Even More Obamacare Follies

[utvolpj]

On the road. Look it up. Its all over the place.

funny how it wasn't "all over the place" when you made the claim. Just link it for us once you catch up to that ambulance

 

[lawgator1]

funny how it wasn't "all over the place" when you made the claim. Just link it for us once you catch up to that ambulance

Take the Fox/GOP blinders off for just three minutes and read this objective discussion of the trickery and distortions told in that Forbes piece.


Obamacare in California: How conservatives distort the debate | New Republic


The commentary in this New Republic article about the fundamental problem we have here which is that the far right keeps making up false facts and manipulating the numbers to cause fear, is absolutely true. And it is shameful.

 

[vols4sure]

I think this article is very accurate (although it does not get into the inefficiencies that come with more govt. involvement There Is No Obamacare "Rate Shock" - Business Insider

Either way, what's happening in California is exactly what was supposed to happen: If you're young, healthy, and affluent, your insurance is getting more expensive. If you're old, sick, and poor, it's getting cheaper. That's because The Affordable Care Act — commonly referred to as Obamacare — is designed to be a fiscal transfer from the young to the old, the healthy to the sick, and the rich to the poor.

What makes Obamacare's redistribution look odd, even "shocking," is that the law was structured to move much of the redistribution off the government's books. To reduce the need for direct, tax-financed subsidies, the law regulates the insurance market to ensure that it will have cross-subsidy: premiums for people who are older and sicker are held artificially low, while premiums for the young and healthy are inflated. Then other rules (including employer and individual mandates) aim to ensure that young, healthy people buy insurance despite the inflated the price.

 

[BigPapaVol]

There will be plenty of lower cost options via the co-ops. People will always find ways to manufacture fake comparisons to make it look otherwise. Happened recently in California. They announced a co-op plan and the far right went ballistic, claiming that a cheaper version of the same thing was available from a private insurer. Turned out, yet again, to be a blatant lie by Fox and the GOP as the private plan in fact was not available at the price they tried to hoist up for comparison purposes..

lower cost option means exactly jack. I'm talking about comparable policies. The GOP isn't distorting anything. The main co-op happening is Sebelius marching out to find Obama douchnozzle sycophants to tout the freaking disaster. Your semantics about cheaper options is pure sham because it's horsecrap coverage and doesn't address what it was intended to address.

The bottom line is that the bureaucracy to run this crap is being shoveled onto taxpayers as incremental taxes, but left out of the cost of the freaking coverage itself, which is being further foisted onto younger folks in massively increased premiums or mandated coverage.

GTHO again with your copied and pasted fantasies. I want some real world, practical comparison of policies and costs. I can tell you for sure that in my role I make the decisions about HC spend at my companies and the apples to apples comparison is brutal.

 

[utvolpj]

Take the Fox/GOP blinders off for just three minutes and read this objective discussion of the trickery and distortions told in that Forbes piece.


Obamacare in California: How conservatives distort the debate | New Republic


The commentary in this New Republic article about the fundamental problem we have here which is that the far right keeps making up false facts and manipulating the numbers to cause fear, is absolutely true. And it is shameful.

I don't watch Fox and I'm not a partisan hack. Just because you demonstrate the inability to stray from the party line doesn't mean the rest of us do too

this part was interesting though:

As Aaron Carroll wrote the other day, Obamacare involves real trade-offs: Higher-income people have to pay higher taxes, the health care industry has to endure lower payments from Medicare, and—yes—some young, healthy, affluent people have to pay more for private insurance. Those of us who support the law believe that's a worthwhile price to pay to help achieve universal coverage, given the lack of politically viable alternatives.

so, the healthy and people making too much to qualify for subsidies will pay more. Pretty much the claim from anyone honest enough to read on their own. The very bottom will again benefit off the dollars of the rich and middle class while offering up no real work themselves. Clearly the hybrid strategy it was laid out to be

of course the rest of the article was lauding Krugman and Klein and trotting out your tired argument of "those rates aren't real" without any proof.

 

[Vols520]

Take the Fox/GOP blinders off for just three minutes and read this objective discussion of the trickery and distortions told in that Forbes piece.


Obamacare in California: How conservatives distort the debate | New Republic


The commentary in this New Republic article about the fundamental problem we have here which is that the far right keeps making up false facts and manipulating the numbers to cause fear, is absolutely true. And it is shameful.

Any article that suggests you read Ezra Klein can't be taken seriously as being non partisan

 

[utvolpj]

if I am a single male purchasing insurance in CA why should I be forced to pay for OBGYN care? Are my costs not inflated because of services I will never use?

 

[BigPapaVol]

if I am a single male purchasing insurance in CA why should I be forced to pay for OBGYN care? Are my costs not inflated because of services I will never use?

Or, why on earth should a 24 year old, well paid person be required to buy insurance, particularly at a stated premium, given that said person is statistically the cheapest user?

