Republicans know they're in trouble once the website problems are solved

[Jhhnn]

Why do you think that's the case?

Lashing out in denial. It's an attempt to shut off unwanted information by chasing away the messenger.

 

[dank69]

But bandaids aren't harmful so you can treat cancer with them, or so I've heard.

You've only heard it because it's a straw man that you yourself posted on at least one other occasion.

 

[dank69]

Actually its pretty much common sense.

Who has more motivation to sign up the sick/elderly or the young/healthy? By an absurdly high margin the answer is the sick/elderly. The young/healthy have virtually no motivation to sign up other than avoiding a penalty. Furthermore, for the majority of the young and healthy group the penalty is FAR cheaper than the insurance and thus will not offset the costs as if they were insured. $95 per individual or 1% of family income isn't a whole lot of money for the age group in question. Hell, even if they make really good money the penalty will be at most one or two months of what insurance would have cost them.

So what motivation do they have for signing up that even comes close to equaling the motivation the sick and elderly have?

Ah, "common sense," the battle cry of the conservative without any data to back his assertion. The tax penalties are supposed to be the motivation and/or the funding for the treatment of the uninsured.

 

[davmat787]

Obama administration was warned of the website problems ahead of time.

http://tmo.mw.cnn.com/primary/wk_ar...ng&branding=&category=cnnd_latest&pagesize=10

But...

On Capitol Hill on Monday, Medicaid Chief Marilyn Tavenner, whose job it was to oversee the October 1 rollout of the website, said she did not foresee its problems.
"No, we had tested the website and we were comfortable with its performance," she said.

 

[boomerang]

Ah, "common sense," the battle cry of the conservative without any data to back his assertion. The tax penalties are supposed to be the motivation and/or the funding for the treatment of the uninsured.

It is interesting to watch your thought processes. In a defensive move, you posed that perhaps the penalties would be used for that purpose and here you are a short time later stating it as if it's fact.

Maybe the penalties are to be used to fund the reworking of the website. There's a slim chance we might know that answer before the day is over. Of course Sebelius may just plead the fifth.

Maybe those funds will be used to pay the full cost of healthcare for Congressional Staffers? My understanding is that each member of Congress must make that decision by tomorrow on how he or she wishes their staffs to be treated.

Maybe those funds will be used to cover the cost of the kickback to Michelle Obama for retaining her BFF to do the website work? (See, it's fun to just make shit up out of thin air with no proof, isn't it?)

 

[boomerang]

wow there is alot of republican anger in these threads lately.

I'll ask again because Jhhnn decided he was going to answer for you earlier and I wasn't looking for an answer from him.

Why do you think that's the case?

 

[shortylickens]

wow there is alot of republican anger in these threads lately.

Its a brisk change of pace from the usual democrat anger over the last 10 years.

 

[pcgeek11]

What happened to this lie? Once a liar always a liar.

When President Obama’s healthcare law was winding its way through Congress back in 2009 and 2010, you heard this a lot:

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” (Via The White House)

“If you like your insurance plan, keep that.” (Via The White House)

“If you like what you’re getting keep it, no one’s forcing you to shift.” (Via The White House)

"If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.".

Now, that sales pitch sounds an awful lot like an empty promise. The Affordable Care Act is reportedly forcing millions of insured Americans off their existing plans.

CBS has confirmed as many as 2 million people have already been told they’re getting dropped. Some experts say that number could rise to 16 million.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/if-you-your-health-care-plan-can-you-keep-it/nbcCZ/

Why aren't the local Dems defending these lies as they have so many others?

 

[dank69]

It is interesting to watch your thought processes. In a defensive move, you posed that perhaps the penalties would be used for that purpose and here you are a short time later stating it as if it's fact.

Maybe the penalties are to be used to fund the reworking of the website. There's a slim chance we might know that answer before the day is over. Of course Sebelius may just plead the fifth.

Maybe those funds will be used to pay the full cost of healthcare for Congressional Staffers? My understanding is that each member of Congress must make that decision by tomorrow on how he or she wishes their staffs to be treated.

Maybe those funds will be used to cover the cost of the kickback to Michelle Obama for retaining her BFF to do the website work? (See, it's fun to just make shit up out of thin air with no proof, isn't it?)

I'm stating it as fact now because it is fact. Hospitals are reimbursed for treatment rendered to the uninsured that can't be collected. The collected penalty "taxes" add to the revenue from which these reimbursements are paid.

 

[First]

Curious if anyone (informed) knows the average annual cancellation rate of the typical individual market health insurance plan among the 16M people this affects?

 

[Svnla]

While Sebelius is testifying at a House Comittee, the website is down again = http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/politics/obamacare-sebelius/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Washington (CNN) -- She apologized for the "miserably frustrating" problems with the Obamacare website and promised it would get fixed.
But no matter what Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House committee Wednesday, her words were no match for the screen showing that HealthCare.gov was telling its users: "The system is down at the moment."

 

[schmuckley]

Hmm..That website fixed yet? :hmm:
When it gets fixed,the current administration is what's going to be in hot water.Oh wait..that snowball has already started..
Fail plan is fail..FAIL

 

[raildogg]

What happened to this lie? Once a liar always a liar.

When President Obama’s healthcare law was winding its way through Congress back in 2009 and 2010, you heard this a lot:

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” (Via The White House)

“If you like your insurance plan, keep that.” (Via The White House)

“If you like what you’re getting keep it, no one’s forcing you to shift.” (Via The White House)

"If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.".

