The trouble I see in Obamacare

[fskimospy]

Nick Nick Nick...we can all use Google, as we have in the past in the HC threads, and know the Senators who were slobbering all for it, were positively receptive to it, were guarded but were willing to listen, and who were psycho against it.

You yourself came up with the 10+ number - that statement was yours, not mine. To come up with that, you'd have had to known what was understood by All anyways, that Reid needed a true super majority to get past the fillibuster and bring it to a vote. We had numerous threads on this over the years now.

Please...Nick'ing isn't duhverting from the failures of Reid and the Dems on this. You know it, I know it, Everyone reading the thread knows it. Why you are even attempting to do this is...puzzling...

Yes, why ever am I simply asking you to provide one iota of evidence for something you have stated as fact.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Fern]

You declared 10+ votes were needed. To declare that you'd already have that information for 1 and 2. Why would you ask me to provide something you already had to know to make your 10+ statement?
-snip-

IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, Reid needed far more than just 10 additional votes.

My recollection is that the highest number of Senate Dems who supported UHC at any one point in time was a mere 24. Reid was never even half way to overcoming a filibuster.

I strongly believe transitioning to UHC is far more complicated than most people realize.

The above shows we have 24 Dem Senators with no common sense or an effin clue.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

Yes, why ever am I simply asking you to provide one iota of evidence for something you have stated as fact.

Put up or shut up.

I'm asking you the same thing. You said 10+. Not 20+, 30+, 50+. So a number in between 10 and 20, generally closer to 10 than 20, or else you'd have said 'almost 20'. You've stated it, can you not back up your number?

 

[werepossum]

IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, Reid needed far more than just 10 additional votes.

My recollection is that the highest number of Senate Dems who supported UHC at any one point in time was a mere 24. Reid was never even half way to overcoming a filibuster.

I strongly believe transitioning to UHC is far more complicated than most people realize.

The above shows we have 24 Dem Senators with no common sense or an effin clue.

Fern

Even Democrats who support single payer know that it's implementation would be chaos and that even if it's proven beneficial in the end, that chaos would leave their own careers in ashes. Thus only Democrats from very safe districts would vote for UHC. In the House that's a lot, but in the Senate I'm surprised he could even get 24 to commit. A supermajority is a great thing to have, but it's not going to convince most of one's supermajority to sacrifice their own careers to advance the common agenda.

 

[chucky2]

IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, Reid needed far more than just 10 additional votes.

My recollection is that the highest number of Senate Dems who supported UHC at any one point time was a mere 24. Reid was never even half way to overcoming a filibuster.

I strongly believe transitioning to UHC is far more complicated than most people realize.

The above shows we 24 Dem Senators with no common sense or an effin clue.

Fern

Beats me, I really have little interest in wading back through Google to see how many Dem Senators who either enjoy wide victory margins in their state (and thus wouldn't have to worry anyways) or who were far enough away from their re-election so as to be easily bribed were able to publically come out and clamor for UHC. Counting the highly probables, the probables, and the we need to bribe'ems is time consuming now that the immediate media coverage is gone...it was less so when they were pushing through Bummercare. I remember a thread here were someone had linked to a credible source listing like 48 senators who were in the publically for sure range through the probably range - and that count didn't include the background bribe/nuclear ones. Interesting is it not how 48 + "10+" gets one very close to that fillibuster proof super majority? Hmmm...just where did that "10+" number come from to type into the reply to me?

Anyways, what the Dems did instead was, declared UHC too hard to do because 'the public' didn't want it (even though they'd just won a historic election mandate built in large part on their savior ((and even his competitor prior to the nomination)) advocating for UHC), and thus, because 'the public' "didn't want it", and thus there'd be alleged/and real consequences to Politican voting Yea with a constituency who in fact might not want it, Bummercare was the best "compromise" they could puke out.

In short: They did the easy thing, not the hard and right thing. Congrats. They own the "win" and we own the consequences of that "win".

Trying to spin what we have now as 'those poor poor Democrats just couldn't produce anything better' is so highly disingenuous it possibly sets a record for a Nick'ism.

