djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 2, 2015 2:17:03 GMT -5
the Moonie Times. they were the ones that ran the $2T figure in the US. i don't know if the Murdoch Mail picked up on it first or second, nor does it really matter. they both ran it, as well as the immeasurably stupider $50k figure. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 2:49:01 GMT -5
Interesting... just found new data from the CBO... January 2015 estimates (VERY interesting reading starting on page 115 {of the document's printed numbers, not the 115th actual page of the .pdf file}!)...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 2, 2015 7:51:29 GMT -5
Interesting... just found new data from the CBO... January 2015 estimates (VERY interesting reading starting on page 115 {of the document's printed numbers, not the 115th actual page of the .pdf file}!)...
Hence, the updates are preliminary. CBO and JCT currently estimate that the ACA’s coverage provisions will result in net costs to the federal government of $76 billion in 2015 and $1,350 billion over the 2016–2025 period. Compared with the projection from last April, which spanned the 2015–2024 period, the current projection represents a downward revision in the net costs of those provisions of $101 billion over those 10 years, or a reduction of about 7 percent.2 And compared with the projection made by CBO and JCT in March 2010, just before the ACA was enacted, the current estimate represents a downward revision in the net costs of those provisions of $139 billion—or 20 percent—for the five-year period ending in 2019, the last year of the 10-year budget window used in that original estimate. Those estimates address only the insurance coverage
provisions of the ACA and do not reflect all of the act’s
budgetary effects. Because the provisions of the ACA that relate to health insurance coverage established entirely new programs or components of programs and because those provisions have mostly just begun to be implemented, CBO and JCT have produced separate estimates of the effects of the provisions as part of the baseline process. By contrast, because the provisions of the ACA
that do not relate directly to health insurance coverage
generally modified existing federal programs (such as
Medicare) or made various changes to the tax code, determining
what would have happened since the enactment
of the ACA had the law not been in effect is becoming
increasingly difficult.
In other words, because the ACA did not go into effect as planned, and because it has been modified by executive fiat too many times to count, the costs have been revised downward. The executive modifications have been done precisely because the law is an absolute disaster and the regime is desperate to mitigate its full effects until long after they're gone. And that. Is. A. Fact.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 2, 2015 12:08:34 GMT -5
most of what is stated in this thread is not factual. it is projection. it might happen. it might not. it might be better. it might be worse. or, possibly, the ACA might not exist, which makes the projections utterly meaningless.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 18:54:55 GMT -5
Well... projections are what we have available to us... that and it's history.
Both suggest that the country would be better served had congress used the paper Obamacare was written on to wipe their backsides.
ETA: and by "the country" I don't mean "100%, every single person"... I mean "on average, as a whole, the population of the country". I've said it before and I'll say it again: Yes, SOME were helped by the ACA, but MORE were or will be hurt by it. When legislation is created, it should ALWAYS have to pass the "does it do more harm than good?" test. If that were a requirement, Obamacare would have failed... miserably.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 2, 2015 19:57:55 GMT -5
Well... projections are what we have available to us... that and it's history. Both suggest that the country would be better served had congress used the paper Obamacare was written on to wipe their backsides. ETA: and by "the country" I don't mean "100%, every single person"... I mean "on average, as a whole, the population of the country". I've said it before and I'll say it again: Yes, SOME were helped by the ACA, but MORE were or will be hurt by it. When legislation is created, it should ALWAYS have to pass the "does it do more harm than good?" test. If that were a requirement, Obamacare would have failed... miserably. the ACA was never intended to help "the country" except in the vaguest sense. it was intended to help those without insurance. whether it fails or succeeds in that sense remains to be seen.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 2, 2015 20:09:09 GMT -5
I don't even know anyone that has had any impact at all from the ACA.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 23:08:51 GMT -5
I don't even know anyone that has had any impact at all from the ACA. define "impact" Has it helped me? No. Has it hurt me? No. Has it made me waste $2,400 (give or take, so far) of the taxpayer's money? Yes. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 23:16:44 GMT -5
Well... projections are what we have available to us... that and it's history. Both suggest that the country would be better served had congress used the paper Obamacare was written on to wipe their backsides. ETA: and by "the country" I don't mean "100%, every single person"... I mean "on average, as a whole, the population of the country". I've said it before and I'll say it again: Yes, SOME were helped by the ACA, but MORE were or will be hurt by it. When legislation is created, it should ALWAYS have to pass the "does it do more harm than good?" test. If that were a requirement, Obamacare would have failed... miserably. the ACA was never intended to help "the country" except in the vaguest sense. it was intended to help those without insurance. whether it fails or succeeds in that sense remains to be seen.
