Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance

[zraver]

that long rant of an article can be boiled down into one sentence: "why isn't everyone as pissed off as we conservatives are? because the media always covered for them! until now!"

so if his theory is right we should be seeing a huge popular wave of revulsion against the ACA any time now, and no one should be signing up.

oh wait...

Enrollment surge on Healthcare.gov

this is what happens when you stay in your own echo chamber too long, and begin creating your own reality. this is the type of "forecasting" that felled the romney campaign.

Your source- 14,000 people a day of a nation of 317 million, and an individual market of roughly 10 million. At the rate of 14,000 a day it will only take a little over 2 years to enroll everyone in the individual market. It will take around a decade to enroll the people about to be thrown off employer plans...

A new Harvard poll (part of a 13 year long survey) shows millennial are disgusted with Obama and would recall him if they could.

The website has really enrolled as many people as you claim- about half the enrollments are so full of errors the enrollments failed on the back end so double the above listed times...

Polls are increasingly showing the Republicans with an edge in the 2014 senate race...

I think you might want to step out of your echo chamber Asty...

[astralis]

that long rant of an article can be boiled down into one sentence: "why isn't everyone as pissed off as we conservatives are? because the media always covered for them! until now!"

so if his theory is right we should be seeing a huge popular wave of revulsion against the ACA any time now, and no one should be signing up.

oh wait...

Enrollment surge on Healthcare.gov

this is what happens when you stay in your own echo chamber too long, and begin creating your own reality. this is the type of "forecasting" that felled the romney campaign.

[Parihaka]

Why Obama can’t wave away this scandal

By John PodhoretzNovember 23, 2013 | 9:30am
Modal Trigger
Why Obama can’t wave away this scandal

The media shielded the president from every criticism — until he betrayed a liberal cause
People are puzzled: Why would Barack Obama have lied about how wonderfully everything was going to go with ObamaCare when officials in his administration knew perfectly well that disaster was going to strike?
In one sense, the answer is simple: At the time, just before Oct. 1, Republicans were insisting ObamaCare be delayed or defunded. The president and his team weren’t going to give the enemy the satisfaction of agreeing — or the potent ammunition that would have come from a rueful admission the system wasn’t ready.
Today, a bipartisan agreement to delay ObamaCare seems like it would have been a pretty good deal. It didn’t look that way at all in the last two weeks of September.
But there’s a deeper reason he and his people lied: They did it because they could. They did it because nearly five years in the White House had given Obama and his team confidence they would not face the music and they could finesse the problems until they got fixed.
Consider the events that would have been unprecedented scandals in a Republican administration — with teams of reporters digging and scratching daily at every nook and cranny in every bureaucratic corridor — that have instead been covered dutifully but with relatively little passion and almost no follow-up. Why? Because it would have hurt Obama, that’s why.
First, the Obama Justice Department.
Attorney General Eric Holder has survived three scandals that would have felled a Republican. His department attempted to soft-pedal its responsibility for the so-called “gunwalking” policy called Fast and Furious — which led to the murders of US border agents by Mexican drug-cartel members with guns effectively provided to the killers by the Justice Department.
He approved the secret surveillance of Fox News Channel reporter James Rosen in a leak investigation on the outrageous grounds that Rosen was a possible “co-conspirator” in an act of espionage. And he approved similar tactics against reporters at the Associated Press in another leak investigation.
Holder’s still there. Obama defends him. When was the last time you heard Rosen’s name mentioned, or the AP story referenced, or Fast and Furious come up?
Second, the Internal Revenue Service.
The IRS’s own acknowledgement that it had targeted conservative groups with anti-liberal agendas has led to shamed retirements, hasty changes at the top of the agency and officials pleading the Fifth Amendment. These efforts were clearly undertaken to find means by which to aid Democratic efforts in the 2010 and 2012 election. One can only wonder at what would have been done to George W. Bush by the media had similar outrages been perpetated on leftist groups in 2003 and 2004. Obama suffered . . . a little. A very little.
Third, the State Department.
The unconscionable behavior of State Department and White House officials during and after the killing of four Americans in Benghazi at the height of the 2012 race — during which the American people were deliberately and consciously misled — has had no lasting consequences whatsoever. Obama felt free to select the chief liar, Susan Rice, as his national-security adviser without experiencing a moment’s fear about how her appointment might become a scandal.
Fourth, making law from the White House.
In 2011, the president said that owing to Republican recalcitrance in the House of Representatives, he would use his executive authority to get things done. And he has. As Tara Helfman writes in the December issue of Commentary, the magazine I edit, “Notwithstanding President Obama’s constitutional duty to enforce the law of the Untied States, where federal laws conflict with his policy preferences on gay marriage, illegal immigration and drug policy, the president has simply opted not to enforce or defend them.”
Moreover, to strengthen his hand with Hispanic voters in 2012, he ordered the Justice Department to follow certain provisions of a law governing illegal immigrants that has yet to be approved by the Congress. That is unprecedented.
So, if you want to understand the blindness and arrogance of the Obama White House in failing to appreciate the wave of rage and disappointment and disgusted wonderment that would hit them in the wake of the ObamaCare rollout, you need only consider these factors.
He has always had the protection of his liberal base.
He has always had the protection of Senate Democrats, who have not acted in any way to trouble him regarding these scandals and who have impeded aggressive investigations into them.
And he has always had the protection of the mainstream media.
As a result, Barack Obama and his administration have said what they felt they needed to say and done what they felt they needed to do for immediate political gain. They did so this time. But this time was different, because this time he was mishandling and discrediting the great liberal desideratum of our time — a national health-care system.

