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 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  46  47  48   
Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
JoshuaD: 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works, he wouldn't have been re-elected (and if he wasn't re-elected, the ACA would have been significantly changed or repealed by the Republicans in power).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.

Actually, this is a thread where the explicit request is to go on the record with your predictions of what will happen with Obamacare as of May 2015.

Speculation about the 2012 election is off-topic to the exact same degree whether you refer to the actions of Democrats or Republicans.

[ December 04, 2013, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

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 
I predict G3 will redefine "70 million will lose their insurance" to mean that there will be some change in the terms or prices of the insurance of 70 million people (even if they have the same policy with the same company, and the level of changes are similar to those experienced in previous years, or net increases in coverage as defined by actuarial likelihood).
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 
Gonna word lawyer it are we? I think everyone knows what is meant by "lose their insurance". If you need to start torturing that already then you must be really worried.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  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 also believe that next year I'm going to be about half a grand poorer and have no benefit to show for it."

With the historical growth rate in premiums and reductions in benefits, that would have happened to many people anyway. My premiums went up 5x this year, but it's good coverage. The actual cost of health care isn't driving that climb, but the way insurance companies and health providers and equipment vendors manipulate the market is. The ACA should help to control that phenomenon. That means that you may continue to see some costs go up for some people, but in the long run it will be better for everyone.

But only if the program isn't sabotaged by anecdote and visceral opposition from people like G3, who only see the dark side of the issue.

If the GOP does manage to kill the ACA, what then?

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 
"If the GOP does manage to kill the ACA, what then?"...

Conservatives will push a renewed effort to bring genuine "marketplace" reform to an industry historically riddled with government assisted monopoly formation.

Interstate competition for the business of individual, and small business pools, would be an easy place to begin... and Barry has always known this.

How secure are you feeling that your employer provided insurance will be around in 2015 Al?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
"Conservatives will push a renewed effort to bring genuine "marketplace" reform to an industry historically riddled with government assisted monopoly formation."

That is just a tad vague. Describe the key components in enough detail that we can evaluate how practical it would be.

"How secure are you feeling that your employer provided insurance will be around in 2015 Al?"

An odd question. We all know that the country is failing due to the Obama secular socialist dictatorship. People are right now waking up to that fact and collecting arms to overthrow the government and restore the Constitution. At that point the entire economy will have disappeared and the only way you will be able to pay for health care is with bitcoins. Sadly, inflation will overwhelm that currency, so we will be trading body parts for food in 2015.

Are you more hopeful than that?

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:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"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.

I confess I find this post so twisted into partisan knots that I have a hard time tracing how you tortured the facts in your mind to come to those conclusions.
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 
"That is just a tad vague. Describe the key components in enough detail that we can evaluate how practical it would be."...

You want detailed components of deregulation? I think you are confusing conservatism with liberalism. The "detailed" presentation was incumbent upon Barry when he ram-rodded his 2,600 page manifesto nationalizing 20% of the country's economy through congress.

Permitting interstate sale of insurance plans is pretty straight forward, and not particularly subject to outside planning... "detailed" or otherwise. Allowing small businesses, and individuals to pool their risk is likewise fairly organic in execution, which is probably why you are uncomfortable with it. Risk is inherent in existence, and we all ultimately lose the game. Certainty is for suckers, who end up with neither security, nor certainty.

"How secure are you feeling that your employer provided insurance will be around in 2015 Al?"...

Well, can you answer the question? I am sure you have read the provisions of the ACA impacting your employer's situation, right?

[ December 06, 2013, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just finished the process of researching and rolling out our benefits plan for 2014. We cover the employee and any children at no cost to the employee. In 2013, we had an okay HMO. In 2014 we will be able to offer a choice between a top of the line HMO and a very good PPO ($1500 deductible 100% covered after it's met). Our expenses will be less than they were this year, so we're also offering an HRA equal to half the cost of the individual deductible (which is the plan we're favoring, only because we want to promote shared responsibility for consumption of the healthcare, and because I personally disapprove of HMOs). Both plans are FAR better than what we have this year. Personally and professionally, I'm delighted with the effects the ACA has had on the coverage available to us as an employer.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The employer mandate was delayed. The impact will not be felt for another year.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  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 
Funean what state do you live in, I've forgotten.
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:
"How secure are you feeling that your employer provided insurance will be around in 2015 Al?"...

Well, can you answer the question? I am sure you have read the provisions of the ACA impacting your employer's situation, right?

Hmmm, I thought you'd be in complete agreement with the answer I already gave you, but...

