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 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  46  47  48   
Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The SQL injection attempts don't imply it was actually 'hacked' (he based that opinion on the fact that the search function on the site - entering a ; returned results suggesting that people were entering queries attempting SQL injections. It isn't clear that the site was vulnerable to such injections).

Also he has said that all problems he had reported were fixed before he testified.

His opinion on bug fixing - that really depends on how shallow or deep the bugs were and who was doing the fixing. When their bug fix rate rocketed it appears it was due to bringing in skilled individuals. Skilled individuals rarely introduce new bugs with fixes and can fix even fairly deep bugs quickly; and shallow bugs blazingly fast.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note that it wouldn't surprise me if that site does get hacked - most sites regardless of how much money the organization has do get hacked - that includes banks and the most skilled software firms in the country.

There are a lot of things that concern me about the sites security and there were obviously many 'rookie' security mistakes - that would have been caught with a basic security audit by a skilled practitioner (ie enumeration attacks that potentially can reveal user information).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He said:
quote:
Kennedy said fundamental safeguards missing from Healthcare.gov that were identified by his company more than a month ago have yet to be put in place.
Yet to be out in place.... Which you interpret to mean:

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Also he has said that all problems he had reported were fixed before he testified.

He said the exact opposite of your interpretation. I suppose you'd call this a success?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3,

I was reading a blog post he did that said that the issues he talked about were fixed prior to his testimony. He has stated there are other issues that have not yet been fixed that he hasn't provided details on and didn't testify about (one of them was an enumeration attack).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  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 
quote:

(1) 40,000,000 estimated people without health care... enroll only 10,000,000 of those people

(2) Supposed to cut federal budget outlays for healthcare.

(3) lower costs for individuals for nearly all individuals

(4) allow people to keep their insurance and their care providers and even expand their care provider options.

(1) If 10,000,000 of 40,000,000 uninsured get health insurance, that would be both a very good thing and substantial under-performance.

(2) Obamacare was sold as being budget neutral, not cutting budget outlays, so your number 2 is invalid. And while we are engaged in determining the accuracy of prior claims, it is noteworthy that most Republican political leaders (and most conservatives here on Ornery) made categorical assertions with 100% certainty that Obamacare would have a disastrous impact on the federal budget.

(3) This might be the most debatable. Cost per policy - was the ultimate bill as signed into law really described as "lower costs for individuals for nearly all individuals"? If it were true that "Costs on average have increased for individuals by at least 50% using the lowest estimate available", I would totally agree with you and declare the entire policy a failure. But your assertion is, of course, 100% bogus.

(4) I would also agree that Obamacare would be a total failure is "nearly 2/3 of insured Americans are losing their insurance". But, once again, you are either making stuff up, or

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 
quote:

(1) 40,000,000 estimated people without health care... enroll only 10,000,000 of those people

(2) Supposed to cut federal budget outlays for healthcare.

(3) lower costs for individuals for nearly all individuals

(4) allow people to keep their insurance and their care providers and even expand their care provider options.

(1) If 10,000,000 of 40,000,000 uninsured get health insurance, that would be both a very good thing and substantial under-performance.

(2) Obamacare was sold as being budget neutral, not cutting budget outlays, so your number 2 is invalid. And while we are engaged in determining the accuracy of prior claims, it is noteworthy that most Republican political leaders (and most conservatives here on Ornery) made categorical assertions with 100% certainty that Obamacare would have a disastrous impact on the federal budget.

(3) This might be the most debatable. Cost per policy - was the ultimate bill as signed into law really described as "lower costs for individuals for nearly all individuals"? If it were true that "Costs on average have increased for individuals by at least 50% using the lowest estimate available", I would totally agree with you and declare the entire policy a failure. But your assertion is, of course, 100% bogus.

(4) I would also agree that Obamacare would be a total failure if "nearly 2/3 of insured Americans are losing their insurance". But, once again, you are either making stuff up, or quoting those who did.

