GG Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 And that will fix things how...? Duh it throws more money at the problem. That always fixes things.
IDBillzFan Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 And that will fix things how...?More people receiving subsidies brings the price down because they'll all be paying less. What's not to understand?
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 More people receiving subsidies brings the price down because they'll all be paying less. What's not to understand? Then why not do the same thing with home lending? Subsidize people's mortgage payments, so those that can't afford to buy a home can now afford one. And mandate that everyone own a home, to drive down the cost of buying a home. We can call it the Affordable Home Act, or Obamahome.
Nanker Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Then why not do the same thing with home lending? Subsidize people's mortgage payments, so those that can't afford to buy a home can now afford one. And mandate that everyone own a home, to drive down the cost of buying a home. We can call it the Affordable Home Act, or ObamaHillaryhome.
B-Man Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Aetna´s Retreat From Obamacare Is More Than It Seems Bloomberg, by Megan McArdle Original Article
IDBillzFan Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Then why not do the same thing with home lending? Subsidize people's mortgage payments, so those that can't afford to buy a home can now afford one. And mandate that everyone own a home, to drive down the cost of buying a home. We can call it the Affordable Home Act, or Obamahome. Y'know, I think you're on to something. We could do it with cars, too. Everyone with an old car can turn it in and get subsidized to buy a new car. We could call it something like "Cash for Clunkers," and then everyone could finally afford a car because they'd be more affordable!
Joe Miner Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Y'know, I think you're on to something. We could do it with cars, too. Everyone with an old car can turn it in and get subsidized to buy a new car. We could call it something like "Cash for Clunkers," and then everyone could finally afford a car because they'd be more affordable! Cash for clunkers. Isn't that what the federal budget is called?
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Cash for clunkers. Isn't that what the federal budget is called? No, that's the F-35 program.
B-Man Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 People no longer have a “right” to buy health insurance; we have a legal obligation to do so. That’s going to be an increasingly difficult obligation to fulfill as insurers abandon one ObamaCare market after another. Why the Democrats Don’t Mind Obamacare’s Collapse.....................it was ALWAYS a con game. .
B-Large Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 (edited) It will be interesting to see how Amendment 69 (69, lol) does in Colorado in November. My guess is it doesn't pass, but I'd like to see it pass and see what single payor really looks like in a State in the USA. Weed hasn't seemed to ruin the State, maybe we can crack the full coverage, cost lowering goal the Nation seeks. http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbrown/2016/08/15/secretary-clinton-oppose-amendment-69-the-leave-work-in-colorado-plan/#564818511e05 ****, Hillary is against it, wants to improve the nearly defunct ACA... nothing hillary likes better that Federal power.. Edited August 18, 2016 by B-Large
Nanker Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 People no longer have a “right” to buy health insurance; we have a legal obligation to do so. That’s going to be an increasingly difficult obligation to fulfill as insurers abandon one ObamaCare market after another. We should have a legal obligation to own guns.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 It will be interesting to see how Amendment 69 (69, lol) does in Colorado in November. My guess is it doesn't pass, but I'd like to see it pass and see what single payor really looks like in a State in the USA. Weed hasn't seemed to ruin the State, maybe we can crack the full coverage, cost lowering goal the Nation seeks. http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbrown/2016/08/15/secretary-clinton-oppose-amendment-69-the-leave-work-in-colorado-plan/#564818511e05 ****, Hillary is against it, wants to improve the nearly defunct ACA... nothing hillary likes better that Federal power.. Screw the public option: In about 3 hours I'm gonna be on a call with the partners of a hybrid? insurance firm, with what I think, is a nifty business model/end run around Obamacare. I'm still getting into it, but, from what I hear so far this model is a public option/Obamacare killer. It's essentially self-insurance, without the insurance part. As I said, they've done some nifty things to make it go. I'd never say who it is, of course, but, Jesus Christ, we'd have been much better off having these guys design Obamacare. If it ends up sucking, I'll post why, but for now? This might be a business model those of you with means will want to take a look at.
B-Man Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) ANALYSIS: TRUE. Crony Capitalism is a Feature (Not a Bug) of Obamacare. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study estimates that 664 counties will only feature one single insurer on Obamacare exchanges in 2017. In 2016, it was 225. Four entire states will have only one Obamacare insurer. In one Arizona county, there may be none. Since Obamacare, in effect, solidified in-state insurance cartels, the exchanges are starting to look very much the same. But opening markets up across state (and national) lines is a silly idea, I bet. At first, Aetna denied that its move was connected to the Justice Department’s merger decision. Even in the most generous reading, this turns out not to be exactly true. At The Huffington Post, Jonathan Cohn and Jeffery Young have gotten their hands on a letter from Aetna’s CEO that critics seem to believe catches Aetna threatening the administration. The correspondence has gotten Democrats very agitated, even though their policies are creating the problem. “Free markets” will take the blame for ObamaCare’s failures, because the only Progressive cure for crony capitalism is fatter cronies. One in Five Manufacturers in NY Cutting Jobs Due to Obamacare. UNEXPECTEDLY ! . Edited August 19, 2016 by B-Man
keepthefaith Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Screw the public option: In about 3 hours I'm gonna be on a call with the partners of a hybrid? insurance firm, with what I think, is a nifty business model/end run around Obamacare. I'm still getting into it, but, from what I hear so far this model is a public option/Obamacare killer. It's essentially self-insurance, without the insurance part. As I said, they've done some nifty things to make it go. I'd never say who it is, of course, but, Jesus Christ, we'd have been much better off having these guys design Obamacare. If it ends up sucking, I'll post why, but for now? This might be a business model those of you with means will want to take a look at. Sounds interesting. I have a friend, a teacher in Michigan in a district that went the self insured route before Obamacare. The entire district and other nearby districts pay into their own pool. It's worked out pretty well from what I've been told.
IDBillzFan Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Paul Krugman: the problem with Obamacare is the GOP and the answer is "larger subsidies." Y'know, for a guy who is supposed to be smart...
keepthefaith Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Paul Krugman: the problem with Obamacare is the GOP and the answer is "larger subsidies." Y'know, for a guy who is supposed to be smart... I read a few paragraphs. Not that this is news, but this guy is a serious tool. Completely full of ****, again.
GG Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Paul Krugman: the problem with Obamacare is the GOP and the answer is "larger subsidies." Y'know, for a guy who is supposed to be smart... When has there ever been a liberal solution that didn't have "throw more money at it" as a centerpiece?
Azalin Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 (edited) When has there ever been a liberal solution that didn't have "throw more money at it" as a centerpiece? The funny part is that Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, and he's calling for increased government spending when we already have an annual budget deficit of $438 billion and an accumulated national debt of $19.5 trillion. Milton Friedman must be spinning in his grave so rapidly that he's generating an underground vortex. Just for grins, the national debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Edited August 19, 2016 by Azalin
IDBillzFan Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 The funny part is that Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, and he's calling for increased government spending when we already have an annual budget deficit of $438 billion and an accumulated national debt of $19.5 trillion. Milton Friedman must be spinning in his grave so rapidly that he's generating an underground vortex. Just for grins, the national debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Yes, but this is generally where birddog jumps in to let us know that Krugman is smart by virtue of all the framed paper on his walls...so he MUST be right!
B-Man Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 WELL, TO BE FAIR, OBAMACARE ITSELF WAS NEVER DEFENSIBLE: Obamacare’s Public Option Is No Longer Defensible. Could a “public option” fix the problems on the exchanges? More precisely, the question is: What problem would a public option solve? Way back in 2010, when the idea of a government-run nonprofit health insurance option was hotly debated, supporters gave three answers to that question: A public option does not need profits, so it can sell insurance cheaper than an insurer that wants to mark up coverage for profit margin. A public option will have lower administrative costs than a private insurer. A public option can force providers to accept below-market reimbursements for their services. The first argument turns out to be irrelevant, because with the exception of Medicaid managed-care plans, few insurers seem to be taking sizeable profits out of the exchanges. Indeed, since the public option was conceived as self-funding (meaning it covers its costs out of premiums, with no subsidies), there’s a high risk that the public option would prove as doomed as the co-ops, because it would have neither the experience in caseload management to make money nor the other lines of business to subsidize losses on the exchanges. However, supporters argue that a public option would have competitive advantages that would allow it to break even where others are currently losing money. One of those competitive advantages is lower administrative overhead — in theory, at least. I’ve already outlined, however, why I’m skeptical of this: While Medicare does have lower administrative costs than insurers, a lot of that benefit lies either in outsourcing normal administrative costs to other parts of the government (where they are still costly, but not on Medicare’s books) or in not doing things that insurers have to do, like all the boring customer service and billing that comes with selling to the public, rather than enrolling every citizen over the age of 65. The notion that one reduces overhead by putting the government in charge of something is itself pretty indefensible.
Recommended Posts