The company I now work for improved our coverage for next year. The increase in premiums is because we went to from an HSA to PPO, but when I calculated out my expected costs it comes out about the same because the increase in premiums is offset by the much lower deductible. I can't predict what the changes will be for 2015, especially if people keep trying to derail the ACA out of visceral hatred for our beloved diktator.

Back to my previous post, the post of yours that I commented on makes almost no sense to me. I really don't know how to have a conversation with you.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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:
Furean wrote:
...I personally disapprove of HMOs.

Out of curiosity, why do you disapprove of HMOs? The one my family is on provides us good care, and is much more convenient, insofar as dealing with PPO or HSA paperwork.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 Funean:
I just finished the process of researching and rolling out our benefits plan for 2014. We cover the employee and any children at no cost to the employee. In 2013, we had an okay HMO. In 2014 we will be able to offer a choice between a top of the line HMO and a very good PPO ($1500 deductible 100% covered after it's met). Our expenses will be less than they were this year, so we're also offering an HRA equal to half the cost of the individual deductible (which is the plan we're favoring, only because we want to promote shared responsibility for consumption of the healthcare, and because I personally disapprove of HMOs). Both plans are FAR better than what we have this year. Personally and professionally, I'm delighted with the effects the ACA has had on the coverage available to us as an employer.

I'm sad that the people affected lost their old insurance. [Wink]
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G3, the employer mandate will not directly affect us or any employer that already provides their employees with access to decent insurance. Interestingly, I found the "bronze" tier insurance options, which are very cheap yet completely compliant with the ACA, to be not worthy of my attention. Still, for an employer with fewer resources, they are a way to provide their employees with *something.*

I do have very mixed feelings about the mandate. I understand it as an attempt to offset some of the issues with the whole system, but those issues wouldn't have existed if I were Queen. I favor mostly deregulating private insurance (short of allowing actual fraud) and letting them duke it out in the marketplace (the sucky ones will eventually go away), but providing a genuinely workable (unlike Medicaid, which you have to be starving to qualify for) public option for the folks who just can't qualify for any sensible private policy. In other words, let businesses be businesses, but address the public health issue of the uncoverable (such as the elderly).

Red, I'm in PA.

Scifi, I know! The poor souls. [Smile]

Wayward, because I am old and remember traditional indemnity insurance. The idea, while perfectly logical on its face, that you will save all kinds of money down the road if you allow unfettered doctor visits and diagnostics, is one that I believe contributed to the runaway increase in the cost of healthcare over the last 30 years (other reasons are the artificially high cost of medical education and restriction of providers, newly developed and over-used technology that hasn't gotten cheap yet, and malpractice costs). People overuse healthcare in ways that don't necessarily promote improved outcomes, and needless legal exposure to providers increases exponentially with every unnecessary visit. In the indemnity model, wherein individuals take care of the smaller, maintenance costs like checkups and insurance covers the big or catastrophic ones, like surgery and cancer and dialysis. The PPO plan I selected has a nationwide network (Blue) and a $1500 deductible for individuals, after which *everything* is covered 100%. No nitpicking over copays or percentages of whatever the doc's contract amount stipulates. Just covered. My feeling is that most people with the income level of our employees can afford $1500 in a year if they have to, and in fact if their consumption of healthcare crests that threshold, they've got stuff going on such that the 100% coverage thereafter is going to be very useful.

ETA: also, in my experience, PPOs have far less paperwork and foolishness than HMOs, with their various copays, coinsurance, and referrals. But maybe they operate differently in different states.

Also, another problem I have with HMOs is as a provider--the reimbursement rate is much lower, because the notion is that you're "guaranteed" a certain amount of foot traffic, such that your practice's overhead is covered, so you won't mind accepting peanuts per patient visit. This leads to padding encounters with procedures and other things that are separately billable--which jacks up costs and unduly influences the way care is provided.

As I say, the shape the reform effort ended up taking is not one I favored. I don't think it will result in the end of the world, the way some of the more breathlessly hysterical opponents seem to feel, but I do think it will not have all of the outcomes hoped for. What it will do, I hope, is at least help to frame the problem of access to healthcare as a bona fide public issue before it reaches the stage where the whole system collapses under its own weight--which is where we were in fact headed. No industry in which the product can't be afforded without insurance, and in which the insurance is also unattainable by most (and employer-funded group insurance just masked that), can survive. When it is a critical function like farming or healthcare, we then have a public crisis at hand. And make no mistake--we absolutely have been paying for "these people" all along; they've been getting substandard care, of course, which only results in additional costs to the public. It's similar to the situation in which we're all subsidizing the profits of large employers who pay wages below the living level to the majority of their staff, because we have to make up the difference in food stamps and other public underwriting, or risk things like food riots and mass homelessness, while those companies' shareholders pocket the huge false profits out of which sensible wages by rights should have been paid--not the taxes of the middle class.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Gonna word lawyer it are we? I think everyone knows what is meant by "lose their insurance".

