Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    In a great example of having your cake and eating it; Rand Paul wants to keep the ObamaCare exchanges but still "repeal all of Obamacare"

    Rand Paul Suddenly Unsure If Obamacare Should Be Completely Repealed

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has joined Mitch McConnell in suggesting that Kentucky could maintain its Obamacare exchange if health care reform is repealed, saying that he’s “not sure” if the new marketplace (Kynect) should be unraveled. Paul’s comments come as a growing number of Republicans aim to repackage the key tenets of President Obama’s health care law as unique state solutions, designed and built by state officials far away from Washington D.C.
    “There’s a lot of questions that are big questions that are beyond just the exchange and the Kynect and things like that,” Paul said. He reiterated that he would like to “repeal all of Obamacare,” but added, “Can a state still have an exchange? You know we live in a 50-state union so some states could have exchanges. They already did before Obamacare.”

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    As predicted:
    Uninsured rate plummets under Affordable Care Act

    The number of Americans lacking health insurance has plummeted this year, a trio of surveys released Thursday found.

    The reports -- conducted by three major research organizations -- aim to measure the early effect of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. Most Americans were required to obtain health insurance starting this year.
    Here were the results:
    -- Urban Institute: The uninsured rate fell to 13.9 percent in June, down from 17.4 percent at the end of last year. Some 8 million adults gained coverage.
    -- Gallup: Americans lacking health coverage fell to 13.4 percent in the second quarter, down from 17.1 percent at the close of 2013. This is the lowest quarterly rate recorded since Gallup and Healthways began tracking the share of uninsured Americans in 2008.
    -- Commonwealth Fund: Only 15 percent of American adults were uninsured in the second quarter, down from 20 percent in the third quarter of last year. About 9.5 million fewer adults were uninsured, led mainly by young adults age 19 to 34, who saw their uninsured rate drop to 18 percent, from 28 percent.


    Ironically,



    A pair of new studies argue that the GOP's anti-Obamacare ads may have actually increased enrollment in blue states and the majority of the people who enrolled — even Republicans — like their plans.

    Obamacare detractors are at least partly to blame for the enrollment numbers. As Niam Yaraghi at the Brookings Institute argued Wednesday, anti-Obamacare ads reduced enrollment in red states, but in blue states there's "a positive association between the anti-ACA spending and ACA enrollment." That's either because the ads raised awareness of health care reform, or because people wanted to get insurance while they still can. The positive association "implies that anti-ACA ads may unintentionally increase the public awareness about the existence of a governmentally subsidized service and its benefits for the uninsured," according to Yaraghi. At the same time, people who — thanks to ads — think Congress will repeal and replace Obamacare, "could have a greater willingness to take advantage of this one time opportunity.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Just to put this in perspective a bit, lets look at some actual data (http://www.gallup.com/poll/167798/un...nues-fall.aspx). The percentage drop is only slightly more (within the margin of error) than the number of people who lost their insurance since Q12013 (about when all those notices of cancellations went out).



    So it certainly isn't clear that this change is the result of the ACA, it seems more likely that this is simply the re-entering of the market by those who lost their insurance due to ACA provisions. Certainly the number of uninsured is still the same as when the ACA was passed, so the actual effect seems to be none if we only account for sheer numbers.

    However, we also have some other data. The people who lost their insurance generally lost employer sponsored coverage (which tends to be relatively inclusive) and generally switched either to paying for it themselves (leaving them less disposable income and decreasing quality of life) or accepting medicare/medicaid. Going from Humana coverage to Medicaid is not exactly a comparable switch as far as access to care goes.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Just to put this in perspective a bit, lets look at some actual data (http://www.gallup.com/poll/167798/un...nues-fall.aspx). The percentage drop is only slightly more (within the margin of error) than the number of people who lost their insurance since Q12013 (about when all those notices of cancellations went out).
    I'm not clear how that is the case - coverage is usually continuous so there might be another explanation for that dip. Perhaps they too Medicaid instead or some other reason other than your scenario of having 'lost' their insurance.

    In fact, people didn't lose their insurance - they transferred to a better one. There shouldn't be a gap in coverage where people had no insurance. That reading of the graph doesn't seem realistic.

    However, we also have some other data. The people who lost their insurance generally lost employer sponsored coverage (which tends to be relatively inclusive) and generally switched either to paying for it themselves (leaving them less disposable income and decreasing quality of life) or accepting medicare/medicaid. Going from Humana coverage to Medicaid is not exactly a comparable switch as far as access to care goes.
    I'm sure some of these scenarios are going to be true. As to whether they are significant or important in the long term is questionable. These are teething problems that can be addressed down the road. Health reform is a long term initiative and a direction was set with ACA.

    If Jindal's plan ever sees the light of day then let's look at that. But we are in a new world, a better one for most people, even, according to some reports, Republicans. That's the point of this thread. Time to move on to other complaints about the administration, ACA is staying!

  5. #45
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I'm not clear how that is the case - coverage is usually continuous so there might be another explanation for that dip. Perhaps they too Medicaid instead or some other reason other than your scenario of having 'lost' their insurance.

    In fact, people didn't lose their insurance - they transferred to a better one. There shouldn't be a gap in coverage where people had no insurance. That reading of the graph doesn't seem realistic.
    Lots of problems with this statement.


    First, can you support that transfer to an exchange coverage plan is "better" or is that simply your opinion?

    Second, if you are referring to their switch to Medicare/Medicaid, can you support that that is "better" or is that simply your opinion?

    Third, I'm not sure where you got the idea that coverage is continuous for a plan cancelled due to ACA changes. Can you support that that is the case? Do you mean to imply that once you get insurance, you can never lose it again?

    Fourth, I'm not sure what you meant to say when you wrote: "Perhaps they too Medicaid instead or some other reason other than your scenario of having 'lost' their insurance." To whom are you referring? What action did you mean to type in there?

    The fact is the data is pretty clear here (as is Gallup's take on it which agrees with mine). The number of uninsured people in the United States increased due to market changes resulting from the ACA's legislation. These displaced consumers primarily came from employer sponsored plans and have now settled in paying for plans from their take home wages or residing in the medicare/medicaid system.

    If that is what was meant by success in your article above, then I think we have different definitions of that word.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    One thing to keep in mind is The ACA is not yet fully in effect. People can stay in non compliant plans for 2 more years and some employers still have some time before they are required to provide coverage. (phased in over the next two years) Those along with people realizing the penalties may have an impact. Then again it may not...

    Things this big and sweeping can be hard to measure.

    It looks from the shifts like my own experience is somewhat common. The individual market motivated me to move my wife off my company supplied plan and onto one from the individual market. I could have done that before but the consolidated market made it easy to do price and value comparisons.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, can you support that transfer to an exchange coverage plan is "better" or is that simply your opinion?
    No lifetime limits, unilateral dropping of coverage, inclusion of children, etc. Sounds better to me.

    Second, if you are referring to their switch to Medicare/Medicaid, can you support that that is "better" or is that simply your opinion?
    They get coverage without having to pay for it and hence more personal money on other things.

