(04-23-2014 10:12 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 07:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Heck...The IRS only takes a few weeks to process tax refunds, which are far more complicated than insurance that can't be denied. Determining subsidies isn't rocket science, especially in the weeks following tax date.

There's a reason for that. Those returns are electronically filed. The people filing the returns have to use approved software that the IRS has already tested for accuracy. Then the IRS itself has things in place to cross-reference those returns further for accuracy. These systems have been in place for years and have been debugged to work very effectively.

Not to mention, they aren't doing full blown audits on those returns either. They're basically just testing math.

Electronic filing wasn't as efficient when it first started.

When it first started, there also was little/no internet.

Again, this is an excuse. I can start a new business with online orders in about an hour and have 'real time' access to all of my inventory and my vendors inventory and take check and card payments from my cell phone.

As for basically testing math... There isn't even any math to be tested in the healthcare.gov site. It is e-surance.com with different providers, with a formula from the government for estimating subsidies based on the information given. All it does is match up with the IRS data... which is incredibly easy for the government to do. The police do far more from a little terminal in their cars over a slow network. YOU do far more typing on this site. All they need to do to know exactly how many people have signed up is to count the orders. All they need to do to know how many people have paid is count the money. Those who have given unverified data to justify a subsidy (if such a person exists) has still signed up and paid (or not) whatever their estimated remainder is. If they preliminary qualify for a full subsidy based on the info they provided that isn't immediately countered by the IRS data when they filed, they are 'paid in full' until the government determines that they lied... in which case they potentially face penalties/fines/jail for fraud.... which is precisely why the IRS is in charge of monitoring this data... because the data must match up.

There are no w-2's or 1099's or k1's to cross reference... You are merely signing up for insurance. You can do that on e-surance.com and be covered within a matter of hours. In my hospital, we can sign people up in about 20 minutes and we have their account number.

Sorry, but this isn't nearly as hard in this day and age as you are being lead to believe.

Dude, I get all that...but you made the comparison of a brand new website, law and procedure to a time-tested government practice under way for years, not me.

And I don't know what you guys are bitching to me about anyway...I've never claimed that the ACA website or rollout was perfect...in fact I've said it was far from it. And I'm not the one doubting the numbers they're releasing about it now...you guys are. Everything is a ******* conspiracy with you guys.

The only point I've been trying to make about the ACA is that I think you need to wait a little longer before claiming it a failure. And incidentally, your side has been calling it a failure for over a year now! And yes, the MSM and the D's also need to wait before planting victory flags.

(04-23-2014 01:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:29 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 09:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 07:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Heck...The IRS only takes a few weeks to process tax refunds, which are far more complicated than insurance that can't be denied. Determining subsidies isn't rocket science, especially in the weeks following tax date.

There's a reason for that. Those returns are electronically filed. The people filing the returns have to use approved software that the IRS has already tested for accuracy. Then the IRS itself has things in place to cross-reference those returns further for accuracy. These systems have been in place for years and have been debugged to work very effectively.

Not to mention, they aren't doing full blown audits on those returns either. They're basically just testing math.

Electronic filing wasn't as efficient when it first started.

Commietom - CSNBBS Secretary Of 'Splaining Stuff

You know stupid old man...when you use nothing but fox news as a source of information...you need stuff explained to you.

Now run along...time to get your diaper changed.

FIFY

(04-23-2014 01:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude, I get all that...but you made the comparison of a brand new website, law and procedure to a time-tested government practice under way for years, not me.

I also compared it to Wal-Mart first, and only after that a government operation that similarly uses the internet.

All of these things may be new to the government, but they aren't by any means 'new'. Which was my point. If you were starting IRS e-file today, it wouldn't need all of the years of testing and trouble shooting that it needed before. The IRS is FAR FAR more complex than signing up for insurance.

If you 'get all that', then why do you still think it takes weeks and months and years for the government to do something that private industry can do in a few hours?

Quote:And I don't know what you guys are bitching to me about anyway...I've never claimed that the ACA website or rollout was perfect...in fact I've said it was far from it. And I'm not the one doubting the numbers they're releasing about it now...you guys are. Everything is a ******* conspiracy with you guys.

And everything is an excuse with you guys.

People are responding to you because you are constantly defending the indefensible.

Your side has chosen to paint signing 8mm people up (out of the 40+mm you originally told us would be helped) as an accomplishment. It's not. First, because the number isn't really 8mm, and when we point that out, you say... well, they're still counting. Unless their estimates are off by 500%, they haven't reached any meaningful goal.