 

[fskimospy]

Haha. "I have little interest in seeing if what I said was true"

 

[Fern]

I think the design is to cause our system to fail.
-snip-
At the end of the day either the Dems want to crash the system to usher in brave new world of socialized medicine and will succeed, or like any government program it will be adjusted to remain a bearable burden.

I don't think it will cause our system to fail. The federal govt has guaranteed HI companies a profit. The fed govt must pay/reimburse them if necessary. So I think the HI companies are safe. I can see some problems in the medical provider community (doctors, hospitals clinic) and the supply chain.

Otherwise, IMO, there exists a great potential for huge deficits/debts at both the federal and (eventually) the state level.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

Haha. "I have little interest in seeing if what I said was true"

Well, you said 10+. Is it true or not?

 

[Bitek]

I'm a provider. ...Words...

I want not a result, but a plan to get there. Give it to me.

Let's be realistic about what was achievable given the political climate when the ACA was drafted and who shares responsibility. The opposition was not at all interested in crafting and collaborating a better system. What we've had is an undeviating plan to shit on everything. And they have been rewarded for it.

Could the dems have acted better? Surely. Were they determined to get some achievements passed to be able to claim success? Yes.

But where were the voters demanding better behavior? Nowhere. Of those trying, they weren't heard over all the cries of socialism, death panels, killing grandma, defunding Medicare etc. We trolled ourselves.

In the end we still got a system better than we prolly deserve, flawed as it is.

No plan means anything until we act more responsibly as voters and grow up a bit.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, you said 10+. Is it true or not?

Do you know how hypothesis testing works?

You said something, you prove it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let's be realistic about what was achievable given the political climate when the ACA was drafted and who shares responsibility. The opposition was not at all interested in crafting and collaborating a better system. What we've had is an undeviating plan to shit on everything. And they have been rewarded for it.

Could the dems have acted better? Surely. Were they determined to get some achievements passed to be able to claim success? Yes.

But where were the voters demanding better behavior? Nowhere. Of those trying, they weren't heard over all the cries of socialism, death panels, killing grandma, defunding Medicare etc. We trolled ourselves.

In the end we still got a system better than we prolly deserve, flawed as it is.

No plan means anything until we act more responsibly as voters and grow up a bit.

There's no end of blame when it comes to voters. They basically want free stuff, and don't bother with the details. That's a great part of the problem without doubt, however we're supposed to have leaders and part of their job would seem to be to at least begin some investigation with due diligence and that's what I find lacking. I had hope that perhaps we had leadership in Obama because we had nothing but duplicity, hubris and incompetence from the prior lot. In the end there turns out to have not been much of a difference. We certainly deserve what we get, but sad to say that not all of us do, certainly not our kids. We've kicked the can down the road to them.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think it will cause our system to fail. The federal govt has guaranteed HI companies a profit. The fed govt must pay/reimburse them if necessary. So I think the HI companies are safe. I can see some problems in the medical provider community (doctors, hospitals clinic) and the supply chain.

Otherwise, IMO, there exists a great potential for huge deficits/debts at both the federal and (eventually) the state level.

Fern

Agreed, but those guarantees have a time limit and the bureaucracy can (and is) change the rules and add mandatory freebies at its whim.

Let's be realistic about what was achievable given the political climate when the ACA was drafted and who shares responsibility. The opposition was not at all interested in crafting and collaborating a better system. What we've had is an undeviating plan to shit on everything. And they have been rewarded for it.

Could the dems have acted better? Surely. Were they determined to get some achievements passed to be able to claim success? Yes.

But where were the voters demanding better behavior? Nowhere. Of those trying, they weren't heard over all the cries of socialism, death panels, killing grandma, defunding Medicare etc. We trolled ourselves.

In the end we still got a system better than we prolly deserve, flawed as it is.

No plan means anything until we act more responsibly as voters and grow up a bit.

The opposition was not at all interested in crafting and collaborating a system where regulation of health care was ripped from the states and given to an unelected federal bureaucracy. Not exactly the same thing at all. Suppose the GOP had a supermajority and took Social Security from the feds and gave it to the states. How much cooperation would the Dems provide? Each side has their core principles.

 

[disappoint]

These 3rd world countries have their own set of issues, including corruption, yet they can get a working healthcare system in order.

