I went back to the start of this thread, started by Rickyp. I was curious as to why he supported it and what reasons were given. The program has not lived up to it's promises yet Ricky continues to support it. Is this because he is simply being a partisan politician and trying to shine a turd or is it still in accordance with his stated reasons for originally supporting this turd of plan...

speaking of his relatives he said

the news was greeted with relief in my family, and they will now be able to take a vacation and go out to eat.

But costs have not gone down, they increased substantially, can they now still go on vacation? His reason was because this is now "affordable" and unless these people are very poor, they are paying more. How can he continue his support?

Doctor, nursing, hospital and drug costs are out of control in the U.S. because of litigation and greed.

Nothing has changed in this plan

Forcing the exchanges to compete will save costs

not the case

The proof exists all over the world, except in the minds of partisans who would defend the indefensible.

Yet he continues to play partisan and defends the indefensible

And these rebates, plus the extended coverage will make the program more and more popular.

still waiting for that bump

Meanwhile lower insurance costs, and rebates , go to the middle class

wrong, I'm middle class, it cost me more, it cost everyone I know more. This is a flat out LIE at best!

At least in that insurance is less expensive, and in a short time, most everyone will have medical insurance.

nope, it's not "less expensive" as proven over and over. And in my personal example, I'm in a State that is affected less than others (or so they claim)

regulation or a change in the market is the only alternative to the kind of runaway medical inflation the US has experienced.

yet here we have regulation and change in the market doing exactly the opposite of what you espouse.

We all know Ricky wants us to have universal care, we know Obama wants that in the end as well. This is simply a step along the way and the problems are expected and wanted, after we complain, the next step to fix things is universal care.

The ACA was at best incremental change that fixed some things and made modest improvements.

OK, we understand you prefer universal care Ricky, But excluding your real end goal, how is the current plan helping us and how has it made any "modest improvements"? We COULD have simply made it illegal to drop those with pre-existing ailments, we could have written laws to assure some of the other aspects that may be good to be included, staying on parents coverage until 26, free birth control, "free" colonoscopies, mammograms, etc These may or may not be good parts of Obamacare and they could have been made law without the rest of this nonsense, so how have we seen any improvements in the marketplace? ANY? Instead we see run-away costs getting further out of hand and we see people forced to buy something they both can not afford and do not want. What we are buying is a worse product for more money!

Do you read what we say?
I said I was always covered with decent health insurance, I was never going to go bankrupt with my previous plans. Now I may be facing $11,000 out of pocket (in addition to the what $7-$8000 spent in weekly payments) I am more likely to go bankrupt NOW than before! This plan made that more likley than ever before, how is this plan helping me more than plans of the past?

comparing this to car insurance, really?
I can pick up a phone and have a quote in 15 minutes.
I can compare rates between DOZENS of companies (not a handful only)
The cost for my car insurance is a fraction of my health insurance
I can do things to reduce my car insurance (most notably having a less expensive car...I am in control)
I can also choose to forgo having a car, I could take the bus! (my only option to forgo health insurance is to die, are you trying to claim this a viable option?)

GMTom wrote:Do you read what we say?
I said I was always covered with decent health insurance, I was never going to go bankrupt with my previous plans. Now I may be facing $11,000 out of pocket (in addition to the what $7-$8000 spent in weekly payments) I am more likely to go bankrupt NOW than before! This plan made that more likley than ever before, how is this plan helping me more than plans of the past?

comparing this to car insurance, really?
I can pick up a phone and have a quote in 15 minutes.
I can compare rates between DOZENS of companies (not a handful only)
The cost for my car insurance is a fraction of my health insurance
I can do things to reduce my car insurance (most notably having a less expensive car...I am in control)
I can also choose to forgo having a car, I could take the bus! (my only option to forgo health insurance is to die, are you trying to claim this a viable option?)

tom

I said I was always covered with decent health insurance

But you've never answered any of the questions about the actual terms have you?
Annual limits?
Life time limits?
etc.
what you've said is

It doesn't matter!

Which tells me you have no idea why the insurance plan changed... And why the new insurance is so much more expensive.