Just to be very clear, if my existing policy is cancelled, but I am able to obtain a similarly-priced or less expensive policy with similar or better terms, would this be a case of "[losing] my insurance?"

Note that this is the experience of nearly everyone with an employer-provided group plan every year during open enrollment after the employer and insurance broker negotiate the next year's plan, if that affects your answer.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I (as benefits admin) got a letter in the fall stating that our current plan would be discontinued 12/31, and providing information about the plans that would be offered that were most analogous. The only PITA part was that we got the rates halfway through November, which only gave us a month to choose plans and share all the information with the staff so they could choose which plan they wanted, but to be honest I don't think we ever get them much earlier. But we notified our employees right away that the plan would be changing, but not for the worse (since we were given enough information to determine that), and that there would be no gap in coverage. I mean, *shrug*. Certainly no crisis for us or probably anyone enrolled in an Independence Blue Cross plan in our area.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  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:
ETA: also, in my experience, PPOs have far less paperwork and foolishness than HMOs, with their various copays, coinsurance, and referrals. But maybe they operate differently in different states.
OK. Yeah, it is different with me.

I'm on with the Kaiser HMO right now, and they are not like the HMOs you described. They have their own facilities, their own doctors, even their own hospitals. You have practically no paperwork. Referrals are handled electronically by them, usually to a doctor within the system itself. If they don't have a specialist, they will find you one and do most of the communication with him themselves.

The downside is that you have a limited choice of doctors--only those in the plan, unless you need a specialist they don't have. The upside, though, is if you need to see a doctor just about anytime, they can make an appointment with any doctor in the area that has an opening. In the last ten or so visits I've had to a primary care physician, I've seen about eight different doctors, since any one could treat the cold I had (or the fainting spell that I last had [Eek!] ).

Personally, having easy access to a doctor hasn't made me abuse it--mainly because I don't have the time. If I'm not really sick, I got too many other things to worry about! [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, now you tell me. Kaiser is a whole other kettle of fish. Putting Kaiser in with the average HMO is like calling the Grand Canyon a dried up river bed. Okay, technically, from a certain angle...

That's not how HMOs work most places. Kaiser is more like a health network than an HMO. A shared EHR alone is a huge aid to care. People I know who have moved from the west coast openly grieve for Kaiser. [Smile]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  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:
G3, the employer mandate will not directly affect us or any employer that already provides their employees with access to decent insurance. Interestingly, I found the "bronze" tier insurance options, which are very cheap yet completely compliant with the ACA, to be not worthy of my attention. Still, for an employer with fewer resources, they are a way to provide their employees with *something.*
Decent. Who defines that?

You think it won't affect you. You know there's no way for you to determine that right now.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For my employees? I define decent. And you're right; we have been affected--for the better. Our choices increased, the overall quality increased, and the price went down.

Of course no one knows what all the potential sequelae are or will be. Significant portions of the law haven't been implemented yet and some that have been are being fooled with. But employers who already provided non-crappy insurance are probably not in any set that will feel negatively affected immediately.

And while I uphold anyone's right to run a business poorly, if you are an employer large enough to dominate the economy of your region, or to distort the national economy alone, and you're choosing profits over living wages and useful benefits for your employees, you're not being a good corporate citizen, and the community should demand more from you. Whether that's by taxing you into submission, refusing to allow you to operate in the community, or enacting requirements for how you operate within the community, ,that's up to said community. I grew up in a place where a single company could doom an entire town to near starvation if it felt like it, so I don't have a lot of illusions as to the beneficence of corporate human relations decisions made independent of community standards.

[ December 07, 2013, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  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 Funean:
For my employees? I define decent.

No, you don't. Not anymore. It is now defined by bureaucrats in Washington who know nothing about you or your situation ... nor do they care. Not only that, their idea of decent will change frequently and you will be forced to comply.

quote:
Originally posted by Funean:
And you're right; we have been affected--for the better. Our choices increased, the overall quality increased, and the price went down.

I find this very hard to believe. I participate in a small business group of about 50 businesses and not a single one has the experience you claim to have.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*shrug*

I can't help you with that. Maybe your group members have been trying to get by with substandard insurance, and now that they don't have that option anymore, they're having to pay more. Or maybe it's a situation particular to your state, or they don't have a good understanding of how to select insurance. I don't know. I just know about my situation.

