Not to hijack this thread but California had 3.5 percent growth (6th in the country) in 2012. http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2416239
A new budget was approved with a surplus.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breakin ... s-approved
A certain, uh, conservative contributor here was, well, pessimistic about our chances...

Fate, the following two paragraphs are from your article. Whats so great about the plans the article quoted ?

The average premium for individual plans sold through EHealthInsurance in California last year was $177 a month

If these plans had $25,000 deductibles, or covered very little or had cap limits at $8,000 ?
The best thing about the ACA plans is that they set very distinct, and clearly understood limitations for the elements of each plan.

Comparing the proposed rates for next year with current premiums is difficult, officials and experts agree, because the healthcare law mandates next year's plans to offer richer benefits and to limit consumers' out-of-pocket expenses

He said the sample premiums released by Covered California were about 50% higher than rates for the most commonly sold health plans in the individual market primarily because of increased benefit requirements

.

The point behind complication, and complexity in insurance plans, has never beeen to make packages better, or make the consumers decisions easier. If there is one clear benefit from the ACA it provides the consumer with clear understandable information.
What good was the $177 premium if it covered next to nothing?

maybe it had a $25,00 deductable?
Or maybe it was better? I love how you ASSUME the worst and do not look into the actual details. I linked examples that were better that cost less remember. And this part about easy to understand, maybe it's a little better but we still have varying levels of care and your premise that people who can not afford to buy insurance at all now are going to be better off with more expensive plans (that may indeed offer more coverage) is beyond comprehension, you are trying to tell us this is better than NOTHING? They can currently get a crappy insurance plan but it's far far better than nothing, yet you want them to pay more than they can afford.

You can point out how owning a car could help make someones life better? Then you require them to not buy an inexpensive Kia or Chevy, no you insist they need to buy a Mercedes. After all, it's a better car!? Doesn't matter what they can afford, it's going to help them and you know better.

and as expected, Ricky's ASSUMPTION is dead wrong. There are no such plans available on the website referenced ($25K deductables). And it was rather conveniently overlooked that the AVERAGE plan cost $177, not the least expensive one but rather the average one is what is stated.
Mind you the plan being compared to may not be a great plan (I seriously doubt it is) but again, what is the goal? To get people into an affordable insurance or to get them expensive "better" insurance? It would certainly be nice if we could have both (as the President had promised) but that just is not possible, so isn't it better to get people SOMETHING better than the nothing they now have? ...Apparently not

freeman3 wrote:Not to hijack this thread but California had 3.5 percent growth (6th in the country) in 2012. http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2416239
A new budget was approved with a surplus.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breakin ... s-approved
A certain, uh, conservative contributor here was, well, pessimistic about our chances...

Still am.

Talk to me at the end of the fiscal year.

Furthermore, the growth is about 1/3 of what it could and should be. I'll go on the record now and you can crow when I'm wrong: within two years, California will be in desperate financial straits. Democrats have a super-majority and they will try to tax and spend their way to prosperity. It won't work.

rickyp wrote:Fate, the following two paragraphs are from your article. Whats so great about the plans the article quoted ?

The average premium for individual plans sold through EHealthInsurance in California last year was $177 a month

If these plans had $25,000 deductibles, or covered very little or had cap limits at $8,000 ?
The best thing about the ACA plans is that they set very distinct, and clearly understood limitations for the elements of each plan.

That's the best thing?

Talk about aiming low.

Forcing people to pay for coverage they don't want or need is "the best thing." I can't wait to see what "bad things" are in the bill.

Comparing the proposed rates for next year with current premiums is difficult, officials and experts agree, because the healthcare law mandates next year's plans to offer richer benefits and to limit consumers' out-of-pocket expenses

He said the sample premiums released by Covered California were about 50% higher than rates for the most commonly sold health plans in the individual market primarily because of increased benefit requirements

.

The point behind complication, and complexity in insurance plans, has never beeen to make packages better, or make the consumers decisions easier. If there is one clear benefit from the ACA it provides the consumer with clear understandable information.
What good was the $177 premium if it covered next to nothing?

Prove it.

I mean if I said, "For $177, an individual can get zero deductible, unlimited healthcare, up to and including free cosmetic surgery," what would you say?

"Prove it."

Yet, you make a baseless claim and then shred it. I think that's called "the straw man fallacy."

GMTom wrote:and as expected, Ricky's ASSUMPTION is dead wrong. There are no such plans available on the website referenced ($25K deductables). And it was rather conveniently overlooked that the AVERAGE plan cost $177, not the least expensive one but rather the average one is what is stated.

Thanks for doing the legwork that rickyp, again, was not willing to do.

Lots of assertions and zero facts. In fact, the actual truth is in direct contradictions to the self-assured assertions. Must be rickyp.

tom

Or maybe it was better

Maybe. But the point of my saying "what if" is that the comparison, without complete information, was worthless.

