B-Man Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Carney: Obamacare ‘Absolutely Worth It’ if Dems Lose the Senate In fact, Carney didn’t expect running against Obamacare to even be a winning message for Republicans “because they’ve got to explain what repeal [of the law] means.” Yeah, right. The Democrats never bothered explaining what the law actually meant, so I'm sure the burden's going to fall on the Republicans to explain its repeal. I can explain what "repeal of the law means.......................... It means if you like your doctor, you can keep him...................period!
Nanker Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Me too. At this point, what difference does it make? We had nothing to do with that disgusting Internet video.
B-Man Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 CA: Only One-Third Have Regained Insurance Lost... Michelle O wants $10 donations 'to help protect Obamacare'... Children Unable To Be Included In Parents' Plans... Retiring House Dem Slams Healthcare Law... .
TheMadCap Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 well, at least they are admitting it now: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/27/aca-increases-income-of-poorest-slightly-decreases-that-of-seniors/4939135/
Nanker Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 well, at least they are admitting it now: http://www.usatoday....eniors/4939135/ But they're not getting the money - the evil insurance companies are.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Why does a TPA take a 20% cut of every premium dollar? Because that is the price for Joe's Garage to not hire a FTE benefits person, AND, that's the price for the underwriter to not have to hire yet another claims processor. It's as if you think TPA just sprung out of the ground as some evil plan. TPA exists because it fills a market need nobody else is willing to fill. It's a solution to a problem. Want it to go away? Solve the problem better. Government single payer doesn't solve this problem, because Joe's Garage STILL won't hire an FTE benefit person. Period! I bet you 100 naked youtube pushups that, even with the exchanges, sooner or later TPA, or some mutated form of it, will appear yet again. And remember, it was more prior to 2010 and the passage of the ACA- 25-30%? you can't tell me that 20% versus a State Run risk pool such as Medicare, 4% is a better deal, not matter what scale you get. out of 1 Trillion dollar of healthcare premium dollars, 200 Billion go to something that doesn't involve care.... that's a racket of epic proporations. I can tell you, as I have told every other nonsense broker, that 4% is a nonsense, apples and oranges comparison. How many kids are covered by parent's Medicare? 0 How many kids covered by parent's group/ind./work insurance? Millions. That single example CLEARLY shows the added layer of complexity that the 2nd group of plans has. That added complexity costs more, at every step in the chain, and therefore? Apples to oranges comparison. This is 1 of 100s of examples, so enough with this, Jimmy Smits. Once again: this is a lie spawned by the West Wing TV show. As for competition, who cares who back up the big payment form the risk pool- you have a each American cover large deductibles and that is where your competition lies, in hospital and provider to attract and retain loyal patients. Insurance compaines don't care so much about cost as long as the cover they loss spread and make money.... What the hell are you talking about? Premiums/deductibles are what people will care about, and only about that, because we are talking catastrophic = something there's a very good chance they will never actually use. You are expecting catastrophic policy holders to make economic choices based on the loyalty they have for a product that as a group, 5% of them use/actually experience? As I said: WTF are you talkng about? you still have no explained (as has anybody who ever utter the phrase) why selling Policies across State Lines is anyting other that comepletely empty notion- I shouldn't have to explain the concept of economies of scale to someone who calls themselves a manager. you cede regulatory control of the health insurance to the Federal Government when they sell nationally rather than the State. The Fed gets control of what can be sold, how much, and they set-up the guidelines. Also, Aetna can sell policies in any State they wish- and I am sure Rocky Mountain Health PLans does not want to sell policies to fatties Mississippi- so the State Line argument is wihtout merit- it makes no difference until you prove clearly otherwise. Aetna cannot sell policies in any state. They can sell State-flavored X policy, subject to state crappy Y regulation...because the insurance board has to have it's reason for existence. Look: once again, we see the effects of propping up 20th century ideas, causing us to be unable to truly fix our TODAY problems. Catastrophic insurance is the IDEAL candidate for the "one-size-fits-all" approach. This is the ONLY approach that D.C. can manage. This is the correct approach for this situation. Catastrophic insurance, by definition, means: "you are completely screwed, and this is your bankruptcy protection". Everyone needs the same exact thing: to not be screwed. We don't need a butload of regulations. We need a simple set = whatever it takes for person X, provided they weren't about to go bankrupt anyway, to not go bankrupt. There is no need to define that differently per state, because IT MEANS THE SAME THING, EVERYWHERE. Meanwhile the