And I do decide, as much as anyone ever has, inasmuch as they get what I pick from the choices available in the market at prices I can afford. I do know that without changing carriers (staying with the Blues) I had more than 30 choices, and would have had more if I could stomach Aetna or UHC. Or I could have branched out to other carriers that my broker doesn't deal with, by changing brokers.

As I said, I'm not a fan of this legislation, but this year's enrollment was a very pleasant experience, unlike in years past, where I've been tearing my hair out trying to maintain coverage levels and absorb premium increases of 15%-18%. I'd be happy to mail you the comparative I gave my staff, showing the current coverage alongside the two choices they have now, if the email associated with your Ornery account is still good. I have no reason to lie, nor do I claim that my experience is universal. All I can do is refute any claim of universal doom, even if only by one small business.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  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,

quote:
No, you don't. Not anymore. It is now defined by bureaucrats in Washington who know nothing about you or your situation
Actually ACA defines minimum. Insurance companies can offer any combination of benefits that exceeds the minimum, they just can't provide benefits below the minimum. So she absolutely does define decent.

quote:
I find this very hard to believe. I participate in a small business group of about 50 businesses and not a single one has the experience you claim to have.
What states are the small businesses in? Many 'red states' had allowed heavy exclusion of preexisting conditions and had poor quality coverage, and decided against setting up state exchanges - which generally led to few insurers participating - hence ended up with higher rates and few choices. However most blue states saw prices drop and increased choice.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama unilaterally changes the law again
quote:
The Obama administration, in an 11th-hour change, announced a major ObamaCare exemption that will let people who lost coverage and are struggling to get a new plan sign up for bare-bones policies, drawing immediate criticism from the insurance industry and Republican lawmakers.

The move Thursday to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was criticized by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.”

The administration downplayed the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."

An administration official confirmed to Fox News that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Capitol Hill saying the administration was expanding the definition of catastrophic plans to deal with people who have not been able to get a new plan.

An insurance industry official, speaking not for attribution, told Fox that while the administration was playing down the significance of the move, it could turn out to be a troublesome last minute change and the industry fears far more than the 500,000 people will apply.

Another industry official, Robert Zirkelbach AHIP Spokesman Vice President, Strategic Communications, said, “This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers."

Democrats praised the steps as a common-sense backup in a difficult situation while Republicans panned the administration action as another patch to an unworkable law.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., described the move as "another major policy shift" from the Obama administration.

"We asked Secretary Sebelius point blank what would be the next holiday surprise, and she was silent. Yet, here we are with another major policy shift. The sad reality is that when the law takes effect come January 1, more Americans will be without coverage under Obamacare than one year ago," Blackburn said in a statement released Thursday evening.

"Less than two weeks from going live, the White House seems to be in full panic mode. Rather than more White House delays, waivers, and exemptions, the administration should provide all Americans relief from its failed law."

On Thursday, the administration estimated at less than 500,000 those who have not yet found other coverage in the wake of seeing their coverage canceled.

Obama was roundly criticized for reneging on a longstanding promise that if you liked your plan, you would be able to keep it under his health care law. The president apologized, and then said insurers could extend those plans for one more year. Most state regulators followed Obama's lead and gave insurance companies the additional latitude, but it's unclear whether the problem has been fully resolved.

Insurers are concerned that healthy customers who potentially would have bought full coverage may now stay out of the market, leaving the companies with a group of patients in worse health overall.

The "few" people who have been canceled?! Try MILLIONS...

In other news, Obama's honesty ratings have fallen below 50%...

Period.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to thank Obamacare for making me employable again. Coming out of rehab with my masters and doctorate, I applied for but could not get so much as a job interview with Wal-Mart, Wall greens, or Circle K. I finally found a law firm a mere 90 minute walk from my house. "We aren't hiring" they said. Then I said the magic words. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Within 20 minutes they had me set up in the conference room with a file and a laptop.

[ December 20, 2013, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 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 
This is why I say you can't make predictions on this.the law changes regularly and significantly. The only thing missing from this banana republic is Barry wearing a military uniform with a raft of medals.

quote:
The ability to get an exemption means that the administration is freeing these people from one of the central features of the law: a requirement that most Americans have health insurance as of Jan. 1 or risk a fine. The exemption gives them the choice of having no insurance or of buying skimpy “catastrophic” coverage.
That's right kids! No more individual mandate. Who predicted that? A core feature of Obamacare, completely changed. The scale of this fustercluck is truly hard to verbalize. It's epic.

quote:
It is unclear how many people facing canceled policies will choose no insurance, bare-bones coverage or a plan through the insurance exchanges that meet new federal standards. But the prospect that healthy people with canceled insurance might opt out of the new health plans set off immediate alarm among insurance industry leaders, who already have been worried whether enough people who are inexpensive to cover will sign up.