    Third, I'm not sure where you got the idea that coverage is continuous for a plan cancelled due to ACA changes. Can you support that that is the case? Do you mean to imply that once you get insurance, you can never lose it again?
    No but if someone can't ensure they have continuous coverage when given enough notice, that's not entirely ACA's fault. Granted the site took a while to get working but there were many alternatives including doing it on the phone or filling in a form.

    Fourth, I'm not sure what you meant to say when you wrote: "Perhaps they too Medicaid instead or some other reason other than your scenario of having 'lost' their insurance." To whom are you referring? What action did you mean to type in there?
    I was postulating that there may be other reasons for the dip. The 'lost insurance' is a weird loaded term that has many legitimate reasons.

    The fact is the data is pretty clear here (as is Gallup's take on it which agrees with mine). The number of uninsured people in the United States increased due to market changes resulting from the ACA's legislation. These displaced consumers primarily came from employer sponsored plans and have now settled in paying for plans from their take home wages or residing in the medicare/medicaid system.
    So where's the problem exactly? It sounds like a temporary dip whilst people figured out their best options. Done and done.

    If that is what was meant by success in your article above, then I think we have different definitions of that word.
    Success of ACA is neither here nor there. The point is that it is the new reality. If there are problems then they have to be fixed. That is all.

    ---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    One thing to keep in mind is The ACA is not yet fully in effect. People can stay in non compliant plans for 2 more years and some employers still have some time before they are required to provide coverage. (phased in over the next two years) Those along with people realizing the penalties may have an impact. Then again it may not...

    Things this big and sweeping can be hard to measure.
    That is a great question. What would be considered an ACA success? More people overall with insurance? Fewer medical bankruptcies? Fewer deaths? Less pressure on ER? More proactive preventive care? These things are directly measurable but they are likely a decade away from being really meaningful. I think with some of the red states not expanding Medicaid will be interesting to follow - we can definitely count the number of deaths.

  8. #48
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No lifetime limits, unilateral dropping of coverage, inclusion of children, etc. Sounds better to me.
    Forcing to change a doctor, limited access to care (not all hospitals take these plans), mandatory purchasing of coverage you don't want. Doesn't sound so good to me.

    But either way, are you dropping this as an objective truth and noting that this is your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    They get coverage without having to pay for it and hence more personal money on other things.
    And they have severely reduced access to care given the limited number of doctors that accept medicaid/medicare due to its payout rates.

    So clearly this isn't an objectively "better" plan right?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No but if someone can't ensure they have continuous coverage when given enough notice, that's not entirely ACA's fault. Granted the site took a while to get working but there were many alternatives including doing it on the phone or filling in a form.
    And how would they have had "enough" time given that they likely didn't know their employer's plans and that the it was unclear what the prices on markets would be given the deficiencies in the system (even the phone/form didn't give comparable prices for policies)? You also seem to be missing the time period here. The rise in uninsured was once employer cuts had begun, but prior to full implementation of the exchanges. The fact is that it doesn't appear that many people have used the exchanges to get their insurance when compared to the number that went on medicare/medicaid.

    Further, your explanation seems to miss the primary reason that people might be uninsured now. The ACA prompted employers to drop coverage they had previously offered and the ACA's additional coverage requirements, per-existing conditions requirements, etc have driven up the cost of health insurance. So if we have a situation where your employer cancels your plan and it is more expensive to buy replacement insurance, that would likely lead to increased uninsured right?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I was postulating that there may be other reasons for the dip. The 'lost insurance' is a weird loaded term that has many legitimate reasons.
    Such as? If it is unrelated to the ACA implementation, then why is it a larger change than we normally see during the pre-ACA period?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So where's the problem exactly? It sounds like a temporary dip whilst people figured out their best options. Done and done.
    Correction, their next best option. The big deal is that the ACA forced a large number of Americans off of plans they had and replaced them with plans that either cost more or provided less access to care than they had previously enjoyed. That explains the ACA's continuing unpopularity with the American public and strikes against the conclusion of our OP.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Success of ACA is neither here nor there.
    It is if it motivates people to agitate against it and request for repeal and replacement of the law.

    Further, we can at least argue that the ACA will likely continue to be trimmed down in scope and scale as happened today:

    In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.

    In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. Plaintiffs in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell argued that the ACA, as written, only allows that often-significant financial aid to be issued to people who bought insurance on a marketplace set up a state...

    "If the courts were to decide that the Halbig plaintiffs were right, it would be a huge threat to the ACA," said that expert,Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

    "It's a very big deal," said Ron Pollack, founder of the health-care consumers advocacy group Families USA, and Enroll America, a major Obamacare advocacy group...

    On Monday, one of the intellectual godfathers of the argument that is the basis of the Halbig case, as well as three other similar pending court challenges, said that tens of millions of people would be freed from Obamacare mandates in the affected states if the challenges prevailed.

    Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said more than 250,000 firms in those states—which have about 57 million workers—would not be subject to the employer mandate being phased in starting next year. That rule, which hinges on the availability of subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, will compel employers with 50 or more full-time workers to offer affordable health insurance or pay a fine.

    And if the challenge prevail, a total of about 8.3 million individuals will be "free" of Obamacare's rule that they have health insurance or pay a fine equal to as much as 1 percent of their taxable income, said Cannon, who with law professor Jonathan Adler laid the groundwork for the challenges to the HealthCare.gov subsidies.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay


    Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to health law

    "A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.

    The ruling, if upheld, could potentially be more damaging to the law than last month’s Supreme Court decision on contraceptives.

    The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with plaintiffs who argued that the language of the law barred the government from giving subsidies to people in states that chose not to set up their own insurance marketplaces. Twenty-seven states, most with Republican leaders who oppose the law, decided against setting up marketplaces, and another nine states partially opted out.

    The government could request an “en banc” hearing, putting the case before the entire appeals court, and the question ultimately may end up at the Supreme Court.

    But if subsidies for half the states are barred, it represents a potentially crippling blow to the health-care law, which relies on the subsidies to make insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income Americans..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...f8f_story.html

    Better detail here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...challenge-joel


    ahhh....I see now that Squatch posted this info before I did. Big news, though, so worth reading varied reports.
    Last edited by evensaul; July 22nd, 2014 at 10:11 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
  11. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That is a great question. What would be considered an ACA success? More people overall with insurance? Fewer medical bankruptcies? Fewer deaths? Less pressure on ER? More proactive preventive care? These things are directly measurable but they are likely a decade away from being really meaningful. I think with some of the red states not expanding Medicaid will be interesting to follow - we can definitely count the number of deaths.
    I think the primary goal of the ACA was to have more Americans covered by significant health insurance, with the hopeful added benefit of decreasing overall government expenditures over time as more people became healthy and used medical care in a more efficient way.

    It does this through subsidies, incentives and by requiring insurers to accept patients with pre-existing conditions.

    So ultimately for it to be a success we need to see very low rates of people without insurance. And then subsequently to see per-capita health care costs decline or rise at a lower rate than they otherwise would. (that last bit is very hard to demonstrate). The first however is pretty easy to measure.

