Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Premiums on ObamaCare's health insurance exchanges will rise by an average of 7.5 percent next year, according to a new analysis. Data compiled by the Health Research Institute at PricewaterhouseCoopers found modest changes in premiums for 27 states and the District of Columbia, with the increases mostly falling short of dire predictions for ObamaCare's second year. The average national increase of 7.5 percent is "well below the double-digit increases many feared," HRI Managing Director Ceci Connolly wrote in an email.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

"Health plans are just beginning to understand this new market and will keep experimenting with different products, different networks and running a retail-style business," Connolly wrote. Consumer advocates are urging people on the exchanges to prepare to comparison shop if they want to avoid price increases of any magnitude.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Some will be higher, some in AZ will see a 23% drop next year. Obamacare is working exactly as it is supposed to.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-11 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

I guess it depends on which study is being evaluated.

The one that I saw reported on last week was of stark contrast to what Tony is putting forth here.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-11 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 4

The only stark contrast I see is tony linking to a real study and jeff blowing smoke.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2014-08-12 12:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

#4 The proper response would have been to link to your alleged support for your position, not name calling.

FAIL

#5 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-08-12 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Obamacare is working exactly as it is supposed to.

#1 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Only in fantasy land is a 7.5% increase a $2500 dollar saving.

#6 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-08-12 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#6 No, Tony is right. Obamacare was designed as a wealth redistribution mechanism, and in that it is working exactly as planned. Everyone's costs go up and the wealthy pay for everyone else's increases along with their own.

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-12 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

So first, subsidies to people in states without their own exchanges are shot to pieces in court.. now an expected 7.5% average price bump because they didn't enroll nearly enough people... and that's working as intended? If Dems campaigned on that truth, they'd have lost their asses.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-08-12 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#6-7-8

I guess none of you bothered to read and comprehend this data. ACA is a tremendous undertaking and no one expected it to be perfect the second it was rolled out. The first year premiums were based on estimates of the demographics, health and composition of those who purchased policies in the marketplace. Everyone knew that adjustments would have to be made after the initial data was compiled and analyzed.

Most of the law's opponents predicted double-digit increases in premiums for 2015 across the board and according to PWC, that isn't happening. The conflation of the promised savings of $2500 per family without any context only further muddies these complicated waters. The slowing of healthcare inflation, Medicare expenditures and the improvements in healthcare outcomes will likely have a far greater impact on families than simply $2500 per. Billions have already been saved and will reach much higher as the law covers more people and continues to bend the cost curve to a much lower rising arc than without ACA.

That is the very definition of Obamacare working as it should.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-12 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

#9 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2014-08-12 11:19 AM | FLAG:

No ----. It's called reconciliation. It hasn't happened yet. We'll see what the numbers are after it happens. I've had family members benefit tremendously from it in the short term. My rates went up. Mixed bag for me so far. Uninsured rates declining is interesting, but other required insurance markets actually have higher insured rates in non-required than required states. Lots of people on both sides are counting chickens before they've hatched.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-08-12 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.gallup.com

Let look at some facts shall we. The DECLINE is based upon the INCREASE due to the massive amount of people that lost thier health care coverage due to Obamacare. 5 years earlier the rate was 13.9% AFTER Obamacare it is at 16% - it hovered in the 15% all through the 09,10 and 11 and was at 12% during those evil BUSH years. A rate that OBAMACARE has not gotten us close to.

It has also resulted in over 20 hospitals closing throughout the US (4 in Georgia alone), analysis found that 42 of the 47 states for which comparable premium data are available have seen significant average premium increases -- in many cases, over 100 percent -- for individuals purchasing from the exchanges.

And of course the BIG thing it was supposed to do was KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE ER - that supposedly very expensive way to provide care....and what has happened? You guessed it sports fans - a 12% rise in usage AND GROWING. So tell me yet again how it is WORKING AS PLANNED???

www.usatoday.com

Actual facts are an ugly thing arn't they???

#11 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-12 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The conflation of the promised savings of $2500 per family without any context only further muddies these complicated waters. The slowing of healthcare inflation, Medicare expenditures and the improvements in healthcare outcomes will likely have a far greater impact on families than simply $2500 per. Billions have already been saved and will reach much higher as the law covers more people and continues to bend the cost curve to a much lower rising arc than without ACA.

That is the very definition of Obamacare working as it should.

#9 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Is that rain I see on your leg, Tony?

#12 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-08-12 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actual facts are an ugly thing arn't they???

Yes they are moron. You spouting statistics from states that didn't embrace ACA nor allowed the Medicaid expansion. And to top it off you're posting statistics from January when ACA enrollment didn't end until April?

The States With The Highest Uninsurance Rates Are All Led By Republicans

I am ignoring you from this point forward because you're lazy, intentionally obtuse and not worth the time to educate from your own ignorance.

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-12 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12

Two peas in a pod.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-12 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

And of course the BIG thing it was supposed to do was KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE ER - that supposedly very expensive way to provide care....and what has happened? You guessed it sports fans - a 12% rise in usage AND GROWING. So tell me yet again how it is WORKING AS PLANNED???

Nationally, nearly half of ER doctors responding to a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians said they've seen more visits since Jan. 1, and nearly nine in 10 expect those visits to rise in the next three years. Mike Rust, president of the Kentucky Hospital Association, said members statewide describe the same trend.

Experts cite many reasons: A long-standing shortage of primary-care doctors leaves too few to handle all the newly insured patients. Some doctors won't accept Medicaid. And poor people often can't take time from work when most primary care offices are open, while ERs operate round-the-clock and by law must at least stabilize patients.

Plus, some patients who have been uninsured for years don't have regular doctors and are accustomed to using ERs, even though it is much more expensive.

"It's a perfect storm here," said Dr. Ryan Stanton of Lexington, president of the Kentucky chapter of the ER physician group."We've given people an ATM card in a town with no ATMs."


From your own link, ignatz. I must have missed the part where everyone ran out and increased the number of clinics and immediate care facilities in all this nation's underserved markets the moment ACA was passed.

Oh, that's right, no one made such an assertion at all. In time ACA will decrease the usage of ERs for non emergencies but for now we'll have to live with this: Hospitals Benefit From Big Drop In Uninsured Patients

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-12 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Everyone's costs go up and the wealthy pay for everyone else's increases along with their own.

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG

Health care costs have always been going up 9as long as I can remember). And the wealthy should pay more. But, it does appear that Obamacare is stabilizing health care costs and even bending the costs curve downward in some cases. And now even more people than ever (who could never afford coverage) will now get covered. And maybe when the Red States Man Up even more can get covered soon.

"Whether or not the Affordable Care Act has played a significant role in lowering the increases in health care spending to date, it is difficult to deny that the early data on the law's impact is promising."

www.forbes.com

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-12 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

So tell me yet again how it is WORKING AS PLANNED???

It is working as INTENDED. Of course folks who have never had health care before need to be taught how to use it properly.

"If people aren't used to the (health care) system, they may have problems accessing primary-care providers," said Diana Mason, who is president of the Washington, D.C.,-based American Academy of Nursing and has researched the issue.

Doctors and hospital officials said ER staff members try to let people know when it's appropriate to use the department, when they should use immediate care centers and when they should seek care at a doctor's office. They also refer patients to providers such as Family Health Centers for follow-up.

Mason said another promising solution is "care coordination," in which primary-care doctors work with high-risk patients to help them control illnesses and navigate the health care system. She pointed to a study showing care coordination helped reduce ER visits by 9 percent from 2011 to the first half of 2013 among Oregonians in the pre-ACA expanded Medicaid program.

From your link... www.usatoday.com

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-12 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry Tony...didn't see you were already on it!

