1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Obamacare is still a shit show -- or Part Deux

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. Piobaireachd

    Piobaireachd Full Member

    Tricare here too. Thank G-d...

    Meanwhile Obozo, Sebalius, and others try to polish that turd known as the ACA.
  2. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Ditto. One primary strategy about avoiding being forceably interviewed or giving testimony, and this is THE MAJOR RULE!!!! If you don't like the question, reformulate the question in your mind to a question that you prefer to answer and then answer that question.

    Other evasive techniques: (1) I do not know the answer but I will provide you with that information at "X" date. (2) I don't remember.
  3. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Just noting, one major cutback at many companies is either (a) refusing to cover spouses who are eligible to be covered on their own jobs, or (b) deciding to cover just the employee and not providing family coverage.
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  5. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    ethics likes this.
  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  7. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Purpose of Obamacare: Insure the uninsured. Effect of Obamacare to date: Uninsure the insured. -- Brett Hume
  8. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    From what I hear on the news, in many states many if not most of the sign-ups are for Medicaid. How's that for adding to the risk pool? AFAIK Medicaid is either free or heavily subsidized, and in either case each new Medicaid patient costs the government (i.e. we taxpayers) more. Add to that the young people 26 and under who will just stay on their parents' policies, and the young people who will just pay the penalty. (Actually the smart thing for young people on their own, at least in 2014, would be to pay the penalty and purchase a cheap very high deductible catastrophic health plan.)

    Most of those who will actually get their health plans are those who work for mega-corporations and government employees (you know, like Sebelius and Obama). All individual policies are at risk and I presume these are the bulk of those who have health plans and will lose them, or get up-sold into drastically more expensive plans. ("Sorry, your old plan has been discontinued, but we have a new plan almost like it except it's much better because it covers pregnancy and a bunch of other stuff, and it's only 7x more expensive.") I've heard of many insurance companies who have simply elected to no longer offer individual policies. They just keep the gravy (group plans) and the individuals can go on the exchange.

    I have a much better way we could have achieved universal health coverage that would have been less expensive for many maybe most people. Screw changing the health insurance industry, just let things go on as usual. Then increase taxes a bit and subsidize community hospitals to treat uninsured people for free. They're already doing that (because the law doesn't allow them to turn people away, and that Hippo oath stuff), and if the government would just subsidize those patients then being uninsured wouldn't be any big problem. Universal health care, either buy insurance, get it on your job, or just get in line at the hospital.

    The only negative to my plan would be an increase in income taxes, and with all the people now going on Medicaid taxes would go up anyway, and the increase in taxes for working people would probably be less than the increase in their health insurance costs.

    Just noting: most of America works for small businesses or are self employed. These are the people who are most affected by the negative effects of Obamacare.
  9. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    Part of ACA is an expansion of Medicaid eligibility. And yes, because it's health insurance for the "income-challenged," Medicaid doesn't have a premium (if you're eligible for Medicaid under ACA, that's the only coverage for which you are eligible). The "expansion" aspect of this program is that Medicaid coverage gets expanded to all adults with incomes up to 138 percent above the federal poverty line, and the cost of this expansion will be covered by the federal government at 100 percent of cost until 2016, and at 90 percent thereafter.

    The Supreme Court ruling made participation in Medicaid expansion optional for the states, and only about half have chosen to participate at this time. So that introduces two problems:
    • As you pointed out, Medicaid expansion is expensive.
    • People in non-participating states with low incomes, folks who need health insurance the most, can't get any.
    Additionally, all of the hoopla has had what some have dubbed a "woodwork" effect, in which folks who were eligible for non-expanded Medicaid but never signed up have now signed up.
  10. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Sounds to me like ppl in non-participating states will probably migrate to participating to some extent.

    And the "woodwork effect, I like that!
  11. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    They're really throwing out the baby with the bathwater!
  12. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Tricare for Life here. Medicare pays first and Tricare pays what is left. I do have Medicare subtracted from my Social Security and that may go up but not for now.
  13. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Actually Shiny, your part B deduction is going from $104.90 this year to an estimated $123.10 next year. (source) Although a bit steep (17% -- way out of line considering inflation) I doubt it has anything to do with Obamacare. Actually, I don't understand the justification for a 17% increase for Part B.

    Obama's message about, "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" is now morphing. Now the message is, "If you like your plan you can keep your plan, and if it disappears you can get a better plan by going to the Obamacare exchanges." Now we need only the final morph to transmogrify his original lie into the real truth, "If you like your plan you can keep your plan, and if it disappears you can get a better plan by going to the Obamacare exchanges, although admittedly it will cost you anywhere from 3 times t0 10 times more (but you'll be covered for pregnancy), unless you're a poor person in which case you can just transfer to Medicaid and get your plan for nothing because it gets paid for by people who actually work for a living instead of sucking up welfare and Medicaid."

    I was listening to Hannity's radio show today where he played about 10 extracts from speeches Obama has uttered between 2009 and present, where he candidly admits the ultimate goal of his reshaping health care is to arrive at a single payer system, that being of course the government. This is what it was all about right from the beginning, to switch America to a single payer health care system. And the way his plan is destroying all the alternatives it looks like everything but the single payer plan is going to self destruct. I've heard estimates that as much as 50% of individual plan participants will have their insurance canceled in the next few months and will be thrusted on the exchanges. Even the most miniscule change in a plan terminates it from being grandfathered, and in any case all plans must conform to Obamacare guidelines by some time late 2014. Some companies are getting out of issuing individual insurance in entire states--you've seen the news stories. It appears to me that individual insurance plans will not exist outside the Obamacare exchange by the end of 2014.

    For those already on Medicare it appears there will be no major changes in 2014, although I've heard nothing about what might happen in 2015 for Medicare recipients. I still don't understand the 17% increase in Part B. If you believe the government they've said there's practically no inflation. Yeah, right, they'll tell us Social Security recipients that there was so little inflation in 2013 that our SS benefit for 2014 will have no cost of living adjustment. They already did that in ... 2012? No inflation, no COLA, too bad, so sad, suck up you old farts.

    Oh I forgot to add, I don't know where it fits in my post so I'll just tack it on the end.

    Now they're blaming the mass cancellations on insurance companies! They're your losing your plans because they were sub-standard, and it's the fault of the insurance company because their plan doesn't measure up. That's like swinging a baseball bat against somebody's head and then blaming the bat for the head trauma. Evidently the Obama-ites do not understand the concept of causality. They just won't admit that the reason for the mass cancellations is that the insurance companies cannot afford to grant all the new benefits (like pre-existing conditions) and make a profit on selling individual insurance. Insurance companies see the writing on the wall. It's just like 20th Century Insurance Co. backing out of the California homeowners insurance market--canceling all the policies--because they didn't want the risk in that market. (I was with them for both homeowners and auto insurance--I got even by switching both my coverages to Mercury.)

    So there you have it. Insurance companies are dropping individual coverage in several states (that I've heard of, maybe more) and are "oops, your policy broke, but you can have a better policy even though it results in a huge rate increase." Small employers are dumping their employee health coverage and send them to the exchanges, or dropping employee hours to under 30 to avoid any insurance obligation. People are being driven to the exchange like cattle being driven to the slaughtering station at the stock yards.

    If we don't elect a conservative President and Congress in 2016 we will be fully switched to a single payer system within the decade.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
  14. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    The last brick fell into the wall for me this morning--the full understanding of what Obamacare set in motion is now clear to me.

    The way the law works, absolutely any change in your individual policy (and that's any change since 2010 (e.g. like a deductible increase, any slight change in coverage; maybe they added coverage for pap smears and PSA tests) and your policy is NOT grandfathered. If that is the case then the insurance company is under no obligation to let you keep your plan. Of course they're going to up sell you into a more expensive policy and the new policy has to cover all the Obamacare requirements--at a big price increase. Why? Because why sell you an inexpensive policy when they can drive you into a more expensive policy? More profits. They have every incentive to upgrade your policy and increase your premium, and no incentive to not raise it except losing customers. All they have left is to decide the sweet spot between how much of an increase should they charge that they don't lose so many customers that the revenue from the ones who elect to stay decreases.

    So... Obama wants you to lose your policy and get tossed on the exchange--to increase the pool to the critical level that it needs to be viable, and your insurance company wants to increase your premium with the threat that you either pay the higher premium or go to the pool--where you'll also probably find a higher premium unless your income is low enough to be subsidized.

    The ultimate goal of Obamacare is a single payer system within this decade. That was always the intention, and there are many speeches (at least about a dozen) where he stated in clear unequivocal words that a single player system was the end goal. (He used those exact words repeatedly, almost as often as "if you like your plan you can keep your plan.)

    The big speeches on national TV never mentioned this. The "single player goal" speeches were in front of Obama friendly audiences like unions, etc.]


    I just heard that a price increase more than 5% also disqualifies a plan for grandfathering.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
  15. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Well, yes and no. The insurance companies are rather indifferent. They're in a shitstorm because they are now mandated to cover things they never had to cover before, so now they HAVE to collect more money. It's a zero sum thing, insurance. They're only permitted X percentage of profit.

    But because they now have to cover anything under the sun according to Obama's one-world communal system, of course the price for all insured goes higher.

    This was absolutely predictable, and what Obama was counting on - tens of millions of younger people who weren't insured before, now having to enter the risk pool, and absorbing a nice percentage of the cost, well - that just isn't happening according to his great world order plan. You see, 30 year old kids who are in the labor force aren't making enough money to get into the insurance pool, and it's not real high priority for them. And of course, a $95 per year penalty doesn't mean shit to them.

    But wait until their penalty is $4000. Those are going to be some pissed off Obamabots.

    Correct. Never mind that single payer was soundly rejected before. That does not stop the ever marching drum beat of socialism. They will get half of what they want, then come back next time for the rest. It's called "creeping socialism", only now we're not really creeping any more. It's more like a dead sprint.
  16. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member


    WSJ Op-Ed just absolutely destroys Obama and the progressive faction.

    You know, in hindsight it occurs to me that the most politically savvy thing for the opposition to do leading up to implementation of Obamacare would be to emphatically demand it to be removed, defunded, and then when you got blowback and that failed, start demanding other things that are in actuality removing options from the other side. For instance, if you demand that they delay the individual mandate and they reject it, then you've removed their ability to suggest delaying the individual mandate. And so you do this with several things, and pretty soon you've pigeon-holed them into owning their own legislation, as it is written.

    Which is where we're at now. A fatally flawed piece of legislation that is very liable to destroy the Democratic party, like a computer virus going nutso.

    Whether this was intentional (a brilliant move) or an accident (a pleasant surprise), we will probably never know. But if it was intentional, it was Vladimir Putin owning Obama in Syria all over again. And able to do it because of Obama's massive ego. After all, hell be damned before he agrees to any Republican demands.
  17. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    What a great analogy by Krauthammer:

  18. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

  19. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

  20. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    I like Krauthammer. I've been following him for a long time. He's not afraid to address the elephant in the living room, and he does so in a calm, clear, and organized fashion. He's got class.


Share This Page