Progressives tout California Health care "success"

[birdog1960]

Explain why it's logical, and how it's effective. Then explain logical and effective relative to, and pertaining to, what.

comparing your intellect to collin's is like comparing a gnat to an elephant. he thinks it's a good idea. you don't...nuff said.

[Doc]

THE PRESIDENT:

Here is a guarantee that I've made.

If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.

 

[B-Man]

Indiana Health Insurance Rates Rise 72% Under ObamaCare - Will Media Report?

By: Noel Sheppard

 

Liberal media members earlier this week pounced on a New York Times article claiming that health insurance rates in the Empire State will decline by 50 percent when ObamaCare fully kicks in.

Will they give similar attention to Thursday's announcement from the Indiana Department of Insurance that health insurance rates in the Hoosier State will rise by an average of 72 percent as a result of the legislation?

 

 

 

MSM Wall of Silence on Union Criticism of ObamaCare

By: P.J. Gladnick

To read the MSM stories about opposition to that unpopular law, you would think that opposition comes primarily from Republicans. The fact that major (non-governmental) labor unions are now harshly criticizing it does not fit that narrative, thus the avoidance of that very inconvenient fact by the MSM. And the criticism by the unions is not mild by any stretch of the imagination. It is extremely harsh as you can see in this Wall Street Journal article

[TakeYouToTasker]

comparing your intellect to collin's is like comparing a gnat to an elephant. he thinks it's a good idea. you don't...nuff said.

That's not an explaination, it's an ad hom attack. Please explain your stance, unless you're unable.

[birdog1960]

That's not an explaination, it's an ad hom attack. Please explain your stance, unless you're unable.

actually it's an appeal to authority. in this case, the authority is the director of the nih, an internist, responsible for much of the success of the human genome project and a phd physicist. it's not fallacious to appeal to a respected expert. now, asking for your credentials and then belittling them, that would be ad hominem. collins has actually been interviewed for multiple stories on this issue. they're readily available and i generally agree with what he's publicly stated in this regard. avail yourself to these sources if you have such a burning interest.

Edited July 19, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

actually it's an appeal to authority. in this case, the authority is the director of the nih, an internist, responsible for much of the success of the human genome project and a phd physicist. it's not fallacious to appeal to a respected expert. now, asking for your credentials and then belittling them, that would be ad hominem. collins has actually been interviewed for multiple stories on this issue. they're readily available and i generally agree with what he's publicly stated in this regard. avail yourself to these sources if you have such a burning interest.

So you don't have your opinion, you have his opinion. And, I suppose that's fine, but it's still very lazy... and it's still fallacious, as a) there is no uniformity among experts, and b) he's not a business expert or an economist, but rather a bureaucratic administrator and a research scientist.

[birdog1960]

So you don't have your opinion, you have his opinion. And, I suppose that's fine, but it's still very lazy... and it's still fallacious, as a) there is no uniformity among experts, and b) he's not a business expert or an economist, but rather a bureaucratic administrator and a research scientist.

as i've amply demonstrated i have many opinions including on this issue. i however have no further desire to argue them with a dolt like you.

[B-Man]

Hobby Lobby Wins Injunction Against HHS Mandate

 

Hobby Lobby, a retail chain run by Evangelical Christians, has been given a preliminary injunction against the preventive-services mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act, Reuters reports.

 

Joe Heaton, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, issued the injunction today after hearing arguments Friday. The case has been stayed until October to give the federal government time to appeal.

 

The injunction means that, for the time being, Hobby Lobby will not be required to provide contraceptive, sterilization, and abortifacient services as mandated by Obamacare.

 

This is the second court victory for Hobby Lobby in less than a month. In June, the Tenth Circuit reversed Judge Heaton’s denial of an injunction last November, and remanded the case to his district court. In today’s ruling, Heaton finally granted the actual injunction he had previously denied. In late June, before an injunction had been granted, Heaton ruled that Hobby Lobby would not have to pay daily fines for refusing to follow the mandate.