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-12 06:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some will be higher, some in AZ will see a 23% drop next year. Obamacare is working exactly as it is supposed to.

----------

Yes it is working exactly as planned(by the Heritage Foundation that created it).

The democrats passed the republicans plan(which they loudly "objected" to).

No real national health despite widespread popular support. check

Insurance mafia bailout passed. check

Illusion of difference between the parties maintained. check

Mission Accomplished.

Hope and change idiots.

#19 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-12 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

premiums going up just not as much as the opposition said..

WOW....what leadership ....but look at TONY...admitting they're going up...most libs wouldn't get anywhere near that.....PROPS to you

bottom line..."if you like your plan you can keep it...PERIOD"

that will go down as one of the great LIES of our history and it's a lie that NO ONE can make even an ATTEMPT at disputing it's a lie !!!

he also talked about savings.....of course just HAPPENED to forget talking about co pays and deductibles..

pathological LIAR and 'you people' just eat it up......

#20 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-12 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

he also talked about savings.....of course just HAPPENED to forget talking about co pays and deductibles..

Are these the same co-pays and deductibles you demand Sandra Fluke pay for her ---- pills?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-12 10:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is the very definition of Obamacare working as it should.

#9 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2014-08-12 11:19 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

A primary goal of ACA was to enroll the 'younger' generation. Not happening. Without this the cost will not be supportable.

#22 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-13 08:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

NO ONE made the assertion that Obamacare would reduce ER visits!!!! Obama did nothing but tout it as a major benefit

Here is what his majesty had to say:
"But perhaps the person who has made this case more than anyone else is President Obama. He has repeatedly said over the past six years that reform would reduce ER visits thereby creating greater efficiency in the system (i.e. saving us money). Below are 17 examples:
Nov 8, 2013 - "You know, one of the reasons to do it is -- I have said this before. Sometimes people don't fully appreciate it. We already pay for the health care of people who don't have health insurance. We just pay for the most expensive version, which is when they go to the emergency room."
Oct. 30, 2013 - "we pay more in premiums and taxes when Americans without good insurance visit the emergency room. (Applause.) We get taxed."
April 30, 2013 - "we would rather have people getting regular checkups than going to the emergency room because they don't have health care -- if -- if we keep that in mind, then we're going to be able to drive down costs, we're going to be able to improve efficiencies in the system"
July 17, 2012 - "If you don't have health care, then we're going to help you get it. And the only people who may have a problem with this law are folks who can afford health care but aren't buying it, wait until they get sick and then going to the emergency room and expecting everybody else to pick up the tab. That's not responsibility."
June 28, 1012 - "when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums."
April 3, 2012 - "we shouldn't have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick, or end up waiting until they do get sick, and then go to the emergency room, which involves all of us paying for it."

#23 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

NO ONE made the assertion that Obamacare would reduce ER visits!!!! Obama did nothing but tout it as a major benefit

Here is what his majesty had to say:
"But perhaps the person who has made this case more than anyone else is President Obama. He has repeatedly said over the past six years that reform would reduce ER visits thereby creating greater efficiency in the system (i.e. saving us money). Below are 17 examples:
Nov 8, 2013 - "You know, one of the reasons to do it is -- I have said this before. Sometimes people don't fully appreciate it. We already pay for the health care of people who don't have health insurance. We just pay for the most expensive version, which is when they go to the emergency room."
Oct. 30, 2013 - "we pay more in premiums and taxes when Americans without good insurance visit the emergency room. (Applause.) We get taxed."
April 30, 2013 - "we would rather have people getting regular checkups than going to the emergency room because they don't have health care -- if -- if we keep that in mind, then we're going to be able to drive down costs, we're going to be able to improve efficiencies in the system"
July 17, 2012 - "If you don't have health care, then we're going to help you get it. And the only people who may have a problem with this law are folks who can afford health care but aren't buying it, wait until they get sick and then going to the emergency room and expecting everybody else to pick up the tab. That's not responsibility."
June 28, 1012 - "when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums."
April 3, 2012 - "we shouldn't have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick, or end up waiting until they do get sick, and then go to the emergency room, which involves all of us paying for it."

#24 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

NO ONE made the assertion that Obamacare would reduce ER visits!!!! Obama did nothing but tout it as a major benefit

Here is what his majesty had to say:
"But perhaps the person who has made this case more than anyone else is President Obama. He has repeatedly said over the past six years that reform would reduce ER visits thereby creating greater efficiency in the system (i.e. saving us money). Below are 17 examples:
Nov 8, 2013 - "You know, one of the reasons to do it is -- I have said this before. Sometimes people don't fully appreciate it. We already pay for the health care of people who don't have health insurance. We just pay for the most expensive version, which is when they go to the emergency room."
Oct. 30, 2013 - "we pay more in premiums and taxes when Americans without good insurance visit the emergency room. (Applause.) We get taxed."
April 30, 2013 - "we would rather have people getting regular checkups than going to the emergency room because they don't have health care -- if -- if we keep that in mind, then we're going to be able to drive down costs, we're going to be able to improve efficiencies in the system"
June 28, 1012 - "when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums."
April 3, 2012 - "we shouldn't have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick, or end up waiting until they do get sick, and then go to the emergency room, which involves all of us paying for it."

#25 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

and they're not going to the emergency room, we will obtain some savings and that's partly...that's partly how we'll end up paying for giving people health insurance -- because we're already paying for it right now, we just don't notice it."
July 22, 2009 - "the average American family is paying thousands of dollars in hidden costs in their insurance premiums to pay for what's called uncompensated care, people who show up at the emergency room because they don't have a primary-care physician."

2nd Oregon is not the US - the ER visits have increased 12 % not declined and the reduction in compensation insures there are not enough doctors in supply. Show me where obamacare increases the supply.

3rd. Show me anywhere that shows it has declined the cost. We had been in single digits until Obamacare hit and costs increased

#26 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here's what I have to say. My daughter has health insurance, she would not be able to buy health insurance without Obamacare. The critics of Obamacare should focus their concerns with the party that never proposed any reasonable alternative to Obamacare. The Democrats did something while the Republicans did nothing. Obama will go down in history as a great President and the insane Republican opposition will only serve to enhance his reputation.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

#27

Twice as many people say they are harmed by ACA than those who say they are helped by it.

he Democrats did something while the Republicans did nothing

Pouring gasoline on a house fire is doing something. Sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing."

Perhaps, but any honest evaluation would show you that isn't true about Obamacare. Doing nothing was not a reasonable option. People are unnecessarily dying right this minute in states that needlessly refused to go along with the Medicaid expansion. Probably doesn't bother ideologues too much but it does bother us humans. It is simply wrong, it is virtual murder. I can't pretend that I don't judge those who deny medical care to the poor harshly because I do, very harshly. You and your cohorts should be ashamed of yourselves.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

#28

Why do you continue to tout statistics that have little if any meaning? "People" cannot define what ACA is much less how it may or may not affect them in any meaningful sense. I hope you feel good about the intentional disinformation campaign that ACA opponents have waged for years and ALL the additional polling which has consistently shown that the components of ACA are extremely popular while the term "Obamacare" polls negatively.

The only metric that matters is the one Danni spoke of: How many people are now getting care and possess health insurance at affordable prices that didn't before.

The answer is millions, and hopefully millions more to come. That is success by any measure while your arguments fail the humanity test because they cheer for people to suffer when there is no need to in our society, but for the political agenda of people who have nothing ready to replace ACA but hot air and hyperbole.

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

People are unnecessarily dying right this minute in states that needlessly refused to go along with the Medicaid expansion.

An intensive study (I think it was in Oregon) showed no measurable health improvement for those on Medicaid vs. those who are uninsured. Your hyperbole doesn't match reality.

