PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016



genglandoh
06-03-2015, 06:59 AM
This will not help the Dems in the 2016 elections


Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016
Many are proposing double-digit premium increases for individual policies, with some companies looking to boost rates more than 60%, according to a list posted Monday by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
In Florida, for instance, United Healthcare (UNH) wants to raise the rates of plans sold on the Obamacare exchange by an average of 18%. Individual policies available outside the exchange through United Healthcare or through a broker would go up by 31%, on average, with hikes as high as 60% for certain plans in certain locations.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/02/news/economy/obamacare-rates/

S.V. Airlie
06-03-2015, 07:04 AM
Geng, did you read the entire article? Or, just the first few paragraphs?

RonW
06-03-2015, 07:32 AM
a broker would go up by 31%, on average, with hikes as high as 60% for certain plans in certain locations.

It really doesn't matter how much they raise the rates of how high they increase the deductibles to, We have to hang in there and stick this thing out.

Anything else would be an admission to the fact that the free market place would do a better and cheaper job then a over bloated and taxed socialist government could do.

And that would set the stage for the end of 120 years of a failed progressive agenda.

We may need to increase the government subsidization rate on the program and the taxes on the rich to pay for it though.

John Smith
06-03-2015, 07:47 AM
This is becoming like the boy who cried Wolf. Medicare premiums have gone DOWN under the ACA, in spite of being told they'd go up. Medicare benefits have gone up, in spite of being told they would go down. My Blue Cross premiums have been stable since the ACA.

Keith Wilson
06-03-2015, 07:49 AM
Now for some reality. The median increase in Obamacare policies nationwide is four percent. That's less than the rate of insurance premium increases for any of the previous 25 years.

Here you go, the source is an article in that socialist rag, Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/31/key-study-on-obamacare-2015-premium-rates-is-out-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/), with links to the original data..

The expression "so full of s**t his eyes are brown" comes to mind.

David G
06-03-2015, 08:17 AM
Now for some reality. The median increase in Obamacare policies nationwide is four percent. That's less than the rate of insurance premium increases for any of the previous 25 years.

Here you go, the source is an article in that socialist rag, Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/31/key-study-on-obamacare-2015-premium-rates-is-out-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/), with links to the original data..

The expression "so full of s**t his eyes are brown" comes to mind.

I'm beginning to think maybe geng is actually a perversely clever psychology graduate student... conducting an experiment to ascertain if he can train an entire internet forum to automatically disbelieve any proposition he puts forth. A new-age acolyte of Skinner...

CK 17
06-03-2015, 08:31 AM
Bla bla bla, still beats the conservative's competing plan to cover uninsured Americans.

Keith Wilson
06-03-2015, 09:08 AM
. . . conducting an experiment to ascertain if he can train an entire internet forum to automatically disbelieve any proposition he puts forth.It has certainly succeeded with me. Maybe it's to see how fast we can come up with good data to show that the OP is false? In this case it took me one brief Google search to find the Forbes article, and then one click to look at the original study.

Norman Bernstein
06-03-2015, 09:15 AM
If SCOTUS rules negatively in the King-Burwell case, we'll REALLY see what the Republicans are made of:


Republican leaders in Congress have been promising to craft a detailed Affordable Care Act alternative ever since President Barack Obama signed the law in March 2010. But while Republicans have found time to vote on repealing the health care law more than 50 times -- and have worked hard, as they did on Tuesday, to pass modifications that would benefit powerful special interests like the medical device industry -- they’ve yet to move a single Obamacare alternative through committee and to the floor. Nor has any committee with relevant jurisdiction (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/10/obamacare-repeal-replace_n_7243876.html) held even a single hearing on how to handle the aftermath of a potential Supreme Court ruling that wipes out tax credits in two-thirds of the states.

(For a thorough and thoroughly amusing chronicle of past GOP promises to craft Affordable Care Act alternatives, see the summaries from HuffPost’s Jason Linkins (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/republican-alternative-to-obamacare_n_4877100.html)and Jeffrey Young (https://storify.com/JeffYoung/just-in-time).)

Republicans' history of promising and then not delivering comprehensive health care legislation -- a history, after all, that goes back decades -- hints at a deep, fundamental disagreement with the entire idea. Republicans will talk up (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/27/republican-plan-to-replace-obamacare-cover-pre-existing-conditions-lower-costs.html) the importance of helping people with pre-existing conditions or providing financial assistance to people for whom insurance is too expensive. But creating a truly universal coverage system -- in which everybody has access, regardless of income or health -- requires taking steps that many conservatives simply can’t abide.

RonW
06-03-2015, 09:35 AM
If SCOTUS rules negatively in the King-Burwell case, we'll REALLY see what the Republicans are made of:

Why should or would the republicans create an alternate government run national health care program ?

It is not the responsibility or function of the government to create and sell insurance policies, that is the point the left refuses to understand.

That point has nothing to with the fact of providing medical assistance for the poor,we already had programs that deal with that, medicare.medicaid, welfare and most if not all hospitals had plans for the needy by way of grants and assistance through donations for the poor.

John of Phoenix
06-03-2015, 09:40 AM
Bla bla bla, still beats the conservative's competing plan to cover uninsured Americans.Yeah, I remember that one.

http://rlv.zcache.com/let_him_die_postcard-r879a1a70298d4126b4ea69d7915dedd5_vgbaq_8byvr_512. jpg

Paul Pless
06-03-2015, 09:40 AM
and most if not all hospitals had plans for the needy by way of grants and assistance through donations for the poor.ur funny

Norman Bernstein
06-03-2015, 09:40 AM
Why should or would the republicans create an alternate government run national health care program ?

Nobody is asking them to. If the SCOTUS ruling is unfavorable, it could easily be fixed by the slightest change to the wording of the ACA.


It is not the responsibility or function of the government to create and sell insurance policies, that is the point the left refuses to understand.

If the 'left' refuses to understand, it's possibly because the statement is idiotic. The ACA has nothing whatsoever to do with the government creating and selling insurance policies.


That point has nothing to with the fact of providing medical assistance for the poor,we already had programs that deal with that, medicare.medicaid, welfare and most if not all hospitals had plans for the needy by way of grants and assistance through donations for the poor.

You're suffering a problem with reality. Medicare has nothing to do with providing medical assistance for the poor.... it provides medical support for the elderly. Medicaid DOES provide medical assistance for the poor.. but the threshold for coverage is exceptionally low. People earning just too much for Medicaid, but unable, or incapable, of obtaining commercial health insurance, are the people helped by the ACA. MILLIONS of them.

John of Phoenix
06-03-2015, 09:43 AM
Republicans' history of promising and then not delivering comprehensive health care legislation -- a history, after all, that goes back decades -- hints at a deep, fundamental disagreement with the entire idea. Republicans will talk up (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/27/republican-plan-to-replace-obamacare-cover-pre-existing-conditions-lower-costs.html) the importance of helping people with pre-existing conditions or providing financial assistance to people for whom insurance is too expensive. But creating a truly universal coverage system -- in which everybody has access, regardless of income or health -- requires taking steps that many conservatives simply can’t abide.

Haven't they settled on Crowd Funding?

David G
06-03-2015, 09:47 AM
<snort>

Keith Wilson
06-03-2015, 12:02 PM
Medicaid DOES provide medical assistance for the poor.. And the ACA expands Medicaid to those a bit less poor. Most red states have refused to expand Medicaid, even though the expansion is paid for mostly with federal money, an act of legislative cruelty and spite worse than anything I've seen for a long time.

genglandoh
06-04-2015, 12:57 PM
Based on the responses some here seem think I made up the story.
Please notice this is a CNN story.

David G
06-04-2015, 01:02 PM
Based on the responses some here seem think I made up the story.
Please notice this is a CNN story.

No one said you made up the story.

Pretty much everyone says you have reading comprehension issues. First - to make that interpretation of the comments here. Second - to make the interpretation of the CNN story that you did. You'll note that the very first response was to ask if you had even read the story cited. There's a reason that question was asked. Ya follow?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
06-04-2015, 02:51 PM
It really doesn't matter how much they raise the rates of how high they increase the deductibles to, We have to hang in there and stick this thing out.

Anything else would be an admission to the fact that the free market place would do a better and cheaper job then a over bloated and taxed socialist government could do.

And that would set the stage for the end of 120 years of a failed progressive agenda.

We may need to increase the government subsidization rate on the program and the taxes on the rich to pay for it though.

Yes, much like the admission that the top ten medical systems in the world would have to make, since they all have a significant government component to their funding and structure. On top of that, all of these top ten medical systems cost less per capita than the failed American private system.

Nicholas Scheuer
06-04-2015, 03:06 PM
Wake up genglandoh! Most folks appreciate Obamacare.

S.V. Airlie
06-04-2015, 03:09 PM
Wake up genglandoh! Most folks appreciate Obamacare.Better than the alternative! Oh wait, there isn't one!

Keith Wilson
06-04-2015, 03:18 PM
Anything else would be an admission to the fact that the free market place would do a better and cheaper job than a over bloated and taxed socialist government could do.Yes indeed, those laissez-faire free-market health care systems in France and Canada and England and Australia and Japan sure are outperforming the US, aren't they?

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-YH203_HEALTH_G_20130723135724.jpg



http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1478324/original.jpg

TomF
06-04-2015, 03:24 PM
The trouble with facts, Keith, is that they make you scurry 'round to find some reason that your ideology's true in spite of them.

Much easier to stay incapable of interpreting internationally validated and historically consistent graphs.

S.V. Airlie
06-04-2015, 03:26 PM
The trouble with facts, Keith, is that they make you scurry 'round to find some reason that your ideology's true in spite of them.

Much easier to stay incapable of interpreting internationally validated and historically consistent graphs. Geng does!

Gerarddm
06-04-2015, 05:17 PM
Single payer
single payer
single payer
single payer
single payer
single payer
single payer
single payer

genglandoh
06-05-2015, 05:00 PM
This will not help the Dems in the 2016 elections


Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016
Many are proposing double-digit premium increases for individual policies, with some companies looking to boost rates more than 60%, according to a list posted Monday by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
In Florida, for instance, United Healthcare (UNH) wants to raise the rates of plans sold on the Obamacare exchange by an average of 18%. Individual policies available outside the exchange through United Healthcare or through a broker would go up by 31%, on average, with hikes as high as 60% for certain plans in certain locations.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/02/news/economy/obamacare-rates/

Some more supporting material that in 2016 there will be some big rate increases.
Again this will not help the Dems in the 2016 elections


Big proposed Obamacare rate hike in Texas follows big loss
BCBS cited that loss, which represents a 20 percent loss of premium on the insurers' Affordable Care Act-related plans, in requesting an average rate hike of 19.97 percent for individual plans next year, including those sold on the federal Obamacare exchange HealthCare.gov.
That increase would come on top of the 9.09 percent premium increase BCBS got approved for its plans in 2015.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102726348

NY insurers propose double-digit ObamaCare rate increases for ’16
Here in New York, Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield, one of the state’s largest health-insurance carriers, insuring 1.6 million New Yorkers in 39 counties, is asking for a 12.8 percent increase for individual policies and a 13.9 percent increase for small-group plans.
UnitedHealthcare’s Oxford, the major provider in NYC, has put in for a 12.5 percent increase on one of its largest offerings, its small-group HMO product.
According to the Millman Medical Index, the cost to cover a typical family of four in America with a preferred-provider plan was $24,671 in 2015, up from an already-too-high $19,393 in 2011.
It’s enough to make you sick
http://nypost.com/2015/05/31/obamacare-will-require-insurers-to-file-proposed-rate-increases/

Keith Wilson
06-05-2015, 05:31 PM
Some more supporting material that in 2016 there will be some big rate increases.Ah, right - so I demonstrate that your initial claim was total nonsense, and the rate increases that have already happened are at their lowest level in 25 years. You back up to unsupported predictions that 'well, next year, there are going to be really big increases', and cite a couple of cherry-picked examples of individual cases of large increases (would you like an explanation of 'median'?), plus an irrelevant claim that health care costs too much in the US - something we all already knew, which has been going on for 30 years, and which has nothing to do with Obamacare.