    While there were issues related to quality of care, I don't think that is the main aim of the legislation, more a byproduct.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #51
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    To be clear on the the judicial front, there were two decisions yesterday (the second one handed down after my initial post). The Fourth Circuit Court upheld the subsidies in the their equivalent of the Burwell case.

    It is likely (unless the Administration completely drops the ball) that both cases will be appealed to the Full Appeals Court session. The Appeals Court is expected to take the case and will almost certainly agree with the Fourth Circuit rather than the DC Circuit. This is largely because the Appeals Court has transformed in the last year or so since the Sen. Reid invoked the Nuclear Option. Two relatively partisan judges and one somewhat moderate were appointed to the bench making it a much more progressive leaning court than in the past.

    Regardless, both cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court, which will likely accept it given that it meets their criteria for inclusion (two differing decisions from two judicial regions). Both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have mentioned in interviews that the differing regional decisions is one of the two or three automatic acceptance criteria the justices have.

    So the real question is what will SCOTUS do with it. There was a great interview yesterday with one of President Obama's former legal mentors in which he said he wouldn't put money on the subsidy surviving. His reasoning (which was augmented by a Cato scholar who has given much of the grounding for these two cases and Forbes contributor Jeffery Dorman) was that Justice Roberts has somewhat painted himself into a corner this term on this issue. In the EPA case that Scalia wrote (and Roberts signed onto) the Court found that agencies cannot re-interpret statutory language to bring about what the expected goals of legislation are. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...challenge-joel

    This leaves Roberts in a relatively tight spot and I think will probably result in the subsidies being shot down. I would augment the above argument with the nature of the two cases. DC case revolves around the plain language reading of a statute, for which there is ample case law (as the Cato scholar points out). There are clear reasons to re-interpret legislative language provided by the Court and this case meets none of them. However, the Fourth Circuit decision relies on a finding that the overall language is sufficiently ambiguous while the argument presented is about Congressional intent. My take is that the Court usually doesn't tolerate disconnects like that and will be unwilling to go the intent route (one that is normally a pretty solid winner in a case like this) to support an ambiguous ruling. That means the Court will decide which of the two cases to take, and I think they will take the DC case in support and reject the Fourth Circuit case.
    Last edited by Squatch347; July 23rd, 2014 at 06:01 AM.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,866
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    "The two Republicans’ decision rests on a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act itself. Obamacare gives states a choice. They can either run their own health insurance exchange where their residents may buy health insurance, and receive subsidies to help them pay for that insurance if they qualify, or they can allow the federal government to run that exchange for them. Yet the plaintiffs’ in this case uncovered a drafting error in the statute where it appears to limit the subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” Randolph and Griffith’s opinion concludes that this drafting error is the only thing that matters. In their words, “a federal Exchange is not an ‘Exchange established by the State,’” and that’s it. The upshot of this opinion is that 6.5 million Americans will lose their ability to afford health insurance, according to one estimate.

    The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has long recognized that a law’s clear purpose should not be defeated due to an error in proofreading. As the Court explained in 2007, “a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation” as the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” It is indeed true that a single phrase of the Affordable Care Act, if read in isolation, suggests that Congress intended only state-run exchanges — as opposed to federal exchanges — to offer subsidies, but this provision is contradicted by numerous other provisions of the law.

    One provision of the Affordable Care Act, for example, indicates that any “exchange” shall be an “entity that is established by a State” — language which indicates that federally run exchanges will be deemed to be “established by a state.” This may seem counter-intuitive, but Congress has the power to define the words that it uses in any way that it wants, even if those words are defined in ways that are unusual. Another provision of the law provides that, when a state elects not to run an exchange, the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.” Thus, the law not only authorizes the Secretary to stand in the state’s shoes when it runs an exchange, it also empowers her to implement the law’s “other requirements.”"

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...459165/halbig/
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. Likes JimJones8934 liked this post
  15. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Forcing to change a doctor,
    No-one is 'forced' to change their doctor; they can pay more to access the same doctor out of network. Or they find a plan the doctor takes. They're just engineers of the human body - changing doctors is not always a bad thing.

    limited access to care (not all hospitals take these plans),
    Then switch to hospitals that do - that's just the free market forces deciding the kinds of customers they want. Not a big deal.

    mandatory purchasing of coverage you don't want.
    As opposed to using the free ER that we all pay for?

    Doesn't sound so good to me.
    And how much is fixable?


    But either way, are you dropping this as an objective truth and noting that this is your opinion?
    It's moving the debate forward - that is objectively better than doing nothing.

    And they have severely reduced access to care given the limited number of doctors that accept medicaid/medicare due to its payout rates.

    So clearly this isn't an objectively "better" plan right?
    Then that's just something else to fix. Again, I don't think this is non-fixable, assuming it really needs a fix.



    And how would they have had "enough" time given that they likely didn't know their employer's plans and that the it was unclear what the prices on markets would be given the deficiencies in the system (even the phone/form didn't give comparable prices for policies)? You also seem to be missing the time period here. The rise in uninsured was once employer cuts had begun, but prior to full implementation of the exchanges. The fact is that it doesn't appear that many people have used the exchanges to get their insurance when compared to the number that went on medicare/medicaid.
    I believe there was an extension for those people that couldn't get onto the exchanges; though given that there were alternatives - like the old reliable technology called a telephone or an even older technology called visiting an office, I can't fault the system entirely.

    Further, your explanation seems to miss the primary reason that people might be uninsured now. The ACA prompted employers to drop coverage they had previously offered and the ACA's additional coverage requirements, per-existing conditions requirements, etc have driven up the cost of health insurance. So if we have a situation where your employer cancels your plan and it is more expensive to buy replacement insurance, that would likely lead to increased uninsured right?
    Of course it's more expensive! It's better insurance than we had before. I don't know why you think ACA is supposed to be a free ride for everyone! If it costs more to not have a lifetime limit or be dumped by an insurance company then so be it: that's the point of insurance. And the point of getting more people contributing into the pool is to spread out the risk. We know that 80% of the premiums will be spent on actual care, so when prices stabilize to a fair value, then that is a good price. I don't know why you'd complain about people paying a fair amount of money and companies making decisions as to whether they want to offer insurance or not. I don't even really understand why companies even need to provide employee insurance anyway - the fewer people between my doctor and me the better.


    Such as? If it is unrelated to the ACA implementation, then why is it a larger change than we normally see during the pre-ACA period?
    No idea but it appears to have been fixed and for the better. Not much else to worry about at this stage - it's like complaining about how bad the exchanges were at the beginning: who really cares?



    Correction, their next best option. The big deal is that the ACA forced a large number of Americans off of plans they had and replaced them with plans that either cost more or provided less access to care than they had previously enjoyed. That explains the ACA's continuing unpopularity with the American public and strikes against the conclusion of our OP.
    Some people are definitely going to be unhappy but none will be booted from their insurance just as they get sick nor will they have to worry about lifetime limits. Children can remain on their parents' insurance much longer and we are assured that most of the premiums taken in will actually go back to the people.

    So unless these features go away, the OP's conclusion remains true. Unless the exchanges go away, the OP's conclusion remains true. All you appear to be doing is suggesting that ACA is the end state, whereas it's really the next step in America's path towards dealing with a big problem.


