Read over this this morning. Thought I would throw it on here for the residents to dissect.

http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cg...thevictors

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11962...aw-working

The article

12 months ago this was the biggest talking point for the GOP, now they are trying to avoid it in any political discussion.

Ask GTS how his Obamacare is working.

I'm doubting he'll agree with you.

(10-01-2014 09:56 AM)mlb Wrote:  Ask GTS how his Obamacare is working.

I'm doubting he'll agree with you.

granted not everyone likes it, but more & more republican governors are embracing it.

The individual side hasn't done anything for or against me but the employer part will pretty much ruin my healthcare.

So, the better question is, who is it working for? It certainly isn't working for me. It also won't be working for many others like me.

(10-01-2014 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  granted not everyone likes it, but more & more republican governors are embracing it.

Because they want to get reelected.

Just because people call for it doesn't mean that it is well done. In fact, I think it is completely screwed up.

(10-01-2014 10:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The individual side hasn't done anything for or against me but the employer part will pretty much ruin my healthcare.

So, the better question is, who is it working for? It certainly isn't working for me. It also won't be working for many others like me.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/...ccess.aspx

Combs’ key insight was that many of his small business clients could do better dropping their small group coverage and helping their workers sign up for individual insurance on the exchange. The law allows companies with fewer than 50 full-time workers not to offer insurance.

Because most of the restaurant’s employees are low-income, they actually qualified for free or low-cost coverage on Kynect. Switching everybody over to the exchange was win-win-win: cheaper for the restaurant, cheaper for the employees and more people got coverage, including some part-time workers.

(10-01-2014 10:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The individual side hasn't done anything for or against me but the employer part will pretty much ruin my healthcare.

So, the better question is, who is it working for? It certainly isn't working for me. It also won't be working for many others like me.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/...ccess.aspx

Combs’ key insight was that many of his small business clients could do better dropping their small group coverage and helping their workers sign up for individual insurance on the exchange. The law allows companies with fewer than 50 full-time workers not to offer insurance.

Because most of the restaurant’s employees are low-income, they actually qualified for free or low-cost coverage on Kynect. Switching everybody over to the exchange was win-win-win: cheaper for the restaurant, cheaper for the employees and more people got coverage, including some part-time workers.

And if you are not then this whole thing can actually hurt you.

I'm glad that the lower orders are getting health insurance. But, it would have been fantastic if it didn't have to destroy mine.

Well, if it helps, many people who like Obamacares actual changes don't like Obamacare itself.

That's where I see this heading. We will get a hybrid system. You're not going to get rid of it, but we are going to see improvements.

A hybrid system will only be possible if massive parts of the ACA are cut away and throw in the trash. The law is extremely broad and has an even wider set of regulations that go along with it.

There is no wiggle room in it.

Quite literally, this is the system now and it isn't working for just about every private individual who already bought their own insurance, or who worked for somebody who supplied it, when the mandate kicks in.

The basic reason for passing Obamacare was to provide insurance for 40 million uninsured. How's the (highly questionable) 8 million new covered square with that goal?

Also, many of the provisions aren't even in place until 2017. And one of the many executive changes inacted was the protection for the insurers against loss. That also expires in 2017 and then we'll see what happens to rates and the deficit.

(And as I've already posted, my 2015 rates are going up 22% for the same policy as I currently have and the cost sharing co-pays are increasing.)

Bottom line, we won't have a real good idea of whether Obamacare is working, or as many expect, failing, until everything takes effect and all the fallout settles. That should be about 2020.

(10-01-2014 10:18 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  A hybrid system will only be possible if massive parts of the ACA are cut away and throw in the trash. The law is extremely broad and has an even wider set of regulations that go along with it.

There is no wiggle room in it.

Quite literally, this is the system now and it isn't working for just about every private individual who already bought their own insurance, or who worked for somebody who supplied it, when the mandate kicks in.

That's simply not true. It's far superior for me as someone who had already bought my own insurance.

(10-01-2014 10:14 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well, if it helps, many people who like Obamacares actual changes don't like Obamacare itself.

I've heard that on several occasions...but I've also heard that many say this is not true. Can you find a poll that backs up your claim? Thanks.

(10-01-2014 10:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  The basic reason for passing Obamacare was to provide insurance for 40 million uninsured. How's the (highly questionable) 8 million new covered square with that goal?

