Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 10:13

Will wonders never cease!--disaster is NOT looming. ACA is not bringing on the apocalypse.

Instead, ACA (Obamacare) is turning out to be LESS EXPENSIVE than anticipated. Look at a couple of these figures announced this morning:

The health-care law's expansion of insurance coverage will cost $104 billion less than projected over the next decade, according to revised estimates from nonpartisan budget analysts Monday.
. . . . . . . . .
The CBO now expects the federal government to spend about $164 billion less in the next decade on subsidies in Obamacare health insurance marketplaces.



Here is another tidbit--reducing the deficit:

The CBO, which four years ago projected that Obamacare would cut the deficit, didn't provide a new detailed accounting of the entire law's expected costs and savings. Its most recent look at the law's total budget impact came in July 2012, when the CBO said it still believed the ACA will reduce the deficit.


Now I wonder--will Chicken Little make an appearance and apologize for trying to scare everybody with his/her "the sky will fall" predictions about the inevitable outcome of ACA/Obamacare? As I remember, he/she was adamant that the sky would fall and it would all be President Obama's fault for pushing through his dangerous healthcare insurance program.



Kate

This post was edited by dublinbay on Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 10:14


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

will Chicken Little make an appearance and apologize

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I should have known--LOL!

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I'm a lurker because I am more conservative than most on this board and I don't want to be attacked the way the majority of you attack those valiant conservative posters who just happen to have differing opinions than the majority here have. Sometimes I think you liberals would rather talk to each other instead of opening your minds to differing ideas - ideas which just may be correct. Every time someone makes a frivolous comment like "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi" it sickens me -- Americans lost their lives - their families lost their loved ones. Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi is NOT funny - many Americans feel there was a cover up. Perhaps we're right; perhaps we're wrong. Bottom line is we are all entitled to our opinions but poking fun at Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi is just so disrespectful. You probably are targeting your "humor" and disrespect at the conservative posters here but don't you realize you are also "joking" about the deaths that happened in Benghazi. Would anyone joke about other atrocities and injustices that have happened in the past? Probably not because it wouldn't be funny - just like "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi" is not funny. Bash away! My grammar may be incorrect and I have no "proof" of anything to attach - it's just my humble opinion.

To stay on topic, I don't care about "anticipated" savings to the federal government. I know real people who are spending more money for less -- not anticipated --real.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

many Americans feel there was a cover up.

And many feel there wasn't. Now its just political theatre trying to damage Clinton should she run for office again.

There was a covert CIA operation going on in Benghazi at the time, integral to the situation, and nobody is ever going to say what they were doing there. The endless congressional inquiries aren't even asking the question.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

And I'm puzzled why you think liberals should be open to conservative ideas, but conservatives are never open to liberal ideas. Why does it only work one way?

Do check a number of the threads on this forum that have shown most of the stories about increased health insurance costs to citizens are misleading and based on mis-understandings of what was going on. They are mostly myths, in other words--unless, of course, you were paying for junk insurance--in which case you should have saved your money by not having any insurance at all.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 12:02

I am more conservative than most on this board and I don't want to be attacked the way the majority of you attack those valiant conservative posters who just happen to have differing opinions

Those conservative posters generally don't post differing opinions, they personally attack, over and over again, in thread after thread.................evil liberals.

Calling the President names and dismissing his religious beliefs does not really qualify as a differing opinion.

I wish they/you would offer different opinions, so if you have some, please post away.

This post was edited by momj47 on Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 12:08


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Paptrikash, I agree with your assessment and the disrespect to those that were murdered at Benghazi--and no one held accountable by the Obama Administration.

Please consider posting here--you know you're making points when posters denigrate and insult you, and misrepresent you, and taunt you.

You're off to a great start, and welcome!


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Those conservative posters generally don't post differing opinions, they personally attack, over and over again, in thread after thread.

This is why I lurk more than I post. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with some of the people on this forum. It is very frustrating to ask a direct question and have the response divert to one of the far right media talking points, most of which some of the posters here repeat word for word.

I agree with the poster who brought up the fact that, because of the CIA presence there, we will never know exactly what happened in Benghazi.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I don't say much on Benghazi on HT and won't beyond it was indeed a tragedy and no one has been jocular about the loss of life . As a liberal, mho is that the conservatives have taken it to a level rarely seen before but now see all too often. Issa and his fact finding committees don't want to find facts (or accept facts already presented in evidence) in lieu of being able to have someone symbolically drawn and quartered in a public square.

Willingness to being open minded in a discussion is a two way street.

Many more people are going to be helped by the ACA/Obamacare than are going to be hurt by it. I would agree with you that there are always some who don't come out smelling like a rose - life is sometimes like that, and I venture they're going to be infinitely smaller in number than those who benefit.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Kate said it best a month ago....

Fortunately, I'm on Medicare.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

You bet ACA will bring down costs. It will be very dramatic, as the systemic collusion and exploitation gets rooted out.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I'll stand with Kate and other folks - yea verily, some even here on HT who are benefitting from Medicare. Just what exactly do you find so onerous about Medicare, brush? You'll be on it too eventually if Ryan and his hackneyed Path to Prosperity and those of like mind don't slash it down to a voucher system.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Brushwork, you have several times triumphantly brought up my earlier comment (in another context) about my having Medicare--as though you thought it somehow was scoring points against ACA/Obamacare. I wish you would explain the point you are making--so that I can be sure that I want to be quoted in support of your viewpoint. I don't think we always agree on viewpoints--but who knows. If you explain yourself, maybe we will this time.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I am also on Medicare, a program into which I paid for many years. I also have a supplemental program for which I pay every month. So I am not a "taker" nor am I receiving any "gifts" from the government.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

The ACA isn't costing as much to the federal government. Not the ACA is bringing down the costs. Least, that's what I just read.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 14:51

I think you guys misunderstand. Only the left attacks. Brushworks was just offering his usual factless but good-hearted congratulations.

Paprikash, it's simpler to thrive here than you imagine. Here's how.

1. Present well-supported facts. People might not like what they prove, but waving dependable facts at the left is kind of like waving a cross at vampires--they'll fall back and probably go check your facts (and find them valid!).

Very often people coming from the right cannot support their arguments with truth. That is a fact, and it's like tossing snowballs that fall apart before impact. The effect isn't what is intended, and responses aren't what is desired.

2. #1's corollary: Avoid propaganda lies picked up from disreputable sources at all costs. They're incredibly easily refuted by people who read, and most here do.

THIS is probably the #1 reason some posters feel "bullied" -- because lies posted here are investigated and then immediately shot down. People who depend on them start feeling they can't win. But they can. (How about checking out "The Weekly Standard" as just one conservative source that backs up its arguments and has a reputation for accuracy?)

3. Avoid hypocrisy at all costs. Combined with lies picked up from propaganda sites, it is guaranteed to generate disrespectful responses.

4. Avoid combining lies, policies that will hurt people and hypocrisy at ALL costs. Unless you want to stoke a bonfire. Like calling for elimination of food stamps because all anyone ever has to do is start his own business and anyone who doesn't is lazy and worthless. Unless, of course, you can offer a fact-based argument showing that typical people of no means, no 4-year degree, and average intelligence usually do succeed with new-business startups.

5. When facts aren't available, honesty about one's own feelings works. A simple "I don't care if their children go hungry, I don't want my tax dollars going to take care of them" will be mostly unanswerable because there's nothing to argue about there. (As long as #3 is scrupulously adhered to.)

BTW, back to the subject of this thread, a major, major reason for passing the ACA was to control national healthcare spending, which takes up far more of our GDP than that of all other advanced nations. A crippling burden. The people of those other countries also receive significantly better healthcare and have lower death rates from birth to old age. This all has been proven by multiple studies I'll let you google since discussion is so readily available on many REPUTABLE sites.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

. Would anyone joke about other atrocities and injustices that have happened in the past?

You don't remember GWB joking about not finding the WMDs at the White House Correspondent's Dinner? That was as tasteless and unfunny a "joke" that he, who caused the loss of over 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqui lives, could have made. Those that talk about 4 American lives lost, which was a tragedy, are nothing but hypocrites if they don't/didn't complain a thousand times louder and longer about those needlessly lost lives in Iraq.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I don't know any conservatives on this site I've read some people who ascribe to some of the current Republican gibberish of the moment but even that is to left wing for some & they have gone tea party which is extremist.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Dockside has a point.

It does seem to me that many conservatives have a hard time accepting that others disagree with them. They see an attack in what is merely a disagreement. If I point out what I think are valid holes in the argument of a conservative person it is not a personal attack. If I try to refute a conservative statement it is just that-a different set of possible facts.

"Benghazi" is not a reference to the real attack on the consulate in that city nor is it a dismissing of the importance of the lose of life there. It is a short hand comment started by conservatives to use that attack for political purposes. it was first tacked on posts by conservatives trying to make a point and that was aped by liberals.. The political point as I recall was the lack of transparency by the White House and the so called cover-up to protect the president before the election. No amount of bringing up the CIA is ever going to change that issue in some peoples minds. I guess you believe what you need to believe.

As for ACA. Wouldn't we all like something better other than the very few who don't seem to approve of insurance at all?


 o
Oops!

Nobody mentioned that I forgot to post my source in the OP. So here, belatedly, is the source--with my apologies.

I've been gone most of the day, so just noticed the omission now.

Kate

Here is a link that might be useful: Lower premiums drive down Obamacare’s expected costs


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Thanks, Patriciae, for explaining the BBB quote--it needed to be said for the OP whom I don't think understands the reference. Let's hope s/he responds soon to these helpful hints at discussion.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Kate, I know you are an academic who understands how to support an argument, and thanks for acknowledging your source. You have gained the trust of many on this forum precisely because you are so thorough.
And I am glad to not go through the tirade to which you were treated when another poster not only did not post her source but went nearly ballistic when asked to do so.