But if you actually believe these claims, why don't you come back and, in accordance with the question I asked at the beginning of this thread, make a prediction that by May 2015 nearly 2/3rds of Americans will have lost their insurance and insurances costs for individuals have risen an average of 50%? I would respect you for standing behind your position, and then in May 2015 we could see who was closer to be correct, and who was wildly inaccurate.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My prediction is that the young and healthy will not sign up in sufficient numbers, premiums will rise and Americans will throw the democrats out in 2016 since that will be their first chance to do so as Obama recently dishonestly & selfishly altered the deadlines for next year so that pricing on the exchanges won't come out until slightly AFTER the 2014 elections.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg

I'm sorry but you are unable to understand my comments. The fact you also believe I'm a liar makes rational discourse with you impossible at this time.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  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:
Originally posted by Seneca:
My prediction is that the young and healthy will not sign up in sufficient numbers, premiums will rise and Americans will throw the democrats out in 2016 since that will be their first chance to do so as Obama recently dishonestly & selfishly altered the deadlines for next year so that pricing on the exchanges won't come out until slightly AFTER the 2014 elections.

This follows the hopeful and confident expectation that the voters were going to throw Obama out in last year's elections. Some of those very same people are right here on Ornery and just as sure they are right this time, too. (Note, those people have never actually been wrong; they just disagree with how real events disagreed with them.)

The same question for you that was given to them, and to which they never responded: How will your thinking change about what other people want if your hopeful prediction above does not become reality?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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 Wessex: This follows the hopeful and confident expectation that the voters were going to throw Obama out in last year's elections
The ACA was structured to roll out in such a way that President Obama didn't have to deal with it, politically, for his second election. If he had, if the stuff that's happening this year happened prior to the election, I believe he would have lost. Do you agree?

The President lied about the ACA during the time when it was being passed and again during his re-election (this has been sustained in that thread last month). He said lots of things that weren't true about the ACA to get elected. If he had told the truth about the ACA, I think he would not have been re-elected. Do you agree?

We weren't wrong about the ACA and people's reactions to it. This is an unpopular bill that is growing less and less popular as people are discovering exactly what's in it and how it is going to affect their lives directly.

The only thing we were wrong about was that we thought people would have enough foresight to see this coming. Many of us did see that the ACA would be what it's turning out to be*, and that's why we voted against President Obama. We thought enough people would see that as well. Instead, President Obama's political trick of having all of the fallout of the ACA happen after his second term election worked.

But please don't act like that's a failure on the part of those of us who opposed it from the beginning. This is the failure of all those people who voted for President Obama in 2012 and are now regretting their decision as a result of seeing actually what the ACA is.


*(Unpopular and much more intrusive than it was sold to be).

[ December 04, 2013, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  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 
For what it's worth, I also think it's a failure of the Republican Congress and Governor Romney's campaign. They failed to articulate clearly and convincingly what would happen. They failed to paint the picture that we are all now living. If they hadn't failed; if they had shown people "this is what its going to be like" and painted a clear and convincing picture of today, then I also think President Obama would have lost.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  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 
Red, I can't tell if you are being serious, I am being really specific and questioning your assertions. Do you actually believe either of the following statements:

"Costs on average have increased for individuals by at least 50% using the lowest estimate available"

"nearly 2/3 of insured Americans are losing their insurance"

If you think I am calling you a liar by calling those assertions into question, then I am left with the implication that you are actually staking your reputation on the premise that those statements are true. Therefore, in May 2015 we will check. If those statements are true at that time, I will fully apologize for my errors. And if your assertions here turn out to be grossly false, we will see your character and integrity by whether you acknowledge your errors or not.