Also, many of the provisions aren't even in place until 2017. And one of the many executive changes inacted was the protection for the insurers against loss. That also expires in 2017 and then we'll see what happens to rates and the deficit.

(And as I've already posted, my 2015 rates are going up 22% for the same policy as I currently have and the cost sharing co-pays are increasing.)

Bottom line, we won't have a real good idea of whether Obamacare is working, or as many expect, failing, until everything takes effect and all the fallout settles. That should be about 2020.

The 8 million is not highly questionable at all. In fact, it's likely more. 7.3 million of them have already paid.

Quote:"As of Aug. 15 this year, we have 7.3 million Americans enrolled in health insurance marketplace coverage and these are individuals who paid their premiums. We are encouraged by the number of consumers who paid their premiums and continue to enroll in the marketplace coverage every day through special enrollment periods," Tavenner said.

But the 7.3 million enrollment figure doesn't tell the whole story. The Department of Health and Human Services can't provide the total enrollment tally, including paid and unpaid, since April because the computer system that would process those records isn't fully operational, a department official said. A manual evaluation would be required to find that number, the official said.

However, because people have been allowed to buy health insurance on the exchanges since then under special circumstances, such as marriage or the birth of a child, the count of people who were enrolled at any given time this year likely rose higher than 8 million.

Almost All Obamacare Enrollees Are Paying For Coverage

(10-01-2014 10:10 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The individual side hasn't done anything for or against me but the employer part will pretty much ruin my healthcare.

So, the better question is, who is it working for? It certainly isn't working for me. It also won't be working for many others like me.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/...ccess.aspx

Combs’ key insight was that many of his small business clients could do better dropping their small group coverage and helping their workers sign up for individual insurance on the exchange. The law allows companies with fewer than 50 full-time workers not to offer insurance.

Because most of the restaurant’s employees are low-income, they actually qualified for free or low-cost coverage on Kynect. Switching everybody over to the exchange was win-win-win: cheaper for the restaurant, cheaper for the employees and more people got coverage, including some part-time workers.

And if you are not then this whole thing can actually hurt you.

I'm glad that the lower orders are getting health insurance. But, it would have been fantastic if it didn't have to destroy mine.

The restaurant was one specific example, the point of course is that the same procedure can be used for any small business(under 50 employees).

Also lets not lose sight of a couple of facts:

1)As more lower income folks get coverage, the will go to a primary care professional instead of a $1000 trip to the ER that goes unpaid. This will decrease health care costs which should also lower premiums over the long term.
2)You can't be dropped from coverage when you get sick or make an honest mistake on your application. You also can't be denied coverage or treatment for being sick or charged more for being sick. You can't be charged more for being a woman either. Of course this will increase costs to insurers and consequently those of us who pay premiums. IMO this is the reason some of us are seeing increases today.

(10-01-2014 10:35 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:10 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The individual side hasn't done anything for or against me but the employer part will pretty much ruin my healthcare.

So, the better question is, who is it working for? It certainly isn't working for me. It also won't be working for many others like me.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/...ccess.aspx

Combs’ key insight was that many of his small business clients could do better dropping their small group coverage and helping their workers sign up for individual insurance on the exchange. The law allows companies with fewer than 50 full-time workers not to offer insurance.

Because most of the restaurant’s employees are low-income, they actually qualified for free or low-cost coverage on Kynect. Switching everybody over to the exchange was win-win-win: cheaper for the restaurant, cheaper for the employees and more people got coverage, including some part-time workers.

And if you are not then this whole thing can actually hurt you.

I'm glad that the lower orders are getting health insurance. But, it would have been fantastic if it didn't have to destroy mine.

The restaurant was one specific example, the point of course is that the same procedure can be used for any small business(under 50 employees).

Also lets not lose sight of a couple of facts:

1)As more lower income folks get coverage, the will go to a primary care professional instead of a $1000 trip to the ER that goes unpaid. This will decrease health care costs which should also lower premiums over the long term.
2)You can't be dropped from coverage when you get sick or make an honest mistake on your application. You also can't be denied coverage or treatment for being sick or charged more for being sick. You can't be charged more for being a woman either. Of course this will increase costs to insurers and consequently those of us who pay premiums. IMO this is the reason some of us are seeing increases today.