I can't pretend that I don't judge those who deny medical care to the poor harshly because I do, very harshly. You and your cohorts should be ashamed of yourselves.

#29 | POSTED BY DANNI

I can't pretend that I don't judge those who force people off of insurance plans they like, force them on to plans that are WAY more costly and with much higher deductibles and co-pays just because in their arrogance they think they know what's best for everybody else. You and your cohorts should be ashamed of yourselves.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

NO ONE made the assertion that Obamacare would reduce ER visits!!!! Obama did nothing but tout it as a major benefit

It might behoove you to actually read and comprehend what I said to you before you waste time and bandwidth spamming irrelevant material that no one will read:

I must have missed the part where everyone ran out and increased the number of clinics and immediate care facilities in all this nation's underserved markets the moment ACA was passed.

Oh, that's right, no one made such an assertion at all. In time ACA will decrease the usage of ERs....

You derailment of thought is akin to Eisenhower touting all the tonnage that would be moved more efficiently when the interstate system was built and then imbeciles like you screaming that 3 months later the roads are more crowded than ever. When the infrastructure isn't in place, the desired changes cannot yet occur. No recitation of quotes displaces the obvious common sense in understanding the meaning of the President's words on this matter.

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

You and your cohorts should be ashamed of yourselves.

The SECOND you can empirically prove that ACA has caused more people to completely lose their health insurance than it has helped acquire health insurance, and that the health insurance they lost provided all the protections now mandated by ACA because they're needed across society, is the moment I will feel ashamed.

Trust me, that moment will never arrive. Your moment is already here:

The 25 GOP-led states that are refusing to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act are not just turning down an estimated $42.6 billion in 2014 alone, they're also missing a chance to save 27,000 lives -- according to a new study from the pro-expansion group Health Care for America Now (HCAN).

HCAN's projection is based on a Harvard School of Public Health study published in 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine that compared states that had expanded Medicaid to childless adults to those who hadn't:

The mortality rate in expansion states was 6.1 percent lower than in the neighboring expansion states. For every 500,000 adults gaining Medicaid benefits, 2,840 deaths would be prevented each year, the researchers found. Put another way, for every 176 people added to the Medicaid rolls, one life would be saved. www.nationalmemo.com


Please explain why this nation should turn its back on its own needy citizens for the sake of your pride.

#33 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only metric that matters is the one Danni spoke of: How many people are now getting care and possess health insurance at affordable prices that didn't before.

No. That is not the only metric that matters. What is also an equally important metric is how many people are now paying drastically more for health insurance as a result of government mandates. What is also equally important is how many people have lost plans due to ACA. The complete evisceration of the rule of law in ACA's implementation matters also. That it was sold on a mountain of lies matters. That we are getting terrible data from the administration matters (counting someone who placed a plan in the shopping cart but hasn't yet paid for it as 'insured). The fact that the taxpayers are looking increasingly likely to have to bail out the ACA insurers matters. That this law is going to add hundreds of billions to the national debt matters. That this law robs from Medicare not to extend its solvency but to instead help fund a new entitlement matters. The hugely negative impact that the employer mandate (if it's ever enforced) will have on employment, hiring and the economy matters.

You don't have a monopoly on defining what does and doesn't matter, Tony.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I can't pretend that I don't judge those who force people off of insurance plans they like, force them on to plans that are WAY more costly and with much higher deductibles and co-pays just because in their arrogance they think they know what's best for everybody else. You and your cohorts should be ashamed of yourselves."

Except that due to Obama's executive authority the vast majority of those you speak of were actually not forced off of their insurance and those that were had insurance that wouldn't help them if they really became seriously ill. It's not about what's best for everybody else, it's what is best for the taxpayers who have to pick up the bills for the uninsured or the underinsured. Me and my cohorts are quite proud of ourselves for finally providing health insurance to the millions of uninsured in this country and for saving actual lives, at least in states without obstructionist ideologues in power. You choose which side you're on, either you support saving lives or you don't, pretty simple there Jeff. And, yes, it is a black (death) and white (life) issue and you seem to be choosing the dark side.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

#33

The Oregon study completely debunks the study you are citing.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

#35

You're either with us or your against us.

Hmmm....that sounds awfully familiar. Who is it you are channeling?

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

In my study of google and wiki searches indicates that Obamacare is the Weak Muslim Terrorist Strong Dictator King Socialist plan to raise the rates by 158%!

I read it online so it's true.

/sarcasm

#38 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-08-13 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Except that due to Obama's executive lawlessness

FTFY

the vast majority of those you speak of were actually not forced off of their insurance

They were given a 1-year reprieve after-the-fact, which runs completely counter to how health insurance is priced and policies are carried out.

The same problem is going to emerge for 2015. What is Obama going to do? Violate statute again and grandfather 'worthless policies' for another year? He acted lawlessly because the backlash from a few million people who were livid that they had their plans cancelled due to ACA. Imagine what would happen if the employer mandate were enforced as written and at least twice that amount of people had a similar experience? Your party would have a mutiny on its hands.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

They were given a 1-year reprieve after-the-fact, which runs completely counter to how health insurance is priced and policies are carried out.

The same problem is going to emerge for 2015. What is Obama going to do? Violate statute again and grandfather 'worthless policies' for another year? He acted lawlessly because the backlash from a few million people who were livid that they had their plans cancelled due to ACA. Imagine what would happen if the employer mandate were enforced as written and at least twice that amount of people had a similar experience? Your party would have a mutiny on its hands.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:37 AM | Reply

Did you declare Dubya acted lawlessly when he delated implimentation of Medicare part D???

#40 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-13 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The same problem is going to emerge for 2015. What is Obama going to do?"

I don't know Jeff but I doubt he will try to uninsure millions like the Republicans continue to do. Perhaps he overstepped his authority though other Presidents have done the same but the Republicans have overstepped morality and you seem to approve. People are dying every single day due to Republican instansigence, that's a fact. Republicans have blood on their hands. Here in Florida many of us consider Rick Scott to be a murderer and that isn't hyperbole, that is real actual consideration of the things he is allowing to happen to real people with families, kids, etc. Your party tries to attack Obama by way of technical details and at the same time brushes those with terminal illnesses aside as if they don't matter. I am honestly disgusted and I don't understand how y'all live with yourselves, I really don't. What if it were one of your kids?

#41 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

pathological LIAR and 'you people' just eat it up......

#20 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

And Pathological Idiots always leave out the part where your "plan" needs to meet certain criteria to actually be called a Plan.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Did you declare Dubya acted lawlessly when he delated implimentation of Medicare part D???"

Oh but Larry, we can't bring up the past.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did you declare Dubya acted lawlessly when he delated implimentation of Medicare part D???

#40 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

I don't remember what the issues were with the implementation of Medicare Part D.

Are you sure you want to place Dubya on a pedestal as a presidential role model for faithfully executing law?

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

And Pathological Idiots always leave out the part where your "plan" needs to meet certain criteria to actually be called a Plan.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 10:46 AM

Roy: Yeah, you know what? I shouldn't have used the word "plan". I've clearly gotten you overexcited.

Moss: Would scheme be a better word? Although that's just as exciting.

-The IT Crowd

#45 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-13 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

You don't have a monopoly on defining what does and doesn't matter, Tony.

Not me Jeff, but our society puts the highest possible value on LIFE, not just money.

Normally your on the side of life, so why change now? Principles? Which ones are more important than protecting the lives of those already here and paying taxes?

The Oregon study is based on Oregon. The study I cited is based on the entire country. You figure out which is more relevant to our discussion.

#46 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Did you declare Dubya acted lawlessly when he delated implimentation of Medicare part D???"

Oh but Larry, we can't bring up the past.

Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 10:46 AM | Reply

Yeah cause it eviscerates their narrative.

#47 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-13 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Normally your on the side of life, so why change now? Principles? Which ones are more important than protecting the lives of those already here and paying taxes?


The GOP loves the fetus; hates the baby
-Randy Rhodes

#48 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-13 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know Jeff but I doubt he will try to uninsure millions like the Republicans continue to do. Perhaps he overstepped his authority though other Presidents have done the same but the Republicans have overstepped morality and you seem to approve.

This isn't about 'morality' as you want to define it. It's about the rule of law. If the law doesn't work as written, then change it.

Your party tries to attack Obama by way of technical details and at the same time brushes those with terminal illnesses aside as if they don't matter.

First off, nice strawman. Secondly, just because you perceive some sort of crisis doesn't mean our government is empowered to do whatever the hell it wants, process be damned.

I take it you have a HUGE problem with the newest round of EPA regulations. Necessarily skyrocketing the cost of energy will force the poorest of the poor out of their homes and onto the streets. People will die to exposure as a result. I honestly don't know how y'all live with yourselves. I really don't. What if it was one of your kids forced onto the streets because mom could no longer afford electricity?

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't remember what the issues were with the implementation of Medicare Part D.

Are you sure you want to place Dubya on a pedestal as a presidential role model for faithfully executing law?

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

It was delayed because of enrollment issues and the like.

No of course not. It just showcases your one sided castigations is all JeffJ.

#50 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-13 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The Oregon study is based on Oregon.

The Oregon study was in-depth. It followed actual people and tracked actual results on an individual basis. It wasn't reliant upon statistical extrapolation.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

It was delayed because of enrollment issues and the like.
No of course not. It just showcases your one sided castigations is all JeffJ.

#50 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

There's nothing one-sided about it at all, Larry. My criticisms of the Dubya administration are endless.

I just happen to be ignorant regarding the roll out of Part D. If he acted lawlessly then you can add that to my list of criticisms.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Normally your on the side of life, so why change now?

I value freedom, liberty and the rule of law when it comes to our government.

I also evaluate outcomes as a net result. If a law harms more than it helps, the fact that some are helped doesn't change my overall calculus.

Attempting to force the young and healthy to WAY over-pay for health insurance so that the old and unhealthy can pay below what the market would bear is not a moral act. It's generational theft.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

but our society puts the highest possible value on LIFE, not just money.

A society that trumpets abortion as a fundamental freedom is not a society that puts the highest possible value on LIFE. A society that has capital punishment does not place the highest possible value on LIFE.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jeff,

The bottom line is this: If the Republican Party had truly done what every minority party has done in the past -- when their position has been defeated on legislation that will dramatically change things for millions of Americans -- and work together to improve and positively implement the new laws, there would have been no reason for executive overreach.

The GOP denied public funds to educate Americans on how to sign up and utilize ACA! They wrote letters telling professional sports leagues not to join with the President in providing information that would help citizen-fans realize benefits! On what planet does this make sense and serve the stated goals of the program?

How dare we simple lefties think that the GOP would lick their wounds and work toward improving the lives of Americans with the Democrats and the President, particularly when the plan forwarded was spawned by the right and implemented successfully in a state run by the GOP nominee for President in 2012?

Congress could fix Halbig with a one paragraph bill, but what are the chances? I truly tire of arguing with those who refuse to admit their dire predictions aren't coming true while almost daily more positive stories and statistics come forth about the good the ACA is doing all across America.

No one with any intelligence would ever say that something as wide-reaching as ACA wouldn't negatively affect some people. But to deny that it is helping tens of millions more is to ignore every single metric and statistic put forth by the insurance companies who's profits depend upon ACA working basically as it was designed. And what isn't working can be changed if people are invested in making it work for all.

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Attempting to force the young and healthy to WAY over-pay for health insurance so that the old and unhealthy can pay below what the market would bear is not a moral act. It's generational theft."

Hilarious! The elders should just go up in the mountains and wait for death to take them, oh wait, I'm one of them and I'm not ready to let death take me yet. BTW, my employer pays much more to insure me than the younger employees I work with, is that immoral too? It's probably also immoral to limit the profits of insurance companies by way of the 80/20 rule. Your ideas about morality are pretty ridiculous because your position on ACA is not supportable if you consider reality. You want to live in an ideological bubble but real life doesn't fit your construct.

#56 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

The bottom line is this: If the Republican Party had truly done what every minority party has done in the past -- when their position has been defeated on legislation that will dramatically change things for millions of Americans -- and work together to improve and positively implement the new laws, there would have been no reason for executive overreach.

The bottom line is this: If the Democratic Party had truly done what every majority party has done in the past -- when a massive piece of legislation they were proposing met with strong unified opposition and strong public opposition they would back off and start over (think W. on partial privatization of SS, or the Dems when Hillarycare was so unpopular). That they went ahead anyway and are still facing stiff opposition does not give Obama license to do whatever the hell he wants, law be damned.

The GOP denied public funds to educate Americans on how to sign up and utilize ACA! They wrote letters telling professional sports leagues not to join with the President in providing information that would help citizen-fans realize benefits! On what planet does this make sense and serve the stated goals of the program?

It makes perfect sense. Given the manner in which this law was passed and all of the circumstances surrounding it, staunch opposition is not only to be expected, it's to be commended. Unpopularity for this law is double-digits higher than popularity. That has been a constant throughout. A less arrogant and less power-hungry political party would have taken a step back from trying to pass a massive law that so violates the will of the people they are supposed to represent.

Congress could fix Halbig with a one paragraph bill, but what are the chances?

At this point? Slim-to-none. Had the attempt been made when this problem was discovered, it might have happened. But since Obama instructed the 'non-partisan' IRS to ignore the statute and go ahead with the subsidies anyway, (which drew the same conclusion as regarding the statute that the Halbig justices drew) you can sure as hell expect non-cooperation now.

And what isn't working can be changed if people are invested in making it work for all.

It's horribly flawed at its foundation. It took a not-so-good situation and made it worse in the aggregate.

I love how you seem to think that the Dems can pass this law in the most egregious manner possible and the GOP and the public are supposed to bend over and take it. The law was passed on a straight party-line vote and is horribly unpopular, but in spite of all of that the GOP is just supposed to roll over and play nice? You act as if the Democrats shouldn't have any consequences for their actions.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Did you declare Dubya acted lawlessly when he delated implimentation of Medicare part D???"

If you waited that long into his administration, you weren't paying attention.

#58 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-08-13 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the Democratic Party had truly done what every majority party has done in the past -- when a massive piece of legislation they were proposing met with strong unified opposition and strong public opposition they would back off and start over (think W. on partial privatization of SS, or the Dems when Hillarycare was so unpopular).

Obama won 2 national elections where ACA was front and center. The Democrats won 1.5 million more House votes than Republicans in 2012 when everyone knew ACA was front and center. The opposition was DEFEATED THREE DIFFERENT TIMES!

Jeff, the public supports what ACA is doing. They don't support Obamacare because it has been demonized as the "socialist takeover of the American healthcare system" by people who know better.

#59 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama won the first election on 'Hope and Change' - feel good platitudes.

The first real election he faced on ACA was in '10 and his party got shellacked.

The biggest issue with Romney was due to his own health law as governor, he had ZERO credibility attacking ACA and he certainly didn't hammer repeal and replace. He talked about it, but it wasn't the driving force behind his campaign.

Jeff, the public supports what ACA is doing. They don't support Obamacare because it has been demonized as the "socialist takeover of the American healthcare system" by people who know better.

