Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obamacare Predictions for May 2015 (Page 25)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  46  47  48   
Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
I'd trust the county's explanation for why they lost them over your speculation and questions (that you admit you don't have the answer to) any day.
Except that the county explanation was "it would have been too expensive to keep providing that coverage and comply with the Affordable Care Act's coverage mandates." But he did not specify which mandates he was referring to.

My explanation does not contradict the county's explanation, so it cannot be discounted until we have more information.

Although you may have had a "cadallac plan," this one was not one, since a "cadallac plan" would have fulfilled all the ACA mandates.

Can you think of one of the mandates that might have added something onto their insurance that WASN'T beneficial to them that might have caused it to become too expensive?

I'll give you a hint, it's related to the number "40" and it's something that many public employees (mostly unionized but some that aren't) have been howling about quite loudly.

[ April 18, 2014, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So then what is your alternative explanation for why their plans rose so much under Obamacare's new regulations that they could no longer afford them?
Just a quibble: it is not that the widows could no longer afford them. It is that Madison County officials have decided they can no longer afford it.

Speaking from my own experience at an insurance company preparing for the ACA, many long-term plans for public-sector employees did not comply with the ACA because their official premiums were too high and/or the coverage was not complete in one specific category or another. In many cases, these public-sector plans were the result of negotiations with unions and the like over many decades, and so any changes to those plans to make them ACA-compliant also involved extensive negotiation. It is very likely that the county, as a self-insurer, ran the numbers and discovered that they could not re-insure the group -- now a bunch of old widows -- under a new plan for anything close to what they had been paying into the old plan. "Cadillac plans" do not actually always fulfill all ACA mandates, especially contribution margins; by the same token, it's unlikely that any public-sector self-insurer is offering a truly "cadillac" plan. My guess is that as they recalculate the risk pool for a new plan on a dwindling population, they're realizing that it's guaranteed to lose them money.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can you think of one of the mandates that might have added something onto their insurance that WASN'T beneficial to them that might have caused it to become too expensive?

I'll give you a hint, it's related to the number "40" and it's something that many public employees (mostly unionized but some that aren't) have been howling about quite loudly.

No, I don't think it was materity care, not compared to how expensive it is to insure older adults. [Razz]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Can you think of one of the mandates that might have added something onto their insurance that WASN'T beneficial to them that might have caused it to become too expensive?

I'll give you a hint, it's related to the number "40" and it's something that many public employees (mostly unionized but some that aren't) have been howling about quite loudly.

No, I don't think it was materity care, not compared to how expensive it is to insure older adults. [Razz]
Touche!

I was referring to the 40% Cadillac tax... [Wink]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, if you are not keeping track, the track record for predictions by opponents of Obamacare has been very poor.

As for the even-handedness of Mynnion's comment "Those to the left will likely paint the numbers in a way favorable to their views. Those on the right will do the same, I believe that presents a false equivalence. There is no rightwing site on Obamacare numbers that even remotely compares to the transparency and thoroughness provided by Charles Gaba's Acasignups site.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg
quote:
As for the even-handedness of Mynnion's comment "Those to the left will likely paint the numbers in a way favorable to their views. Those on the right will do the same, I believe that presents a false equivalence. There is no rightwing site on Obamacare numbers that even remotely compares to the transparency and thoroughness provided by Charles Gaba's Acasignups site.
I think that the ACA is showing more promise than I expected. I do believe that both sides are quick to use statistics in a way that promotes their specific agendas. That is why I suggested that Seneca pay attention to more than just the most conservative of sources (maybe he reads broader but I don't see it reflected in his posts).

One of the benefits to reading posts on Ornery is that many times there are good multifaceted discussions from both sides. Over the years my views have drifted to left of center in part because of the well researched and composed arguments presented here. I do however appreciate the contributions of some of our more thoughtful conservative contributors.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion, I don't disagree with the principle that you raise - the propensity to obfuscate is not intrinsically influenced by political leanings. And there's always a range of behaviors from the wide range of adherents to different political philosophies. Few speak with perfect accuracy (even if we knew what that was); I generally believe that it is permissible to express true facts in a way that supports one side of an argument (even if that might be a slightly different perspective than a truly neutral analysis of an issue).

