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

[TakeYouToTasker]

Effective for the poor too?

Yes, effective for the poor as well. Central planning always hurts the poor more than anyone else, because the poor have the least acceptable margins for loss when the systems break down and fail.

[meazza]

Yes, effective for the poor as well. Central planning always hurts the poor more than anyone else, because the poor have the least acceptable margins for loss when the systems break down and fail.

 

I'd say the middle class become worse off (since the poor are already at the bottom) since the increased taxes are always passed on to the middle class. The wealthy can usually find the most effective methods of paying less taxes.

[4merper4mer]

I'd say the middle class become worse off (since the poor are already at the bottom) since the increased taxes are always passed on to the middle class. The wealthy can usually find the most effective methods of paying less taxes.

 

I don't think Tasker meant dollar for dollar. I think he meant the middle class takes a hit and yes, there poor were on the bottom, but the bottom gets lower and that sucks.

[Gary M]

Two of the goals of the ACA are to decrease insurance costs and decrease emergency room visits. Just check out the most recent numbers related to both objectives; how's it working'? Well, for me, my premium has increased each of the past two years and this year as well. This years increase is 9.6%. Additionally, my co-pay for seeing a specialist has increased 14.2%. Sorry, no link to validate these figures as my checkbook isn't on line. (Increased means I pay more, not less, and increased is the opposite of decreased.))

 

Emergency room visits are slowly rising according to national trend figures. (Rising in this instance means growing in number; growing is the opposite of shrinking.)

 

So, yeah, I'm opposed to a program that is achieving the exact opposite of it's stated objectives.

 

Which anyone with any common sense knew would happen.

[Doc]

I'd still like to know what happened to the 40-odd million other people that we were dying in the streets because they were being denied health care and which necessitated ramming through this ****ty law?

[Azalin]

I am absolutely philosophically opposed, because centrally planned systems have always been far less effective than the market.

^ this

The government doesn't fund anything, the people do. Anytime someone in this country receives a subsidy or something for free it is part of wealth redistribution.

^ and this

[IDBillzFan]

Which anyone with any common sense knew would happen.

 

Something else everyone with common sense understood: if the entire scheme's success rests exclusively on getting young people to sign up, you don't give those young people three easy reasons NOT to sign up.

 

The first easy reason is to let them stay on their parents' plan until their 26. The second easy reason is in making the annual non-compliance penalty cheaper than a monthly cellphone bill. The third was ensuring they could escape the law altogether if they simply adjust their income so they owe no taxes at the end of the year.

 

Some brilliant work there, progs. No one can argue that when it comes to creating a surefire failure, no one delivers like a liberal.

[Nanker]

I'd still like to know what happened to the 40-odd million other people that we were dying in the streets because they were being denied health care and which necessitated ramming through this ****ty law?

The media has lost sight of them. I think they got lost in a time warp while watching a disgusting Internet video - which we had NOTHING to do with. So, at this point - what difference does it make?

[IDBillzFan]

I think they got lost in a time warp...

 

Happens quite a bit. Ironically it starts with a jump to the left.

[Azalin]

Happens quite a bit. Ironically it starts with a jump to the left.

you beat me to it.

[B-Large]

I meant in a broader scope of government funded national health care.

 

you have to be specific when posing the question, and in my mind there are 3 types "Government Funded" healthcare:

 

1. Socialized Medicine- the Government run the Hospitals, employs the Practicioners, collects taxes foe the cost of care.

2. Single Payor- the Government collects taxes to pay for care, people use private providers.

3. Subsidized Premium Support- Private system the government collect taxes and subsidizes premium payment for private health insurance- they do not pay claims, and don't own the means or care.

 

We doubled down on a system that really didn't work in the first place if you were not healthly, not young, had preexisting condition, etc. We fixed access, but did little to address cost of care in the grand scheme of things. Yes, there will be cost cutting measures and maybe those will help, but the key disconnect is that individuals/ hospitals do not have an efficient cost/ payment relationship because of third party payments. Its still almost impossible to get a cash quote for services at a hospital in this country...

 

I'd like to the States/Federal Government fund a risk pool that pays claims that are over a certain amont based on each person income. So the individual is charged with paying for their routine care, seeking out cost effective ways to do so... when they need the 50K surgery, the risk pool pays the provider. I'd like to see a system like this have an auto opt-in... so people would have to make a choice not to participate/opt out, so either go without coverage for which they could be denied care if needed and couldnt pay, or buy a private plan if they qualify. Fund the risk pool with taxes, each person has a deducitble and an HSA they could use if they wanted. You take TPA out of the mix, get a better relationship between consumer/ provider and get economies of scale in the process. The people of the Nation/ State could vote on how much they wanted to spend for care in the country, instead of now it seems like a open spigot free for all. People vote for no waits for anything, more spending. Americans decided a hip replacement wait of 6 months is acceptable, less spending. Seems reasonable to me.

[B-Man]

Democrats joining GOP efforts to alter troubled Obamacare.

 

For the second time in two weeks, House Democrats joined with Republicans to pass legislation that would require the Obama administration to report regularly to Congress on progress made implementing the new health care law.

 

In a 259-154 vote, the House passed the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, which would require the Health and Human Services Department to provide weekly reports to Congress on the sign-up data for the troubled healthcare.gov website.

While Democrats have generally dismissed the Republican attacks on Obamacare as politically motivated, 33 Democratic lawmakers broke with the party and voted for the bill that would increase scrutiny of the new law.

 

Last week, 67 Democrats joined the GOP to pass the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act, which would require HHS to tell healthcare.gov users about any security breach involving personal identity theft or unlawful access within two days of discovery.

 

 

 

Seems reasonable.

 

 

.

[Gary M]

 

 

Seems reasonable.

 

.

 

Election year CYA!!!!!!

[DC Tom]

For the second time in two weeks, House Democrats joined with Republicans to pass legislation that would require the Obama administration to report regularly to Congress on progress made implementing the new health care law.

 

 

Hey, wouldn't that have been a good thing to write into THE ORIGINAL BILL?????

 

Stupid !@#$ing law.

[Koko78]

Democrats joining GOP efforts to alter troubled Obamacare.

 

For the second time in two weeks, House Democrats joined with Republicans to pass legislation that would require the Obama administration to report regularly to Congress on progress made implementing the new health care law.

 

In a 259-154 vote, the House passed the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, which would require the Health and Human Services Department to provide weekly reports to Congress on the sign-up data for the troubled healthcare.gov website.

While Democrats have generally dismissed the Republican attacks on Obamacare as politically motivated, 33 Democratic lawmakers broke with the party and voted for the bill that would increase scrutiny of the new law.

 

Last week, 67 Democrats joined the GOP to pass the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act, which would require HHS to tell healthcare.gov users about any security breach involving personal identity theft or unlawful access within two days of discovery.

 

 

 

Seems reasonable.

 

 

.

Going to die in the Senate though. Uncle Harry won't let anything happen to Obama.

[Keukasmallies]

The next tit-in-a-wringer component of the ACA would appear to be the "risk corridor provision." This provision is the current sword of Damocles over the head of the HHS department, BUT the good news is that it only has an impact if the act comes in over budget! Gee, what are the chances of that happening?

 

http://hotair.com/ar...o-single-payer/

Edited January 18, 2014 by Keukasmallies

[Doc]

The next tit-in-a-wringer component of the ACA would appear to be the "risk corridor provision." This provision is the current sword of Damocles over the head of the HHS department, BUT the good news is that it only has an impact if the act comes in over budget! Gee, what are the chances of that happening?

 

http://hotair.com/ar...o-single-payer/

Sorry but I can't accept any predictions made by insurance companies, considering they couldn't predict that the "invincibles" would avoid Obamacaid like the plague. They're just trying to scare Repubs (who won't be able to do anything until 2017 at the earliest) because they want their bailout if (more like when) they need it.

 

It was great of the Dems to stick those evil insurance companies, eh? I wonder how many millions they got to have their palms greased?

[Doc]

I'd still like to know what happened to the 40-odd million other people that we were dying in the streets because they were being denied health care and which necessitated ramming through this ****ty law?

And...it's even worse than I thought: Coverage Expansion Fail: Less Than One-Third Of Obamacare Exchange Enrollees Were Previously Uninsured

[OCinBuffalo]

Effective for the poor too?

Historically, central planning has always screwed the poor the most. Those closest to starvation, disease, etc. the most vulnerable, are always the people who take the brunt of the central plan FAIL. You look at China, and how much forced starvation occurred during the Great Leap Forward. Millions died for no good reason, other than: proving to the rest of the world that central planning is for morons.

 

The only question is: will you let their deaths be in vain? Will you continue support of central planning, even though we have gallons of historical evidence that it sucks, different flavors of its FAIL too, like Nixon Wage and Price Controls FAIL, and the 90% of the New Deal FAIL(most people don't even realize how big a failure the New Deal actually was) and NOTHING that shows any real success.

 

When you compare the sucess of markets vs. central planning, OBJECTIVELY, every rational human being comes away saying there is no comparison, markets are superior. So the other queston? Are you are rational human being, or not?

I'd still like to know what happened to the 40-odd million other people that we were dying in the streets because they were being denied health care and which necessitated ramming through this ****ty law?

As I understand it, not only are most of them against Obamacare, they are also not signing up.

 

Once again, we've bought an entire car...so that we could use the cigarette ligther and the radio.

you have to be specific when posing the question, and in my mind there are 3 types "Government Funded" healthcare:

 

1. Socialized Medicine- the Government run the Hospitals, employs the Practicioners, collects taxes foe the cost of care.

2. Single Payor- the Government collects taxes to pay for care, people use private providers.

3. Subsidized Premium Support- Private system the government collect taxes and subsidizes premium payment for private health insurance- they do not pay claims, and don't own the means or care.

 

We doubled down on a system that really didn't work in the first place if you were not healthly, not young, had preexisting condition, etc. We fixed access, but did little to address cost of care in the grand scheme of things. Yes, there will be cost cutting measures and maybe those will help, but the key disconnect is that individuals/ hospitals do not have an efficient cost/ payment relationship because of third party payments. Its still almost impossible to get a cash quote for services at a hospital in this country...

 

I'd like to the States/Federal Government fund a risk pool that pays claims that are over a certain amont based on each person income. So the individual is charged with paying for their routine care, seeking out cost effective ways to do so... when they need the 50K surgery, the risk pool pays the provider. I'd like to see a system like this have an auto opt-in... so people would have to make a choice not to participate/opt out, so either go without coverage for which they could be denied care if needed and couldnt pay, or buy a private plan if they qualify. Fund the risk pool with taxes, each person has a deducitble and an HSA they could use if they wanted. You take TPA out of the mix, get a better relationship between consumer/ provider and get economies of scale in the process. The people of the Nation/ State could vote on how much they wanted to spend for care in the country, instead of now it seems like a open spigot free for all. People vote for no waits for anything, more spending. Americans decided a hip replacement wait of 6 months is acceptable, less spending. Seems reasonable to me.

We sorta agree, but taking TPA out of the mix is patently retarded. You should know better. The entire point of TPA? Efficiency and cutting cost. Why do we want to cut out the thing that saves $? TPAs compete with each other. You want to get rid of the competition? How does that cut cost?

 

Taking TPA away means forcing either the insurer or the insured to hire somebody. Joe's Garage does car repair, not health insurance management, and the # of people on his staff mean hiring somebody to manage a 10 person plan, is never going to be an efficient use of Joe's resources. All you're doing by getting rid of TPAs is creating a costly and inefficient bottleneck in the policy management/claims business process. Either the government is the bottleneck, or the insurers, or the insured. Take your pick.

 

This solves nothing.

 

I want HSAs, same as you, for the same reasons. But, I want those HSAs managed by the 401k people. They already have all the resources, and the experience of doing this type of thing. HSA = the fastest way to create wealth. You don't need to try to buy a house or a big job that has 401k. All you need is pre-tax income. And, you can pass on your HSA to your beneficiary(ies), no taxes. Boom, wealth creation.

 

However, I want Walmat, Target, etc., to be a TPA for all catastrophic policies, and I want those policies sold across state lines. Walmart handles massive amounts of money, and they arleady have the resources in place to handle more. They can scale.

 

You start talking catastrophic pools that have 1 million people in them? That "bends the cost curve" down, big time. It's not phony state exchanges == wealth redistribution. It's smacking the hell out of cost, and pre-existing conditions? Spread across a pool of 1 million? Too many? How about 200k? Either way, nobody cares.

 

Walmart does what they always do: Buy health insurance policies for highway robbery prices, and re-sell them. Somebody is going to find a way to meet their price, especially if we are talking nationally. Hell if Walmart makes you squeamish? Then run a catastrophic public option alongside, and see who wins.

 

That is how you control cost, in both the day to day and catastrophic. You let the big guys fight it out for the one-size-fits-all catastrophic, because one-size-fits-all is what large companies/Federal government, is good at. Then, you let the doctors and patients and hospitals, and all the custom needs and issues, resolve itself in the local market....backed up by the county, and local employers, who can pay into HSAs however they want.

 

This is the superior approach, until I hear a better one.

Edited January 18, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

Remain calm, all is well.

 

Obamacare Document Reveals ‘Drop Dead’ Date for Back End Fixes.

 

“Apparently, Obamacare is in a lot bigger trouble than anyone has let on — or anyone has imagined.”