Yet again, I don't have a problem with that but it is no counter to tell me the whole thing is a great deal when it will have a negative impact on myself and when your piece doesn't even address larger employers and the people involved there. In essence, your piece only deals with low income workers at very small businesses. What about everybody else? It doesn't work for those others.

1) That is the hope but we've yet to see proof of it. It is NOT a fact.
2) Agreed but there were better ways of going about this without ripping up a system that covered over 70% of Americans in a way they liked.

Ok...

Wow, what a waste of my time...

Chart 1 is a projection of the growth of overall spending through 2023 relative to GDP... so not only are they projecting costs, but projecting GDP. I'd refer you to Clinton and ask what the definition of 'is' is. GDP OR healthcare costs in 2015-2023 is not 'is'... and growth from 2012-2014 has little to do with Obamacare... so tell me again what IS working??

Claim 1 is the same old meaningless lie... 'more people have health insurance'... well, since it's the law now... that's no surprise. When they went to positive ID for travel, was it meaningful to quote studies that show that more travelers had positive ID? Sllly, really and I can't believe the left is still touting this.

Claim 2 is incredibly nebulous. It bases data only from Oregon, and then switches to Massachusetts to try and answer unanswered questions from Oregon. It even admits that they couldn't come up with evidence to substantiate the claim that they ended up healthier... talk about spin. OF COURSE 60% of those who newly get insurance use it to make a claim, because they are signed up when they hit the ER and the ER MUST treat them, and signing them up is the only way the ER can hope to get paid. More silliness.

Claim 3 says 'probably' in the title. Need I really read more? It also misrepresents the Kaiser report which I am painfully aware of... Complete spin

Claim 4 misrepresents the same report

As does claim 5...

Claim 6 was happening BEFORE Obamacare and as is noted, ALWAYS happens in a recession. "Rapidly" is clearly relative... and all this guy is claiming is that we probably won't go back to the rate increases of 10+ years ago...



Mach... I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I often find you to be fairly even handed... but this was a complete waste of my time... and written by a pretty poor 'journalist' or 'scientist'. Seriously I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't some attempt by some neophyte leftist blogger to simply create traffic by recanting the most common of leftists claims about Obamacare.

(10-01-2014 10:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:35 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:10 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:08 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:00 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The individual side hasn't done anything for or against me but the employer part will pretty much ruin my healthcare.

So, the better question is, who is it working for? It certainly isn't working for me. It also won't be working for many others like me.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/...ccess.aspx

Combs’ key insight was that many of his small business clients could do better dropping their small group coverage and helping their workers sign up for individual insurance on the exchange. The law allows companies with fewer than 50 full-time workers not to offer insurance.

Because most of the restaurant’s employees are low-income, they actually qualified for free or low-cost coverage on Kynect. Switching everybody over to the exchange was win-win-win: cheaper for the restaurant, cheaper for the employees and more people got coverage, including some part-time workers.

And if you are not then this whole thing can actually hurt you.

I'm glad that the lower orders are getting health insurance. But, it would have been fantastic if it didn't have to destroy mine.

The restaurant was one specific example, the point of course is that the same procedure can be used for any small business(under 50 employees).

Also lets not lose sight of a couple of facts:

1)As more lower income folks get coverage, the will go to a primary care professional instead of a $1000 trip to the ER that goes unpaid. This will decrease health care costs which should also lower premiums over the long term.
2)You can't be dropped from coverage when you get sick or make an honest mistake on your application. You also can't be denied coverage or treatment for being sick or charged more for being sick. You can't be charged more for being a woman either. Of course this will increase costs to insurers and consequently those of us who pay premiums. IMO this is the reason some of us are seeing increases today.

Yet again, I don't have a problem with that but it is no counter to tell me the whole thing is a great deal when it will have a negative impact on myself and when your piece doesn't even address larger employers and the people involved their. In essence, your piece only deals with low income workers at very small businesses. What about everybody else? It doesn't work for those others.

1) That is the hope but we've yet to see proof of it. It is NOT a fact.
2) Agreed but there were better ways of going about this without ripping up a system that covered over 70% of Americans in a way they liked.

To be fair no one did do it prior to Obama. If it was so simple to do why hadn't anyone implemented those regulations before?

I personally did not say it would be a "great deal" for everyone. I do believe our country, overall, will be better with Obamacare than without it.