Remains to be seen? LOL If that's your criteria, then it's a failure... because while it HAS helped some... it's HURT more. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 3, 2015 11:55:45 GMT -5
the ACA was never intended to help "the country" except in the vaguest sense. it was intended to help those without insurance. whether it fails or succeeds in that sense remains to be seen.
Remains to be seen? LOL If that's your criteria, then it's a failure... because while it HAS helped some... it's HURT more. read carefully, and try again. i am pretty sure you are wrong, Richard.
how has it hurt those WITHOUT INSURANCE?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 18:54:40 GMT -5
Remains to be seen? LOL If that's your criteria, then it's a failure... because while it HAS helped some... it's HURT more. read carefully, and try again. i am pretty sure you are wrong, Richard.
how has it hurt those WITHOUT INSURANCE?
It has made them buy worthless crap or fined them for not doing so. ETA: having less money and nothing useful to show for it, IS a "hurt"... for those of use that aren't wealthy enough to not care. ETA II: also worth note - That's a reference to people that either don't qualify for a subsidy, or don't qualify for enough of one to cover the cost 100%. I'm in the group that qualifies for enough to cover the crappiest piece of crap policy on the planet, 100%... so... while it's no funds out of my pocket DIRECTLY, it is funds out of the governmental coffers which I, and everyone else, pays into. ETA III: Question - your clarification... does it include those that LOST insurance due to Obamacare? I mean they became part of the "WITHOUT INSURANCE" crowd... right? Do they count? |
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 3, 2015 19:11:04 GMT -5
Why do you think those folks, that had POS policies, have not been able to sign up for one of the plans? That is a misnomer I have seen numerous times, but no one has backed it up with a link. You are incredibly good at that, so I will check back later to see your factual proof.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 3, 2015 20:55:42 GMT -5
It has made them buy worthless crap or fined them for not doing so. anecdotal, but the only person I know personally who took advantage of the ACA has benefitted hugely from it. it was not worthless to him. on the contrary. it was extremely valuable.ETA: having less money and nothing useful to show for it, IS a "hurt"... for those of use that aren't wealthy enough to not care. ETA II: also worth note - That's a reference to people that either don't qualify for a subsidy, or don't qualify for enough of one to cover the cost 100%. I'm in the group that qualifies for enough to cover the crappiest piece of crap policy on the planet, 100%... so... while it's no funds out of my pocket DIRECTLY, it is funds out of the governmental coffers which I, and everyone else, pays into. I think that most people who have entered the program got a subsidy. correct me if I am wrong. if I am right, you are in a minority.ETA III: Question - your clarification... does it include those that LOST insurance due to Obamacare? I mean they became part of the "WITHOUT INSURANCE" crowd... right? Do they count? of course not. that is why I asked you to read the statement again.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 22:03:43 GMT -5
Why do you think those folks, that had POS policies, have not been able to sign up for one of the plans? That is a misnomer I have seen numerous times, but no one has backed it up with a link. You are incredibly good at that, so I will check back later to see your factual proof. The people that LOST policies didn't have "POS" policies. They had policies that fit their needs, acceptably well as far as they were concerned... otherwise they wouldn't have had them. Remember the promise? "If you like your policy, you can keep your policy!" As far as the POS policies that people HAVE signed up for, I'd give you a link, but you'd need MY log-in information to view MY "POS" policy... and, sorry, but I'm not giving out access to personal financial information. I don't have links to other people's policies... but, since it was on the "Healthcare.gov" website as an available option, I'm fairly certain that my carrier didn't make my policy just for me and not give it to anyone else. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 22:04:59 GMT -5