On the other hand, what we have today in American politics (and here on Ornery) is a pretty persistent trend of conservatives having a more distant relationship with objective facts and accountability for accuracy. There's no reason to believe that trend will stay the same 10 or 20 years from now, but for the moment, and in the plurality of cases, advocates on the left are less inaccurate than advocates on the right. And in cases where specifics are available, such as the thoroughness and accuracy of Charles Gaba's analysis and predictions as compared to those of the conservative opposition, I wanted to clarify your general statement that there is some dissembling from both sides.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Plus, I'd like to see this thread get up to 1000 posts - that would be kind of cool as well [Smile]
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Plus, I'd like to see this thread get up to 1000 posts - that would be kind of cool as well [Smile]

OH fine!

My prediction for Obamacare, May 2015:

The law is still in effect. Republicans are still complaining about it constantly like shrill harpies. The Democratic spin machine is still defending it like good little counselors for their naked emperor. It is more unpopular then ever to citizens.

My prediction for Obamacare, May 2016:

Both party's nominees for the Presidency have made it a major part of their proposed agenda to "fix" Obamacare.

My prediction for Obamacare, May 2017:

Unless a single party controls both Congress and the Presidency, no significant changes are able to be made, and the law remains in effect the way it ended in 2015. If a single party gains control of Congress and the Presidency, the law is modified and is no longer called "Obamacare", but "Frankenbama's Monster".

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Grant, for the specific prediction ("It is more unpopular then ever to citizens"). What % of favorability on what specific question do you set as the benchmark?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Thanks, Grant, for the specific prediction ("It is more unpopular then ever to citizens"). What % of favorability on what specific question do you set as the benchmark?

I don't have an exact benchmark. The number is inherent in my prediction. "More unpopular then ever"= Whatever was maximum % of Americans with an "unfavorable" view of Obamacare, at any time, will be eclipsed by the % of Americans with an "unfavorable" view of Obamacare, on 1 May, 2015, 1200 hrs zulu time.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I understand the general approach you are taking - the quantification will be difficult. There are some polls showing as little as 26% favorability at some points, although that also included people who felt unfavorable because the health care reform did not go far enough.

I suspect will also have some numbers debate in May 2015, but I believe that any apples-to-apples comparisons (ie; same questions by same polling firm) will come out substantially higher than the lowest points. So great, we have something to check on in 13 months. [Smile]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... we have today in American politics (and here on Ornery) is a pretty persistent trend of conservatives having a more distant relationship with objective facts and accountability for accuracy. "...

Sounds perfectly objective to me Greg. [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, facts are what they are. The demonstrated behavior is available for all to see and judge. Sometimes there is a legitimate range of uncertainty about what the facts are. But the track record is consistent with my assertion, including of the very predictions that are embedded in this thread. And we have seen on numerous occasions that a number of advocates for conservative positions refuse to accept accountability for the assertions that they have made that are subsequently shown to be false or misleading.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"noel, facts are what they are. "...

That is true enough, but this has been a shell game.

I am looking for two "facts". First, how many people have insurance now that were not previously insured? Second, what has been the cost?

Neither those added to Medicaid nor, and unpaid "sign-ups" count.

