Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Millions Flee Obamacare
Author Message
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #1
Millions Flee Obamacare
Some of you will find this amusing.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo...m=facebook

Also interesting -"Big Business" siding with Obama over the shutdown:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...TE=DEFAULT

Who knew they were Kenyan Muslim Socialists too?
10-02-2013 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Baconator Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,437
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 68
I Root For: My Kids
Location:

New Orleans BowlDonatorsPWNER of Scout/Rivals
Post: #2
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-02-2013 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Some of you will find this amusing.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo...m=facebook

Also interesting -"Big Business" siding with Obama over the shutdown:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...TE=DEFAULT

Who knew they were Kenyan Muslim Socialists too?

Obama's not Muslim
10-02-2013 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceDoc Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 7,541
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: Tomball

The Parliament AwardsFootball GeniusNew Orleans BowlCrappiesDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #3
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-02-2013 10:54 AM)Baconator Wrote:  
(10-02-2013 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Some of you will find this amusing.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo...m=facebook

Also interesting -"Big Business" siding with Obama over the shutdown:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...TE=DEFAULT

Who knew they were Kenyan Muslim Socialists too?

Obama's not Muslim
At least he doesn't currently profess (publicly) to be.
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2013 01:35 PM by RiceDoc.)
10-02-2013 01:35 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #4
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-02-2013 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Some of you will find this amusing.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo...m=facebook

It is definitely amusing (or at least interesting) that the author seems to equate "health care" and "Obamacare", as if the former did not exist -- and could not exist -- without the latter.

(10-02-2013 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Also interesting -"Big Business" siding with Obama over the shutdown:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...TE=DEFAULT

Who knew they were Kenyan Muslim Socialists too?

There are few more stalwart allies of powerful government than powerful business. Anyone who finds this fact surprising is a little clueless about both.
10-02-2013 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-02-2013 02:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(10-02-2013 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Some of you will find this amusing.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo...m=facebook

It is definitely amusing (or at least interesting) that the author seems to equate "health care" and "Obamacare", as if the former did not exist -- and could not exist -- without the latter.

(10-02-2013 09:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Also interesting -"Big Business" siding with Obama over the shutdown:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...TE=DEFAULT

Who knew they were Kenyan Muslim Socialists too?

There are few more stalwart allies of powerful government than powerful business. Anyone who finds this fact surprising is a little clueless about both.

Indeed. But I find it amusing when this truth comes so clearly to the front, contrary to much Republican rhetoric.
10-02-2013 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
10-03-2013 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #7
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
Of course lots of people are logging onto the govt healthcare website in the first week: people slow down to stare and gawk at car crashes all the time. Curiosity.

Yes, many people will sign up for Obamacare. They lined up in Detroit after he was first elected when a false rumor started that Obama was "giving us free money" (an actual quote). Seriously, people showed up at the rumored location and waited in line for hours before they realized they'd been had.

The problem with dismissing Obamacare is that initially it will look like a success. People will have their "free" or "cheap" health insurance. It will seem like a success. UNTIL...years later, after the hoopla has died down, and the waits and lines start. And the denials of care (which currently happens some under Medicare and Medicaid). Then the costs will mount and cuts will be made by beurocrats. For an example, just look north to Canada. When their healthcare system was implemented at first everyone thought it was great and cheap. Then after people over 55 were denied tratment, after waiting lines began to kill people who died waiting, after people started practicing "medical tourism", Canadian Doctors relocating to the US near major airports to treat Canadians with money who could afford the trip and efor what Canadian Goverment Health Care could or would not.

It will be years beofre the negative and economically devastating effects of Obamacare show up. By then, so many people will have accepted the status quo, it might very well be too late to change or repalce.

So yes, liberals, bask in the false sunlight of your success today. Soak up the sun of Obamacare. But when you get skin cancer and die from it later, well, sorry Charlie, that's the way it goes.