This time he hasn’t gotten away with it.

Yet.

[JAD_333]

So you guys now get taxed twice for the same service? And that is only because the previous system made a huge hole that has to be paid off for few decades if anytime at all?

not exactly taxed... Premiums paid for insurance are the cost of a product. Many policies will be subsidized in part or in whole for people in low income brackets. The biggest part of gov't spending goes to Medicaid payments to states, and to groups not covered by Obamacare, such as retirees on Medicare, many veterans who get nearly free care, medical research, payroll contributions for gov't workers, SS disability...and the list goes on. Obamacare is designed not so much to relieve gov't entirely from healthcare expenditures, but to bring routine healthcare to people who heretofore could not afford it, to people who were denied insurance for preexisting conditions, and so on.

[bigross86]

I'd just to inject a short bit of humor into this otherwise serious discussion.....

[Doktor]

Asty tried. Let me give it a try. Basically you're asking whether Obamacare will lead to lower taxes, since many people who got government money for medical care in the past will now have insurance under Obamacare. That's a fair question. I'll let the head of the Congressional Budget Office answer it:

So you guys now get taxed twice for the same service? And that is only because the previous system made a huge hole that has to be paid off for few decades if anytime at all?

[JAD_333]

Seems nobody answered my question so far, so let me ask again...

If it was paid by taxes until now, from now the taxes will reduce? Because Federal budget had 20+% expenditures on healthcare last time i checked. Guess it is similar with State budgets, too.

Asty tried. Let me give it a try. Basically you're asking whether Obamacare will lead to lower taxes, since many people who got government money for medical care in the past will now have insurance under Obamacare. That's a fair question. I'll let the head of the Congressional Budget Office answer it:

The federal government spent roughly a trillion dollars on health care in fiscal year 2013, and it gave up about another quarter of a trillion dollars in tax subsidies related to health care. That spending figure is a lot larger today than it was a decade or two ago, and it will be much larger still a decade or two from now. Indeed, growth in federal spending for health care is the key factor making the budget policies of the past unsustainable in the future.

[bfng3569]

doktor,



these unpaid bills aren't just covered via taxes, but also through increased private healthcare costs for the insured...part of the reason why medical care is so expensive in the States.

so the overall idea is a reduction in overall healthcare costs, both private and public. because from the federal perspective we don't say "these taxes go directly to healthcare", if less money is expended on healthcare, the taxes can be used either to pay for something else (which can potentially be a tax cut).

and privately, of course, if costs go down then the average individual also wins. part of the reason why the ACA site was so screwed up was because the politicals wanted people to log in before seeing any prices, so that they could make a connection between ACA and reduced healthcare costs (among other things).

that doesn't answer the question though, your response is talking about increased health care costs for the insured. yet the next paragraph you talk about reduced healthcare costa?

color me confused.....

[astralis]

doktor,

If it was paid by taxes until now, from now the taxes will reduce? Because Federal budget had 20+% expenditures on healthcare last time i checked. Guess it is similar with State budgets, too.

these unpaid bills aren't just covered via taxes, but also through increased private healthcare costs for the insured...part of the reason why medical care is so expensive in the States.

so the overall idea is a reduction in overall healthcare costs, both private and public. because from the federal perspective we don't say "these taxes go directly to healthcare", if less money is expended on healthcare, the taxes can be used either to pay for something else (which can potentially be a tax cut).

and privately, of course, if costs go down then the average individual also wins. part of the reason why the ACA site was so screwed up was because the politicals wanted people to log in before seeing any prices, so that they could make a connection between ACA and reduced healthcare costs (among other things).

[Doktor]

A good reminder that no matter how it's done or where it comes from, the bill has to be paid somehow, and we the people eventually get stuck with it.

Seems nobody answered my question so far, so let me ask again...

If it was paid by taxes until now, from now the taxes will reduce? Because Federal budget had 20+% expenditures on healthcare last time i checked. Guess it is similar with State budgets, too.