Now, some naive people don't have the deal they believed they had.... Too bad... The deal was only in their head anyway.

Obama promised a deal, we were naive to believe him so shame on us, too bad that deal was only in our head. What he really meant was something different than what he said, that's OUR problem, really?

"Made a statement that turned out to not be happening"

Do you feel the same way about President Bush and the WMDs in Iraq? As I recall the phrase was "Bush lied, people died".

Or is this just another partisan opinion...

Obama did lie. So did Bush. Let's see if you can call it what it is.

one more time Ricky, try reading what we actually SAY.
it simply does not matter how good my new, more expensive plan is. It is more expensive than i want to pay, it is forcing me to drop my satellite tv, YOU want me to show how so and how much better the plan is? It simply doesn't matter how much better this plan is (it is worse by the way) it's costing me more!!!!

I don't give a damn if it covers free jock itch cream or if it covers free pimple medication and free gym membership (it covers none of things and I do not use any of those things even if they WERE covered). Let's just say the new plan IS better...so? I'm paying more, more than I feel I can afford, how nice of you to point out the plan is better for me and I'm better off spending more money, I should be happy that you are forcing me to spend more.

How about I force you to eat only Kobe beef? It's so much tastier and tender, it doesn't matter that you are happy with Filet Mignon or ghast, sirloin steak! No, you will only be eating Kobe and since it's better, it doesn't matter how much it costs! This is what you are trying to say to me, this new plan (that is not better) is better and since YOU think so, it doesn't matter what I think or what I can afford, you know better! I have few choices, the ACA has seen to that!

Obama didn't lie, he simply "mis-spoke" (several times, over several issues, over and over) and you are going to love it!
Besides, this is all Bushes fault!

tom

speaking of his relatives he said

Actually you're quoting the author of the piece I posted.
Her name is Dianne Francis.

And I'll refer you to a comment of Freeman's a little below the initial article.
freeman

It is not fully implemented until 2014--get back to me in 2016

Most of the impact will not be known till at least then...the rest is just jumping to conclusions.
I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that the ACA is a bit of a turd. Its a typical over complex program, tinkered with by lobbyists so much so that all the corporate interests see some way to profit. And no, it isn't even close to proviiding the value to consumers that even a poor socailist model like Canada's let along a great system like say Norway.

But its still better than the status quo. And better than anything on offer from the opposition. And it has the potential to be quite powerful in making change. Businesses have to get out of the business of providing health insurance to their employees. Its an expense they shouldn't have to incur.
The ACA does allow a way for this to happen over a period of time.
And when the exchanges work, they'll actually provide consumers with a transparent ( compared to the incumbent) market place. If you believe in the power of the market, you have to believe that empowered consumers will drive efficiencies.
On the other hand, you have the current model which foists sub standard financial products on naive and out gunned consumers who get crushed when the bad stuff happens...

You have to put Obama's remarks in context. He was addressing Americans who had good coverage and did not want to change. For most Americans, they have been able to keep their coverage. For the small-subset of Americans who bought individual plans with sub-standard coverage they are now forced to get better coverage. I hardly think qualifies as lying when a president is presenting a complex reform to the American People since in the main it has turned out to be true for the vast majority of Americans. This is nit-picking.
By the way, when you look at the popularity of the ACA you find that 18-29 year olds are favor of it and those over 65 are very against it. Interesting, huh?
In any huge reform there are going to be a few people that are going to be unfairly affected. Sorry Tom if you're one of the ones affected, as that is no consolation to you. As Ricky points out, however, the exchanges should provide an easy way for consumers to get competitive bids for coverage, eventually. It represents a vast improvement from before. The idea that the free market was doing a good job before is ludicrous: (1) health care costs were rising every year and taking a very greater share of GDP than other advanced western countries, (2) many people were cut off from coverage due to pre-existing conditions or inability to afford coverage (and obviously with increasing health care costs less and less people would be able to afford coverage), (3) many bankruptcies were caused by coverage was insufficient, and (4) statistically,our health care system was not doing well in things like infant mortality and life expectancy
So the prior system was on the verge of utter failure. Now if you Republicans have an alternative, comprehensive reform (you can't do things piece-mail) then that would be great. But you don't-- you have nothing. Why? Because this was the free-market reform, the alternative is single-payer.
So keep nit-picking away--I guess you might as well since you have no solutions.

freeman3 wrote:You have to put Obama's remarks in context. He was addressing Americans who had good coverage and did not want to change.