 

[Carl Pickens]

because the government thinks they can handle your needs better than you can....government intrusion has done nothing but drive up the costs

 

[82_VOL_83]

I think this article is very accurate (although it does not get into the inefficiencies that come with more govt. involvement There Is No Obamacare "Rate Shock" - Business Insider

Either way, what's happening in California is exactly what was supposed to happen: If you're young, healthy, and affluent, your insurance is getting more expensive. If you're old, sick, and poor, it's getting cheaper. That's because The Affordable Care Act — commonly referred to as Obamacare — is designed to be a fiscal transfer from the young to the old, the healthy to the sick, and the rich to the poor.

What makes Obamacare's redistribution look odd, even "shocking," is that the law was structured to move much of the redistribution off the government's books. To reduce the need for direct, tax-financed subsidies, the law regulates the insurance market to ensure that it will have cross-subsidy: premiums for people who are older and sicker are held artificially low, while premiums for the young and healthy are inflated. Then other rules (including employer and individual mandates) aim to ensure that young, healthy people buy insurance despite the inflated the price.

It's funny that during a Benefits Briefing that I sat in on, my wife's HR department said premiums would be going up a minimum of 14% due to new ACA requirements on 1/1/14. They are located in San Diego. So I guess they are lying?

 

[Carl Pickens]

Eventually the reality of Obamacare will reach the dullard public.....until then.....they'll fall for the propaganda

 

[82_VOL_83]

if I am a single male purchasing insurance in CA why should I be forced to pay for OBGYN care? Are my costs not inflated because of services I will never use?

You should take advantage of the free birth control too. Just give them to your wife/girlfriend/significant other.

 

[govols/cc]

The biggest complaint is that employers will have to buy health insurance, correct?

Do you understand, mathematically, what is wrong with that criticism?

The thing is the companies one upped them & just said ok we'll lay people off & cut hours to avoid any fine. Problem solved.

 

[YorkVol]

I think this article is very accurate (although it does not get into the inefficiencies that come with more govt. involvement There Is No Obamacare "Rate Shock" - Business Insider

Either way, what's happening in California is exactly what was supposed to happen: If you're young, healthy, and affluent, your insurance is getting more expensive. If you're old, sick, and poor, it's getting cheaper. That's because The Affordable Care Act — commonly referred to as Obamacare — is designed to be a fiscal transfer from the young to the old, the healthy to the sick, and the rich to the poor.

What makes Obamacare's redistribution look odd, even "shocking," is that the law was structured to move much of the redistribution off the government's books. To reduce the need for direct, tax-financed subsidies, the law regulates the insurance market to ensure that it will have cross-subsidy: premiums for people who are older and sicker are held artificially low, while premiums for the young and healthy are inflated. Then other rules (including employer and individual mandates) aim to ensure that young, healthy people buy insurance despite the inflated the price.

Why would a young healthy person pay the inflated premium instead of just paying the penalty at tax time?

 

[hog88]

Why would a young healthy person pay the inflated premium instead of just paying the penalty at tax time?

That's how they plan to fund the program.

 

[YorkVol]

That's how they plan to fund the program.

Yeah, I know. They are relying on 27-35 year olds, most of whom are still paying off college loans and working in something other than what they went to college for, with just enough money to buy a couple of beers after work each day. Most of them don't have health insurance to begin with and we're going to force them to pay around $500 per month for something they may not even use but once a year. Whereas their grand parents are out spending their nest eggs playing golf and taking cruises out of Florida. They are currently paying close to nothing for healthcare and we are going to reduce that to even less, despite the fact that they are using the services several times a week.

Yeah this brilliant plan is going to work.

 

[lawgator1]

if I am a single male purchasing insurance in CA why should I be forced to pay for OBGYN care? Are my costs not inflated because of services I will never use?

Or, why on earth should a 24 year old, well paid person be required to buy insurance, particularly at a stated premium, given that said person is statistically the cheapest user?

By your logic, there would be no such thing as insurance, at all.

 

[hog88]

By your logic, there would be no such thing as insurance, at all.

No one should be forced to buy insurance or forced to buy insurance coverage they do not need.

 

[tumscalcium]

By your logic, there would be no such thing as insurance, at all.

You have yet to answer why Obamacare is good for America.

 

[hog88]

You have yet to answer why Obamacare is good for America.

No one can.

 

[lawgator1]

No one should be forced to buy insurance or forced to buy insurance coverage they do not need.

"They need"? How do you know what you need until it happens to you?

And if by this you refer to the fact that risk that would not apply to a given person is nonetheless spread to them, even in the tiniest increment, I again ask -- what is the point of insurance?

 

[lawgator1]

You have yet to answer why Obamacare is good for America.

