The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[DC Tom]

No. It's pretty clear...his intent was to lie straight up to get this law passed. In typical progressive thinking, once everyone enjoys the lush sweetness of free health care, his lies would be quickly forgotten. Pelosi and Wasserman-Shutlz and Reid are more Baghdad Bob in their lies, but Obama told the biggest and his legacy of being the first black president will forever take a deep backseat to his legacyh of being the single most blatantly dishonest and incompetent of presidents in the history of forever.

 

Following Obama's interview with O'Reilly, when he compared himself to Nixon, someone somewhere commented that you know things are bad when the president who started out comparing himself to Lincoln is hoping people will at least compare him to Nixon.

 

I'm still more inclined to believe it was cluelessness. I think he honestly believed that's how the law would work, and was genuinely surprised when it didn't work out that way.

 

Because let's face it: no one understood the ramifications of this piece-of-**** legislation. No one studied it closely enough. You really think Obama bothered to be fully informed and aware of the law and all its nuances when he was campaigning for it?

[IDBillzFan]

I'm still more inclined to believe it was cluelessness. I think he honestly believed that's how the law would work, and was genuinely surprised when it didn't work out that way.

 

Because let's face it: no one understood the ramifications of this piece-of-**** legislation. No one studied it closely enough. You really think Obama bothered to be fully informed and aware of the law and all its nuances when he was campaigning for it?

 

I think when you call a special session of congress for a televised address to push the law, and specifically tell everyone watching they can keep their doctor and plan, I get more comfort out of thinking he was lying than I do believing that he was that unbelievably clueless.

 

Because that's beyond Biden clueless. Beyond gatorman clueless.

 

If Biden and gatorman had a baby and named it conner, it STILL wouldn't be that clueless. Frightening is the word that comes to mind.

[Taro T]

I was explaining the economic theory behind government involvement in health care, not trying to win an election.

 

But if you want my election pitch here it:

 

Obamacare means 30 million Americans will have access to good quality health insurance. The program is fully funded in part by a small tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. Obamacare means that losing your job doesn't mean losing your health insurance. It addresses flaws in the individual insurance market that has made health care prohibitively expensive for many Americans with pre-existing conditions.

Too bad prior to Obamacare 250MM Americans had access to good quality health insurance.

[B-Man]

The Health-Care Myths We Live By :Many assumptions in health care turn out to be completely untrue.

 

By Charles Krauthammer

 

FTA:

 

But if that’s how dicey biological “facts” can be, imagine how much more problematic are the handed-down verities about the workings of our staggeringly complex health-care system. Take three recent cases:

 

Emergency room usage: It’s long been assumed that insuring the uninsured would save huge amounts of money because they wouldn’t have to keep using the emergency room, which is very expensive. Indeed, that was one of the prime financial rationales underlying both Romneycare and Obamacare.

 

Well, in a randomized study, Oregon recently found that when the uninsured were put on Medicaid, they increased their ER usage by 40 percent.

Perhaps they still preferred the immediacy of the ER to waiting for an office appointment with a physician. Whatever the reason, this finding contradicted a widely shared assumption about health-care behavior.

 

Medicaid’s effect on health: Oregon allocated by lottery scarce Medicaid slots for the uninsured. Comparing those who got Medicaid with those who didn’t yielded the following stunning result, published in the New England Journal of Medicine: “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first two years.”

 

To be sure, the Medicaid group was more psychologically and financially secure. Which is not unimportant (though for a $425 billion program, you might expect more bang for the buck). Nevertheless, once again, quite reasonable expectations are overturned by evidence.

 

Electronic records will save zillions: That’s why the federal government is forcing doctors to convert to electronic health records (EHR), threatening penalties for those who don’t by the end of 2014. All in the name of digital efficiency, of course. Yet one of the earliest effects of the EHR mandate is to create a whole new category of previously unnecessary health workers. Scribes, as they are called, now trail the doctor, room to room, entering data.