Look, you may not like the ACA. But claims that it has caused a large cost increase in either heath care or health insurance are simply false.

peb
06-06-2015, 07:21 AM
My I insurance under ObamaCare went from 875/month to 1100/month in 2014 and then to 1400/month in 2015. I started buying my own insurance in 2004, that year it was 575/month. Higher deductibles under Obamacare also.

I don't believe any of the " facts" presented.

Keith Wilson
06-06-2015, 10:42 AM
Obviously, your particular case is not like the average. I'm sorry to hear it; it sounds unpleasant. You can believe or disbelieve anything you want, but you might want to consider that presumably honest people have assembled a large amount of data about costs, and think about whether just dismissing all that data because it isn't what you've experienced yourself will improve your understanding of reality.

George Jung
06-06-2015, 10:48 AM
My personal rates went up, as well - but over-all, most folks I know are doing better.

Keith Wilson
06-06-2015, 10:52 AM
I've heard both, also about quite a few folks who have insurance now and didn't before. But statistics based on large amounts of data from reliable sources are far, far more useful in understanding what's going on that any one person's personal experience.

David G
06-06-2015, 10:56 AM
My rates went down under the ACA. I just now, having reached 65, signed up for Medicare. My rates are higher again <sigh> But the coverage is better, on paper. We'll see...

David G
06-06-2015, 11:39 AM
Did you investigate any "zero premium" medicare advantage plans for your county? Or do you have health issues that you think might rule out the lower monthly costs.

Yes, I did. Thanks.

peb
06-06-2015, 02:21 PM
Obviously, your particular case is not like the average. I'm sorry to hear it; it sounds unpleasant. You can believe or disbelieve anything you want, but you might want to consider that presumably honest people have assembled a large amount of data about costs, and think about whether just dismissing all that data because it isn't what you've experienced yourself will improve your understanding of reality.



The costs have published costs are low for 2 reasons. The government has pushed insurance companies to kerp prices Li in "local care" plans, Otherwise known as HMO plans geared to low income people. Here, there is one of those plans available to me, which only allowshas Dallas Parkland hospital and doctors on staff there. A 45 minute drive for us, with no traffic. Decent bronze PPO plans have skyrocketed in price so as to provide further subsidies to the cheap plans.

Everyone I know who has to buy their own plan and do not qualify for a subsidy had experienced the same thing I have.



The system is rigged to screwed those who make above 4 times poverty line income and di not have employer insurance.



Yes, it's unpleasant. Before ObamaCare, companies truly competed for my business and if rates went up too much one year, it was easy to switch.

Peerie Maa
06-06-2015, 03:47 PM
Reading some of this I thank the Lord for Nye Bevan (http://www.nhshistory.net/cvbevan.htm) and the NHS.

Vince Brennan
06-06-2015, 03:49 PM
I'm beginning to think maybe geng is actually a perversely clever psychology graduate student... conducting an experiment to ascertain if he can train an entire internet forum to automatically disbelieve any proposition he puts forth. A new-age acolyte of Skinner...
Passed with stinking colours. Wotta maroon.

I just can't believe ANYONE other than the other stalwart yo-yo's of misspeak and misquote (RonW, RodB, bobbys, KMac, Slug and our newest contenders, Sky and TwoDot) even open and read gen's bullcrap posts.

I'm rather peeved when others quote him in a thread... Kinda invalidates my ignore selections.

Incidentally, it's kinda weird that many of my "ignores" are now "banned". Also invalidates the "ignore" function somewhat!

George Jung
06-06-2015, 03:52 PM
peb pretty much nailed it - the 'game' is stacked against the moderately successful, independent buying their own insurance. 'The trick' seems to be finding 'a way' to qualify as employed, if only for the benefits. I'm unsure how I'll do that, but I've been looking at it.

bobbys
06-06-2015, 04:44 PM
Passed with stinking colours. Wotta maroon.

I just can't believe ANYONE other than the other stalwart yo-yo's of misspeak and misquote (RonW, RodB, bobbys, KMac, Slug and our newest contenders, Sky and TwoDot) even open and read gen's bullcrap posts.

I'm rather peeved when others quote him in a thread... Kinda invalidates my ignore selections.

Incidentally, it's kinda weird that many of my "ignores" are now "banned". Also invalidates the "ignore" function somewhat!
.

Ñasty.

Boater14
06-06-2015, 05:42 PM
I don't believe any of you on rates without seeing what you had, what you paid out of pocket, what were deductables and what all these are now under Obamacare. Just don't believe you.

KMacDonald
06-06-2015, 07:40 PM
peb pretty much nailed it - the 'game' is stacked against the moderately successful, independent buying their own insurance. 'The trick' seems to be finding 'a way' to qualify as employed, if only for the benefits. I'm unsure how I'll do that, but I've been looking at it.

It's easy. Join a BS club with a group plan and pay $10/year in dues. Insurance is packaged that way a lot. Look at Golden Rule.

KMacDonald
06-06-2015, 07:42 PM
Now for some reality. The median increase in Obamacare policies nationwide is four percent. That's less than the rate of insurance premium increases for any of the previous 25 years.

Here you go, the source is an article in that socialist rag, Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/31/key-study-on-obamacare-2015-premium-rates-is-out-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/), with links to the original data..

The expression "so full of s**t his eyes are brown" comes to mind.

What about deductibles?

KMacDonald
06-06-2015, 07:44 PM
I don't believe any of you on rates without seeing what you had, what you paid out of pocket, what were deductables and what all these are now under Obamacare. Just don't believe you.

What they say doesn't match my experience. They are probably having difficulty comparing apples for apples.

Sam F
06-07-2015, 05:46 AM
Given this... "Nearly HALF of American households would not be able to afford a $400 emergency without borrowing money"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106529/Nearly-HALF-American-households-not-able-afford-400-emergency-without-borrowing-money.html

... one wonders how to make the Obamacare deductible payment.

Boater14
06-07-2015, 07:40 AM
its the apples to apples that always rubs. some people loved their crap policies.

Keith Wilson
06-07-2015, 08:06 AM
... one wonders how to make the Obamacare deductible payment.One wonders many things. What does this have to do with the ACA at all? And the point is what? That insurance with a high deductible is insurance is worse than no insurance at all? That insurance shouldn't have deductibles? That people should save more money? That we have too much economic inequality in the US and too many people don't have enough money?

If someone with a high-deductible policy gets very sick, they borrow the money. With insurance, they have some debt. Without insurance, they're screwed. No, it's not an ideal situation.

George Jung
06-07-2015, 09:07 AM
It's easy. Join a BS club with a group plan and pay $10/year in dues. Insurance is packaged that way a lot. Look at Golden Rule.


Expand, please? Not following - but intrigued!


Given this... "Nearly HALF of American households would not be able to afford a $400 emergency without borrowing money"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106529/Nearly-HALF-American-households-not-able-afford-400-emergency-without-borrowing-money.html

... one wonders how to make the Obamacare deductible payment.


What Wilson said - but 'how ya doing, SamF - or 'Lazarus', as you're now known in these here parts'

elf
06-07-2015, 10:13 AM
George, aren't you self-employed? Can't you join the local chamber of Commerce and get on their health insurance pool?

George Jung
06-07-2015, 10:16 AM
As I understand it, since we are a group practice (partners), the rest of my partners get insurance through their spouse' employment, I cannot be on the clinic plan, unlike the employees.

I am able to do insurance through another business venture - but I don't enjoy 'group rates'.

peb
06-07-2015, 12:03 PM
I have posted details in the past about my previous plan and my Obama are plan, did a careful and objective comparison. Suffice to say, my previous plan had a lower deductible, and for my family's needs was very adequate.



Now I am called a liar by one, and ignorant by others. Trust me guys, when faced with 2 consecutive years of $3000 rate hikes, that is plenty of reason to not be ignorant and find out one's options

Keith Wilson
06-07-2015, 05:33 PM
Peb, I'd bet quite a lot that you are neither a liar nor ignorant, and it's unfortunate how it worked out for you. However, the overall effect of any large change affecting a lot of people is best judged statistically. Cold comfort, I realize.

Sam F
06-08-2015, 07:36 AM
I have posted details in the past about my previous plan and my Obama are plan, did a careful and objective comparison. Suffice to say, my previous plan had a lower deductible, and for my family's needs was very adequate.



Now I am called a liar by one, and ignorant by others. Trust me guys, when faced with 2 consecutive years of $3000 rate hikes, that is plenty of reason to not be ignorant and find out one's options

Nah, you're just imagining things that's all... ;-) I personally am in the loving care of a huge CORPORATION that has shielded me somewhat from this insurance fiasco - though God help me if I get anything serious. The 20% I'd have to pay would drive me straight into bankruptcy. This is in contrast to my previous plan which was high deductible (yes I can raise more than $400) and thereafter paid everything. My own situation aside I hear very bad things from others - arbitrarily cancelled policies, huge rate increases and equally huge increases of deductibles. It's almost a genius feature of Obamacare that it's escapes blame for all this. For instance, a lady I have known from high school days, complains bitterly about her insurance company's performance and cost and yet can't figure out that it's not the company but Obamacare that's driving the process.

And George the only reason I can post at the moment is that I'm quite ill... Otherwise I'd be at work as a wage-slave keeping the country safe and sound... or something. :-)

Norman Bernstein
06-08-2015, 07:45 AM
I hear very bad things from others - arbitrarily cancelled policies, huge rate increases and equally huge increases of deductibles. It's almost a genius feature of Obamacare that it's escapes blame for all this.

We could do some 'dueling anecdotes', but it might be VERY hard to collect the 8 MILLION or more anecdotes from the people who, before Obamacare, were unable to obtain any health coverage whatsoever.

Got 8 MILLION anecdotes to match that?

When conservatives come up with a better plan, I'm all set to listen. Unfortunately, all I'm hearing is the annoying sound of.... silence.

Norman Bernstein
06-08-2015, 07:55 AM
Incidentally:


“The Affordable Care Act hangs in the balance in the Supreme Court for the second time in three years, but the public has rendered a judgment ahead of the court’s ruling. By a margin of 55 percent to 38 percent, more people say the court should not take action to block federal subsidies in states that didn’t set up their own exchanges,” according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/08/public-to-supreme-court-dont-gut-obamacare/).

CK 17
06-08-2015, 09:47 AM
I just watched Obama answer a question about what he's gonna do if the SC overturns exchanges. His answer was basically nothing. Watch the republicans blame Obama for not having a plan b to their torpedoing the ACA.

S.V. Airlie
06-08-2015, 09:50 AM
Considering they haven't had a plan "A", for thirty years (H. Clinton's efforts on the Dem side in the mid '90's) they don't have a wooden leg to stand on.

Boater14
06-08-2015, 09:52 AM
oh no, if the court takes it down he should do nothing and let the reeps explain to the middleclass why the college kids cant be insured.

S.V. Airlie
06-08-2015, 09:54 AM
Ya really think they could explain? Oh, it's God's will!

peb
06-08-2015, 01:14 PM
oh no, if the court takes it down he should do nothing and let the reeps explain to the middleclass why the college kids cant be insured.



Your kidding right? You all da how great the Affordable Care Act is, and if it gets overturned due to one technical in the act's wording, you think nothing should be done, so as to gain political opportunity. 8 million newly insured be damned if we can get some political points.



LWWs are nothing if they are not consistent. Power is all that matters. No consideration of others' wellbeing trumps being in power.

Norman Bernstein
06-08-2015, 01:40 PM
Your kidding right? You all da how great the Affordable Care Act is, and if it gets overturned due to one technical in the act's wording, you think nothing should be done, so as to gain political opportunity. 8 million newly insured be damned if we can get some political points.

LWWs are nothing if they are not consistent. Power is all that matters. No consideration of others' wellbeing trumps being in power.


The progressive/liberal community created the ACA, despite incredibly intense opposition from Republicans and all conservatives.... and despite the fact that the very same idea was initially proposed by the Heritage Foundation itself... and is indeed based on private insurors and a competitive market.....

....and now that right wing groups are attempting to take the entire thing down, based on the most minor of verbal technicalities......

...and YOU are trying to argue that somehow, it's all the fault of the left wing, and SUDDENLY, you've got a concern for the 8 million who might lose their coverage.....

Sorry, but that's the most mealy-mouthed excuse I've ever heard. Republicans are in total, and complete, control of the House, and have a majority in the Senate. If Republicans gave a rats ass about those 8 million, they could fix the problem INSTANTANEOUSLY.

It's up to them, and it's not about political points......

....bringing the case to SCOTUS was all about scoring political points. Lay the blame where it belongs!

Keith Wilson
06-08-2015, 02:04 PM
. . . and if it gets overturned due to one technical in the act's wording, you think nothing should be done . . . I don't. I think Congress should immediately pass a one-line correction of the drafting error that provided the justification for that idiotic lawsuit in the first place. It would take about an hour, if a majority had any sense at all. Every Democrat would vote for it. Any guesses why that won't happen?

Norman Bernstein
06-08-2015, 02:10 PM
I don't. I think Congress should immediately pass a one-line correction of the drafting error that provided the justification for that idiotic lawsuit in the first place. It would take about an hour, if a majority had any sense at all. Every Democrat would vote for it. And guesses why that won't happen?

Since the Republicans:

1) control the House completely, and have a technical majority in the Senate, and

2) know full well that if they DID draft and pass a one line correction to Obamacare, that all Democrats would join it,

...it is pretty clear as to just WHO will be 'playing politics' with an adverse ruling.

Ain't nobody gonna be fooled here.

peb
06-08-2015, 03:25 PM
The idea of playing politics was brought up by boater, not me.

Norman Bernstein
06-08-2015, 03:30 PM
The idea of playing politics was brought up by boater, not me.

True enough, and I apologize for misdirecting my fire at you.

However, if it does turn out that SCOTUS does the unthinkable, there's no question that the ball will, of necessity, be entirely in the Republican court... and we'll see if it becomes yet another political football or not.

RonW
06-08-2015, 04:37 PM
Norman Bernstein wants everyone to believe --
However, if it does turn out that SCOTUS does the unthinkable, there's no question that the ball will, of necessity, be entirely in the Republican court... and we'll see if it becomes yet another political football or not.

The whole bill and anything and all things to do with it is strictly a product of the democrats, they own it, lock stock and barrel .
There is no responsibility on the republicans part in any way shape or form..

Captain Intrepid
06-08-2015, 04:48 PM
There is no responsibility on the republicans part in any way shape or form..

Except you know, the responsibility to govern well.

RonW
06-08-2015, 04:55 PM
Except you know, the responsibility to govern well.

And that isn't what the democrats did in 2010 under pelosi, reed, and obama leadership when they wrote obamacare and the dodds-franks financial fiasco bills.......

No leadership what so ever.......that's why 2 of the 3 are gone and not much longer on the 3rd. one....

S.V. Airlie
06-08-2015, 04:58 PM
I wonder why you care as I wonder if you are enrolled, have insurance period or have your own Ron?I suspect number 2!

Captain Intrepid
06-08-2015, 05:13 PM
And that isn't what the democrats did in 2010 under pelosi, reed, and obama leadership when they wrote obamacare and the dodds-franks financial fiasco bills.......

The Democratic party isn't my favourite, too old, doddering and conservative, but I will give them this, they at least attempt to pass bills that benefit their country. All I've seen the Republicans do is try to tear things down.

Sam F
06-08-2015, 05:46 PM
Fellas I really don't get this "blame the Republicans" kick. Not a single one of them voted for this mess. I think you should blame the Little Sisters of the Poor. They're a better target for ire.
Oh and by the way, has anyone mentioned that the US is the most indebted nation in history? Or as Forbes puts it: "The United States ranks 10th on the list, with debt that is 87% of its GDP. But it has the most debt of any country in absolute terms, an estimated $14.6 trillion in general government net debt, double the debt of second-place Japan."
So paying for this should be no problem. Right?

RonW
06-08-2015, 05:46 PM
KENTUCKY HOSPITALS SAY THEY WILL LOSE $1 BILLION DUE TO STATE’S OBAMACARE EXCHANGE

Hospitals in Kentucky are hemorrhaging money and laying off staff, all thanks to the KYNECT Affordable Care Act state health care exchange, according to a report from the Kentucky Hospital Association.

Those losses will only get worse over the coming years, the hospitals say.

Democratic Governor Steve Beshear established KYNECT as a state-run Obamacare health exchange via executive order in 2013, over the vigorous objections of Republicans in the state legislature.

Last month the Kentucky Hospital Association released a stinging indictment of the financial calamity KYNECT has imposed on them in a report titled “Code Blue,” which concluded in bold print: “The bottom line: Kentucky hospitals will have higher losses and lower operating margins due to the ACA [and KYNECT], with a projected net loss of $1 billion from 2014 to 2020.” That finding was based on “an independent analysis of the ACA’s impact on Kentucky hospitals” conducted by the Dobson/DaVanzo consulting firm.

The future of KYNECT should be one of the key issues disputed in this November’s gubernatorial election between Republican nominee Matt Bevin and Democratic nominee, current Attorney General Jack Conway.

Bevin wants to shut down KYNECT. Conway wants to keep it.

“The Medicaid expansion enacted under Obamacare is unaffordable for the taxpayers of Kentucky and should be repealed. This program is projected to cost Kentucky in excess of $150 million per year after 2016. … I would facilitate the transition of enrollees onto the federal health care exchange during the open enrollment period in 2016 and then dismantle the KYNect state exchange,” Republican Bevin told the Louisville Courier-Journal last month.

Democrat Conway said fellow Democrat and incumbent Governor Beshear’s KYNECT should stay in place, though he doesn’t rule out changes to it.

“Governor Beshear made Kentucky into a model state for insuring its citizens. I will look to build on his KYNECT successes, but am ready to make tough decisions about what we can and can’t afford. My priority will be ensuring the Kentuckians who now have insurance — especially kids — keep their insurance,” Conway told the Courier-Journal.

The Kentucky Hospital Association’s Code Blue report notes that though “[a]n August 2014 Gallup report found the state had reduced the number of uninsured Kentuckians from 20.4% of the population in 2013 to 11.9% by mid-2014. . . [t]he government’s success in expanding health coverage has come at a significant cost to Kentucky hospitals.”

“Many hospitals in the Commonwealth are now operating under severe financial stress due to major changes in the health system. These financial pressures, which include payment cuts to Kentucky hospitals projected to reach nearly $7 billion through 2024, have resulted in hospital staff layoffs and threaten to reduce the availability of hospital care, especially in rural areas. As a result, the value of expanded health coverage could be seriously compromised if some hospitals are forced to reduce services due to these financial pressures—jeopardizing the quality of care and requiring patients to travel outside of their home communities to obtain needed services,” the report continues.

The implementation of Obamacare and KYNECT in Kentucky is a case study in the unintended consequences of “well intentioned” governmental programs.

“The intent of the ACA was that the cuts would be offset, for the most part, by health care payments from people who had previously been uninsured. The original estimates by the Congressional Budget Office projected that half of the newly insured would be covered by private insurance and the other half by expanded Medicaid,” the report states.

“That has not been the case in Kentucky, however,” it notes:

Because Kentucky is a low income state, ranking 46th in per-capita income, the actual enrollment statistics reveal that 75% of the newly insured in the Commonwealth are covered by Medicaid, and only 25% have bought a private health plan. An estimated 11.9% of Kentuckians (approximately 521,000 people) remain uninsured.15 This is important because private health insurance pays health providers at a much higher rate than the Kentucky Medicaid program, which pays hospitals approximately 82% of what it actually costs to care for Medicaid patients. The difference between Medicaid payments and the actual cost is known as the “Medicaid shortfall,” which was estimated to be more than $300 million in Kentucky in 2013.16 With the addition of more than 300,000 new Medicaid patients under the expansion (bringing the total number of Kentuckians on Medicaid to more than 1.1 million) this shortfall is expected to grow by another $135 million per year.

The anticipated Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, expected to be handed down later this month, could have a significant impact on the 2015 race for governor in Kentucky.

In the event the court decides that the Obama administration’s regulation that makes residents of the 37 states that do not operate state exchanges eligible for health care insurance federal tax subsidies is not authorized by the 2010 Affordable Care Act, Bevin may come under pressure to keep KYNECT in place. Kentucky residents who have health insurance under KYNECT currently receive federal tax subsidies. Should the Obama administration lose King v. Burwell, residents of Kentucky transferred out of KYNECT into the federal health care exchange would lose the federal subsidies they currently receive.

A WHAS11/Louisville Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll released in May one week before the Republican and Democratic primaries showed Conway had an 11 point lead over Bevin in a head-to-head matchup, 48 percent to 37 percent.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/08/kentucky-hospitals-say-they-will-lose-1-billion-due-to-states-obamacare-exchange/

Norman Bernstein
06-08-2015, 05:56 PM
“The Medicaid expansion enacted under Obamacare is unaffordable for the taxpayers of Kentucky and should be repealed.

...except that right now, the medicaid expansion costs the taxpayers of Kentucky NOTHING.... and in a few years, will cost them just 10% of the actual cost of the care (the feds pick up 90% of the cost of the expansion).

Maybe you live in an alternate universe, but getting 100% of something for only 10% of its cost is a deal Kentucky can't afford NOT to take.

Fookin' idiots!

Sure, let them 'opt out'.... not to worry, the sick people who cant' get medical care can just die. It's the Republican way.

RonW
06-08-2015, 06:05 PM
...except that right now, the medicaid expansion costs the taxpayers of Kentucky NOTHING.... and in a few years, will cost them just 10% of the actual cost of the care (the feds pick up 90% of the cost of the expansion).

Maybe you live in an alternate universe, but getting 100% of something for only 10% of its cost is a deal Kentucky can't afford NOT to take.

Fookin' idiots!

Sure, let them 'opt out'.... not to worry, the sick people who cant' get medical care can just die. It's the Republican way.

Hey norm..............who are the feds ? And where does the feds get their money from ?

Norman Bernstein
06-08-2015, 06:22 PM
Hey norm..............who are the feds ? And where does the feds get their money from ?

Brilliant analysis. Kentucky turns down an unbelievable deal for its citizens, hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians suffer, and on a federal level, the tax is still paid.

A great demonstration of conservative economics! :):):)

ccmanuals
06-08-2015, 07:52 PM
Further insight into conservative thinking. This tweet from John Thune is beyond belief.

https://twitter.com/SenJohnThune/status/607990379619696640

genglandoh
06-08-2015, 10:29 PM
Ah, right - so I demonstrate that your initial claim was total nonsense, and the rate increases that have already happened are at their lowest level in 25 years. You back up to unsupported predictions that 'well, next year, there are going to be really big increases', and cite a couple of cherry-picked examples of individual cases of large increases (would you like an explanation of 'median'?), plus an irrelevant claim that health care costs too much in the US - something we all already knew, which has been going on for 30 years, and which has nothing to do with Obamacare.

Look, you may not like the ACA. But claims that it has caused a large cost increase in either heath care or health insurance are simply false.

I think you are confused.

This thread is about how the insurance companies and asking for large increases in rates for next year 2016.

All I said was "This will not help the Dems in the 2016 elections"

So how exactly did you demonstrate that my claim was total nonsense buy arguing that rates did not increase in the past?

George Jung
06-08-2015, 10:40 PM
I'm still eagerly awaiting a response from KMacdonald to George Jung's question re obtaining lower rates thru a "BS" group. I'd like to see ages, coverage, and monthly fees.

Peb says he's paying $1400 a month, I don't doubt it, and I'd hate to have to pay that much. Of course I have no idea of his age, family size, and medical history.

Just for the hell of it I checked into what might be the lowest cost for a worst case individual situation with coverage from a good quality health maintenance association. I figure the worst case is a married couple, age 64 (highest rate of all prior to medicare eligibility). For a "core" plan with catastrophic coverage, each adult pays $464 per month. If there are children under 20 years old, each child pays $98 per month each up to 3 children. No charge for additional children.

So this unfortunate 64 year old couple with three or more children and no eligibility for assistance or rebates would be out $1,222 per month for premiums. They can get the insurance but it sure seems a bit dear to me. So Peb's $1400 a month is probably for better coverage with more provider choices, for a younger couple and kids. It sure as hell can't be pleasant though looking forward to higher costs with age, particularly if he had a high deductible plan at lower cost prior to the rules changes.

I think there's variability as to rates, different parts of the country. I can tell you coverage for three costs me about $1400/month, with a fairly high deductible - more like catastrophic coverage.


Fellas I really don't get this "blame the Republicans" kick. Not a single one of them voted for this mess. I think you should blame the Little Sisters of the Poor. They're a better target for ire.
Oh and by the way, has anyone mentioned that the US is the most indebted nation in history? Or as Forbes puts it: "The United States ranks 10th on the list, with debt that is 87% of its GDP. But it has the most debt of any country in absolute terms, an estimated $14.6 trillion in general government net debt, double the debt of second-place Japan."
So paying for this should be no problem. Right?

interesting numbers. I believe someone (is there a 'Wilson' in the house?) addressed this some time back - and that as compared to GDP, our national debt was actually lower now than it was under Bush.

Keith Wilson
06-08-2015, 10:56 PM
. . . and that as compared to GDP, our national debt was actually lower now than it was under Bush.No, not the debt. It has declined a bit lately as a percent of GDP, but it took a big jump during the recession, and is at historically high levels.. The deficit as a percent of GDP is much lower than it was in '08 and '09, back to normal historical levels, and lower than it was during the entire Reagan administration..

Absolute numbers for debt don't mean much; percent of GDP is a more useful figure.

Norman Bernstein
06-09-2015, 09:42 AM
This thread is about how the insurance companies and asking for large increases in rates for next year 2016.

So, what else is new? Outside of Obamacare (and MOST Americans are completely outside of Obamacare), the cost of health care, and health care insurance, has been growing by leaps and bounds, well over the rate of inflation, for decades.

This is the 'free market' at work, isn't it? Obamacare has NOTHING to do with the rates charged for people who are not covered under a health care exchange, aside from the prohibitions against the refusal of coverage, or arbitrary termination.... and even since those provisions were introduced, the increases have not been out of line with increases long BEFORE Obamacare was passed.


All I said was "This will not help the Dems in the 2016 elections"


Well, you may be right, in the sense that the Democrats will be wrongly and unfairly tagged for this.... even if it's no fault of Democrats.

Sam F
06-11-2015, 07:37 AM
Oh and by the way, has anyone mentioned that the US is the most indebted nation in history? Or as Forbes puts it: "The United States ranks 10th on the list, with debt that is 87% of its GDP. But it has the most debt of any country in absolute terms, an estimated $14.6 trillion in general government net debt, double the debt of second-place Japan."
So paying for this should be no problem. Right?


interesting numbers. I believe someone (is there a 'Wilson' in the house?) addressed this some time back - and that as compared to GDP, our national debt was actually lower now than it was under Bush.

At some point - and I think $14.6 trillion is well past the point - the absolute debt load is relevant. To look at it at a micro level, say I have no income and I'm $1000.00 in debt. That's a problem naturally but in "GDP" terms I'm way worse off than the US. But $1G ain't $14.6 trillion and is in every way easier to pay off. On the other hand, $ trillions in debt benefit from the use of scientific notation. Then there's that little thing called interest...

Sam F
06-11-2015, 07:40 AM
...Absolute numbers for debt don't mean much; percent of GDP is a more useful figure.

No they don't mean a thing - until the interest rate goes up. But that'll never happen. Oh and then there's that multi trillion trade deficit. That doesn't mean a thing either - except I seem to recall that I've had not one but two "careers" exported. But hey, let's just abstract the problem sufficiently and it goes away. It's just like MAGIC!

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 07:42 AM
FWIW, the ACA actually reduces the deficit slightly.


At some point . . . .the absolute debt load is relevant.Why? The interest on the debt is about 7% of the federal budget. Why is the absolute number relevant, rather than the number as a parentage of the economy? Federal deficits are now back to normal historical levels, lower than during the entire Reagan Administration.

If we really want to fix our budget problems long-term, we will have to get medical costs, particularly in the last year or two of life, in line with the rest of the civilized world.

Sam F
06-11-2015, 07:48 AM
So, what else is new? Outside of Obamacare (and MOST Americans are completely outside of Obamacare),

Really? Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor. And it so happens, tell my car mechanic too.



the cost of health care, and health care insurance, has been growing by leaps and bounds, well over the rate of inflation, for decades.
This is the 'free market' at work, isn't it? Obamacare has NOTHING to do with the rates charged for people who are not covered under a health care exchange, aside from the prohibitions against the refusal of coverage, or arbitrary termination.... and even since those provisions were introduced, the increases have not been out of line with increases long BEFORE Obamacare was passed.

Our Dear Leader said: "So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans."

So they aren't lower cost just "not out of line" with previous increases.
Sounds like a failure to me.



Well, you may be right, in the sense that the Democrats will be wrongly and unfairly tagged for this.... even if it's no fault of Democrats.
Seeing as how Obamacare passed with not a single Republican vote - Not One - it's hard to see who else there is to blame for this fiasco. Oh I know blame it on Hobby Lobby.

Sam F
06-11-2015, 07:56 AM
FWIW, the ACA actually reduces the deficit slightly.

The ACA isn't fully implemented and everybody knows about the fudged numbers. But how do you explain the independent Government Accountability Office study that found that Obamacare would increase the primary deficit by 0.7 percent of GDP.


Why? The interest on the debt is about 7% of the federal budget. Why is the absolute number relevant,

You're right of course. We can be sure that that % will stay constant in perpetuity and we'll never have another recession children will laugh and play and joy will fill the land. BTW, how long will it take to pay off $14* trillion so we can get a handle on the time involved - just to be sure there's no chance of interest rates going up.


Federal deficits are now back to normal historical levels, lower than during the entire Reagan Administration.

Do we owe more now or not?


If we really want to fix our budget problems long-term, we will have to get medical costs, particularly in the last year or two of life, in line with the rest of the civilized world.

If it's cost you're worried about, remember that euthanasia is really cheap.

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 08:07 AM
So they aren't lower cost just "not out of line" with previous increases.
Sounds like a failure to me.

You were expecting Obama to strike a rock with his staff, and out would pour a copious stream of health care?

Here's a clue: the government doesn't control the costs of health care.... we're a capitalist society, and the prices charged by pharma companies, medical device companies, health care organizations, the salaries of the janitors who clean the hospital floors, medical schools, and every other source of materials, education, and labor associated with delivering health care, are independently determined, to the extent they can be.

With the exclusion of Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance companies (all of which have to negotiate for pricing), it's what the market will bear... and even THOSE entities have to surrender to inflation, the increasing cost of more sophisticated treatments, and so on.

Before Obamacare, those prices were rising well beyond the rate of inflation, and had been doing so, for decades. Since Obamacare, those increases have not gone up any faster than they had been going up before.... and in many cases, the rate of increase has slowed.

Regardless, you're going to have to explain to me why things were 'better' before Obamacare.... since ain't nobody has proposed any alternatives, and certainly NOT the Republicans.

Of course, you might argue from an ideological vantage point.... and argue that somehow, there was more 'freedom' before Obamacare. You can tell that to the 8 million or so who were previously 'free' to not be able to afford health care.

Ted Hoppe
06-11-2015, 08:41 AM
Norm - we did expect that rate would stablize. The simple fact that if we had a single payer system the rates would not be jacked and we could have gone over to universal healthcare. medical care is a right not a privilege regardless of what capitalists who game the system say.

My group plan rates have gone up too - about 30 percent over last 2 years. With deductibles getting farther bumped up. If we count the the 25 to 35/50 dollar co-pays and overruns on the 80 percent splits. Obviously there is rate increases which are being ignored or rolled. Obamacare did rip a bigger hole in the pocket of the middle class.

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 08:58 AM
My group plan rates have gone up too - about 30 percent over last 2 years. With deductibles getting farther bumped up. If we count the the 25 to 35/50 dollar co-pays and overruns on the 80 percent splits. Obviously there is rate increases which are being ignored or rolled. Obamacare did rip a bigger hole in the pocket of the middle class.

My rates have gone up, as well. However:

1) My rate has been going up, for decades..... and
2) No one anecdote can reasonable characterize what is happening nationally... only the broad national statistics can inform us on that issue... and those stats indicate that the overall rate increases have been moderate, and less than in the past.

As for the charge that "Obamacare did rip a bigger hole in the pocket of the middle class".... I suppose you'd expect rates to be progressive, like income taxes? We'd REALLY hear some screaming from the right wing, if that were the case.

As always, the complaints from most conservatives I know and have heard are pretty similar: "me, me, ME..."

I'm certainly not rich, and my health insurance costs are damned high... but even if it WERE the case that Obamacare has resulted in somewhat higher rates (and I'm not convinced of that), I'm happy to pay the increases.... because it benefits the nation as a whole.

When a war comes, 'patriots' flood to enlist and serve their country... we all consider that a noble thing, and we admire and honor those who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the nation....

....but if we ask people to sacrifice for the sake of others, here in our own country... it's 'socialism', and condemned as some sort of assault on 'freedom'.

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 08:59 AM
. . . everybody knows about the fudged numbers.Yeah? I don't. Reference, please?


But how do you explain the independent Government Accountability Office study . . . Reference, again.


If it's cost you're worried about, remember that euthanasia is really cheap.It is indeed, and at the risk of getting your Roman Catholic hackles up, there are certain very limited circumstances under which I might support it. Assisted suicide, certainly, with proper safeguards. But that's completely beside the point; it's not why US medical costs are much, much higher than the rest of the civilized world.

Boater14
06-11-2015, 09:11 AM
Peb, are you being obtuse on purpose? this has been politics from day one. Reeps denying Obama anything including the enactment of THEIR PLAN. and as far as your rates going up for the exact same coverage OK but since you have ripped Obama all along, why would you post anything that makes Obamacare successful in the least? Politics...McConnell said his job was to make sure Obama was a one termer while his home state enjoyed 9% unemployment. this is all politics all the time. court rules against the subsidies which I bet they will, let the reeps sort it out. Now your sticking up for the 8 million uninsured? hell, they're the reason your rates went up...remember? Politics....

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 09:19 AM
Not Peb, SamF. Also Roman Catholic, but with his own inimitable style. Sam and I go way back. :D

Sam F
06-11-2015, 11:20 AM
FWIW, which is nothing, years ago I pointed out on this forum that a lack of health insurance for everyone is a decided disincentive for entrepreneurial activities. In fact that very problem stopped me dead in my tracks when I had the backing, skills and space to start a business. So please stop thinking I'm a Republican shill. At the moment, the only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat.

peb
06-11-2015, 11:23 AM
At the moment, the only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat.

I should put some sort of version of that as my signature line.

Sam, hope you are feeling better!!

S.V. Airlie
06-11-2015, 11:25 AM
My deductible $600.00/year! I went through in less than two months!

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 11:30 AM
. . . years ago I pointed out on this forum that a lack of health insurance for everyone is a decided disincentive for entrepreneurial activities. On that point, you were right then, and you're right now. However, the ACA means that anyone can actually get decent insurance, pretty heavily subsidized if you don't make much money. We have plenty of problems still, but that situation is far better than it was.

RonW
06-11-2015, 11:44 AM
It would seem that this whole argument is in Vain, as supposedly the supreme court has voted 5 to 4 to kill berrycare....and obama is pissed and saying so...

And in another month we should have the official too bad, so sad no more berry care results........

S.V. Airlie
06-11-2015, 11:47 AM
So, what health insurance are you gonna sign up with. I bet a plea on facebook will be in order!

S.V. Airlie
06-11-2015, 11:52 AM
By the way, RonW what rock do you live under? It appears that, as usual, you are wrong.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) on Thursday upheld President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s health care overhaul (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) law, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.
The decision (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/29healthcare-scotus-docs.html) was a victory for Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats, affirming the central legislative achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?_r=0#story-continues-2) Related Coverage

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/06/28/us/20120629_SCOTUS_HTML-slide-93I5/20120629_SCOTUS_HTML-slide-93I5-thumbStandard.jpg slideshow

Supreme Court Upholds Health Care LawJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/06/28/us/20120629_SCOTUS_HTML.html)
document The Supreme Court Decision on the 2010 Health Care LawJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/scotus-healthcare-document-annotations.html)
graphic How the Justices Ruled on the Health Care LawJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/28/us/how-the-justices-ruled-on-health-care.html)
graphic Siding With the Liberal WingJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/28/us/supreme-court-liberal-wing-5-4-decisions.html)
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/06/28/us/politics/video-scotus-obama-speech/video-scotus-obama-speech-thumbStandard.jpg video

Obama on the Health Care RulingJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000001634340/president-obama-on-scotus-ruling.html)
Times Topic: Health Care Reform (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html)
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/06/28/us/politics/0728romney4/0728romney4-thumbStandard.jpg

News Analysis: Republicans Vow to Press Health Care ChallengeJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/politics/republicans-press-on-with-health-law-challenge.html)
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/06/29/us/29assess/29assess-thumbStandard.jpg

News Analysis: Health Care Is Defining Decision for Chief Justice RobertsJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/politics/a-defining-move-for-chief-justice-roberts.html)
In Health Care Ruling, Investors See a Mixed BlessingJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/business/insurance-stocks-flag-hospital-shares-gain.html)
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/06/29/us/sub2-medicaid-1/sub2-medicaid-1-thumbStandard.jpg

Uncertainty Over States and Medicaid ExpansionJUNE 28, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/uncertainty-over-whether-states-will-choose-to-expand-medicaid.html)


At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The vote was again 5 to 4, but in this instance Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more conservative members were in agreement.
The court also substantially limited the law’s expansion of Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), the joint federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people. Seven justices agreed that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by coercing states into participating in the expansion by threatening them with the loss of existing federal payments.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who had been thought to be the administration’s best hope to provide a fifth vote to uphold the law, joined three more conservative members in an unusual jointly written dissent that said the court should have struck down the entire law. The majority’s approach, he said from the bench, “amounts to a vast judicial overreaching.”
The court’s ruling was the most significant federalism decision since the New Deal and the most closely watched case since Bush v. Gore in 2000. It was a crucial milestone for the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, allowing almost all — and perhaps, in the end, all — of its far-reaching changes to roll forward.
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?_r=0#story-continues-3)
Mr. Obama welcomed the court’s decision on the health care law, which has inspired fierce protests, legal challenges and vows of repeal since it was passed. “Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law,” he said at the White House.
Republicans, though, used the occasion to attack it again.
“Obamacare was bad policy yesterday; it’s bad policy today,” Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said in remarks near the Capitol. “Obamacare was bad law yesterday; it’s bad law today.” He, like Congressional Republicans, renewed his pledge to undo the law.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?_r=0#story-continues-4) Featured CommentEE Canada One less thing to worry about for all of those people who have been caught in the fallout from the Great Recession.



2574 Comments

The historic decision, coming after three days of lively oral arguments in March and in the midst of a presidential campaign, drew intense attention across the nation. Outside the court, more than 1,000 people gathered — packing the sidewalk, playing music, chanting slogans — and a loud cheer went up as word spread that the law had been largely upheld. Chants of “Yes we can!” rang out, but the ruling also provoked disappointment among Tea Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) supporters.
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?_r=0#story-continues-5)
In Loudoun County, Va., Angela Laws, 58, the owner of a cleaning service, said she and her fiancé were relieved at the news. “We laughed, and we shouted with joy and hugged each other,” she said, explaining that she had been unable to get insurance because of her diabetes and back problems until a provision in the health care law went into effect.
After months of uncertainty about the law’s fate, the court’s ruling provides some clarity — and perhaps an alert — to states, insurers, employers and consumers about what they are required to do by 2014, when much of the law comes into force.
The Obama administration had argued that the mandate was necessary because it allowed other provisions of the law to function: those overhauling the way insurance is sold and those preventing sick people from being denied or charged extra for insurance. The mandate’s supporters had said it was necessary to ensure that not only sick people but also healthy individuals would sign up for coverage, keeping insurance premiums more affordable.
Conservatives took comfort from two parts of the decision: the new limits it placed on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states.
Five justices accepted the argument that had been at the heart of the challenges brought by 26 states and other plaintiffs: that the federal government is not permitted to force individuals not engaged in commercial activities to buy services they do not want. That was a stunning victory for a theory pressed by a small band of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Most members of the legal academy view the theory as misguided,if not frivolous.
“To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the framers, who were practical statesmen, not metaphysical philosophers.”

peb
06-11-2015, 11:53 AM
Peb, are you being obtuse on purpose? this has been politics from day one. Reeps denying Obama anything including the enactment of THEIR PLAN. and as far as your rates going up for the exact same coverage OK but since you have ripped Obama all along, why would you post anything that makes Obamacare successful in the least? Politics...McConnell said his job was to make sure Obama was a one termer while his home state enjoyed 9% unemployment. this is all politics all the time. court rules against the subsidies which I bet they will, let the reeps sort it out. Now your sticking up for the 8 million uninsured? hell, they're the reason your rates went up...remember? Politics....

You misunderstood the point behind my post. The left on this forum continually says how great ObamaCare is because so many more are now insured. Yet, you are perfectly willing to leave those 8M people high and dry if you have the chance to make political hay. I was making no statement either way as far as the 8M folks are concerned, I was only pointing out your side's hipocracy. You don't care as long as you have power.

Sam F
06-11-2015, 11:56 AM
Fudged numbers...
Yeah? I don't. Reference, please?

Obamacare lying abounds, changing locks on meeting rooms, a total partisan vote in the middle of the night, passing the bill to find out what was in it. Really that whole process was indefensible. And then there's... Jonathan Gruber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo


Reference, again.

Found in tons of places. How about from the GAO?

Under either set of
assumptions, these simulations show
that the federal budget is on an
unsustainable fiscal path driven on the
spending side by rising health care
costs and the aging of the population. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651702.pdf

Yeah I know, who cares? Nobody cares about sustainability.



It is indeed, and at the risk of getting your Roman Catholic hackles up, there are certain very limited circumstances under which I might support it. Assisted suicide, certainly, with proper safeguards. But that's completely beside the point;

Then why bring it up? I'm not advocating killing people - you are.


it's not why US medical costs are much, much higher than the rest of the civilized world.
Like Norman said: " Since Obamacare, those increases have not gone up any faster than they had been going up before.... and in many cases, the rate of increase has slowed."

Thanks Norman. Obviously the cost "containment" of Obamacare isn't containing anything. Which brings me to an important question


Federal deficits are now back to normal historical levels, lower than during the entire Reagan Administration.
And I asked:
Do we owe more now or not?

Please quit dodging by asking questions you 1) ought to know the answers to if you've paid any attention yourself & 2) that you ought to know that there are perfectly good answers to at my fingertips.

So Keith, you already know that there are wild birds documented to have better math skills that I do.
So please, answer. Since as you said: "deficit as a percent of GDP is much lower than it was in '08 and '09, back to normal historical levels, and lower than it was during the entire Reagan administration.. "

Do we owe more now or not?

Sam F
06-11-2015, 12:00 PM
You misunderstood the point behind my post. The left on this forum continually says how great ObamaCare is because so many more are now insured. Yet, you are perfectly willing to leave those 8M people high and dry if you have the chance to make political hay. I was making no statement either way as far as the 8M folks are concerned, I was only pointing out your side's hipocracy. You don't care as long as you have power.

It's the Washington mindset. Nobody cares how many lose their jobs, go broke, suffer and die as a result of DC's tricks. If they're our little brown brothers, so much the better. The only things that counts is today's political advantage. Heck, maybe it's only this afternoon's advantage - that time horizon is getting closer and closer all the time.

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 12:11 PM
Obamacare lying abounds, changing locks on meeting rooms, a total partisan vote in the middle of the night, passing the bill to find out what was in it. Really that whole process was indefensible.True or not, none of those have anything to do with your claim that 'everybody knows about the fudged numbers'. What fudged numbers? Numbers please, otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

And the GAO report you referenced shows exactly the opposite of your claim. Compared to the situation before the ACA, it shows a modest decrease in the deficit and debt, assuming the provisions of the ACA are left in place and not repealed. We have plenty of long-term budget problems, but that GAO report shows that the ACA has made them better, not worse (http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651702.pdf).


The effect of PPACA on the long-term fiscal outlook depends largely on whether elements designed to control cost growth are sustained. Overall, there was notable improvement in the longer-term outlook after the enactment of PPACA under our Fall 2010 Baseline Extended simulation,which, consistent with federal law at the time the simulation was run, assumed the full implementation and effectiveness of the cost containment provisions over the entire 75-year simulation period.

RonW
06-11-2015, 12:17 PM
--For Obamacare subsidies, looming Supreme Court ruling creates uncertainty..

WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Supreme Court nears its decision in the King v. Burwell case, lawmakers, insurers, the Obama administration and millions of Americans are stuck in a state of uncertainty, trying to prepare for a legal hurricane that may never make it ashore.

Later this month, the high court is expected to decide whether consumers in the 34 states that use the federal health insurance marketplace can continue to receive subsidies to help them purchase coverage.