Now, that sales pitch sounds an awful lot like an empty promise. The Affordable Care Act is reportedly forcing millions of insured Americans off their existing plans.

CBS has confirmed as many as 2 million people have already been told they’re getting dropped. Some experts say that number could rise to 16 million.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/if-you-your-health-care-plan-can-you-keep-it/nbcCZ/

Why aren't the local Dems defending these lies as they have so many others?

Yes, if you have a non-Grandfathered plan, as in if you got your insurance plan after mid-2010, your plan may be cancelled by the insurance company. The replacement plans are often more expensive.

From that quote, it is an untrue statement.

 

[EagleKeeper]

someone finally wised up and decided that some experts are needed
Link

 

[boomerang]

someone finally wised up and decided that some experts are needed
Link

So, the bill for their services is going to be split between Obama, Sebelius and every Dem that voted for the bill? Wait...the taxpayers aren't going to have to pay, are they?

 

[waggy]

someone finally wised up and decided that some experts are needed
Link

well duh! about fucking time. they should have done this from the start. Maybe now we will get some honest and realistic answers on how long it will take to fix it. 4 weeks? lol hardly. that's not going to happen.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, if you have a non-Grandfathered plan, as in if you got your insurance plan after mid-2010, your plan may be cancelled by the insurance company. The replacement plans are often more expensive.

From that quote, it is an untrue statement.

You can't confuse 'em with the truth.

 

[Fern]

Yes, if you have a non-Grandfathered plan, as in if you got your insurance plan after mid-2010, your plan may be cancelled by the insurance company. The replacement plans are often more expensive.

From that quote, it is an untrue statement.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

But Sebelius' testimony yesterday made it clear that no one (or close to it) was going to be able keep their plans. The regulations made by the Obama admin are so strict even minor changes disqualify a plan:

They pointed to HHS regulations issued in 2010 that even relatively minor changes in individual policies would force their cancellation when the law went into effect this fall. They included increasing the co-payment by more than $5 or hiking a deductible by more than 15 percent.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/10/30/1030-sebelius-testifies.html

I've heard numerous 'experts' on TV discussing HI plans. They've all claimed that historically 100% of plans can be expected to have at least some minor modifications made to them over a period of two or three years. Assuming that's true that was never any hope of existing plans remaining grandfathered but for a short period. The way the Obama admin wrote the regulations ensured that grandfathered plans would be changed out of existence at approximately the same time Obamacare took effect.

The reality has always been that you're not keeping your plan unless it conforms to Obamacare.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

The reality has always been that you're not keeping your plan unless it conforms to Obamacare.

In other words, the vast, vast majority of those with employer sponsored plans will keep their coverage, right?

And those who don't may need to upgrade to conforming plans.

It's obviously the end of the world....

 

[Fern]

In other words, the vast, vast majority of those with employer sponsored plans will keep their coverage, right?

And those who don't may need to upgrade to conforming plans.

It's obviously the end of the world....

No. I think I linked an article elsewhere here that showed the admin predicted something like half the employer sponsored plans wouldn't qualify. But I would imagine that's a hassle for the HR, not the individual as with the self-employed and small businesses. I would say it's only an issue for employees whose employer doesn't pay 100%. I.e., they may have to pay more if the new plan costs more.

In any case the employer mandate was extended for a year, so I don't know what they have to fool with for 2014.

Fern

 

[Matt1970]

No. I think I linked an article elsewhere here that showed the admin predicted something like half the employer sponsored plans wouldn't qualify. But I would imagine that's a hassle for the HR, not the individual as with the self-employed and small businesses. I would say it's only an issue for employees whose employer doesn't pay 100%. I.e., they may have to pay more if the new plan costs more.

In any case the employer mandate was extended for a year, so I don't know what they have to fool with for 2014.

Fern

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...93-million-would-lose-health-pl#ixzz2jJGbh1b1

 

[Fern]

Yeah, that's it. You actually posted it first IIRC.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Republicans know they're in trouble once the website problems are solved

I've been mulling this over and now think once the website is fixed the real 'fun' begins. No more excuses if the enrollment numbers are low etc. I can see the fuss over the individual part dragging out until enrollment targets are met.

Then next year or so when the employer side kicks in more fun will ensue and we'll see if huge amounts of people are laid off or have their hours cut to below 30.

I.e., I think this 'party' could roll on for a couple of years.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Could be. Fortunately Obama is not running for anything, and he is in till 2017, so Obamacare has a pretty long runway to iron out the kinks. By then, a lot of people will depend on it, and there will be no going back, only forward. New reforms will come along, but a repeal without a replacement is not going to be politically acceptable.
We are finally reforming health care, it will be interesting to see where we end up when all is said and done, but the ball is rolling.

 

[Jhhnn]

No. I think I linked an article elsewhere here that showed the admin predicted something like half the employer sponsored plans wouldn't qualify. But I would imagine that's a hassle for the HR, not the individual as with the self-employed and small businesses. I would say it's only an issue for employees whose employer doesn't pay 100%. I.e., they may have to pay more if the new plan costs more.

In any case the employer mandate was extended for a year, so I don't know what they have to fool with for 2014.

Fern

Heh. So some employers had to tweak their plans to conform? And some elect to change coverage because they can, right?

And when they do, they're no longer grandfathered, correct?

That's not the same as Avik Roy's claim of "cancellation", but he's a highly paid right wing mouthpiece in the first place.