As to alternatives, yes there are several out there. Here's just one recent proposal, at only 183 pages no less (noth the several thousand of unread Obamacare pages) you hardly hear about in most newsmedia. Hmmm, wonder what thy're so afraid of? Read on:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23...-plan.html

A Serious Republican Health-Care Plan

By Ramesh Ponnuru 2013-09-23T20:05:14Z

House Republicans are starting to fill in the details of what health-care policies they would prefer over Obamacare. The 175 conservative representatives in the Republican Study Committee released a plan last week.

The plan, which is mostly the work of Representatives Phil Roe and Steve Scalise, repeals President Barack Obama’s health-care law. It replaces the unlimited tax break for employer-provided health insurance with a new tax deduction -- $7,500 for individuals or $20,000 for families -- to purchase health insurance, whether through an employer or on their own. It would let insurers sell policies across state lines. And it would put $25 billion into high-risk pools to help people who would still be unable to buy insurance.

The prevailing liberal reaction to the plan has been to dismiss it. It isn’t a serious alternative to the Affordable Care Act, they say, because it doesn’t provide health insurance to as many people or offer the same protections to those with pre-existing conditions. Obamacare supporters expect the law to increase the number of people with insurance by 25 million. The Lewin Group has estimated that a tax deduction would increase that number by only about 9 million.

These criticisms are partly right. The Republicans should replace their tax deduction with a tax credit, which would have a higher value for people with low incomes and thus do more to extend insurance. Increasing the number of people with health insurance may not do much for their health -- the evidence that it would is pretty weak -- but it will make them more financially secure. That’s especially worth doing because federal policy, by tying insurance to employment, has locked a lot of people out of health insurance markets and thus made them less secure.

Minimize Disruption
Republicans should make two other modifications to the plan. People who have access to employer coverage shouldn’t be allowed to use the tax deduction or tax credit to purchase health insurance on their own. Eventually we ought to move toward a system that’s much less dependent on employers, but we should minimize the disruptiveness of this transition.

And medical malpractice reform, as popular as it is among Republicans, shouldn’t be done at the federal level. Medical torts have traditionally been regulated by states, and states have the incentive to set their policies on it the right way -- because their residents will pay the price if they don’t.

Even with these flaws, though, the Republican plan is superior to Obamacare. It’s less coercive. It requires fewer taxes. It doesn’t have as much potential to reduce full-time employment. And it's more likely to control costs, relying as it does on the power of competition rather than the guidance of Washington-based experts.

The Republican plan also takes a more sensible approach to people with pre-existing conditions. Obamacare requires insurers to offer them insurance on the same terms as healthy people. This rule fundamentally changes the nature of insurance. And it creates an incentive for people to go without coverage until they get sick, which could make the law unworkable as healthy people leave the market, premiums rise and more healthy people leave. If that happens, we never reach that 25 million figure Obamacare’s supporters crow about.

The Republican plan, by contrast, treats pre-existing conditions as a significant but discrete problem. It doesn’t try to redesign the entire insurance market around them. It offers subsidies and strengthens regulatory protections for them, but in a way that doesn’t pose the risk that Obamacare does of destroying that market.

Expanding Choices
One liberal complaint about the plan is especially wrongheaded. That’s the idea that letting insurers sell out of state will create a “race to the bottom.” On this theory, insurers will all set up in states that don’t require them to cover a lot of medical treatments, and thus people will end up with “skimpy” plans. It’s true that states will face pressure not to overregulate, but it’s also true that, all else being equal, consumers will want more coverage. They might be willing to choose less extensive coverage, but only if it is cheaper. That’s a trade-off they should be able to make.

Perhaps many people would end up with insurance policies that protect them against the risk of catastrophically high medical expenses, but pay for routine care out of pocket. That arrangement could be more efficient than using insurance to cover a larger share of medical expenses.

Look at the Republican Study Committee’s plan without liberal presuppositions, and you see the beginnings of a promising alternative to Obamacare. Whether it becomes anything more than that is up to Republicans.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2013 10:32 AM by GoodOwl.)
10-03-2013 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #8
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
Here's another interesting and little heard tidbit about Obamacare. Favoritsm anyone? And how about all those poor workers who won't get healthcare? Too bad, they work for Obama's friends, and they get thrown under the bus. Now, that's compassion for ya! 03-puke


Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district
12:07 AM 05/17/2011

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearly...z2gfoF8uXM

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site.

“Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements.

The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” The applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014.

Café Mason, a diner near San Francisco’s Union Square, got a waiver too. When The Daily Caller asked the manager about the waiver and how the president’s new sweeping federal health care law was affecting his restaurant, he hung up the phone. The Franciscan Crab restaurant on Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco got a waiver. Its menu features entrees ranging from about $15 to $60. The Franciscan’s general manager didn’t return TheDC’s requests for comment.

Four-star hotel Campton Place got one too, as did Hotel Nikko San Francisco, which describes itself as “four-diamond luxury in the heart of the city.” Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine rated the “best day spa in San Francisco,” received an Obamacare waiver as well.

Before hanging up on TheDC, Tru Spa’s owner said new government health care regulations, both the federal-level Obamacare and new local laws in Northern California, have “devastated” the business. “It’s been bad for us,” he said, without divulging his name, referring to the new health care restrictions.

But, the spa owner wouldn’t talk about it or the reason his company sought a waiver. He hung up after saying, “I’ve got clients on the other line, good-bye.”
10-03-2013 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Barrett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,584
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Rice, SJS
Location: Houston / River Oaks

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #9
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
Wait, is the complaint about ACA is that it won't cover everything, and there will be some denials of coverage? Isn't that still better than many people having no healthcare at all? Is the Republican line now that ACA is bad because it doesn't cover enough? That it's too draconian and coldhearted?

I learn something new every day.
10-03-2013 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #10
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-03-2013 10:45 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Wait, is the complaint about ACA is that it won't cover everything, and there will be some denials of coverage? Isn't that still better than many people having no healthcare at all? Is the Republican line now that ACA is bad because it doesn't cover enough? That it's too draconian and coldhearted?

I learn something new every day.

No, Barret. The complaint is not how you mischaracterize it here. The problem with Obamacare is that it is fundamentally unaffordable to America as a whole. It does too little to reduce costs, it incentivizes overuse, it perpetuates the worst aspects of a system that, yes, does need to be fixed, but not like this.

Poor people who supposedly don't have sophistication quickly learn how to manipulate the govt system of handouts and maximize their return with welfare, food-stanps, SSI, and all kinds of other programs. The trade-off is the institutionalizational slavery all these programs create, rather than lifting people up out of poverty or low-wages. In that context, Obamacare is another piece of the puzzle- it keeps people down.

No one is suggesting we should not find better ways to allow people to afford health insurance and health care, at least I am not. But I do recognize the two as distinct, which is the first problem with Obamacare, and I also recognize my role in keeping healthy and minimizing costs, both for myself and for the system. Neither of those options is really available or incentivized in Obamacare.

And this attitude is unsustainable over the long haul. America is broke and can't afford it. Inflation will eventually rear its ugly head, then the Weimar Republic truth will be exposed over what we have done. I blame Bush and his expansion of Medicare equally here. Reagan argued against Medicare existing at all back in the 60's and he was right that it and its attitude would eventually prove the death-knell of America. Google the video on You tube: Reagan and Medicare.

The ACA actually reduces HSA incentives. Why? What harm is there to someone choosing a catastophic policy for big emergencies and chronic issues and then being able to keep control of most of their healthcare savings instead of permnanently throwing it away on premiums to the government or to big rich insurance companies? What's wrong with paying a doctor his posted price for his routine services, and for negotiating them and knowing the cost up front like every other service we buy?

Want an experience? Ask a typical doctor what he charges for a service. Most have absolutely no idea what you will be charged. Something is fundamentally wrong with that picture. Obamacare makes it worse. We need cost transparency and choice in medicine. Aren't those typically liberal ideals? Why do they get thrown out the window when it comes to medicine and healthcare? Seems grossly inconsistent at best and disingenuous at worst.