The plaintiffs cite a section of the Affordable Care Act that says the subsidies, or tax credits, can be applied only to coverage purchased “through an exchange established by the State.” The Obama administration says a full reading of the health care law makes clear that Congress intended to provide the tax credits in all states.

If the court rules for the government, HealthCare.gov users can continue to receive financial assistance and the Affordable Care Act will have survived its second major Supreme Court challenge in the last three years.

But chaos will ensue if the court agrees with the plaintiffs that the tax credits can go only to people in the 16 states, along with Washington, D.C., that run their own insurance marketplaces.

That outcome could leave 6.4 million people in 34 states with no financial help to pay for health insurance coverage, which is required by law.

On average, these low- and middle-income Americans would lose $272 per month – $3,264 per year – in federal subsidies.

Without the money, their out-of-pocket premium contributions could jump an average of 255 percent this year, according to an analysis by Avalere Health, an advisory company.


and for the rest of the story........http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/04/268931/for-obamacare-subsidies-looming.html


Berrycare is done........

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 12:43 PM
You misunderstood the point behind my post. The left on this forum continually says how great ObamaCare is because so many more are now insured. Yet, you are perfectly willing to leave those 8M people high and dry if you have the chance to make political hay.

Absurd, peb, and I'm frankly surprised you'd espouse something as ridiculous as this. There is only one political party willing to 'make hay' over the pending SCOTUS decision, and that is the Republican Party. They have the absolute power (since they hold both the house and the Senate) to fix this sily little verbal mistake with a one-line bill, and end completely the risk to those 8 million Americans you claim to have sympathy for.

Instead, the Republicans are actively planning to use this instance to destroy Obamacare:


For weeks now, the debate about how to respond to a court ruling in King v. Burwell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/obamacare-supreme-court-case_n_7309064.html), the case challenging a key component of the Affordable Care Act, has taken place indirectly -- through speeches, newspaper columns, and media interviews. But with the court likely to issue a decision by the end of June, tension has been building. On Wednesday, it led to a confrontation when Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, grilled Sylvia Burwell, the secretary for Health and Human Services, over what the administration would do if a majority of justices were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

Such a ruling would prohibit the federal government from distributing health insurance tax credits in Florida, Texas, and 32 other states where officials opted not to create “exchanges” for purchasing coverage, leaving that work instead to the federal government. That would cover about 6.4 million people (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/obamacare-enrollment_n_7493776.html), including some families for whom the tax credits discount the price of insurance by thousands of dollars a year. Most would have to drop coverage altogether, throwing those state insurance markets into disarray.

The crux of the lawsuit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/supreme-court-obamacare-king-_n_6906064.html) is a dispute over how to interpret four words that appear in a key passage of the law. That’s why administration officials have said that the easiest, and most viable, remedy would be for Congress to pass a one-sentence amendment to clarify that tax credits should be available in all states. Republican leaders like Ryan have made clear they won’t do that, instead dangling the possibility of some kind of “off-ramp” or “transitional” assistance that would allow people in those states to keep their tax credits -- but only for a little while and only if the Obama administration makes concessions.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Ryan wanted to know whether Obama would accept such a “compromise,” asking, “Will [he] stand up with one piece of paper and say, ‘My way or the highway,’ or will he work with Congress?” Burwell said it was impossible to answer because, at this point, Republicans hadn't given the administration a bill to consider. And she was right about that.

Neither Ryan nor other House Republican leaders have seen fit to produce a detailed proposal (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/10/obamacare-repeal-replace_n_7243876.html) or even to hold hearings on what such a proposal should look like. While they say they will soon unveil a full package, based on private negotiations they have been conducting, they've been promising the same thing for five years (https://storify.com/JeffYoung/just-in-time), with nothing to show for it except skeletal proposals and op-eds -- like the one Ryan, along with two other House leaders, published earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-ryan-john-kline-and-fred-upton-an-off-ramp-from-obamacare-1425340840). Keep in mind that plenty of Republicans have said they want no deal at all.

At this point, the most reliable guide to what Republicans have in mind may be one of the few real pieces of legislation the GOP has produced: “The Preserving Freedom and Choice in Health Care Act.” While the proposal comes from Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who is not a major player on health care issues, it has 31 co-sponsors. One happens to be Mitch McConnell, the majority leader -- making it as serious as anything circulating on Capitol Hill.

Johnson’s bill, introduced in April, is audacious, as brief analyses from researchers at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/johnson-health-plan-would-unravel-much-of-health-reform) and Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://newsatjama.jama.com/2015/06/03/jama-forum-if-king-v-burwell-ruling-imperils-aca-subsidies-for-millions-is-the-fallout-avoidable/)have revealed. It would allow the federal government to keep dispersing tax credits in the states where officials don’t run their own exchanges, but only until 2017 and only for people who receive the subsidies already. At the same time, it would eliminate the individual mandate (the requirement that all people get comprehensive insurance or pay a fine) and the requirement that all insurance policies include “essential health benefits” (a category that includes prescription drugs, treatment for mental illness, and maternity care). Johnson’s bill may even weaken regulations that prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people with pre-existing conditions, although that part of the proposal is open to different interpretations (http://www.yalejreg.com/blog/the-senate-s-proposed-king-fix-is-flawed-by-nicholas-bagley).

By removing interlocking pieces that allow the Affordable Care Act to work, Johnson's bill would effectively roll back many if not all the law’s major reforms -- which would undoubtedly suit some people just fine. To take one obvious example, people who wanted to buy less-comprehensive, less-costly policies would have access to them; people who wanted no coverage at all wouldn’t face financial penalties. Fines for employers that don’t offer insurance would also vanish.

But these changes would have consequences. People who need comprehensive coverage, because of existing medical conditions, would have a harder time finding it. Some people who bought skimpier policies would suffer injuries or develop serious medical conditions and discover, suddenly, they have no way to pay for the care they need -- if they could find care at all. Without the individual mandate, insurers would have a harder time attracting healthier customers, forcing them to raise premiums for everybody. Without the employer requirement, the deficit would rise.

The loss of tax credits would be particularly tough, since it would mean all those people who couldn’t afford insurance without them would remain uninsured. The number of people without coverage, now in the midst of a historic decline (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/uninsured-rate-obamacare_n_7043534.html), would shoot back up. (Johnson has said the goal would be for Congress to craft a different coverage scheme by 2017, but there's no reason to think Republicans would actually enact such a plan, let alone a plan that would come close to providing the same level of protection.)

But it’s not the nature of these changes that make the Johnson bill such a revealing window into the mindset that many Republicans have right now. It’s where those changes would apply. Johnson’s bill would roll back regulations and stop new subsidies even in states like California, Kentucky, Maryland and New York, where officials have set up their own exchanges. A ruling for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell wouldn’t affect these states, yet destroying the Affordable Care Act in these states is the price -- or, you might say, the ransom -- that this bill’s supporters would demand in order to spare people in the affected states from losing their coverage right away.

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 12:44 PM
On average, these low- and middle-income Americans would lose $272 per month – $3,264 per year – in federal subsidies.

Without the money, their out-of-pocket premium contributions could jump an average of 255 percent this year, according to an analysis by Avalere Health, an advisory company.

Berrycare is done........

And you're HAPPY about this?

RonW
06-11-2015, 12:54 PM
And you're HAPPY about this?

I am happy to see obamacare overturned or repealed, period and have no quams in saying so..and if obama hadn't bribed or blackmailed justice john roberts into changing his mind at the least minute the first time around, we wouldn't have this mess to deal with.......

It is real simple, the government has no business being involved in private enterprise, and especially healthcare..that is not a function of government, unless of course you are a socialist.

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 12:56 PM
I am happy to see obamacare overturned or repealed, period and have no quams in saying so..and if obama hadn't bribed or blackmailed justice john roberts into changing his mind at the least minute the first time around, we wouldn't have this mess to deal with.......

It is real simple, the government has no business being involved in private enterprise, and especially healthcare..that is not a function of government, unless of course you are a socialist.

So, for the sake of political ideology, you want to see THIS happen:


On average, these low- and middle-income Americans would lose $272 per month – $3,264 per year – in federal subsidies.

Without the money, their out-of-pocket premium contributions could jump an average of 255 percent this year, according to an analysis by Avalere Health, an advisory company.


You're quite the specimen of a human being, RonW.... I don't know too many people pleased to see the misfortune and hardship of others.

RonW
06-11-2015, 01:20 PM
So, for the sake of political ideology, you want to see THIS happen:
You're quite the specimen of a human being, RonW.... I don't know too many people pleased to see the misfortune and hardship of others.

As usual You turned it into a political statement. But how soon the left wants to forget or ignore the fact that instead of passing obamacare in 2010, all they had to do was pass a one line bill that gave the insurance companies the right to sell insurance across state lines, and guess what, everyone's insurance would have dropped from those rates anywhere from 20% to 30%...

Now that is what you call legislature, this is nothing more then a scam by the insurance companies to get more money, and that is what hurts the poor, unless you want to subsidize their payments from overcharging others.....

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 01:25 PM
. . . if Obama hadn't bribed or blackmailed justice John Roberts into changing his mind . . . Making sh*t up again. Well, if he did it once, he can do it again. :D

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/004186823/5632473830_TinFoilHat_xlarge.jpeg

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 01:30 PM
As usual You turned it into a political statement. But how soon the left wants to forget or ignore the fact that instead of passing obamacare in 2010, all they had to do was pass a one line bill that gave the insurance companies the right to sell insurance across state lines, and guess what, everyone's insurance would have dropped from those rates anywhere from 20% to 30%...

*lol* You really are THAT naive? You actually think that selling insurance across state lines was the 'magic bullet'? You swallowed that crap from the right wing?

Don't you realize WHY insurance companies want to sell across state lines?

It is AMAZING what crap can be sold to ignorant right wingers!!!

(Insurance companies already operate across state lines... but are obligated by law, to incorporate in each state, and be subject to each state's own regulations.... isn't that what Republicans are always clamoring for, 'state sovereignty'? Of course, what they REALLY want is to operate across state lines while incorporating in whatever state makes the best deal with lax regulation and tax subsidies... meaning that they can get away with crap they presently can't. Rates would RISE, not drop. Yet, you're one of the easily led who doesn't realize this!)

Still, it makes no difference: you want your ideology to be law, and you just don't care HOW MANY MILLIONS of people it will hurt.

Like I said, a fine example of a human being.

ccmanuals
06-11-2015, 01:33 PM
[QUOTE=Keith Wilson;4565684]Making sh*t up again. Well, if he did it once, he can do it again. :D


so republican supreme court justices can be bought. Interesting.

RonW
06-11-2015, 01:39 PM
Norman Bernstein says -
Like I said, a fine example of a human being.

So you want to resort to disparaging remarks to those who don't support your socialists views .

I have found that some who want obamacare to have pre-existing conditions and they want to spread their costs around for others to share in.. Pure greed, just plain greed..

Or they can't afford insurance at all and want others to supply their needs.

S.V. Airlie
06-11-2015, 01:41 PM
So, for the sake of political ideology, you want to see THIS happen:



You're quite the specimen of a human being, RonW.... I don't know too many people pleased to see the misfortune and hardship of others.To RonW, it's ME,MYSELF AND I> A forgone conclusion reached by many of the reprobates! So Ron, should we read a plea soon from you asking for money to pay for your illnesses now?Norman, who says he's human? Ever even seen a pic of him or has anyone ever met him?

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 01:41 PM
Pointless.

Social Darwinism is not merely pathetic... it's psychotic.

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 01:43 PM
The definition of insurance is a mechanism to spread risk around so others can share it. Those who don't crash their cars pay the expenses of those who do. Those whose houses don't burn down pay the expenses of those who do have fires. Those who don't get sick pay the expenses of those who do. That's been the case since insurance was invented.

There would be a certain justice in it if Ron would get a nasty, squalid, painful, and debilitating disease which can be relieved only at great expense, that he would be ineligible for any kind of government assistance whatsoever, and that he would have to pay for it out of his own pocket until every last penny and everything he owns is gone. I don't, however, wish that on anyone.

RonW
06-11-2015, 01:55 PM
Keith --
The definition of insurance is a mechanism to spread risk around so others can share it.

That's right, and the good ole boy with the old pickup truck doesn't have to carry comprehensive, or a million dollars worth of liability like the guy driving the BMW living in the fancy 2 story house on top of the hill, or pay the premiums that the guy does that had 3 - D.U.I.'s.......

It is all based on your needs and desires or even the fact if you want any at all.....

It is not a government decision, or requirement to force you to buy their product.

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 01:58 PM
It is not a government decision, or requirement to force you to buy their product.Nonsense. Sure it is. If I want to drive, there is a legal requirement to have insurance that meets a minimum standard. We all 'drive' our bodies, and we will all need medical care at some point. Exactly analogous.

S.V. Airlie
06-11-2015, 01:58 PM
Keith --

That's right, and the good ole boy with the old pickup truck doesn't have to carry comprehensive, or a million dollars worth of liability like the guy driving the BMW living in the fancy 2 story house on top of the hill, or pay the premiums that the guy does that had 3 - D.U.I.'s.......

It is all based on your needs and desires or even the fact if you want any at all.....

It is not a government decision, or requirement to force you to buy their product.Not in MY state! Sounds like a Red state policy. If you don't have auto ins. on a registered car, you are fined. UUUUM! Paying the penalty for this but, not Obamacare if you don't pay!!!

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 02:02 PM
That's right, and the good ole boy with the old pickup truck doesn't have to carry comprehensive, or a million dollars worth of liability like the guy driving the BMW living in the fancy 2 story house on top of the hill, or pay the premiums that the guy does that had 3 - D.U.I.'s.......

You can't even get the fundamentals of what insurance means, correctly.

Liability insurance is for damage you might do to others, and in that case, there is absolutely NO difference between the guy who drives an old pickup truck, and the guy who drives a BMW. Even driving record has no effect, since even the best driver in the world might have an accident which turns another person into a quadriplegic... it can happen, and it's not an issue of fault, since the injured person is just as injured, regardless of the intentions of the driver causing the accident.

Now, explain to us all how you define the difference between someone who needs only minimal health insurance... and someone who needs a lot of it. Are there human beings walking the earth, with an exemption from serious illness? My wife had a brain aneurysm... which might have killed her, except that it was caught in time, and $57,000 worth of surgery later, was saved... think she had a sign around her neck saying "CAUTION: I'm going to have a brain aneurysm"?

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 02:23 PM
Time out for humor, sort of...

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-06-10-1433960068-8504987-danzcolorplus6380-thumb.jpg

Sam F
06-11-2015, 02:31 PM
True or not, none of those have anything to do with your claim that 'everybody knows about the fudged numbers'. What fudged numbers?

Oh you mean “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”? The numbers of folk who lost their plans is pretty big. Even my lower middle-class mechanic lost his plan. And I'd have lost mine too if I stayed in my previous job. That'd make me another statistic.
And here's another lie that sourced lots of numbers: " If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”
Technically I could have kept my doctor except he quit - fed up as I recall. But no worries, I got another one. But oops! He just quit too. So here I am going to the doctor this afternoon and I have no idea if I'll even see a doctor.
No biggie. Right?
And the ever popular “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” Really? HA HA HA HA HA HA!

And “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.” Now that's technically correct. It won't ad one dime. But the GAO says it'll be trillions. But who's counting? You certainly aren't.

“Whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.” Sure! Except as Norman has acknowledged the costs are still going up.
There are lots of other examples of people hurt by this inept stupid law. But why list them? You won't believe the facts anyway.



T Numbers please, otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Son you need to cut back on your smokin' Why not answer my simple little question?



Federal deficits are now back to normal historical levels, lower than during the entire Reagan Administration.
And I ask AGAIN:
Do we owe more now or not?

What's the matter Keith? It can't be that hard!!


And the GAO report you referenced shows exactly the opposite of your claim.

I quoted from that report and gave you the link. If you don't like it go complain to the GAO.

So what's it gonna be Keith? Will you answer my question? It's such a seemple leetle thing.

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 02:36 PM
Oh you mean “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”? The numbers of folk who lost their plans is pretty big. Even my lower middle-class mechanic lost his plan. And I'd have lost mine too if I stayed in my previous job. That'd make me another statistic.
And here's another lie that sourced lots of numbers: " If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”
Technically I could have kept my doctor except he quit - fed up as I recall. But no worries, I got another one. But oops! He just quit too. So here I am going to the doctor this afternoon and I have no idea if I'll even see a doctor.
No biggie. Right?......

What is the alternative?

You are tossing a huge number of pejorative barbs at Obamacare (never mentioning the number of people Obamacare has actually HELPED, but I'll let that pass... for now).

However, all of your rant is meaningless, unless you can clearly outline the alternative.

You could either:

1) Suggest that the way thing were, before Obamacare, were better (for everyone? Or just for some?)

2) Propose an alternative system... one that doesn't depend on articles of faith, like the silly notion that allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines will instantly result in a 30% reduction in the cost of health insurance. We're not THAT stupid.

S.V. Airlie
06-11-2015, 02:39 PM
Won't happen, would rather whine and complain that Obamacare is bad!

Keith Wilson
06-11-2015, 02:41 PM
Sam, you said there were 'fudged numbers' in this exchange (post #88) in the context of a discussion of the effect of the ACA on the deficit.


Keith:
FWIW, the ACA actually reduces the deficit slightly.
Sam:
The ACA isn't fully implemented and everybody knows about the fudged numbers. But how do you explain the independent Government Accountability Office study that found that Obamacare would increase the primary deficit by 0.7 percent of GDP. Once again, Sam, WHAT FUDGED NUMBERS?


But the GAO says it'll be trillions. But who's counting? You certainly aren't. The GAO report you referenced says that if the ACA is left as is, it will indeed reduce the deficit compared to the situation before it was passed, the exact opposite of what you claim. You are writing things that are false, whether intentionally or not.

Norman Bernstein
06-11-2015, 03:25 PM
The msot important two paragraphs.. which render all the anecdotal 'evidence' from certain bilge members irrelevant:


Analysis of 2015 Health Premiums Finds Average Nationwide is Flat.

A new analysis of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace costs finds that, nationwide, marketplace premiums did not increase at all from 2014 to 2015, though there were substantial average premium increases in some states and declines in others. The average premiums for the second lowest-cost silver plan—or benchmark plan for calculating the federal subsidy in a given state—were also unchanged. And the average deductible for a marketplace plan increased by just 1 percent year to year.

The 0 percent change in average premiums is unprecedented when compared with historic trends (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/dec/national-trends-employer-coverage) in both the individual insurance market and employer-based health insurance.

Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, from 2008 to 2010, premiums grew (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/jun/health-insurance-premiums) an average 10 percent or more per year in state individual insurance markets. Many factors underlie this year’s stability in marketplace premiums, but three important contributors were: an increase in the number of participating insurance carriers; the design of the marketplaces; and the risk stabilization programs for participating insurers. The premiums presented are for a 40-year-old nonsmoker. See Table 1 below (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx#2015_Premiums_ACA). Results are weighted to reflect the population distribution across rating regions. The data for single and family premiums are available in an interactive map (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives-and-data/maps-and-data/health-insurance-marketplace-premiums).

Yeah, what a terrible law: annual premium increases, before Obamacare: 10%. Annual premium increase, with Obamacare: 0%.

S.V. Airlie
06-11-2015, 06:55 PM
Probably are but, they don't act like sheep and they might have a point about some aspect of it that they disagree with. The Reps hear what they want to hear and follow like the sheep they all are. Like lemmings!

Sam F
06-12-2015, 12:38 PM
Sam, you said there were 'fudged numbers' in this exchange (post #88) in the context of a discussion of the effect of the ACA on the deficit.

Gee Keith Obamacare was supposed to be free for the "poor". Don't you remember that?
It's not free. Here in the sticks jobless folk are grumbling about their $200 - $500/month bills. It was supposed to be free. Said so on the website. What a rip!


Really Keith, you can do better than that. Answer my little question please.

Federal deficits are now back to normal historical levels, lower than during the entire Reagan Administration.
And I ask YET AGAIN:

Do we owe more now or not?

It's relevant to the credibility of your financial assertions.

Why won't you answer?

Norman Bernstein
06-12-2015, 12:41 PM
No Keith. Answer my little question please.

And I ask YET AGAIN:

Do we owe more now or not?

It's relevant to the credibility of your financial assertions.

Why won't you answer?

Why should he? You don't answer lots of questions YOU are asked.

If you want an out-of-context answer... the kind that appeals to the ignorant and brain dead, then I'll answer for him: Yes, we owe more money now, than we did, then.

Now, answer HIS question: WHAT FUDGED NUMBERS?

TomF
06-12-2015, 12:52 PM
...It's relevant to the credibility of your financial assertions...Actually, it's not relevant at all to his "financial assertions" (or their credibility) - only to your preferred approach to rebuttal. ;)

You've been missed, Sam. I've been hoping that whatever's kept you busy elsewhere might enable you to give a positive update to your sig line. :D

Keith Wilson
06-12-2015, 12:53 PM
Do we owe more now or not?Why do you need to ask me? The answer is obvious, and depends on how you measure it..
- Every year there is a federal deficit, 'we' owe more in absolute dollars - so, in dollars, yes, we owe more.
- Depending on the rate of growth of the economy, this can be a greater or lesser percent of GDP. Over the past couple of years, the national debt has been more or less constant as a percent of GDP.
- Compared to what the situation would have been without the ACA, we owe less in both dollars and as a percent of GDP.

And you still haven't given us any 'fudged numbers'.

ccmanuals
06-12-2015, 01:33 PM
Gee Keith Obamacare was supposed to be free for the "poor". Don't you remember that?
It's not free. Here in the sticks jobless folk are grumbling about their $200 - $500/month bills. It was supposed to be free. Said so on the website. What a rip!


Really Keith, you can do better than that. Answer my little question please.

And I ask YET AGAIN:

Do we owe more now or not?

It's relevant to the credibility of your financial assertions.

Why won't you answer?

Well, that's certainly not true. Sam, I always thought you were a little more honest about what you say here. Apparently not.

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 01:35 PM
Well, that's certainly not true. Sam, I always thought you were a little more honest about what you say here. Apparently not.

Well, when I first read Sam's posts it was on a thread discussing Galileo. Sam was not being honest then either.

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 01:39 PM
It is not the responsibility or function of the government to create and sell insurance policies, that is the point the left refuses to understand.

Just out of curiousity, why shouldn't it be? We have a Crown corporation here that insures vehicles and drivers, and it works very well, with much lower costs than those found in provinces that rely upon private insurers.

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 01:56 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by RonW http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4558640#post4558640)
It is not the responsibility or function of the government to create and sell insurance policies, that is the point the left refuses to understand.

It is the function of a democratic government to do exactly what the electorate mandates it to do.
That is why we have our National Health Service free at the point of need. So could you if enough voters want it.

Sam F
06-14-2015, 05:18 PM
Why do you need to ask me? The answer is obvious, and depends on how you measure it..
- Every year there is a federal deficit, 'we' owe more in absolute dollars - so, in dollars, yes, we owe more.

