freeman3 wrote: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.

Awesome!

Because it's only going to get worse!

Even better: arbitrary changes, like the President thinks he can do and did here, do not take into account all the ripples they will engender. Hopefully, someone will sue and win. Even better: an insurance company is forced into bankruptcy and it's all because Obama cares!

This is going to be . . . well, schadenfreude on an epic scale.

During the government shutdown, Barack Obama held fast, heroically refusing to give an inch to the hostage-taking, barbaric orcs of the Tea Party who insisted on delaying Obamacare. It was a triumph for the master strategist in the White House, who finally maneuvered the Republicans into revealing their extremism. But we didn’t know something back then: Obama desperately needed a delay of Healthcare.gov. In his arrogance, though, he couldn’t bring himself to admit it. The other possibility is that he is such an incompetent manager, who has cultivated such a culture of yes-men, that he was completely in the dark about the problems. That’s the reigning storyline right now from the White House. Obama was betrayed. “If I had known,” he told his staff, “we could have delayed the website.”

This is how you know we’re in the political sweet spot: when the only plausible excuses for the administration are equally disastrous indictments.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it took about five minutes for liberals to cast the chaos and confusion of the disaster as a searing indictment of not just the Bush administration but of conservatism itself. Whatever the merits of that argument (and there are not many), Katrina was at least a surprise. The October 1 deadline for Obamacare was set by Obama’s own administration years ago — and it caught them completely off guard. The president may now claim that he knew nothing, but he must have wondered why Henry Chao, Healthcare.gov’s chief project manager, set the bar of success at sea level last March: “Let’s just make sure it’s not a Third World experience.” At this point, it could only be more of a Third World experience if Healthcare.gov required enrollees to pay with chickens.

Regardless, if Obama were a tenth as good a politician as he thinks he is, he could have blamed the delay he desperately needed on his political enemies, calling them “hostage-takers” even as he secretly understood they had rescued his most beloved hostage from his own incompetence. Instead, on September 26, he went out and told an adoring audience: “On October 1, millions of Americans . . . will finally be able to buy quality, affordable health insurance. In five days.” “Starting Tuesday,” he added, Americans will be able to “compare and purchase affordable health-insurance plans, side by side, the same way you shop for a plane ticket on Kayak — same way you shop for a TV on Amazon. You just go on and you start looking, and here are all the options.”

Come on, that’s hilarious.

Okay, maybe he didn’t know then what bad shape the website was in. But how to explain the president’s remarks three weeks after the debut of Healthcare.gov? Even if it’s true that the president only hears about bad news from the newspapers, by then the papers were full of reports that Healthcare.gov worked about as well as a Somali superconducting supercollider. Obama knew that Healthcare.gov was a fiasco, and that the “navigators” used the same broken website that consumers had spent days poking at like Chinatown chickens in an abandoned tic-tac-toe machine, desperately but fruitlessly trying to get some reward.

And yet the president strode out into the Rose Garden anyway and told millions of Americans they could buy their coverage by phone. He told them the 1-800 operators were standing by. He told them it would take only 25 minutes to apply. None of these things were true. In his mind, Obama surely thought he was putting the issue to rest, like Zeus declaring that Odysseus would make it home alive. But here’s the thing: All that Zeus needs to do to make something happen is to say it. When Barack Obama says things, reality doesn’t bend to his will. Somehow, Barack Obama has been led to believe that his job is simply to go out and say things, as if saying things alone could change facts on the ground. So while I’m sure he thinks he sounded like the voice of eternal truth, in reality he sounded like the infomercial spokesman played by Chevy Chase in the old Saturday Night Live skit:

Dude, it's already beginning! Washington (State) is having none of it:

Just hours after President Obama announced changes to his health care law to give insurance companies the option to keep offering consumers plans that would otherwise be canceled, Washington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler says those changes will not be allowed in our state.

Kreidler says Thursday he has “serious concerns” about how Obama’s proposal would be implemented and its potential impact on the overall stability of the state’s health insurance market.

“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler said in a statement announcing his decision. “In the interest of keeping the consumer protections, we have enacted and ensuring that we keep health insurance costs down for all consumers, we are staying the course. We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies. I believe this is in the best interest of the health insurance market in Washington.”

Oh, it's just going to get better and better.

Ray Jay wrote: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.

That's an excellent point.

However, I think as more and more insurance companies and Democrats complain and/or point out the impossibility of undoing a couple of years of planning in 6 weeks, I think it will become evident.

We'll see.