A bit off topic: I am surprised when a poster introduces herself/himself to this forum by asserting that liberals are intolerant of opinions that differ from their own.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"Brushwork, you have several times triumphantly brought up my earlier comment (in another context) about my having Medicare--as though you thought it somehow was scoring points against ACA/Obamacare. I wish you would explain the point you are making--"

That is funny that you expect Brushworks to back up his flippant remarks with facts. I am still waiting for a couple of other explanations or sources from a couple of weeks back.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by pidge z6PA (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 19:40

Kate, I know you are an academic who understands how to support an argument, and thanks for acknowledging your source. You have gained the trust of many on this forum precisely because you are so thorough.
And I am glad to not go through the tirade to which you were treated when another poster not only did not post her source but went nearly ballistic when asked to do so

*

Pidge, who would that be?

Because I DID POST MY SOURCE when I posted the information.

We went through that--it was right there in BLACK AND WHITE.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 22:00


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

And demi, your definition of posting a source is still different than what the rest of us mean by posting a source. But we already went over this (several times)--so don't imagine I'm going to enter into a seemingly non-stop back n' forth with you on this subject (again). Good night.

Sjerin--I'm not sure what it is you think I don't understand. Perhaps you don't understand that Patriciae's explanation about the politicial meaning of the BBB reference is exactly what I was laughing about--Nancy's insinuation that the conservative response to the opening post would be to ignore its content and try to distract/deflect the reader's attention to the political hullabaloo created by the conservatives/t-partiers hoping to attack either President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton. In other words, what is funny about the BBB comment is Nancy's satirical comment on conservative/t-party deflection politics.

And good night to you also.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 23:40

And demi, your definition of posting a source is still different than what the rest of us mean by posting a source. But we already went over this (several times)--so don't imagine I'm going to enter into a seemingly non-stop back n' forth with you on this subject (again). Good night.

*

My source gave all the information I had--the name of the author, the name of the publication, and the date.

That IS GIVING THE SOURCE.

Ridiculous you won't give this up and neither will Pidge.

A four year old could find that information WHICH I GAVE IN THE ORIGINAL POST and after countless posts saying I didn't.

I DID.

YOU WERE WRONG.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Whatever.

How about if we get back to the content of the OP. According to the CBO,

The health-care law's expansion of insurance coverage will cost $104 billion less than projected over the next decade, according to revised estimates from nonpartisan budget analysts Monday.

Any comments--since you were one of the ones predicting some kind of economic disaster as a result of ACA?

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Thank you Dublinbay-the rest of the story. I was merely addressing that Benghazi is not some trivialization by liberal of the deaths there. The word has no meaning in that context. Most of us know this and I suppose we forget that that not everyone does.

We have had so many people tell us that ACA is going to bring the country to its knees and now that it looks like that in spite of a ticky roll out it is going to succeed even better than expected since it is the flawed stomped on thing that it is that some one on the ultra conservative side would at least admit that the world is not going to come to an end because of it. I sincerely hope that it will lead to better things for us(like a single payer system) since we seem to have to do things the hard way in this country. My premiums went up but not as much as last year and I have even more coverage than I had so....hooray more or less.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

What do you mean "whatever?"

You make a big deal accusing me of not giving information I gave, then days later, over a week later Pidge brings it up and says I nearly went ballistic when YOU ARE THE ONE that flat out accused me of not giving sources when I gave the publication, the author, AND THE DATE, all the source I had.

What is wrong with you people?

Of course the ACA is costing people money, and jobs, and will in the future.

Costing the government less than some projected doesn't meant the legislation is not costing money.

It's costing more than it would than if it hadn't been passed.

I haven't seen my health care costs go down, and know of no one whose have, in fact just heard where more BCBS policy premiums went up on friends I'm waiting for that one.

If my costs and premiums go down I'll be the first to say so.
Costs have gone up and premiums went up last year.

I'm still waiting on that $2500 Barry said I'd get.

Let's wait until Obama and the Democrats have the courage to let the law go into effect (waiting until after the elections of course) when everyone has to abide by the law--oh wait, it's already been changed.

Let's see how great things are when the mandates are truly mandates and not provisions that have to be delayed to save Obama and the Democrats' political hides.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I DID.

Incompletely.

And not in the manner common to the internet, and without the name of the article.

Writing "boston.com" takes you to the web site home page, not to the article. (In a matter of hours the article can be moved to site's archives and not visible on the home page.) Common usage is to give at least the URL, if not a direct link to the article being cited. The URL of the article is: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/04/13/over-elderly-tenants-evacuated-after-meth-lab-discovered-apartment-building/52CcMaI0lY0sZYseXfTMTM/story.html


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Thanks for the info Kate. This is, of course, not surprising to anyone whose agenda was not make Obama look bad at all costs. Or to those of us who don't have anxiety attacks if a dollar of our tax money goes to some "other" we deem undeserving.

And for the record, in the source argument, it's quite clear to most people who was right and who was wrong. Why some just can't say "my bad, here's the link" is beyond me. Oh wait, no it's not...another opportunity to play the victim. Sad.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Perhaps someone on this forum should write up rules for posting in order to relieve some of the angst. Either that or be accepting of the way others offer up information, which would seem to be preferable, unless somewhere on the forums there are already rules in place for that sort of thing.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"It's costing more than it would than if it hadn't been passed.”

That may be lamest criticism of the ACA that I have ever read.

A plan that will allow millions of people to purchase insurance who were unable to do so before and that is all you can say, demi? You must be getting desperate.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to jump into some absurd tirade of yours about how you are always picked on.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

No one addressed what I said. The title of this post is misleading, because no costs were brought down. Actually, that is patently false. It is no small distinction to say it didn't cost the government as much as the projections. Who came up with those projections, government pundits? Sounds like a bit of camel trading.

"You want this fine camel for $100? No, how about this equally good camel for $50? Ok, then. Aren't you happy I saved you 50%?!". When the camel should've been $5, and no worries that the camel is missing an eye and leg too (coverage here is not universal. It is not cost effective, people losing their jobs, coverage isn't the same as before, and not everyone is adding money to the pot).


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 8:17

Demi, I also get aggravated when people make a big deal of attribution over something they could easily pull up for themselves with the information given.

What is far more important is that the source be honest and accurate. Too often a respected original report will be altered, dyed, and laundered through an antagonistic spin machine, and then that spin machine's version will be quoted.

And going to those altered sources leads people to this kind of mistake: "Of course the ACA is costing people money, and jobs, and will in the future. Costing the government less than some projected doesn't meant the legislation is not costing money. It's costing more than it would than if it hadn't been passed."

Wrong on all counts. But you should know that. It's hardly a secret. Here's the basic picture:

We've had runaway inflation in healthcare for a quarter century now. The ACA and many other reform measures are designed to slow and control that inflation, while improving the availability and quality of care. Just stopping inflation is totally impossible (might as well try to repeal gravity), and no official proponent EVER, EVER said that was a goal.

The drop is in FUTURE costs--how much less we will have to pay with reform than we would have without reform. (Your sources knew this, of course. Why did they misinform you?)

The good news, for all of us, including your own checkbook, is that we're now in the future and it is already succeeding on almost all fronts--as was expected--and succeeding dramatically beyond expectations and ahead of schedule on some.

And reform isn't even completely implemented yet. The full implementation period is 2010 to 2018. We're in early year 5.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Uhh... Rosie has already done so, in a manner of speaking... see her post on Tue, Apr 15, 14 at 14:51... in this very thread.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rosie, for those of us with limited time, IMHO, it is a courtesy to provide a link. It shows that the poster who quotes or makes reference to an article or event has some respect for other poster's time and resources. Just as I respect your and other poster's opinions and time, it just seems to be good manners to do the same for others.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by rob333 (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 8:12

No one addressed what I said. The title of this post is misleading, because no costs were brought down. Actually, that is patently false. It is no small distinction to say it didn't cost the government as much as the projections. Who came up with those projections, government pundits? Sounds like a bit of camel trading.

*

I agreed with you Rob, in my post.

Camel trading is the least of this legislation.

*

Posted by pidge z6PA (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 8:10

"It's costing more than it would than if it hadn't been passed.”

That may be lamest criticism of the ACA that I have ever read.

A plan that will allow millions of people to purchase insurance who were unable to do so before and that is all you can say, demi? You must be getting desperate.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to jump into some absurd tirade of yours about how you are always picked on."

*

The personal comments about being "desperate" and speculating about my response to your insults and taunts are not appreciated and Pidge, keep those types of comments to yourself.

Agree, disagree, ignore, or ask questions.

Stop with the nasty personal comments.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by rob333 (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 8:12

"No one addressed what I said. The title of this post is misleading, because no costs were brought down."

A misleading title? Half the thread titles here don't give a clue what a click will get you. I agree a better title would have been ... "ACA Impact to budget revised down". The problem with the title as I see it is the use of "costs". But as a response to what I have seen on this forum (Of course the ACA is costing people money, and jobs, and will in the future), the title doesn't look inappropriate.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Stop with the nasty personal comments

How about you stop turning every single thread you participate in about you and continually antagonizing other posters.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by epiphyticlvr 10 (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 9:59

Stop with the nasty personal comments

How about you stop turning every single thread you participate in about you and continually antagonizing other posters.

*

How about you watch your mouth?

Giving my opinion is not "antagonizing" other posters.

I don't taunt and speculate about other posters' lives, motives, and situations and make comments like you just did.

If posters can't control themselves enough to follow the rules around here when they read something they don't agree with it's not MY PROBLEM.