When people control their own money and make their own decisions, which they are then held accountable for, the world is a better, safer, fairer place. No one prevents someone from voluntarily helping someone else out. But then they are accountable to each other, not the government or a rich insurance executive.

Tax credits, individual choice and responsiblity, and incentivising good healthy habits by allowing people to keep their own money instead of forcing them to give it away to rich insurance executives ot the faceless beurocrats in some givernment agency are the way to go to solve this issue. The removal of health care from attachment with employers is also a big part of the equasion. Employers could opt to contribute to an employer's chosen health plan, tax-deductible, but once they put the dollars in the account, they should belong to the employee, and be fully portable if the employee chooses. The company got its tax break so it should not care. It is not forced to conribute, so also no big deal. The money should follow the person, not the company.

The separation of high-risk, preexisting individuals, and the governemnt funding of only those people, well, that's a pretty good compromise, I would say.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2013 11:16 AM by GoodOwl.)
10-03-2013 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
Funny thing is, I have extended family from Canada and have lived under the NHS in the UK. Do people complain about them sometimes? Yes. But in both cases I never met a single person who didn't take pride in their universal system, particularly as compared to the US system. (Though it must be said they have a similar mythologized and exaggerated vision of the US system to the way the right talks about Canadian and European systems.)

I was much happier with my NHS experience than I was with my Kelsey-Sebold experience that preceded it.
10-03-2013 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Barrett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,584
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Rice, SJS
Location: Houston / River Oaks

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-03-2013 11:02 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(10-03-2013 10:45 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Wait, is the complaint about ACA is that it won't cover everything, and there will be some denials of coverage? Isn't that still better than many people having no healthcare at all? Is the Republican line now that ACA is bad because it doesn't cover enough? That it's too draconian and coldhearted?

I learn something new every day.

No, Barret. The complaint is not how you mischaracterize it here. The problem with Obamacare is that it is fundamentally unaffordable to America as a whole. It does too little to reduce costs, it incentivizes overuse, it perpetuates the worst aspects of a system that, yes, does need to be fixed, but not like this.

Poor people who supposedly don't have sophistication quickly learn how to manipulate the govt system of handouts and maximize their return with welfare, food-stanps, SSI, and all kinds of other programs. The trade-off is the institutionalizational slavery all these programs create, rather than lifting people up out of poverty or low-wages. In that context, Obamacare is another piece of the puzzle- it keeps people down.

No one is suggesting we should not find better ways to allow people to afford health insurance and health care, at least I am not. But I do recognize the two as distinct, which is the first problem with Obamacare, and I also recognize my role in keeping healthy and minimizing costs, both for myself and for the system. Neither of those options is really available or incentivized in Obamacare.

And this attitude is unsustainable over the long haul. America is broke and can't afford it. Inflation will eventually rear its ugly head, then the Weimar Republic truth will be exposed over what we have done. I blame Bush and his expansion of Medicare equally here. Reagan argued against Medicare existing at all back in the 60's and he was right that it and its attitude would eventually prove the death-knell of America. Google the video on You tube: Reagan and Medicare.

The ACA actually reduces HSA incentives. Why? What harm is there to someone choosing a catastophic policy for big emergencies and chronic issues and then being able to keep control of most of their healthcare savings instead of permnanently throwing it away on premiums to the government or to big rich insurance companies.

When people control their own money and make their own decisions, which they are then held accountable for, the world is a better, safer, fairer place. No one prevents someone from voluntarily helping someone else out. But then they are accountable to each other, not the government or a rich insurance executive.

Tax credits, individual choice and responsiblity, and incentivising good healthy habits by allowing people to keep their own money instead of forcing them to give it away to rich insurance executives ot the faceless beurocrats in some givernment agency are the way to go to solve this issue. The removal of health care from attachment with employers is also a big part of the equasion. Employers could opt to contribute to an employer's chosen health plan, tax-deductible, but once they put the dollars in the account, they should belong to the employee, and be fully portable if the employee chooses. The company got its tax break so it should not care. It is not forced to conribute, so also no big deal. The money should follow the person, not the company.