Uh huh. The public is too stupid to recognize how brilliant this law is. I hope your party campaigns on that this fall.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hilarious! The elders should just go up in the mountains and wait for death to take them, oh wait, I'm one of them and I'm not ready to let death take me yet. BTW, my employer pays much more to insure me than the younger employees I work with, is that immoral too?

No. Your company is making a choice. They aren't being coerced at the point of a gun to pay more for your insurance than they do for other employees.

It's probably also immoral to limit the profits of insurance companies by way of the 80/20 rule.

It has the opposite effect than what is intended. It creates a perverse incentive to drive up premiums to make sure that the threshold is breached. Better to exceed the legal threshold and pay the difference as a penalty than fall below the threshold and not generate as much profit as was 'allowable' under the law. Price controls don't work. Never have, never will.

Your ideas about morality are pretty ridiculous because your position on ACA is not supportable if you consider reality. You want to live in an ideological bubble but real life doesn't fit your construct.

I've articulated my ideas of morality. They are centered around the rule of law. Your idea of morality seems to be the ends justify the means, no matter how many expendables are harmed and no matter the harm done to our constitutional form of government.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

The first real election he faced on ACA was in '10 and his party got shellacked.

You lose all integrity when you post crap like that. 2010 WAS NOT a national election and you know it. Obama WAS NOT on the ballot. After ACA passed and the GOP spent 2 1/2 years demonizing it, Obama won AGAIN on keeping and implementing ACA as it was scheduled. There is nothing to dispute here, it's simply the truth.

#62 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama won the first election on 'Hope and Change' - feel good platitudes."

Malarky.

He campaigned on ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and reforming the health care system.

HOPE AND CHANGE was just a campaign slogan like YES WE CAN.

Neither was the root of his success.

#63 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

The 2010 election was a referendum on ACA, Tony. That is the simple truth.

ACA was unpopular when it was debated. It was unpopular when it passed and its unpopularity is at an all-time high as it's being implemented. There is nothing to dispute here, it's simply the truth.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

You lose all integrity when you post crap like that. 2010 WAS NOT a national election and you know it. Obama WAS NOT on the ballot. After ACA passed and the GOP spent 2 1/2 years demonizing it, Obama won AGAIN on keeping and implementing ACA as it was scheduled.

I'll let the self-irony contained with these 2 sentences speak for itself.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The first real election he faced on ACA was in '10 and his party got shellacked.

Then there was the Presidential election of 2012 in which the ACA actually WAS made a National Issue wherein YOUR party got "shellacked".

#66 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Malarky.
He campaigned on ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and reforming the health care system.
HOPE AND CHANGE was just a campaign slogan like YES WE CAN.
Neither was the root of his success.

#63 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

He won on a unity platform. He was going to bring us all together. He was going to change the divisive way things were done in Washington. Fact is, above all else, he won because of the huge financial crash that a majority of voters blamed on the GOP.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The 2010 election was a referendum on ACA, Tony. That is the simple truth. "

The 2010 election was a contest about who could get more voters to turn out, GOP won that contest but it was, by no means, a real test of the public's opinion about the ACA. Polls show low popularity but when you examine them closer you realize that a sizable portion of the opposition is opposed because those people wanted single payer. Those same people, when asked if they want ACA repealed, say no.

#68 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then there was the Presidential election of 2012 in which the ACA actually WAS made a National Issue wherein YOUR party got "shellacked".

#66 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Romney didn't go out on the stump emphasizing that his primary goal was repeal of ACA. He did talk about it, but it was not a central plank to his campaign.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Fact is, above all else, he won because of the huge financial crash that a majority of voters blamed on the GOP."

I'd say he won because he appeared to favor the wealthy less than did the Republicans and he has demonstrated that is actually the case by passing ACA, tax increases, getting out of Iraq, Dodd-Frank, etc.

#70 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Polls show low popularity but when you examine them closer you realize that a sizable portion of the opposition is opposed because those people wanted single payer.

Um, no.

Certainly some on the left prefer single payer to ACA. But I am hard-pressed to find any such lefties who view ACA negatively, or more specifically, think that what was in place prior to ACA was better than ACA.

You are rationalizing. The law is and always has been hugely unpopular. That is reality.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"t's one of Gov. Mitt Romney's favorite pledges on the campaign trail: "If elected, I will repeal Obamacare on day one.""

news.yahoo.com

#72 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The law is and always has been hugely unpopular. That is reality."

So was Medicare when first passed but try to take it away from seniors, same with ACA.

#73 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Um, no. "

Um, whatever. That was a FACT about the opposition to ACA whether you acknowledge it or not.

#74 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd say he won because he appeared to favor the wealthy less than did the Republicans and he has demonstrated that is actually the case by passing ACA - which the big insurance companies loved due to the mandates, risk corridors, etc, tax increases - An increase on the rate above $400k. Of course, that doesn't take into account all of the ACA tax increases that hit the middle class, getting out of Iraq- not sure how that's a rich/poor thing, but OK , Dodd-Frank, - which codifies too big to fail, etc.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

So was Medicare when first passed but try to take it away from seniors, same with ACA.

#73 | POSTED BY DANNI

Difference #1: Medicare passed with bi-partisan support.

Difference #2: The sugar is actual coverage when it comes to Medicare. The sugar in ACA is a subsidy that goes directly to the insurance companies.

Difference #3: The individual mandate is HUGELY unpopular. Medicare doesn't have an equivalent to the mandate.

There are other differences as well, but my point is that you are comparing apples with oranges.

Part of Medicare's popularity with seniors is that they paid huge sums of taxes at the point of a gun via the payroll tax under the promise that they would be able to draw benefits later in life.

Make participation in Medicare and SS optional and watch what happens. You'd see a mass exodus among younger adults.

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Romney didn't go out on the stump emphasizing that his primary goal was repeal of ACA. He did talk about it, but it was not a central plank to his campaign.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ

More Malarky.

Romney campaigned on repealing the ACA on day one. Sounds like it was a "primary goal" to me.

thehill.com

www.washingtonpost.com

articles.latimes.com

#78 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

How many Dems are going to be campaigning on support for ACA in the upcoming midterm?

According to Danni, Tony and some others they should.

But they won't.

Why is that?

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Difference #1: Medicare passed with bi-partisan support."

There was a time when Republicans were reasonable people. Not today.

"The sugar in ACA is a subsidy that goes directly to the insurance companies."

It also limits the amount they can profit by way of the 80/20 rule. Less of my premium goes for profit today than before the ACA yet I have better coverage.

"Difference #3: The individual mandate is HUGELY unpopular. Medicare doesn't have an equivalent to the mandate."

Many people prefer to gamble on their health but for a society to limit the growth of healthcare inflation, which was the original purpose of the ACA, that cannot be allowed. We need our population to be insured and if they can't or won't cooperate then we need to have true single payer. ACA was a bone thrown to conservatives, if you don't want it say so and we'll get to pass what we really wanted in the first place.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

It also limits the amount they can profit by way of the 80/20 rule. Less of my premium goes for profit today than before the ACA yet I have better coverage.

ACA's mandates increased the price of premiums. Some of that increase is masked by limiting the amount of increase paid by the old and sick by shifting it dramatically to the young and healthy. Some of that increase is masked by subsidies. Bottom line is that when government mandates that ALL policies must cover x,y and z where no such mandate existed before, more affordable plans become illegal and thus premiums must rise in order to accomodate all of the new mandated requirements. Insurance companies like these mandates. Insurance companies also like the individual mandate. It forces people to purchase their product, whether they want to or not. When revenues to insurance companies increase dramatically as a result of mandates, that their actual margin might be a tad less doesn't change the fact that their overall profits are up considerably. It doesn't appear to be working out this way as people are resisting this law as much as possible, but that's how the law was structured and it's why the health insurance industry threw their weight behind it.

