(10-01-2014 10:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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.

Per Public Policy Polling

Quote:Q15 Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable
Care Act?
Approve .......................................................... 34%
Disapprove...................................................... 51%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

Q16 Do you approve or disapprove of Kynect?
Approve .......................................................... 34%
Disapprove...................................................... 27%
Not sure .......................................................... 40%

Q17 Do you think the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act so far has been very
successful, somewhat successful, somewhat
unsuccessful, very unsuccessful, or are you
not sure?
Very successful............................................... 15%
Somewhat successful ..................................... 26%
Somewhat unsuccessful ................................. 20%
Very unsuccessful........................................... 34%
Not sure .......................................................... 6%

Q18 Do you think the implementation of Kynect so
far has been very successful, somewhat
successful, somewhat unsuccessful, very
unsuccessful, or are you not sure?
Very successful............................................... 21%
Somewhat successful ..................................... 24%
Somewhat unsuccessful ................................. 16%
Very unsuccessful........................................... 13%
Not sure .......................................................... 26%

Kynect is the name of the Kentucky implementation of the ACA. It's proven that a significant portion of people don't like the ACA despite not having any strong feelings towards it's actual implementation.

(10-01-2014 10:51 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(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:  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.

No they didn't, and that was a problem.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think that is a premature judgement, the hammer hasn't really even struck yet, since employers are delayed. That will be the great test for the law.

Speaking for myself, I do not wish to be on any of the plans available that are mandated by the ACA and I do not know anybody who wishes to be either. You add that with the emergence of groups that operate wholly outside the law in cash and we see the seeds of Obamacare's undoing.

Allow me to unload on that piece of "Journalism" you reference, like I did in the other thread.

(10-01-2014 09:52 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11962...aw-working

The claims:

1. More people have health insurance.

True. But are more people happy with that health insurance given the millions who have received cancellation letters and been forced into exchanges? And that is before we touch upon the cost issues.


2. People who are getting health insurance are almost certainly better off.

False. The plans are markedly worse for anybody who was already insured. The costs are much greater in both co-pay, premium, and out of pocket maximums. Which is of course what HAS to happen to pick up highly subsidized insurance for people who are poor or for the catastrophic cases who didn't have have exorbitant caps in their insurance plans and were dumped when they hit the limit. And of course there is the less "feel good" things like paying for birth control as a guy. And ObamaCare is basically ... at its core for most people .... Medicare. And studies of Medicare recipients versus those with no insurance what-so-ever showed no marked long term health differences.


3. “Winners” probably outnumbered “losers” in the new marketplaces.

False. Only if you totally ignore robbing Peter to pay Paul. "Look the rates are slightly lower overall when you take into account the subsidies!" WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR THE SUBSIDIES?????????? AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! That kind of willfully wantonly ignorant thinking drives me nuts. IT IS SIMPLE ECONOMICS. You're getting more benefits like it or not. Including benefits you don't need and/or don't want. You're getting people with no means to pay for it or reduced means the same level of coverage. OF COURSE THAT WILL COST MORE!!!!!!!!!


4. Premiums in the marketplaces aren't rising quickly, and more insurers are jumping in to compete.

True. And deceptive. Rates aren't rising quickly in the exchanges because they EXPLODED already! My private rate has jumped from under $100 to nearly $400. And my exchange costs are nearly $400 for anything worth a flying ****. This point is akin to saying "gas prices haven't gone up this week" after the previous week they went up to $100/gallon.


5. Employer premiums also aren't rising quickly.

True. And deceptive. The employer mandate hasn't hit yet. It has been delayed -- ILLEGALLY -- until after the election by executive fiat. But don't you worry liberals ... as you can see reports are already starting to trickle in like they did around this time last year. Buckle up ... the next few months will be a Biblical flood of employer based "healthcare" sodomy stories.


6. Overall health care costs are rising at historically low rates.

FALSEEEEEEEEEEE. SOOOOOOOOOOO FALSE. Health care is rising at twice the rate of inflation. The only thing soaring faster is college tuition. This is like citing the Federal Reserve's official inflation statistic: It is an intentionally flawed metric as it deliberately ignores relevant sectors to produce a rosey number.



7. The net effect on the budget has been to reduce the deficit.

True and false and EXTREMELY deceptive. ObamaCare had a run of several years where the taxes already kicked in but the benefit increases were not yet in effect. You got like 6 years of taxes for 2.5 years of benefits. Cookin' the books much? So early on ... yes, it was helping the budget. As they actually started to hand out the goodies they promised, it went from true to HUGELY false. See what I said on #3.