[/dev/null]

She grew up in an Indiana town

Had a good-lookin' mama who never was around

But she grew up tall and she grew up right

With them Indiana boys on them Indiana nights

 

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130718/BUSINESS/307180100/State-says-Obamacare-will-force-78-percent-increase-individual-insurance-plan-rates?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

[B-Large]

Think of far right this has moved.... Democrats passed the Heritages Heathcare Proposal of 17 years prior, and Republicans hate it through and through... Makes you wonder if this is EXACTLY the plan that was needed... It isn't Socialized Medicne, but it way better than whtwe had..

 

HHS Admits: You Might Not Be Able to Keep Your Doctor Under Obamacare

 

Flashback: "If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor," Obama said.

 

As Obamacare was being pushed through Congress in 2010, the Obama administration and its allies were unequivocal in two claims: If you like your doctor and you like your current health care plan, you can keep them both. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius and then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi backed the president fully in this regard. The White House even went so far as to post a "Health Insurance Reform Reality Check" on its website, where "Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors." President Obama upped the ante, putting the promise in the form of a "guarantee":

 

 

THE PRESIDENT:

Here is a guarantee that I've made.

If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.

 

Nobody is trying to change what works in the system. We are trying to change what doesn't work in the system.

 

While there has been sniping back and forth between the administration and its detractors about the real-world application and implementation of Obamacare, the new Healthcare.gov website has taken some of the mystery out of the controversy. And President Obama and his administration do not fare well in this latest "reality check." Among the questions that HHS recently added to the website: "Can I keep my own doctor?":

 

.

 

With all due respect, group plan changes force people to change their PCP... Sometimes annually due to network changes... Prior to reform/ after reform people can always keep their PCP.... Just pay in cash...

Edited July 20, 2013 by B-Large

[Doc]

Think of far right this has moved.... Democrats passed the Heritages Heathcare Proposal of 17 years prior, and Republicans hate it through and through... Makes you wonder if this is EXACTLY the plan that was needed... It isn't Socialized Medicne, but it way better than whtwe had..

Doubtful at best. It's already starting to crumble.

[B-Large]

 

Doubtful at best. It's already starting to crumble.

 

It's really not, no matter how much conservatives want to perpetuate that narrative... All partisans have now is the prayer that this thing struggles and people hate it, but like other programs in time people will see this bill as favorable and will want to see it stay.. Well that and procedural strategies to slow implementation and they cite that as "failing"

 

I am sure when SS and Medicare passed the same rhetorical fear campaign happened... Didnt make much of a difference....

Edited July 20, 2013 by B-Large

[Doc]

It's really not, no matter how much conservatives want to perpetuate that narrative... All partisans have now is the prayer that this thing struggles and people hate it, but like other programs in time people will see this bill as favorable and will want to see it stay..

 

I am sure when SS and Medicare passed the same rhetorical fear campaign happened... Didnt make much of a difference....

Social Security and Medicare were passed some 50 years ago. And they were projected to cost a fraction of what they ended up costing. What you see here are people losing jobs, having their hours reduced, and healthy people not buying insurance until they need it which means higher premiums for everybody else. And you had in the lack of innovation me no further advances, as well as worsening cancer survival rates, and people won't be clamoring for this to stay. The only reason anyone could think this would work would be hope.

[IDBillzFan]

With all due respect, group plan changes force people to change their PCP.

 

With all due respect, the president not only said that would not happen...he promised it wouldn't.

 

The entire "if you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor," was his opening guarantee to the entire country to assure the people the only things ACA was going to change were a reduction in medical costs and the country's debt.

 

That he was too stupid to realize or care that he was lying is irrelevant. He promised. He lied. And to do anything other than call him out on it is as stark a tell-tale sign of one's political allegiance as claiming Trayvon was murdered because he was black is a tell-tale sign that someone didn't pay attention to the trial.

