Who's Sorry Now?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Where have all the flowers gone......

[Crackpot]

Well Jim the Republican Party has not yet ceded control to the tea party (and it looks like there getting fed up with trying to humor them as well)

[Guinevere]

1. The ACA eliminates exclusions for pre-existing conditions. This brings more people in, is a good thing, and everyone supports it.
2. The ACA allows people to be on their parents H.I. until 26. This brings more people in, is a good thing, and everyone supports it. (3.1 million more people are covered nationally)
3. The ACA allows people with low-income to have subsidized H.I. through the exchanges. This brings more people in, is a good thing, and everyone supports it.

I don't think many people argued against having these provisions made mandatory for all insurance plans. What they argued against is the cancelations of policies that led to moving to new doctors (if you like your doctor you cn keep your doctor, PERIOD) having higher premiums (average savings of $2500 per family) and the overall mess of a signup. It may be better now, but the backend, which actually pays the insurance companies the subsidized portion of the plan, has not even been designed yet.

The net effect is that more people are paying for H.I., even if it is subsidized, and fewer people will die because they are afraid to go to a hospital because of the financial consequences or because they are ashamed.

I am guessing that fewer people will be going for the "extra" care they need as their deductables have gone through the roof. Regular checkups are covered with only the co-pay, but when the doc says go for this test/procedure/consultation, the deductables kick in. People barely affording the plans (subsidized or not) will not be able to afford the upfront deductables they were saddled with under their new plans.

The big picture is that the exchanges are a success with large numbers signing up

Large numbers are debatable. Most of the signups are people who already had insurance and had to replace what they had BECAUSE thiers was cancelled. Many others were already eligeble for medicare before the ACA and hadn't bothered to get it either because of laziness or they didn't know. Sure there were many newly eligeble for medicare from the ACA but one cannot trumpet success or boast numbers of people who were covered previously. The "big picture" was to get those who were previously uninsured or not eligeble for medicare to sign up. When I see those numbers broken out, then it can be hailed a success or failure.

I read some 30million were previously uninsured (for whatever reason) and those were the target people. I have seen no evidence of that number being significantly reduced.

And it's really tough to see the big picture (more people covered with "better" policies) when all one sees is more of their money going bye bye for no tangible return. Higher premiums and higher deductables people see monthly. Having not cap on catastrophic illness does not affect them until or if one comes up to that problem. IT's good they have that coverage, but it usually does not have a daily impact for the majority of people. The majority of people only see less money they have to spend/save/whatever.

1. You still have not provided any source for the claim you claim about average savings on premiums. I've never seen it, others have made the same comment. Where did that come from?
2. You still have not addressed my comments/questions about the higher premiums and what kind of coverage is provided now, versus what was covered previously.
3. If you think not having adequate coverage instead of poor or no coverage is no "tangible return" then you're lucky, and you've never had an uncovered illness, or catastrophic health care bills.

[Lord Jim]

Well Jim the Republican Party has not yet ceded control to the tea party (and it looks like there getting fed up with trying to humor them as well)

Damn straight...

And as I pointed out earlier, after humoring this bunch for far too long, the sane people are fighting back, and the indications (based on a series of special election results, and polls in the Senate race primaries where the loonies are challenging sane people) are that the sane people are winning...

It's time to put that whole politically nihilist, radical-randian, "compromise is a dirty word", sleep-on-a-cot in your office crowd to rout and send them packing...

[oldr_n_wsr]

1. You still have not provided any source for the claim you claim about average savings on premiums. I've never seen it, others have made the same comment. Where did that come from?

I have provided that but I will see if I can find it again. It was in a post I made about "You can keep your doctors PERIOD".
But I will look again.

Here's one place:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... ms-By-2500

Video: 19 Times Obama Promised to Lower Annual Insurance Premiums By $2500

by John Nolte 28 Oct 2013

Share This: 295 454

In California alone, The Los Angeles Times reports that the average middle class family will see a premium increase of 30%, which is in line with what we are seeing all over the country. But on at least 19 occasions, President Obama promised the American people that if you already have insurance, his plan would reduce your premiums to $2500 per year.

Here's another
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -premium-/

Cut the cost of a typical family's health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year
"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year." <--- Obama in "campaign mode"

And here's just the headline from a search, (can't get to it as it's blocked)

Health Premiums Up $3,065; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut - Yahoo ...

But if you google "obama 2500 savings" it will come up.

2. You still have not addressed my comments/questions about the higher premiums and what kind of coverage is provided now, versus what was covered previously.