This is the most shoddy piece of willfully, wantonly, pretentious, arrogant, deceptive, partisan, utterly bullsh*t piece of reporting I have read in a considerable amount of time. I would consider Bill O'Reilly a more credible news source than this. I'd consider Sean Hannity more reliable than this. I might even consider Jay Carney more reliable than this. Jesus tapdancing Christ.

(10-01-2014 10:35 AM)BobL Wrote:  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.

This is not a fact. It is a logical inference. The PROBLEM with this logical inference is that we didn't have enough PCP docs when these people were going to the ER, and now they're trying to go to the PCP. We might be changing WHO goes to the ER, but nothing in the ACA changes the number of PCP slots that are available.... THAT is a fact. Fact 2 is that the $1000 unpaid trip to the ER becomes about a $400 tax deduction for the hospital with the government footing that bill in the form of decreased revenue. Instead, they're providing $400 in 'assistance' to 'buy' the policy.... and likely far far more than that. This also is a fact. In other words, you're focusing on 'savings' in one area and ignoring that there are new 'expenses' in another. OF COURSE things look great when you do that.

Quote: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.

Yep, it is PART of the reason... though you're slightly mis-stating things... and those sorts of things were also part of McCain's proposal, and the Heritage proposal and dozens of other proposals... These few moderately palatable things that could have been put into place in a few pages don't make the other 1900+ pages of rules, regulations and costs 'worthwhile'.

You have described a zero-sum game... where we are taking healthcare or costs away from SOME people and giving them to others... and that is precisely the complaint. Net/net, there is ZERO increase in the availability or quality of available healthcare... with only SOME promise of making people healthier so they don't go to the ER as much (ignoring that making them healthier also makes them live longer and older people go to the ER more often, so again it's a zero sum game)... and EASILY arguably makes people less healthy...

Let me ask you... If you don't have healthcare, what happens if you do something stupid to become a you-tube star and break your leg? You get a big bill for your stupidity. If you have insurance, you don't. Which of those scenarios discourages stupidity/encourages responsible living? If you can get a pill for diabetes and high blood pressure and the like, why should you bother with exercising and eating well? at least 1/3 of the patients who admit to my ED are here to treat symptoms of diseases of poor choices... The BEST medical treatment they can be given doesn't come from a hospital, a doctors office or a pharmacy, but instead from a kitchen and a gym... and Obamacare exacerbates this problem. I'm not saying these are large numbers... but they're large enough to eliminate most of the 'savings' that supporters of Obamacare so often try and tout.

Seriously, some people REALLY haven't thought through the obvious consequences of REMOVING negative consequences from people and their poor choices.

(10-01-2014 10:51 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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.

Per Public Policy Polling

Quote:Q15 Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable
Care Act?
Approve .......................................................... 34%
Disapprove...................................................... 51%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

Q16 Do you approve or disapprove of Kynect?
Approve .......................................................... 34%
Disapprove...................................................... 27%
Not sure .......................................................... 40%

Q17 Do you think the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act so far has been very
successful, somewhat successful, somewhat
unsuccessful, very unsuccessful, or are you
not sure?
Very successful............................................... 15%
Somewhat successful ..................................... 26%
Somewhat unsuccessful ................................. 20%
Very unsuccessful........................................... 34%
Not sure .......................................................... 6%

Q18 Do you think the implementation of Kynect so
far has been very successful, somewhat
successful, somewhat unsuccessful, very
unsuccessful, or are you not sure?
Very successful............................................... 21%
Somewhat successful ..................................... 24%
Somewhat unsuccessful ................................. 16%
Very unsuccessful........................................... 13%
Not sure .......................................................... 26%

Kynect is the name of the Kentucky implementation of the ACA. It's proven that a significant portion of people don't like the ACA despite not having any strong feelings towards it's actual implementation.

I bet if the poll added a third name for the same thing, Obamacare, that would be have an even higher disapproval percentage.

This is a great example of all that is bad with politics: Too many citizens are uniformed and too lazy to do the research needed to become informed. Certainly politicians(left and right) know this and take advantage every step of the way. This holds true for the media as well(left and right). It is truly disheartening.

(10-01-2014 11:01 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:51 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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.