Not to mention that 'signing up' for insurance isn't the same as being covered... and being covered isn't the same as getting care.

So you've picked the most 'loose' definition of improving healthcare possible... and the most meaningless of definitions of 'success'... and then given the most lenient time frame for response/reporting possible and you don't have a problem with this and in fact, chastise those who do.

No conspiracy theory... just pointing out the obvious lies and spin that you're being fed and obviously believe and repeat.

Quote:The only point I've been trying to make about the ACA is that I think you need to wait a little longer before claiming it a failure.

And the only point most of us have made about the ACA is that, no we don't. It can't possibly do what it is designed to do which is to provide MORE healthcare, BETTER healthcare and LESS EXPENSIVE healthcare. Almost nothing within the ACA accomplishes ANY of these goals in any way, and that has been pointed out numerous times... Yet your side keeps pointing to these meaningless thresholds as accomplishments.

If you don't like being linked to the ACA then don't defend it. Your responses don't address the REAL complaints about the ACA.

'Signing people up' isn't a meaningful goal of the ACA. Improving healthcare is. It (signing people up) is a method, not a goal (improving healthcare). You could just decide to offer free healthcare to everyone with an ID or passport or just everyone who walks through your door and not require ANYONE to sign up for anything... which is how ED's work today. I'm only using that as another method to accomplish the goal... and not saying it is a better method.

Quote:And incidentally, your side has been calling it a failure for over a year now!

Right. Because it is.

You've increased demand without increasing supply. In the REAL world, this results in price increases... and you have prohibited price increases and in fact, tried to artificially decrease prices.

This has never in the history of the world worked... and this isn't different.

You're acting as if this is a baseball game and you want to wait until the game is over to determine the winner, but it's not a baseball game. First because it isn't a game... and second (and most importantly) because the goals you set out to accomplish aren't the ones you're using to measure your success.

If you aren't increasing the number of providers of healthcare... which the ACA doesn't (because it doesn't fund additional residency slots and you can't be a doctor without one).. and you are decreasing the reimbursements for primary care which also discourages that practice, then you can not possibly provide MORE preventative healthcare, which is a requirement of the cost savings that the ACA promised. Further, it does nothing to encourage healthy living... it simply assumes that everyone wants to be healthy, when the obvious evidence suggests that everyone wants to eat tasty foods and exercise as little as possible.

THIS is why it is a failure already... because it honestly makes no attempts to do anything other than to shuffle money around.

Ham, one other point that I think is a problem. There's this argument that when everyone has insurance, they'll be more inclined to get regular check ups and seek less expensive treatments earlier. Not when deductibles are $6,000 or more, like the bronze and silver exchange policies. The really sad thing is that high deductible policies can be very useful in curtailing costs--if they are combined with expanded health savings accounts as republicans have proposed. But Obamacare actively discourages HSAs. One more thing that wasn't thought through. At least I hope that's the reason.

As for failing, no we don't have to give it more time. How long do you have to sit in a pasture and look at a cow before you figure out that it's not going to jump over the moon tonight?

Ham, the 8 million figure is considered a success because they were projecting 7 million.

And I'm not really defending anything here. I'm merely pointing out specious arguments and other half-truths of many of the posters here.

And I realize you don't read all the posts...that's likely why you don't see the utter lies that I constantly see.

(04-23-2014 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ham, the 8 million figure is considered a success because they were projecting 7 million.

And I'm not really defending anything here. I'm merely pointing out specious arguments and other half-truths of many of the posters here.

And I realize you don't read all the posts...that's likely why you don't see the utter lies that I constantly see.

8 million what? And projected 7 million what?

clicks? web hits? or is this simply another lie in the long string of lies about this disaster?

(04-23-2014 02:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ham, the 8 million figure is considered a success because they were projecting 7 million.

And I'm not really defending anything here. I'm merely pointing out specious arguments and other half-truths of many of the posters here.

And I realize you don't read all the posts...that's likely why you don't see the utter lies that I constantly see.

8 million what? And projected 7 million what?

clicks? web hits? or is this simply another lie in the long string of lies about this disaster?

Clearly, 8 million instances of the GOP whining.

[quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='10696445' dateline='1398279750']
Ham, one other point that I think is a problem. There's this argument that when everyone has insurance, they'll be more inclined to get regular check ups and seek less expensive treatments earlier. Not when deductibles are $6,000 or more, like the bronze and silver exchange policies. The really sad thing is that high deductible policies can be very useful in curtailing costs--if they are combined with expanded health savings accounts as republicans have proposed. But Obamacare actively discourages HSAs. One more thing that wasn't thought through. At least I hope that's the reason.