That is not true.

He never said, "If you like your policy and it's a good one, you can keep it."

Again, he never said that. He repeatedly promised people could keep their policy and their doctors, without qualification.

For most Americans, they have been able to keep their coverage.

For now. However, we don't know what impact the employer mandate will have next year. It may or may not cause employers to drop insurance and just pay the fine.

For the small-subset of Americans who bought individual plans with sub-standard coverage they are now forced to get better coverage. I hardly think qualifies as lying when a president is presenting a complex reform to the American

Uh-huh, you and the 20% of die-hard liberals. For most Americans, we see the repeated clips of his unconditional promises and think, "That's not true."

As for those individuals getting "better" coverage, I guess they're just too dumb to understand what a solid the President did for them--like the 34 year-old I cited from the LA Times.

By the way, when you look at the popularity of the ACA you find that 18-29 year olds are favor of it and those over 65 are very against it. Interesting, huh?

Young = more gullible.

However, when the bill comes due . . . we'll see how popular it is. And, 18-26 year olds are the group who are the biggest beneficiaries, as they get to sponge off their parents longer.

As Ricky points out, however, the exchanges should provide an easy way for consumers to get competitive bids for coverage, eventually.

More disinformation. "Competitive?" As I pointed out, some States have as few as ONE remaining insurance company. Who exactly are they competing with? Furthermore, when each company has to put out exactly the same product, how is that going to suit everyone?

It represents a vast improvement from before. The idea that the free market was doing a good job before is ludicrous:

Please stop misrepresenting the situation. To be clear: PLEASE establish when a "free market" in health insurance existed. Otherwise, your entire statement is bunk.

Now if you Republicans have an alternative, comprehensive reform (you can't do things piece-mail) then that would be great. But you don't-- you have nothing.

That's not true--in either case. Republicans have introduced bills. It's also not true that things could not be done piecemeal. If we had done this a bit at a time we would not have the fiasco we have now.

Why? Because this was the free-market reform, the alternative is single-payer.
So keep nit-picking away--I guess you might as well since you have no solutions.

If you think this is "free-market," you have no idea what the term means.

If the president was accurate with 95 percent of Americans you're not going to make that lying charge stick.

As for competitiveness, how did you think people bought health insurance before? You had no way to really easily compare health insurances companies, there were virtual monopolies or ologopolies in many places and most likely you were only aware of the deductible, out-of picket charges, HMO or PPO or something like that (information about exclusions in fine print). Now consumer know they are getting adequate coverage and don't have to read the fine print (which most didn'). It would help if Republican governorswould set up exchanges Your anecdotal statement about exchanges is pretty worthless in assessing how the exchanges operate. And it is absolutely immoral not to agree to medicaid expansion as almost all Republican governors have failed to do. Since I have not heard any criticism from you, I assume you think that is ok.
As for these labels, I understand the free-market just as well as the guy whose salary and pension were funded by tax-payers (I have always worked in the private sector and have never collected a dime from the government) However, you have to label these things somehow--the way it was before the ACA was more free-market than the ACA and the ACA is more free-market than single-payer. I only used free-market as a comparison between the ACA and single-payer. The prior system was more free-market than the ACA and it was on life-support. It hardly seems possible that a solution that was more free-market than the old one would work because health care is a sui generis market.

freeman3 wrote:If the president was accurate with 95 percent of Americans you're not going to make that lying charge stick.

He wasn't . . . and the American people have ears--and friends. It's immaterial to the question if I keep my insurance and several of my friends can't.

Meanwhile, he said families would save. Most of my friends are seeing substantial increases.

As for competitiveness, how did you think people bought health insurance before? You had no way to really easily compare health insurances companies, there were virtual monopolies or ologopolies in many places and most likely you were only aware of the deductible, out-of picket charges,

You're not describing the "free-market" you allege existed. Have a look at the chart here and tell me how "free" the market was before the ACA:

HMO or PPO or something like that (information about exclusions in fine print). Now consumer know they are getting adequate coverage and don't have to read the fine print (which most didn').

