tom

Wow, just WOW!

You don't read much do you?

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...

Now at the time, American companies offered a list of packages of 40 to 60 different things you could add or substract from a car. That meant the manufacturing of each car was specifically ordered as it came down an assmebly line. Cost of manufacturing wa driven up, and the complexity of purchasing was up.
In the 70s and 80s, The Japanese offered 3 colors, automatic or standard, and two or three levels of options.
I get it that they offer more today. Though many of what you are listing are added post manufacture at the Dealer..
My point was that in the 70's and 80's they made simplicity a selling feature and it worked.
Many people hate shopping for cars. Most people hate shopping for insurance.

so in the 70's this simplicity seems to have worked? But now people have decided they want choices and more choices, more customization to what works best for the consumer is what we prefer?
So how is this 3 option health plan supposed to be so much better for us?

While we certainly do hate shopping for insurance, doesn't mean we don't care now does it? I hate shopping for just about anything, bring me into a mall and I want to die. But do I appreciate the options available? you bet I do!

Fate

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

You already admitted it was.... see above.

Fate

It's complicated

"It's complicated" does not equal "it's a major complaint"
shopping for a car has already been discussed, that too is complicated but is this the major complaint? I don't think so, you took a giant leap of assumption here ...but that has been par for the course as we have seen over and over isn't it?

GMTom wrote:"It's complicated" does not equal "it's a major complaint"

Thank you.

I find it hilarious that rickyp would suddenly cite ME as the expert of this!

Rickyp, here's the thing: you cannot decide "it's a major complaint" on your own--or even by appealing to me as an expert. You need a poll, a study, something objective. If "it's a major complaint" of Americans, how hard can that be?

However, since most get their insurance at work and have limited options, I suspect you're flat out wrong. I'm not denying that going to a website and trying to sort everything out can be daunting. However, that's not how most Americans get their healthcare insurance.

I wonder if any of you conservatives would care to make some predictions about the ACA 1 year after it is implemented . Predictions would contain at least the following:

(1) Percentage of Americans covered by health insurance (as of 1-1-15)
(2) Percentage increase in premiums (2014)
(3) Percentage increase in health care spending (2014)
(4) Number of people paying a penalty instead of getting coverage (2014)
(5) Approval rating (1-1-15)

As of January 1, 2015.

Then it would be fun to compare your predictions with reality.

freeman3 wrote:I wonder if any of you conservatives would care to make some predictions about the ACA 1 year after it is implemented . Predictions would contain at least the following:

(1) Percentage of Americans covered by health insurance (as of 1-1-15)
(2) Percentage increase in premiums (2014)
(3) Percentage increase in health care spending (2014)
(4) Number of people paying a penalty instead of getting coverage (2014)
(5) Approval rating (1-1-15)

As of January 1, 2015.

Then it would be fun to compare your predictions with reality.

Just off the top of my head:

1. more
2. high single digits
3. high single digits
4. no idea; isn't this morally wrong? we've already burdened the young with expensive college, bills for their grandparents social security, bills for any possible medical procedure for their grandparents, and debt as far as the eye can see. And now we'll add to their low incomes and diminished job opportunities by penalizing (taxing?) them for not buying a product that they don't want. What ideology supports this line of thinking?
5 down

freeman3 wrote:I wonder if any of you conservatives would care to make some predictions about the ACA 1 year after it is implemented . Predictions would contain at least the following:

(1) Percentage of Americans covered by health insurance (as of 1-1-15)
(2) Percentage increase in premiums (2014)
(3) Percentage increase in health care spending (2014)
(4) Number of people paying a penalty instead of getting coverage (2014)
(5) Approval rating (1-1-15)

As of January 1, 2015.

Then it would be fun to compare your predictions with reality.

First, it seems only fair that the liberal champions of the bill should also make predictions, yes? Boast about your success!

1. 90% (which is an epic failure, given the promises)
2. 8.8%
3. 10.7%
4. Well, I'm predicting about 30M won't have coverage. However, some will be married or children. So, I'm going to say 12M should pay the penalty, but only 4M will--the others will ignore it.
5. Of the bill, I presume? 35%. That's about the same as now, but disapproval will go up. As people lose their insurance and know others who lose their insurance, this is going to get less and less popular all the time.

Here's one of the reasons I'm bearish on savings--the vaunted "rebates."

. . . the provision is actually likely to make health insurance premiums more expensive. For that, you'll have to turn to the folks at NPR's Planet Money. Reporter David Kestenbaum called six health economists. "No one thought the provision would do much good,"reports Kestenbaum, "and several thought it could be harmful." That list includes one of ObamaCare architects and supporters, Jonathan Gruber.