From above, average increase is 30%. Haven't found data about what policy people had versus what they have now. Regardless, I don't know many people who were satisfied (not happy but satisfied) with their poolicy would opt in to 30% premium hike. And I'm guessing the deductable was raised also.

3. If you think not having adequate coverage instead of poor or no coverage is no "tangible return" then you're lucky, and you've never had an uncovered illness, or catastrophic health care bills.

I never said that. I think all should be covered I just don't like being forced by law to be covered. I don't like the lies being told to sell this plan. I don't like the incompetance that the gov has in the implementation of this fiasco.

$800 million dollars went to a no bid contract (of a school pal of Mrs Obama) to construct a website that was not working when they had all that money and three years to do it. And it still does not fully work. The back end hasn't even been designed yet as I have posted earlier (that's been bid at a cost of another $100million). Here's another part of it that is not working.

Obamacare computers not yet equipped to fix errors: report
Reuters

13 hours ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The HealthCare.gov website is not yet equipped to handle appeals by thousands of people seeking to correct errors the system made when they were signing up for the new federal healthcare law, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.

The newspaper, citing sources familiar with the situation, said appeals by about 22,000 people were sitting untouched in a government computer.

"And an unknown number of consumers who are trying to get help through less formal means — by calling the health-care marketplace directly — are told that HealthCare.gov's computer system is not yet allowing federal workers to go into enrollment records and change them," according to the Post.

It added that the Obama administration had not made public the problem with the appeals system.

Despite efforts by legal advocates to press the White House on the situation, "there is no indication that infrastructure . . . necessary for conducting informal reviews and fair hearings has even been created, let alone become operational," attorneys for the National Health Law Program were quoted as saying in a December letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, which oversees HealthCare.gov.

The Post quoted two knowledgeable people as saying it was unclear when the appeals process would become available.

The system is designed to allow people filing appeals to do so by computer, phone or mail. But only mail is currently available, the newspaper said.

Asked to comment, a CMS spokesman said: "As we work to fully implement the appeals system, CMS is working directly with consumers to address concerns they have raised through this process.

"We have found that the appeals filed are largely related to previous system errors, most of which have since been fixed. We are inviting those consumers back to healthcare.gov where they can reset and successfully finish their applications without needing to complete the appeals process," Aaron Albright said in an email.

"We are also working to ensure that consumers who wish to continue with their appeal are able to do so," he said.

The healthcare law, known as Obamacare, is designed to provide health coverage to millions of uninsured people in the United States, but was plagued by a botched rollout in October.

The Obama administration said in late January that enrollment soared in recent weeks to about 3 million.

(Reporting by Peter Cooney; Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Eric Walsh)

I also think the foreign language (translation) portion is not operating either.

[Joe Guy]

What I've discovered about the effect of Obamacare has surprised me. As I've written before, my monthly premium has doubled for the exact same insurance I've always had and some deductibles have increased.

Some of you are thinking that I should be happy that by me paying more I'm helping the disadvantaged people (and 100% of my estate should go to the government when I die).

Maybe those of you who think that way could send me a monthly check to help pay for my insurance. I won't have to be concerned about a 100% estate tax because all I have now will all have been used to pay for my health care and I'll eventually die in some cheap nursing home (because it accepts Medi-Cal) and, along with 10 other Obamacare beneficiaries, I'll be shoved into a room with no air conditioning and has employees that torture the residents and feeds them hog slop.

[Lord Jim]

What I've discovered about the effect of Obamacare has surprised me. As I've written before, my monthly premium has doubled for the exact same insurance I've always had and some deductibles have increased.

Well Joe, that's just because you were too stupid and/or lazy to "shop around"...

People like you, who are just too dumb to know what's in their own best interest, really give me a pain...


(A pain which unfortunately is not covered under Obamacare...)

[Joe Guy]

[oldr_n_wsr]

Found this while searching around. Food for thought.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... Dyahoo_itp

Michael Barone: How ObamaCare Misreads America
The Washington elites who designed the law must be bewildered: Why doesn't everyone behave as they do?
By Michael Barone
Feb. 2, 2014 7:33 p.m. ET

People learn from their mistakes. Or they can—and should. Which is the reason we should try to learn from the revelations of mistakes about health care and health insurance since the passage of ObamaCare. The evidence is not all in. But it seems that Americans are not behaving as ObamaCare's architects—and many critics—expected.