The separation of high-risk, preexisting individuals, and the governemnt funding of only those people, well, that's a pretty good compromise, I would say.

Lest I find myself saying things that are too mean, I'm going to just agree to disagree.
10-03-2013 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #13
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-03-2013 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Funny thing is, I have extended family from Canada and have lived under the NHS in the UK. Do people complain about them sometimes? Yes. But in both cases I never met a single person who didn't take pride in their universal system, particularly as compared to the US system. (Though it must be said they have a similar mythologized and exaggerated vision of the US system to the way the right talks about Canadian and European systems.)

I was much happier with my NHS experience than I was with my Kelsey-Sebold experience that preceded it.

Individually I can find people who have good experiences in the US system. And people who have poor or fatal experiences in Canada. When millions are involved, there's always individual anecdotes either way.

Glad that worked for you. Collectively the sentiment seems to be the reverse. I know many doctors in GA who are from Canada and set up shop here because of Atlanta' big international airport and do a huge business with dissatisfied and/or underserved or denied Canadians and Brits to name a few. (I have been in the Medical DME business, fyi.) And I'm talking not just specialists, I'm talking OB/Gyn and more general practitioners. Someone is not happy in Canada, perhaps just not you or your relatives.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2013 11:22 AM by GoodOwl.)
10-03-2013 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-03-2013 11:21 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(10-03-2013 11:04 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Funny thing is, I have extended family from Canada and have lived under the NHS in the UK. Do people complain about them sometimes? Yes. But in both cases I never met a single person who didn't take pride in their universal system, particularly as compared to the US system. (Though it must be said they have a similar mythologized and exaggerated vision of the US system to the way the right talks about Canadian and European systems.)

I was much happier with my NHS experience than I was with my Kelsey-Sebold experience that preceded it.

Individually I can find people who have good experiences in the US system. And people who have poor or fatal experiences in Canada. When millions are involved, there's always individual anecdotes either way.

Glad that worked for you. Collectively the sentiment seems to be the reverse. I know many doctors in GA who are from Canada and set up shop here because of Atlanta' big international airport and do a huge business with dissatisfied and/or underserved or denied Canadians and Brits to name a few. (I have been in the Medical DME business, fyi.) And I'm talking not just specialists, I'm talking OB/Gyn and more general practitioners. Someone is not happy in Canada, perhaps just not you or your relatives.

Well, I'm pretty sure "collective sentiment" in both countries as evidenced by polls and elections is that there is no appetite for getting rid of either in favor of something like the pre-Obamacare US system except on the right, who knows that proposing it is a good way to lose elections.
10-03-2013 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-03-2013 10:28 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  A Serious Republican Health-Care Plan

Of course, Obamacare is based on Romneycare which is based on a plan by the Heritage Foundation. Before Obama adopted it, it was great according to many Republicans. The individual mandate was about "personal responsibility" and the exchanges were about the magic of competition and the marketplace. Then a Democrat implemented it. Now it's "socialist tyranny".
10-03-2013 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #16
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-03-2013 12:45 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(10-03-2013 10:28 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  A Serious Republican Health-Care Plan

Of course, Obamacare is based on Romneycare which is based on a plan by the Heritage Foundation. Before Obama adopted it, it was great according to many Republicans. The individual mandate was about "personal responsibility" and the exchanges were about the magic of competition and the marketplace. Then a Democrat implemented it. Now it's "socialist tyranny".

I was one of the few Americans who actually watched Mitt Romney's ludicrous presentation of his Romneycare plan on C-span. It was ridiculous then, and having relatives in Massachusetts myself, they are extremely unsatisfied with the resulting increases in their health premiums. And they're Massachusetts moderates.

I was at a conference in 2006 with Dennis Hastert (former Speaker of the US House) and he commented on Hillary Clinton's reaction to the idea of an earlier propposed alternative to Hillary-Care back in the mid-90's. Hillary said it would be irresponsible for individuals to retain ownership of their own healthcare dollars. That is why she was proposing a government healthcare takeover. "We can't let people have control over what to do with their healthcare dollars, Dennis. The government knows better how to allocate that than individuals do."