day to day, HSA stuff, should be handled at the county level, with a state appeals board to back that up. Thus, under this plan: the need for a State insurance board for "consumer protection" is now gone. Since it is gone, we need the Feds to regulate catastrophic. This is fine, since big and monolithic is the perfect and only job for the average DC idiot. When we remove the state anarchonism, which is there to stop the door to door salesman(holy 1980s, batman!) from scamming people, we replace it with something that works, and isn't grounded.....like everything else you hold dear: in 1965. Rocky Mountain Health will be accquired. Period. They, and everybody like them, will be accquired like every little phone company was accquired in the 90s. We will end up with 2-4 major catastrophic companies, all regulated by the Feds, just like the phone situation...which has been the MODEL for competition causing lowered prices/better quality. This is possible, provided that we can move past the 1965 thinking, and let the industy run it's course. The ONLY reason insurance hasn't been sold across state lines as a function of Obamacare: protecting the inefficient union health insurance companies from competition that would put them out of business. Now, I've explained it in a basic format. You want more detail, fine, but don't come crying to me, and take responsibilty for the crying of other poster's, when I drop a book on your ass. Edited January 28, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Oh God... Please don't pontificate about cost accounting... First of all, he should understand it (as should every single person offering opinions in this thread). Secondly, you'll make everyone on the board who reads your posts kill themselves. Edited January 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Oh God... Please don't pontificate about cost accounting... First of all, he should understand it (as should every single person offering opinions in this thread). Secondly, you'll make everyone on the board who reads your posts kill themselves. It figures that Tasker would be the one to finally undestand the method. Tasker = enlightened. The rest? Hilarious. Edited January 28, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Oh God... Please don't pontificate about cost accounting... First of all, he should understand it (as should every single person offering opinions in this thread). Secondly, you'll make everyone on the board who reads your posts kill themselves. 1) If you're reading an OC post on cost accounting, suicide's redundant. 2) Even if not, we'd only lose maybe one poster.
B-Man Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) ‘The Spirit of Citizenship’ Involves Coaxing Other People to Buy Government-Compliant Insurance? Remember when President Obama was once thought to be a great orator? Five years into his presidency, it seems fair to say that he has yet to give a single memorable speech, and Tuesday night’s State of the Union address was certainly no exception. But it did contain this curious passage amidst the blandness: Tonight, I ask every American who knows someone without health insurance to help them get covered by March 31st. Moms, get on your kids to sign up. Kids, call your mom and walk her through the application. It will give her some peace of mind — plus, she’ll appreciate hearing from you. After all, that’s the spirit that has always moved this nation forward. It’s the spirit of citizenship . . . Thankfully that “spirit of citizenship” is aided by Obamacare’s unprecedented individual mandate, which for the first time in American history requires ordinary citizens to buy a product of the federal government’s choosing or else pay a penalty for refusing to comply. Yep, that’s the liberty-loving “spirit that has always moved this nation forward.” . The speech last night was depressing for its predictability, its lack of self-awareness, and its lack of solutions to help America get back on track. It was, however, stunning to listen to the president still trying to sell his misguided health-care law to the public as if nothing had happened. That takes some courage. Over at Forbes, Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon has a great piece that looks at the president’s statements about Obamacare. [The President] : More than nine million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage.” [MC] Sean Trende, Glenn Kessler, and Megan McArdle have shown how the Obama administration’s estimates of ObamaCare enrollments are bogus. Kessler writes that the Obama administration’s Medicaid-enrollment estimate “tells you almost nothing about how the Affordable Care Act is affecting Medicaid enrollment. Reporters need to stop using it.” McArdle writes, “at most, they’ve signed up 15 percent of the uninsured that they were expecting to enroll.” [The President]: And here’s another number: zero. Because of this law, no American can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a preexisting condition like asthma, back pain, or cancer. No woman can ever be charged more just because she’s a woman. And we did all this while adding years to Medicare’s finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat, and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors. [MC]: Oh, really? The Washington Post reports ObamaCare plans are discriminating against the sick. Keep reading this post . . . Edited January 29, 2014 by B-Man
Nanker Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 It doesn't take courage. It takes brass-balled stupidity which he has in abundance.
Keukasmallies Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Interestingly the IRS is unable to field millions of calls from taxpayers with questions about their tax status. That's probably because they are putting all their resources into the ACA basket as they administer the sleek processes that underpin that massive failure. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/29/irs-customer-service-leaves-millions-calls-unanswered/
B-Man Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 As the deadline for 2014 enrollment nears, Obamacare is increasingly growing unpopular, especially among the uninsured. A new Kaiser Family Foundation survey finds that about twice as many uninsured people have an unfavorable view of the health-care law than have a favorable one. Among the uninsured, 47 percent view Obamacare in a negative light versus the 24 percent who view it favorably. That’s a change from 43 percent who viewed it unfavorably last month, and 36 percent who viewed it favorably. Overall, half of Americans view Obamacare unfavorably, while just over one-third have a positive take on the law. More of the uninsured also said Obamacare made them worse off (39 percent) than improved their situation (26 percent), according to the poll. .
meazza Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/01/30/employees_at_pa_small_business_react_to_higher_healthcare_costs_from_obamacare.html
IDBillzFan Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 http://www.realclear..._obamacare.html Heartbreaking video, and yet the comments section is filled with progressives trying to explain how it was clearly staged. Sad, sad times for America's workers. The worst part is, everyone in that video is about to get audited right up the ass.
Nanker Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 !@#$ 'em. They're all white. They can afford it.
B-Man Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Four words in the ACA could spell its doom by George Will http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-four-words-in-the-aca-could-spell-its-doom/2014/01/29/e26a33cc-884a-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html
OCinBuffalo Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) It figures that Tasker would be the one to finally undestand the method. Tasker = enlightened. The rest? Hilarious. 1) If you're reading an OC post on cost accounting, suicide's redundant. 2) Even if not, we'd only lose maybe one poster. I quite literally spell it out...and you still don't get it? Yet another confirmation of the 7 different levels of intelligence theory. I say again, the threat of cost accounting soliloquy, is the argument, you putz. Or, put another way, behavioral conditioning can be quite useful when properly applied. Moving on: the fact is that the entire health care system, both status quo and Obamacare, is not only inefficient, but largely exists as a way for government, and frankly, everyone else(greedy providers, lawyers, insurance companies, pharma companies, etc.), to perpetuate themselves by adding empty costs to the business processes of health care. Government, and insurance companies equally represent the largest obstacles to delivering quality health care to the most people in the most efficient manner possible. In response to this documented reality, what do the dims devise? Something that not only increases the involvement of both, but guarantees the perpetual overriding control of both? Yes, Obamacare: the exact opposite of what we needed. Only a fool argues otherwise, as doing so stands in direct contradiction of the facts. Edited February 1, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
B-Man Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 A Few More Reasons To Repeal ObamaCareby Betsey McCaughey Moody's rating agency has lowered the outlook for health insurers from stable to negative, blaming ObamaCare. Few Americans will shed tears for insurance companies. But the Moody's announcement is a warning sign to taxpayers. They'll be getting clobbered. Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act forces taxpayers to make insurers whole for most of the losses incurred selling ObamaCare exchange plans through 2016. The bailout is designed to conceal the failure of the president's signature health law until he is out of office. No one in the Obama administration talked up the advantages of bailing out insurers. It was kept under wraps until the fall of 2013. That's when 5 million to 6 million health plans were canceled because they didn't comply with ObamaCare's one-size-fits-all coverage requirements effective Jan. 1. Insurers developed new plans, as the health law required, set premiums (generally higher) and sent out notices canceling the old plans. That caused public outrage. Trying to quell it, the president ignored his own law and told insurance companies on Nov. 14 they could keep selling the old plans. Insurers were caught off guard. They predicted there would be less demand for their new plans and that they'd lose money. Here's where the plot thickens. On the same day, an Obama administration health official, Gary Cohen, announced that the federal government (taxpayers) will offset most losses, citing Section 1342. Sweetening what the law already guarantees, he pledged to "modify" the bailout's "final rules to provide additional assistance." That's when Congress finally did its job and read Section 1342. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investor...m#ixzz2s5KQ665P
IDBillzFan Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Obamacare...hurting the ones it's supposed to be helping. From the Washington Post, of all places, the story of a woman earning $22K who is, I'm sure progressives will explain, a necessary casualty to help those who never had insurance: “It is definitely frustrating and not fair,” said Addie Wilson, 27, who lives in Fairmont, W.Va., and earns $22,000 a year working with at-risk families. She said that she is paying $100 a month more than she should for her insurance and that her deductible is $4,000 too high. When Wilson logged on to HealthCare.gov in late December, she needed coverage right away. Her old insurance was ending, and she was to have gallbladder surgery in January. But the Web site would not calculate the federal subsidy to which she knew she was entitled. Terrified to go without coverage, Wilson phoned a federal call center and took the advice she was given: Pay the full price now and appeal later. Now she is stuck. “I hope,” she said, “they really work on getting this fixed.” The Obama administration has not made public the fact that the appeals system for the online marketplace is not working. In recent weeks, legal advocates have been pressing administration officials, pointing out that rules for the online marketplace, created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act, guarantee due-process rights to timely hearings for Americans who think they have been improperly denied insurance or subsidies.
Recommended Posts