And the point is that the purchase of insurance is complex and complicated on purpose. For insrance, when challenged you couldn't replicate an EHealth policy you'd produced earlier...
Don't beleive its complicated|?
Well, that makes you smarter than at least 70% of Americans.

Nine in ten American adults still find the health care information that’s available to be confusing and complicated, and eight in ten say they don’t know which information and sources to believe. Seven in ten say it’s difficult to know the costs of different health plans, and seven also say there’s too much information to sort through

.
http://www.cfah.org/blog/2013/health-ca ... nformation

fate

Yet, you make a baseless claim

Baseless? I quoted from your own source....

Comparing the proposed rates for next year with current premiums is difficult, officials and experts agree

I assume you trust the source you quoted...

Fate

Forcing people to pay for coverage they don't want or need is "the best thing."

No one is forced to buy coverage. However, the small numbers who might want to take a free ride, by going around without and expecting that they can use ED s if necessary , do pay a fine that helps offset the unfunded liabilities that EMLATA created...

Ricky, you want to claim the Obamacare program will make insurance easy to compare but while it may be a BIT easier, it too will be difficult to compare apples to apples, each plan is different and one plan may work better than another for any particular person. The ACA has several different plans as well, can you compare one to the other and tell me what is best for me?
Nope, each consumer needs to decide for himself, the more options, the more difficulty in deciding. Kind of like buying a car, each car is vastly different from each other...should we change to having only one or two models only?

rickyp wrote:tom

Or maybe it was better

Maybe. But the point of my saying "what if" is that the comparison, without complete information, was worthless.

Sadly, you're either being disingenuous or moronic, again.

You have yet to go back to the website YOU posted, enter information, post it, and PROVE what you said it proves: that Californians are going to be better off under Obamacare.

Instead, you've sniped at someone who actually did it without trying in any way to disprove what they said.

And the point is that the purchase of insurance is complex and complicated on purpose. For insrance, when challenged you couldn't replicate an EHealth policy you'd produced earlier...

But, you've done . . . nothing.

Don't beleive its complicated|?
Well, that makes you smarter than at least 70% of Americans.

Nine in ten American adults still find the health care information that’s available to be confusing and complicated, and eight in ten say they don’t know which information and sources to believe. Seven in ten say it’s difficult to know the costs of different health plans, and seven also say there’s too much information to sort through

.
http://www.cfah.org/blog/2013/health-ca ... nformation

It's complicated. Does that mean the ACA is better? We know many will pay more (and some who pay more will get more benefits). We know it's going to be simpler--because the government is going to force people to buy a higher level of insurance than many freely choose now.

That doesn't make it better.

Polls consistently show Americans think the quality of their care will go down. They show they believe costs will go up. They show they don't like it.

So, showing a poll that says the current system is "complicated" doesn't address the ACA.

Grocery stores are complicated--so many brands, sizes, pricing schemes. And yet, we somehow don't need the Federal government to pre-fill our carts for us in 3 different ways and limit us to those three choices.

How do we survive?

fate

Yet, you make a baseless claim

Baseless? I quoted from your own source....

Comparing the proposed rates for next year with current premiums is difficult, officials and experts agree

I assume you trust the source you quoted...

It's pointless. They say "it's difficult."

Okay. That means there is no way to prove anything about the ACA. If it's "difficult," rates could soar . . . or they could fall . . .

One thing we know: Americans don't like it. That has not changed no matter how much the President and Democrats have prayed it would.

Fate

Forcing people to pay for coverage they don't want or need is "the best thing."

No one is forced to buy coverage. However, the small numbers who might want to take a free ride, by going around without and expecting that they can use ED s if necessary , do pay a fine that helps offset the unfunded liabilities that EMLATA created...

It's not a fine. It's a tax.

You say it's not "forced." Sure.

Until someone fails to buy insurance, ignores the fine, and has their door kicked in by the IRS.

More realistically, yes, it is "force." How so? Because certain policies are no longer permitted to be sold. For a young person on their own (not living the Obama dream in their parent's basement), he/she no longer has the option of buying catastrophic-type coverage. They have to have Chevy (not quite Cadillac) coverage. That is "force."

One of the challenges is that the feds or states are supposed to set up small business and individual exchanges for each state. However many states are behind schedule; they are also having a hard time getting more than 1 or 2 insurance companies to be part of the exchange. If the insurance company has a hospital/doctor network that does not cover the entire state, then they cannot be in the exchange because they cannot cover all potential applicants.

As a result, the exchanges are way behind schedule and developing monopoly / duopoly characteristics. I cannot imagine how such a development will lead to a reduction in costs or greater simplicity. It seems like the opposite to me.

Ray Jay wrote:One of the challenges is that the feds or states are supposed to set up small business and individual exchanges for each state. However many states are behind schedule; they are also having a hard time getting more than 1 or 2 insurance companies to be part of the exchange. If the insurance company has a hospital/doctor network that does not cover the entire state, then they cannot be in the exchange because they cannot cover all potential applicants.