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 
quote:
The President lied about the ACA during the time when it was being passed and again during his re-election (this has been sustained in that thread last month). He said lots of things that weren't true about the ACA to get elected. If he had told the truth about the ACA, I think he would not have been re-elected.
I would argue that there is no comparison between the depth and extent of lying between President Obama and the Republicans, with the latter having lied to a much greater degree about ACA. If Republicans had told the truth about the policy and then law that they opposed, the Democrats would have won even higher percentages of the vote than they did in the 2012 election.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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 
I don't follow what you just said.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  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 
JoshuaD, if that's referring to my last comment, let me try to be clearer. Some of what Obama said about the ACA was false (for example, the assertion that you can keep your same doctor was not true for some fraction of the population). It would have been politically damaging if Obama had said that some fraction of the roughly 5%-10% served by the exchanges would no longer be able to purchase cheap policies that did not have minimum levels of coverage, and thus would lose their current doctor.

However, if we hold all sides accountable to the same standards of honesty, than Republicans should be similarly judged for the much more significant and substantial statements they have made that are false. Death panels is an obvious example, and there are others that are patently false to all but those who live in a bubble where average health insurance costs have gone up 50% and 2/3rds of Americans are losing their health insurance coverage. My point is that if both Democrats and Republicans were held to the same standards of honesty, the Republicans would have received an even smaller minority of votes in the 2012 elections than they actually did.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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 
"The ACA was structured to roll out in such a way that President Obama didn't have to deal with it, politically, for his second election. If he had, if the stuff that's happening this year happened prior to the election, I believe he would have lost. Do you agree?"

Possibly, but things don't happen in a vacuum. What if the budget fiasco we just had had also occurred a year ago. Do you think the miserable record the Republicans had compiled up to that point would have have allowed them to overcome the ACA problems that Obama is dealing with?

"For what it's worth, I also think it's a failure of the Republican Congress and Governor Romney's campaign. They failed to articulate clearly and convincingly what would happen. They failed to paint the picture that we are all now living. If they hadn't failed; if they had shown people "this is what its going to be like" and painted a clear and convincing picture of today, then I also think President Obama would have lost."

Was that supposed to be objective? I mean, I hope you're not talking about death panels [Wink] . *If* Romney had lied less about many of the things he said, then *maybe* he could have scraped together enough credibility to damage Obama's election chances. But, he didn't.

You're engaging in the worst sort of partisan cherry picking by pretending Obama's failings can be isolated and treated as if they are the only issue that matters. Let's do it the other way. What if Romney had admitted from the start that what he said about the 47% was actually what he meant to say? Do you think he'd be sitting in the White House today? After all, there are a lot of right-wingers who were mad at him for saying it and then running away from it.

Romney lost; get over it; the ACA will eventually succeed. I hope you don't join the list of people who insist they are always right about Obama's shortcomings, in that case.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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:

You're engaging in the worst sort of partisan cherry picking by pretending Obama's failings can be isolated and treated as if they are the only issue that matters.

I don't see that I'm doing that. I criticize the Republicans all the time.

But this is a thread about the ACA. Accordingly, I'm talking about the series of events which led to the ACA becoming law, despite the fact that now that people know what it does, it is not popular enough to be passed as a law.

The President lied to pass a huge bill which is the topic of this thread. He continued to lie about that bill for his re-election campaign. So when you say:

quote:
Ai: This follows the hopeful and confident expectation that the voters were going to throw Obama out in last year's elections. Some of those very same people are right here on Ornery and just as sure they are right this time, too. (Note, those people have never actually been wrong; they just disagree with how real events disagreed with them.)
You are being quite unfair to my position. President Obama was re-elected in a large part because he lied about the ACA. He told us things that he knew weren't true in order to get re-elected. Now we are discovering that he lied, and many people are regretting their decision to vote for him.

