freeman3 wrote:It is immoral to oppose medicaid expansion when the state's pay nothing to start and then 10 percent afterwards.

The States decide that. Again, you don't like the system? Change it.

Did you read that NY Times article? People are suffering because this political grandstanding. The Medicaid expansion covers the working poor, people who wind up not getting adequate health care.

People are suffering because we have an ideologically driven President who thumbed his nose at the GOP, ignored complaints from governors, and rammed through a program none of them supported. Now it doesn't work and it's the fault of the people who didn't vote for it and whose input was shunned?

As for your analysis,DF

1. The system before the ACA with less government intervention was not working-costs were huge and many people were not getting adequate treatment

This system does not work either. We are seeing how "well-planned" it was.

2. If the ACA with more government intervention does not work we cannot go back to the old, failing system.

Not what I said. Actually, we should go to a more market-based, more rational system. The ACA forces people to pay for what they don't need or want. Why should a 60 year-old woman who does not drink and has never taken drugs and has never had mental illness have to pay for pediatric coverage, maternity coverage, and drug rehab coverage?

Oh, to "enlarge the pool?"

That''s fine, but it's going to increase her costs and make the program less attractive. Reality is mugging the ACA, not conservatives.

There is no evidence that a system with less government than before would hold down costs or provide better care. Insurance companies are not going to insure those with pre-existing conditions or the working poor. They also have no mechanism for holding down costs.

Pre-existing conditions is easily fixed without a lousy website and the President lying through his teeth.

3. There we would be forced to go to single-payer, like almost all other advanced western countries, because there is no other alternative to dealing with health-care costs out of control

I think that was the plan. Create this debacle, drive the insurance companies into insolvency, shrug and say, "Well, all we can do is socialize it."

Now, as the voters see the efficiencies of government, don't you suppose they'll be clamoring for more of it? Why, I can see the hammer and sickle replacing the stars, can't you?



I don't think this is going to be the time to go to a more government-centered plan, politically. In fact, the sheer incompetence of this thing is going to damage the "government" brand for a long time to come.

So, Obamacare is going to be good for the economy . . .

Is it even going to be good for Democrats?

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) doesn't think so. She introduced a bill designed to allow people to keep their insurance (not sure how you get the cancelled policies back). Now, Feinstein (D-CA) is supporting it--and she's not up for reelection.

The wheels are coming off.

The President's credibility in a recent Quinipiac poll is under water. Meanwhile, there are plenty of stories like this:

More than 1 million cancellation notices have been sent to Californians as the Affordable Care Act begins allowing individuals to buy insurance through exchanges, Jones said. The federal law requires policies to offer minimum levels of coverage, forcing companies to terminate many existing plans.

I do genuinely hope that President Obama doesn't back down. Stand by your program, Mr. President!

If this keeps going, we could see his popularity in the low 30's by next November! You go, Mr. President!

DF, before you even know anything about Obama proposes you would say the wheels are coming off. You and a lot of Republicans are not allowing the ACA to be fully implemented before castigating it in every particular. Meanwhile, you have no solutions for solving the health-care problem. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Unlike Democrats you don't try to make reasonable compromise so that we can get good government--you try to obstruct government at every turn. I don't know why would want to see the ACA fail--millions of Americans will suffer if it does.
The important thing to do when you have a problem is think through the best solutions and then try them out. You're not allowing a reasonable trial of the ACA. Let's see what happens after it is fully out. I am not against trying a more free-market solution, but Republicans did not roll one out under Bush when they had a chance. Instead they came up with a prescription drug program. They did not address pre-existing conditions, they did not address the problem of the uninsured, and they did not address the issues of rising health care costs. They had eight years under Bush--nothing happened.

No one know how complex reforms will work out until they are tried. If after the ACA is fully rolled it is evident that there are serious problems that can't be easily fixed, then we can address that. But we're not there yet. You are prejudging it and cherry-picking every little problem. Why not wait until it gets fully implemented? I don't really understand these incessant attacks by Republicans except that they fear that the ACA will become popular once it is fully rolled out. There is no other credible explanation.
So you can incessantly trot out these so-called problems--we'll see what happens in a year's time when the basic issue will be how does the health care system look pre and post-ACA. I think it will be better post-ACA but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. But these incessant, slanted attacks are ideological pre-judgment.

So one more voice weighing in on what ACA means personally: under more investigation, it appears that the NY program will likely not save my business any money on premiums, unlike I previously thought and reported on these boards. There are like 8 plans on the NY City marketplace, but the bottom seven are Medicaid qualified plans, which my wife forbids us to switch to, and which have literally zero doctors participating in the neighborhood. That leaves the highest price plan in the marketplace, which is actually more than what we pay now. Is it a better plan? Will tax credits make up the balance? I'm not sure yet.