As a result, the exchanges are way behind schedule and developing monopoly / duopoly characteristics. I cannot imagine how such a development will lead to a reduction in costs or greater simplicity. It seems like the opposite to me.

I think there will be "simplicity" in the sense that you will have less choice. Insurance will be presented in 3 tiers without many options.

However, as you rightly point out, that simplicity will mean higher costs. It has to.

fate

It's complicated. Does that mean the ACA is better? We know many will pay more (and some who pay more will get more benefits). We know it's going to be simpler--because the government is going to force people to buy a higher level of insurance than many freely choose now.

If a major complaint of people is that buying health insurance today is too complicated than making it simpler will be seen as an improvement.
There are 4 choices as to level of coverage and benefits. If someone can't find one of these options as a perfect fit. I suppose that will be an imposition.
However, the Japanese eliminated much of the confusion in buying cars in the 70's and 80's by eliminating the complexity of the "options" American manufacturers were offering... The simplicity was a major advantage with the customers they attracted.... And it helped them carve out a reputation as marketers. And as you know, combined with terrific engineering helped them become what they are today.
Fate, if you really want to compare these 4 packages offered by ACA in say California, you pick them and exactly duplicate the coverage in an alternative today. In all the comparisons no one has actually done that. It shouldn't be too hard, but yet no one has produced an exact duplicate of benefits and exclusions and caps ....
Why do you suppose that is? Is it simply too hard to build a similar plan to the ACA options?


ray

As a result, the exchanges are way behind schedule and developing monopoly / duopoly characteristics. I cannot imagine how such a development will lead to a reduction in costs or greater simplicity. It seems like the opposite to me.

Most health care insurance systems around the world are monopolies... All are far more efficient and affordable than the current US system.
And they are far less complicated and complex.
I don't doubt that there will be some problems as the ACA rolls out. However, only a small group of consumers will actually be affected, and many of them haven't had the benefit of any insurance so the ACA is going to be an improvement for them. 78% of people won't even notice, except that they can stop worrying about ever being uninsured if they lose their jobs.
Some of the problems are also going to be inflicted by states like Texas opposing the ACA on purely ideological grounds.

rickyp wrote:fate

It's complicated. Does that mean the ACA is better? We know many will pay more (and some who pay more will get more benefits). We know it's going to be simpler--because the government is going to force people to buy a higher level of insurance than many freely choose now.

If a major complaint of people is that buying health insurance today is too complicated than making it simpler will be seen as an improvement.

Okay, so establish that it is a "major complaint."

I'll wait.

Meanwhile, we know the ACA is not popular:

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey says 49% of Americans say the health care plan is a bad idea — the highest number on that question since the poll began asking it in 2009.

Thirty-seven percent say Obama's Affordable Care Act is a good idea.

There are 4 choices as to level of coverage and benefits. If someone can't find one of these options as a perfect fit. I suppose that will be an imposition.
However, the Japanese eliminated much of the confusion in buying cars in the 70's and 80's by eliminating the complexity of the "options" American manufacturers were offering... The simplicity was a major advantage with the customers they attracted.... And it helped them carve out a reputation as marketers. And as you know, combined with terrific engineering helped them become what they are today.

That would be an excellent point, if the ACA were being run by Japanese auto makers.

Fate, if you really want to compare these 4 packages offered by ACA in say California, you pick them and exactly duplicate the coverage in an alternative today. In all the comparisons no one has actually done that. It shouldn't be too hard, but yet no one has produced an exact duplicate of benefits and exclusions and caps ....
Why do you suppose that is? Is it simply too hard to build a similar plan to the ACA options?

Not my job.

You want to prove it will save money and be good for the economy. You've adduced little or no evidence to support your claim. You do the work.

I'm perfectly willing to look at the polls, the increases in rates, and all the employers working to stay out from under Federal guidelines. Objectively, the ACA is hurting the economy and the confidence of both consumers and business owners.

Wow, just WOW!
Let's test what Ricky wants us to believe shall we...

Toyota Camry
First you need to decide what model Camry you want
L, LE, SE, XLE

within these 4 models you have the following package options:
* 8 way adjustable drivers seat
* Power Moonroof
* Convenience Package
* Leather package
* Display Audio with Navigation
* Safety Connect
* Blind Spot Monitor
* other individual options include spoke wheels, wheel locks, side moldings, edge guards, mudguards, paint protection film, rear bumper applique, rear spoiler, floor mats, ashtray cup, cargo net, cargo tote, cargo tray, carpet floor mats, carpet trunk mat, door sill enhancements, emergency assistance kit, first aid kit, glass breakage sensor, illuminated door sills, remote starter, intruder security system.
let's not forget we also have a choice of colors, we can upgrade tires, we can add all sorts of dealer add-ons such as rust proofing as well.
and MANY of these options are yet different from model to model

If this is like our health plan and how simple it will become, how much have things changed?