How is that different from us? We have those things too. Only we have them on a larger scale. No wonder we so fat, even our corruption tips the scales. I can haz chart showing corruption per capita? Preferably one that hasn't been manipulated by the corruptors?

 

[sportage]

We don't yet know what will happen if the vast majority of signups are older and disabled people. Will rates skyrocket if the younger people needed to pay for it stay away or are not enough for our aging population?

Does it matter?
Matter to these republicans that hate Obama?
Does anything of success or probable success ever matter to republicans?
Does it matter at all, to them?
Does it matter at all?

We know it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because republicans in congress have no desire to address the healthcare problems in America.
They have to answers of their own, naturally.
They don't even care to address the matter.
And they never will.

All republicans want to do is tear down any and every attempt to help Americans get healthcare.
So NONE of the possible successes or failures with the ACA reform matters....
It doesn't matter one single bit to the republicans.
It doesn't matter because republicans have absolutely no interest nor desire to address the issue.
So keep asking yourself when they cry foul about healthcare reform, does it even matter?
Does it matter what they think? Or what they say?

If we ran a war this way.
If we had ran GW's war(s) this way.
Would we have had a prayer in hell at winning that war?
If WWII had been fought that way by republicans as they fight about Obamacare, we'd all be speaking German today AND Adolf or one of his sons would be our current leader.

 

[OverVolt]

I can't make this more clearer. I really can't.

If you're foaming at the mouth and think that universal healthcare is so horrible then I implore you to talk to people who actually live in countries (pretty much the whole first world) where they have it.

I can tell you two things.

1. It's not perfect.
2. It's better than the American system. Way better.

If you want to impress me in one of these discussions then you should come up with a better system. Don't try to tell me though that the US system is amazing and better than tax paid universal healthcare. All statistics prove you wrong.

If you believe that it's not your responsibility to live in a communal system then go live on an island somewhere. Stop trying to ruin the quality of life for a hundred million Americans already!

Yea except the ACA is not universal healthcare. "Don't piss on my leg and tell me its rain" etc.

Also I didn't sign up for it and extended my previous plan specifically because the 2015 rates are going to see a huge hike because they did not get the risk pool they need. If you understand the 3-1 rule, where the most expensive plans can only be 3x as expensive as the cheapest plans, means they need more younger people in the risk pool or else everyone's rates rise if you get alot of older, pre-existing conditions signups. Which from the data I see, is exactly the case.

"Older, sicker, poorer" than expected.

 

[fskimospy]

Yea except the ACA is not universal healthcare. "Don't piss on my leg and tell me its rain" etc.

Also I didn't sign up for it and extended my previous plan specifically because the 2015 rates are going to see a huge hike because they did not get the risk pool they need. If you understand the 3-1 rule, where the most expensive plans can only be 3x as expensive as the cheapest plans, means they need more younger people in the risk pool or else everyone's rates rise if you get alot of older, pre-existing conditions signups. Which from the data I see, is exactly the case.

"Older, sicker, poorer" than expected.

How do you square that with the analysis I posted?

 

[OverVolt]

How do you square that with the analysis I posted?

Because its an estimate. See the first footnote.

 

[fskimospy]

Because its an estimate. See the first footnote.

And what is yours?

Kaiser's is an estimate, but i am guessing that it is an estimate with a lot more empirical grounding than yours. Why do you discount what they are saying?

 

[OverVolt]

And what is yours?

Kaiser's is an estimate, but i am guessing that it is an estimate with a lot more empirical grounding than yours. Why do you discount what they are saying?

Just from what I know about health insurance rates. Check out their link in the footnote.

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf

As a younger 20's male, see chart 5, why do you think I'm pissed at my rates?

Assuming that all of the membership in the database continues to be insured, this implies that young adults (those age 21 through 35) will subsidize older adults (aged 60
and older) in the new health insurance programs. On average, the young adults (age 21 through 35) cost index is 15 percent higher 3 under the CMS proposed age curve and the older adults (age 60 - 64) are 3 percent lower. At the extreme, the age 21 average person’s cost index is 50 percent higher under the proposed age curve and the age 64 average person is 7 percent lower. From a gender perspective, males will subsidize females

They spell it out for you yes? Thats why it boggles my mind you support this shit as a younger male.