It has made them buy worthless crap or fined them for not doing so. ETA: having less money and nothing useful to show for it, IS a "hurt"... for those of use that aren't wealthy enough to not care. ETA II: also worth note - That's a reference to people that either don't qualify for a subsidy, or don't qualify for enough of one to cover the cost 100%. I'm in the group that qualifies for enough to cover the crappiest piece of crap policy on the planet, 100%... so... while it's no funds out of my pocket DIRECTLY, it is funds out of the governmental coffers which I, and everyone else, pays into. ETA III: Question - your clarification... does it include those that LOST insurance due to Obamacare? I mean they became part of the "WITHOUT INSURANCE" crowd... right? Do they count? of course not. that is why I asked you to read the statement again. Oh... Good to know that the people that LOST insurance due to this garbage law don't count. |
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 3, 2015 23:14:50 GMT -5
The people that LOST policies didn't have "POS" policies. They had policies that fit their needs, acceptably well as far as they were concerned... otherwise they wouldn't have had them.
What they had were POS policies that were cheap, so it fit a budget. They thought that they had something. The insurance companies made millions on these. Most didn't even have hospitalization coverage so guess what happened when something drastic occurred? Same old medical banco problem. Did the insurance companies that peddled that garbage care? Not 1 whit.
I have seen the sob story about the millions that lost insurance with no one talking about how so many reinsured under the ACA. I have read many first person accounts of how coverages were much better, and not always at a higher price.
As of now, I still have no personal connection to anyone that has been impacted by the ACA, either positively or negatively. I think the vast majority of Americans had health insurance and still have the same provider. Millions have become insured, and that is a major point of the law. It used to be 47 million which put us behind Sickmanistan in 17th place world wide for comprehensive coverage levels of the citizenry. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 4, 2015 0:20:27 GMT -5
Yep- they had a 5 page contract of we are going to take your premiums and fuck you if you make a claim.
How we miss these policies  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2015 18:46:01 GMT -5
of course not. that is why I asked you to read the statement again. Oh... Good to know that the people that LOST insurance due to this garbage law don't count. i never said they didn't count. but feel free to spin whole cloth from that yarn. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 19:29:51 GMT -5
Yep- they had a 5 page contract of we are going to take your premiums and fuck you if you make a claim.
How we miss these policies LOL... and that's different from other policies how? Insurance is the ONLY business that offers a product, and then penalizes you if, heaven forbid, you actually use it. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 19:31:02 GMT -5
Oh... Good to know that the people that LOST insurance due to this garbage law don't count. i never said they didn't count. but feel free to spin whole cloth from that yarn. No spin involved. The question was: "do they count?" Your answer was: "of course not." |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 4, 2015 19:33:57 GMT -5
Yep- they had a 5 page contract of we are going to take your premiums and fuck you if you make a claim.