Thankfully, it appears we don't have to do anything yet because our old plan, which is ending is grandfathered in until our renewal date, which is in the summer. Glad to be able to postpone this decision until things become more clear.

freeman3 wrote:DF, before you even know anything about Obama proposes you would say the wheels are coming off. You and a lot of Republicans are not allowing the ACA to be fully implemented before castigating it in every particular.

Um, yes, I did. And . . . I was right.

Now, even the rats, er Democrats, are jumping ship--as I indicated, Landrieu and Feinstein are supporting legislation to right some wrongs. Former President Clinton is saying the current President needs to honor his word in permitting people to keep policies they liked (implying he has not kept his word to this point).

Meanwhile, you have no solutions for solving the health-care problem. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Firstly, that's not true. I have said competition across State lines would be helpful. I pretty much support Ryan's proposal during the 2012 campaign.

Secondly, whether I have anything or not does not negate the fact that the ACA is a disaster. Right now, the damage is mostly political, but it's getting to be an economic debacle too and people get sticker shock.

Unlike Democrats you don't try to make reasonable compromise so that we can get good government--you try to obstruct government at every turn. I don't know why would want to see the ACA fail--millions of Americans will suffer if it does.

Millions are suffering now. They have to change healthcare plans, lose their doctors, have their networks narrowed, and their costs go through the roof.

I don't want government obstructed at every turn. That's anarchy.

I do want efficient, well-run government. The ACA is not that.

The important thing to do when you have a problem is think through the best solutions and then try them out. You're not allowing a reasonable trial of the ACA.

Tell your Senator that.

Btw, if this is "the best solution" to the healthcare mess, then maybe we need anarchy.

Democrats did not pass a "best solution" or even a "good solution." They passed this iceberg.

Let's see what happens after it is fully out.

I've said I'm all for this approach. The President should obstruct and even veto attempts to change the law. I would love for him to do this.

Politically, that's suicide.

I am not against trying a more free-market solution, but Republicans did not roll one out under Bush when they had a chance. Instead they came up with a prescription drug program. They did not address pre-existing conditions, they did not address the problem of the uninsured, and they did not address the issues of rising health care costs. They had eight years under Bush--nothing happened.

And, Democrats passed what future generations will view with all the reverence of the Edsel.

No one know how complex reforms will work out until they are tried.

Two points:

1. Many conservatives correctly predicted what would happen under this law. It violates virtually every law of economics and common sense.

2. So, why do a "complex" reform? Why not go a few steps at a time, adjust, and make sure things go well? Why not look for ways to handle the individual problems instead of one that uproots millions of Americans? Solve problems for some people instead of creating problems for many more.

If after the ACA is fully rolled it is evident that there are serious problems that can't be easily fixed, then we can address that. But we're not there yet. You are prejudging it and cherry-picking every little problem. Why not wait until it gets fully implemented?

Again, I'm fine with this. If the President wants to see if he can set an all-time low in popularity, he should just do it!

He lied. Americans know he lied (see Quiniapiac poll).

The rollout is a disaster from which there is no recovery.

I don't really understand these incessant attacks by Republicans except that they fear that the ACA will become popular once it is fully rolled out.

Right. Sure. Whatever. That's why DEMOCRATS are balking.

Tweet from Luke Russert:

Growing anger among House Ds towards WH over "u got it, u like it, u keep it" lie. 1 tells me, "WH doesn't have our back."

From Politico:

“They’re telling us all about actuarial tables and all about how the process would work and all of this is fine and great and it would be great in a classroom and you would get an A on your test, but this isn’t about getting an A on your test, this is about ads,” said Rep. Steve Cohen, a Memphis liberal…

“It’s ugly,” said one Democratic source in the meeting. “There’s no way Obama and Pelosi will let their legacy go down in flames. I just wouldn’t want to be from a swing district right now. Or anything that closely resembles one.”…

If they stand with the White House on Friday’s vote, they face the worst of all possible worlds: Campaign ads pointing out that they not only backed Obama’s broken promise but also opposed legislation to fix it. The White House has two days, they warned, to come up with an alternative way to ensure Americans aren’t thrown off their health plans. The president has vowed to find an administrative fix—rather than a legislative one—but that has proved difficult so far.

Translation: your fantasies about this being a right-wing conspiracy are being mugged by reality.

There is no other credible explanation.
So you can incessantly trot out these so-called problems--we'll see what happens in a year's time when the basic issue will be how does the health care system look pre and post-ACA. I think it will be better post-ACA but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. But these incessant, slanted attacks are ideological pre-judgment.

I hope the ACA is around in a year, but I'm dubious. Democrats like being reelected.

geojanes wrote:So one more voice weighing in on what ACA means personally: under more investigation, it appears that the NY program will likely not save my business any money on premiums, unlike I previously thought and reported on these boards. There are like 8 plans on the NY City marketplace, but the bottom seven are Medicaid qualified plans, which my wife forbids us to switch to, and which have literally zero doctors participating in the neighborhood. That leaves the highest price plan in the marketplace, which is actually more than what we pay now. Is it a better plan? Will tax credits make up the balance? I'm not sure yet.

Thankfully, it appears we don't have to do anything yet because our old plan, which is ending is grandfathered in until our renewal date, which is in the summer. Glad to be able to postpone this decision until things become more clear.

We often disagree, but I genuinely thank you for your integrity.

Here are the initial sign-up figures. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/1 ... d%3D405688
And a comparison to enrollment figures with the Massachusetts reform. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1155 ... ts-pattern
Note the low level of enrollment at the start.

freeman3 wrote:Here are the initial sign-up figures. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/1 ... d%3D405688
And a comparison to enrollment figures with the Massachusetts reform. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1155 ... ts-pattern
Note the low level of enrollment at the start.

Are you saying that the start-up is right on track? That does not seem to be the impression of many on the left right now.

Primarily just providing some actual facts on the sign-up figures and referencing a possible explanation for why they are low. Wasn't really arguing anything--just providing info.

freeman3 wrote:Primarily just providing some actual facts on the sign-up figures and referencing a possible explanation for why they are low. Wasn't really arguing anything--just providing info.

Except they're really not "facts." How many have actually purchased insurance? Read the article. They don't know. It will be less than stated because the number given is just those who got to "checkout," but they've not necessarily paid.

freeman3 wrote:Primarily just providing some actual facts on the sign-up figures and referencing a possible explanation for why they are low. Wasn't really arguing anything--just providing info.

I was just askin'.

Today was amazing. The President is, apparently, able to do whatever he likes.

Political fallout from the ACA? No problem, he will unilaterally decline to enforce the part of the law that permits policies to be sold that a few days ago were "substandard."

Oh, okay.

Congress is apparently some sort of advisory board. They have no power.

Democracy.

We'll see if this bails out the President. Somehow, I think this is not a panacea. Well, except in Neverland.

On today's administrative maneuver, Howard Dean says:

“I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this, since this was a congressional bill that set this up,” said Dean of Obama's proposed fix.

What is he, some kind of Tea Party wing-nut?

No, the problem is that he's taking the President seriously. President Obama knows what he is commanding is not possible. Insurance companies that follow this are treading on thin legal and financial ice. Legal, because who exactly is eligible for what and at what price? Financial, because they will have a bunch of calculations to do and will probably have to hike rates again.

The President is trying to shift blame. When the insurance companies can't/don't follow his edict, he will blame them for the tumult.

From the insurance people:

For three years, state insurance regulators have been working to adapt to the Affordable Care Act in a way that best meets the needs of consumers in each state. We have been particularly concerned about the way the reforms would impact premiums, the solvency of insurance companies, and the overall health of the marketplace. The NAIC has been clear from the beginning that allowing insurers to have different rules for different policies would be detrimental to the overall market and result in higher premiums.

We have expressed these concerns with the Administration and are concerned by the President’s announcement today that the federal government would use its “enforcement discretion” to delay enforcement of the ACA’s market reforms in 2014 for plans that are currently in effect. This decision continues different rules for different policies and threatens to undermine the new market, and may lead to higher premiums and market disruptions in 2014 and beyond.

In addition, it is unclear how, as a practical matter, the changes proposed today by the President can be put into effect. In many states, cancellation notices have already gone out to policyholders and rates and plans have already been approved for 2014. Changing the rules through administrative action at this late date creates uncertainty and may not address the underlying issues. We look forward to learning more details of this policy change and about how the administration proposes that regulators and insurers make this work for all consumers.

This is government by presidential whim. It's not going to work. The only question is whether the spin machine in the White House and the media can make it seem like it's the fault of the insurance companies and not the indecisive waffler-in-chief.

Doubtful that a court would want to get into trying to micromanage how such a complex regulatory scheme is administered as long there is a basis for the delay. So such a delay would probably be found legal by courts. And, yes, it's a political move designed to shift the blame for insurance companies for proceeding with cancellations if they need not do so. Obama is a fighter and this reform will be implemented.

DF:

The only question is whether the spin machine in the White House and the media can make it seem like it's the fault of the insurance companies and not the indecisive waffler-in-chief.

The general public may not appreciate that it takes a lot of planning for an insurance company to structure policies and coverage. They have to coordinate a network of providers as well as their own marketplace strategy.