[B-Man]

 

Obamacare in the Twilight Zone

 

As we have noted here several times, the administration has announced what amounts to a one-year delay in the enforcement of the Obamacare employer mandate. The announcement came in an unusual package for such things. It was wrapped in a cotton-candy blog post by Treasury Assistant Secretary Mark Mazur. The post cited no legal authority and delivered something like a royal edict with respect to a law that by its terms goes into effect in January 2014.

 

There’s a joke here somewhere. Maybe it’s the media’s studied avoidance of the dubious legality of the maneuver. Maybe it’s the delegation of the task to an assistant secretary. Maybe it’s the timing of the announcement, anticipating the celebration of our revolt against King George III.

 

Yesterday Republicans in the House of Representatives served up a bill that would in effect authorize the Obama administration’s delay. (It also served up a separate bill giving the individual mandate equal treatment. Michael Cannon discusses the votes on the two bills here and the Wall Street Journal devotes an editorial to them here.) Thirty-five Democrats supported the bill delaying the employer mandate, which passed 264-161.

 

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party line requires opposition to the bill. Jeffrey Anderson notes that in a statement released shortly before the House vote, the administration called the vote to provide legislative authority for the employer-mandate delay “unnecessary.” Anderson suggests the political twilight zone into which the Obama administration has delivered us:

It is not often that a president announces his decision not to enforce a law as written, the House of Representatives responds by offering to restore the rule of law by amending that law to permit the delay the president wishes .  .  . and then the president threatens to veto that legislation if it gets to his desk. But such is the pathbreaking and jaw-dropping spectacle of Obamacare.

 

Why would the administration oppose a bill that legalizes action it has already announced?

 

Anderson offers no speculation on this point, and maybe the reasons are obvious. What are they? I can think of a few. Here goes:

 

1. The administration is embarrassed and ashamed of the unworkability of the law as passed.

 

2. The administration is pleased to claim the royal prerogative regarding the execution of the laws. The Constitution of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding, it prefers the discretion to assure that the laws not be faithfully executed.

 

3. The administration does not want to concede that Republicans have a point, any point.

 

4. Like Melville’s Bartleby, the administration would “prefer not to.”

 

I could go on, but my imagination is limited and I fear that my cynicism does not run deep enough truly to understand what is happening here.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.powerline...ilight-zone.php

[TakeYouToTasker]

as i've amply demonstrated i have many opinions including on this issue. i however have no further desire to argue them with a dolt like you.

All you've demonstrated is a staggering capacity for intellectual cowardice and dishonesty, nothing more. I don't blame you for tucking tail, and scurrying off, rather than catching another beating, however.

[Nanker]

No worries. He'll be back when he wants the inside skinny on how to invest his portfolio and make millions. Of course he's against investing in any kind of really nasty capitalist-type companies. So, it's a challenge.

[B-Man]

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/07/19/the-insiders-obamacare-is-falling-apart/

 

]Obamacare is falling apart[/b]

 

 

As the reality of Obamacare emerges, a disastrous calamity imposed on the American people, even the most compliant members of the Obama fan club are beginning to panic. Three union presidents have sent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi a scathing letter decrying Obamacare, showing just how out-of-control this law has become. This astonishing reversal has been underreported so far, except by the ever-vigilant Tom Gara in the Wall Street Journal.

 

The fact is that the crater of Obamacare is getting deeper, with sharper edges. The unions are first-tier political allies of President Obama and the Democratic Party, and it was surely their last resort to put their grievances with Obamacare in writing in the public sphere. A lot must have happened behind the scenes before they felt sufficiently frustrated with the Obama administration to take this step.

 

In a joint letter, James P. Hoffa of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Joseph Hansen of the UFCW and D. Taylor of UNITE-HERE state that Obamacare will “destroy the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class” and “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.” And they highlight their buyer’s remorse:

We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

 

You can feel their anxiety and boiling frustration coming through....................What does falling apart look like for Obamacare, if not this?

 

The goal for the White House over the next 15 months is to make sure the 2014 elections will not just be a referendum on Obamacare. And it may find that it’s not easy to persuade its Democratic allies to stick with the White House talking points and walk off an electoral cliff. As the union bosses pointed out to Reid and Pelosi, “Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it.” It’s one thing for the Democrats to dismiss American businesses as whiners. It’s another for them to belittle union leaders.

[Magox]

but it way better than whtwe had..

You are out of your mind. By no reasonable metric, can anyone suggest that this law, OVERALL is a good thing. Sure, there are beneficiaries of the law, people with pre existing's that couldn't get coverage before, the expansion of Medicaid will allow more people to get treated at relatively no cost and there will be people who will qualify for generous subsidies that will get coverage for cheaper than what they could have gotten it before the law, and in a very few select states, NY, the cost of health insurance will be cheaper (not as much as NY claims, but none the less cheaper). However, when you look at what the cost of care will be on the individual market, overall it will be significantly more expensive, on average close to 100% more for people who are below the age of 40. Which is exactly who they need to sign up for this law, in which I predict, that fewer people will enroll then what some of the estimates we have been seeing. Secondly, you scoff at the suggestion that people will lose their doctors and that they can simply pay cash. That is not entirely true, in many cases you have to have a referral from your PCP to see specialists and if they are out of network, that won't do. Not to mention that many people will take that advice because they won't go through the trouble of paying out of cash to do it. Thirdly, even you conceded that health insurance plans should be high deductible plans. What that does it forces people to shop around for services, this law does the opposite. Fourth, the cost of Obama Care is going to be significantly higher than originally estimated, wait till you see all the people being pushed out of their employer plans onto the exchanges. The cost of subsidies will be enormous. Fifth, look at what's happening at the labor force. The labor force is shrinking, more and more people are gaining part time jobs at the expense of full time employment. That is a fact and there is empirical evidence that suggests that Obama care is largely responsible for this development. Sixth, and take this to the bank, there will be a mass exodus of doctors either retiring or changing their doctor business/patient practices that will cause a deterioration of care for those that are either on Medicaid or on the exchanges. I could go on and on and on, the only reason why you think this law is a good thing is because it directly helps your families situation, however that does not mean it is a good overall thing for the country........I spoke about this law at great length before it became law, and I spoke in vivid detail in how the law would play out, and just about everything that was written is beginning to surface and I have little doubt that it will continue to be the huge shitstorm that it is.

[B-Man]

Uh, oh: California’s biggest insurer for small business has no interest in the small-business exchanges

 

Earlier this summer, three of California’s largest insurance companies announced that they were disinclined to participate in the state’s ObamaCare health insurance exchange system, and it didn’t take long for both Aetna and United Health to decide to stop offering plans through the individual insurance market altogether and instead opt to focus their activities on offering insurance through employers only.

 

 

Now, Anthem Blue Cross — California’s largest insurer for small businesses — is announcing that they have no intention of getting involved in the exchanges that ObamaCare plans to set up for the use of small business, and would much rather stick to going it alone. Via the LA Times:

 

Health insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross is spurning California’s new insurance market for small businesses, a potential setback in the state’s rollout of the federal healthcare law.

Anthem, a unit of WellPoint Inc., is California’s largest insurer for small employers. The company’s surprising move raised concerns about the state’s ability to offer competitive rates and attract businesses to its new Covered California exchange that opens Jan. 1. …

Friday’s disclosure made Anthem the first big insurer in California to publicly pass on the small-business pool. Some other big names, such as

UnitedHealth

Group Inc. and

Aetna Inc.

, have already opted out of California’s larger exchange for individual consumers.

 

Oh, my. At the national level, ObamaCare’s advocates have been concerned that the specialty small-business exchanges, which the president so extravagantly promised would be one of the law’s many generous and helpful provisions, are not going to be able to attract enough insurers to keep them competitive or even viable. There’s been only piddling interest across other states, and once more, California is stepping forward to provide some of the pioneering examples of insurers outright rejecting to get involved in the state-run scheming.

 

The Obama administration is already delaying on its promises to small businesses as they try not to panic about their priority of getting the individual exchanges up and running on time, but this certainly doesn’t bode well for the well-trumpeted choice and competition these exchanges were supposed to inherently foster.