My third question is less tangible: how is success measured? (And your answer should not be composed to boost the response count. [Wink] )

[ April 20, 2014, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, I look forward to you startling me by engaging in an actual discussion of the information that I am providing here rather than engaging in the very behaviors that I was describing as being typical of those defending the conservative position on Obamacare

Gallup conducted a survey between March 4th and April 14th on the question of how many uninsured people got insurance. During that period of time they found that 4% of the US population had signed up for insurance in 2014 when they had not had insurance in 2013. The span of time is relevant, because sign-ups for Qualified Health Plans doubled during that period of time. If we assume that the doubling occurred at a linear rate (which is conservative, because sign-ups peaked late), and that Gallup interviewed a similar number of people per day, then on average the Gallup surveys occurred when only 75% of the total population who would eventually sign up had signed up. That would push the 4% they measured to being with a 5.25% rate at the time enrollment was complete. Plus, those enrollment statistics did not count Americans under the age of 18 who account for 24% of the total population. While it seems reasonable a person with children might be more motivated to get insurance than someone without, I don't have any evidence to substantiate that, so just adding another 24% to the 5.25% gets you up to 6.5%.

But you also need to add others who have insurance because of Obamacare - the estimated 3 million citizens ages 23-25 who are still on their parent's insurance (that provision kicked in earlier than 2014 and so it also is a part of what Obamacare brings).

And I disagree with your assertion that the additional 5-7 million people on Medicaid should not be included - that's part of Obamacare. For those of us who actually care about Americans getting health insurance, that counts as success. I am not sure about your rationale for omitting them.

Oh, and there's 8 million more sign-ups through employer-provided insurance. Some fraction of that total may be just due to more hiring, but another part of that 8 million is due to the greater attention to health care and the potential tax payment if you didn't sign-up.

Based on this data, the total range for Americans who have health insurance due to Obamacare in 2014 is about 20 million- 30 million. Oh, and by the way, uninsured Republicans were less than half as likely to sign up for insurance as uninsured Democrats. If your Republican propaganda had not misled people so badly, we could have avoided an estimated 7-17 thousand unnecessary deaths due to inadequate preventative treatment. Take a victory lap for that good work, I hope you feel proud of yourselves. Count among my goals more Americans getting health care and fewer of them dying unnecessarily because Republicans such as Bill Kristol thionk that successful health care reform is bad for the Republican Party.

As for paid/unpaid, we will see when all of the bills actually come in, but the systematic estimates are at about 90%-95%.

Accurate measurement of the cost requires examination of long-term trends. Obamacare puts a new emphasis on access to preventative care (for all policies, not just the newly insured), and so the expectation would be that there would be more early diagnostic efforts that result in a reduction in later and more serious/expensive health care procedures. Given that the latency in the development of such diseases occurs over years, the true trend will be seen only over that same period of years. So far, since the signing of the ACA, the trend in the annual growth in health care costs has been significantly below that of the preceding two decades.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clarification - the 7-17 thousands deaths, calculated on an actuarial basis, is for an entire year, and is based on the differential rate of people signing up for health insurance in states that were trying to make Obamacare succeed as opposed to states who had political leaders focusing their priority efforts on sabotage
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
“Based on this data, the total range for Americans who have health insurance due to Obamacare in 2014 is about 20 million- 30 million. "...

"There are liars, damned liars and statisticians!”

There are 12.7 million "newly insured" on a population of 318 million assuming 4%... basic math, but let's look at your use of the Gallup number. :

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168548/newly-insured-2014-represent-adults.aspx?ref=more

Of the publicized "4%" figure 2.1% came through the exchanges (paid or not, Barry has no data [Wink] ), and 1.9% came through *all* outside sources. You need to resist the "Charlie" impulse of finding "additional" enrollees through such vehicles as the employer pool, which is already accounted for in the estimate (and as noted will fluctuate downward as unemployment rises). Medicare sign-ups, not technically "insurance" consumers, are net drains upon the UCA, but were counted nonetheless, just as are 18-26 year olds who were boot-strapped onto their parents plans. This latter demographic *was* to have been a significant source of funding because of their generally healthy status. We are unsure of exactly how large this number is because, surprise, Barry has not made a direct measurement possible as a feature of UCA sign-up data acquisition. We do know that 18-29 year olds constitute 30% of the "newly insured" based upon the Gallup poll of 20,000 adults, and you may recall the young liberal Lyrhawn's statement,... :

"Well, except for young people. Young people aren't buying coverage because, as it turns out, we're not stupid. We're also massively unemployed and can't afford it. Until they create a better system, I have zero interest in purchasing high deductible insurance to subsidize the healthcare of older people. "

... who comes from the prime demographic hope that Obama expected to float this leaky tub called the "ACA".