    It is if it motivates people to agitate against it and request for repeal and replacement of the law.
    Yawn, I'm sure certain people are motivated towards such a direction. Good luck to them.

    Further, we can at least argue that the ACA will likely continue to be trimmed down in scope and scale as happened today:
    In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.


    Well, sounds like the GOP are taking advantage of pretty much a typo, that could be fixed with a simple Congressional vote, in order to remove subsidies from 4.7 people. Good luck trying to get people to pay that money back. This plays perfectly into the Democrats playbook for 2016.


    ---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So the real question is what will SCOTUS do with it.
    I don't know why SCOTUS is dealing with what should be a political matter. I think the provision should be struck down and it should go to Congress to decide whether to fix it or figure out a way to make people pay for the insurance they already have AND remove the subsidy from people. It will make it clear which side supports subsidies for the poor, and which don't.

  16. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "The two Republicans’ decision rests on a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act itself.
    Glorified typo? Hardly. The plan was to bully states into establishing exchanges, by taxing their residents and denying them subsidies if their state refused to set up an exchange. The same wording was included in draft after draft of Obamacare, and one of the principle authors described it, back in 2012, as blatant and ugly politics, :

    "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this".

    And again in another 2012 speech:

    Gruber said that "by not setting up an exchange, the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars....That is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens"

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/wa...jonathan-grube
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
  18. #55
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No-one is 'forced' to change their doctor; they can pay more to access the same doctor out of network. Or they find a plan the doctor takes.
    Semantics, they are forced to make a decision they would not have had to make otherwise. They are economically forced to change their plan which affects which doctor they can see.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Then switch to hospitals that do - that's just the free market forces deciding the kinds of customers they want. Not a big deal.
    Hospitals that might be further away, hospitals that might have a lower quality of care. Nothing about the government mandating insurance reimbursement rates is “the free market.” Nothing about them making private insurance so expensive a large portion of people are forced onto the lower quality public option is “free market.” It would only be a free market here if competition between customers and suppliers dictated the prices, rather than government requirements and subsidies.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    As opposed to using the free ER that we all pay for?
    False dichotomy fallacy. There are more than just going to the ER or being forced to buy coverage you neither need nor want.
    Additionally, ER visits are up since the implementation of the ACA, not down (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Har.../03/id/545066/).
    The study, published in the journal Science and released on Thursday, shows that the nearly 4 million new patients subsidized by government under the expansion of Medicaid are more likely to end up seeking treatment in emergency rooms for non-emergency health problems than before they entered the program.

    Harvard conducted the study in Oregon in 2008 after that state expanded its Medicaid program. It found that newly-insured Medicaid patients went to the ER 40 percent more than the uninsured.

    The findings are the polar opposite of government calculations that these millions of new patients would pick lower-cost options for their healthcare, by going to their primary care physicians.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    And how much is fixable?
    All of it of course. Given that the situation was better pre-ACA, a removal of those factors causing this trend in the ACA would fix the problem. Better yet, the removal of the ACA entirely would probably be warranted, especially given the fact that over a third of Americans report they or their family is worse off because of the ACA (only one in five report better off).
    The data suggests (including the unpopularity of the ACA) that the pre-ACA status quo was better than the current state.
    Now there are certainly things we could do to improve that old status quo (http://americanxt.org/wp-content/upl...rment-Plan.pdf or better yet http://www.cato.org/publications/bri...th-care-reform) but certainly we are currently headed in the wrong direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It's moving the debate forward - that is objectively better than doing nothing.
    You didn’t answer the question.
    Question to opponent. When you said that transfer to an exchange covered plan was “better.” Was that a claim, or simply your personal opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Then that's just something else to fix.
    So if there is something to fix, you agree with me that it isn’t objectively better right? If it were better it wouldn’t be something to fix right?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I believe there was an extension for those people that couldn't get onto the exchanges;
    An extension to their employer sponsored coverage? Please support this.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    given that there were alternatives - like the old reliable technology called a telephone or an even older technology called visiting an office, I can't fault the system entirely.
    Right so they could take a day off of work and affect their pay check to visit an office just so they could get a plan that is worse off than the one they had. Great system you set up there.

    Second, can you support that either the phone call system or the offices had access to exchanges and could offer the full variety of services, including price comparisons?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Of course it's more expensive! It's better insurance than we had before.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract this. The thrust of this discussion so far would seem to counter your take here. Please show that people now have objectively better insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    If it costs more to not have a lifetime limit or be dumped by an insurance company then so be it: that's the point of insurance.
    And you feel that you have the moral authority to make that decision for someone else? And to force them to adhere to your decision rather than retain their pre-existing situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I don't even really understand why companies even need to provide employee insurance anyway - the fewer people between my doctor and me the better.
    Why would they need to provide employee insurance? Because the ACA mandates that they do! You seem shockingly unaware of the law that you are supporting’s contents.
    Also, your employer is nowhere “between” you and your doctor. I’m assuming you’ve never had employer sponsored health insurance before. They simply pay the premium, they don’t involve themselves in care.
    This objection also seems nonsensical. So rather than have your employer be part of your insurance plan, you would rather have the larger and more intrusive government be “between” you and your doctor?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No idea but it appears to have been fixed and for the better. Not much else to worry about at this stage - it's like complaining about how bad the exchanges were at the beginning: who really cares?
    So you posited a factor that you have no idea what it is, but then dismiss it as “irrelevant” even though you have absolutely no idea what it is or how it could affect people in the future?
    And under what metric are you arguing it is getting better? More people are moving from employer sponsored plans to reduced coverage, higher co-pay, reduced access medicare/Medicaid. How is that “getting better?”

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    All you appear to be doing is suggesting that ACA is the end state, whereas it's really the next step in America's path towards dealing with a big problem.
    Oh I’ve never thought it was the end state. Given the increase in cost of care under the ACA, the decrease in effective coverage rates and the massive increases in both taxes and spending resulting from it there is no possible way it is sustainable. It will either be repealed or augmented to be further controlling of individuals’ access to healthcare.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yawn, I'm sure certain people are motivated towards such a direction. Good luck to them.
    Right, the will of the people is irrelevant if they disagree with you JJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, sounds like the GOP are taking advantage of pretty much a typo
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    "The two Republicans’ decision rests on a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act itself
    I combined these two responses because they make the same objection and are dismissed with the same legal point.

    JJ, this betrays an astounding lack of familiarity with the law, though I will note that you did a great job absorbing the ThinkProgress talking points here.

