Magox Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) About a week or so ago, I was reading from Progressive quarters that the preliminary results (Krugman, Ezra Klein, Cohn) had come in for the health care exchange out of California, and surprise surprise! The rates were going to be anywhere from 2% higher to 29% lower. "This is a home run for consumers in every region of California," said Peter Lee, the director of the state exchange. "These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard." I gotta admit, when I read this, I was a bit surprised. It just didn't make sense, and I began to think, there has gotta to be something missing here. Then Avrik Roy who is an healthcare analyst with Forbes, made a itsy bitsy discovery. They were comparing ObamaCare insurance to the state's current small-business market where regulations similar to ObamaCare have already been imposed. Talk about misleading. Once again, the likes of people like Krugman was on the wrong side of the equation, making false misleading arguments. " The conservative analyst Avik Roy consulted current rates on the eHealthInsurance website and discovered that the cheapest ObamaCare plan for a typical 25-year-old man is roughly 64% to 117% more expensive than the five cheapest policies sold today. For a 40 year old, it's 73% to 146%. Stanford economist Dan Kessler adds his observations nearby. We wouldn't be shocked if California deliberately abused statistics in the hopes that no one would notice that in some cases premiums would more than double. In any case, the turn among the liberals who touted the fake results has been educational." http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop Edited June 4, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 .. and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky fact checking kids and their dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Between this and the rape of The Tea Party by the IRS over the past three years the 2014 election should provide a prime opportunity to throw the bastards out that we're responsible for this abortion of a law. But I do not have my hopes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 OLD SPIN: IT’S RIDICULOUS FEARMONGERING TO SUGGEST THAT OBAMACARE WILL RAISE PREMIUMS. New Spin: It’s A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums. “In 2009, was Ezra saying that it’s ok that premiums will double for the average person, because a minority of people with pre-existing conditions will benefit? No.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Between this and the rape of The Tea Party by the IRS over the past three years the 2014 election should provide a prime opportunity to throw the bastards out that we're responsible for this abortion of a law. But I do not have my hopes up. As bad as the IRS scandal and this coming Obamacare mess and these other scandals have been in uncovering the true nature of what liberals want to do, I am kind of starting to hope that President-elect Sarah Palin in 2016 will be their punishment. She would rip that whole town (and certainly the IRS) a brand new one. Am I tired of the polarization of this country? Yes. But at this point, by doing all of this very nasty stuff, I think the liberals are just asking for their worst nightmare to come true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 "The notion that economics is a science with irrefutable laws appeals to economists (who have long tried to elevate the profession out of the realm of observation and description and into the realm of science) and to the widespread human desire for certainty. But even science isn't quite so set, as any good scientist knows. The laws of gravity may be set, until the laws of quantum mechanics throw a wrench. Our ability to measure the world increases, and our understanding of laws evolves. Economics is based on a limited amount of information compiled over the past hundred or so years. We have no way of knowing with any exactitude the gross domestic product of imperial Rome, of Spain in its 16th century golden age or of the United States in 1820s. We can try to fill in the blanks retrospectively, but that's all. We don't know because those numbers didn't exist. All these economic laws are based on what a few cogent thinkers such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo observed at the end of the 18th century and what a new set of 20th century statistics (GDP, unemployment, inflation) suggest. In short, even if there are laws of economics, we haven't been observing them for long enough to know what they actually are. And given the vagaries of human behavior and the mercurial nature of states, people and institutions, the notion that there's some grand mechanistic, master system that explains all and predicts everything is at best a comforting fiction and at worst a straitjacket that precludes creativity, forestalls innovation and destroys dynamism. Referencing "the laws of economics" as a way to refute arguments or criticize ideas has the patina of clarity and certainty. The reality is that referencing such laws is simply another way to justify beliefs and inclinations. I may agree that the war on drugs is flawed, but not because it violates "laws of economics," but rather because it fails in most of its basic goals. The test of whether government spending or central bank easing is good policy should be whether they succeed in ameliorating the problems of stagnant growth and high unemployment, not on what the "laws of economics" erroneously say about certain future outcomes." http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-laws-of-economics-dont-exist/274901/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 The test of whether government spending or central bank easing is good policy should be whether they succeed in ameliorating the problems of stagnant growth and high unemployment, not on what the "laws of economics" erroneously say about certain future