The only part of the law I support is no pre-existing conditions, and perhaps the subsidy. Got it? Good.

 

[fskimospy]

Just from what I know about health insurance rates. Check out their link in the footnote.

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf

As a younger 20's male, see chart 5, why do you think I'm pissed at my rates?

They spell it out for you yes? Thats why it boggles my mind you support this shit as a younger male.

The only part of the law I support is no pre-existing conditions, and perhaps the subsidy. Got it? Good.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. So you accept their analysis that premiums will only rise 2.4% with a 50% lower than expected young risk pool or not?

You can't have a ban on pre existing conditions without an individual mandate. Basically what you're saying is that you support the dessert part of dinner but not your vegetables. I support the ACA not only for moral reasons, but because I like the idea of not having to worry about getting insurance if I lose my job.

Also, it's a bad deal for young people only if they never get old.

 

[michal1980]

Just from what I know about health insurance rates. Check out their link in the footnote.

http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/files/Age-Curve-Study_0.pdf

As a younger 20's male, see chart 5, why do you think I'm pissed at my rates?



They spell it out for you yes? Thats why it boggles my mind you support this shit as a younger male.

The only part of the law I support is no pre-existing conditions, and perhaps the subsidy. Got it? Good.

missing the important fact that a large number of those 26 and younger wont be part of the exchange pools since they can be on their parents insurance.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. So you accept their analysis that premiums will only rise 2.4% with a 50% lower than expected young risk pool or not?

You can't have a ban on pre existing conditions without an individual mandate. Basically what you're saying is that you support the dessert part of dinner but not your vegetables. I support the ACA not only for moral reasons, but because I like the idea of not having to worry about getting insurance if I lose my job.

Also, it's a bad deal for young people only if they never get old.

They could have easily done no pre-existing conditions without also having the younger males subsidizing both women and the elderly.

So no, I don't accept their analysis, unless I was all ages and genders at once, no my rates didn't rise 2.4%. More like 15%+,as in chart 5. Because I'm a younger 20's male. What is so hard to understand about that?

Shall I make it a meme for you? The blue curve is what I was going to pay and expected to pay for health insurance in my lifetime, the dotted grey curve is now what I have to pay. Which means this will break even for me when I'm 59 in 2048 hooray.

Inb4 old people tell me I will be happy about it when I'm 59+ like they are. Especially since they paid the lower rates while growing up and hit the Obama lottery in old age. Good job.

 

[fskimospy]

They could have easily done no pre-existing conditions without also having the younger males subsidizing both women and the elderly.

So no, I don't accept their analysis, unless I was all ages and genders at once, no my rates didn't rise 2.4%. More like 15%+,as in chart 5. Because I'm a younger 20's male. What is so hard to understand about that?

Shall I make it a meme for you? The blue curve is what I was going to pay and expected to pay for health insurance in my lifetime, the dotted grey curve is now what I have to pay. Which means this will break even for me when I'm 59 in 2048 hooray.

Inb4 old people tell me I will be happy about it when I'm 59+ like they are. Especially since they paid the lower rates while growing up and hit the Obama lottery in old age. Good job.

But since the population of the US IS all ages and genders at once it looks pretty good?

By "hit the lottery" you of course mean "age normally". This is typical shortsighted thinking.

 

[OverVolt]

But since the population of the US IS all ages and genders at once it looks pretty good?

By "hit the lottery" you of course mean "age normally". This is typical shortsighted thinking.

Sure give me 30 years of the lower rates like they had, THEN pass the law.

 

[OverVolt]

missing the important fact that a large number of those 26 and younger wont be part of the exchange pools since they can be on their parents insurance.

Which is even more reason why there will be a big rate shock in 2015 for say, a 26 y/o male as they readjust the rates. There goes even more young people from the risk pool.

Some younger males are going to be dumb and just risk it without insurance, because frankly, it is kind of a rip off. In the individual market, supply and demand, econ 101 here. You raise rates on younger males, say 15-20%, will enrollment in that age group go up or down?