    Both Appeals Courts specifically considered the typo argument you present here. The one that upheld the subsidies rejected the typo argument and chose rather to defend it on the language being “ambiguous” in this case vague enough to allow the IRS to interpret what was meant.
    The Court that rejected the typo argument did so in more of a formal fashion as Michael Cannon explains (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...challenge-joel same article where President Obama’s legal professor says he believes the law will be struck down):
    “There are specific rules about when and how the IRS can deviate from the plain language of a statute,” Cannon explained to National Review Online, arguing that the subsidies regulation fails to comply with those rules.
    The IRS can deviate from “absurd” laws, in theory, but the subsidies language is not absurd. “It might be stupid, but that’s not the test for absurdity,” Cannon says. Similarly, the IRS can deviate in the case of scrivener’s errors — typos, basically — but this is not a typo, Cannon says, because the language was written into repeated drafts of the law.
    “They not only keep that language in there, but they even inserted it, this same phrase again, right before passage while the bill was in [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid’s office,” Cannon says. “So, it’s not a scrivener’s error, either.”
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Semantics, they are forced to make a decision they would not have had to make otherwise. They are economically forced to change their plan which affects which doctor they can see.
    If they no longer have access plan that is legal, after years of notice, then it is still their own fault! Poor planning or expecting Republicans to win the election is no excuse.


    Hospitals that might be further away, hospitals that might have a lower quality of care.
    Or they might be closer and might provide better quality of care!

    Nothing about the government mandating insurance reimbursement rates is “the free market.” Nothing about them making private insurance so expensive a large portion of people are forced onto the lower quality public option is “free market.” It would only be a free market here if competition between customers and suppliers dictated the prices, rather than government requirements and subsidies.
    Well, if by 'free' you mean free of any kind of restriction then I'd agree with you. But we don't live in a world where food manufacturers are 'free' to sell bad food, or 'free' to build houses that are unsafe or 'free' to sell cars that are dangerous. If the minimum coverage is 'expensive' then unfortunately, that is the market price. Why are you against paying a fair price for something?


    False dichotomy fallacy. There are more than just going to the ER or being forced to buy coverage you neither need nor want.
    Additionally, ER visits are up since the implementation of the ACA, not down
    Initially, the same thing happened in Massachusetts too:
    We find that the reduction in emergency admissions was particularly pronounced among people from zip codes in the lowest income quartile [with an estimated] 12.2 percent reduction.

    So I suspect this will be yet another example of GOP wolf-crying that will fizzle out on its own.


    JJ: And how much is fixable?
    All of it of course.
    Good then let's move forward then. You're looking for fights where there needn't be, complaining about things that are likely short-term and pretending that going backwards is possible. Remember, no Bush did nothing about health care and neither has there been a decent plan from the GOP for a way forward.


    You didn’t answer the question.
    Question to opponent. When you said that transfer to an exchange covered plan was “better.” Was that a claim, or simply your personal opinion?
    I was saying post-ACA was better than pre-ACA.


    So if there is something to fix, you agree with me that it isn’t objectively better right? If it were better it wouldn’t be something to fix right?
    Seeing the world in black and white as you do here is your biggest problem. Having something to fix means that there is still work to be done. It is still better than before but not perfect. It's sometimes nice to see things as all good and all bad but that's a simplistic and unrealistic way to approach the multi-faceted problem of health care.


    An extension to their employer sponsored coverage? Please support this.
    An extension to register through the exchange.


    Right so they could take a day off of work and affect their pay check to visit an office just so they could get a plan that is worse off than the one they had. Great system you set up there.
    People do that to get car insurance, or waiting for a plumber, or get their cable installed. I think taking care of one of the biggest risks to the most important thing you have, your health, is more important than all of those. What a strange approach to a simple problem you have.


    Second, can you support that either the phone call system or the offices had access to exchanges and could offer the full variety of services, including price comparisons?
    Yes, there's 24 hr support in multiple languages to help people get the insurance they need. They have access to the same systems! This is basic knowledge.

    JJ: Of course it's more expensive! It's better insurance than we had before.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract this. The thrust of this discussion so far would seem to counter your take here. Please show that people now have objectively better insurance.
    Again, this is basic knowledge about ACA; to repeat - no lifetime limits, no dropping of insurance when needed, kids on parents' insurance, lots of preventive care benefits (here). There's more detail here about the Health coverage rights and protections. Your ignorance on these matters clearly shows you are just attacking ACA politically.

    JJ:If it costs more to not have a lifetime limit or be dumped by an insurance company then so be it: that's the point of insurance.
    And you feel that you have the moral authority to make that decision for someone else? And to force them to adhere to your decision rather than retain their pre-existing situation?
    It's no different from the moral authority to force people to buy car insurance, or prevent food sellers from knowingly poison people; or builders to produce shoddy work; or any number of rules and regulations. I know your world-view allows for hospitals and businesses to discriminate using race, so these regulations are more government 'over-reach' on top of too many rules to begin with. I can't help you with your unrealistic view of the world but that's the root of some of your questioning.


    Why would they need to provide employee insurance? Because the ACA mandates that they do! You seem shockingly unaware of the law that you are supporting’s contents.
    I meant it as a general question - obviously ACA is a continuation of an existing system!

    Also, your employer is nowhere “between” you and your doctor. I’m assuming you’ve never had employer sponsored health insurance before. They simply pay the premium, they don’t involve themselves in care.
    Actually, companies choose the benefits that their employees have. I can't believe that you haven't been paying attention to the Hobby Lobby case! Unbelievably out of touch here!

    This objection also seems nonsensical. So rather than have your employer be part of your insurance plan, you would rather have the larger and more intrusive government be “between” you and your doctor?
    Yes. Should I be unlucky to work for a 'Christian' company, I would prefer a secular government.


    So you posited a factor that you have no idea what it is, but then dismiss it as “irrelevant” even though you have absolutely no idea what it is or how it could affect people in the future?
    You're the one that brought up the chart and attempted to put a bad spin on the dip and to minimize the lower number of uninsured as no big deal. Who cares other than wolf-crying political hacks?



    Oh I’ve never thought it was the end state. Given the increase in cost of care under the ACA, the decrease in effective coverage rates and the massive increases in both taxes and spending resulting from it there is no possible way it is sustainable. It will either be repealed or augmented to be further controlling of individuals’ access to healthcare.
    Then we move forward once again. I have no real problem with that.


    Right, the will of the people is irrelevant if they disagree with you JJ.
    The will of the people already spoke by giving Obama two terms. 2016 will likely see another 8 years of Democratic policies. Indeed, it is the right-wing that is going against the will of the people.





    I combined these two responses because they make the same objection and are dismissed with the same legal point.

    JJ, this betrays an astounding lack of familiarity with the law, though I will note that you did a great job absorbing the ThinkProgress talking points here.
    I'm not objecting to it at all. I think this should be legislated in Congress so that the American people know who is on which side of this debate.

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

    More good news that offsets the raise in premiums a little:

    Obamacare Has Helped Americans Save Nearly $2 Billion On Their Insurance Premiums
    Millions of Americans can expect to get a refund from their insurance companies this year, at an average of about $80 dollars per family, thanks to a little-known Obamacare provision that’s helping people save money on their premiums. According to a new report released by the Health and Human Services Department on Thursday, Americans across the country have received a total of $1.9 billion dollars in rebates since this provision first took effect in 2011.
    Obamacare’s medical loss ratio provision — which is also frequently referred to as the “80/20 rule” — requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of every American’s premium costs on their medical care, rather than on the company’s own profits or administrative overhead. If insurance companies don’t hit the right balance, they have to issue a refund check to their customers to make up for it.