outcomes." And yet, the same people that hold to this can't say the same thing about climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 And yet, the same people that hold to this can't say the same thing about climate change. Not I. That is funny Tom... I thought the same damn thing! Glad somebody picked up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Coverage may be unaffordable for low-wage workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 I love that Congresscritters and their staff are contemplating getting out before 12/31/13 so they can keep their current plush healthcare coverage. They're freaking out that they'll have to pay extremely higher premiums (like the rest of us) when ObamanationCare takes effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 ObamaCare Doing What Term-Limits Movement Couldn’t. “Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 ObamaCare Doing What Term-Limits Movement Couldn’t. “Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.” The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive. Wait...weren't the exchanges supposed to make benefits cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 14, 2013 Author Share Posted June 14, 2013 Btw, the preliminary results are in for Ohio's new exchange. And it is expected to see an 88% increase over what it is today. Avg. individual policy in Ohio will be north of $400. Today the average policy in Ohio today is around $240. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/10/ohio-dept-of-insurance-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-health-premiums-by-88-percent/ Yaaaay for Obamacare!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Btw, the preliminary results are in for Ohio's new exchange. And it is expected to see an 88% increase over what it is today. Avg. individual policy in Ohio will be north of $400. Today the average policy in Ohio today is around $240. http://www.forbes.co...-by-88-percent/ Yaaaay for Obamacare!!!! "Affordable Care Act" is one of the most disingenuous names ever. It would have more accurately been named the "Unaffordable Insurance Act." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 14, 2013 Author Share Posted June 14, 2013 "Affordable Care Act" is one of the most disingenuous names ever. It would have more accurately been named the "Unaffordable Insurance Act." What's even funnier is that before the law passed, liberals were promising that rates would be lower than what it is today, now that they see that this won't happen, the argument they are making is that the plans are going to be stronger and will cover more than the plans of today... Yes, that may be true, but many people don't need stronger plans, many people just want a catastrophic plan and don't want to pay for policies that are similar to first-dollar coverage plans. The biggest irony in all this is that they desperately NEED younger, healthier men to enroll in these plans, to even out and lower premiums because of all the sick people that will be entering into the risk pools, yet the very same people they NEED to enroll will be getting hammered the most (relative to what they are paying today), in other words they are disincentivizing and discouraging these folks with substantially higher premiums. Now you tell me, are these young fellas gonna want to pick up a health plan with more benefits than they need at these rates? Or are they gonna decide to pay the measly fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 "Affordable Care Act" is one of the most disingenuous names ever. It would have more accurately been named the "Unaffordable Insurance Act." I read a comment from a news person on Twitter last week that the WH has started to refer to it as the "Accountable Care Act." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 What's even funnier is that before the law passed, liberals were promising that rates would be lower than what it is today, now that they see that this won't happen, the argument they are making is that the plans are going to be stronger and will cover more than the plans of today... Yes, that may be true, but many people don't need stronger plans, many people just want a catastrophic plan and don't want to pay for policies that are similar to first-dollar coverage plans. The biggest irony in all this is that they desperately NEED younger, healthier men to enroll in these plans, to even out and lower premiums because of all the sick people that will be entering into the risk pools, yet the very same people they NEED to enroll will be getting hammered the most (relative to what they are paying today), in other words they are disincentivizing and discouraging these folks with substantially higher premiums. Now you tell me, are these young fellas gonna want to pick up a health plan with more benefits than they need at these rates? Or are they gonna decide to pay the measly fine? Gee, it's too bad nobody could have predicted any of this. I read a comment from a news person on Twitter last week that the WH has started to refer to it as the "Accountable Care Act." There's got to be a good reason for that. And only one person on this board can explain it to us. Time to send up the Batshit Signal: HILLARY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 I read a comment from a news person on Twitter last week that the WH has started to refer to it as the "Accountable Care Act." What are you talking about LA ?........................We've always been at war with Oceania............... The word "Affordable" must be flushed down the memory hole. Last week, after the "spying stories" an administration spokesman referred to the F.I.S.A. law (Foreign Intelligence Survalliance Act), as the Federal Intelligence Survalliance..........................mustn't let those home folks get confused by the word "Foreign" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 IRS - Institutional Revenge Society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts