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

[keepthefaith]

 

I'm confused, so which is it? The states were suppose to be bullied into providing the mechanism for subsidies

 

or the plan all along was to put up a show that fooled everyone into thinking it was suppose to be the state providing the subsidies but knowing the states wouldn't cooperate, jeopardizing the law via the supreme court but having just enough confidence to know that the court would uphold the ruling and then anticipating that the states that did adopt the exchanges would abandon their mechanism to provide subsidies just so that they would and set up shop through the federal exchange?

 

Think about that for a second B man. You are a smart guy, if that was the plan all along, then why didn't they simply write the law with the Federal Exchange? That was never the bone of contention, they could have easily have done that.

Why, I'm getting your fantasy land explanations right here, no need for me to go there.

You're trying to make sense out of a clusterfukk of a law. It can't be done in this case.

[unbillievable]

So how many millions were wasted by states creating their own exchanges?

[/dev/null]

SCOTUS and the Eric Cartman Presidency

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/scotuscare-and-the-eric-cartman-presidency/

 

Whateva. I'll do what I want

[unbillievable]

SCOTUS and the Eric Cartman Presidency

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/scotuscare-and-the-eric-cartman-presidency/

 

Whateva. I'll do what I want

The Republicans dodged a bullet here.

If they had won the case, the Democrats would have pinned the overall failure of Obamacare on this one issue. As it stands, the ACA must now stand on it's own as a wholly Democrat-written law. As more of it's provisions hit the public (Obama can't delay them forever) the angrier the people will get; just wait until 2018 when the unions get hit by the "cadalac" plan tax.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The Republicans dodged a bullet here.

If they had won the case, the Democrats would have pinned the overall failure of Obamacare on this one issue. As it stands, the ACA must now stand on it's own as a wholly Democrat-written law. As more of it's provisions hit the public (Obama can't delay them forever) the angrier the people will get; just wait until 2018 when the unions get hit by the "cadalac" plan tax.

The ACA wasn't designed as a solution. It was designed as Trojan-horse. It's purpose was to destroy the healthcare market, paving the way for single payer.

[Azalin]

The ACA wasn't designed as a solution. It was designed as Trojan-horse. It's purpose was to destroy the healthcare market, paving the way for single payer.

That's the only thing that makes any sense. They could have easily addressed the issue of preexisting conditions by enhancing medicare/medicaid or by just offering a separate plan to cover that. There's always been access for low income people by simply going to the emergency room.

[B-Man]

[DC Tom]

That's the only thing that makes any sense. They could have easily addressed the issue of preexisting conditions by enhancing medicare/medicaid or by just offering a separate plan to cover that. There's always been access for low income people by simply going to the emergency room.

 

And, in fact, since the ACA's been implemented emergency rooms have seen an increase in their use for routine health care. The ability to pay for health care doesn't mean you have the ability to get an appointment with a doctor, or take time off from work to get there (particularly if you have a low-income job). Because health insurance is not health care.

 

Which is why, though I don't doubt the ACA will destroy the health care industry, I don't think it was intentional. That theory gives an awful lot of credit to a group of people who are incapable of understanding the distinction between paying for a service and that service itself.

[unbillievable]

The ACA wasn't designed as a solution. It was designed as Trojan-horse. It's purpose was to destroy the healthcare market, paving the way for single payer.

I don't know which is worse, the above statement being serious, or sarcastic.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

And, in fact, since the ACA's been implemented emergency rooms have seen an increase in their use for routine health care. The ability to pay for health care doesn't mean you have the ability to get an appointment with a doctor, or take time off from work to get there (particularly if you have a low-income job). Because health insurance is not health care.

 

Which is why, though I don't doubt the ACA will destroy the health care industry, I don't think it was intentional. That theory gives an awful lot of credit to a group of people who are incapable of understanding the distinction between paying for a service and that service itself.

Yes, when we combine aggressive emotion with aggressive ignorance, ensure that the designers of the system lack all system design skills, and base the design on political requirements instead of business requirements, we get the ACA.

 

My post is shorter than yours. Just sayin'

Edited June 28, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

My post is shorter than yours. Just sayin'

 

Nice work. Have a cookie.

[unbillievable]

It's better to charge forward with a bad plan than to sit still with none?

Is that in Sun Tzu?

[boyst]

It's better to charge forward with a bad plan than to sit still with none?

Is that in Sun Tzu?

I don't recall the entire book, but that is not sun tzu.

[Azalin]

It's better to charge forward with a bad plan than to sit still with none?

Is that in Sun Tzu?

 

I may be oversimplifying it, but the only real benefit with the ACA I see is the ability for people to get coverage for pre-existing conditions, but only at a ridiculously high premium. Anything else covered has already been available. You don't 'charge forward' with something so onerous as the ACA just because doing something is better than doing nothing. You don't need to be a strategist/philosopher to understand that.

[Nanker]

Classic leftist canard, the Republicans have no plan.

They have plenty of ideas and presented them to Stretch and One-Eye but were entirely shut out of the conversations that brought about this abomination.

The left love abortions so much they wanted to entire world to see what one looks like. Voila!

[B-Man]

IT’S BAD ON MULTIPLE LEVELS:

 

My Los Angeles Times oped today with David Rivkin, “The Supreme Court’s Bad Call on the Affordable Care Act.”

 

When judges take it upon themselves to “fix” a law — or to bless an executive “fix” — they diminish political accountability by encouraging Congress to be sloppy. And they bypass the political process established by the Constitution’s separation of powers, arrogating to itself — and the executive — the power to amend legislation.

 

This leads to bad laws, bad policy outcomes and fosters the cynical belief that “law is politics.”

 

 

The progressive left’s belief that “law is politics” is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out in NRO this weekend, there was no speculation about whether one of the four liberal/progressive Justices would vote in any of the recent high profile, controversial cases precisely because liberal/progressive Justices don’t “wander off the reservation.”

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

It's better to charge forward with a bad plan than to sit still with none?

Is that in Sun Tzu?

No. But it is standard Marine Corps doctrine.

[Magox]

This wasn't an attempt to blow up the private health insurance markets so that it would pave the way for single-payer. That may end up being the end result down the road but the the main goal from the Obama administration was to expand coverage primarily to lower socioeconomic families. Don't get me wrong, if they could have single-payer they'd do it in a heart beat. But their thinking was that melding the private insurance markets along with additional government regulations and subsidies that they could transfer wealth from upper class to lower class folks. Of course, that isn't exactly what happened, it was also a transfer of wealth from the young and healthy to the poor, old and sicker folks.

 

The law definitely provides health insurance to many that would have never of obtained insurance but it also punishes many middle to upper middle class folks who don't qualify for subsidies and that have to purchase insurance on the private exchanges. It also has made most small business health insurance rates to go higher, either forcing companies to pass on those costs to their employees through higher deductible and premiums. My guess is you'll see a shift of companies deciding to eat the penalty and dumping their employees on to the exchange.

 

There are a number of things that can be done to improve the ACA. My guess is we'll see some additional reforms within the next decade.

[unbillievable]

This wasn't an attempt to blow up the private health insurance markets so that it would pave the way for single-payer. That may end up being the end result down the road but the the main goal from the Obama administration was to expand coverage primarily to lower socioeconomic families. Don't get me wrong, if they could have single-payer they'd do it in a heart beat. But their thinking was that melding the private insurance markets along with additional government regulations and subsidies that they could transfer wealth from upper class to lower class folks. Of course, that isn't exactly what happened, it was also a transfer of wealth from the young and healthy to the poor, old and sicker folks.

 

The law definitely provides health insurance to many that would have never of obtained insurance but it also punishes many middle to upper middle class folks who don't qualify for subsidies and that have to purchase insurance on the private exchanges. It also has made most small business health insurance rates to go higher, either forcing companies to pass on those costs to their employees through higher deductible and premiums. My guess is you'll see a shift of companies deciding to eat the penalty and dumping their employees on to the exchange.

 

There are a number of things that can be done to improve the ACA. My guess is we'll see some additional reforms within the next decade.

We'll break it so we can fix it.

Punish the productive many to carry the incompetent few.

It's easier to beg on your knees than to lift with your back.

It's better to pay a lot now than to pay a lot later.

Private companies should not provide what the Government can supply for twice the price.

 

These are just a few suggestions for campaign slogans...

[4merper4mer]

This wasn't an attempt to blow up the private health insurance markets so that it would pave the way for single-payer. That may end up being the end result down the road but the the main goal from the Obama administration was to expand coverage primarily to lower socioeconomic families. Don't get me wrong, if they could have single-payer they'd do it in a heart beat. But their thinking was that melding the private insurance markets along with additional government regulations and subsidies that they could transfer wealth from upper class to lower class folks. Of course, that isn't exactly what happened, it was also a transfer of wealth from the young and healthy to the poor, old and sicker folks.

 

The law definitely provides health insurance to many that would have never of obtained insurance but it also punishes many middle to upper middle class folks who don't qualify for subsidies and that have to purchase insurance on the private exchanges. It also has made most small business health insurance rates to go higher, either forcing companies to pass on those costs to their employees through higher deductible and premiums. My guess is you'll see a shift of companies deciding to eat the penalty and dumping their employees on to the exchange.

 

There are a number of things that can be done to improve the ACA. My guess is we'll see some additional reforms within the next decade.

I have a lucrative overpass named after one of the boroughs in NYC but I am getting bored with counting all of the money it brings in. i'd like to sell it to you. I'm willing to sell it below market value.