The only reason a thread becomes about me is because some forum posters indulge their emotions and outright lie about what I say or believe, make nasty personal taunts and speculations, accusations, and get off topic by doing so.

You just made your contribution to what you complained about--YOUR fault.

Any preschool child can see that.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 10:51

For some it really tends to be personal. The best thing we could have done for Sarah Palin was to not elect her to national office. I used to watch in amazement as what should have been defenses of her positions on issues of importance to millions so frequently turned into defenses of her personally. Everything was somehow just as much about her as 300 million other people.

Demi, please re-read my second post. The claim that people would see their insurance bills drop was a dishonest, transparent "straw claim" advanced by anti-ACA propagandists so that it could then be "proved" wrong. Stupid offerings for willfully gullible people.

The people of today, as in Lincoln's day, who can be fooled all the time are that way because they INSIST on being told what they want to hear. This is how we get people who've failed to advance in wisdom over 80 years of living, just as silly at 80 as 8, but now pathetic.

Jlhug, "IMHO, it is a courtesy to provide a link. It shows that the poster who quotes or makes reference to an article or event has some respect for other poster's time and resources. Just as I respect your and other poster's opinions and time, it just seems to be good manners to do the same for others."

I totally agree, Jlhug. It's just that demanding attribution and criticizing its lack, when a source either readily available or the post is general knowledge, is even worse bad manners when it's used as a means of attack by someone who can't come up with a valid point for discussion, or just to harass by ankle-biters. I could be wrong, but I got the impression that demands for "attribution" rose just about the time successful ACA enrollments disheartened people who were hoping for national failure.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

My apologies for the poorly worded title. I was trying to condense/shorten the title of the article from which I got the information. That title was " Lower premiums drive down Obamacare’s expected costs." That seemed too long for a title on this forum. However, in condensing it I inadvertently gave it a spin I didn't intend. If you re-insert "premium costs" towards the beginning of my title and re-insert "ACA" towards the end of my title, you will see how I carelessly came up with my title.

Hopefully, the content of that first post was entirely clear, however--since I was not trying to deceive anyone.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

It's the spin that is sickening me. Yea, yea, it was answered, by playing down the government is SHIFTING the costs. Somehow that's ok? The costs didn't get less. Sickening.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

What is sickening to me is the endless spin the opponents of the ACA put on it, including increasingly lame commentary about its consequences. The comments get thinner and thinner on facts and less coherent as the successes mount.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rising premiums in 42 of the 50 states is ok with y'all. Got it. But the ACA is bringing down those "costs". Guess my definition of reducing costs is all wrong. sucking it up... like the middle american doormat I am. Obviously, y'all are happy with what ya got cause you aint paying the prices.

Here is a link that might be useful: 42 states listed here...


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rob, if you would provide details and give us some creditable sources for your observations, there might be something here to discuss, but as it is, you are just tossing out unsupported and very vague generalizations--hard to answer when it is not exactly clear what you are referring to.

In the meantime, you might want to go back and check the OP. It clearly notes that that information is from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) which is NOT a partisan group.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government that provides economic data to Congress. The CBO was created as a nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

I think that is a very trustworthy source which is freely used by BOTH PARTIES.

Kate

Here is a link that might be useful: CBO definition


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 10:51

"Demi, please re-read my second post. The claim that people would see their insurance bills drop was a dishonest, transparent "straw claim" advanced by anti-ACA propagandists so that it could then be "proved" wrong. Stupid offerings for willfully gullible people. "

*

Uh, no, Rosie.

The only people that are wilfully gullible are people that believed Barack Obama.

The claim was made by Barack Obama himself, on many, many occasions.
Do you have working ears and eyes?

Try them on this:


Barack Obama's OWN WORDS


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Welcome Paprikash! Post away, make your best arguments and have fun! If someone finds your argument "flawed" they'll point it out and you can discuss whether or not you agree. If the subject switches to YOU and your personal flaws, congratulate yourself for constructing the superior argument.


"ACA brings down costs!"

Actually, the CBO's previous "estimate" is now a "revised estimate" of "projected" costs. If you could put estimates in the bank, American families across the country would have an extra $2,500 in their accounts right now, just as Democrats "projected."

While some folks have gotten subsidized and "affordable" insurance, millions in the middle class have been left with cancelled policies, unaffordable replacements, and doctors they can no longer see. I'm guessing it will take more than a revised estimate from the CBO to restore middle class trust in all those Democrat electeds who got caught lying to them.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

ACA brings down costs!"

Actually, the CBO's previous "estimate" is now a "revised estimate" of "projected" costs. If you could put estimates in the bank, American families across the country would have an extra $2,500 in their accounts right now, just as Democrats "projected."

*

Good to see you Nik, always distilling past the diversions and slings and arrows to the truth.

But now I have to clean my screen after reading about "estimates" in the bank!


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

As was clearly pointed out above, the title should read "ACA [lower premiums] bring down [ACA's expected] costs.

But why pay any attention to corrections when the first title is an easier target--eh, Nik?

By the way, you do know that Republicans rely on the nonpartisan "estimates" of the CBO as much as anyone else in DC does. They don't collapse in giggles at the word "estimates" when it comes from the CBO. Anything about the future has to be an "estimate" -- but without trustworthy estimates, how could anyone, including the govt., plan for anything in the future?

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Amen Nik! Glad to see others understand shifting costs and projection from the government are hooie. Falling costs. What a bunch of baloney.

Kate, sorry you wouldn't choose to peruse the site I linked. Doesn't mean it isn't credible. There are many here who use links that aren't middle of the road. Doesn't give them any less credibility. I'm actually talking about the liberals!!!! Be sure to call them out on the carpet next time they do, since you've appointed yourself the link police. I don't call blogs credible. Forbes is conservative based, but it's not fringe nor is it flighty. Your comments are purely an opinion with which I disagree. I think we should use one sided links to gather as much information as possible. Just keep in mind "spin" is in every format.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 13:31

And then there's this

States embracing Obamacare are doing a better job of covering the uninsured, surveys show

And isn't that what the ACA is all about, providing health insurance and health care to all citizens? In a few more years, those stats should look even better.

Except if you live in Louisiana - you are out of luck if you get sick.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Glad to see my oldest grandson today who, at 26, can no longer be covered by his mother’s insurance and who is the kind of healthy young man the ACA needs to buy insurance to keep costs under control. He just got a policy on the exchange with pretty decent coverage and for which he will pay, after his subsidy because he is not making very much money, less than $40 a month.

For all the nattering about trashing Kate’s initial title, which she generously corrected to be more accurate, and for all the back-slapping of those who hate the ACA and anything else that will help Americans who need help, I am glad to see that one more American citizen is able to rely on decent health insurance. That is the bottom line.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

You got it, Pidge... and thanks to recent changes, I can now afford health care.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

As usual, rob, you misunderstood my comments. I was not questioning your source--as you mistakenly thought. And no--I did not read it. If you had presented some details from it in your post, then there would have been something for me to respond to--and if I had any questions about the details you presented, then I could go consult your linked source. But if you think I have nothing better to do than chase down links you post for no reason other than that you didn't have the energy to quote some of it or paraphrase some of or give some details from it --and then read long articles or whatever so I could guess what it was that interested you in that source--well, no. Sorry I don't have time for that.

Present some of the info. to us here--if we are interested, we can then pursue it in more detail from your linked source.

Is how it is usually done.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 14:48

Rob, "The costs didn't get less. Sickening." Here, Rob, the "good old days" 1980-2010, Census Bureau data.

Graphs of healthcare inflation since 2010 are misleading, because their sudden downward trend isn't due only to the ACA. Too many people uninsured or too broke to seek care in the Great Recession are also a big factor. Nevertheless, inflation is currently at its lowest rate in 50 years by one measure, 40 by another, about 1%.

In any case, here are national averages for what's making you feel so sick now. That first cluster is what's been happening to private insurance inflation costs from 2008-2012.

Just makes me sick, too. :)

Here is a link that might be useful: Council of Economic Advisors


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Even better, Jodi, is that my DIL, who has been paying very high premiums to cover my grandson since my son died two years ago, now has her own individual plan on the exchange. Costs have gone from over $500 a month for barely adequate care for two people to a total of $140 a month for much better policies for both. I cannot imagine anyone opposing such good fortune for people who need the security that good health insurance grants.

This post was edited by pidge on Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 15:57


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I cannot imagine anyone opposing such good fortune for people who need the security that good health insurance grants.

I agree; the security eliminates a great deal of stress and worry. Too bad that it's taken the U.S. so long, and we're still just in the baby steps of universal health care. I hope we get there sooner rather than later.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

As usual? Then maybe you should be clearer. Now you're saying I didn't use enough information from my link? That you didn't read. Whatever. I only posted it as a reference to where I pulled the number of increased premium states-to further my point of it wasn't an obscure number, or made up. That was it. Why should I quote from the article in order to make you satisfied? Nothing would satisfy you.

Higher premiums are higher premiums. They can neither be denied nor swept under some rug with misleading headlines.

Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and will only get worse (elderly are getting higher in numbers (the baby boomers are aging). That's a generally known fact (Do I have to find a link you won't bother to read, but will surely critcize?). They're living longer and many Americans, not just boomers, are increasingly obese (yet another fact touted over here when it's good for the liberal gooose. It's good for the conservative gander right now, so I'm sure that'll get knocked down as being incorrect), with other health problems (from being obese) down the line going on. The costs are not going to go down. ACA or not. Spin or no spin. Check out the red line on Rosie's top chart. I'm surprised it's not at a 180 degree upturn


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

The costs of health care and the costs of health care insurance are not the same thing. That red line measures cost of care, not of insurance. So I’m not sure what you are getting at, Rob.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Also, Rob needs to look at the dates--you can determine pre-ACA and post-ACA. In the second chart, the insurance spending is going down post-ACA--which is what my OP was referring to.