Per Public Policy Polling

Quote:Q15 Do you approve or disapprove of the Affordable
Care Act?
Approve .......................................................... 34%
Disapprove...................................................... 51%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

Q16 Do you approve or disapprove of Kynect?
Approve .......................................................... 34%
Disapprove...................................................... 27%
Not sure .......................................................... 40%

Q17 Do you think the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act so far has been very
successful, somewhat successful, somewhat
unsuccessful, very unsuccessful, or are you
not sure?
Very successful............................................... 15%
Somewhat successful ..................................... 26%
Somewhat unsuccessful ................................. 20%
Very unsuccessful........................................... 34%
Not sure .......................................................... 6%

Q18 Do you think the implementation of Kynect so
far has been very successful, somewhat
successful, somewhat unsuccessful, very
unsuccessful, or are you not sure?
Very successful............................................... 21%
Somewhat successful ..................................... 24%
Somewhat unsuccessful ................................. 16%
Very unsuccessful........................................... 13%
Not sure .......................................................... 26%

Kynect is the name of the Kentucky implementation of the ACA. It's proven that a significant portion of people don't like the ACA despite not having any strong feelings towards it's actual implementation.

I bet if the poll added a third name for the same thing, Obamacare, that would be have an even higher disapproval percentage.

This is a great example of all that is bad with politics: Too many citizens are uniformed and too lazy to do the research needed to become informed. Certainly politicians(left and right) know this and take advantage every step of the way. This holds true for the media as well(left and right). It is truly disheartening.

Yep, the ACA is both more abd less popular than Obamacare.

Quote:Now for the difference: 29 percent of the public supports Obamacare compared with 22 percent who support ACA. Forty-six percent oppose Obamacare and 37 percent oppose ACA. So putting Obama in the name raises the positives and the negatives. Gender and partisanship are responsible for the differences. Men, independents and Republicans are more negative on Obamacare than ACA. Young people, Democrats, nonwhites and women are more positive on Obamacare.

People r smrt

(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.

I'm glad more and more people are finally admitting that the employer is trying to ruin Obamacare and that it isn't Obamacare.

I have said this from the beginning.

(10-01-2014 10:51 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  \

Kynect is the name of the Kentucky implementation of the ACA. It's proven that a significant portion of people don't like the ACA despite not having any strong feelings towards it's actual implementation.

You should look a little more closely at the data...

When you have percentages of 40% and 26% are 'not sure', it is clear that while people have had time to formulate opinions about Obamacare, they haven't yet been able to really form those opinions about how Kentucky has reacted to it.

The state plans obviously haven't been around nearly as long as Obamacare has been.... and one could also argue that because the state plans are the result of Obamacare, that some people will blame Obamacare, and not the state's reaction to it.

(10-01-2014 11:08 AM)Fitbud 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.

I'm glad more and more people are finally admitting that the employer is trying to ruin Obamacare and that it isn't Obamacare.

I have said this from the beginning.

What?

(10-01-2014 11:09 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:51 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  \

Kynect is the name of the Kentucky implementation of the ACA. It's proven that a significant portion of people don't like the ACA despite not having any strong feelings towards it's actual implementation.

You should look a little more closely at the data...

When you have percentages of 40% and 26% are 'not sure', it is clear that while people have had time to formulate opinions about Obamacare, they haven't yet been able to really form those opinions about how Kentucky has reacted to it.

The state plans obviously haven't been around nearly as long as Obamacare has been.... and one could also argue that because the state plans are the result of Obamacare, that some people will blame Obamacare, and not the state's reaction to it.

Nothing you stated contradicts my point, nor did my post imply that I didn't notice the change in 'Not sure' respondents. If anything, the fact the 'not sure' responses for kynetic seem to come from those responding strongly against the ACA would imply that they simply don't understand the what the ACA entails. If you actually understood the ACA as a Kentuckian, you would know about kynetic.

(10-01-2014 11:08 AM)Fitbud 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.

I'm glad more and more people are finally admitting that the employer is trying to ruin Obamacare and that it isn't Obamacare.

I have said this from the beginning.

Dude, that doesn't even make sense. That's not what he said.

(10-01-2014 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:35 AM)BobL Wrote:  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.

This is not a fact. It is a logical inference. The PROBLEM with this logical inference is that we didn't have enough PCP docs when these people were going to the ER, and now they're trying to go to the PCP. We might be changing WHO goes to the ER, but nothing in the ACA changes the number of PCP slots that are available.... THAT is a fact. Fact 2 is that the $1000 unpaid trip to the ER becomes about a $400 tax deduction for the hospital with the government footing that bill in the form of decreased revenue. Instead, they're providing $400 in 'assistance' to 'buy' the policy.... and likely far far more than that. This also is a fact. In other words, you're focusing on 'savings' in one area and ignoring that there are new 'expenses' in another. OF COURSE things look great when you do that.