    According to HHS’s calculations, 6.8 million Americans will save $330 million in refunds this year because of the 80/20 rule. Insurance companies are required to provide those reimbursements by no later than the beginning of August. Not everyone will actually receive a physical check in the mail; insurers are allowed to apply the reimbursements to future premiums, so the savings could show up that way.

    In a press release announcing the new data, HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said that the health reform law is giving Americans a “better value for their premium dollars.” The whole point of the 80/20 rule is to encourage insurance companies to operate more efficiently and cut down on their overhead — and it’s slowly working. The portion of premium dollars allocated to insurers’ profits and administrative costsdropped from 15.3 percent in 2011 to 11.7 percent in 2013.
    HHS estimates that if insurers weren’t making those type of changes, Americans would have likely paid about $3.8 billion in additional premiums in 2013. Altogether, since the medical loss ratio took effect three years ago, the administration calculates that it’s averted $9 billion dollars worth of unnecessarily high insurance premiums.

  20. #57
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    If they no longer have access plan that is legal, after years of notice, then it is still their own fault! Poor planning or expecting Republicans to win the election is no excuse.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that they had “years of notice.” The poll data offered was only months after a large majority of these notices went out. Additionally, even years would seem reasonable given the massive premium hikes created by the ACA.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Or they might be closer and might provide better quality of care!
    That is an extremely unlikely scenario. If the hospital was closer and provided better quality of care, the person would have already been going there.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, if by 'free' you mean free of any kind of restriction then I'd agree with you. But we don't live in a world where food manufacturers are 'free' to sell bad food, or 'free' to build houses that are unsafe or 'free' to sell cars that are dangerous. If the minimum coverage is 'expensive' then unfortunately, that is the market price. Why are you against paying a fair price for something?
    Of course that is not what I meant. Fraud is not the same thing as regulation and you know it.

    I’m against being forced to pay a price for something I neither need or want. I do not need an insurance plan that covers birth control, so why am I forced to pay for one?

    Why are you against people being able to decide what they would like to purchase for themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Initially, the same thing happened in Massachusetts too:
    In MA it was a 7% increase followed by an 8% decrease (ie statistically almost nothing changed).
    Under the ACA, it is a 40% increase. Even if it were to magically drop by 40% in the next two years that simply means the authors of the bill were still incorrect in claiming it would reduce ER visits. Romneycare didn’t reduce ER visits in MA, not statistically any way. And the fact that you are relying on data more than an order of magnitude different invalidates your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Good then let's move forward then.
    Then we are agreed, remove the ACA which has caused these problems and we can return to a scenario that was objectively better than the one we have now.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I was saying post-ACA was better than pre-ACA.
    You ignored the question.
    Question to opponent. When you said that transfer to an exchange covered plan was “better.” By which you say you meant post ACA. Was that statement a claim, or simply your personal opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    An extension to register through the exchange.
    And how does that resolve the issue being discussed? That extension was only for the individual mandate. That does nothing for those who lost their insurance pre-exchange setup right?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yes, there's 24 hr support in multiple languages to help people get the insurance they need. They have access to the same systems! This is basic knowledge.
    This is not support. I asked you to support that either the phone call system or the offices had access to exchanges and could offer the full variety of services, including price comparisons? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Again, this is basic knowledge about ACA
    This only supports that the ACA mandates new features not that it is objectively better as you claimed. If I offered you a new car that had seat heaters where your existing car did not, but it would break down every mile that car has new features, but it isn’t better. Can you support that coverage under the ACA is objectively better than or is that simply your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It's no different from the moral authority to force people to buy car insurance,
    Yes it is, I have to personally choose to utilize a road in order to be required to buy car insurance. I can opt out of it by not driving. There is no such provision under the ACA. Everyone, everywhere must buy insurance.

    Your other examples are clearly red herrings, unless you can support that the moral authority used to make people purchase a health insurance plan is exactly the same moral reasoning used to prevent assault as you claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Actually, companies choose the benefits that their employees have.
    You are incorrect. Employers do not pick what benefits their employees have. The employer chooses what benefits they will pay for as part of a compensation package. You are certainly free to purchase additional coverage, there is just no requirement for the employer to pay for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You're the one that brought up the chart and attempted to put a bad spin on the dip and to minimize the lower number of uninsured as no big deal.
    You seem to have a short memory. You brought up the drop in insurance rates JJ (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post539184) I was simply showing that the “drop” in uninsured resulted from an artificial boost in that number caused by the ACA.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Then we move forward once again. I have no real problem with that.
    Yep, reduced access to care, increased rates of preventable deaths, and health care rationing, great progress you guys got there.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The will of the people already spoke by giving Obama two terms.
    Except President Obama wasn’t re-elected solely because of the ACA. In fact, a more detailed look shows that the ACA was hurting his re-election chances (and never mind the fact that a large, large majority of Americans now repent of their votes). The ACA has never had majority support in this country. Your attempt to use the President’s re-election does nothing to change that fact.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that they had “years of notice.” The poll data offered was only months after a large majority of these notices went out. Additionally, even years would seem reasonable given the massive premium hikes created by the ACA.
    The law was passed in 2010. That's plenty of time for everyone I learn and be notified.

    That is an extremely unlikely scenario. If the hospital was closer and provided better quality of care, the person would have already been going there.
    Prove it.


    Of course that is not what I meant. Fraud is not the same thing as regulation and you know it.
    Using cheap materials isn't fraud unless there are regulations to put a minimum level of quality. Same with the insurance companies being forbidden to unilaterally cancel plans.


    I’m against being forced to pay a price for something I neither need or want. I do not need an insurance plan that covers birth control, so why am I forced to pay for one?
    And neither do you have a broken leg or a heart attack. So unless you are gay, or forever single, I don't see how you are exempt from potentially impregnating a woman. This rather selfish view can be applied to any coverage including smoke cessation or disability or anything that you personally will never have. Sounds complicated and unworkable.

    Why are you against people being able to decide what they would like to purchase for themselves?
    Because I end up paying the full amount as a taxpayer for free riders.


    Then we are agreed, remove the ACA which has caused these problems and we can return to a scenario that was objectively better than the one we have now.
    Good luck with that viewpoint.




    You ignored the question.
    Question to opponent. When you said that transfer to an exchange covered plan was “better.” By which you say you meant post ACA. Was that statement a claim, or simply your personal opinion?
    I said ACA is general is better. You added the exchange covered plan is better yourself.


    And how does that resolve the issue being discussed? That extension was only for the individual mandate. That does nothing for those who lost their insurance pre-exchange setup right?
    It meant they had a bit more time to get their insurance.

    This is not support. I asked you to support that either the phone call system or the offices had access to exchanges and could offer the full variety of services, including price comparisons? Challenge to support a claim.
    And I sent you a list of things that you can do by personal visit or over the phone. I'm not clear what more support you need.

    This only supports that the ACA mandates new features not that it is objectively better as you claimed. If I offered you a new car that had seat heaters where your existing car did not, but it would break down every mile that car has new features, but it isn’t better. Can you support that coverage under the ACA is objectively better than or is that simply your opinion?
    Not having your insurance canceled is objectively better because you know that you are not throwing money away. Not having a lifetime limit is objectively better because it means that your worst case has a lower limit. That makes insurance worth the money I am paying, even if it ends up costing more or that I have to switch plans or doctors.