To your recurrent claim that conservatives somehow "sabotage" the UCA, why have you never acknowledged the "sabotage" inflicted on health-care infrastructure. As a definitional matter, the "ACA" is a conceptual phantom. It is a program unconstrained by the law that created it, therefore it is already dead. What emerges from his mess will inevitably eliminate the personal mandate, reflecting the senate reconfiguration this Fall, and the electoral landslide that will put a conservative into the executive office in 2016.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How do you adjust the 4% to accurately reflect a poll that includes data from as early as March 4th when enrollment doubled after that date?

Still unclear to me why the ~3 million 23-25 year olds on their parents' insurance "don't count" in your math.

And as for the issue of measuring the payment rate, that data will eventually come in and once again you will be proved to be wrong. That's why I set up this as a prediction for May 2015 - so we can see the facts as they come in

As for your comment
quote:
"additional" enrollees through such vehicles as the employer pool, which is already accounted for in the estimate (and as noted will fluctuate downward as unemployment rises)
Do you remember making any predictions that employers would drop employees or demote them to part time to reduce the number of people covered by employer-provided health insurance. Clearly that prediction was wrong
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and please address how you feel about the millions of people without health care coverage because of they believed Republican propaganda and singed up at lower rates, or because their states chose not to permit medicaid expansion.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How do you adjust the 4% to accurately reflect a poll that includes data from as early as March 4th when enrollment doubled after that date? "...

Show me the money.

"Still unclear to me why the ~3 million 23-25 year olds on their parents' insurance 'don't count' in your math. "...

This group is what we call an unfunded liabilitiy, assuming the statistically low probability that one of their number actually becomes a medical liability. The Barry paradox is that he simultaneously claims success in this outcome, while it contributes to the notorious "death spiral" of UCA costs. Unless this demographic pays its own freight, they are a net drain on the UCA.

"And as for the issue of measuring the payment rate, that data will eventually come in and once again you will be proved to be wrong. "...

If I was "wrong", Barry would have provided the data, and done a end-zone dance. There is no reason for these people to pay except in response to an unexpected illness/injury, and as of April 15th, you will see a lot of IRS return waivers of the "penalty", simultaneously verifying their "place in line" for medical coverage.

"Do you remember making any predictions that employers would drop employees or demote them to part time to reduce the number of people covered by employer-provided health insurance. Clearly that prediction was wrong. "...

Clearly you do not know what the employment terrain looks like. If you discount part-time, and "underemployment", the unemployment rate, adjusted for population growth, has remained virtually unmoved despite ridiculous levels of "stimulus" infusion by the fed.

The party is over, and that giant sucking sound which you hear is deflationary pressure.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

If you ever entertained any doubts regarding the fact that Barry knew the UCA would adversely impact employment, read this. :

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4980H

"(4) Full-time employee
(A) In general
The term “full-time employee” means, with respect to any month, an employee who is *employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week*.
(B) Hours of service
The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, *shall prescribe such regulations, rules, and guidance* as may be necessary to determine the hours of service of an employee, including rules for the application of this paragraph to employees who are not compensated on an hourly basis. "

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel
quote:
This group is what we call an unfunded liabilitiy, assuming the statistically low probability that one of their number actually becomes a medical liability. The Barry paradox is that he simultaneously claims success in this outcome, while it contributes to the notorious "death spiral" of UCA costs. Unless this demographic pays its own freight, they are a net drain on the UCA.
Not true (or at least only partially true). I have one child in that range and pay for family coverage as opposed to only paying for myself and spouse. They may not be paying for their own insurance but it is being paid by a parent or guardian.