True enough but what we are seeing is a huge rise in number Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners. Both of whom can perform much of the same duties and prescribe meds and can be primary care providers (though that may vary state to state.)

Quote:Let me ask you... If you don't have healthcare, what happens if you do something stupid to become a you-tube star and break your leg? You get a big bill for your stupidity. If you have insurance, you don't. Which of those scenarios discourages stupidity/encourages responsible living? If you can get a pill for diabetes and high blood pressure and the like, why should you bother with exercising and eating well? at least 1/3 of the patients who admit to my ED are here to treat symptoms of diseases of poor choices... The BEST medical treatment they can be given doesn't come from a hospital, a doctors office or a pharmacy, but instead from a kitchen and a gym... and Obamacare exacerbates this problem. I'm not saying these are large numbers... but they're large enough to eliminate most of the 'savings' that supporters of Obamacare so often try and tout.

I doubt anyone stupid enough to ride a bike off a roof is thinking about their potential hospital bill and how it gets paid.
I also don't believe that because someone has health coverage they will live an unhealthier life.

Obamacare was a no brainer for me so I'm certainly biased. I am definitely one of the families that was on the winning side of the ledger. I do appreciate the feedback though. I see that the health care curve is coming down in a lot of media outlets though. I'm quite positive that that is happening. Health Care centers are getting leaner and more efficient. This whole dynamic is interesting though and you do have to sort your articles through people who would naturally be skeptical. Thanks for the feedback.

(10-01-2014 11:22 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Obamacare was a no brainer for me so I'm certainly biased. I am definitely one of the families that was on the winning side of the ledger. I do appreciate the feedback though. I see that the health care curve is coming down in a lot of media outlets though. I'm quite positive that that is happening. Health Care centers are getting leaner and more efficient. This whole dynamic is interesting though and you do have to sort your articles through people who would naturally be skeptical. Thanks for the feedback.

Just keep in mind your win comes off the back of the government demanding my money at gunpoint. And I'm quite far removed from the maligned 1%.

At the end of this year when CIGNA terminates my plan I will be moving to Liberty Healthshare, where I'll be forced to lie and claim I'm a devout Christian and not an atheist in order to escape from ObamaCare. My premium will be cut in half. My deductible will be cut in fourth. And that is compared to both CIGNA and the exchanges. By January 1, 2015 your beloved social experiment will never see another dime from me.

but what happens if you need to go back on the grid GTS?

(10-01-2014 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  but what happens if you need to go back on the grid GTS?

I won't need to. Health sharing organizations founded prior to (2000 IIRC?) are exempt from ObamaCare. It is a permanent opt-out. I would have $1,000,000 per incident coverage with a $500 deductible and $200 premium. It crushes everything on the exchanges and my current private plan from CIGNA.

(10-01-2014 11:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  but what happens if you need to go back on the grid GTS?

I won't need to. Health sharing organizations founded prior to (2000 IIRC?) are exempt from ObamaCare. It is a permanent opt-out. I would have $1,000,000 per incident coverage with a $500 deductible and $200 premium. It crushes everything on the exchanges and my current private plan from CIGNA.

plus your monthly tithing..

Spend some time at your Family Practice doctor and ask how wonderful the ACA is for them. Especially the staff. Or go to the only clinic that takes Medicaid. Then tell me about improved quality of care.
The ACA was so loaded with early gimmie's and Executive Action delays that people should be embracing this thing, but they are not.
My 3 points that I can not find answers too are
1. If the ACA was so great why did it have to make it through the legislature by some arcane procedural action and not on its own merits? Especially when one party controlled the WH, Senate and house?
2. If the ACA is so great, why all the executive actions to delay the part most Americans will be effected by? Why not just let it go on as planned?
3. If the Goal of the ACA was to cover the 40 million uninsured why have only 8 million signed up? I'm no mathematical theoretician but isn't 8<40?

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.
[/quote]



This would be a fantasy to believe that because costs are down that it would translate to lower costs for the people. This medical hypocrisy is as bad as saying because we're getting cheaper oil from the middle east and elsewhere that it will translate into cheaper gas. It's a pipe dream. The cost might remain the same but they will not go down. These people will always find an excuse not to lower costs to a fair level.

Excuse me but I need a $2 dollar aspirin right now.

People leaving the system altogether is going to be a major obstacle for Obamacare to overcome. I have to admit that I hope that it cannot overcome it because while Obamacare may have been well intentioned it is a catastrophe for millions. A 'solution' that helps some while greatly harming others is no solution at all.