Nobody associated with ACA ever claimed that is was a cure for obesity so I don't know why you are bringing that up. ACA is a health insurance program--you spend money on health insurance premiums--and what you pay for the healthcare premiums is what it costs you. I don't know any other way to explain it.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 16:43

We're talking apples and oranges, Rob. You were told your healthcare costs would actually drop, or at least stop rising. That was never even remotely possible, and the Obama administration never claimed it would be.

That claim was created and attributed to Obama by ACA enemies. They wanted to you to believe that Obama made and then failed to deliver on a lie.

The goal all along was to dramatically slow healthcare INFLATION so you wouldn't have to pay so much more every year. And that is already happening. Whatever rise you would have had, your bills for the past 3 years have been less than they would have been.

And do check out that red line. On other graphs it starts sagging after 2010. This is good. Not a miracle, but good, and very promising because this is only the start.

Here, look at this one. As you can see, severe inflation is a planetwide problem. Certainly, nobody's costs are decreasing, but someday our costs will be more like those of other advanced nations and the quality of our care and length of our lifespans will have improved to match them too.

Oh, BTW, all that increased aging population? Us? We created greatly accelerated rates of wealth production over our lifetimes. We can afford to take good care of ourselves AND spend billions on plastic jack-o-lanterns. That we cannot and should not expect to have good healthcare for life is yet another lie.

Here is a link that might be useful: Source


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

My personal opinion is that it is far too early to tell if ACA is a success.

Based on my client's experiences, the results are very mixed. For every client who won the "subsidy lottery", another is facing a tough financial decision on what to cut to pay for the required health insurance. And then there are those who have chosen to pay the penalty.

I have one who went to the exchange and bought insurance using a subsidy, then got a job which provided health care benefits through the employer and is having a true nightmare getting the exchange policy cancelled. If it doesn't get straightened out, they will have to pay a good portion of the subsidy back with their 2014 return.

I have a couple of clients who are divorced parents. The children live with my clients. The children are on the ex's health insurance policy as part of the divorce decree. The ex and my clients aren't on speaking terms. The ex has to give the client the children's proof of insurance so my clients don't have to pay the penalty. Ex is saying they won't give the proof of insurance. Client is either going to pay the penalty (extra expense), put the children on her insurance policy (extra expense) or fight the ex in court (extra expense). I have several in this situation.

I suspect there will be more problem areas that develop as ACA unfolds.

It is far too early to declare ACA a success or failure or something in between.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 17:04

Accidentally reposted, how I don't know.

Your observations are very interesting, Jlhug. I hope your clients worried about paying for duplicate insurance sent a notarized letter to the insurance company, proof of receipt requested, telling them the insurance is cancelled as of such-and-such a date. Same as any other canceled contract. And refuse to make any payments at all on it.

This is free market insurance that just happens to have another computer system involved. They won't end up paying for a product, or discount, they didn't receive after officially cancelling, even if the computers aren't cooperating right now. No nightmare. I'm also sure plenty of people share this particular problem, so whatever glitch is complicating things will get fixed.

Now me, my income varies. If I end up making more than I estimated for 2014, which I hope I do, I will have to reimburse the part of the subsidy I turn out not to be entitled to.

Divorcing people behaving despicably, didn't they used to be more empowered though? I remember hearing about a number of acquaintances of acquaintances over the years who quit their jobs to get rid of their incomes and insurance to spite their wives, or who canceled but deliberately and spitefully never told separated spouses, and so on. At least now someone with suddenly a fraction of his or her old income can apply for an affordable personal policy. I don't think the cutoff date applies to people who have a change of circumstances after that date, although they have to apply for consideration.

This post was edited by rosie on Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 17:52


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

jhug, it may be the case that ACA results will be mixed, but that fact that your clients are getting divorced and screwing each other over has nothing to do with that.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

pidge, I have a question regarding your previous posts. If all the young people are receiving subsidies, who is paying the cost for older, sicker, and those with pre-existing conditions?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rosie, registered letters were sent over a month ago. No response from insurance company has been received. It can't be cancelled via the website. Phone calls to the exchange, navigators, insurance company lead to hours on hold leading to a "we have to send this to someone else" response. This has being going on for two months. Taxpayers have been spending about 10 hours a week. Next step I think is to call their Congressmen.

Pidge, you are right, ACA didn't create the jerk of an ex however it did give him another "tool" to use against the mother of his children.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I'm in one of the states that rob333's linked chart indicates is having premium increases of 20% to 50%.

My premium under the ACA plan I selected is 23.477% *less* than I was paying previously, and the ACA plan provides *more* benefits, such as prescription coverage. There's no copay for the two generic meds I take daily.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Pidge will answer your questions to her posts better than I will, but there are young people - and gainfully employed young people - who don't need the subsidies when it dawns on them that youth doesn't equate to invincibility and health insurance isn't an altogether bad thing to buy. And there are still employers who offer health insurance in their benefits packages.

The older folks get Medicare (Part A which covers hospitalization) at reaching age 65, pre-existing conditions or not. It's free if one has paid into the system for the requisite number of quarters. If you don't meet the Part A requirement at 65, you can still get Medicare and pay a premium. If one wants additional Medicare coverage, one signs up for Part B (the medical insurance part) and pays the premium for it. Same for Parts D (prescriptions) and so on.

Many people are already in the health care system by one way or another at all ages and stages of life and are not dependent on the ACA/Obamacare and any subsidies.

But for those who don't have employer sponsored HC, don't qualify for Medicaid and are too young for Medicare, the option of state exchanges or direct purchase through agents is there. Not all applicants are subsidized.

I think it's important that all have access to health care and if it takes a subsidy for someone to get in on it - more power to them. My tax dollars being used to get people covered are tax dollars well spent.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

If all the young people are receiving subsidies

Why are you assuming that all young people enrolling are qualified to receive subsidies? Young marrieds, and relatively young marrieds are also purchasing insurance so that the families have some degree of security. We're already subsidizing those without insurance when illness forces them use the most expensive options -- emergency rooms and services.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I have a couple of clients who are divorced parents. The children live with my clients. The children are on the ex's health insurance policy as part of the divorce decree. The ex and my clients aren't on speaking terms. The ex has to give the client the children's proof of insurance so my clients don't have to pay the penalty. Ex is saying they won't give the proof of insurance. Client is either going to pay the penalty (extra expense), put the children on her insurance policy (extra expense) or fight the ex in court (extra expense). I have several in this situation.

As was already stated the ACA did not turn the ex into an a-hole.

I have plenty of experience with an a-hole ex. My experience is that judges do not take kindly to these types of jerks wasting their time. The judge will also often make the jerk pay the costs for wasting everyone's time. And these jerks usually do not like that and think twice the next time they have the urge to be a jerk.

My favorite words ever spoken by a judge: "someone has to pay for us being here today and it's not going to be her" while pointing to me. He had to pay 100% of my costs including hours and hours of my extremely expensive lawyer. And that was the last time we were ever in court.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

baron, duluth and nancy answered your question entirely adequately. I have nothing to add to their remarks.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

It wasn't meant to be a hostile question pidge, it just seems that every time I've read a post here or elsewhere about young people that people know personally, they tell of how little they are paying for insurance and how much their subsidies are. I'm not assuming that all young people are receiving subsidies, it just seems to be all young people that anyone knows personally are.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 21:03

It's not the cost of covering young people that's the problem, of course, but covering older people. Insurance companies and the government want as many young people signing up as possible because, subsidies or not, on average they are expected to pay in more than they receive until they themselves finally become older and it starts reversing.

Jlhug, I really don't understand the nightmare part of what sounds like a run-of-the-mill aggravation. Your clients bought insurance and then canceled the policy. They didn't sign up for the army and then go AWOL.

If they're like most of us, they pay month to month -- in advance. The contract doesn't go into effect and coverage doesn't start until the first payment is received. The next payment is due around the beginning of the next month. If they don't pay that, no matter how remiss and disorganized the insurance company is at this point, they will eventually be informed that their coverage was cancelled retroactively back at very least to their most recent due/cancellation date. The registered letter will document the effective date of their requested cancellation in case any premium refund for the prior month is in order.

This post was edited by rosie on Wed, Apr 16, 14 at 21:19


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Baron, my DD is young, working and not receiving a subsidy. Her insurance premiums went up about 25% and her coverage didn't change.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I don't taunt and speculate about other posters' lives, motives, and situations and make comments like you just did.

If posters can't control themselves enough to follow the rules around here when they read something they don't agree with it's not MY PROBLEM.

The only reason a thread becomes about me is because some forum posters indulge their emotions and outright lie about what I say or believe, make nasty personal taunts and speculations, accusations, and get off topic by doing so.

You just made your contribution to what you complained about--YOUR fault.

Any preschool child can see that.

Ha ha! Nope, no taunting there, huh?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Demi: "I don't taunt and speculate about other posters' lives, motives, and situations and make comments like you just did.
If posters can't control themselves enough to follow the rules around here when they read something they don't agree with it's not MY PROBLEM.

The only reason a thread becomes about me is because some forum posters indulge their emotions and outright lie about what I say or believe, make nasty personal taunts and speculations, accusations, and get off topic by doing so."

Absolutely true, and I'm getting really weary of it. A little snark is one thing, but this is becoming an endless tirade of condescending attitude toward posters viewed as lesser human beings, excepting for a few "pets" probably kept around to bolster that superior attitude. They probably suspect who they are. Pity.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"excepting for a few "pets" probably kept around to bolster that superior attitude. They probably suspect who they are. Pity."

Oh, c'mon Elvis. Out the "pets." If you think they know who they are, why not?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Not you, Frank. You are cranky, but you've got integrity.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"As was clearly pointed out above, the title should read "ACA [lower premiums] bring down [ACA's expected] costs."