Why? Because the EHR are so absurdly complex, detailed, tiresome, and wasteful that if the doctor is to fill them out, he can barely talk to and examine the patient, let alone make eye contact — which is why you go to the doctor in the first place.

 

Doctors rave about the scribes, reports the New York Times, because otherwise they have to stay up nights endlessly checking off boxes. Like clerks. Except that these are physicians whose skills are being ridiculously wasted.

 

This is not to say that medical practice should stand still. It is to say that we should be a bit more circumspect about having central planners and their assumptions revolutionize by fiat the delicate ecosystem of American health care.

 

In the case of EHR, for example, doctors were voluntarily but gradually going digital anyway, learning through trial and error what best saves time and money. Instead, Washington threw $19 billion (2009 “stimulus” money) and a rigid mandate at the problem — and created a sprawling mess.

 

This is not to indict, but simply to advocate for caution grounded in humility. It’s not surprising that myths about the workings of the fabulously complex U.S. health-care system continue to tantalize — and confound — policymakers. After all, Americans so believe in their vitamins/supplements that they swallow $28 billion worth every year.

[birdog1960]

"it may be better to wait and see but waiting doesn't make you money....each patient is like an ATM machine". http://www.nytimes.c...comes-soar.html

[JuanGuzman]

"it may be better to wait and see but waiting doesn't make you money....each patient is like an ATM machine". http://www.nytimes.c...comes-soar.html

 

This in interesting thanks.

[JuanGuzman]

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren’t the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, “we don’t sympathize. We say congratulations.”

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/opinion/krugman-health-work-lies.html?_r=0&referrer=

[Nanker]

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren't the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, "we don't sympathize. We say congratulations. Here's your check of other people's tax dollars sent to you from the government. Enjoy!"

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytime...?_r=0&referrer=

[Keukasmallies]

Aha! So the real underpinnings of the ACA, understood from the git go by POTUS, is to introduce leisure to the hewers of wood and drawers of water! Why didn't someone say so in the first place?

[birdog1960]

This in interesting thanks.

you're welcome. i think these numbers need to be widely disseminated along with salaries for top healthcare executives. is nearly $1mil necessary to incentivize students to go into orthopedics or nearly .5 mil to go into dermatology? obviously not, as evidenced by their presence in the rest of the world. yet that's the argument you often hear made to support extremely high salaries. it's really no surprise that a system based to a large extent on greed, leads to greed.

 

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren't the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, "we don't sympathize. We say congratulations."

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytime...?_r=0&referrer=

i'm gonna read the oreilly and limpaugh transcripts tonight to get their take on this statement from the cbo. they'll be debating it, undoubtedly.

[IDBillzFan]

I think you progs should understand and accept that citing Paul Krugman is to conservatives what citing InfoWars is to progressives.

[birdog1960]

I think you progs should understand and accept that citing Paul Krugman is to conservatives what citing InfoWars is to progressives.

so, wait. it's appropriate to bandy about the nonpartisan cbo report findings but not to highlight what the director of the cbo stated as a clarification on that same report?

[JuanGuzman]

Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack. The article goes on to rightfully point out that impact on labour supply does have some costs to society: "Just to be clear, the predicted long-run fall in working hours isn’t entirely a good thing. Workers who choose to spend more time with their families will gain, but they’ll also impose some burden on the rest of society, for example, by paying less in payroll and income taxes. So there is some cost to Obamacare over and above the insurance subsidies. "

 

[B-Man]

The Human Tragedy of Obamacare’s Job Losses

by Grace Marie Turner

 

The CBO report released this week says finds that the president’s health law creates massive incentives for Americans, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale, to opt out of the work force or to adjust their hours to qualify for big subsidies — to the tune of 2.3 million fewer “full-time-equivalent workers” by 2021​.

 

In congressional testimony Wednesday, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf acknowledged, under questioning from House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), that “the act creates a disincentive for people to work.”