However, I think it will take mass hypnotism to make people see the President as trustworthy again. Well, except for true believers, who don't seem to care how often the President lies as long as they agree with his goals.

He's had his opportunity to take responsibility in a genuine way. Instead, he pointed fingers and blame-shifted. For all but those on a Kool-Aid iv, the President has been shown to be a run of the mill politician. He can't get back that aura of "hope and change." That is gone with the wind.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans can be seen with regard to how Democrats responded to Medicare Prescription B versus how Republicans responded to the ACA. Many Democrats opposed Medicare Prescription B but once it was passed worked hard to implement it after a disasterous launch. Meanwhile, Republicans have done everything they can to stop the ACA even after passage. http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/21/ ... e-BushCare

freeman3 wrote:The difference between Democrats and Republicans can be seen with regard to how Democrats responded to Medicare Prescription B versus how Republicans responded to the ACA. Many Democrats opposed Medicare Prescription B but once it was passed worked hard to implement it after a disasterous launch. Meanwhile, Republicans have done everything they can to stop the ACA even after passage. http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/21/ ... e-BushCare

That's a point, but it's not the main point. The main point is that the Democrats passed bad legislation and now they are blaming the Republicans instead of themselves. You are very relaxed about 15 to 30 million people losing their insurance and encouraged by 50,000 people finding theirs. Somehow you are able to rationalize that the 15 to 30 million is only 5 to 10% of the population whereas the 50,000 represents progress.

This is extremely complicated legislation overlaid on an existing complicated system resulting in unmanageable complexity. It is Democratic hubris to think they are so smart that they have all the answers at the federal level. Since it isn't working cognitive dissonance sets in. We know we are smart; we know we are good; therefore, if our plan doesn't work, it must be the Republicans' fault.

Well it's your opinion that it is a bad piece of legislation. It's worked pretty well in Massachusettts where both sides have cooperated. With a complex piece of legislation it's expected that it will have to be tweaked (in the past so-called technical improvements were passed to deal with problems) but Republicans refuse to cooperate.
Now with regard to not being concerned about people whose insurance has been canceled, really, I would expect more from you, RJ. I am not sure where your numbers are coming from because only 12 million people get their own insurance while 189 million get it through work or government. 3.6 of Americans get their insurance on their own. We get these anectdotal horror stories but given that the federal exchange and Republican state exchanges have not been set up, we really don't how those 3.6 percent are ultimately going to be affected, I think.
It is a good thing that a minimum level of coverage is being mandated. Bad policies mean you don't have coverage when you need it. Now, if it turns out that are some people who are suffering because of the law (after we saw kind of replacement insurance they get at what cost and factoring in tax credits), we can take a look at that and tweak it. If Republicans refuse to work with us on that then it's on them
Where you seem complacent, RJ, is with regard to the 50 million uninsured, people with pre-existing conditions, and doing something about reining in health-care costs. Since Obamacare was passed the rate of increase in health care costs had gone down and did you know that 28 percent of insurers in exchanged are offering individual plans for the first time (that's called competition)
Even with Republican sabotage the ACA is going to work. But there will be an adjustment period that could be made less painful if Republicans will work with us. But they won't so a few people may have to sacrifice for the many people who will be helped.

Well it's your opinion that it is a bad piece of legislation. It's worked pretty well in Massachusettts where both sides have cooperated.

My insurance was cancelled when the new legislation passed in Mass. It's not as bad as the critics say, and it's not as good as the supporters say.

I am not sure where your numbers are coming from because only 12 million people get their own insurance while 189 million get it through work or government. 3.6 of Americans get their insurance on their own. ... We get these anectdotal horror stories but given that the federal exchange and Republican state exchanges have not been set up, we really don't how those 3.6 percent are ultimately going to be affected, I think.

You have to be careful here. I get my insurance through my employer which is a company whose sole employee is me. Statistically it is probably listed as an employer plan. Similarly, Tom is getting his insurance through his employer. Per this morning's WSJ, in the 28 states that have reported so far, 4 million people (families?) have received policy discontinuation notices. There are no stats provided on the other 22 states. There's a reason Obama is in a panic over this.

It is a good thing that a minimum level of coverage is being mandated. Bad policies mean you don't have coverage when you need it. Now, if it turns out that are some people who are suffering because of the law (after we saw kind of replacement insurance they get at what cost and factoring in tax credits), we can take a look at that and tweak it.

tweak it?

[

Where you seem complacent, RJ, is with regard to the 50 million uninsured, people with pre-existing conditions ...