[quote]

There is an easy solution to this however and it involves 'covered' wellness exams, which is often part of these plans... so from a preventative standpoint, while you are correct... the REAL problem is that we ALREADY don't have enough doctors (according to Obama himself) to deliver these, and we are decreasing reimbursement for them and not creating supply of pcps to deliver them... so even if you solve the finance problem, you don't increase the availability of care.

What you describe is really more applicable to things other than preventative...

which raises ANOTHER point that the ACA was supposed to solve and doesn't/can't.

The argument was that people are going into bankruptcy because they can't afford insurance...

but if you get a 'free' Bronze plan (because you make less than around 30k/yr as a family) and you have $100,000 in medical expenses... you STILL have a $6,000 deductible as you note and now a $30,000 copay (in the 70/30 bronze plan). So the person who we've already decided can't afford to pay $1/month for healthcare STILL has a debt burden greater than his annual income. Seriously, does it matter if his burden is 36k or 100k? Especially in that the way the rules work, the Hospital would GLADLY take that same 36k from him as a settlement. Instead, he will still declare bankruptcy or just avoid the debt and his credit is still ruined and the hospital will get paid an amount about equal to the value of the deduction they took in the past.... and all of the new revenue merely goes to pay for the bureaucracy to administer these movements.

This is another of those things that SOUNDS like it is fixing a problem, but really isn't fixing the problem. It merely (once again) shuffles the numbers around.

This is an example of what I mean when I talk about insurance being math and not magic. That $36,000 could be reduced to zero (no deductible or copay) if you increased the premium by probably around $1,000 per month... or that same $36,000 every three years which is probably about how often the average family needs that much care (I'm demonstrating the math, not making the claim)... yet the administration would call this a cadillac plan (when it's really more like an HSA) and make it illegal or tax it.

So once again, they are discouraging 'prudent' health advice.

(04-23-2014 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And I realize you don't read all the posts...that's likely why you don't see the utter lies that I constantly see.

So, you reread your own posts a lot?

(04-23-2014 09:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 07:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Heck...The IRS only takes a few weeks to process tax refunds, which are far more complicated than insurance that can't be denied. Determining subsidies isn't rocket science, especially in the weeks following tax date.

There's a reason for that. Those returns are electronically filed. The people filing the returns have to use approved software that the IRS has already tested for accuracy. Then the IRS itself has things in place to cross-reference those returns further for accuracy. These systems have been in place for years and have been debugged to work very effectively.

Not to mention, they aren't doing full blown audits on those returns either. They're basically just testing math.

Electronic filing wasn't as efficient when it first started.

Tom, when I make a purchase using my debit card my bank knows about it almost immediately. I would like to think that a $700 million website which is based on the president's signature piece of legislation would be almost as good if not better.

(04-23-2014 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ham, the 8 million figure is considered a success because they were projecting 7 million.

Who? The people who decided that this was a goal, meaning the administration. I admit that the media took the bait and the right responded... but it was all based on an intentional misdirection of priorities by the administration to make 'signing people up' a measurable goal by which they wanted themselves to be measured as opposed to 'providing more and better healthcare'.

Quote:And I'm not really defending anything here. I'm merely pointing out specious arguments and other half-truths of many of the posters here.

And I realize you don't read all the posts...that's likely why you don't see the utter lies that I constantly see.

It's not helpful when you respond with your own specious arguments and half-truths.

I respond to you primarily because I think you have the capacity to be better informed and reach a difference conclusion if that happens, or to ask you (because you seem capable of doing so) to better inform me. It may come across as insulting because I definitely challenge you to support your opinions and claims, as I would expect you to demand of me... That is (to me) the basis of intelligent, respectful but serious discourse. We disagree, and this is important stuff... so I don't just accept BS... and try (though I sometimes fail) not to get bogged down in the meaningless finger pointing and drivel.

I think we'd be better off without the rabble rousers... so I TRY to ignore them as much as possible, from either side. Certainly there is SOME truth in all that they both say, and it's okay to acknowledge that... but it is pointless to argue with someone who clearly has no intention of understanding. I don't THINK that is you, at least in this instance. (we all do that sometimes)

Some people are literally too dense to argue with, 2 of them keep posting in this thread.

(04-23-2014 02:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And I realize you don't read all the posts...that's likely why you don't see the utter lies that I constantly see.

Tom, the things you call lies aren't lies. Because the things you think are true aren't true.