Even More Obamacare Follies

#1,701
#1,701
lawgator1 said:
We already mandate that hospitals provide care to people regardless of their ability to pay for it. So the working poor, with no insurance and no opportunity for it through their employers, have been using ERs as their first stop for care, for everything from the flu on up. That's why insurance for everyone else is so expensive -- because the cost of their care is shifted to the rest of us who are insured.

The central theory of Romney/Obamacare is that you expand the base of people paying for insurance you accomplish two things: 1) you have more money coming into the health care delivery system; and 2) you make much lower cost care accessible to millions who did not have it before. They can go to a regular practitioner now, rather than wait until they are acutely ill and go to the ER.

Fact is, the real choice that the GOP would have us make is not over cost or form of insurance, but whether as a society we view health care as a right or an entitlement, i.e. in the alternative to a reformed insurance market do we tell hospitals to turn away those who cannot pay?

You can make an argument for the latter, but you will just guarantee you lose even more of the vote, especially amongst minorities which is where the demographics are.
Click to expand...


Why don't they just raise Medicare tax 500% instead of making people buy something they don't need? It's just an attempt to mask a huge welfare tax in the form of something supposedly affordable for all. I could also see people just saying to hell with working with the former scenario.
 
#1,702
#1,702
MG1968 said:
There were more people insured in 2008 than there are now.

6 million have signed up for Obamacare. A good portion of those qualified for medicaid. How many uninsured people were there in the US? 30 to 40 million?

Yep, that's a roaring success right there.
Click to expand...


This is a perfect example of the intentionally fraudulent comparison and statistical manipulation by the GOP and Fox I speak of above.

You point out that the number of uninsured prior to Obama taking office was lower than it is now and make the then spurious leap of logic that this proves the ACA is not working.

The ACCURATE comparison is between the numbers just prior to the ACA and the numbers afterward. Those numbers, based on the ACCURATE comparison show that the ACA is ALREADY reducing, and is expected by the insurers to keep reducing, the number of uninsured.

The last part of this CNN Money article explains how that is occurring: 3 measures of Obamacare's success - Mar. 30, 2014

In the end, the false comparison you have made is being exposed for the fraud that it is, and over time as more responsible and level headed commentators and news organizations explain this to people, who have otherwise so far bought into the hype of the far right espoused by Fox and the GOP, the simple fact is that the issue and the argument are losing power as we lurch toward the mid-terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,703
#1,703
lawgator1 said:
This is a perfect example of the intentionally fraudulent comparison and statistical manipulation by the GOP and Fox I speak of above.

You point out that the number of uninsured prior to Obama taking office was lower than it is now and make the then spurious leap of logic that this proves the ACA is not working.

The ACCURATE comparison is between the numbers just prior to the ACA and the numbers afterward. Those numbers, based on the ACCURATE comparison show that the ACA is ALREADY reducing, and is expected by the insurers to keep reducing, the number of uninsured.

The last part of this CNN Money article explains how that is occurring: 3 measures of Obamacare's success - Mar. 30, 2014

In the end, the false comparison you have made is being exposed for the fraud that it is, and over time as more responsible and level headed commentators and news organizations explain this to people, who have otherwise so far bought into the hype of the far right espoused by Fox and the GOP, the simple fact is that the issue and the argument are losing power as we lurch toward the mid-terms.
Click to expand...

There we go.

Need reason to doubt the BS, you have given us the prime reason why it exists. They know its election time and most have distanced themselves from Obama and his healthcare debacle. Im sure we will see many reverse course and run on its greatness now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,704
#1,704
The U.S. Health Care System Is Terrible, In 1 Enraging Chart

original.jpg


Regardless of the efficacy of the ACA (or lack thereof), we are desperately in need of health care reform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,706
#1,706
BeecherVol said:
There we go.

Need reason to doubt the BS, you have given us the prime reason why it exists. They know its election time and most have distanced themselves from Obama and his healthcare debacle. Im sure we will see many reverse course and run on its greatness now.
Click to expand...


No doubt the politicians are going to go in whichever direction they think the wind is blowing in their individual states/districts.

One important note in that CNN Money article is that the the experience an insurer will have in one place will vary substantially from the experience of an insurer doing the same exact thing in another place. Factors include the age of the sign-ups, the general health of the people signing up, and whether Medicaid expansion occurred or did not.