So, instead of passing a law for transparency in insurance, we had to raise taxes, create subsidies, and wreak havoc on small businesses? Oh, okay.

It would help if Republican governorswould set up exchanges

States . . . must do whatever the Fed dictates? Is that how it works?

Your anecdotal statement about exchanges is pretty worthless in assessing how the exchanges operate. And it is absolutely immoral not to agree to medicaid expansion as almost all Republican governors have failed to do. Since I have not heard any criticism from you, I assume you think that is ok.

Federalism is our system. If you don't like it, change it.

As for these labels, I understand the free-market just as well as the guy whose salary and pension were funded by tax-payers

Cheap shot and only half right. My pension is not paid for by taxpayers. Look it up.

"Free market" . . . would that include all the regulations (above)? Would it include not being able to buy insurance across State lines (by Federal law)?

(I have always worked in the private sector and have never collected a dime from the government)

I would press that point, but to be honest, I don't care. If you understand free markets, it's not exhibited in your assertion that we had a free market before the ACA.

Sorry, taking money from your check and combining it with money from other sheriff's deputies and putting it into a private pension fund does not change the fact that your pension was ultimately funded by taxpayers. Money from taxpayers ultimately went into the pension fund. Nice try, though.
The problem with health care is not that the free market is over-regulated. The problem is that once we go from a cash based system to insurance people began to feel entitled to health care and since they are not paying for it they don't think about the cost; health care providers of course are happy to provide the care and insurance companies cannot keep the lid on demand. What insurance. companies do is not insure bad risks (those with pre-existing conditions) and in order to capture more business they offer sub-standard coverage (and as health care costs go up health care coverage costs more and more people become uninsured)Once you get out of the requirement of making people decide whether they value treatment ovet their cash, the free-market system goes haywire. The ACA is a clever attempt to force everyone into the system so bad risks can be covered and making sure everyone gets a minimum level of coverage. The single-payer system says this the amount of money available for health-care, triages health-care, and cuts out the middle-men. But Republicans won't go for that and we have the ACA (which was originally a conservative fix))

freeman3 wrote:Sorry, taking money from your check and combining it with money from other sheriff's deputies and putting it into a private pension fund does not change the fact that your pension was ultimately funded by taxpayers. Money from taxpayers ultimately went into the pension fund. Nice try, though.

You are a genuine lawyer. Take that as you will.

The problem with health care is not that the free market is over-regulated.

Douse that straw man with some kerosene!

Hint: I didn't say what you are destroying.

What insurance. companies do is not insure bad risks (those with pre-existing conditions) and in order to capture more business they offer sub-standard coverage (and as health care costs go up health care coverage costs more and more people become uninsured)Once you get out of the requirement of making people decide whether they value treatment ovet their cash, the free-market system goes haywire.

The pre-existing conditions problem could have been addressed without the Rube Goldberg contraption of the ACA.

Now, the last comment you make is a testament to your lack of understanding of a free-market. The free-market goes haywire when people have less control over their cash (as in under the ACA) than when they have more control over it? People were too dumb to know the coverage they had was mostly catastrophic? They're too dumb to know what they had, but the government is going to fix that by giving fewer, more expensive choices? That's a "free-market?"

Hmm . . . you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The ACA is a clever attempt to force everyone into the system so bad risks can be covered and making sure everyone gets a minimum level of coverage.

"Force" equals "free-market."

The single-payer system says this the amount of money available for health-care, triages health-care, and cuts out the middle-men. But Republicans won't go for that and we have the ACA (which was originally a conservative fix))

Two errors:

1. Democrats would not go for single-payer. They could have rammed it through, just like they did the ACA, but they didn't.

2. The ACA was NOT EVER a "conservative" plan. It's a myth. The Heritage Foundation did not suggest raising taxes, and any number of other bits of the plan. Furthermore, the guy who raised the idea of "mandatory" insurance rescinded that before the ACA was even a bill.