I'm not "disagreeing with how real events disagree with me". I have had the same narrative before and after the election, and it continues to be true. Despite the fact that I was right, President Obama was re-elected. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

The fact that he convinced the nation to re-elect him with his lies about the ACA doesn't mean that somehow I was wrong about the ACA. This entire chain of reasoning makes no sense at all.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  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 
Do you have any substantiation for these assertions?

quote:
President Obama was re-elected in a large part because he lied about the ACA
quote:
now that people know what it does, it is not popular enough to be passed as a law
Actually, as proven by Red's comments above, some people believe that Obamacare increases average premiums by 50% and that 2/3rds of all Americans are losing their insurance coverage. Do you include people like that in the category of "people know what it does"?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An estimated 50 to 80 million will lose their insurance according to the administration. That sound like about two thirds.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 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 
Okay, G3, do you also want to go on the record as believing that 50 to 80 million people will lose their insurance by May 2015?

Or are you still so unsure of yourself that you are unwilling to make any predictions?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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 
Greg: No. If you think I'm wrong you're welcome to disagree. I think it's abundantly clear when you read the polls or watch the news, but you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

quote:
Greg: Actually, as proven by Red's comments above, some people believe that Obamacare increases average premiums by 50% and that 2/3rds of all Americans are losing their insurance coverage. Do you include people like that in the category of "people know what it does"?
I definitely believe it happened to Red. I also believe that next year I'm going to be about half a grand poorer and have no benefit to show for it.

I don't know if two-thirds of the country are losing their insurance as a result of the ACA. I know that a lot of people are. I know that the President told me that no one would. I know that that line was a big plank in the platform he stood on to pass this bill and to get re-elected.

My reasoning tells me that if he told people "some of you are going to lose your health insurance and some of you are going to see your rates rise, but it will be better for all of us I promise" he wouldn't have been re-elected. I can't prove this (how could I prove this?). But I think it's obviously true. If you disagree you're welcome to articulate why.

[ December 04, 2013, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

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 
IMO, 47% of the population is only interested in government handouts and their minds can't be changed to see things differently. That's a huge head start to getting to 50%. Let's make sure we include that sort of hyperbole when we make unambiguously critical statements about how people would have handled new information a year ago.

I still say you're game playing if you isolate the ACA in your fictive scenario. You can't just wave away that I said nothing happens in a vacuum. Our recent political history is a hopeless mess of misdirection and dishonest attacks, mostly (but not entirely) by the GOP and media conservatives.

Or should we talk about what would have happened if people knew how untrue Bush's statements about Iraq were leading up to the war?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

quote:
I also believe that next year I'm going to be about half a grand poorer and have no benefit to show for it.
Unfortunately insurance is like that - if you could perfectly predict your illness timing you would only buy insurance exactly when the major illness struck, and if insurance companies knew when you would get ill they would drop your coverage immediately before a major illness struck. What 'benefit' you are getting is mitigation of risk of ruin, death, and major disability. It isn't as significant because due to law (hospitals must accept uninsured emergencys) and custom the downside risk is heavily mitigated. Risk mitigation isn't very tangible, so you feel you have got 'nothing of benefit'.

quote:
I don't know if two-thirds of the country are losing their insurance as a result of the ACA. I know that a lot of people are. I know that the President told me that no one would. I know that that line was a big plank in the platform he stood on to pass this bill and to get re-elected.
People are generally losing their insurance due to employer choices, not the ACA. The ACA grandfather clauses mean that your employer can maintain ones existing insurance - which is what 'you can keep your existing insurance' meant - there is no clause in the ACA that would prevent individuals from keeping their current policies that were provided by their employers. If people are upset they should complain to their employer, not about the ACA. Of course many employers used peoples ignorance to make changes to plans while using the ACA as scapegoat.

What the ACA says is that if your employer wishes to provide different insurance than what they previously provided that any new policy must conform to the ACA.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  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 
"Romney lost; get over it; the ACA will eventually succeed. I hope you don't join the list of people who insist they are always right about Obama's shortcomings, in that case."...

"Succeed"? In precisely what?