In addition, if we are looking towards a goal of complete coverage of all Americans then they have to be counted. Many have had difficulty getting work during the recession and this type of coverage provides them with a buffer until they can find work. Both my older daughters benefited from this coverage for several months until they got jobs that provided insurance.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very well put Noel. I still have yet to see any of the Obamacare supporters address the 30 hour per week full time employee provision.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More people covered - that's the objective. And it's working.

And how many times do I have to walk thru your voodoo economics? If you don't believe that the economic stimulus helped the US economy, how do you account for the better performance ofthe US economy relative to other major economies that did not use any stimulus package?

And finally, how do you feel about the people who bought in to the Republican propaganda, or live in states run by Republicans, and therefore don't have health coverage and will die this year? Because there will be between 7,000 and 17,000 such people per year. That will ramp up to ~300-500 unnecessary deaths a day. Celebrate your victory, because evidently that's your objective.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Very well put Noel. I still have yet to see any of the Obamacare supporters address the 30 hour per week full time employee provision.

They should have moved the bar for overtime to 30 hours as well as long as they were going to start pushing that long overdue update, as well as making it clear that it should apply to non-executive salaried position as well.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Very well put Noel. I still have yet to see any of the Obamacare supporters address the 30 hour per week full time employee provision.

They should have moved the bar for overtime to 30 hours as well as long as they were going to start pushing that long overdue update, as well as making it clear that it should apply to non-executive salaried position as well.
I keep hearing all these "they should have done X when passing the bill" comments. Why didn't they do all these things? They weren't compromising. The bill passed on a pure party line vote.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, it's pretty clear that uninsured people tend to have more serious medical problems and die more often than insured people. It doesn't even take statistics to make that case, as common sense will do it. OTOH, I don't think too many cons like those here actually want people to die, I just hope they just haven't thought it through.

People who don't get insurance have chosen to Darwin themselves out of the fight (and their well-being) by letting others dictate the priorities that will influence whether they live or die.

The test of how meaningful the lives of those people are to the cons here will be be seen by whether they acknowledge that the deaths are inevitable and acceptable in the larger cause. If they choose not to respond because nobody can make them, that will also let people draw the appropriate conclusions.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I keep hearing all these "they should have done X when passing the bill" comments. Why didn't they do all these things? They weren't compromising. The bill passed on a pure party line vote."

You mean they should have added even more regulation to the bill?!?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Very well put Noel. I still have yet to see any of the Obamacare supporters address the 30 hour per week full time employee provision.

This was probably an effort to prevent companies from cutting hours to avoid having to give benefits. If the law defined 40 hour per week as a full time employee requiring providing health care benefits then an employee could cut all their full time workers from 40 to 39 hours per week to avoid benefits without costing the company that much (other than in moral). However cutting all your full time (40+) hour employees to <30 hour per week employees is a big change to the employer.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I keep hearing all these "they should have done X when passing the bill" comments. Why didn't they do all these things? They weren't compromising. The bill passed on a pure party line vote.

What does it being a party line vote show other than the fact that the Republicans were deliberately out to try to prevent the Obama administration from being able to claim anything resembling an accomplishment?

They were compromising like crazy to try to attract Republican votes and to try to hold a center right coalition together without alienating their more liberal margin.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Greg:And finally, how do you feel about the people who bought in to the Republican propaganda, or live in states run by Republicans, and therefore don't have health coverage and will die this year? Because there will be between 7,000 and 17,000 such people per year. That will ramp up to ~300-500 unnecessary deaths a day. Celebrate your victory, because evidently that's your objective.
Did you just say that our objective is to have people die?


quote:
Ai:OTOH, I don't think too many cons like those here actually want people to die, I just hope they just haven't thought it through.
Did you just say that the conservatives here want people to die?

---

Many conservatives oppose Obamacare because we think it is bad. We think it is unconstitutional, and we think a centralized system that forces us to buy health insurance from private companies is the wrong way for things to work.