Start with the assumption that just about everyone wants health insurance. You can easily find polls that support this proposition. ObamaCare architects assumed that if you offered health insurance with subsidies for those with relatively modest incomes, those currently uninsured would flock to apply. So far that seems not to have happened. A McKinsey & Co. survey of those thought to be eligible for ObamaCare health-care exchanges found that only 11% of those who bought new coverage between November 2013 and January 2014 were previously uninsured.

Two small insurance companies told Wall Street Journal reporters for a Jan. 17 article that only 25% and 35% of those purchasing their policies were previously uninsured. Larger insurers don't yet have numbers, but it seems that far fewer of the uninsured than expected are signing up. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll reported that only 24% of uninsured under 65 had a favorable view of ObamaCare while 47% had an unfavorable view.

One reason may be that ObamaCare requires policies to cover not just the expenses of catastrophic illness—the sort of thing auto and home insurance policies cover—but routine medical expenses and procedures that many individuals will not need. To that extent ObamaCare policies are not insurance but prepayment of routine expenses. Apparently many of the uninsured aren't interested in prepaying for health insurance any more than they are interested in prepaying their credit cards.

A second assumption of ObamaCare's architects is that health insurance will make people healthier. That assumption has been tested in Oregon. In 2008 the state government, with limited Medicaid funds, held a lottery to determine which people who were eligible for Medicaid would be enrolled. The result was an unusual randomized control trial of similarly motivated people with and without insurance. The results, reported in the May 2013 New England Journal of Medicine, were that after two years there was no significant difference between insured and uninsured in blood-sugar level, blood pressure and cholesterol levels—although those with Medicaid saved money and were less likely to suffer depression.

A third assumption is that those with health insurance are more likely to seek care from physicians and less likely to go to emergency rooms. But the Oregon health study showed that those with Medicaid were 40% more likely to go to emergency rooms than those without insurance.

None of these three assumptions has been conclusively disproved. ObamaCare enrollment will go on at least until March 31 and may accelerate. The Oregon health study covered only two years, because Oregon eventually got more Medicaid funding and ended the lottery. Long-term health outcomes for Medicaid enrollees may turn out to be better than for those uncovered.

But the apparent discrepancies between what policy makers expected and how many of the intended beneficiaries of ObamaCare seem to be behaving reminds me of the divide described in Charles Murray's 2012 book "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010." Mr. Murray, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, documents the sharp differences in behavior between the upper (in education and income) 20% and the bottom 30% of white Americans.

The upper group has low rates of divorce and single parenthood and high rates of what Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam calls social connectedness. They belong to voluntary associations and churches; they vote and follow public-policy debates. They tend to be connected, engaged and conscientious. The lower (income and education) group has high rates of divorce and single parenthood and low rates of social connectedness. They tend to be disconnected and disengaged, and sometimes heedless. It should not be surprising that they may not respond to the same health-care mandates, incentives and nudges that policy makers and others in the upper group do.

Liberal policy makers have long regarded Scandinavian policies as a model. If a welfare state can work there, they have long argued, it can work here. But the Scandinavian countries have homogeneous populations with high levels of trust, conscientiousness and social connectedness. It is not a coincidence that in the two states with the highest levels of the social connectedness Mr. Putnam described, North Dakota and Minnesota, most people are of Scandinavian or German descent. But policies that work well in Scandinavia or Minnesota and North Dakota won't necessarily work well in a wider United States, where a much larger proportion of people are socially disconnected.

And such policies may not work as well as they might have in the United States of the 1950s and early 1960s, in which disconnectedness was much less common. That was an America in what I call the Midcentury Moment, a period when World War II and unexpected postwar prosperity produced a conformist and (mostly) culturally homogeneous nation with low rates of divorce and single parenthood, and high rates of social connectedness. A nation accustomed to a universal military draft and wage-and-price controls, and in which increasing numbers worked for giant firms and were members of giant labor unions, probably would have been more amenable to a centralized command-and-control policy like ObamaCare than the culturally fragmented America of today.

In the long run of American history, the Midcentury Moment was just that—a moment, an exception, not the rule. We have been in some sense a multicultural nation from our colonial beginnings. The Founding Fathers, seeking to unite Puritan New England, Anglican Virginia, Dutch New York and Quaker Pennsylvania with the Scots-Irish warriors on the Appalachian frontier, determined that the federal government would impose no religious test for office and make no law regarding a religious establishment. They provided for a limited central government and a wide free-trade zone in which local cultures could prevail, local preachers could convert, and local entrepreneurs could innovate.