Many people prefer to gamble on their health but for a society to limit the growth of healthcare inflation, which was the original purpose of the ACA, that cannot be allowed. We need our population to be insured and if they can't or won't cooperate then we need to have true single payer.

I give you props for your honesty regarding your authoritarianism.

ACA was a bone thrown to conservatives,

No. ACA was a bone thrown to moderate Democrats who were opposed to single payer or a public option.

if you don't want it say so

Have you not been listening? We've been screaming that we don't want it well before it even passed.


and we'll get to pass what we really wanted in the first place.

You had that chance in the first place. Fact is despite huge majorities in both chambers you didn't have enough support from within your own party to get a public option passed, much less single payer.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Danni,

Have you ever noticed that so much of what you advocate for is punitive in nature?

Limit profits. More taxes. Individual mandates. Coercion, coercion and more coercion.

You do advocate for the freedom to smoke dope and the freedom for women to slaughter the unborn, but I am hard-pressed to find anything else you advocate that isn't authoritarian and punitive in nature.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

JeffJ

Ever notice how you distort the words of others in order to make someone who is compassionate look evil?

Limit profits = reduce inequality.

More taxes= Wealthy pay their fair share.

Individual mandates = health care for the poor and disadvantaged.

Distortion, distortion and more distortion

You just cannot help yourself:

"You do advocate for the freedom to smoke dope (self medicate) and the freedom for women to slaughter the unborn (control their own bodies and future),"

Do carry on with that GOTP propaganda. Quite entertaining at least.

#83 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Donnerboy,

Ever notice how you distort the words of others to make their intentions sound altruistic?

Do carry on with that GOTP propaganda. Quite entertaining at least.

The post you are referring to was directed at Danni specifically and what she advocates. Talking points, GOP or otherwise, don't factor in.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-13 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've had the same Aetna plan for the last 10 years.

#85 | Posted by cjk85 at 2014-08-13 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tony...nice how you dance when called out.

Obama did not couch it with "new infrastructure is build" or "When new hospitals are built". He said we put in ACA and the use of ERs will go down. PERIOD...like "YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR PERIOD".

As to your "Study" is from "pro-expansion group Health Care for America Now (HCAN" No bias there huh?

And Danni "Me and my cohorts are quite proud of ourselves for finally providing health insurance to the millions of uninsured in this country"

-------- ..the graphs show that we had MORE people with insurance BEFORE ACA was implemented than after. In fact the ACA resulted in an INCREASE from 16% to 18% uninsured after ACA and has now dropped to 13.1% which is almost 2% higher than it was 8 years earlier.

Donner and Danni - Explain to me how limiting profits limits inequality. Company's making more money pay thier people more and pay the stock holders more which reduces inequality as it increases income to the workers.

Explain to me how it is FAIR that the top 10% pay 68% of the taxes? And how Paying TAXES to the Government to waste is somehow FAIR? What makes paying money to the government fair?

How does FORCING someone to buy something they do not want helping the poor - which also did not buy it even with all the subsidies???

How does closing hospitals increase availablity? How does forcing doctors to retire INCREASE supply of doctors? How does reducing a persons options INCREASE freedom of choice? AND CJK - the reason you have it is either 1) it was a basic plan that conformed - all the really good coverages were killed under the ACA mandates or 2) you are covered by a business that has not had to change YET due to the OBAMA ILLEGALLY giving business a pass until after the election. Yours is coming.

#86 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A new congressional report has estimated that more than 25 million Americans without health insurance will not be made to pay a penalty in 2016 due to an exploding number of ObamaCare exemptions.

The Wall Street Journal, citing an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, reported that the number of people expected to pay the fine in 2016 has dwindled to four million people from the report's previous projection of six million. Approximately 30 million Americans are believed to be without health insurance.

The Obama administration has given people whose insurance plans were canceled because they did not meet ObamaCare's minimum coverage requirements an exemption that runs until October 2016. They are also allowed to buy a minimum amount of coverage originally available to people under 30." Working as PLANNED??????

#87 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Donner and Danni - Explain to me how limiting profits limits inequality. Company's making more money pay thier people more and pay the stock holders more which reduces inequality as it increases income to the workers. "

The 80/20 rule has nothing to do with income inequality it is a method of cost containment.

#88 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Explain to me how it is FAIR that the top 10% pay 68% of the taxes?"

Why do bank robbers rob banks?

#89 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How does FORCING someone to buy something they do not want helping the poor - which also did not buy it even with all the subsidies??? "

Well, with insurance they can get a check up and get preventive care and thus have a much lower chance of serious illness....but you know that.

ACA is working better than expected and you just can't stand it.

#90 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

1999 2014
27.7 19 -25 27.2
20.4 26-34 27.2
14.8 35-44 21.1
11.5 45-64 16.2
1.1 65 and over 1.5

Number of uninsured taken from the US Census www.kaiserhealthnews.org

And it is working???? Looks like 1999 was working. In fact WORKING was working....not handouts. Name me 2 only 2 policies that the Obama administration has enacted that has INCREASED private sector employment. I can give you 10 that has killed it (ACA being one) but give me just 2. THAT is the problem and ACA contributes to it.

#91 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

So it is FAIR to rob people because they were successful? What a piece of work. No wonder you guys have the lives you do. Sad to have that sort of point of view.

#92 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can get checkups WITHOUT insurance...you can get TREATMENT without insurance...we have whole HOSPITALS dedicated to treating people without insurance. Insurance does not prevent you from being treated.

But you know THAT as well....just looking for another free ride on someone elses back.

#93 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

They are also allowed to buy a minimum amount of coverage originally available to people under 30." Working as PLANNED??????

#87 | Posted by foshaffer

Since they are covered by some form of insurance it is working as INTENDED. If it was working as the GOTP Plan called for they would have nothing.

#94 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love all the cheerleading for the CEOs of Aetna, United Health, etc....

www.againstcronycapitalism.org

look at the folks who are waving the pom poms.

the same folks who said that the ENTIRE problem with healthcare was the insurance companies.

#95 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-13 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You can get checkups WITHOUT insurance...you can get TREATMENT without insurance...we have whole HOSPITALS dedicated to treating people without insurance."

Generally speaking those without insurance don't get treatment until their disease is serious enough to cause enough pain for them to seek help through ER and often then it is too late...but you know that too.

" I can give you 10 that has killed it (ACA being one) but give me just 2. THAT is the problem and ACA contributes to it."

You can post dishonest talking points, that's really about it.

#96 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-13 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

health.usnews.com

newyork.cbslocal.com

www.huffingtonpost.com

www.google.com

Working as expected??? Sure if you do not need a hospital or a doctor.

#97 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

No wonder you guys have the lives you do. Sad to have that sort of point of view.

What do you know about the life I live and who are you to pass judgment on it?

Do you realize that many of the liberals here have much more wealth than the average sycophant conservative if stories are to be believed? Many advocate for the less fortunate because we look all around us and see how bounteous this nation is, and we believe the charge of this nation is to provide opportunity to all, not just those who can and do control the government with their money and their greedy, self-serving concerns.

This nation was built and is maintained upon the sacrifices of the people, not fealty to the almighty dollar. We owe it to everyone who pays taxes in this nation to provide for basic human needs if they are having trouble doing so on their own and we've always known there will be a minority who takes advantage of this ideal and others will use these weaknesses to attack the entire system.

The caricature you paint of what you can't possibly comprehend from your narrow, historically bereft viewpoint is just that, a caricature. Our government was formed to protect the weak from exploitation by the powerful as well as to provide the means to prosper and maintain a legal system that protects everyone's rights. Look around the world, and look at the other modern competitive economies and they all have one thing in common: universal healthcare implemented through a government-approved, socially encompassing model. Israel has universal healthcare that American tax dollars subsidize. Wanting what's best for our society is nothing to be ashamed of. Failing to see the selfishness of those wanting the opposite should be.

#98 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Explain to me how it is FAIR that the top 10% pay 68% of the taxes? And how Paying TAXES to the Government to waste is somehow FAIR? What makes paying money to the government fair?

The top 20% own 90% of the wealth and they have an obligation to help support the society that helped make them that rich.

And paying taxes is fair. Taxes are the price we have all agreed to pay to live in a society like ours. Taxes are the price of admission to a functional society.

Not only is it fair it is your patriotic duty. Dodging taxes is unpatriotic. Especially if you can afford it. And when you cannot afford it then we should all be there to help get you on your feet so you too can pay taxes.

When did this form of behavior (aggressively and brazenly avoiding tax obligations) become acceptable?

#99 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is not a single dishonest talking point ...are are based in facts or questions - you cannot give me 2 policies by Obama that have increased private sector jobs? And you wonder why income inequality has grown substancially under Obama. You do not think ACA killed jobs?

www.economist.com ...

www.cnbc.com

www.denverpost.com

#100 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#100

Do you realize that you haven't posted one single link from AFTER the actual enrollment deadline for ACA? What do you think this thread is about? 2013 is not today and what was thought then is largely irrelevant now.

As I said earlier,

I am ignoring you from this point forward because you're lazy, intentionally obtuse and not worth the time to educate from your own ignorance.

#13 | POSTED BY TONYROMA


Donner, he's all yours. I'm out.

#101 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Top 1% only have 24% of the income ..it is an INCOME tax. But they PAY 48% of the Income. You want to put in an asset tax ..do it ...it would be the best for all of us. Progressive income taxes do nothing but reduce the incentive to work.

It is not my patriotic duty to fund your lazy ass.

The Constitution only puts ONE thing specifically to be funded - the MILITARY ...nothing else.

#102 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hospitals continue to shut down in rural America

July 12, 2014
When states opt out of Medicaid expansion, many rural communities soon find their local emergency rooms shuttered.

NC Rejects Medicaid Expansion, Rural Hospital Closes, Woman Dies

WEDNESDAY, 06 AUGUST 2014
In North Carolina, as in many other Southern states with large rural areas, the governor and legislature have refused to expand Medicaid eligibility. Last month, the Vidant Pungo Hospital shut down in Belhaven, a town of around 1,600 located in North Carolina's Inner Banks region. The closing was due at least in part to the state's rejection of Medicaid expansion. Six days after the hospital's closing, a 48-year-old woman died of a heart attack as she waited in a Belhaven school parking lot for a medevac helicopter to take her to the nearest hospital 84 miles away.

In reaction to the Belhaven incident, the conservative Republican mayor of Belhaven, Adam O'Neal, spent 15 days walking 273 miles to Washington, D.C. to protest the closing of the hospital, which he attributes to an "immoral" hospital operator, and, according to author Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, "the failure of Republican leaders in his state to accept the new Medicaid funding the hospital needed to stay afloat."


People are dying because of the ignorance of people like Fossy.

#103 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Working as expected??? Sure if you do not need a hospital or a doctor.

#97 | Posted by foshaffer

You poor dears.

Working as INTENDED.

Not as "planned" or as "expected"..blah blah blah.

What was the intention of the ACA?

The purpose of the legislation is to assure that all Americans have access to affordable health insurance.

Are we there yet? Of course not. But, according to all the purpose of the ACA, we are making steady progress.

Health insurance has expanded.

More than 5 million Americans have signed up for coverage through federal and state marketplaces; millions have been determined eligible for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program; and 3 million young adults gained insurance through their parents' coverage.

Costs are coming down.

The CBO's most recent estimates show that repealing the law would actually increase deficits by $1.7 trillion over the next 20 years. Moreover, average premiums for coverage through the marketplaces are about 15 percent lower than the CBO previously projected.

There's more good news when it comes to health care and Medicare spending.

The rate of increase in real health spending per person is at its lowest point in 50 years and more than 3 percentage points under the historical average, according to recent data. Growth in the average cost of care for a person enrolled in Medicare is also at unusually low levels, and if that success is maintained, it will translate into trillions in savings over the decades to come.

The ACA did NOT destroy jobs.

In the 10 years before the law was passed, 3.6 million private-sector jobs were lost. Since its passage, more than 8.5 million private sector jobs have been created. The ACA didn't create all those jobs, but Republicans' hyperbolic alarm has been proven blatantly false.

Read more: www.politico.com

Did the ACA the work perfectly right out the gate?

Of course not. Did you really expect it to in this political climate?

It is complex program. And, of course, had to be designed to be passed by the US Congress. (DEATH PANELS!)

Adjustments will have to be made to make it and to keep it working as intended.

Is it failing?

No....In spite of the GOTPs best efforts.

And I think that is saying something about the strength of the ACA and the weakness of the GOTP.

#104 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

it is an INCOME tax.

The eternal conservative deceit. Income taxes are only one of the taxes all Americans are subjected to. They do not now, nor have they ever told the complete story about how taxes impact the wealth (or lack thereof) of individuals.

Put down the keyboard and read something about how the poorest citizens ALWAYS PAY a higher percentage of their incomes to TAXATION than do wealthier citizens because the vast majority of our taxes are REGRESSIVE.

#105 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-13 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tony - 1st.

the ACA went into effect when the law was passed and pieces have been put in place over the years. So anything after 2011 is AFTER the ACA was passed.

2nd. As to socialized medicine- none of them can afford it. Everyone one that went to single payer eventually opened back up to private insurance to the point almost everyone there has private insurance to suppliment the public. UK, Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands etc. Look it up..they all have it.

3rd. All the studies that show the US behind are based on ACCESS not SUCCESS. When they measure infant mortality. Poland only counts babys after they have been alive for 6 months. France have to be full term as most countries. US counts any baby born...premature or other wise. US leads in Cancer rate survival, has the most MRI per capita, most CAT per capita. Most specialist per Capita.

I just got back from Ireland where my coworker came down with kidney stones. He was kept in the Hall way for 2 days because of no beds. The drug that desolves stones? They do not have it. Lithotripsy - Sorry don't have it. Ureteroscopy sorry don't have it ...Percutaneous nephrolithotomy - no sorry ...just drink a lot of water see if it will pass. Did not pass? OK I will go in and break it down via a wire ....yep great medicine. Be thankful for what you got and stop trying to destroy it with systems that do not work.

www.webmd.com

#106 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then Tony -REDUCE the SIZE of Government and kill most of the taxes. The bottom 30% of the US get PAID from the government via taxes. Straight wealth transfer. You want the poor to do better? Cut the size of Government. Reduce minumum wage...take a look at what has happend to food prices since minumum wage was raised and look what has happened to employment.

You are KILLING the poor thinking you are helping them.

#107 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you realize that many of the liberals here have much more wealth than the average sycophant conservative if stories are to be believed?"

LOL

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-13 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It is not my patriotic duty to fund your lazy ass."

First of all, MY ass is not lazy.

Second it IS your patriotic duty to pay taxes to the Government that protects you from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The Constitution only puts ONE thing specifically to be funded - the MILITARY ...nothing else.

#102 | Posted by foshaffer

and even MORE Malarky! Boy are you full of IT today.

The Constitution specifically permits the levying of taxes to pay the debts of the United States, AND to provide for the common defense AND general welfare of the United States.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And THEN it goes on to list 17-18 things that those taxes can also be used for.

so....Pretty sure that is more than ONE thing.

Cause we sure do have a lot of DEBT.

#109 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Be thankful for what you got and stop trying to destroy it with systems that do not work.

I think you are forgetting one little detail.

