rickyp wrote:But I'll take the reports affecting millions over your personal experience as a better gauge of the overall success of the program at improving the pocket books of millions.

As noted above, how does taking money out of people's pockets (removing them from employer coverage and requiring them to buy it on their own--in some cases policies far beyond what they need), improve their pocketbooks?

And, if Max Baucus (D-MT) thinks the Obamacare rollout is going to be "a train wreck," and HE WROTE (or co-wrote) the bill, what makes you think it's good?

(Yes, even if he was only speaking to the lack of information, it's a big problem. If government is offering the solution and people don't know about it, it's not a solution. Some may argue that calls for more money for informing the electorate, but that won't solve any of the myriad of problems this bill causes.)

Tom, I can't remember how many times I've said the ACA is only incremental improvement.
You understand that even incremental improvement can benefit the economy?

Yet this very thread, started by yourself is titled "Obamacare will be good for the economy"
and already you are backing off that statement, you want to argue a single payer system would be good for the economy then have at it, but no, this is about Obamacare not a single payer system. It has surpassed all estimated costs, it is already leading to employer cutbacks, it may (key word "may") reduce costs for 2 or 3 states but it WILL cost all other states FAR more money, it requires working poor to now spend all they have and possibly more to buy insurance they simply can not afford. Your own earlier example showed a 40 year old single man would pay "only" $300/month, families and older people will be paying even more! Yet this will be "good for the economy" when they are required to spend all (or more) than they have...what a stimulus to the economy!?

No, "Obamacare" is absolutely NOT "good for the economy" in the least. Even early supporters are jumping off that train as reported by DF, but not Ricky, he still clings to it being a "good deal" and points out that a few parts of the program are actually good and supported by most, these FEW issues that are supported suddenly equate to 100% support?
Nope, still wrong!

tom

Yet this very thread, started by yourself is titled "Obamacare will be good for the economy"
and already you are backing off that statement, you want to argue a single payer system would be good for the economy then have at it, but no, this is about Obamacare not a single payer system

Not backing off it at all.
And you were the guys, particularly Fate and Ray, who wanted to muddy the waters by discussing universal systems...

tom

It has surpassed all estimated costs, it is already leading to employer cutbacks, it may (key word "may") reduce costs for 2 or 3 states but it WILL cost all other states FAR more money

You have any actual sources for your claims? With links?
The only actual known premium costs are in California. They are lower than was expected or advertised by opponents. I've linked them.
The known costs to States? nothing for a period of time, then only 10% of the total cost.
The cost to all taxpayers? You'll have to prove its more. Right now tax payers end up carrying the expense of the uninsured who show up at hospital emergency wards ... What the ACA offers is a contribution to a genuine insurance pool from everyone. Rather than using the taxpayer as the back stop for the millions falling through the cracks..

tom

it requires working poor to now spend all they have and possibly more to buy insurance they simply can not afford.

Your scenario doesn't exist. If someone only has $300 a month income they are abjectly poor and covered by medicaid. (And "possibly more is an impossibility..isn't it?)
Most people want health insurance Tom. They understand the risk of medical bankruptcy in the worlds most expensive health system. The low costs that California have rolled out are a boon.
if you can find Californians who've analyzed the new insurance market, and find it wanting I'd be interested. Especially if there is a study of a few hundred that could provide a trend, and not just anecdotal information.
But unsubstantiated claims, or mathematically challenged imaginations aren't worth spit.

who said the working poor make $300/month?
What I said was the working poor can not afford $300+ per month.
People barely scraping by need to now find $300 each and every month. Yes they want health insurance, just as I want that BMW I spoke about, but they can't afford insurance payments of $300+ per month, I can't afford car payments of $2000 per month.

It would be just swell if you could prove these people CAN afford the health care, simply stating California came up with some wonderful plan that is a "deal" that can not be afforded is no answer in the least. It's not an unsubstantiated claim I made, YOUR claim that it is "affordable" to all is however not worth spit.

and it turns out the California plan is no deal as you seem to think...
but then again, 64%-146% rate rises are acceptable and "good for the economy" I suppose
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... by-64-146/
...I would say your assumption that California was a deal "wasn't worth spit"? They (and you?) were obviously mathematically challenged?

The only actual known premium costs are in California. They are lower than was expected or advertised by opponents. I've linked them.

So we already poked a hole in the California mess, what about what is expected elsewhere?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers- ... le/2529523

Oooops, it's only 100% to 400% increases to be expected, but this is an "expectation" only, so let's cut that in half, is that any better for our economy?

rickyp wrote:tom

Yet this very thread, started by yourself is titled "Obamacare will be good for the economy"
and already you are backing off that statement, you want to argue a single payer system would be good for the economy then have at it, but no, this is about Obamacare not a single payer system

Not backing off it at all.
And you were the guys, particularly Fate and Ray, who wanted to muddy the waters by discussing universal systems...

I'd give you four Pinocchios, but I don't want to waste the time digging up the picture.

It was you who brought up "universal systems." Actually, you've brought them up repeatedly. Tom made some offhanded comment about Obamacare being designed to channel us toward a universal system, but you have constantly pointed out the joys of socialized medical care--for as long as we've discussed medical care.

The known costs to States? nothing for a period of time, then only 10% of the total cost.

That's Medicare. And, the 10% will represent a significant increase over current Medicare costs. That is why some States have said "No thank you." This is a Trojan horse of a gift--beautiful on the outside, not so much on the inside.

The cost to all taxpayers? You'll have to prove its more. Right now tax payers end up carrying the expense of the uninsured who show up at hospital emergency wards ... What the ACA offers is a contribution to a genuine insurance pool from everyone. Rather than using the taxpayer as the back stop for the millions falling through the cracks..

Unless you can turn the laws of economics on its head, it's going to cost more. You can't get something for nothing in the real world.

Those who have pre-existing conditions are now covered. Great.

Except: someone has to pay for the increased costs to insurance companies. See, when people who have pre-existing conditions join the pool of the insured they do so at an increased cost of care. Insurance companies don't eat that cost--they pass it on to the healthy.

Those who currently have no insurance will either not buy insurance (and wait until they need it) or they will join the exchanges. Either one is a loser. If they wait, they will surely have a "pre-existing condition" when they decide to buy it (see above). If they get it now, they will have less money in their pockets now.

Put simply: you have never proven your basic thesis, which is that Obamacare will be good for the economy. You've asserted it--over and over again. However, your main "proof" is that socialized medicine saves money in other countries.

That fails as evidence. Why? Because there is no other country using a system precisely like, or even greatly resembling, Obamacare.

So, stop babbling about how we need to disprove YOUR thesis. You've never proven it. Actually, you've never even tried.

I wish you would. The entertainment value would be enormous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/obamacare-medical-claims-costs_n_2956986.html

Maybe you missed this in HuffPo. I am surprised. There are many links from HuffPO that you post. Must be an oversight.

WHO muddied the waters by bringing up universal care?
Ricky, you started this thread and on the very first posting you stated:

Universal health care is not just smart and fair social policy; it is also smart economic policy.

but no, it was fate and ray and "us guys" who muddied the waters you had already polluted?

Liberals love to say, concerning medical care, that "the free market has failed."

I respond, "What free market? I can't buy health insurance over State lines--that's no free market!"

Here's a story that illustrates what a free market could really mean:

A Portland, Maine, physician announced on April 1 that he would cut the middle man and deal directly with his patients, no longer accepting insurance in any form.

"I’ve been able to cut my prices in half because my overhead will be so much less," Dr. Michael Ciampi told the Bangor Daily News. Before, Ciampi charged an existing patient $160 for an office visit addressing one or more complicated health problems. Now, he charges $75.

Ciampi lost a few hundred of his 2,000 patients who had insurance and didn't want to deal with the hassle of paperwork for reimbursement, but he expects to make up the loss by attracting the self-employed, the young and others without insurance or with prohibitively high deductibles.

Now that he no longer accepts any form of private or government-sponsored insurance, he posts prices on his website, payable at the end of the visit. Patients with an earache or strep throat could spend $300 at their local hospital emergency room, or promptly get an appointment at his office and pay $50.

"I’m freed up to do what I think is right for the patients," Ciampi said. That includes making house calls and negotiating lower prices for patients with financial difficulty.

Couple this with a catastrophic policy and I think you'd have effective and reasonable healthcare.

and toss in laws to limit liability, go ahead and add a few of the better Obamacare provisions such as accepting pre-existing conditions and a FEW others. A much more simple, much easier, FAR less expensive idea that goes nowhere.

You guys actually don't read everything you link do you? The Washington examiner is an "esitimate". the Huff Post is a "forecast..."
The forbes article is plenty confusing....

Here.
calculate the actual cost for you if you lived in califrnia.

http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html

By the way Tom...
Your working poor?
If a family of 4, with an income of $40,000 and two children under 21 ....
They'd pay $164 a month.

Hows that sound?

rickyp wrote:You guys actually don't read everything you link do you? The Washington examiner is an "esitimate". the Huff Post is a "forecast..."
The forbes article is plenty confusing....

Here.
calculate the actual cost for you if you lived in califrnia.

http://www.coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html

You are so funny . . .

You throw out an accusation about conservatives bring up "universal" programs. When it's pointed out that it's actually you who did it . . . silence.

Then, you complain that there are "estimates," "forecasts," and "confusing" links, so you supply a link that . . . gives estimates!

Calculating Potential Insurance Cost in 2014

This online calculator will help you estimate how much it will cost you to purchase health insurance in 2014 and the amount of your financial assistance. If you already have affordable insurance from your employer or a government program like Medicare or Medi-Cal, you will not be eligible for these cost-saving programs and the calculator will not apply to you.

Four more for you!

Furthermore, the link you supplied has this nugget:

Did You Know?

By 2017, an estimated 2.3 million Californians will be newly enrolled in a health plan through Covered California.

In other words, it is involved in implementing Obamacare. Why, it's practically as neutral as the New York Times!

Thanks for the entertainment!

rickyp wrote:By the way Tom...
Your working poor?
If a family of 4, with an income of $40,000 and two children under 21 ....
They'd pay $164 a month.

Hows that sound?

Not so great. What's the take home pay on that? Not much by the time you pay Social Security and other taxes. Throw in a deductible . . . you're better off with an employer-supplied HMO.