Kate,

You made the claim. That was your call, and you alone are responsible for what you posted.

I did not read your later remarks. It's not up to me to keep up with your revisions. It's up to you to express your opinions clearly and carefully so revisions aren't necessary.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rosie, I don't know how to say it any other way. OBAMA LIED! You can deny it all you like but you are only making yourself look foolish.

What amazes me is that no one seems to understand that the insurance policies of recent years don't resemble in any way the policies of even ten years ago. They can't. The practice of medicine has changed to the point where the doctor of my youth, who came to our house and charged $10 to diagnose my tonsillitis simply does not exist any more. Any visit to the doctor today involves equipment and techniques that didn't even exist 10 years ago let alone when Healthcare policies began to be sold. Of course the prices went up!

MRIs, Computer Assisted Tomography, Computers that can scan my eye and show the entire internal structure and any flaws. Computers that hook up to my hand and show the nerve impulses that indicate the need for Carpal Tunnel surgery, machines that keep a heart beating, personal nebulizers, machines that keep preemies alive for months until they can leave the hospital that would never have survived before. A titanium clamp and 4 huge bolts on my spine and chips of living bone that grew to allow me to function again and the surgery that cost my Insurance company $100,000.

And that doesn't begin the procedures and medications that were non existent, unheard of, when I was young. Do you really expect the cost to go down? You are dreaming or too stupid to live. The cost is going to go up even if the law vanishes like it has never been. I'm not even going to bother arguing about the flaws in the program. It will take a year or so to show the costs more realistically but you can be sure it won't be going down even after they start the inevitable restrictions.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Because obesity causes health problems which, in turn, increase utilization of services. Utlization is what drives healthcare costs (premiums offset the payout). Seems clear to me. To say such a large healthcare issue isn't part of the problem, is having one's head in the sand. Same with an aging population. Both are driving healthcare. Nobody is curing obesity here, nor would I think the government could solve any problems (ever! they cannot stop individuals from their own destructive behaviors. Not by legislating taxes or outlawing behaviors. EVER). It's an inane suggestion.

So here's the big question. Ask yourself, I'm not asking for an answer. If ACA wasn't meant to drive down the costs anywhere, which I think this is the problem, not a symptom!!!!, that means the prices of everything are still going to go up astronomically--who is going to pay for it if it isn't going to cost the government (the whole point of the original post)? We're back to what I have been saying here, the costs are shifting, NOT gone. I've asked this question for years and no one seems to see the correlation. It's like one of those undergarments meant to slim. The fat didn't go away, it just got pushed around.

Again, ask yourself, so what are ways to cut costs? No good or easy answers there, huh? Because that is what it is going to take before premiums stop keeping pace with outflow from reimbursing people for procedures. How is that going to be quelled? It will have to. It cannot continue down this destructive path. Some really big changes will have to be made. To developers of prescriptions. To healthcare providers. To consumers. To corporations, big and small. More money into the pot, less coming out. That's it. When the realization hits you, remember, I said it first.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

The question of how to control rising medical costs will continue to be with us and something we must continue to grapple with.

All President Obama "promised" is that ACA would slow down the rise in medical costs. He never presented it as the final solution to rising health care costs. In fact, he explicitly said it is just a first step in dealing with the problem and future steps will need to be taken also.

Everyone knew that rising health care costs were coming before ACA came into existence. ACA did not CAUSE rising health care costs.

Rising health care costs is a worthwhile topic to discuss on this forum, but is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the projected healthcare insurance premiums being considerably less than was originally projected by CBO, so the govt. will not have to spend as much on subsidies (like way over a billion less) than it had earlier projected.

I would think everyone would be happy that our govt. will be spending way over a billion less than it originally thought it would have to. At the very least, this good news indicates that there is no economic disaster looming ahead of us due to ACA--as some were glumly predicting.

Kate

p.s. Nik, it is not my problem if you refuse to read the previous posts and therefore do not know what is going on.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Kate, I agree with every word you said, and appreciate that you and the others are willing to stick it through long enough to keep saying it.

Give it time, eventually even maybe Nik herself will accept that ACA is far better than what we had before and far better than conservatives ever brought to the table, and maybe even something that she approves of. Or at least will acknowledge that most everyone else approves of, anyway.

It brings us ever closer to single payer: that which would be best for the country.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

To the question,

"pidge, I have a question regarding your previous posts. If all the young people are receiving subsidies, who is paying the cost for older, sicker, and those with pre-existing conditions?"

we get this answer,

"My tax dollars being used to get people covered are tax dollars well spent."

If you're getting a subsidy to help you with your healthcare, then, please be considerate and kind and thoughtful like you were raised to be.

Thank a rich person, today.

I don't know who that would be on this forum. (It's not me. I pay so little in taxes I'm almost embarrassed by it. Thank you, rich people!)

Maybe Demi? She seems to pay a lot of taxes. Maybe Nik? I think she pays taxes.

Jodi, you want to say something to Nik and Demi?

And Pidge, maybe you could ask your kid to write a little thank-you note and post it here for us.

Just good manners: thanking someone for helping you out.

Hay


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I suspect most of us on this forum pay taxes and do not qualify for the ACA subsidies that we help pay for.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"I suspect most of us on this forum pay taxes and do not qualify for the ACA subsidies that we help pay for."

OK, you won't need to write a little thank-you note.

Hay


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 17, 14 at 12:05

Since the subsidies stop at somewhere around $70K annual income for families, most adults are paying taxes (lots of them) AND qualifying for some kind of subsidy. A spreading of healthcare expenses around a humongous pool of people to bring them down somewhat for most. As a subsidizer and subsidizee, I'll just content myself with a brief pat on the back and'll give DH one too when he comes home.

________

Sleepless, strangely, everything you said to refute my post, except the first sentence, supports what I've said on this and other threads. Maybe if you pretend I'm a conservative and reread them you'll see what I meant.

It's nice that you agree that more and better healthcare every day means our current monthly premiums can't actually drop and will continue to rise. Some are having trouble understanding and are quoting right-wing lies that Obama promised them lower premiums. I can certainly sympathize with the disappointment of those who actually believed the lies, and only wish they'd turn their anger on those who did lie to them.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"stick it through long enough?". Standing behind a poorly worded title and point? Go for it. It garners no respect from me. The ACA didn't bring down any costs. The government inflated and then backed down. Woopedeedo

I still say we're not a single payer, we haven't capped the rising costs, and the government shifting paying the burden hasn't accomplished a dang thing. Solve those issues, and maybe, ACA will have been a good start. It did end the pre-ex bullsh-t that no one seemed to have noticed HIPAA didn't cover. One great point. I hated HIPAA because all it did was make it guaranteed issue... for employer groups... and insurance companies could charge enough to cover the rising costs. Indivdiuals were still without coverage.

Take it from someone on the inside, ACA lacks. Lacks hugely! Make that penalty enough for anyone dodging ongoing payments to want to put in an ongoing basis, we'll talk Saying the same thing again and again won't make me agree with anyone. ACA sucks for so many reasons. When everyone is covered AFFORDABLY, we'll talk.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rob-you have to know that ACA as it was passed was not the original plan put forward by the Obama administration. It is the stomped on, eviscerated, torn up, shredded almost dead thing that could be passed in the face of almost complete opposition to change from a determined Republican party. Of course it doesn't address many of the issues we have with health insurance in this country. It needs to be fixed. No one is going to argue with that. You aren't going to get affordability unless you can convince the Republican party to be a part of the process of fixing the mess they created. We need single payer. The reason we need it is it reduces overhead and processing costs. The reason we don't have it is that overhead and processing costs are a HUGE business generating billions and Billions of dollars. Insurance companies don't want to give up this lucrative padding. It helps to pay those 10-15 million dollar CEO salaries.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by patriciae Z7PNW (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 17, 14 at 13:49

Rob-you have to know that ACA as it was passed was not the original plan put forward by the Obama administration. It is the stomped on, eviscerated, torn up, shredded almost dead thing that could be passed in the face of almost complete opposition to change from a determined Republican party. Of course it doesn't address many of the issues we have with health insurance in this country. It needs to be fixed. No one is going to argue with that. You aren't going to get affordability unless you can convince the Republican party to be a part of the process of fixing the mess they created. We need single payer. The reason we need it is it reduces overhead and processing costs. The reason we don't have it is that overhead and processing costs are a HUGE business generating billions and Billions of dollars. Insurance companies don't want to give up this lucrative padding. It helps to pay those 10-15 million dollar CEO salaries.

*

Uh, no.

Democrats are responsible for the ACA Obamacare 100%.

Democrats alone passed it, they own it.

Can't blame Republicans--this is Obama, Reid's and Pelosi's Baby, and other Democrats.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Uh, no.

The republicans were repeatedly asked to come to the table with ideas to contribute to the health care reform which was going to be designed and put through.. They refused, to the cheers of their voter supporters.
After many attempts to pass better reform, only was this what the GOP would go along with. And this is what the GOP reaps, rather than a much more progressive system they kept fighting.
No matter how forgetful conservatives insist on being, it was what it was and it now is what it is and history will record the whole thing exactly as it went down. Warts and all. On both parties.

But not to worry. Your children and their children will someday enjoy single payer, and a lot of them will remember with great astonishment, the fierce fight against it.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by mylab123 z5NW (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 17, 14 at 14:27

Uh, no.

The republicans were repeatedly asked to come to the table with ideas to contribute to the health care reform which was going to be designed and put through.. They refused, to the cheers of their voter supporters.
After many attempts to pass better reform, only was this what the GOP would go along with. And

*

Uh, No.

The GOP DID NOT "go along with it" because THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT!