The Health Care System before Obama (B.O.) was completely broken for many and getting worse and many people were getting DENIED health insurance and had nothing or even worse they went bankrupt.

Health insurance works best, and is cheapest, when we can spread risk out over as many people as possible, which is why EVERY wealthy country but OURS had already decided to spread risk out over its entire populace.

AS for your example of Ireland's health care. That would be like me using Mississippi as an example of American health care. And there is nothing wrong with allowing private insurance to supplement a baseline universal health care coverage.

#110 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are KILLING the poor thinking you are helping them.

#107 | Posted by foshaffer

Killing the poor by reducing barriers to better health care?

Meanwhile you GOTPers and the Red States will prevent millions from accessing Medicaid because you are busy stomping your feet and having a hissy fit because that mean old government made them get health care....with a Constitutionally approved government program designed to help reduce the cost of health care for all and help millions get better access to health care.

Wow.

Holy Misplaced Priorities Batman.

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-13 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obamacare is working exactly as it is supposed to.

----

7.5% increase is not small. It still outpaces income increases. Obamacare is only a band-aid.

#112 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-08-13 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

1) It hasn't reduced cost it has increased them. 2) It wasn't broken. MORE people had coverage than now, (see prior post graph) costs had flattened (see prior post). 3) the 5 million additional covered count the 4 million that lost it. 4) General welfare is not specific 5) the debt increased 7 Trillion under Obama -more than all the total prior presidents including Bush. 6) The states cannot afford the increase in Medicare as the dollars allocated do not cover their costs and they will be stuck with the cost. Contrary to your belief money is not unlimited. 7 ) Funny how everything bad and actual about socialize medicine and Obama care is not significant but the everything that MIGHT happen is legitimate. 8) The only prior barrier to insurance was a job. So post 2. Only 2 policies that Obama has put in place that increases private sector jobs. We have more people leaving the work force monthly than actual increase in employment we are at the lowest level of work force participation since the 70's and an actual rate of over 13% even with everyone leaving. You want people to have Healthcare increase employment.

#113 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

HAHA! Obamacare losers! After he promised premiums would never go up...
what...?
He never said that?
Oh.....

--The Drudge ------------

#114 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-08-13 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.forbes.com And not 11%. Romo from 2014.

#115 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

implemented, you're going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you're an employee at a big company you can get right now -- which means your premiums will go down."

-- President Obama, campaign speech in Cincinnati

Actually E1G1 He did.

#116 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-13 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Healthcare premiums have risen several times the rate of inflation for decades. An annual rise in premiums is hardly anything new.

The cost of medical care has slowed considerably compared to past periods since the ACA went into effect.

I still say "Medicare For All!"

#117 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-14 04:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

From a 2013 study on health insurance premiums:

Health insurance premiums have risen 196 percent since 1999, with worker contributions growing 182 percent. Meanwhile, wages have grown an average of 50 percent since 1999

www.pbs.org

13 years, an average rise of 15% a year.

#118 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-14 04:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

13 years, an average rise of 15% a year.

#118 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 20

okay...but any of these plans I was able to alter or change stuff. Some govt punk now tells me I HAVE to pay under threat of fines and or imprisonment... for stuff I don't want or need just so someone else can get what I didn't want or need or perhaps even something that goes against my values and or principles. This loss of freedom might not concern liberals who preach one thing but demand another, but it does me.

#119 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-14 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

and on a much related note, even more proof that the 'post office' level of competence continues with this fubr known as obamacare.

I have a bill with franklins picture on it that says this amount will NOT be deducted from any counting of people insured.


The Big Three networks' evening newscasts on Wednesday failed to notice the Obama administration's latest revelation about ObamaCare: that more than 300,000 people who signed up for health plans under the controversial law could lose them because they failed to prove they were legal residents of the U.S. Instead, ABC's World News aired a full report on a "beauty queen's" insurance scam, while CBS Evening News gave 19-second news brief on the Perseid meteor shower.

Read more: newsbusters.org

newsbusters.org

#120 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-14 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

and on a much related note, even more proof that the 'post office' level of competence continues with this fubr known as obamacare.

I have a bill with franklins picture on it that says this amount will NOT be deducted from any counting of people insured.


The Big Three networks' evening newscasts on Wednesday failed to notice the Obama administration's latest revelation about ObamaCare: that more than 300,000 people who signed up for health plans under the controversial law could lose them because they failed to prove they were legal residents of the U.S. Instead, ABC's World News aired a full report on a "beauty queen's" insurance scam, while CBS Evening News gave 19-second news brief on the Perseid meteor shower.

Read more: newsbusters.org

newsbusters.org

#121 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-14 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

well shucks....sorry for the DP

#122 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-14 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

more "news" from the famous 'pass then read' GARBAGE from democrats....

Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number THE CARE BILL HB 3200 JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL. Judge KITHIL of Marble Falls , TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200 Please read this....... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59 JUDGE KITHIL wrote: ** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN)

" At age 76 when you most need it most, you are not eligible for cancer treatment * see page 272.

Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care.
You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is
treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what
happens in this year and 2014!

NOVEMBER 2014 !!!

#123 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-14 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pouring gasoline on a house fire is doing something. Sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing.
#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

With a sufficient amount of gasoline applied quickly enough, a burning house could conceivably be extinguished with the use of gasoline.

I'm just sayin'. Poor analogy, IOW, though I understand what you're hinting at.

Furthermore, I agree with Danni - the house was definitely ablaze, but Obamacare is a wee-bit more practical than gasoline. I'd say it's more on the level of a Barrel-Bomber (3 parts 151 and 1 part ginger ale).

#124 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-14 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

13 years, an average rise of 15% a year.

#118 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

okay...but any of these plans I was able to alter or change stuff. Some govt punk now tells me I HAVE to pay under threat of fines and or imprisonment... for stuff I don't want or need just so someone else can get what I didn't want or need or perhaps even something that goes against my values and or principles. This loss of freedom might not concern liberals who preach one thing but demand another, but it does me.

#119 | Posted by afkabl2

In our state, we had the choice of several insurers and over a hundred plans on the ACA site, each fitting whatever coverage we wanted.

#125 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-14 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Before Obamacare I had no access to health care because of pre-exisisting conditions.... now I am covered.
Seems to be working just as they explained it to me.
So sorry for the idiots in red states that decided to let their people suffer... nobody makes you stay there.

#126 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2014-08-14 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

cdn.factcheck.org

Time for a little truth.

These percentages come from the underlying data for the picture link above which is from Kaiser Family up to 2011 - 2012&3 comes from a different Kaiser report. 2014 comes from the report below.

Year Single Family
2005 7.80% 8.10%
2006 4.85% 4.92%
2007 4.735 4.54%
2008 4% 4.12%
2009 2.23% 4.63%
2010 4.20% 3.10%
2011 8.12% 8.85%
2012 6.40% 8.20%
2013 7.84% 10.22%
2014 11% 12%

So from 2005 to 2010 Healthcare premiums had moderated from the high growth in the early 0's to be running at a 5.5% average. That was of course until ACA provisoned kicked in to cover your 25 yr old and pre-exsiting conditions...then they started to rocket again...you well see in the link that one state the premiums have gone up more than 100%....

So Costs have NOT gone down under ACA..they have risen dramtically.

I saw this summation of Obamacare recently and I thought it was appropriate:

"In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured and then re-insured, can pay enough extra capital so that the original uninsured can be insured for free."

www.forbes.com

The only way you can say it is "working as planned" is if it PLANNED to close Hospitals, remove Dr's, increase ER visits and costs and give the uninsured cards that are worthless because they cannot get anyone to actually accept them.

#127 | Posted by foshaffer at 2014-08-14 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort