- Joined
- Sep 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,372
- Reaction score
- 2,976
If you don't mind me asking, which state is this in? I would be curious to know if the plans you can find on your state's exchange starting today are more expensive as well.
This may not be a focus of many premeds, but...
- Thread starter BlackBox
- Start date
If you don't mind me asking, which state is this in? I would be curious to know if the plans you can find on your state's exchange starting today are more expensive as well.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,919
- Reaction score
- 578
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
No worries. I'll definitely check it out.
- Joined
- May 24, 2013
- Messages
- 485
- Reaction score
- 86
1. And I'm sure many of them are still wondering what on earth Chief Justice Roberts was thinking.
LOLOL I know right! I agree, the SCOTUS has been morally questionable (in hindsight) at times. I guess my point was that I have difficulty seeing how ACA is violating the Constitution. 😕
2. You openly admit that greater demand will lead to rising health care prices, then for some reason disregard this as it is not currently the main driver of rising prices. First of all, that assessment is applicable to the current situation. How is that relevant to the effect ACA will have on health care costs? Secondly, if as you admit costs are expected to rise, why was the legislation shopped as an important and necessary solution to the problem of rising health care costs?
I still need to think through this more. I think the economics of this are beyond my level of comprehension. But let me try to show you what I'm thinking in my head.
3. I was going off of the GOP's website. I'm hesitant to trust the figures from the National Review. Yes, I realize the irony of trusting GOP website over an ultra-conservative mag. :
Premiums For Families Will Increase By $2,100 As A Result Of ObamaCare. "Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law." (Douglas W. Elmendorf, CBO Director, Letter To Senator Evan Bayh, 11/30/09)
Premiums Plus Out-Of-Pocket Costs Are Expected To Increase By 12.4 Percent In 2011. "In 2011, the combined average of premium and out-of-pocket costs for health care coverage for an employee is projected to climb to $4,386, according to an annual study by Hewitt Associates to be released this week. That's a 12.4 percent increase, or $486, over this year." (Bruce Jaspen, "Higher Health Care Bills Ahead," Chicago Tribune, 9/27/10)
Much less dire than 24% or even 100%. Anyways, my main point was that the increase in premiums will eventually reflect in lower healthcare prices for everyone since hospitals will no longer have to pass on the cost of uninsured patients to people who ARE insured. (Or at least this cost will be dramatically reduced.)
4. This doesn't seem to equate to the empyrean health care wonderland you learned about in your introductory sociology class, but it's been awhile since I took one so maybe you could edify me.
Instead of looking at the details, I had a broader picture in mind. Yes, insurance companies need to change their policies to adjust to ACA. Yes, some people will disagree with these changes. Some may even be hurt by these changes. But I believe overall that more equal access to healthcare to everyone will make for a healthier American as a whole. Although the following link is about income inequality, I also believe that access to healthcare is inextricably linked to income inequality. http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/physical-health Basically, poorer people have worse health, which promotes more income inequality since if you get sick you are basically screwed. Meanwhile, the rich remain rich (and healthy) and the poor get sicker (and poorer.) I believe that one of the reasons for the widening income inequality in America and around the world.
5. It's misleading to claim the ACA only raises taxes in that circumstance because there is a litany of taxes levied under the act that will affect just about everyone directly or indirectly.
I'll concede this point. So yes, ACA does raise taxes. I still think that ACA's eventual cost savings will more than make up for the tax increases however.
6. "We already owe a ton of money, running up some more debt won't make a difference." Okay I'll play ball, I do dimly appreciate the nuances of fiscal policy. Let's put it this way, based on the evidence, I have some pretty serious reservations as to the expansionary nature of the proposed deficit spending, and even more about its implications in terms of our long-term debt-to-GDP ratio dynamics. But my short answer to this point is: spoken like someone who's never balanced a checkbook.
I understand your concerns about the deficit. And I, too, have reservations. I just feel like saying, "Obamacare will push us over the edge!" is an overstatement and a scare tactic. We have been in a deficit for a long time and it won't "blow up" because of Obamacare. And forgive me for my ignorance but I don't understand your point about me having never balanced a checkbook. What does that have to do with the federal deficit? 😕
This discussion is super interesting. Plz, more interview fodder! Thanks to the OP for bringing this up. 👍
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 48
It's in California. The plans made available to us on the exchange are nearly double for the same type of coverage. And this is for 2 completely healthy adults in their late 20s with no pre existing conditions.
- Joined
- May 24, 2013
- Messages
- 8,463
- Reaction score
- 13,775
I went to get a quote from the health care website, and it's broken. I chuckled.
Apparently Obama said, "In the first week, first month, first three months, I would suspect that there will be glitches"
There'd better not still be any huge glitches three months from now, cause then it's 2014 and I don't have my mandatory insurance. 😛
Apparently Obama said, "In the first week, first month, first three months, I would suspect that there will be glitches"
There'd better not still be any huge glitches three months from now, cause then it's 2014 and I don't have my mandatory insurance. 😛
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 48
I should also note that in addition to premiums going up on all comparable available plans, out of pocket costs have also gone up. Things like copays, medication costs, etc are all significantly more expensive on the new plans as well. Where is the "affordable" part of this?
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,919
- Reaction score
- 578
If your location info is correct, you are in South Texas. Since Texas has some of the highest percentages of uninsured in the country, they have hospital districts that have taxing authority. It will be interesting to see if these districts will lower their ad valorem rates after their revenue increases from the increasing numbers of insured patients. Perhaps they will instead invest in infrastructure?
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 7,914
- Reaction score
- 1,075
Really? cause I'm also a Cali resident in late 20s with no pre existing conditions and the options available to me are quite awesome. I didn't expect them to have the provider I had when I was still under my parent's insurance with the same insanely cheap copays and all. I love it. Now its just a matter of figuring out what my job will do. Perhaps its based on income? I don't know but I love my options.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 48
Maybe it's because I'm married? Not sure why. I just know right now we pay about 220 with 40 dollar copays and 15 dollars for medications. The new plans available with similar deductibles and other coverage are all around $400, with $60 ish copays and 30-35 for medications. It hurts the wallet.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 7,914
- Reaction score
- 1,075
That's probably the reason, I'm a single guy that is super broke (just did a one year run with medi-cal just to get the gist of how broke I am) So it probably is very different for you. Sorry to hear that your rates are going up, but it probably isn't the same across the board. At least I hope it isn't.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 23
There is a disagreement in the formulation due to a glitch that is currently being resolved. Also, credits are not being adequately added to the packets, so be patient. In-person assistance will more than likely answer any doubt or question you might have.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 480
I work in a prison, so ACA doesn't affect my patients/clients/inmates at this point in their lives. However, my husband works in a clinic that primarily treats medicare patients. The copays have increased to $60 per visit in the last few months, which is funny to me because the amount an office receives per visit from insurance was about that at the last regular office I worked at.
The PAC insurance, which is the worst form of insurance you can get in our state, pays for only primary care visits. It will pay for MRIs but requires those to be ordered by specialists, which it doesn't pay for. Many specialists don't take payments because they've been stiffed so many times and only take insurance. So, for a PAC covered patient to get an MRI is pretty much impossible unless their primary care orders it and they pay cash for the test. That frustrates me.
I'm not sure yet what type of insurance is in the exchanges, but I expect with the statements I've heard so far about paying more money for less comprehensive insurance that this is the direction things are going in.
As a provider, I'm curious to see what the insurances are paying us. Offices in my area limit the insurances they are willing to take based on whether they can pay their bills with what the insurance pays per patient. Honestly, if you're losing money when you see a patient there's little point in it. I'm not all about money. I believe every provider should have some "charity" cases or do some volunteer work. However, we have to turn a profit. An office is a business.
The PAC insurance, which is the worst form of insurance you can get in our state, pays for only primary care visits. It will pay for MRIs but requires those to be ordered by specialists, which it doesn't pay for. Many specialists don't take payments because they've been stiffed so many times and only take insurance. So, for a PAC covered patient to get an MRI is pretty much impossible unless their primary care orders it and they pay cash for the test. That frustrates me.
I'm not sure yet what type of insurance is in the exchanges, but I expect with the statements I've heard so far about paying more money for less comprehensive insurance that this is the direction things are going in.
As a provider, I'm curious to see what the insurances are paying us. Offices in my area limit the insurances they are willing to take based on whether they can pay their bills with what the insurance pays per patient. Honestly, if you're losing money when you see a patient there's little point in it. I'm not all about money. I believe every provider should have some "charity" cases or do some volunteer work. However, we have to turn a profit. An office is a business.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 314
Ok, let me address some points about young, healthy people who buy insurance on the exchanges. There has been a lot of rhetoric about this recently. First of all, this is a fairly small amount of people. Most people will either get insurance from their employer, or stay on their parents' plan until 26. Second, some people will see an increase in their premiums for many reasons. This is because the standards are now higher and companies have to provide certain benefits, which will be better for the beneficiary. Many people will also qualify for subsidies to help them pay for premiums if you make up to 4x the federal poverty level. For a family of 2, this is over $60,000. You have to factor this into the real cost of your premium - it gets paid directly to your insurer. Data shows that young people do value health insurance, the question will be cost. The vast majority of young people will be able to find affordable coverage.
The way that insurance markets work is that you have a broad risk pool where basically the healthy people subsidize the sick people. Thats just the way it has to be. We need more healthy people in the pool. It doesn't have to be everyone, but it needs to be more than it is now. Also keep in mind that this is the same way that employer sponsored insurance works, which everyone seems to be so in love with. My insurance costs me and my wife $250/week (my employers pay a big portion). Why so high you ask? I haven't been to the doctor at all since I've worked here. The premium is high because I'm subsidizing other sick people with chronic health conditions, but we all get charged the same premium.
Also keep in mind that real wages have not been rising at all in recent years. Thats because the cost of insurance for employers keeps going up and up and that comes out of wages. Also, since healthcare costs keep rising, premiums will keep rising regardless of the ACA. We've seen a recent slowdown in the growth of health spending probably because of the recession, but it still keeps going up.
The real purpose of the ACA was not to make insurance really cheap for 27 year old people who don't need it much. It was to increase access to people who need it most. It does a great job of this. In basically all democratic states, anyone at 133% of poverty or below will get medicaid. The sad thing is, since republican states are refusing to expand medicaid, the neediest people in their states will get NO help, while people like me who make comfortable incomes will be eligible for subsidies. Where do most of the uninsured people live? Texas and Florida, surprise, surprise - republican states. Further, federal payments to states for safety net hospitals are going away, because everyone thought that people who use the ER as a primary care setting would stop since they could get medicaid. Now in some states thats not true, poor patients will continue to come to the ER, and those hospitals like Grady in Atlanta will get NOTHING. Also let me add - the fed is paying for basically ALL of the medicaid expansion. 100% in the near term and 90% forever after that. States CAN afford it. Find a way, its worth it.
To clear up a couple other points - the CBO estimates that the ACA will decrease the federal deficit by $100-200 billion over the next 10 years. Maybe you don't believe the CBO, fine. I definitely don't believe the Heritage Foundation and I don't think anyone believes Americans for Prosperity (tea party). The CBO is the best we've got. Oh, and many many other non-partisan economists who agree.
Also, if you get insurance from your employer, you aren't eligible to get it on the exchanges unless your employer's plan is deemed unaffordable. I think this applies if it costs at least 10% of your income.
The way that insurance markets work is that you have a broad risk pool where basically the healthy people subsidize the sick people. Thats just the way it has to be. We need more healthy people in the pool. It doesn't have to be everyone, but it needs to be more than it is now. Also keep in mind that this is the same way that employer sponsored insurance works, which everyone seems to be so in love with. My insurance costs me and my wife $250/week (my employers pay a big portion). Why so high you ask? I haven't been to the doctor at all since I've worked here. The premium is high because I'm subsidizing other sick people with chronic health conditions, but we all get charged the same premium.
Also keep in mind that real wages have not been rising at all in recent years. Thats because the cost of insurance for employers keeps going up and up and that comes out of wages. Also, since healthcare costs keep rising, premiums will keep rising regardless of the ACA. We've seen a recent slowdown in the growth of health spending probably because of the recession, but it still keeps going up.
The real purpose of the ACA was not to make insurance really cheap for 27 year old people who don't need it much. It was to increase access to people who need it most. It does a great job of this. In basically all democratic states, anyone at 133% of poverty or below will get medicaid. The sad thing is, since republican states are refusing to expand medicaid, the neediest people in their states will get NO help, while people like me who make comfortable incomes will be eligible for subsidies. Where do most of the uninsured people live? Texas and Florida, surprise, surprise - republican states. Further, federal payments to states for safety net hospitals are going away, because everyone thought that people who use the ER as a primary care setting would stop since they could get medicaid. Now in some states thats not true, poor patients will continue to come to the ER, and those hospitals like Grady in Atlanta will get NOTHING. Also let me add - the fed is paying for basically ALL of the medicaid expansion. 100% in the near term and 90% forever after that. States CAN afford it. Find a way, its worth it.
To clear up a couple other points - the CBO estimates that the ACA will decrease the federal deficit by $100-200 billion over the next 10 years. Maybe you don't believe the CBO, fine. I definitely don't believe the Heritage Foundation and I don't think anyone believes Americans for Prosperity (tea party). The CBO is the best we've got. Oh, and many many other non-partisan economists who agree.
Also, if you get insurance from your employer, you aren't eligible to get it on the exchanges unless your employer's plan is deemed unaffordable. I think this applies if it costs at least 10% of your income.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm not going to argue with you. I guess I got to use the ignore button for the first time.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
What? In what universe could any rational human being view that post as an attempt to initiate an argument?
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 314
Sorry. Just realized nowhere in my post did I mention the actual debt limit. Theres no real logic to whats happening right now. The ACA has absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling or the federal deficit, in fact its projected to reduce the deficit.
Whats happening right now is Ted Cruz trying to get the tea party nomination for president in 2016. He has taken the entire country and the world economy hostage just so he can look like the bestest conservative out there. He should be criminally prosecuted, because while he and the republicans throw a temper tantrum, cancer patients are being denied clinical trials at the NIH. If I ever see him on the streets, I will hit him over the head with a hardback version of Green Eggs and Ham.
Americans wanted health reform, and we got it. It passed both houses of congress and was upheld (mostly) by the supreme court. The country is so polarized about it because they don't have a clue what the law actually says. Millions think that death panels are real, and the the ACA was overturned by the supreme court - and who can blame them? Republicans have obstructed and lied to Americans about whats in the law for the last 3 years, despite it actually being THEIR IDEA.
Sorry - I am very passionate about healthcare...feel free to skip over my posts.