How we miss these policies LOL... and that's different from other policies how? Insurance is the ONLY business that offers a product, and then penalizes you if, heaven forbid, you actually use it. So, you're for universal healthcare, with no insurance companies involved at all? |
|
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 Feb 4, 2015 19:37:36 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, @richardintn, do you not know anyone who was unable to get insurance because of a pre-existing condition? Perhaps it's because of my work, but I knew several people who fell into that group. Most had held jobs and been insured at one time but became ill with a chronic condition, or injured. Some had their insurance cancelled, others lost the employment that had provided their insurance. This wasn't an unusual situation, believe me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2015 20:35:15 GMT -5
i never said they didn't count. but feel free to spin whole cloth from that yarn. No spin involved. The question was: "do they count?" Your answer was: "of course not." oh, sorry. i thought you were addressing me. my mistake. next time, maybe try NOT copying my post, which said nothing of the kind, in your reply? edit: and before you try your usual dodge, the term "don't count" has a colloquial meaning (that the question "do they count?" didn't confer). it means "don't mean anything". if you meant "were not part of your subject group", that is precisely correct. they were not. but since i already answered that, i assumed you were trying to make a separate point. at least that is how i took it. nor were they part of Obama's. he is actually a very cunning linguist. |
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 4, 2015 20:38:56 GMT -5
Our health insurance has never "punished" us at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2015 20:40:11 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, @richardintn, do you not know anyone who was unable to get insurance because of a pre-existing condition? Perhaps it's because of my work, but I knew several people who fell into that group. Most had held jobs and been insured at one time but became ill with a chronic condition, or injured. Some had their insurance cancelled, others lost the employment that had provided their insurance. This wasn't an unusual situation, believe me. it is not unusual at all. particularly for part time, multi employer, or self employed individuals. or, apparently for employees of Wing Goons. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 22:56:01 GMT -5
LOL... and that's different from other policies how? Insurance is the ONLY business that offers a product, and then penalizes you if, heaven forbid, you actually use it. So, you're for universal healthcare, with no insurance companies involved at all? Not exactly. I'm for basic services covered by a tax funded governmental system... but still have insurance for other things. cosmetic surgery, for example: Say you get mauled by a dog. The Federal system will fix you up and make everything work as well as they can. But making it pretty or "more than just functional" would be on your and/or your insurance's dime. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 23:04:57 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, @richardintn, do you not know anyone who was unable to get insurance because of a pre-existing condition? Perhaps it's because of my work, but I knew several people who fell into that group. Most had held jobs and been insured at one time but became ill with a chronic condition, or injured. Some had their insurance cancelled, others lost the employment that had provided their insurance. This wasn't an unusual situation, believe me. I've probably said it a 100 times (counting all times on every board I've been on)... Yes. There are people that are helped by it. I've known a few that were pre-existing condition disqualified. I don't deny that they have been helped by Obamacare. Never have denied it, never will. The problem is: if you have 100 people, and you help 10 but harm 90... is it a good thing? No. It's not. So, again, Yes, Obamacare does help some people... but it harms more than it helps. (not to mention that it costs Trillions of dollars... dollars that we, as a country, cannot afford). |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 18:30:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 23:10:20 GMT -5
Our health insurance has never " punished" us at all. Well Bully for you! It never happened to dondub so it must not have ever happened to anyone! His rates have never gone up because he's made a claim. His policies have never been cancelled due to claims made. Yay for him! We can all rest easy, folks. People's policies were never cancelled... it was just a silly rumor supported by facts that we shouldn't believe! |
|
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 Feb 4, 2015 23:50:34 GMT -5
It's always nice to come back to a thread you stopped reading for a while, catch up, and find everybody engaged in friendly dialog. "STARVING PEOPLE ARE STUPID!" "YOU'RE STUPID! YOU CAN'T SPELL!" "READ THE DAMNED CHART!" "DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!" "OBAMACARE IS DOA, YOU TWIT!" "SAYS YOU, PURVEYOR OF ENDLESSLY-REVISED CBO BS!" "WHY YOU LITTLE...!" *gakkkkkkkk* I'm home.  |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 5, 2015 0:34:02 GMT -5
So, you're for universal healthcare, with no insurance companies involved at all? Not exactly. I'm for basic services covered by a tax funded governmental system... but still have insurance for other things. cosmetic surgery, for example: Say you get mauled by a dog. The Federal system will fix you up and make everything work as well as they can. But making it pretty or "more than just functional" would be on your and/or your insurance's dime. Under our system, you have to pay for plastic surgery. Nose jobs, boob jobs, etc. However, if you're mauled by a dog or in a disfiguring car crash, the plastic surgery costs nothing out of pocket. It was an unfortunate accident, and the patient isn't penalized. |
|