I'm not against having people have health INSURANCE. And choosing to have a healthcare management plan is a good idea. Some people do this with diet and exercise and healthy habits. Some do it with pills. Some don't care. I think the Republican Study Committe plan of separating out the pre-existing and chronic high risk individuals helps resolve one of the big arguements for govt healthcare.

And yes, I am VERY familiar with pre-existing conditions and lifelong chronic disabilites, as I have them in my immediate family and friends. I am familiar with govt Medicare and Medicaid denials of service for needed treatment and therapy. I am directly familiar with hours on the phone and umpteen letters begging for a reversal of decisions just to have some faceless policy-wonk say "too bad for you and yours." I am familiar with big rich insurance comnpanies doing the same to people.

Healthcare is a CHOICE and I am pro-choice in this matter. The choice belongs to the individual, their family and their doctor. NOT the company and NOT the goverment.

I understand you do not agree. That is your perogative. Just don't force me to pay for your choices. Instead, cobble together those who feel as you do and insure yourselves in a pool together any way you choose. I have no problem with that.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2013 01:17 PM by GoodOwl.)
10-03-2013 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #17
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
I expect this number to climb over the next few months, but even I am shocked at the initail failure so far. The technical problems with the site I would imagine woill be worked out eventually. Though why they did not delay something that was clearly not ready to go makes no sense. Any business would not have chosen to go forward until they were more ready. Seems like the Republican request for a delay is prudent in that respect. Time will tell, I guess:

Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, Is In The 'Single Digits'
10/03/2013 @ 12:20PM Avik Roy FORBES

On October 1, Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges went live. Most of the exchange websites crashed on the first day, a development that led some of the law’s supporters to conclude that there was overwhelming demand for Obamacare’s insurance products. But the Obama administration isn’t releasing figures as to the number of Americans who have actually signed up for exchange-based coverage. “Very, very few people that we’re aware of have enrolled in the federal exchange,” said one insurance industry official to the Washington Post. “We are talking single digits.”

Exchange agencies walk back high-traffic hype
Other exchanges have had to pare down their initial statistics. Covered California, that state’s subsidized insurance exchange, initially claimed that its website had received 5 million hits on October 1. They later had to revise that number down 87 percent, to 645,000. KUSI-TV in San Diego is reporting that after the exchanges opened, with all the traffic, not one policy has yet been sold on the California exchange. (the seventh biggest economy in the world and NOT ONE SOLD??)

According to Megan McArdle, high traffic alone doesn’t explain why the federal healthcare.gov website is having so many issues. For example, the drop-down boxes for security questions aren’t working, which shouldn’t be a traffic-related problem. “The drop-down thing is mystifying,” a programmer source told McArdle. It “could very easily be because deadline pressure caused them to take some shortcuts that impacted their ability to scale.”

Glitches around traffic and web server loads will be relatively easy to fix. The real question is this: will healthier and younger individuals, who stand to face steep premium hikes under Obamacare, pay up? A Manhattan Institute study I helped conduct suggests that average to younger-than-average men will face underlying rate hikes of 97 to 99 percent, with women facing increases of 55 to 62 percent.

AAF: 30-year-old men face average premium hikes of 260%
A new study from the American Action Forum that looks at healthy 30-year-old men finds that underlying premiums for those individuals will increase by an average of 260 percent. The AAF study compared the least-expensive plans available today to the cheapest plans on the Obamacare exchanges, as did the Manhattan Institute study. The MI analysis, by contrast, adjusted those pre-ACA rates to take into account sicker individuals.

In a sense, the AAF study is more relevant to the problem at hand. Obamacare makes healthy people pay more for insurance in order to subsidize sicker people. It makes younger people pay more to subsidize older people. It makes men pay more to subsidize women. It makes everyone pay more to cover benefits, taxes, and fees that consumers might not ordinarily want.