NOTHING stopped the Democrats from doing whatever they wanted--and THIS is what they wanted.

The rest of us have to live with it.

For now.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

It could have been way better had the GOP cooperated....their choice not to because they wanted the President to fail...to hell with what was good for the citizens.

Lets see what the GOP does should they win the Senate. I suspect they will have an epiphany and find all sorts of ways to make it better...but they will never, ever repeal it.

At that point they will own it.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Un, no.

Something actually did stop the democrats from getting what they really wanted: single payer.
Obama himself did when he coddled and cajoled the GOP into trying to enter the process of designing the reform. Betcha he wouldnt do THAT again and you would then have a far better ACA to complain about.

So, you are absolutely right. The GOP of course didnt vote for it. Obama is partly responsible for what the starting point we have.

And, the GOP and ACA detractors in this forum who said they were perfectly happy with what they had and saw no need for change thankyouverymuch ( sound familiar?) and if everybody wanted good insurance then they could just pay for it themselves instead of sucking off the tax dollar instead ( sound familiar?)

But still, Uh no.

The 'rest of everybody' has to live with it because they supported, enthusiastically, the refusal of their chosen reps to take a part in the process which WOULD produce a final product "everyone else' would have to live" with because the majority ( not including everyone else) voted - twice- supporting not only Obama but the ACA, the very platform he ran on, twice.

All conservatives could have played a part in contributing to the process of the design though, through their reps. They would have had to insist that the reps actually participate of course, easily accomplished.
But they could have.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

So, you are absolutely right. The GOP of course didnt vote for it.

*

Other than lack of guts, what stopped the Democrats from passing single payer since they passed Obamacare ALL ON THEIR OWN?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"The no-trespass sign to the GOP during the writing of the Affordable Care Act deprived it of the benefits of critical scrutiny and helpful ideas from the business community that is a primary GOP constituent.

That kind of input might have prevented many of the calamities caused by ObamaCare: the uncertainty prompting employers to put off hiring; the high costs provoking big businesses like Delta and Walgreens to shed coverage, and others to shift parts of their workforce from full to part time; the threat to union-negotiated medical insurance, and the unpopularity of the law."

Here is a link that might be useful: Chicago Sun-Times


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"Other than lack of guts, what stopped the Democrats from passing single payer since they passed Obamacare ALL ON THEIR OWN?"


There were many Dems that were not, and are still not , in favour of single payer.....they didn't have the votes to pass single payer. If they had had the votes they would have passed it.

Why didn't they have the votes of some Dems is an interesting question...but as you say you get more of what you subsidize and the health care industry subsidizes politicians big time..and for big bucks.

Way bigger bucks than a " working poor" family on foodstamps and claiming the earned income credit ..


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Up until the final vote was over, Obama hoped and wished for at least a handful of Republicans to join them in passing the bill. As such, during the negotiations earlier, the Democrats threw out this--because Republicans objected--then modified that--because Republicans objected--and cut back on something else--because Republicans objected. Obama and the Dems were bending over backwards trying to get even a few votes of support from the Repubs--and several Repubs indicated during the negotiations that they might support it if Obama/Dems would do the cookie-cutter the Repubs wanted. But what would happen after the Dems agreed to the changes? The Repubs asking for changes (which they got) would turn around and vote NO. In fact, they pulled that stunt several times. And each time they'd go back to the negotiation tables, ACA would look less and less like what the Dems/Obama had wanted earlier--and Obama kept hoping Repubs would negotiate in good faith--but again, they would not at the last moment. That last bill, which was not exactly what Dems/Obama really wanted but they hoped might be palatable to at least a couple Repubs, went to the final vote with Obama still hoping for Repub support--but all it got was Dem. votes.

That is a short version of how the convoluted "negotiations" pulled the original concept for ACA rather out of shape and finally failed to get any Repub support, but did get Demo support.

If Obama had not tried so hard to please the Republicans, we probably would have had a better ACA bill, to tell the truth.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Chase, back then - and this is all conjecture on my part - once again the Democrat reps didnt know what to do with the sudden enormous power when it fell into their laps.

It seems to me that they were, like the GOP reps, waiting to find out which way the wind was blowing, and they caught on waaay too late, although through the support of the tea creatures, the GOP had a a far better understanding of what devoted conservatives wanted of them and acted accordingly.

It sounds terrible, but I think democrat reps, too, could hardly believe that a black democrat male had been voted as President by the majority of Americans. Not that it came from a place of racial divide, but from a place of racial disbelief - the same place that non racist conservative voters found themselves at that famous Tuesday night which will live on in American history forever as a huge point in history.
And I believe they started waiting for the shoe to drop, by fellow democratic voters.

I have never been a fan of having the president and the majority in congress be of the same party - I think it to be very bad business for the great percentage of the Americans who dont end up well represented by such a power.
In this one case, I think my fear was unfounded. The President as far too acquiescent in desiring the conservative reps to be well represented in the reform. But not for the silent support the tea creatures were gifted by the average conservative voters and the loud supporters by the rest, I believe that the President's goal of fair representation and participation would have taken place.
The tea creatures gave more conservative conservatives hope that this president would have a failed presidency and I believe, made it easy for many conservative reps to behave, speak AND vote in a way they never would have if the tea creatures had been soundly defeated.

That this president has been a reasonably productive president in the face of the flat frightening and appalling conditions this country was in when he began the repair is indicative to me of how effective he could have been elevating the lives of ALL Americans in some meaningful e,way, especially through an even better ACA , but not for the support given to the tea creatures.
For those conservatives who think me willfully blind, you are thinking that of a person who thinks you appallingly willfully blind over the conditions YOUR guy left this country and laughably ignorant over the amount f time it would have taken a fellow conservative to win back the confidence of his people and clean up the mess. So willfully blind that I consider it frightening that conservatives still, despite the results of their own recent voting history, would have been dancing in the streets with wild joy had, last Wednesday after the last presidential election, we would Have had a president Romney and for the love of all that is logical, a vice President Ryan.
Instead of the President McCain Vice president Palin, the team you guys really wanted in the first place. To clean up that mess your last team left - all those wars and stuff.

Is there ever any reflection about all of that? Ever? Not even a moment when you are pausing in the dispair about the new '-------" is current outrage regarding Obama?
I cant see how, which is why, though I do think a decent GOP President becomes needed for healthy balance - not now. Please. Not now.
It is this train of non thought which drove me away from the GOP supporter I once was, and what I suspect drove away a good many people who used to generally support the GOP. And, I hope, drive away ever more - creating the need for fast reform within the GOP, something everyone will gain benefit from.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I think it may be incorrect to state that Obama wanted any input from Republicans on Obamacare. And actually, I don't understand why Democrats would like to claim he did. If Obamacare is successful as Democrats claim, why wouldn't they tout the fact that it was passed without any input from Republicans.

Democrats ignored the plans offered by Republicans at the time ��" including the House GOP plan drafted by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA).

Here is a link that might be useful: Oregon Catalyst


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 17, 14 at 18:48

Obama was idealistic, inclusive... and naive. He believed it was his job to narrow the hostile gap between parties (right -- if he could do it) and that he could do it. As we know, the GOP leadership met the day of his swearing in and secretly dedicated themselves to opposing him on all fronts, including repairing the economy.
_______

"Uh, no. Democrats are responsible for the ACA Obamacare 100%. Democrats alone passed it, they own it. Can't blame Republicans--this is Obama, Reid's and Pelosi's Baby, and other Democrats."

100% WRONG. The Democratic Congress invited their GOP colleagues to work with them to create a bipartisan bill they could all vote for. The GOP added over 200 amendments to the ACA, pretending to work together, even as they planned to double-cross their colleagues when it came up for a vote.

My Health Savings Account, which was designed to work at least as well as a tax dodge for my physicians than it does as an HSA, was one of the GOP amendments. Obama wanted a different form but compromised with the Dishonorable Ones as part of creating a bipartisan bill.
_______________

But that's the past. GOOD NEWS! Exchange enrollments have now hit 8 MILLION -- a million more than projected. Even better, approximately 35% of signups are under 35, including children -- the young people insurance companies need to make a profit at the rates they are selling their policies for. Approximately 28% are young adults between 18 and 34. Wow, and phew! :) These additional signups are people who started signing up before the deadline but didn't finish for one reason or another.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

rosie, where exactly are they getting these numbers when they haven't been available for months? They didn't know how many young people had signed up, they still don't seem to know how many have paid.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Baron, you state that democrats ignored several plans put forth by the GOP.
I ask you, why in the world would democrats ever accept a plan from the GOP?

The GOP had ample opportunity to create a health reform bill when they had the reins. Senator Kennedy spent his career trying to get the GOP to pass something.

Democrats wanted to work * together* with the GOP and invited them to the table.
Obama remembered that working together is the job of our congress. We have forgotten that. It is their job to come together and work together to create progress in this nation. If the GOP were only willing to approve their own plan when the majority of voters clearly wanted the elected Democrat President to create the plan, well then...this is what they get as a result. The country was no longer interested in a plan devised solely by the GOP.
THE GOP lost the election and Obama won on the strength of promising health care reform. The majority wanted what they voted for.

Maybe next time conservatives will insist upon their elected representatives be more willing to do their job and work together with democrats for the common good.
But, you know - If this place is an accurate representation, I kind of doubt it. Endless complaining, sour grapes and revisionist history seem to be the focus.
However, the incorrect memory of what and what did not happen will.be written and studied for a century plus, as a fascinating time in the U.S. history - even if there no longer exists a place in the world called the U.S.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Mylab: "I ask you, why in the world would democrats ever accept a plan from the GOP?"

Well, there you go. You can't have it both ways.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Another mis-reading in progress!

Go back the read the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in Mylab's last post. Then maybe you will understand her point.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"Go back the read the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in Mylab's last post."

I went back the read the 3rd & 4th. My statement stands, thank you.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

And that is the reason the GOP is such a mess, Elvis. They see things the same way and play games they think they win.

It's a shadow of the party it once was. I pray it doesnt don't do well, but who knows.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Well, the GOP isn't getting any help from me, Mylab. Neither are the dems, for that matter.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"It could have been way better had the GOP cooperated.

No. it would still be a carp sandwich.

Democrats expect you to eat it.
While they have something else.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

LOL.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

good one nik!

And you're supposed to sing its praises too. "Wow, the carp is particularly lovely today. Fresh!" or you are just not smart enough to understand anything about what it is you're eating.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

To get back to the topic of the OP, why exactly do you think the following news from the Washington Post article "Lower premiums (yes, really) drive down Obamacare’s expected costs, CBO says" is NOT good news?


The health-care law's expansion of insurance coverage will cost $104 billion less than projected over the next decade, according to revised estimates from nonpartisan budget analysts Monday.
. . . . . . . . .
The CBO now expects the federal government to spend about $164 billion less in the next decade on subsidies in Obamacare health insurance marketplaces.



If I found out the new house I was buying was only going to cost half as much as I was originally told, I'd be quite happy--since I think spending less money is a good thing.

So why are you so down on the govt spending over a billion less than was originally anticipated?

Kate

Here is a link that might be useful: Lower premiums (yes, really) drive down Obamacare’s expected costs, CBO says


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 10:20

Forty years from now, the same people will be whining about the ACA, resurrecting the same silly arguments. It's like Social Security and Medicare. The GOP has never forgiven Roosevelt or Johnson for those, and they never will.

It's up to 8 million enrolled now. That's wonderful.

OBAMACARE’S CRITICS have had a bad week. On Thursday, President Obama announced that 8 million people have enrolled in new health insurance plans through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, and a significant portion of them are young Americans.

.. the Obama administration wasn’t the only one with a new analysis of the law this week. In its latest estimates on the effects of the ACA, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the percentage of Americans with insurance is set to go up. The analysts projected that 84 percent of the non-elderly population will have insurance this year, instead of 80 percent before the ACA. In 2016, the share will rise to 89 percent.

The CBO found that premiums in the new marketplaces for individual insurance buyers are not as high as many experts - including the CBO itself - expected, and that they will remain below projections. This indicates that a basic trade-off embedded in the law may well be cheaper than anticipated.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 10:58

Baron, it's new news. Google exchanges 8 million, or some variation and choose a site according to your orientation, i.e., left bias, right bias, entertainment addict or information seeker. :)

Thanks for the info, MomJ. And in addition to the 8 million enrolled through the exchanges, more than double that insurance through the ACA when you include young adults on their parents' extended policies and those able to get on Medicaid courtesy of its expansion in half the states. Next goal I'll be waiting for: 20 million.

Those prone to selective memory, here's a brief moment of insight into your lack of insight: The Democrat-sponsored ACA was modeled closely on the conservative Heritage Foundation's proposed healthcare reform plan. It IS a quite conservative version of reform, with conservative fingerprints all over it.

How silly to deny what one would think you would be proud of. Without conservative resistance to more profound change, most Americans would be signing up for a socialist single-payer plan now, with private insurance prices dropping to remain in the market with newly tailored niche policies. You saved America from that.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 11:24

Here's the link to the original proposal from 1989.

The Heritage Lectures, by Stuart Butler, from the Heritage Foundation.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

And thank you, mom, for reminding us that ACA originated in a conservative Heritage proposal. I myself have pointed that out on occasion, but somehow it had slipped my mind on this thread. Thankfully, your memory is better than mine.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

why exactly do you think the following news from the Washington Post article "Lower premiums (yes, really) drive down Obamacare’s expected costs, CBO says" is NOT good news?

Oh, that's an easy one! Because it makes Obama look good, and they cannot have that. Even if it means good news for the average American. They'd rather Americans suffer than have Obama get any credit for anything. That is the most amazing part of all of this to me. They've been hoping and hoping that this would fail and that Americans would suffer so they could say 'see I told you so'. Now that it's working, and people are signing up, and it's costing people less than originally thought, there's nothing for them to do except ignore that and complain about the title of the post.

Instead of having any kind of reasonable discussion, we get:

Kate, You made the claim. That was your call, and you alone are responsible for what you posted.

I did not read your later remarks. It's not up to me to keep up with your revisions. It's up to you to express your opinions clearly and carefully so revisions aren't necessary.

and

Standing behind a poorly worded title and point?

Kate already apologized for her "poorly worded title".

If some of you are incapable of reading that, it's not Kate's fault. You never used words you later decided weren't exactly what you meant? You are so perfect that never happens to you? I'm sure you all know by now that titles cannot be corrected later.

IMO, her point was not poorly worded in the least. It was perfectly worded. It's costing less than they originally thought. How in the world do you people not think that's a good thing? Nobody ever said the ACA was the end and will fix every health care problem in this country (obesity, really?). And trying to make it sound like Obama promised it would makes anyone making that claim look ignorant.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"No. it would still be a carp sandwich."

That sounds tasty to me. I eat a carp sandwich at most fish fries around here.

 photo carpsandwich_zps21d9eddb.jpeg

Hold the onion please.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Earlier CBO numbers were predicated on a model similar to what employers offer. But that's not Obamacare. That's why the president and his Democrat cronies kept repeating that lie about being able to keep plans and doctors. They were trying to convey (falsely) the notion they weren't deeply involved in making those policies illegal to sell. They almost got away with it.

But the truth finally came out. Obamacare restricts networks and doctors and drugs and choices. The middle class has to pay its own way. It can't afford it.

Obamacare compels middle class "customers" to choose a padded policy or face increasingly harsh punishments Democrats prescribed for them...and which the president signed without hesitation.

Did anyone really expect the millions of middle class Americans struggling with major, ACA inflicted disruptions in their personal lives to rejoice over more foggy "estimates" and "projected" savings that, if they materialize at all, won't last a week with this administration?

I don't think Americans are worried about what government might get back (for itself) some time in the future, I think they're in mourning over what Democrats and Obamacare tiook away from them.. I think they want their insurance, their doctors, their drugs, their jobs, their financial stability and the sense of security Obamacare took from them, back.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Obamacare compels middle class "customers" to choose a padded policy or face increasingly harsh punishments Democrats prescribed for them...and which the president signed without hesitation.

"harsh punishment?" LOL.
Stop repeating all of the right wing lies and spinning the truth.
Worthless policies needed to be chucked.
Unwarranted policy rescission needed to be stopped.
Sick people needed to be covered.
And we needed to start figuring a way to get millions of uninsured covered.

OBAMAcare is here to stay unless you Repub;icans have a better idea than repeal....and they don't.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Nik--you keep trying to change the subject. You don't want to talk about billions of projected savings? Well, a lot of us do, and I was under the impression that conservatives were into cutting govt costs..

But then I guess the rest of us didn't have all those terrible problems you listed, nor did we expect ACA to perform the miracles you and your buddies claim you expected. You deliberately mis-read/mis-heard what was going on and going to happen, and then you all went into a hissy fit that what you imagined/made up didn't happen.

We've gone over this so many times, but once again, where is your "evidence" that millions of middle class citizens got screwed by ACA and Obama/Democrats intended them to get screwed--all just to outrage you. (Boy, is Obama out to get you, Nik!).

Any so-called "evidence" brought to this forum either was based on nothing but rumor, gossip, and propaganda, or so-called first-hand accounts were shown to be based on misunderstandings, and stories from Fox, within a day or two, were exposed as lies and deliberate attempts to mislead the public.

Very little actually there for you to get outraged about, it turns out. But that won't stop you, will it.

8 million signed up for ACA as of today. Sounds like quite a few of your fellow citizens don't share your angst, Nik.

Kate

This post was edited by dublinbay on Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 18:13


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 18:27

My coinsurance is 90%, deductible $1000 on the policy I chose through the federal exchange. They were 70% and $2500 on the policy my employer chose for me. Oh, the pain. Oh, the unlimited lifetime coverage. Oh, the guaranteed coverage for all previous conditions.

Nikoleta, if you felt like trying, could you understand at all why I think searching out and repeating all these twisted analyses is beyond silly? "Beyond" meaning I can't follow the motive or goal.

Most people understand their own interests perfectly well. You guys can post negative propaganda all day long, but the most you'll accomplish is delaying the point at which the last of the easy victims realize there never were any death panels and their friends all have better insurance than they do.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I'm betting that many of those benefiting from the ACA are Republicans........

They will vote GOP in November but they will not tolerate repeal of the ACA, going to be so much fun watching the back pedaling.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Before ACA:
- Monthly hospitalization-only insurance policy = $693.70
- Monthly prescriptions = $18
- Eye doctor appt = $285
Total: $996.70

After ACA:
- Monthly insurance full-coverage = $530.86
- Monthly prescriptions = $0
- Eye doctor appt = $60
Total: $590.86

Savings for me: $405.84


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

You don't say anything about your deductibles, dadoes. If the insurance coverage has kicked in already, you must have paid that off for the year.

Strange, my computer must not like your name. When I started off the first sentence with that name I got kicked out of the thread...four times. There was no problem when the name came at the end. I don't think that has ever happened before.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rosie, what I stated in my post of 5/17 at 7:43 does not agree with you at all. The whole thing is dead on true. OBAMA LIED. He lied over and over even though common sense tells you that Medical Insurance cost cannot go down. He kept telling the lie because It garnered votes from people too stupid or too lazy to realize the truth. Then he lied that he just misspoke over and over and over again. He never mentioned that advances in medical technology inevitably makes costs go up.