    [Quote]

    Yes it is, I have to personally choose to utilize a road in order to be required to buy car insurance. I can opt out of it by not driving. There is no such provision under the ACA. Everyone, everywhere must buy insurance.

    [Quote]
    Yes of course! Because everyone has a chance to fall sick enough to require ER. If we let people die who did not have insurance, I would agree that you have a point.

    But we don't let people die so people already have insurance that taxpayers are footing the bill for. You can't opt out by choosing to die instead.


    Your other examples are clearly red herrings, unless you can support that the moral authority used to make people purchase a health insurance plan is exactly the same moral reasoning used to prevent assault as you claim.
    It doesn't have to be the same moral reasoning because the reasoning, that we don't let people die, has already been made. This is an extension of that original decision.


    You are incorrect. Employers do not pick what benefits their employees have. The employer chooses what benefits they will pay for as part of a compensation package. You are certainly free to purchase additional coverage, there is just no requirement for the employer to pay for it.
    I doubt that there are plans that allow you to add the one feature that the company decides not to offer.

    Yep, reduced access to care, increased rates of preventable deaths, and health care rationing, great progress you guys got there.
    All of which are fixable.


    Except President Obama wasn’t re-elected solely because of the ACA. In fact, a more detailed look shows that the ACA was hurting his re-election chances (and never mind the fact that a large, large majority of Americans now repent of their votes). The ACA has never had majority support in this country. Your attempt to use the President’s re-election does nothing to change that fact.
    I didn't say solely ACA; the anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigration aspect of the GOP factored into people's decision making, as well as Obama's record moving in a positive direction on those issues.

    Perhaps when your party chooses to do something positive for a change, it might actually gain the power to do something. Until then, obstructionism, crying wolf and sour grapes might work to maintain the base. At least people will know who is doing something and who isn't.

  22. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    For those that remain anti-factually skeptical regarding enrollment numbers, I found a site (http://acasignups.net/ ) that collects this information along with news and discussions.

    This chart below, shows a clear trend upwards; and that is despite strong GOP resistance and lies, as well as the lack of Red State involvement. Note the only argument left, is to attempt to minimize or marginalize the reality that ACA is succeeding in States that are embracing it. For the Red States that aren't ... that would be the topic for another thread.

    Last edited by JimJones8934; July 31st, 2014 at 04:15 PM.

  23. #60
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ObamaCare is here to stay

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The law was passed in 2010. That's plenty of time for everyone I learn and be notified.
    A person who had insurance under their employer was not notified they would lose it when the law passed, but later as the implementation rules were crafted making it prohibitive to cover employees for some firms. Thus your rationale does not apply here.
    So again, Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that the individuals who lost their employer sponsored insurance had “years of notice.”

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Prove it.
    Sure Rational Choice theory shows that people act to maximize their utility. If a hospital is closer and provides better quality of care, it offers a higher utility than a hospital that does not. In fact the entire argument we’ve had supports my point here. In fact, the point you used to respond to me supports my argument. You were saying it was could have been a better thing that they had to change hospitals because they new one was “better.” But if the new one is better there are only two choices. A) the person would have already been going there or b) they are irrational. So unless you are arguing that a large portion of the American public acts irrationally (in which case you need to offer support), the is point would stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Using cheap materials isn't fraud unless there are regulations to put a minimum level of quality. Same with the insurance companies being forbidden to unilaterally cancel plans.
    Building a house that is unsafe is fraud, unless you are arguing that the buyers knew it was unsafe when the purchased it.

    Insurance companies have never been allowed to unilaterally cancel plans, that violates basic contract law. What they could do was choose not to reup a plan or could cancel it based on material breach (say the plan subscriber did not reveal material facts to the policy writer). They could never just cancel the plan. If you want to continue that in this thread, you will need to offer independent support.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    And neither do you have a broken leg or a heart attack. So unless you are gay, or forever single, I don't see how you are exempt from potentially impregnating a woman.
    You misunderstood my objection in a manner very common on the left. Let me clarify something you seem to have overlooked. The ACA does not provide health care it provides health insurance. I didn't say I wouldn't want birth control as a substance (though I don't see why I need someone else to pay for it). I said I don't need insurance to provide birth control. So why are you for forcing people to pay into an insurance plan for something they might not want at all, or if they do might not want to buy insurance for?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Because I end up paying the full amount as a taxpayer for free riders.
    One, not the case (hospitals and insurance providers pay the vast, vast majority of free riding health care costs). Two, that certainly isn't the case for birth control or a thousand other new elective procedures required to be covered under the ACA. Again, we aren't talking about emergency surgery (all insurance plans have always covered that, that is how they started), we are talking about elective procedures. So why are you against people being allowed to choose which elective procedures they would like to pay for on their own (since you were incorrect about having to pay for it yourself).

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Good luck with that viewpoint.
    This is not a coherent response, it is ostrichism again. You are under the mistaken belief that the ACA is immutable when it's unpopularity has continued to increase since its passage. The hoped for downward trend after implementation has not occurred which spells a very problematic scenario for a law that is coming up against multiple court cases, has had more than 60% of its funding removed via riders and court decisions and is about to see a possibly republican congress. You can quote enrollment figures all you like, but given the data we've seen here it doesn't seem like those new enrollees are very pleased with the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I said ACA is general is better.
    You are remarkably resistant to forming a coherent answer on your own here. Question to opponent. When you said, "[the] ACA is general is better." Was that a claim or simply a personal opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It meant they had a bit more time to get their insurance.
    Which is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. Perhaps it would behoove you to re-read the posts before commenting. The point was that they were uninsured for a period following cancellations of their plans due to the ACA. Whether or not they would be fined for that is completely irrelevant to the poll question "do you have health insurance?"

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Not having your insurance canceled is objectively better because you know that you are not throwing money away. Not having a lifetime limit is objectively better because it means that your worst case has a lower limit. That makes insurance worth the money I am paying, even if it ends up costing more or that I have to switch plans or doctors.
    Ok, these features might be better to some. Lets accept that for a moment. Can you show they were worth the corresponding cost?

    Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch, each of these changes came at a price. Can you show that these improvements were objectively worth the additional cost they imposed? (and before you say "what cost?" remember, this is your claim, not mine, it is your responsibility to fully elaborate and support it).

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yes of course! Because everyone has a chance to fall sick enough to require ER.
    You said the moral authority to mandate someone purchase health insurance is the same as the moral authority to make someone purchase car insurance. However, I showed this not to be the case because the moral authority to require car insurance derives from the voluntary choice people make to drive. They choose to use roads and therefore have a cost to that decision.