A number of states with Republican governors or other leadership initially opted out of the Medicaid expansion as part of their general protest against the ACA. But then the hospitals and provider groups realized how much money they were losing, usually billions in each state, that they have started to exert pressure to allow the expansions.

Those expansions are an important part of the process because they allow people with no coverage, or option for coverage, to get primary care, before the more expensive care becomes necessary. It also results in less cost-shifting by hospitals from indigent non-qualifying people to the insured base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,709
#1,709
#1,712
#1,712
lawgator1 said:
This is a perfect example of the intentionally fraudulent comparison and statistical manipulation by the GOP and Fox I speak of above.

You point out that the number of uninsured prior to Obama taking office was lower than it is now and make the then spurious leap of logic that this proves the ACA is not working.

The ACCURATE comparison is between the numbers just prior to the ACA and the numbers afterward. Those numbers, based on the ACCURATE comparison show that the ACA is ALREADY reducing, and is expected by the insurers to keep reducing, the number of uninsured.

The last part of this CNN Money article explains how that is occurring: 3 measures of Obamacare's success - Mar. 30, 2014

In the end, the false comparison you have made is being exposed for the fraud that it is, and over time as more responsible and level headed commentators and news organizations explain this to people, who have otherwise so far bought into the hype of the far right espoused by Fox and the GOP, the simple fact is that the issue and the argument are losing power as we lurch toward the mid-terms.
Click to expand...

you accuse me of using GOP/FNC propaganda yet you link to a fluff piece from CNN that is about as vague as your claim of being a fiscal conservative
 
#1,713
#1,713
MG1968 said:
you accuse me of using GOP/FNC propaganda yet you link to a fluff piece from CNN that is about as vague as your claim of being a fiscal conservative
Click to expand...


It's not vague at all. It admits where the shortcomings are in data and quotes people both happy with and unhappy with Obamacare.

And as to your specific insinuation that the number of uninsured have gone up due to the ACA that is just a flat out lie, suggested by you by using the wrong comparison. My guess is you got it from Fox or someplace of their ilk, which is bastardizing the numbers and the comparisons.

Make a good argument, from solid facts, using the correct comparison, and a debate can be had. But when one side is just constantly trying this trickeration of intentionally setting out the wrong X to compare the wrong Z, is it any wonder that intelligent people question the motives of the people making such comparisons?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,715
#1,715
lawgator1 said:
Make a good argument, from solid facts, using the correct comparison, and a debate can be had. But when one side is just constantly trying this trickeration of intentionally setting out the wrong X to compare the wrong Z, is it any wonder that intelligent people question the motives of the people making such comparisons?
Click to expand...

Good Lord.
 
#1,716
#1,716
lawgator1 said:
It's not vague at all. It admits where the shortcomings are in data and quotes people both happy with and unhappy with Obamacare.

And as to your specific insinuation that the number of uninsured have gone up due to the ACA that is just a flat out lie, suggested by you by using the wrong comparison. My guess is you got it from Fox or someplace of their ilk, which is bastardizing the numbers and the comparisons.

Make a good argument, from solid facts, using the correct comparison, and a debate can be had. But when one side is just constantly trying this trickeration of intentionally setting out the wrong X to compare the wrong Z, is it any wonder that intelligent people question the motives of the people making such comparisons?
Click to expand...


So how many have paid a premium?
 
#1,719
#1,719
lawgator1 said:
It's not vague at all. It admits where the shortcomings are in data and quotes people both happy with and unhappy with Obamacare.

And as to your specific insinuation that the number of uninsured have gone up due to the ACA that is just a flat out lie, suggested by you by using the wrong comparison. My guess is you got it from Fox or someplace of their ilk, which is bastardizing the numbers and the comparisons.

Make a good argument, from solid facts, using the correct comparison, and a debate can be had. But when one side is just constantly trying this trickeration of intentionally setting out the wrong X to compare the wrong Z, is it any wonder that intelligent people question the motives of the people making such comparisons?
Click to expand...

You can't seriously be claiming only one side is fudging the number - Obama got 4 Pinocchio's for his medicaid numbers and continued to spread the lie even after called out on it.

Okay so let's talk facts - here's something the administration isn't telling us.

• At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.
• A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.
Click to expand...

In all according to the LA Times article 9.5 million who were uninsured now are insured but let's look at the numbers - 3.5 million are kids staying on their parent's insurance. 4.5 million are adults signing up for Medicaid (though we don't know if they were newly eligible)

So the exchanges, the mandate and all that crap gets 2 million people? That's horrible.

Further, we do have up to a million that are now uninsured due to ACA.

Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.
Click to expand...

So the 2 million added trump the 1 million that lost out?

If the administration had just made the 26 year old change and advertised Medicaid more heavily we'd have about the same result instead of pissing away billions. Hell, we could have simply paid directly for the 2 million new ones in the exchange and had plenty of cash left over.

We are also not being told:

1. The member mix in the exchanges
2. Who of the 6 million have paid.
 
#1,720
#1,720
More #s

A new study from the RAND Corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured. The RAND study hasn’t yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that “the vast majority of these people were previously insured.”
Click to expand...
squares with the McKinsey data

The RAND report appears to corroborate the work of other surveys. Earlier this month, McKinsey reported that 27 percent of those signing up for coverage on the individual market were previously uninsured.

One important finding of the McKinsey survey was that the proportion of those who had formally enrolled in coverage, by paying their first month’s premium, was considerably lower among the previously uninsured, relative to the previously insured. 86 percent of those who were previously insured who had “selected a marketplace plan” on the exchanges had paid, whereas only 53 percent of the previously uninsured had.
Click to expand...
What’s important to remember is that this is not how Obamacare was supposed to work. The Congressional Budget Office, in its original estimates, predicted that the vast majority of the people eligible for subsidies on the exchanges would be previously uninsured individuals.
Instead, the vast majority are previously insured people, many of whom are getting a better deal on the exchanges because they either qualify for subsidies, or because they’re older individuals who benefit from the law’s steep rate hikes on the young.
Click to expand...
Yep - sure looks like a rousing success to me.
 
#1,721
#1,721
Obsessed said:
You think its in the same hiding spot he uses for his transcripts?
Click to expand...

Just might.

Two things strike me.

1- most all of the insurance companies participating are publicly traded, when has a publicly traded company kept a significant bump in revenue quite? If there were 6 million new customers piling in paying (including subsidies) an average of $700 per. That's billions in new revenue!

What CEO is going to keep that quite and not try to bump his stock?

2- why would the admin keep it quite? Even if only 4 million people have paid, that would be good news considering the disaster of the roll out.
 
#1,722
#1,722
hog88 said:
Just might.

Two things strike me.

1- most all of the insurance companies participating are publicly traded, when has a publicly traded company kept a significant bump in revenue quite? If there were 6 million new customers piling in paying (including subsidies) an average of $700 per. That's billions in new revenue!

What CEO is going to keep that quite and not try to bump his stock?

2- why would the admin keep it quite? Even if only 4 million people have paid, that would be good news considering the disaster of the roll out.
Click to expand...


You really think they would try & hide something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,723
#1,723
hog88 said:
Just might.

Two things strike me.

1- most all of the insurance companies participating are publicly traded, when has a publicly traded company kept a significant bump in revenue quite? If there were 6 million new customers piling in paying (including subsidies) an average of $700 per. That's billions in new revenue!

What CEO is going to keep that quite and not try to bump his stock?

2- why would the admin keep it quite? Even if only 4 million people have paid, that would be good news considering the disaster of the roll out.
Click to expand...

It's not about just bumping the stock - it is a legal requirement to divulge this information to the public. They also divulge it to analysts so that there aren't major surprises when they report quarterly earnings.
 
#1,725
#1,725
Grand Vol said:
So LG, how was Vegas?

Did you get luckier than people trying to enroll in the Oregon exchange?
Click to expand...


I had very little luck, I'm afraid, at the tables or elsewhere. Within budget, but barely.

The only game I bet was $100 on Mich -2 against you guys. With a few minutes left to go I was planning on how to spend my $200 when, lo and behold, you guys made a run. Then the Michigan kid missed that free throw with a couple of seconds and, wallah, its a push.

You should have heard the roar when he missed that free throw. The line had gone to 2.5. A lot of money changed hands because of that.

It was a lot of fun in the sportsbooks all weekend long because you had a mix of fans cheering for teams, along with the bettors just cheering for points, but with no rooting interest at all.

It was always loudest when the half was approaching and the over/under for the first half was close. I think in our game the buzzer beater three pointer by Wilbekin at the half versus Dayton caused about 20 heart attacks, so I gather that put some people over the number and killed some others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top