The pity is that so many of his supporters keep on supporting the lies. Don't you even recognise you are being used?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sat, Apr 19, 14 at 17:59

Sleepless, I think we should agree to call it a draw. Have a nice evening.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rep. Huelskamp, a Republican from Kansas, said at a town hall recently that he "believes" the number of uninsured in Kansas has increased, not decreased, since the ACA. Of course, he doesn't have "exact numbers" and he didn't mention that Kansas didn't participate in the exchange program nor the Medicaid expansion. What chutzpah! Blaming the ACA for the believed, but not documented, increase of the uninsured hoping no one notices that his state chose to not participate in the program which would have lessened the number of unisured. But, he's a Republican politician, so not surprising.

Here is a link that might be useful: It's the Republicans opposition, not the ACA


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

You don't say anything about your deductibles, dadoes. If the insurance coverage has kicked in already, you must have paid that off for the year.
I have paid no deductibles thus far. The aformentioned eye doctor is the first doctor appointment (last Thu) that has occurred under the new policy and there have been no hospitalizations.

The figures I quoted apply only to April 2014.

Jan, Feb, & March costs were only the policy premium.

So if ALL of that is considered, then
- Before ACA costs for Jan-Apr would have been $3,131.80 (or more, the old hospitalization policy would have renewed in March, likely at a rate increase).
- After ACA, costs Jan-Apr (thus far) are $2,183.44

Which is a total savings of $948.36.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sun, Apr 20, 14 at 9:30

"Rep. Huelskamp, a Republican from Kansas, said at a town hall recently that he "believes" the number of uninsured in Kansas has increased, not decreased, since the ACA."

Repub politicians make habit of pulling numbers out of their @ss....and it's always the number you expect to find up there...#2


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

vgkg understands well Repub politicians like my Rep. Huelskamp from Kansas!

My son was so upset when he found out the Gov. Brownback and the Kansas Repubs refused to participate in ACA, but fortunately my son was able to go onto a national site.

Kate


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Ha ha! vgkg, you always make me laugh. Thank you!

Here's something else that makes me giggle:

I don't think Americans are worried about what government might get back (for itself) some time in the future, I think they're in mourning over what Democrats and Obamacare tiook away from them..

Is that like "had enough yet, America?" Ah, well, some never learn to wake up to the reality they are in living in.

Those of us living in reality can look at the new projections of costs and the numbers of people signing up and be happy that our fellow Americans are getting the healthcare they need for a more affordable price. It's sad, and downright shameful, when one's hatred for the President blinds them to the reality of improvements for their fellow Americans.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"Most people understand their own interests perfectly well."

No they don't! That's why they warned politicians not to pass Obamacare in the first place.


Good thing Democrats ignored them. Now the middle class has nothing but praise for your party. They really LIKE being compelled to take $500 or $1,500 a month out of family budgets to send to big insurance companies, "for their own good." And they love hearing about all the even BETTER deals you in the base are getting!

Democrats won, did as they pleased, and made Obamacare the law of the land. Enjoy your victory!


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

And again ignores the facts of people getting healthcare for a MORE AFFORDABLE PRICE.

Are we not speaking English?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

And again ignores the facts of people losing healthcare they ALREADY HAD AND WANTED TO KEEP AND BEING FORCED TO BUY A POLICY THEY DID NOT WANT FOR MORE MONEY THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD.

Are we not speaking English?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

And still ignores the facts that that policy was junk and didn't cover anything and was stealing their money. And ignores the fact that the stories in the news have turned out to not be true. Ignores the fact that the person actually got a better policy that actually covered them often for less or similar costs.

But when the facts get in the way of ideology, just ignore.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

people losing healthcare they ALREADY HAD AND WANTED TO KEEP AND BEING FORCED TO BUY A POLICY THEY DID NOT WANT FOR MORE MONEY THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD

I think you and Faux News are wrong.

Maybe, just maybe, a few of them "wanted to keep their plan, but very few employers offered "good" plans; for most of us, we took what was offered, and we paid more and more every year for less coverage.

I suspect that the plans now available from the ACA, and the other plans that have been brought into compliance because of the ACA are probably much much better, covering more, with no exclusions and in most cases, much less expensive.

We'll see how this plays out over the years, but I bet most people are better off now.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 8:36

What ideology? I'm totally serious. After all these years invested in adopting anti-Democrat positions on every issue and memorizing lies and propaganda phrases to use for attacks, how many can still be in contact with whatever ideology they might once have had? All goals, hopes and dreams that might once have been replaced long since by single-minded attacks on whatever they're told to be against that day. The typical conservative has trouble today explaining what conservatism is, and most to the far right seem to devote themselves to what they oppose without even wondering.

This disconnect from reality is a big problem for democracy, not just the GOP. I've come to believe that many on the far right are so invested in the lies they've sought out so fervently for decades that there is, practically speaking, no coming back for them.

When is the last time someone with this problem proposed a genuine sensible and workable answer to any problem? Something possible to actually implement? Completely without regard for foiling a Democratic plan? In the past 5 years of ACA debate, when has any new insight been allowed to penetrate an initial resistance that long ago hardened like concrete?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 6:58

And still ignores the facts that that policy was junk and didn't cover anything and was stealing their money. And ignores the fact that the stories in the news have turned out to not be true. Ignores the fact that the person actually got a better policy that actually covered them often for less or similar costs.

But when the facts get in the way of ideology, just ignore.

*

When Presidential Lies get in the way of ideology, just ignore.

When Freedom to make choices about one's own health care gets in the way of Democrat Ideology, just ignore.

Yea, we got it.

All of us.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"ALREADY HAD AND WANTED TO KEEP AND BEING FORCED TO BUY A POLICY THEY DID NOT WANT FOR MORE MONEY THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD. "

Do you have any numbers of the people that fit that category?

Three elements

o Had a party they wanted to keep

AND were

o forced to buy a policy they did not want

AND

o at a price they could not afford.

Of the 8 Million that have now enrolled through the exchanges , how many do you think bought policies they did not want and could not afford?


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Of the 8 Million that have now enrolled through the exchanges , how many do you think bought policies they did not want and could not afford?

Oh, that's easy . . .

ALL OF THEM!!!


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Here, Forbes explains it better than I can, going out the door anyway:

Who is signing up for Obamacare and Why


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

"OBAMA LIED. He lied over and over even though common sense tells you that Medical Insurance cost cannot go down."

Yep. That deliberate, calculated betrayal of trust for what Democrats thought would be a political gain does not cease to exist simply because Democrats claim Obamacare is "working." That debate is not "over" until the American middle class says it is working for THEM.

As long as middle class families are burdened with Democrat orders to divert $500 or $1,500 from their budgets to insurance companies, I don't expect them to rejoice with Democrat plans to hand out subsidies to able bodied adults so they can stay home and write poetry.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 10:43

This new study, based on incomplete numbers, so it's not final, indicates that OVER A THIRD of exchange enrollees, or 1.4 MILLION fortunate people, were previously uninsured.

What's the problem with THAT? If this is more accurate than previous, higher estimates, it's still great. Ask any hospital administrator.

Even more relevant to understanding, of all the groups who now have care under the ACA, THIS one is most likely to have had insurance before because they have sufficient income to write checks month after month. Income has to be high enough to reasonably be able to pay the bills to qualify for purchasing through the exchanges.

Those whose incomes are so low just paying for food, housing, and utilities is a constant struggle are enrolled into Medicaid -- in those states that accepted the extension, of course.

SO, very importantly, note that the 1.4 MILLION does NOT include any of the larger group of people who gained coverage under Medicaid OR any of the young adults who gained coverage under their parents' policies. I'm guessing a very high proportion of the first very low-income group and a very significant portion of the second, often-unemployed or underemployed group was previously NOT insured. Far higher than the exchange purchasers.

Reading articles to understand what's happening just makes sense. The little unfriendly twist conservative but reputable Forbes put on this carefully did not obscure what the numbers themselves say, it merely invited readers to see them as unsatisfactory. A pattern of actual misrepresentation would lose Forbes its reputation and most of its subscribers, including hospital administrators.

This post was edited by rosie on Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 11:03


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 21, 14 at 11:09

The editorial from Forbes is from March 8

'nuff said


 o
Georgia "numbers"

"The little unfriendly twist conservative but reputable Forbes put on this did not obscure what the numbers themselves say."

Democrats love to talk about "numbers" when referring to those who "signed up" or "enrolled" for their laughable "signature achievement."

To see how propaganda works, ask them how many signed up in Georgia. Then ask them how many PAID. Oops! Try half.

The number of folks "enrolled" tells you NOTHING about who has insurance..Paid vs enrolled. Smart voters know that Obamacare only "works" for those who buy a policy. Signing up doesn't count.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Rosie, your post today at 8:36 was well stated. Spot on.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

Your comments are ringing more hollow every day, Nik.


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

let me pass along this ….


 o
RE: The Sky is not falling--ACA brings down costs!

I was not asked any questions in the ACA enrollment process regards to whether I previously had an insurance policy. I have received no follow-up phone calls or surveys in that regard. Yes I understand about statistics and averages and blah, blah ... but since I was not polled and considering how many other people across the country surely also weren't questioned, I consider any reported numbers, such as those from Forbes linked above, to be less-than-accurate.

Are the detractors ignoring that many canceled/lost policies are likely due to business decisions by the insurance companies to discontinue those (non-compliant) policies? The ACA legislation apparently does not prohibit them from doing that, because my previous non-compliant policy was *not* dropped ... I sensibly chose the better deal through the ACA. How much outrage that would result if the legislation did force carriers to either maintain or discontinue non-compliant policies?... same outrage as now, because "they" must have something about which to be outraged.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here