Excellent. Pity I had to drag it out of you. So pray tell? If one owes more, oh just to pick a number, say 20% increase for 2015 alone, does that mean that it's that much harder to pay off the debt? Or is it that if the rate of deficit goes down, doesn't that still mean that the debt goes up?
Gee Keith doesn't that mean we're much worse off? You know more money is more money, isn't it?


- Depending on the rate of growth of the economy, this can be a greater or lesser percent of GDP. Over the past couple of years, the national debt has been more or less constant as a percent of GDP. But yes, when all the "dependings" are done "' we' owe more in absolute dollars". Isn't that true?


- Compared to what the situation would have been without the ACA, we owe less in both dollars and as a percent of GDP.

Sorry, you can't possibly know that. Obamacare isn't even fully implemented yet - due to Democrats terror of the ballot box. Not to worry though, as you pointed out all those "dependings" will work out just fine - except that perhaps you'll forgive me if I recall that despite your earlier assertions about Obama's deficit being better than Reagan's administration "'we' [still] owe more in absolute dollars" and conclude that this will be exactly the same outcome.


And you still haven't given us any 'fudged numbers'.

Sorry lad but, when an individual is promised that something will be free and he ends up paying $200 - $500 X millions of individuals out of pocket every month THAT's SOME MIGHTY FUDGED NUMBERS!!!
I need look no further than my neighbors to know that. Obviously everybody who paid any attention to the awesome stupendous prattling leading up to Obamacare KNOWS that already.

That's the problem when "conversing" with Liberals. They repeatedly deny one's own personal experience and the witness of others' experiences in favor of some quite bizarre alternate "reality".
Oh and by the way, in case your curious -

I STILL DON'T HAVE A DOCTOR!

But as we all know, that's just my imagination.

George Jung
06-14-2015, 06:06 PM
We've had a few folks in our city who suddenly found themselves 'without a Dr' - but it had nothing to do with the ACA, but with Big Medicine trying to take over the world (ala' Pinky and the Brain) - get folks on their brand of private insurance, and tell them if they have the wrong insurance, they can't be seen in 'their' clinics. It's a particularly dispiccable way of doing business, but one I'm only too familiar with. It sickens me.

I don't recall Obama ever saying anyone's healthcare was going to be 'free' - and for those in need, there is assistance, but of course it requires those people to seek it. I have to wonder if the folks SamF is referencing have done so.

Our state legislature has followed the lead of many other states, and now allows Nurse Practitioners to practice without working with/oversight from a physician. I think it's a mistake - but it'll certainly cost (big medicine) less, at least in the short run. The result of having midlevels competing with docs? We make less - esp in primary care. The result? Many choosing early retirement. Lots of forces impacting the practice of medicine, nearly all of them negatives.

Sam F
06-15-2015, 10:57 AM
We've had a few folks in our city who suddenly found themselves 'without a Dr' - but it had nothing to do with the ACA, but with Big Medicine...

The reasons Dr's quit need not be one or the other - it can be both. Big Medicine goes hand in hand with unwieldy bureaucratic requirements. It's their natural environment. With the doctor before the last one that was the case (or so I heard from his daughter - she might be lying of course). My last Dr. was a long time Big Medicine employee so presumably that circumstance wasn't his only reason and his objection to Obamacare's onerous features are unfortunately rumor, since I didn't get to know him long enough - though he's interested in bee keeping so he may turn up here someday.
Those things said, Obamacare has a well documented problem with doctors - presuming it works even partially as advertised, it will expand demand while the supply of physicians is not increasing. Do I need to spell out what happens then?
Nevertheless, the fact remains that I do not have a Dr. Since I now live under our dear Leader's health umbrella I see no reason why He should escape all blame - not that I'm disloyal or anything. ALL HAIL THE PRESIDENT! May peace be upon him.


It sickens me. And a lot of others too!


I don't recall Obama ever saying anyone's healthcare was going to be 'free' - and for those in need, there is assistance, but of course it requires those people to seek it.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia!" Too bad I'm so resistant to propaganda and the reason why is the same one as Mr. Winston Smith had - I have a functioning memory and not everything goes down the memory hole.
Once upon a time before an election long long ago (the last one to be precise) our Dear Leader got elected and without doubt quite a few voted for him because they thought healthcare for them would be free.
I recall hearing that in person and seeing it on news from other places in Obamaland.


I have to wonder if the folks SamF is referencing have done so.
Don't blame me. Blame the Obamacare website - it had a page that said: Where can I get free or low cost care in my community? Of course that page is long gone down the memory hole. Fortunately, some thoughtful fellow did a screen shot that you can see here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread973840/pg1

But it's all more of Emmanuel Goldstein's lies... LIES LIES LIES!


Our state legislature has followed the lead of many other states, and now allows Nurse Practitioners to practice without working with/oversight from a physician.

Yep, that's what I have. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The best and cheapest medical prescription I have ever had was from a Nurse Practitioner... but that's not the one I have now.


I think it's a mistake

Maybe but something is better than nothing.


- but it'll certainly cost (big medicine) less, at least in the short run. The result of having midlevels competing with docs? We make less - esp in primary care. The result? Many choosing early retirement. Lots of forces impacting the practice of medicine, nearly all of them negatives.

And yes, lots of Dr's are choosing early retirement in our current Obamacare environment - yes folks can blame local particulars till the cows retire - they're true enough - but the fact remains that the environment is the one created by The Party and our Dear Leader. There's no getting around it.

Sam F
06-15-2015, 11:05 AM
On that cost issue: President Obama’s claim that insurance premiums ‘will go down’

Even the fawning Washington Post can't swallow that one (in 2012).


It’s a great package, but the benefits are more extensive than what most individuals and small businesses already purchase. So that will also boost premiums, especially if you currently have a less extensive plan. A report in the June edition of Health Affairs found that “more than half of Americans who had individual insurance in 2010 were enrolled in plans that would not qualify as providing essential coverage under the rules of the exchanges in 2014.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-claim-that-insurance-premiums-will-go-down/2012/08/09/424048f2-e245-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_blog.html

Norman Bernstein
06-15-2015, 11:08 AM
SamF, the 'Dear Leader' disparagement does nothing but cheapen and discredit your arguments. If you have a valid point to make, then 'name calling' is neither necessary, it's juvenile... the sort of thing I expect to hear from a 12 year old.

You can be highly critical of Obamacare, and Obama, without having to resort to puerile name-calling. Using that kind of immature crap damages your argument... it diesn't strengthen it.

leikec
06-15-2015, 11:11 AM
SamF, the 'Dear Leader' disparagement does nothing but cheapen and discredit your arguments. If you have a valid point to make, then 'name calling' is neither necessary, it's juvenile... the sort of thing I expect to hear from a 12 year old.

You can be highly critical of Obamacare, and Obama, without having to resort to puerile name-calling. Using that kind of immature crap damages your argument... it diesn't strengthen it.

+1

Jeff C

David G
06-15-2015, 11:29 AM
SamF, the 'Dear Leader' disparagement does nothing but cheapen and discredit your arguments. If you have a valid point to make, then 'name calling' is neither necessary, it's juvenile... the sort of thing I expect to hear from a 12 year old.

You can be highly critical of Obamacare, and Obama, without having to resort to puerile name-calling. Using that kind of immature crap damages your argument... it diesn't strengthen it.

I may be fluttering too high into NeverNeverLand here, but I see such name-calling as a sign (perverted though it may be) of Sam's core goodness.

I don't engage with Sam much. I regard him as an intelligent fellow who has spend a lot of time barricading himself behind desperately and carefully created walls that allow him to nurse, and hopefully recover from, some injuries life has imparted. I think making a dent in those walls is highly unlikely, and I have enough bruises on my forehead, and kinks in my lance as it is.

But I don't see Sam as an essentially selfish, unreasonable, or bad person. And I think he's smart enough, and self-aware enough, to realize the compromised nature of the shelter he's constructed.

I think the gratuitous insults serve two purposes. First - they allow him to vent a bit. To act out in ways his careful control doesn't typically allow. Second - they are self-inflicted damage to his own arguments. His way of recognizing the precariousness of his own positions. A sort of fair-minded urge toward the softening of his normal Sophistry (which has to be wearing to attempt to maintain).

Or... maybe I've just imagined all that, and he's simply an irrational, though often articulate, dingo.

TomF
06-15-2015, 11:30 AM
...Using that kind of immature crap damages your argument... it diesn't strengthen it.It's an exaggerated version of the way many exchanges happen 'round this place though. The purpose of the exchange isn't to come to any revisions in a person's point of view - there's an a priori assumption that the other guy's entirely too (insert insult here) to see the obvious. No, the purpose is to score points, enjoy feeling superior, and rise in the esteem of your own tribe. It doesn't matter that the other tribe experiences you as a self-righteous little sh!t, because they don't matter anyway. If they mattered, they'd already be in your tribe.

The dynamic doesn't only apply to one side; I get hooked into it too. It's hard to get out of, and worse, to stay out of.

But it's also dangerous, among other things because the other side often has a really important point ... even if it's incomplete, even if a bit of "evidence" supporting it is flawed. The point is usually nested within the different values which different groups express in their priorization of issues - ya gotta find a way to listen. You probably share many of those values too, though you'd rank them differently.


Because you rank them differently, it's easy to miss when one of those values which you also hold is being eroded. That is part of why it's so important to have different views expressed.

Sam F
06-21-2015, 02:14 PM
Funny! Calling me names by saying that I "cheapen and discredit [my] arguments" by name calling, and oh by the way, not addressing any actual point. Norman, coming from you, the fellow once upon a time was outraged at his own insults, that's hilarious!

BTW, for those who don't get the reference, "memory hole", Eastasia, Winston Smith and Emmanuel Goldstein are all from Orwell's 1984. The term "Dear Leader" is from North Korea, the present day embodiment of Big Brother.

Like it or not, once one has taken over the medical establishment one can't just bask in the glow of one's glorious accomplishments - when things go wrong one, or one lies and lies and lies to bring it about, it's only fair to man up and accept the blame too.
That's obviously not happening. Our Dear Leader remains spotless and without stain... off somewhere playing golf.

David G. uh, thanks. As for my "compromised shelter"? Alas you've missed that point. Shelter? What shelter? My recent medical visit resulted in the nurse practitioner prescribing a medicine that the last time I took it landed me in the hospital with symptoms of a heart attack. Yeah now, that's professional healthcare at it's finest, isn't it? Who's going to shelter me from that? Not our Dear Leader.

TomF - keep listening but don't just do that. Consider the evidence. Don't just take what the media tells you as fact. It seldom is. Do your own research. Use your critical faculties and be skeptical. Be especially skeptical if you find something attractive to your world view - that's where everyone's blind spot is.

If anyone is tempted to address actual points - such as Obama's lies like: Free healthcare or If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, or If you like your plan you can keep your plan, or any of the myriad other lies I'll be glad to address them. But this ad hominem nonsense? I'll skip that thank you all the same.

Tootles!

bobbys
06-21-2015, 04:11 PM
SamF, the 'Dear Leader' disparagement does nothing but cheapen and discredit your arguments. If you have a valid point to make, then 'name calling' is neither necessary, it's juvenile... the sort of thing I expect to hear from a 12 year old.

You can be highly critical of Obamacare, and Obama, without having to resort to puerile name-calling. Using that kind of immature crap damages your argument... it diesn't strengthen it.
.

I read every day here some terrible insult about Bush, Palin any republican that wants to run and never heard this little lecture from youLOL