Whats happening right now is Ted Cruz trying to get the tea party nomination for president in 2016. He has taken the entire country and the world economy hostage just so he can look like the bestest conservative out there. He should be criminally prosecuted, because while he and the republicans throw a temper tantrum, cancer patients are being denied clinical trials at the NIH. If I ever see him on the streets, I will hit him over the head with a hardback version of Green Eggs and Ham.
Americans wanted health reform, and we got it. It passed both houses of congress and was upheld (mostly) by the supreme court. The country is so polarized about it because they don't have a clue what the law actually says. Millions think that death panels are real, and the the ACA was overturned by the supreme court - and who can blame them? Republicans have obstructed and lied to Americans about whats in the law for the last 3 years, despite it actually being THEIR IDEA.
Sorry - I am very passionate about healthcare...feel free to skip over my posts.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
Before you put too much stock in yet another Team O projection, remember what they told us about the stimulus:
I do think the shutdown is a tactic doomed to fail, and hurt the GOP in the process. And you're right, it has been very good for Cruz's brand. However, it has also helped to put the ACA directly in the spotlight of public scrutiny, at the exact moment that average people's concerns are mounting. Although I disagree with the tactical decision to pursue defund, if there is a possibility it helps achieve the strategic goal of reversing this law, then that is welcome. However, realistically I don't think ACA can be stopped until the GOP recaptures the Senate (and probably the White House), the chances of which this effort will likely hurt.
I find it very puzzling that you think the political will of the American people in 2010 is somehow more legitimate than their will today. Do you really not understand that many Republicans on Capitol Hill are there doing precisely what they promised their constituents they would do if elected? I don't see the logic behind your hand-waving about the clear majority of public support now aligned against Obamacare simply stemming from "not having a clue". When liberal Democrats passed the law, Pelosi even told us the plan was to pass it first, read it later. I think it's rather elitist to assume that just because people disagree with the law they must be misunderstanding it. There are grave, legitimate concerns here and it simply isn't ethical to wave them aside because you think Republicans are unintelligent or uninformed.
Moreover, I want to address a point that's commonly raised - the lack of a Republican alternative to the ACA. I think this point gets more mileage than it deserves. If a disaster is impending, the necessary alternative is to avert the disaster. Healthcare reform is a serious problem that looms as a long-term threat to the prosperity and solvency of our country. The ACA is an immediate crisis that must be prevented as swiftly as possible. This liberal demand for an "alternative" is really just a delay tactic they hope will keep Republicans off-balance for long enough for their new entitlement to become deeply entrenched.
Brief aside, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation came up with the individual mandate concept. This was at a time when liberals were pushing hard for single-payer (their ultimate goal), and the idea later seemed to gain traction as an alternative to Hillarycare (although it predates it by a few years). But it was certainly never a cornerstone of conservative dogma, as it seems you are trying to portray it.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2,595
- Reaction score
- 1,293
I don't understand your criticism here regarding ACA projections. Comparing them to the effect of stimulus on unemployment is apples to oranges. If your point is that projections may not predict the future performance well then you are right. But, it doesn't mean Obama projections are somehow more fallible than Republican projections. That said financial projections have been and, IMO, should be used as one of the few tools to analyze economic policy and evaluate different proposals.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,365
- Reaction score
- 165
Sigh. Debate fail. You can't make statements like that without backing them up.
My points to recap:
The most important part of ACA, the ability for uninsured people to buy affordable health care, started 2 hours ago.
This is true. Everyone with a brain can see the most important part of the ACA is getting uninsured people insured. The exchanges opened Oct. 1. Coverage starts Jan 1st.
The sequestration is not part of the ACA, that was the result of the failure of Congress to come up with a budget, part of an unrelated Tea Party tantrum.
True. Sequestration happened because Tea Party Republicans pushed the Republican leadership to threaten not to raise the debt ceiling, the equivalent of not paying credit card bills because you realized in retrospect, you spent too much. But what to do? You've already rocked those designer handbags and chowed down on those expensive dinners--real adults pay for their mistakes. Because Obama feared that they might be crazy enough to follow through, the two parties agreed to go into sequestration if they couldn't work out a budget, the thought being that sequestration was so terrible that compromise was inevitable. The supercommittee failed to come to compromise, and whomp whomp, thus the sequester was born.
Cannot believe we went the greater part of a year without a real budget!
Also true. Continuing resolutions are not real budgets. They are short term solutions designed to delay real decisionmaking, and thye put government agencies and those who work with government into extreme instability because they can't plan a fiscal year. Organizations can't function like that. People's lives are being hurt by this.
My point about the exchanges is that the existence of the exchanges will not affect premiums of people not in exchanges. Premiums may go up for other reasons both related and unrelated to ACA, but they have nothing to do with the fact that other unrelated people are buying coverage in a separate unrelated health plan. Just because a plan is run by the same insurance company doesn't mean it's related. Many Medicaid plans are run by private insurance companies, and that has no effect on the premiums of the private plans these companies are running.
Individual people may experience rises in premiums. Some of this is because premiums are rising period. Some of this is because people had skimpy health insurance plans that for example did not cover things like maternity care or had very low lifetime/annual limits. Some of this is because young people are paying more to subsidize older people because of rules the ACA has about differences in cost based on age. None of this is because Jo Schmo the next town over is buying health insurance. Therefore, please do not be mad at Jo Schmo and try to interfere with his ability to protect himself/his family 🙂 . The average person is not going to experience significant rises in their premiums due to Obamacare, factoring in subsidies, and these subsidies target middle income people so many many people are going to be affected. Also anecdotally, a lot of the people who are losing their insurance because it does not comply with ACA seem not to be getting it through large employers but through individual market, wonder if that has anything to do with it?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,365
- Reaction score
- 165
This is the worst part. Apparently now any fool can be elected to Congress. This is the junior senator from Texas. He had not even been in Congress for 6 months when he started running for president. He hasn't yet celebrated his 1 year anniversary on the Hill. What f*ckery is this? Instead of pulling these stunts he should be learning to be a productive Senator, be coming up with new policy ideas and passing good legislation, and building bridges so he can gain respect from his peers. And his followers in the House are just who you'd expect: people still asking Obama for his birth certificate, people who don't believe in international economists and think "raising a family" makes them just as qualified to understand the debt ceiling (seriously), people representing districts that don't have anything resembling a city in them and therefore have no constituents that will question what impact their actions will have on financial markets. There should be some minimal bar of intellectual ability and capacity for thoughtful discourse to serve in Congress.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 314
Bluelabel, let me first say that you know I love you. I knew you were gonna get upset about my position, but hopefully we can still be friends. I'm not saying that Americans are dumb, or they they don't have real concerns about the law. I'm just saying that polls show that most people don't understand the law. The Obama administration could do a better job at education, but the tea party is making that really really hard.
Lets say I ask you whether you think a PB&J sandwich is tasty, and you say no, those are gross. Then I say what part don't you like about it? You respond, well, I don't like having to grind up the beef and make it into patties and then I have to go buy a gas grill which I don't want to do. See the problem here? Thats whats happening with public opinion over Obamacare.
All the experts have read the law, and they all agree that it could work if implemented as intended. Its just Romneycare, its already working and people love it. I don't know why republicans didn't just say, hey we won!! Look at those darn liberals using our idea! Game over. Instead, they chose to wage war for no good reason. I think republicans should have a good alternative, and they don't because another one doesn't exist unless you actually go more progressive than the ACA, more towards single payer. Any other legit alternative will just basically look the same as the ACA anyways. I can address specific republican ideas if you want, but most of them are just piecemeal and don't make sense. The fact that this was a republican idea just goes to show that their real objective is just to obstruct. Oh, liberals want single payer, ok lets quick push Romneycare! Oh, liberals actually want Romneycare, lets repeal it even no we have no other ideas!
And one more point about our elected officials. Americans re-elected Obama, and it wasn't as close as everyone tried to make us think it was going to be. Americans want to move forward, not backward. We'll fix and make tweaks as needed, but most people do not want a repeal. The fact that there are congressman who are able to pull this crap reflects the outcome of gerrymandered districts and the creation of these extremist, militant, insulated conservative groups. They are acting out of fear that the tea party will destroy their careers, not out of interest of ordinary Americans.
Lets say I ask you whether you think a PB&J sandwich is tasty, and you say no, those are gross. Then I say what part don't you like about it? You respond, well, I don't like having to grind up the beef and make it into patties and then I have to go buy a gas grill which I don't want to do. See the problem here? Thats whats happening with public opinion over Obamacare.
All the experts have read the law, and they all agree that it could work if implemented as intended. Its just Romneycare, its already working and people love it. I don't know why republicans didn't just say, hey we won!! Look at those darn liberals using our idea! Game over. Instead, they chose to wage war for no good reason. I think republicans should have a good alternative, and they don't because another one doesn't exist unless you actually go more progressive than the ACA, more towards single payer. Any other legit alternative will just basically look the same as the ACA anyways. I can address specific republican ideas if you want, but most of them are just piecemeal and don't make sense. The fact that this was a republican idea just goes to show that their real objective is just to obstruct. Oh, liberals want single payer, ok lets quick push Romneycare! Oh, liberals actually want Romneycare, lets repeal it even no we have no other ideas!
And one more point about our elected officials. Americans re-elected Obama, and it wasn't as close as everyone tried to make us think it was going to be. Americans want to move forward, not backward. We'll fix and make tweaks as needed, but most people do not want a repeal. The fact that there are congressman who are able to pull this crap reflects the outcome of gerrymandered districts and the creation of these extremist, militant, insulated conservative groups. They are acting out of fear that the tea party will destroy their careers, not out of interest of ordinary Americans.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,919
- Reaction score
- 578
Before you put too much stock in yet another Team O projection, remember what they told us about the stimulus:
The Blaze?! Are you a Glenn Beck fan? omg. Are you aware that the chart you posted uses numbers from an ad hoc committee thrown together to try to formulate policy before the President was sworn in, as part of his transition team? It was an economic emergency. The situation called for quick action. The magnitude of the economic collapse was only clear later on that year. What you just did here is intellectually dishonest. Something Glenn Beck does every day. He would be proud of you.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,919
- Reaction score
- 578
This one quote from today, sums up this entire sad exercise in dysfunctional government:
"We're not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
-- Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), quoted by the Washington Examiner, on the government shutdown.