No, I feel for those people. Of course 50 million X about $3,000 per = $150 billion a year. It has to come from somewhere. We don't spend $150 billion a year in emergency rooms right now for the indigent.

and doing something about reining in health-care costs. Since Obamacare was passed the rate of increase in health care costs had gone down

Yes, and I am only gaining 1 pound a year instead of 2 pounds a year so I'm getting thinner.

and did you know that 28 percent of insurers in exchanged are offering individual plans for the first time (that's called competition)

You should analyze that a bit more ...

The ACA was passed--it is going to be implemented. You can either focus on making it better or you can complain about it. But it is not going to be repealed. Obama will never agree to it and there is no way you're going to get veto proof support to overturn it.

ray

You are very relaxed about 15 to 30 million people losing their insurance and encouraged by 50,000 people finding theirs. Somehow you are able to rationalize that the 15 to 30 million is only 5 to 10% of the population whereas the 50,000 represents progress.

People were losing their insurance from their employers in a steady stream from 1990.And the ranks of uninsured were rising. There was a great deal of relaxation about that trend.....
And the response eventually was the ACA....
The question for the ACA is whether or not it ends up offering insurance coverage for everyone...affordably. And the question for those who oppose the ACA is whats your alternative? If the sign up pattern for Massachusstts is indicative, it'll take some time for those uninsured to get insured....Just to go through the process....

The number of people who lacked health insurance last year climbed to 49.9 million, up from 49 million in 2009, the Census Bureau said Tuesday.
Nationwide, 16.3% of the population was uninsured last year, statistically unchanged from 2009.
Three groups comprised the bulk of the uninsured in 2010, including foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens, young adults ages 19 to 25 and low-income families with an annual household income of less than $25,000.
Much of the declines in insured rates in recent years can be attributed to the loss of employer-provided coverage, which fell amid sustained unemployment and as employers continued to cut back on benefits.
The percentage of people who had health insurance through their employers fell to 55.3% in 2010 from 56.1% the year before, continuing a long, downward trend. In 2000, 64.1% of the population received health insurance through their employers.

freeman3 wrote:Well it's your opinion that it is a bad piece of legislation. It's worked pretty well in Massachusettts where both sides have cooperated.

Two assumptions, neither one demonstrated.

1. You assume it is the same as the bill that passed Massachusetts. Now, if that was true, then the ACA would have NO IMPACT in MA. None. However, as Ray said, he lost his insurance. So, obviously it's not the same law. I could do more extensive analysis (all the taxes in the ACA, etc.), but your statement is false on face value.

2. You imply that the only thing inhibiting the ACA from succeeding is the GOP. That is also specious. Democrats cooperated in MA because . . . the whole thing was their idea in the first place. Romney helped restrain their socialist tendencies.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid did precious little to garner GOP support. In fact, in the face of a shocking election to replace Ted Kennedy, what did the Democrats do? If blue-state MA doesn't want the ACA, what should the Democrats do? What they did was use parliamentary gymnastics to get it through anyway with zero Republican votes.

Oh, but wait! Why don't the GOP governors cooperate? Because they were elected by people who (largely) don't like the ACA either. Democrats knew that and didn't give a silver fig. "Elections have consequences," "I won" and all that.

So now, here's a question: is the website debacle the GOP's fault?

Another: is it the Republicans' fault that Obama lied?

Should the GOP not take advantage of Obama/Democrat ineptitude? Should they try to bail them out of the awful predicament they got themselves into?

With a complex piece of legislation it's expected that it will have to be tweaked (in the past so-called technical improvements were passed to deal with problems) but Republicans refuse to cooperate.

So funny. All of the sudden Obama needs Republican help. After he has spent five years attacking them, sometimes taking individual Republicans and holding them up to public scorn. Now they should circle the wagons and help the President out? When polls show Americans are turning on him and they don't like the ACA?

There are no "technical improvements" that can fix the ACA. It's going to require a massive infusion of money. That is not going to happen.

The whole point of the plan was a massive change. They knew in 2010 that millions would lose their insurance. The President and the Administration didn't care. This is all part of the "to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs" theory.

Btw, the President, since it's "his bill" . . . what "technical improvements" has he suggested that the Republicans have refused?

Your argument is vacuous. Democrats have no ideas and so they, like you, are pointing fingers. It's the insurance companies, it's the Republicans--it's everyone's fault except for those who wrote the plan, passed the plan and have tried to implement it.

Now with regard to not being concerned about people whose insurance has been canceled, really, I would expect more from you, RJ.

False choice. It's not "the ACA or the uninsured go without." It's not "The ACA or the old system." There are alternatives.