This whole discussion from the left reminds me of a class of sixth graders at an art museum who stand 12" from a 4'x8' canvas to appreciate an abstract composition... just stupid. As a technician, something might me learned about methods with this approach, but it is otherwise useless.

Look at the larger picture; Everyone was promised more for less, through the auspices of a "community organizer" who never ran so much as a hotdog stand. The 47% jumped on it, because they are always for "more", believing actual cost will appear on someone else's tab. The magical "plan" is rolled out for all to "see" per Pelosi and... Gasp!... a significant portion of the 47% get shafted on cost while actually receiving less. "How could this be?" they ask themselves.

Well, it happens whenever despots enter the wealth redistribution game. The logic of this particular scam ends in universal coverage for degraded, or unavailable, healthcare... but it could really be any cause de jour. The ACA has always been about federal control of 1/5 of the economy, not medical insurance. Spreading poverty to ensure equality is the siren song of third-world politics... Barry's only brand. Lie, steal, and cheat... just don't get caught, or at least don't get caught before the next election cycle, assuming elections still happen where this variety of statecraft takes root.

Barry executed the ACA coupe masterfully from a sales standpoint, and it might have worked if the curtain had not been pulled back prematurely. He needed the 47% to be fully dependent prior to a full appreciation of ObamaCare setting in, and it was only administrative incompetence (on a grand scale) that screwed up Junior's game plan.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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:
LetterRipUnfortunately insurance is like that - if you could perfectly predict your illness timing you would only buy insurance exactly when the major illness struck, and if insurance companies knew when you would get ill they would drop your coverage immediately before a major illness struck. What 'benefit' you are getting is mitigation of risk of ruin, death, and major disability. It isn't as significant because due to law (hospitals must accept uninsured emergencys) and custom the downside risk is heavily mitigated. Risk mitigation isn't very tangible, so you feel you have got 'nothing of benefit'.
I'm going to opt to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance. I can't afford insurance. I can't afford the penalty, either, but it's the less expensive choice.

I get nothing in return for paying the penalty (except maybe scorn).

quote:
LR:People are generally losing their insurance due to employer choices, not the ACA. The ACA grandfather clauses mean that your employer can maintain ones existing insurance - which is what 'you can keep your existing insurance' meant - there is no clause in the ACA that would prevent individuals from keeping their current policies that were provided by their employers. If people are upset they should complain to their employer, not about the ACA. Of course many employers used peoples ignorance to make changes to plans while using the ACA as scapegoat.

What the ACA says is that if your employer wishes to provide different insurance than what they previously provided that any new policy must conform to the ACA.

You should review the thread where we discussed this in detail.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  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: IMO, 47% of the population is only interested in government handouts and their minds can't be changed to see things differently. That's a huge head start to getting to 50%. Let's make sure we include that sort of hyperbole when we make unambiguously critical statements about how people would have handled new information a year ago.
I don't understand what you're saying here.

quote:
Ai:I still say you're game playing if you isolate the ACA in your fictive scenario. You can't just wave away that I said nothing happens in a vacuum. Our recent political history is a hopeless mess of misdirection and dishonest attacks, mostly (but not entirely) by the GOP and media conservatives.
Well, I'm not playing a game and I don't like being accused of that. I'm trying to talk about the topic in as straight forward and as honest of a way as possible. If you think I'm wrong you're welcome to tell me that. Please don't accuse me of political game-playing. It's not at all fair, there's no basis in my posting history to sustain it, and it also happens to be not true.

This is the a thread about the ACA. I have said that the election was very close and if President Obama didn't lie about how the ACA works, he wouldn't have been re-elected (and if he wasn't re-elected, the ACA would have been significantly changed or repealed by the Republicans in power).

It may be the case that Republicans also lied. Start a thread about that and I may or may not participate. But I certainly won't come in there and talk about how it's OK that the Republicans lied because President Obama lied too.

quote:
Ai:Or should we talk about what would have happened if people knew how untrue Bush's statements about Iraq were leading up to the war?
Sure, start a thread about it. You're about 10 years too late, but if you're interested in the topic (and others are too) have the discussion. I won't participate, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having that discussion.

I just don't see any point in having here, in the thread about the ACA.

[ December 04, 2013, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joshua, if you don't want to discuss this I understand, but I'm rather curious: what do you intend to do if you need expensive medical care?

From my point of view, I can't afford NOT to have insurance. Insurance is expensive, but with the subsidies available I think it's more affordable than the risk of financial calamity that comes with not carrying it.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 
Scifibum,

Read G3's linked article in the "opt-out" thread.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

quote:
I'm going to opt to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance. I can't afford insurance. I can't afford the penalty, either, but it's the less expensive choice.

I get nothing in return for paying the penalty (except maybe scorn).

Actually what you are getting is the option to buy insurance with a preexisting condition if/when one develops.

quote:
You should review the thread where we discussed this in detail.
I participated in the thread. What specifically do you want me to read?

My statement is correct. Insurers can continue providing the same plan that the individual is insured under indefinitely. However, they are choosing not to do so. The reasons they choose not to do so are

1) They can't add new customers to the plan - thus as people leave the plan the administrative overhead for the plan increases

2) Many of the preexisting plans are largely the same as their new plans under the ACA - so offering the old plan doesn't make any sense, just adding administrative overhead

3) Cost of the plan must stay the same (only 'medical inflation' cost adjustment is allowed). They have greater pricing flexibility with new plans.

4) Only non trivial changes are allowed.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifibum,

since the insurance can now be purchased with a preexisting condition - he can wait till he 'needs' the insurance to buy it.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  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:
Joshua, if you don't want to discuss this I understand, but I'm rather curious: what do you intend to do if you need expensive medical care?

I'd actually really like to discuss it. Maybe privately over email would be the more appropriate venue? I'm probably being stupid-stubborn by refusing to get health care at this point and I'd like to be talked out of that if I am. [Smile]

NJ has (had?) charity care. If something catastrophic happened, it would cover 85% of my medical bills (at my current level of income). I was willing to take the risk that I'd have to pay the remaining 15%.

I would also be glad to get catastrophic care coverage if the cost is reasonable. I absolutely do not want health insurance which covers routine maintenance, I would prefer pay for that as and when I see fit. Visits to the doctor or dentist can be on me. Anything costing more than around $5000 can be on the insurance company. I think it will keep costs low and create a better relationship between me and my doctor.

I also don't have the energy to do the necessary research to figure out what plans do what and whether the fine print screws me.

The plans I looked at cost $2400, did nothing to reduce my immediate costs, and appeared to have way too much fine print for me to be comfortable signing.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  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:
LR:Actually what you are getting is the option to buy insurance with a preexisting condition if/when one develops.

New Jersey already had that.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are incorrect,

quote:
Specifically, the SEH Program Act does not allow carriers to look back more than 6 months at a person’s medical or treatment history for purposes of limiting coverage, and does not allow a carrier to consider any condition as pre-existing unless the condition was actually diagnosed or treated, or treatment was recommended or prescribed medications were taken for the condition.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/206224941_Let_s_talk_about_pre-existing_conditions.html
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
scifibum,

since the insurance can now be purchased with a preexisting condition - he can wait till he 'needs' the insurance to buy it.

This is a good point, but I guess that's why the tax penalties will increase significantly later - there has to be a cost to that option.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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:
1) They can't add new customers to the plan - thus as people leave the plan the administrative overhead for the plan increases
This isn't quite right, as it implies risk pooling which is one of the critical new features that the ACA brings to the individual market. The biggest flaw with the pre-ACA system was that each private plan was an individual plan. Insurers would sell the same basic plan to multiple people, but that did not add additional people to a plan- it resulted in multiple people having discrete instances of the plan, with pricing set on an individual basis, each with it's own individual overhead for management, in as much as it require any plan-specific management as opposed to company wide agreements with a given set of providers.