Romneycare was promoted by the GOP originally because what it does is force everyone to contribute to the costs of health care. The problem now is so many people get health care for free, and in very inefficient ways, which drives the cost of care up for those paying for insurance. It is the number one reason that hospital aspirin are $10 each on your bill -- to cover the cost of uncompensated care.

And so what the individual mandate does -- as adopted by Romney and as he and the GOP argued should be done nationally -- is force everyone to pay into the coverage. No more 100 % free care.

It is similar to the argument the GOP makes all the time about how everyone should pay income tax of some kind since everyone uses public services.

Moreover, because previously uninsured people will now have some coverage, they can seek medical care for minor problems at low cost before they become major problems at high cost. The current system, is much more inefficient in that it drives the uninsured to the hospital for primary care.

You can't have it both ways: You can't force the system to absorb the cost of care for everyone, and then relegate to a smaller and smaller group of people the cost of care for everyone. So you either start turning people away at the ER doors, telling them good luck, hope you don't die in our parking lot, or you force everyone into a better, more even handed, more efficient system.

If you want to argue otherwise, that's a fine debate to have. But be honest. Admit that you would prefer the uninsured go without care, the consequences of which are their problem. Because that is the only realistic alternative out there, short of spreading the cost of care to everyone via universal health care and single payer.

 

[hog88]

"They need"? How do you know what you need until it happens to you?

And if by this you refer to the fact that risk that would not apply to a given person is nonetheless spread to them, even in the tiniest increment, I again ask -- what is the point of insurance?

What's the point of insurance? Are you really asking this question?

If I was younger say 20something, I would have preferred to just by a major medical plan. It pays for major events, not ordinary doctor visits, which back then I went maybe once every two or three years. Didn't pay for prescriptions, OBGYN (I'm a guy) but would cover major events.

That is not an option under Obamacare.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Romneycare was promoted by the GOP originally because what it does is force everyone to contribute to the costs of health care. The problem now is so many people get health care for free, and in very inefficient ways, which drives the cost of care up for those paying for insurance. It is the number one reason that hospital aspirin are $10 each on your bill -- to cover the cost of uncompensated care.

And so what the individual mandate does -- as adopted by Romney and as he and the GOP argued should be done nationally -- is force everyone to pay into the coverage. No more 100 % free care.

It is similar to the argument the GOP makes all the time about how everyone should pay income tax of some kind since everyone uses public services.

Moreover, because previously uninsured people will now have some coverage, they can seek medical care for minor problems at low cost before they become major problems at high cost. The current system, is much more inefficient in that it drives the uninsured to the hospital for primary care.

You can't have it both ways: You can't force the system to absorb the cost of care for everyone, and then relegate to a smaller and smaller group of people the cost of care for everyone. So you either start turning people away at the ER doors, telling them good luck, hope you don't die in our parking lot, or you force everyone into a better, more even handed, more efficient system.

If you want to argue otherwise, that's a fine debate to have. But be honest. Admit that you would prefer the uninsured go without care, the consequences of which are their problem. Because that is the only realistic alternative out there, short of spreading the cost of care to everyone via universal health care and single payer.

Insurance is a state issue (see "RomneyCare"). So why is ObamaCare good for America?

The problem is that people have forgotten what insurance is. You're just insuring yourself against something that is UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. Does car insurance pay for oil changes and tune-ups? No. Why should health insurance pay for "preventative" care. You yourself are preventative care. Insurance is for catastrophic occurances, not blood work, check-ups, and routine doctor visits.

 

[hog88]

Romneycare was promoted by the GOP originally because what it does is force everyone to contribute to the costs of health care. The problem now is so many people get health care for free, and in very inefficient ways, which drives the cost of care up for those paying for insurance. It is the number one reason that hospital aspirin are $10 each on your bill -- to cover the cost of uncompensated care.

And so what the individual mandate does -- as adopted by Romney and as he and the GOP argued should be done nationally -- is force everyone to pay into the coverage. No more 100 % free care.

It is similar to the argument the GOP makes all the time about how everyone should pay income tax of some kind since everyone uses public services.

Moreover, because previously uninsured people will now have some coverage, they can seek medical care for minor problems at low cost before they become major problems at high cost. The current system, is much more inefficient in that it drives the uninsured to the hospital for primary care.

You can't have it both ways: You can't force the system to absorb the cost of care for everyone, and then relegate to a smaller and smaller group of people the cost of care for everyone. So you either start turning people away at the ER doors, telling them good luck, hope you don't die in our parking lot, or you force everyone into a better, more even handed, more efficient system.

If you want to argue otherwise, that's a fine debate to have. But be honest. Admit that you would prefer the uninsured go without care, the consequences of which are their problem. Because that is the only realistic alternative out there, short of spreading the cost of care to everyone via universal health care and single payer.

Why do you keep bringing up Romney? His plan was enacted at a state level, if a single state wants it, fine.