“This latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers,” said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main trade group.

The web site is still in epic fail mode so it looks like we'll see a lot of people simply stay with their cancellation - not like they have much choice. The enrollment period ends on .... let's see .... today it ends on the 23rd. This bring Friday and time for the traditional Obama news dump, it could be changed. Who knows?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Already my predictions are coming true!

quote:
Originally posted by G3 on 12-04-2013 04:38 PM:
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 ...


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 
G3, that prediction is so vague it is a practically a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for being wrong about your other predictions.

Do you still think 70 million people will lose their insurance or not? If not, then the initial primary basis of you complaining was wrong.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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 
*laugh* It is true that predicting "things will change" is not much of a prediction.

That said, I find this a very troubling change. I understand what it's intended to achieve, but it makes me very worried that the people making this decision don't actually understand the insurance industry very well; it's enormously problematic from an actuarial perspective and doesn't actually address the underlying change it's trying to help with.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From my perspective, as one who is and associated with other unemployed and underemployed saps who haven't given up trying to claw our way into non parasitic living, I have little use for the politics of the right or the left. Last thing we needed was a program to make small businesses afraid of hiring us. Public transport would be nice. I really don't think that either party gives a **** about the country or about the poor
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 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 
I did not generically predict things would change. I predicted that there would be a significant change in the law itself. The removal of the individual mandate fulfills that prediction. Not only that, it was clearly made for the reasons I predicted - political fallout.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  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:
Do you still think 70 million people will lose their insurance or not? If not, then the initial primary basis of you complaining was wrong.

With you, I think we need to be sure we nail down some terms before I can answer. What do you mean by "lose", "70 million" and "insurance"? Those terms seem to be getting awfully slippery with the Obamacare fanboys.

I think I'm gonna need to start putting together primer on terminology ...

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 
Ah, G3, Merry Christmas to you!

Millions of men, women and children are about to get better health care than they would have if McCain or Romney would have been elected, or if Republican sabotage would have been more successful in throwing impediments. Your nightmare scenarios won't occur, but on the other hand, neither will there be paradise on Earth where healthcare is as easy as going to the Apple store, and a perfect check-up with no problems is guaranteed.

I am sure that thousands of people will have some adverse consequence due to Obamacare, and with the right-wing media I am sure that those complaints will get as much media time (or more) than the millions who will get better care. Your 70 million assertion will prove to be false.

But pour positions are really clear - let's wait unti;l the set deadline and see who is right.

And then maybe you'll have to rebrand as G4 so you won't have to be held to your predictions as G3.

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 
Welp, today is the day. At least it is right now. If you want to have insurance on Jan 1, gotta be signed up today. OK, ok, maybe not really. There are good faith clauses and hardship clauses as detailed in the law .... LMAO, not really. Those clauses were legislated by executive order.

The final is really anybody's guess at this point. Obama could decree new changes to the law any second so everything and anything may change at any time. Literally. The law today is not the law tomorrow.

We know that millions have had their insurance cancelled. We know that only a few hundred thousand have go through the process to enroll - exact numbers are being withheld and obfuscated (that should tell you what you need to know about enrollment). We also know that only about 10%-15% of those going through the process actually completed the important step of making their payment - they do not actually have insurance until the first payment is made.

Millions have already lost their insurance. Millions more are set up to lose it once Premier Barry issues the diktat to really begin enforcing the employer mandate.

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 
"Millions" having their insurance cancelled is a much smaller claim; are you backing off of 70 million?
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 
Millions must be negligible right?

I wonder when Obama's repo squads will start invading funeral homes to pick corpses' pockets.

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 
Do you think the Oathkeepers could be deployed to guard the corpses to prevent that sort of thing?

Looks like Obama has again extended the sign-up deadline, this time because millions of people are bombarding the web sites trying to sign up and they simply can't keep up with the unexpectedly high volume. Bad news is sometimes good news.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome to the New Amerika where Congress doesn't need to pass laws anymore, Obama can legislate for them.

Make sure to have your kids send a thank you card to Obama for removing the estate recovery limits.

Merry Christmas (a VERY merry one for the government).

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 
Is it unconstitutional?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  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