Yes, bad laws can save lives. Just because a law saves lives doesn't make it a good law. Just because a person opposes a law that saves lives, doesn't mean that person wants people to die.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They were compromising like crazy to try to attract Republican votes and to try to hold a center right coalition together without alienating their more liberal margin.
I don't buy this for a second. Why? They didn't get a single one out of nearly 300 possibilities.

I think the real reason is clear, the democrats designed this to fail to push SP.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Many conservatives oppose Obamacare because we think it is bad. We think it is unconstitutional, and we think a centralized system that forces us to buy health insurance from private companies is the wrong way for things to work.

Yes, bad laws can save lives. Just because a law saves lives doesn't make it a good law. Just because a person opposes a law that saves lives, doesn't mean that person wants people to die.

To be fair Obamacare was a massive compromise. The original intent was a single payer system. There is way too much lobby money for that type of system ever to pass.

The current law may have it's flaws but the point that Greg is trying to make is that certain states with GOP leadership choose politics over the health of their constituents.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mynnion:.. the point that Greg is trying to make ...
I'd like for Greg and Ai to tell me what their point is. I can't tell if they're saying that I (and other conservative members) want people to die or not.

I'm hoping they meant something else, but with what they wrote, I'm really not sure.


quote:
Mynnion: The current law may have it's flaws but ... certain states with GOP leadership choose politics over the health of their constituents.
Yes, I understood this point. And I responded to it with the thing you quoted:

quote:
JoshuaD:Yes, bad laws can save lives. Just because a law saves lives doesn't make it a good law. Just because a person opposes a law that saves lives, doesn't mean that person wants people to die.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ai:OTOH, I don't think too many cons like those here actually want people to die, I just hope they just haven't thought it through.

Did you just say that the conservatives here want people to die?

No, of course not. Read it this way:
quote:
Ai:OTOH, I don't think too many cons, [including] those here, actually want people to die, I just hope they just haven't thought it through.
But I will note that the opposition to the ACA (not the UCA or whatever other phony name people assign to it) in some quarters do think of this as a war and wars have both casualties and collateral damage. Some of the casualties are people who refuse to sign up for health insurance under that program because it's a commie socialist Muslim plot to steal their freedom. Some accept the collateral damage because they really don't care if others die for them to win their cause. Freedom requires sacrifices, just not necessarily from those who shout the loudest for it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To be fair Obamacare was a massive compromise. The original intent was a single payer system. There is way too much lobby money for that type of system ever to pass.
I don't think SP was ever really the intent of this bill, but long-term it's hard to imagine a solution that isn't that. The ACA has already had a positive impact on premiums and on the ranks of the uninsured, even with all of the sometimes major flaws in the law. I've said before that it's a bad law, but better than what we had and a good first step in the right direction.

I wonder (idly) how many people here *don't* have health insurance and aren't going to get it because they object to the law.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Y22,

"This was probably an effort to prevent companies from cutting hours to avoid having to give benefits. "...

Of course that was the objective. The question that needs to be answered is... why would a company do that?

In a broader historical context, health benefits were used by employers as a recruitment tool to attract, and retain, the highest quality workforce. The free-market *invented* workplace insurance. Barry correctly anticipated that the UCA would have an entirely different effect, which disincentivized permanent hiring. Is it really mysterious that an average company owner would be hesitant to turn over management decisions to the HHS, and DOL secretaries?

Greg,

"That will ramp up to ~300-500 unnecessary deaths a day. Celebrate your victory, because evidently that's your objective. "...

Assuming that I buy into your numbers, what will a devastated economy cost in individual lives?

"And how many times do I have to walk thru your voodoo economics? If you don't believe that the economic stimulus helped the US economy, how do you account for the better performance ofthe US economy relative to other major economies that did not use any stimulus package? "...

The last time that a major politician campaigned on that phrase, our economy subsequently launched into a decade-long boom... bad choice of words. The economic "stimulus", no matter where implemented, will have the same delaying effect upon an inevitably painful correction, and the longer that "fix" is employed, the more painful will be the ultimate correction. Only in a world of liberal shangri-la does the elusive free-lunch exist.

Mynnion,

"Not true (or at least only partially true). I have one child in that range and pay for family coverage as opposed to only paying for myself and spouse. They may not be paying for their own insurance but it is being paid by a parent or guardian. "...

No, within the framework of the UCA, it is completely true.

Without these twenty-somethings paying an exorbitant amount (their "freight"), for a crap policy, the system collapses.

If legislation, such as the UCA, survived past the next two election cycles you would witness some very perverse behavioral patterns utilized to avoid this insane provision. Younger couples would purposely avoid legalized marriage to remain on their parent's policy... and why shouldn't they... maternity is part of "basic" coverage, and the institution of marriage itself has been neutered in the more liberal-leaning states... what stigma is there to extra-marital child rearing? A spike in marriage might occur at 26 years of age, but that is by no means certain; what does "marriage" even mean in a culture that has reduced the institution to a set of legal privileges, and gender-neutral presumptions of child rearing equality?

Additionally, if an individual needed additional coverage, or decided to reverse a decision to just take the tax "penalty" for a given year, all they would have to do is get "married"... to darn near anybody. Quitting, or changing, their employment is another strategy that could be employed to game the system.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al said:
quote:
I don't think too many cons like those here actually want people to die, I just hope they just haven't thought it through.
I'm sure there are many cons who haven't thought it through, though there are many who have and still oppose/opposed the ACA.

Some oppose it on the basis that they believe the government should not be involved in promoting the welfare of a distinct section of Americans.

Some oppose it because they believe that the federal government really can't do anything right, and so they would rather not see the federal government run more then it already runs.

Some believe that we are facing a spending crisis and that right now we can't afford more welfare programs.

Some of them really just don't trust the liberals and democrats. If the Democrats proposed to send a space shuttle to an asteroid heading towards earth in order to save the planet, they would oppose it on that principal. They so strongly oppose certain facets of liberal philosophy, or are so influenced by what they see as past failures, that they are not willing to trust.

Some of them honestly believe that social healthcare could be done differently, better. Some oppose it because they believe that because of the ACA's faults, it will have an overall negative effect, despite the lives it may save.

quote:
The test of how meaningful the lives of those people are to the cons here will be be seen by whether they acknowledge that the deaths are inevitable and acceptable in the larger cause. If they choose not to respond because nobody can make them, that will also let people draw the appropriate conclusions.
I fully accept that without the ACA, some people who have insurance, or are now covered by medicare, and otherwise wouldn't, would die if an alternative does not replace it. I'm not exactly sure how many Americans a year were dying because of "lack of insurance", prior to 2010. I know the CDC, and hospitals, and the coroner, do not list that as a cause of death on most paperwork. But whenever liberals like to pull out the big guns, they start talking about how many people are going to die, or how many children are going to starve. Conservatives do the same thing, just usually on foreign policy matters.

An American conservative is just as likely to say that saving an American who is dying for lack of healthcare is not their responsibility, as a liberal, or conservative, is likely to say that saving a Cambodian, or Rwandan, or Syrian from being shot, macheted, or gassed to death is not their problem.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ai:I wonder (idly) how many people here *don't* have health insurance and aren't going to get it because they object to the law
I don't have health insurance and I haven't gotten it yet for a handful of reasons:

1) It's not clear to me what's going on with NJ Charity Care, which was providing me with 90% coverage for hospital visits prior to the ACA. I don't want to pay $2000-$3000 a year for insurance if this is still in place for me.

2) I am still young and in relatively good health. I am starting a business and $2000 in my pocket has more value than as insurance.

3) The penalty dictated by the ACA isn't enough of a disincentive for the above reasoning.

4) I am a little lazy and tend to have inertia when it comes to things like this.

5) I'm a little annoyed at the law.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  ...  46  47  48   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1