"We're not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
-- Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), quoted by the Washington Examiner, on the government shutdown.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
Tony, I'm not upset or mad at all. I enjoy the opportunity to have a constructive debate. Of course we're still pals, say hi to Eliot Spitzer for me next time ya'll hang out.
I guess I'm just a little surprised that you see no reasons - other than cynical ones - that conservatives might oppose ACA. However, there some are people in the party, like Cruz, who are using this opportunity in a very cynical way.
The gerrymandering accusation is popular and has some truth to it. But your real enemy is not gerrymandering, but the single member voting district paradigm. You're ignoring structural advantages enjoyed by the GOP that have more to do with the natural partisan geography than with Gerrymandering. Part of this has to do with the concentration of Democratic voters in larger cities and counties. The overall higher vote tally for Democrats can be explained by the fact that they won by generous margins in heavily populated, majority Democrat urban districts.
As a comparative point, in that election Obama won 62% of the electoral votes while winning only 22% of counties. So looked at from this perspective, maybe his reelection isn't quite as legitimate as you imagine? (I don't really think his election was illegitimate, just making an illustrative point)
The graphic is from the Washington Post, genius. The Blaze just happened to be the first website hosting it when I did a Google Image Search for the picture. To you and the other poster that criticized me for interpolating it, all I was trying to say is that this sort of forecasting is routinely off-target, and consistently in the same direction. Salesmen will say what they have to say to get your signature on the dotted line.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 1,553
Anyone else see the irony in BlueLabel sarcastically calling Plumazul a genius when she is 19 and has a dozen interviews for MSTP programs....?
Keep fighting the good fight plum.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
Irrelevant to the topic at hand. She made a dismissive, unfair, and untrue accusation. I think she earned a little sarcasm. Of course, such success in the application process is an impressive accomplishment, but what difference does that make to this discussion?
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 314
19?? Is that even possible? Good heavens.
Bluelabel, I see your point about districts. Seems like many conservative ones are becoming more and more insulated these days.
I guess I just don't know what the conservative concerns are about the law that would merit them to want to repeal it so badly. Most of what needs to be fixed from my point of view is just tweaking certain things to make it stronger overall. For example, we could raise the individual mandate penalty so that healthy people wouldn't be incentivized to just pay the penalty and not buy insurance. I realize that conservatives have reservations about making people buy insurance, but this is just more of an ideological difference in opinion, not something that we know wouldn't work. It would work just fine. Citizens are mandated to do plenty of things in life. We have to get more people in the insurance pool, and a mandate is the only way to do it.
I'm not trying to be cynical, I'm just pointing out that the conservative "concerns" from my point of view either just don't make sense or are differences in political philosophy - in which case you cast your vote and move on to fight another day.
Bluelabel, I see your point about districts. Seems like many conservative ones are becoming more and more insulated these days.
I guess I just don't know what the conservative concerns are about the law that would merit them to want to repeal it so badly. Most of what needs to be fixed from my point of view is just tweaking certain things to make it stronger overall. For example, we could raise the individual mandate penalty so that healthy people wouldn't be incentivized to just pay the penalty and not buy insurance. I realize that conservatives have reservations about making people buy insurance, but this is just more of an ideological difference in opinion, not something that we know wouldn't work. It would work just fine. Citizens are mandated to do plenty of things in life. We have to get more people in the insurance pool, and a mandate is the only way to do it.
I'm not trying to be cynical, I'm just pointing out that the conservative "concerns" from my point of view either just don't make sense or are differences in political philosophy - in which case you cast your vote and move on to fight another day.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 1,553
The whole issue at hand is the gerrymandering though. Democrats haven't been paying nearly enough attention to state and local politics and have allowed the Republicans to control both houses and often the governorship as well in multiple states (leading to a super-majority that I currently am living under in my state).
The Republicans have chosen at the state level through their State Senates and State Houses of Representatives to re-district and gerrymander districts in order to keep the Federal House of Representatives in Republican control. The reason they've done this is because they see demographic shifts in this country are not playing in their favor. You cannot ostracize 15% of the country by calling them all illegal, border-hoppers and think you are going to be able to remain popular on a broad scale.
So instead of trying to change and evolve their views and re-package fiscal conservatism (which in itself is a very popular ideal that resonates with a lot of the electorate), they choose to pander to the far right and gerrymander districts so that they can play obstructionist rather than governance. The Representatives from these deep red districts have 0 fear when it comes to shutting down the government or flying off the fiscal cliff because the only thing that can remove them from office is a MORE conservative candidate.
Short story: as long as the Tea Party holds the Republicans hostage and the Republicans hold the House of Representatives hostage...we're all screwed.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
In the absence of redistricting in 2012, the difference between the number of seats republicans won and the actual total would have been no more than 7. In other words, they would nevertheless have retained a solid majority.
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/14...rity-of-the-vote-and-a-minority-of-the-seats/
There is clear and convincing evidence that gerrymandering is not the sole force at work in this phenomenon, and ample evidence to suggest that it is not the driving factor. It is widely understood among political scientists that electing the House by single member voting districts disadvantages Democrats because of the way they are geographically concentrated. I encourage you to read through this link and the one I posted previously.
Democrats " waste votes on huge margins [in cities], when the party could put many of those votes to better use in marginal seats."
"Even under the most generous assumptions, redistricting explains less than half the gap between vote share and seat share this election cycle."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/gerrymandering-not-big-deal-you-think
"Bottom line: gerrymandering isn't nothing, but it's not a game changer. It's not the real story here" (And this is from Kevin Drum! Writing in the left-wing rag, Mother Jones! No ridiculous accusations of Glen Beck fanboyism this time, okay?)
A question I'd pose to you is, if Republicans are so unpopular (they aren't), why do they control 29 governor's mansions, and 67% of all state legislative chambers, which gives them the ability to gerrymander in the first place? Furthermore, every time this argument comes up, the sore losers always cry foul. Then as soon as they're in power again, they use the exact same tactics. Same argument applies in reverse to cloture and the filibuster. Your beloved white knights of liberal progress in Illinois worked their tails off in 2012 to draw the map in that state as favorably as possible for their party, and to great success.
I'd call this argument facile, but I can only assume you'd mention your age and how many interviews you've gotten as a QED.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
In a post of mine on the first page I posted a list of several hundred companies, government departments, and other institutions that have either fired workers, reduced their hours, or tweaked their benefits to avoid taxation under the act. Not only is the ACA directly resulting in reduced pay and unemployment for thousands of workers, we also have to consider the economic impact this could have on overall growth and productivity, and to be honest, it seems contractionary. Not a good move in the middle of a weak recovery. This presents a powerful reason in my eyes to repeal the act.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 314
At the same time, the US has seen an overall rise in full-time employment recently. I acknowledge that some businesses have been cutting hours and reducing benefits, but these things have been happening already. Basically, full time employment is rising faster than part time employment, which follows the normal pattern of part-time rising during a recession and declining during recovery. Certain workers are effected by this, but its not as widespread as many feared it would be.
The greater issue is that insurance costs so damn much because healthcare costs are ever-growing. This leads to employees cost-sharing more of their premiums, and less of a rise in wages. Wages have been stagnant forever. If we can reduce the cost of care and improve quality, we will create a healthier and more productive workforce and a more robust economy. The ACA creates a lot of ideas of how to do this - for example expanding medicaid which reduces the cost of care for the people who tend to drive up costs the most. ACA also creates the idea for Accountable Care Organizations for medicare patients which a lot of healthcare systems are now implementing with great success (meaning lower cost, improved quality, and better patient centered care).
The greater issue is that insurance costs so damn much because healthcare costs are ever-growing. This leads to employees cost-sharing more of their premiums, and less of a rise in wages. Wages have been stagnant forever. If we can reduce the cost of care and improve quality, we will create a healthier and more productive workforce and a more robust economy. The ACA creates a lot of ideas of how to do this - for example expanding medicaid which reduces the cost of care for the people who tend to drive up costs the most. ACA also creates the idea for Accountable Care Organizations for medicare patients which a lot of healthcare systems are now implementing with great success (meaning lower cost, improved quality, and better patient centered care).
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
We have seen a rise in the percentage of full-time employment, but this is occurring due to declining labor force participation and while the actual number of workers is stagnating.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...americans-arent-getting-jobs-theyre-retiring/
The last link has some excellent illustrative graphs while the first two have BLS data directly. If the LFPR held at its pre-recession peak, unemployment would currently be at 12%. So that argument's a non-starter.
I agree with you on the long-term trends you're pointing out leading to rising health care costs. My contention is that the ACA presents an immediate contractionary burden on the economy as a whole, while it puts people out of work, results in higher premiums, and forces networks to drop physicians giving patients fewer options. It isn't clear whether the proposals contained within the ACA to curb health care spending will be sufficient to offset these negative effects.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 1,553
Nice jab at the end
and I won't mention my age cause I'm a bit older than most of you folk on here 😳 although my 15 IIs do feel pretty good 🙄Republicans aren't unpopular everywhere, but one of the phenomenons that political scientists have been witnessing for decades now is that Democrats are TERRIBLE at showing up for mid-term and off season elections, which is when many state senate and house rep elections are. Look at the data over the years and you can see that the Dems do a great job of getting the vote out every 4 years, but then they go into hibernation mode; however, the Republicans have steady turn out for almost every election. This is because for a long time the Republican base has been unified where the Dems have been divided (Blue Dog Dems, Socialists, Cultural liberals, etc.).
This in no way is to say that the Republicans don't deserve those seats because they do, but rather this is an explanation for how a political party that has fallen out of favor with many centrists (and a large majority of the general population) maintains many state houses and governor mansions.
I think that many Republican ideals and beliefs have merit and can definitely be articulated to the public in a manner to attract centrists, but at present time the party is pandering to their far right supporters who want to hear hate speech, government obstructionism, and "freedom" as much as possible. The Republican party of the '80s would be welcomed with open arms by the majority of the country at this point because we do NEED fiscal intelligence and smaller government to survive as a country at this point. The problem is simply presentation of these ideals.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 314
I agree, however I think this stunt will really hurt the GOP in the long term, I just don't see them getting out unscathed. If this does work for them, and the tea party gets the president to back down, this tactic will be used over and over in the future by both parties, and it will be catastrophic for our country. Our democracy is truly at stake.
In the end, we don't know exactly how the ACA will pan out. We'll be a whole lot smarter in the coming months. I'm of the camp that the ACA will boost our economy in the long term by not making us spend so much on healthcare when the focus should be investing in education, infrastructure, research, and many other important issues falling to the wayside. Patients who desperately need care and can't afford it or are straight up denied will find relief. Workers can now take that other job or just simply retire without fear that they will lose coverage. Premiums may rise for some, but most will find affordable coverage at a baseline level of quality and will have help to pay for it. I'd like for the ACA to have a fair shot, and it probably will once the craziness dies down in a few months.
I'm tired. So. Much. Debating. Good night and good luck.
In the end, we don't know exactly how the ACA will pan out. We'll be a whole lot smarter in the coming months. I'm of the camp that the ACA will boost our economy in the long term by not making us spend so much on healthcare when the focus should be investing in education, infrastructure, research, and many other important issues falling to the wayside. Patients who desperately need care and can't afford it or are straight up denied will find relief. Workers can now take that other job or just simply retire without fear that they will lose coverage. Premiums may rise for some, but most will find affordable coverage at a baseline level of quality and will have help to pay for it. I'd like for the ACA to have a fair shot, and it probably will once the craziness dies down in a few months.
I'm tired. So. Much. Debating. Good night and good luck.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
We will see. Though I'm sure we will both agree that the absolute worst thing that could happen right now is a failure to raise the debt ceiling.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
I think there's a lot of misinformation about the ACA in general.. Although this video is funny, it does illustrate how terribly misinformed a portion of the general public is
http://youtu.be/sx2scvIFGjE
http://youtu.be/sx2scvIFGjE
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 764
- Reaction score
- 432
I managed to laugh through my tears of sorrow.
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,433
- Reaction score
- 813
Pres. Obama must not compromise with the Republicans on the ACA. Period.
If he does, it will start an ugly precedent that will institutionalize using the routine of increasing the debt ceiling and the risk of default as appropriate bargaining tools.
I blame Pres. Obama for starting this trend in 2010 or 2011 by attempting to attach Democratic legislation in a similar manner.
Republicans have every right to disagree and create a popular message to eventually take control of the house and get the ACA repealed. I am a liberal but I STRONGLY support the Tea Party and their efforts to repeal the ACA in a democratic fashion. A "fair" fight. I think they are wrong, but as Americans they are entitled to a fair fight. Forcing a government shutdown and possible default because Democrats will not amend a law that Republicans could not force them to do through congress is wrong and will weaken the United States.
If he does, it will start an ugly precedent that will institutionalize using the routine of increasing the debt ceiling and the risk of default as appropriate bargaining tools.
I blame Pres. Obama for starting this trend in 2010 or 2011 by attempting to attach Democratic legislation in a similar manner.
Republicans have every right to disagree and create a popular message to eventually take control of the house and get the ACA repealed. I am a liberal but I STRONGLY support the Tea Party and their efforts to repeal the ACA in a democratic fashion. A "fair" fight. I think they are wrong, but as Americans they are entitled to a fair fight. Forcing a government shutdown and possible default because Democrats will not amend a law that Republicans could not force them to do through congress is wrong and will weaken the United States.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
+1. Well-said and thoughtful.
I love this.
I had a wonderful conversation about the ACA and the government shutdown at one of my interviews and couldn't help but smile when my interviewer called Ted Cruz, Ted Idiot.
- Joined
- May 24, 2013
- Messages
- 889
- Reaction score
- 1,696
My 2 cents:
Every other developed country has universal healthcare, and their costs are half of what we pay at most. I think a lot of issues for controlling healthcare costs would be resolved if we just moved to a single payer, but that will never happen in the US because it seems the republicans agree that it's more important for people to have some extra cash in their wallets than to keep their fellow citizens alive and in good health.
Every other developed country has universal healthcare, and their costs are half of what we pay at most. I think a lot of issues for controlling healthcare costs would be resolved if we just moved to a single payer, but that will never happen in the US because it seems the republicans agree that it's more important for people to have some extra cash in their wallets than to keep their fellow citizens alive and in good health.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2,595
- Reaction score
- 1,293
Fee for service is the real problem here coupled with lack of readily available tools to evaluate hospitals for laypeople.
Also there is very little incentive for hospitals to be more competitive. Huge barriers to entry and lack of direct competition for many of them make the existence of people who provide subpar care not only commonplace but also profitable.
Similar threads