I am not sure where your numbers are coming from because only 12 million people get their own insurance while 189 million get it through work or government. 3.6 of Americans get their insurance on their own. We get these anectdotal horror stories but given that the federal exchange and Republican state exchanges have not been set up, we really don't how those 3.6 percent are ultimately going to be affected, I think.

How many more will lose insurance when the employer mandate kicks in?

As for "anecdotes," Democrats, like Feinstein, are now citing them as reasons they are seeing problems with the law. Democrats are panicking because they read polls. You don't care about them. As I said before, "Good!" I hope the President takes your advice. I hope he continues to lie and deceive. I hope he continues patronizing the electorate. He is the GOP's best weapon.

It is a good thing that a minimum level of coverage is being mandated. Bad policies mean you don't have coverage when you need it.

Because people are too dumb to figure this out for themselves. They need government to understand this. Only the government can help them.

But wait. The President said yesterday that insurance companies can go back to selling those same plans.

Now, if it turns out that are some people who are suffering because of the law (after we saw kind of replacement insurance they get at what cost and factoring in tax credits), we can take a look at that and tweak it.

Like how? What tweak?

If Republicans refuse to work with us on that then it's on them

Right. So, when Frankenstein's monster was turned loose on the village, was that the fault of the village?

Look, Democrats wrote it, passed it, failed to tell people what was going to happen and actually lied about it, and now Republicans are going to be at fault?

Where you seem complacent, RJ, is with regard to the 50 million uninsured, people with pre-existing conditions, and doing something about reining in health-care costs. Since Obamacare was passed the rate of increase in health care costs had gone down and did you know that 28 percent of insurers in exchanged are offering individual plans for the first time (that's called competition)

This is not competition. Many markets have one or possibly two companies. There were ways to get increased competition, but the ACA is not it.

Even with Republican sabotage the ACA is going to work.

Great! Then Democrats can just sit back and wait for the plaudits to come pouring in! Awesome!

But there will be an adjustment period that could be made less painful if Republicans will work with us.

No! Don't let those carpetbaggers get credit! Stand firm! Be proud! Run for reelection on the amazing success of the ACA!

But they won't so a few people may have to sacrifice for the many people who will be helped.

If that's how the bill was sold, it might work. But, this law could have been called "The Free Lunch Act." No one was going to have to sacrifice. People were going to save money. Doctors were going to love it. Lives were going to be saved.

Instead, doctors have stopped taking Medicaid patients. People are seeing their rates go up and their having to spend a lot of time shopping. And, a precious few people are losing their coverage when they can least afford it because they have life-threatening situations.

Hey, if you think the ACA is a winner, you better tell the Democrats like Landrieu. Those who are running for reelection seem to be running away from this terrific law.

It's like they just don't see it like you do. I wonder why that is?

freeman3 wrote:The ACA was passed--it is going to be implemented. You can either focus on making it better or you can complain about it. But it is not going to be repealed. Obama will never agree to it and there is no way you're going to get veto proof support to overturn it.

Again, terrific!

Go, Mr. President, go!

Captain Ahab's got nothing on you!

rickyp wrote:The question for the ACA is whether or not it ends up offering insurance coverage for everyone...affordably.

Actually, we already know the answer to your question: NO!

The CBO estimates that in 2020 30 million Americans will not have insurance.

Now, is it "affordable?" Not for a lot of people. They're seeing their rates go up substantially. If this thing was working, would Democrats be leaping off the sinking ship?

And the question for those who oppose the ACA is whats your alternative?

Again, a false choice. The ACA was not the only choice. And, there are several GOP plans floating around. Eventually, when the wheels are fully off the ACA, we'll start hearing about them. There's little point in offering an alternative when the ACA is "the law of the land."

However, if it keeps going this well, even Democrats will eventually be forced to vote for repeal.

If the sign up pattern for Massachusstts is indicative, it'll take some time for those uninsured to get insured....Just to go through the process....

Great message. I hope Democrats heed it and stay the course!

Landrieu is a Democrat? I guess she passes as a Democrat down south.. Seeing as how Republicans have no plan (that they are willing to try and implement) I am not too worried about the 2014 results. After all the hoopla, Democrats and Republicans are still rated evenly... if some Democrats want to run from the ACA, let them want run...out of the party and into oblivion...Obama just needs to stand firm and he will. Look at this way--the tea party stand on the shut-down and debt ceiling was insane and yet they carried it out. Here Obama just needs to stay the course, there is nothing that can stop him. There might be a few Democrats who run against the ACA. So what, means nothing. Obama is not giving up his legacy for anything and there is no universe in which you get a 2/3 majority to vote against the ACA. And all this because 5% of the population, upper-middle class mostly, is whining that their health insurance is going up? Any Democrat who is going to abandon the poor and lower-middle class that would benefit from the ACA over the complaints of 5% of the country needs to change parties. Landrieu and Feinsten can go over to the other aisle as far as I am concerned. Good riddance.

The ACA is staying until at least 2016. By then it will be too late to change it. You can continue to dream that Obama is all of a sudden going to decide to get rid of it because Democrats are afraid of their election prospects. Ain't going to happen.

freeman3 wrote:Landrieu is a Democrat? I guess she passes as a Democrat down south.. Seeing as how Republicans have no plan (that they are willing to try and implement) I am not too worried about the 2014 results. After all the hoopla, Democrats and Republicans are still rated evenly... if some Democrats want to run from the ACA, let them want run...out of the party and into oblivion...Obama just needs to stand firm and he will. Look at this way--the tea party stand on the shut-down and debt ceiling was insane and yet they carried it out. Here Obama just needs to stay the course, there is nothing that can stop him. There might be a few Democrats who run against the ACA. So what, means nothing. Obama is not giving up his legacy for anything and there is no universe in which you get a 2/3 majority to vote against the ACA. And all this because 5% of the population, upper-middle class mostly, is whining that their health insurance is going up? Any Democrat who is going to abandon the poor and lower-middle class that would benefit from the ACA over the complaints of 5% of the country needs to change parties. Landrieu and Feinsten can go over to the other aisle as far as I am concerned. Good riddance.

Reminds me of the comments about McCain and Graham being too moderate for the party. Then it progressed to the Republican tent being too small for the moderates.

Is that what you are getting at Freeman?

Oh come on, Brad. Democrats take a lot of money from business and well-heeled folks. There are not a lot of radicals in the Democratic Party--it is mostly a party of moderates, unless you are looking at it from the vantage point of a far-right conservative. There are some, like Feinsten and Landrieu, who would have been classified as Republican moderates 30 years ago. We have plenty of moderates, we don't need Republican ones, too. In fact, if I recall correctly, Landrieu was one of those conservative Democrats who had to be given something in the first place to vote for the ACA. I would have told those five that they're out of the Democratic party, myself...

freeman3 wrote:Landrieu is a Democrat? I guess she passes as a Democrat down south.. Seeing as how Republicans have no plan (that they are willing to try and implement) I am not too worried about the 2014 results. After all the hoopla, Democrats and Republicans are still rated evenly... if some Democrats want to run from the ACA, let them want run...out of the party and into oblivion...Obama just needs to stand firm and he will. Look at this way--the tea party stand on the shut-down and debt ceiling was insane and yet they carried it out. Here Obama just needs to stay the course, there is nothing that can stop him. There might be a few Democrats who run against the ACA. So what, means nothing.

I love the way you think! Btw, she's not the only one. There's Begich, Hagan, and others running in Red states, as well as Feinstein and others who are not up for reelection.

Meanwhile, Obama brought Axelrod, Plouffe, and the whole old crew in for an emergency meeting today.

But, don't worry. It's all good! Ignore the polls! Stick to your guns! GO!!!!!

Obama is not giving up his legacy for anything and there is no universe in which you get a 2/3 majority to vote against the ACA.

Great! I think you should help run the DNC this fall. Seriously.

And all this because 5% of the population, upper-middle class mostly, is whining that their health insurance is going up?

So funny. Who gives to campaigns?

Furthermore, it's 5% NOW. When the employer mandate kicks in, there will be tens of millions who lose their insurance. More whiners!

Any Democrat who is going to abandon the poor and lower-middle class that would benefit from the ACA over the complaints of 5% of the country needs to change parties. Landrieu and Feinsten can go over to the other aisle as far as I am concerned. Good riddance.

Awesome! I love the 'tude!

The ACA is staying until at least 2016. By then it will be too late to change it. You can continue to dream that Obama is all of a sudden going to decide to get rid of it because Democrats are afraid of their election prospects. Ain't going to happen.

Good. Once the Democrats lose the Senate, it will be defunded. In fact, it may get gutted before that.

Politicians care about one thing more than anything else: reelection.

39 Democrats today voted for Fred Upton's "Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013." You think the ACA is bullet-proof. Nothing is. This is politics and the President is not monarch. Look it up.

Obama's a lame duck. Democrats have to decide if they want a future or if they want to lash themselves to the mast and go down with Captain Ahab. He's at 40% approval and heading south.

Watch those rats. I think they're getting ready to jump.