    But no one makes a voluntary choice concerning health insurance, so again I'll ask, from whence does the moral authority come to force people, regardless of their desires, to purchase a product that you, JJ, think they should have?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It doesn't have to be the same moral reasoning because the reasoning, that we don't let people die, has already been made.
    That might be the case if this were solely about life saving conditions or emergencies (though I would still question the moral authority to make someone plan against that or why taxes wouldn't be more efficient of a system then), but that isn't largely what the ACA did. Its coverage conditions contain virtually no emergency care requirements, insurance was designed for emergencies and so already had them. How does this moral authority extend to birth control? Elective surgery or any of the elective conditions the ACA mandates coverage for?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I doubt that there are plans that allow you to add the one feature that the company decides not to offer.
    That is because you are completely unfamiliar with the subject you are debating. It is called Supplemental Health Insurance:

    Supplemental health insurance covers numerous things depending on the coverage an insured purchases. Some supplemental coverage is designed to pay for very specific types of conditions, such as cancer insurance. This coverage pays for cancer treatments, transportation to chemotherapy centers, lost wages and other costs, but only if the patient has cancer. Otherwise, the coverage would not apply.

    Another popular type of supplemental health insurance is accident coverage. Like cancer insurance, this coverage provides payout for an insured’s medical expenses if the insured is involved in an accident. Similarly, critical illness coverage pays for medical expenses related to critical illnesses, such as hospital stays and long-term treatment costs.

    Other types of supplemental insurance pay for specific types of expenses. For example, insurance may be used to pay for lost wages or living expenses while temporarily disabled by disease or injury. This disability insurance is used to cover household expenses and can be used however the insured sees fit.

    The more coverage a person buys, the better protected they will be. In most cases, a person will probably never have the opportunity to use all of the supplemental health insurance that they buy. For example, a person is unlikely to need both cancer insurance and accident insurance; although it’s not impossible that a person will experience a catastrophic accident and then later be diagnosed with cancer, the odds are fairly unlikely. Because of the diversity of risk, most insurance companies will attempt to sell multiple types of coverage to the insured.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    All of which are fixable.
    Challenge to support a claim.
    Please explain how. Be specific.




    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    For those that remain anti-factually skeptical regarding enrollment numbers, I found a site that collects this information along with news and discussions.

    JJ, please notice the red text here. You are required to provide a link to all sourced mentioned. If you wish to keep this post, please edit to provide a link or send me a link and I will do it for you.






    So additional evidence towards my earlier case concerning Halbig v. Burwell. Many (including people here) have argued the law is simply a typo, that the provision found by the Court was just what is called a scrivner's error. Though already shown not to be the case above, I can add some additional evidence.

    Last night, the Competitive Enterprise Institute broke a heck of a story: A video showed Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, supporting the plaintiff's argument in Halbig v. Burwell.

    For those who haven't been obsessively reading this blog, this was the case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit just ruled that premium subsidies could only legally be made available on state exchanges, not exchanges established by the federal government. Liberals have been arguing that this is a clearly ridiculous view of the law and one no reasonable person could endorse. Yet in the video, Gruber, a highly regarded economist who has done extensive work on the law for both the Barack Obama administration and state agencies, stated this as a fact. Moreover, he said that this would give states a clear incentive to establish exchanges -- which is, coincidentally, exactly why the plaintiffs in Halbig have argued that Congress restricted subsidies to states.

    ...

    But now John Sexton at Breitbart has uncovered what appears to be another January 2012 speech in which Gruber makes exactly the same point. The Official Blog Spouse has provided a transcript of the relevant bits:

    The third risk, and the one folks aren’t talking about, which may most important of all, is the role of the states. Through a political compromise, it was decided that states should play a critical role in running these health insurance exchanges. And health insurance exchanges are the centerpiece of this reform, because they are the place that individuals can go to shop for their new, securely priced health insurance. But if they are not set up in a way which is transparent, and which is convenient for shoppers, and which allow people to take their tax credits and use them effectively by health insurance, it will undercut the whole purpose of the bill.
    ...

    Like the Official Blog Spouse, I listened to the audio to make sure that, first, it wasn't simply the audio from the earlier video, and second, that the new clip wasn't taken out of context. It's clear that the audio is from an entirely different event; though Gruber repeats himself a lot from speech to speech (not surprising, because Gruber was on book tour for his cartoon book on Obamacare), the questions in the Q&A period are not the same. It's also quite clear that this was not snipped out of context; we now have evidence of Gruber twice making the same argument about subsidies in January 2012.



    And it what might be irony of the week, WaPo blogger Greg Sargent, in an attempt to defends the "ambiguity" arguement provides compelling evidence that this was not just a scrivner's error, but a legitimate, discussed and accepted modification to the bill. By the way, this is the kind of argument SCOTUS will latch onto in oral arguments in my experience:



    Obamacare, Sargent notes, is in fact the product of two separate health-reform bills that were eventually — and problematically — merged together. The first of these, which was devised and passed by the Senate’s HELP Committee, provided subsidies for state and federal exchanges. The second, written and passed by the Senate Finance Committee, provided subsidies only for state exchanges. When the bills were put together, the HELP bill’s more expansive language gave way to the Finance bill’s more restrictive provisions. Thus did the contentious “established by the State” language find its way into a law intended to fund exchanges administered at the federal level as well.

    ...

    Indeed, insofar as Sargent has managed to achieve anything at all, by rehashing the legislative history he has helped rather than hurt those whom he wished to “undercut.” Sargent’s timeline confirms both that the HELP Committee’s bill “explicitly stated that subsides would go to people on the federally-established exchange” and that that bill was sufficiently authoritative to have been passed out of a Senate committee — both of which facts, Ace of Spades’ Jeff B. noted yesterday, present Halbig’s critics not with an opportunity but with a problem. “If explicit language was in an earlier version of a bill but dropped from the final version,” he wrote, “the court will treat that as proof it was removed on purpose.” Quite so. As Red State’s Dan McLaughlin points out, this principle is well-established in American legal precedent, the Supreme Court having explained bluntly in 1987 that there are few jurisprudential conceits more “compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded in favor of other language.” Or, as Patrick Gaspard might have said, “It’s the canon of statutory construction, b*****s.”

    Fatal as this is to Sargent’s case, the glee that his mistake has provoked is overwrought. In one form or another, everything in his timeline has already been documented in either the array of amicus briefs that have informed the case thus far or in the politically tinged debate that has surrounded the litigation since the initial decision came down.





    And going in thy "why this law is economically problematic" file:

    U.S. taxpayers could pay $1 billion by the end of the year to bail out insurance companies taking a loss from providing Obamacare-compliant plans, and President Barack Obama’s most trusted adviser helped cut the deal, according to a report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released Monday.
    ...
    Several insurance companies, including Care First Blue Cross Blue Shield, underpriced their exchange plans in 2014 because of their expectation of a taxpayer bailout through the risk corridor program, according to the report.
    ...
    The committee found 12 of 15 insurance companies that responded expect to receive risk corridor payments to cover their expected losses on ObamaCare-compliant plans.

    The committee estimates the bailout will cost between $725 million and $1 billion this year. Further, the report says estimates grow by a third from October 2013 to May 2014.

    So a good portion of those "rebates" mentioned earlier in thread? Yeah, they're transfer payment subsidies. Once those bailouts become unprofitable, expect premiums to rise, yet again.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. If you go to Mars, stay there
    By Aspoestertjie in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 27th, 2008, 04:07 PM
  2. Why should we stay?
    By manise in forum Current Events
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 12:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •