zero. This is not the case. The numbers are also bolstered heavily by the state exchanges operating in a minority of states, chiefly in New York and California. In both of those states, Medicaid uptake outstrips private insurance uptake, and in both states many more people have lost their existing healthcare insurance than have signed up for new insurance. The numbers are also far below what the government had projected and what the economics demands for the exchanges to remain viable without truly massive taxpayer subsidy to the corporate insurers. Fortunately for the corporate insurers, massive taxpayer subsidy is exactly what they're in line to receive. There are plenty of complaints about the website. Its performance on the meaningless metrics HHS has decided to measure itself by has been contested by independent watchdogs (HHS claims the site responds in less than a second; times over 18s have been reported in Wisconsin, where the northernmost counties have no participating hospitals in any exchange plans). It has always been the case that the website was a very minor element of the whole picture. It was a badly screwed-up element that hurt the optics of the rollout, but the problem was always that there was no realistic way the reform could work as advertised: the math and the psychology both mitigated against it. HHS must have an idea, but isn't saying, what the risk profile of the signed-up population is. The smart money says its riskier than the pre-reform population, which is good news for everybody who'd like to pay higher premiums next year to go with their larger coinsurance and deductible for less choice of doctors and hospitals. OK. I do agree with you that the website is/was only a small piece of the rotten pie that is the legislation. I asked because there were pledges of a working website by Dec 1 from all Democratic quarters and I was curious to know whether the fixes had materialized. Thanks to you both (phoenix and DJ) for keeping me up to date. ETA: Thanks, Paul, for a third perspective.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 13, 2013 16:32:16 GMT -5
Is NBC "the Left" from your perspective, dj?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 13, 2013 16:35:29 GMT -5
The revised pledge of a better experience for most users has been met.
This is like pledging that enrolling through healthcare.gov will be more enjoyable than having a live hedgehog drawn out of your bladder via your urethra, of course. Just less colorful imagery.
It's also meaningless. What matters is that, embarrassingly, on Jan 1 2014 there will be fewer insured people than there were on Jan 1 2013. On Jan 1, 2015, this will still be true. I really believe this. The law not only makes much worse the important problem of healthcare cost, it actually contrives to also make worse the problem of healthcare coverage. That was a tough feat, but it just goes to show what you can do with boundless ignorance and other peoples' money.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,495
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2013 16:37:29 GMT -5
Is NBC "the Left" from your perspective, dj? according the Paul, nobody is the left from my perspective, phoenix. but that wasn't an answer, i know. no. NBC is not "the left", any more than FOX is "the right". i view commercial media as primarily pandering to favored truths for THE target market, which is primarily conservatives. but they have no commitment to those truths. they would string up their grandma on prime time if it would help them sell beer and cars. that is the plain and simple truth. they don't care about journalism, for the most part. they are peddlers of gossip, basically.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 13, 2013 16:38:36 GMT -5
The Affordable Healthcare Act should, were its authors honest, have been termed the Making Insurers Rich And Grieving Everybody Act.
Or MIRAGE, as in "affordable healthcare post-reform is a MIRAGE."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,495
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2013 16:41:42 GMT -5
The Affordable Healthcare Act should, were its authors honest, have been termed the Making Insurers Rich And Grieving Everybody Act. Or MIRAGE, as in "affordable healthcare post-reform is a MIRAGE." MIRAGE Act.....
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 13, 2013 16:43:20 GMT -5
I disagree with the thread being merged. I was not in the decision process. I believe they are two separate subjects. That said let's stay on topic. It was considered Lie #1 by Politifact
And Palin's lie was #1 in 2009. And Romney's lie was #1 in 2012. And Palin's lie turned out to be true. Death Panels are real and in place. Do they call them "death panels" no. Are you going to go before a board whose sole function is to tell you whether you're "worthy of care"? Not exactly. But ObamaCare will ration care- it must. And Obama himself famously responded to the question of what factors would go into the life and death decisions on how to allocate healthcare resources this way: articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/25/nation/na-health25Rather than give the correct answer which is, "Government has absolutely no role in the allocation of healthcare resources", Obama failed the test and acted as Death Panel Chairman. To call it a lie- was a lie. It's parsing at best. There's no doubt in my mind that Obama and the Democrats were very careful to avoid any language that sounded like rationing, let alone "death panels" but as you can see from his reply above-- it's very much on his mind, and he doesn't even blink giving his answer. The philosophical question of whether or not the POTUS is an appropriate person to be asked such a question doesn't slow him down. You can couch it in any kind of language you want- but the bottom line is this: this bill was crafted by statists. They are very comfortable with the idea that "we" spend too much on end of life care and their obsession with "redistribution" and central planners directing all resources makes most of them very open about the fact that maybe "we" should take those resources and spend them on younger healthier people who have a shot. Keep grandma comfortable- as Obama readily states- but maybe we don't do that surgery. If you think as the train wreck rolls out, and the costs balloon that drastic cost cutting measures aren't built into the bureaucratic discretion contained in this monstrosity then you're the one lying. Lying to yourself.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 13, 2013 16:48:36 GMT -5
Oh, and guess what? Romney's "Lie of the Year" BOOM!www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/04/22/shanghai-jeep-production-china/2104433/Again, there's parsing: Won't "reduce or substitute" Jeep production in the US? Sure it will. It's EXACTLY a substitute for US production-- that is the whole point. The fact is that Jeep production is growing due to demand from the Chinese for their vehicles, but US workers will experience exactly NONE of that growth because they're not going to be participating. Looks like Romney was correct. So, both lies were in fact true. Man, it's gotta suck being a liberal Democrat these days. The only "Lie of the Year" that's actually a lie- was Obama's.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 13, 2013 16:50:35 GMT -5
And I'll remind you (again) that "All the other kids did it, too" is not an argument. You're just distracting from the topic which is the total train wreck of ObamaCare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 16:22:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 16:51:57 GMT -5
dj
and anyone from new york
out of the new enrollees for health care in your states
how many have signed up to paid healthcare through insurance companies versus how many have been added to the states medicaid rolls?
what % for each
and based on that information, does it scare you budget wise that the state will be picking up a considerable amount of the expenses as time goes by?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 13, 2013 17:37:10 GMT -5
Really- death panels again? Where do people get this stuff. Still a lie- a massive one at that. In fact the ACA cut off the #1 death panels from operating as they used to do- insurance companies.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 13, 2013 17:57:39 GMT -5
And Palin's lie was #1 in 2009. And Romney's lie was #1 in 2012. And Palin's lie turned out to be true. Death Panels are real and in place. Do they call them "death panels" no. Are you going to go before a board whose sole function is to tell you whether you're "worthy of care"? Not exactly. But ObamaCare will ration care- it must. And Obama himself famously responded to the question of what factors would go into the life and death decisions on how to allocate healthcare resources this way: So "No" and "Not exactly" equals yes.
Okay.....
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 13, 2013 18:03:03 GMT -5
ObamaCare requires everyone to buy private insurance. If there's rationing going on, it'll be rationing by the insurance companies, which has always been there. Lifetime caps, denying treatment, and drug schedules that exclude expensive and experimental pills have been around for decades.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,495
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2013 19:04:21 GMT -5
dj and anyone from new york out of the new enrollees for health care in your states how many have signed up to paid healthcare through insurance companies versus how many have been added to the states medicaid rolls? what % for each and based on that information, does it scare you budget wise that the state will be picking up a considerable amount of the expenses as time goes by? as i pointed out, even the worst case projections are about 5% of budget. so no, i am not terribly worried about a 5% deficit. we will cover it.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 13, 2013 19:20:44 GMT -5
ObamaCare requires everyone to buy private insurance. If there's rationing going on, it'll be rationing by the insurance companies, which has always been there. Lifetime caps, denying treatment, and drug schedules that exclude expensive and experimental pills have been around for decades. A friend of mine has been through several bouts of cancer and possibly a third (to be determined shortly). Her ìnsurance company is constantly denying certain treatments. Her oncologist constantly has to appeal these rejections to get the treatments for her. This has been going on since 2005.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Dec 13, 2013 20:39:25 GMT -5
And Palin's lie was #1 in 2009. And Romney's lie was #1 in 2012. And Palin's lie turned out to be true. Death Panels are real and in place. Do they call them "death panels" no. Are you going to go before a board whose sole function is to tell you whether you're "worthy of care"? Not exactly. But ObamaCare will ration care- it must. And Obama himself famously responded to the question of what factors would go into the life and death decisions on how to allocate healthcare resources this way: articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/25/nation/na-health25Rather than give the correct answer which is, "Government has absolutely no role in the allocation of healthcare resources", Obama failed the test and acted as Death Panel Chairman. To call it a lie- was a lie. It's parsing at best. There's no doubt in my mind that Obama and the Democrats were very careful to avoid any language that sounded like rationing, let alone "death panels" but as you can see from his reply above-- it's very much on his mind, and he doesn't even blink giving his answer. The philosophical question of whether or not the POTUS is an appropriate person to be asked such a question doesn't slow him down. You can couch it in any kind of language you want- but the bottom line is this: this bill was crafted by statists. They are very comfortable with the idea that "we" spend too much on end of life care and their obsession with "redistribution" and central planners directing all resources makes most of them very open about the fact that maybe "we" should take those resources and spend them on younger healthier people who have a shot. Keep grandma comfortable- as Obama readily states- but maybe we don't do that surgery. If you think as the train wreck rolls out, and the costs balloon that drastic cost cutting measures aren't built into the bureaucratic discretion contained in this monstrosity then you're the one lying. Lying to yourself. Good grief.
|
|