That's also where the central abuse of the pre-ACA market came into play. While there were some controls over across the board rate hikes and nominally an insurer had to agree to sell you a plan if you met certain conditions, there was no control on risk adjusted pricing on an individual basis- if you were diagnosed with a chronic condition that would require ongoing care, there was nothing to stop the insurer from changing the price of your plan to effectively exceed the cost of treatment, because, on purely actuarial justifications, that was now the cost of providing the plan. And people in such a situation couldn't effectively switch, because while they could not be denied coverage for the pre-existing condition, there was nothing stopping prospective companies from similarly pricing the plan prohibitively high, making that nominal protection essentially useless. (And, when coupled with coverage limits, this also served to actively make many individual plans scams that charged far more than they ever intended to pay out, and essentially dumped consumers out of coverage as soon as they had a problem serious enough to require the coverage they believed they were paying for.

[ December 04, 2013, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

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 AI Wessex:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
My prediction is that the young and healthy will not sign up in sufficient numbers, premiums will rise and Americans will throw the democrats out in 2016 since that will be their first chance to do so as Obama recently dishonestly & selfishly altered the deadlines for next year so that pricing on the exchanges won't come out until slightly AFTER the 2014 elections.

This follows the hopeful and confident expectation that the voters were going to throw Obama out in last year's elections. Some of those very same people are right here on Ornery and just as sure they are right this time, too. (Note, those people have never actually been wrong; they just disagree with how real events disagreed with them.)

The same question for you that was given to them, and to which they never responded: How will your thinking change about what other people want if your hopeful prediction above does not become reality?

Since the people will not react to this law until they feel the law's ACTUAL EFFECTS OCCURRING (note: how few people have actually READ the law, including people who voted for it...), it stands to reason that because of all the shady delays, waivers and extensions Obama keeps popping up, he is trying to delay all of the bill's negative effects. With his most recent move, pricing for the first year without any delays group extensions will only occur AFTER the 2014 elections, and just barely.

Do you think that's a coincidence?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
LR: Really? That doesn't sound right to me. If I fall of a cliff and have a $300,000 medical bill, it seems like I'd be stuck with that bill.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshuaD,

quote:
LR: Really? That doesn't sound right to me. If I fall of a cliff and have a $300,000 medical bill, it seems like I'd be stuck with that bill.
Under New Jersey previous law? Or under ACA?

Under NJ previous law I'm pretty sure that you would be 'stuck'. Under ACA - I think as long as you get the insurance established before you are rushed to the hospital you will be covered. Not sure what happens if you wait till you are actually at the hospital.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR

You realize the grandfather clause applied only to plans that already met the bronze mini mums? And that if a plan did pass that step - it then could have no cola change in benefits fees or deductibles?

There was some rediculous $15 per month allowed change.

Obama was told by his chief of staff that upwards of 73% of all insured people would be losing their current plan this year.

It's looking like its a bit over 66% so far.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Okay, G3, do you also want to go on the record as believing that 50 to 80 million people will lose their insurance by May 2015?

Or are you still so unsure of yourself that you are unwilling to make any predictions?

That estimate comes from the Obama administration. Are you accepting their prediction?

I have actually made several predictions on this thread, just not ones you want me to make. If it makes you feel better, I will predict that the current estimate will be accurate and that, under the current "law", more than 50 million will lose their insurance. However, the law can change at any moment and polling data prior to the 2014 elections may drive significant change if the polling data proves inconvenient for Barry and the democrats do my confidence in that prediction is about 50/50. More like a guess than a actual prediction.

What is your prediction on the number of losers in this debacle? Do you think Barry is lying yet again with that estimate or do you think the administration is actually telling the truth this time?

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  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