Keep an eye on who enrolls, not just how many
I fully expect that the people who get a good deal out of Obamacare—poorer and sicker individuals—will sign up. The enrollment figures will increase. But the real question isn’t how many people enroll: it’s what kind of people enroll. Two-thirds of the uninsured in America are under the age of 40. What will be the average age of an enrollee on the exchanges? If most enrollees were born before or during the Nixon administration, start worrying.

INVESTORS’ NOTE: Aetna (NYSE:AET), UnitedHealth (NYSE:UNH), WellPoint (NYSE:WLP), Molina (NYSE:MOH), and Humana (NYSE:HUM) are leading players in developing products for health insurance exchanges. Public exchanges, which opened on October 1, are a key feature of Obamacare’s efforts to expand health insurance coverage.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2013 01:29 PM by GoodOwl.)
10-03-2013 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gsloth Offline
perpetually tired
*

Posts: 6,654
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice&underdogs
Location: Central VA

Donators
Post: #18
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
I was looking for an appropriate place to put this. And rather than a new thread, this one seems to match up will.

This Vox article admittedly is built around one of the more pessimistic experts on the marketplace. He definitely has some strong opinions on why they're failing so badly.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/12630214/ob...ath-spiral
08-26-2016 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #19
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(08-26-2016 08:19 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I was looking for an appropriate place to put this. And rather than a new thread, this one seems to match up will.
This Vox article admittedly is built around one of the more pessimistic experts on the marketplace. He definitely has some strong opinions on why they're failing so badly.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/12630214/ob...ath-spiral

Uwe's generally a very strong proponent of single-payer/single-provider.

The reason the exchanges are failing is that they are not perform thatming the function for which they were designed--to facilitate interstate purchases of insurance. Without interstate purchases, there is no real reason for them to exist--except to support the lying claim that Obamacare somehow incorporated republican ideas. Other than that, they're just unnecessary--and expensive--additional bureaucracy.

One thing he does point out. I've made it pretty clear that I prefer the French approach to Bismarck. But one thing that I like better about Germany and Switzerland and Holland is that they offer more choices among the basic plans. I'd like the Dutch approach to the "free" side and the French approach to the "pay" side.
(This post was last modified: 08-26-2016 09:50 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-26-2016 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
RE: Millions Flee Obamacare
(10-03-2013 10:45 AM)Barrett Wrote:  Wait, is the complaint about ACA is that it won't cover everything, and there will be some denials of coverage? Isn't that still better than many people having no healthcare at all? Is the Republican line now that ACA is bad because it doesn't cover enough? That it's too draconian and coldhearted?

No, blatant mischaracterization. I generally think of you as being better than that.

I don't know about the "republican line" because I'm not a republican. But i'll tell you what's wrong with Obamacare. It combines the worst features of our old system (health insurance tied to employment and lack of interstate health insurance purchases) with the worst feature of a single-payer/single-provider system (centralized bureaucratic decision-making replacing the doctor-patient relationship, although that doesn't fully kick in for a few more years).

It doesn't create more health care supply, and in fact probably discourages supply by increasing the bureaucratic hassles while reducing or potentially reducing compensation. Without additional supply, it's a zero-sum game. We can add people to the list of insureds, but the only health care they can get must necessarily be taken away from someone else who got that care in the old system. There is literally nowhere else from which it can come. And when that health insurance comes with unaffordable deductibles and minimums, the person who got that health insurance is really no better off than he/she was uninsured--and worse off because he/she didn't have to pay premiums while uninsured.

As for the cost, all we have done is reallocate from the actuarial basis used in the past to a new basis mandated by law. Some people are paying less than their share of health care costs, and they must be subsidized by others paying more. We've created winners and losers--that's all we've done. It's a zero-sun game in the short run. In the long run, we've probably done worse than break even. By reducing compensation and increasing administrative workloads, we will drive providers from the field, reducing supply. In place of health care, we'll be spending our money on additional layers of nonproductive bureaucracy. It's kind of the classic case of, "Socialism is great until you run out of somebody else's money."
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2016 01:06 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-26-2016 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.