ObamaCare cuts against this grain. The trouble that has resulted—from the architects' apparent failures to anticipate the behavior of fellow citizens who don't share their approach to the world, and the architects' determination to impose their mores, such as contraception coverage, on a multicultural nation—is a lesson to national policy makers, conservative as well as liberal. Govern lightly if you want to govern this culturally diverse nation well.

Mr. Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner and an American Enterprise Institute resident fellow. His latest book is "Shaping Our Nation: How Surges of Migration Transformed America and Its Politics" (Crown Forum, 2013).

[Lord Jim]

for the exact same insurance I've always had

Come on Joe, that's just not fair...

Now, with the blessings of Obamacare, if you get pregnant, your pre and post natal care will be fully covered...

I seriously doubt that your previous policy protected you for that eventuality...

[Guinevere]

for the exact same insurance I've always had

Come on Joe, that's just not fair...

Now, with the blessings of Obamacare, if you get pregnant, your pre and post natal care will be fully covered...

I seriously doubt that your previous policy protected you for that eventuality...

OF COURSE IT DID (unless he had only catastrophic coverage). There weren't 370,000 plans available in California for Joe's employer (or for Joe) to chose from. There was NO Joe-specific plan available. If a plan covered well-mother/baby and pregnancy (and many/most did), it covered for everyone in that plan, regardless of gender, regardless of age, regardless of whether its a family plan or an individual plan. This whole Obama care covers new/more stuff specific individuals don't need IS A HUGE RED HERRING.

[Joe Guy]

I seriously doubt that your previous policy protected you for that eventuality...

My current policy's coverage is no different than what I had before the premium doubled. It covered and still covers pregnancy (but I'm not sure how it would cover me if I were pregnant).

So, the only effect Obamacare has had on me is that it now costs me twice as much to continue to get the same coverage I've had for many years.

[rubato]

Who's Lying Now?

The Republicans roll out their favorite weapon, The Big Lie.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... ilure.html

Paul Krugman: Delusions of Failure

The price of deceit:

Delusions of Failure, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The Republican response to the State of the Union was delivered by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican representative from Washington — and it was remarkable for its lack of content. ...

The closest she came to substance was when she described a constituent, “Bette in Spokane,” who supposedly faced a $700-a-month premium hike after her policy was canceled. “This law is not working,” intoned Ms. McMorris Rodgers. And right there we see a perfect illustration of just how Republicans are trying to deceive voters — and are, in the process, deceiving themselves. ...

Bette’s tale had policy wonks scratching their heads; it was hard to see, given what we know about premiums and how the health law works, how anyone could face that large a rate increase. Sure enough, when a local newspaper, The Spokesman-Review, contacted Bette Grenier, it discovered that the real story was very different... First of all, she was comparing her previous policy with one of the pricier alternatives her insurance company was offering — and she refused to look for cheaper alternatives on the Washington insurance exchange, declaring, “I wouldn’t go on that Obama website.”

Even more important, all Ms. Grenier and her husband had before was a minimalist insurance plan, with a $10,000 deductible, offering very little financial protection. So yes, the new law requires that they spend more, but they would get far better coverage in return.

So was this the best story Ms. McMorris Rodgers could come up with? The answer, probably, is yes, since just about every tale of health reform horror the G.O.P. has tried to peddle has similarly fallen apart once the details were revealed. The truth is that the campaign against Obamacare relies on misleading stories at best, and often on outright deceit.

Who pays the price for this deceit? In many cases, American families. Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing.

But conservative politicians aren’t just deceiving their constituents; they’re also deceiving themselves. Right now, Republican political strategy seems to be to stall on every issue, and reap the rewards from Obamacare’s inevitable collapse. Well, Obamacare isn’t collapsing — it’s recovering pretty well from a terrible start. And by the time that reality sinks in on the right, health reform will be irreversible.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

"...
I never said that. I think all should be covered I just don't like being forced by law to be covered. ... "

I just don't like being forced by law to

pay for fire protection.

I just don't like being forced by law to

pay for flood control dams.

I just don't like being forced by law to

pay for police protection.

I just don't like being forced by law to

pay the FDA to test drugs for effectiveness.

I just don't like being forced by law to

pay for education.


You are really not understanding how the world works !


Health insurance is cheaper and there is better health care in all of the rest of the G-20 because in those countries everyone is covered, and it is paid for out of taxes.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

for the exact same insurance I've always had

Come on Joe, that's just not fair...

Now, with the blessings of Obamacare, if you get pregnant, your pre and post natal care will be fully covered...

I seriously doubt that your previous policy protected you for that eventuality...

OF COURSE IT DID (unless he had only catastrophic coverage). There weren't 370,000 plans available in California for Joe's employer (or for Joe) to chose from. There was NO Joe-specific plan available. If a plan covered well-mother/baby and pregnancy (and many/most did), it covered for everyone in that plan, regardless of gender, regardless of age, regardless of whether its a family plan or an individual plan. This whole Obama care covers new/more stuff specific individuals don't need IS A HUGE RED HERRING.

It isn't a red herring, it trades on a profound ignorance about how HI works. If you allow segmentation, you destroy the ability to provide affordable insurance. What happens financially if only fertile women between 16 and 50 pay for OB services and birth control? What happens if only people > 55 pay for cancer screening or treatment? What happens if those with low familial rates of coronary artery disease opt out of coronary care until 70? And how does all of this work if everyone can change coverage each year? Up to 60yrs no payments for high blood pressure until ... whups! Now you have HPB! Up to 45yrs no payments for diabetes care and screening until ... whups! Now you have Diabetes! Of course people in their teens and 20 would have higher payments for traumatic accident coverage and only people who own guns would have to pay for gunshot coverage (for themselves and anyone shot with their guns.)


And when I pay for the birth control and pregnancy testing of someone else via HI payments I am not paying for something "I don't need" I am paying for something which saves all of us money and unnecessary misery. It is stupid to say otherwise. When my HI payments cover someone else who is kept healthy and can continue to work, be productive, support their families in other ways, I get the benefit. I get to live in a healthier, safer, and more prosperous community.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

My current policy's coverage is no different than what I had before the premium doubled. It covered and still covers pregnancy (but I'm not sure how it would cover me if I were pregnant).

So, the only effect Obamacare has had on me is that it now costs me twice as much to continue to get the same coverage I've had for many years.

Joe, if you were a good person with a social conscience, instead of whining about your personal problems, you'd be rejoicing at the fact that some more of your fellow countrymen will now be able to get for free what you now pay twice as much for.

Like the old saying goes, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and it's just your bad luck to happen to be one of the eggs....

I'm really surprised to find that you're so selfish; obviously you would prefer that all the poor people just die.



"Yay Obamacare!"

[Guinevere]

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Republican Party platform for 2014-2016.

Read it and puke . . .

[Lord Jim]

Delusions of Failure, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: blah blah blah...

I'll have to see if I can find some confirmation on this from a reputable source; I'm certainly not going to accept anything based just on the say so of a dissembling hack and known liar like Krugman.

ETA:

But let's for the moment assume that despite the disreputable source of this story, it's actually true...

It seems pretty weak to me to attempt to somehow put a private citizen exaggerating about their experience with Obamacare on a par with a President Of The United States lying more than two dozen times, on camera, to the whole country about a key element of the plan.

And that of course is just one element of the wholesale systematic use of deception that was employed to sell this; we also have the deliberate attempts to mislead about the cost savings (using the cheesy sales technique of including the words "up to" in order to avoid outright lying in that instance). And of course we also have the repeated false claim that if you had a plan through your employer that you wouldn't be affected by Obamacare "at all".

And let's not forget the ongoing effort to deceive the public about the success of the paid enrollment program by refusing to provide the breakdown on the percentage of those who have paid, (and thus are actually "enrolled").

The record of this administration, from the President on down, for deception about this is a vast and continuing one. Compared to that, a person exaggerating their experience with Obamacare looks like pretty small potatoes on the deception meter.... If that's the best they can come up with to try to balance the scale of deceit about this, it's pretty pathetic.

[Joe Guy]

Let's see. I wrote this -

...As I've written before, my monthly premium has doubled for the exact same insurance I've always had and some deductibles have increased.

Then a certain poster wrote this -

Who's Lying Now?

The Republicans roll out their favorite weapon, The Big Lie.....

And from rubato's posted article -

...Bette’s tale had policy wonks scratching their heads; it was hard to see, given what we know about premiums and how the health law works, how anyone could face that large a rate increase....

Am I the only one who sees the following as a certain poster insinuating that I am a liar?

Nah... Couldn't be.

[Big RR]

Liar Joe? I don't think so, if he wanted to call you a liar, I would think he just would have done it, not tried to sugarcoat it.

What I read that as is suggesting that something else is behind the change other than Obamacare since it's unlikely that such a large increase would be due to that alone. Have you changed your carrier or had any other changes? If not, I would think it would make sense to contact the carrier and see why the premium went up as much as you say. Doubling a premium is a major increase.