Why are economists so sour on the provision? The worry is that rather than look for ways to control costs, insurers will simply let spending balloon, leading to higher premiums — and bigger profits. It's easier to cover someone's health costs on 80 percent of $1,000 than it is on 80 percent of $100. And because insurer profits and other administrative costs must come from the remaining 20 percent, there's a larger pool from which to draw profits and business expenses.

Think about it: what's the most rational reaction to being told your take home pay is permanently limited to 20% of the gross? Increase the gross!

For insurance companies, let the costs blow up. It gives you more wiggle room. Then, at the end of the year, you send a "refund" based on bloated prices.

Isn't this the same sort of thing liberals complain about all the time: "Corporations use loopholes and thus don't pay their fair share of taxes?"

Well, that's a very big loophole.

Doctor Fate wrote:Think about it: what's the most rational reaction to being told your take home pay is permanently limited to 20% of the gross? Increase the gross!

This is a very big risk of "ratcheting" up the cost of health care. It's what we get for putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

GMTom wrote:"

It's complicated" does not equal "it's a major complaint

"
Read what I quoted below Tom...
Are you saying that when 9 out of 10 Americans find it "confusing and complicated" they mean that in a positive sense?

Fate

Thank you.

I find it hilarious that rickyp would suddenly cite ME as the expert of this!

Rickyp, here's the thing: you cannot decide "it's a major complaint" on your own--or even by appealing to me as an expert. You need a poll, a study, something objective. If "it's a major complaint" of Americans, how hard can that be

here's what I quoted fate....
You really think that when 9 out of 10 say its confusing and complicated that this isn't major?

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

rickyp wrote:GMTom wrote:"

It's complicated" does not equal "it's a major complaint

"
Read what I quoted below Tom...
Are you saying that when 9 out of 10 Americans find it "confusing and complicated" they mean that in a positive sense?

Fate

Thank you.

I find it hilarious that rickyp would suddenly cite ME as the expert of this!

Rickyp, here's the thing: you cannot decide "it's a major complaint" on your own--or even by appealing to me as an expert. You need a poll, a study, something objective. If "it's a major complaint" of Americans, how hard can that be

here's what I quoted fate....
You really think that when 9 out of 10 say its confusing and complicated that this isn't major?

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

Like this is a salient issue regarding the "economic benefits?"

Your link doesn't work.

In any event, so what? Were people rioting or even asking Congress to "make healthcare insurance less complicated" or did they want it "less expensive?"

Ask anyone at all if they prefer simplicity or savings. Only a moron is going to say "simplicity."

Now, deal with the facts. It's going to cost more and hurt the economy.

fate

"make healthcare insurance less complicated" or did they want it "less expensive?"

Both, I'm sure.

And, by the way, the point behind making things less complicated and confusing is to empower consumers...
Whenever choices are made less confusing, and less complicated, competition of price is more apt to occur.

rickyp wrote:fate

"make healthcare insurance less complicated" or did they want it "less expensive?"

Both, I'm sure.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to give that as an option. That's why I used "or." So, since that was confusing let me rephrase: which do you suppose is MORE important: simplicity or savings (choose one)?

And, by the way, the point behind making things less complicated and confusing is to empower consumers...
Whenever choices are made less confusing, and less complicated, competition of price is more apt to occur.

False. If I have more options, I can inform myself and determine what is best for me. Obamacare reduces options, thus "simplifying" the process, but it empowers no one--other than government.

Also false regarding competition. Applying your principle, the most competitive markets would be those with the most regulation. Is that not obviously false?

Instead of narrowing the options, the ACA should have expanded them. What if insurance could be sold across State lines? What if young people were permitted to carry a rudimentary plan as long as they also had a policy that would cover them in the unlikely event that some sort of catastrophic event took place (i.e. cancer)? We'll never know because the ACA restricts competition and demands people obtain insurance that is typically more than most young folks want.

Because when people learn more about Obamacare, they will like it more . . . unless they don't:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The vast majority of Americans, 81%, say they are aware of the 2010 Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) requirement that most Americans must carry health insurance or pay a fine. Americans who are currently uninsured -- those most directly affected by this requirement -- are much less likely to be aware of the provision, with 56% saying they know about it and 43% saying they are unaware.

So, what's going to happen with those people? It is improbable that they will be thrilled. If it costs them anything, they're not going to like it.