 

This cuts through the White House’s claims that Republicans are mischaracterizing the CBO findings. Americans will find that earning more money can cost them thousands of dollars in in-kind benefits and, for many, working more will not be worth the costs of the added payroll taxes and work-related transportation and child-care expenses.

 

White House press secretary Jay Carney argued that the subsidies allow people to “pursue their dreams” without the terrible burden of working jobs they may despise, claiming that “individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods, like retiring on time rather than working into their elderly years.”

 

But in what alternative liberal universe can we pay people not to work and expect the economy to thrive?

 

Carney’s argument means that other people who still are working will be paying the bills so these newly “empowered” individuals will be able to enjoy free or heavily subsidized health insurance. And second, what was this about “working into their elderly years”? Medicare already provides health coverage for those over the age of 65 — and Medicaid provides it for many just under that age.

 

{snip}

 

When the CBO talks about the loss of 2.5 million “full-time equivalent jobs,” that means there could be several times that number of workers who will cut back on their hours – and their incomes – in order to qualify for generous health-insurance subsidies. Many millions could be tempted to forgo income — stalling their careers and their chances for advancement – in order to get Obamacare subsidies. The human tragedy of Obamacare, in other words, is enormous.

[DC Tom]

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren't the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, "we don't sympathize. We say congratulations."

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytime...?_r=0&referrer=

 

Until this week, chronic underemployment was considered a bad thing.

 

Unreal.

[Doc]

So basically people are going to be able to work less, but make more money off the backs of the taxpayers, and the double whammy is fewer payroll and income taxes. Awesome!

[keepthefaith]

The brainwashing of America is in full swing. What do people think Obama would do if he actually had the power legally and fully to recast society through government action? What changes would he make? It's a scary thought.

 

Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack. The article goes on to rightfully point out that impact on labour supply does have some costs to society: "Just to be clear, the predicted long-run fall in working hours isn't entirely a good thing. Workers who choose to spend more time with their families will gain, but they'll also impose some burden on the rest of society, for example, by paying less in payroll and income taxes. So there is some cost to Obamacare over and above the insurance subsidies. "

 

This is what you get when you think too much, think incorrectly and have far too much self confidence. You sir, would be laughed out of meetings in the real world where business really gets done.

[IDBillzFan]

so, wait. it's appropriate to bandy about the nonpartisan cbo report findings but not to highlight what the director of the cbo stated as a clarification on that same report?

 

You can bandy all you want. I'm just mocking the authoritative voice you chose to amplify. Perhaps his next article will be how great it is to see the unemployment rate dropping so quickly. I mean, "just to be clear..." it's because people have given up trying to find a job...but hey, that number is the best in five years, ammmiright?

[boyst]

Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack. The article goes on to rightfully point out that impact on labour supply does have some costs to society: "Just to be clear, the predicted long-run fall in working hours isn't entirely a good thing. Workers who choose to spend more time with their families will gain, but they'll also impose some burden on the rest of society, for example, by paying less in payroll and income taxes. So there is some cost to Obamacare over and above the insurance subsidies. "

You are seriously one of the most annoying trolls in existence. I've seen some of the best, too.

 

Why do you even bother speaking when what you say is so invalid that even the lowest of intelligence can rebuke what you say or use to support your ramblings? It really gets old, buddy. There is not much humor in it and you should just get a hobby. Spring is coming, how about a garden?

[JuanGuzman]

 

 

Until this week, chronic underemployment was considered a bad thing.

 

Unreal.

 

I couldn't agree any more. I just don't think forcing people to work so they can access the group market instead of the individual market for health insurance is the way to solve it.

 

IMO if you wanted to reduce unemployment id increase the earned income tax credit, increase fiscal spending by building roads to ease congestion and new airports. I'd also be in conversation with the federal reserve trying to make sure the economy escapes slow growth mode. Only when unemployment dropped below 5% or inflation started to rise above 3 per cent.

 

If you want to deal with the unemployment crises target it directly.