[kato]

its theft.

It's social responsibility.

Doesn't mesh with a calvinist society like the US, i know.

[JAD_333]

Just a note.

Z you are already doing this.

The only hospitals that are required to treat people without health insurance are public ones. A private hospital that does not accept Medicare/Medicaid is only required to stabilize those with grave injuries to the point where they can be transported to a public hospital.

The local public hospital had a $6 million shortfall last year due to indigent care. How is that money made up? Through taxes. Check out your state. Florida has 4 different tax streams to fund public hospitals.
That shortfall will be made up through an increase in your property taxes, building fees and permits, phone taxes. It may be unseen, but your paying for it.

A good reminder that no matter how it's done or where it comes from, the bill has to be paid somehow, and we the people eventually get stuck with it.

[Gun Grape]

Which is theft by government whose power extends from the point of a gun. Think about how morally bankrupt it is to make someone in their 30's who is healthy both subsidize those who are not healthy at the expense of their own families and do so in a manner that protects corporate profits. The Gen X, Y and 2k's coming up face net lifetime losses to pay for the ever expanding services provided to the boomers. Its immoral and wrong.

Just a note.

Z you are already doing this.

The only hospitals that are required to treat people without health insurance are public ones. A private hospital that does not accept Medicare/Medicaid is only required to stabilize those with grave injuries to the point where they can be transported to a public hospital.

The local public hospital had a $6 million shortfall last year due to indigent care. How is that money made up? Through taxes. Check out your state. Florida has 4 different tax streams to fund public hospitals.
That shortfall will be made up through an increase in your property taxes, building fees and permits, phone taxes. It may be unseen, but your paying for it.

[zraver]

Z argues that making young people pay a higher premium when they need less healthcare will restrict their ability to build wealth, e.g. buy a house, etc. The counterargument is that today's young will become tomorrow's seniors and that unless today's young pay a higher premium tomorrow's seniors would be paying much higher premiums.

As you point out when explaining social security, these premiums are not going into a trust fund with into the coffers of a private company. There is no "investing" in their own future. They are being taxed to provide unearned benefits to younger Boomers and older Gen Xers. They can't even pass their own bills on their children. The Gen Y's are having fewer kids so the 2K's are not a big enough group.


its theft.


Ben

I get my $20 via the following 2.64 trillion in health care spending/ 317,000,000 people = 8328 - 1/4 for reasonable self care costs= 6246/ 30 days= $17.11 a day rounded up.

[JAD_333]

And now, another question. Like any good newbie, I spent quite a while reading the entire thread, every single post, and there's something that has really stood out for me:

Oh, the pain...

According to Jad, Zraver and Astralis (and according to the law itself, if I'm reading this correctly), everyone MUST pay into the healthcare fund, we'll use Zraver's figure of $20 a day.

They're not exactly paying into a 'healthcare fund', but paying premiums for an insurance policy that covers everything, from maternity care to ingrown toenails. The idea is that the cost of all healthcare is evenly spread out among everyone.

Now, the young folks (Generation Y) pay in $20 a day, even if they don't need it, because it pays for the older generation (Generation X) and their healthcare needs. In return, when they are older, the new younger generation (Generation Z) will pay for their healthcare costs, and so on and so forth.

That's one of the arguments in favor of the plan, but also a contentious issue. Z argues that making young people pay a higher premium when they need less healthcare will restrict their ability to build wealth, e.g. buy a house, etc. The counterargument is that today's young will become tomorrow's seniors and that unless today's young pay a higher premium tomorrow's seniors would be paying much higher premiums. The thing to remember is that under Obamacare no one can be turned down for insurance. Seniors who heretofore were denied insurance had to pay out of pocket until they became eligible for Medicare. Giving them coverage is an expensive burden, because many of them have preexisting conditions--the reason they couldn't get insurance before the ACA came along. So, the solution baked into the ACA is that a major part of the financial burden of insuring elderly people will be borne by healthy people, i.e. the young).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that model sounds an awful lot like Social Security in its current manifestation, where the Generation Y are covering the withdrawal needed for Generation X's retirement costs, and are hoping that Generation Z will be able to cover the withdrawal needed for Generation Y's retirement costs.

So, why would someone take a business plan that was already shown once not to work, and on a massive scale no less, and try to make another gargantuan plan run on the same flawed model?

Good question. One unfortunate similarity is that government runs them both, and that in itself is a questionable model. However, they're really not the same, although both are mandatory, one as long as you're alive and the other as long as you earn income.

Social Security is strictly a pension plan; people get out of it what they are entitled to by law, no more no less, and they have to wait until they reach a certain age to begin receiving monthly checks. By law the 'contributions' are classified taxes. Also, most Americans like Social Security because they get something back. With the ACA, you don't contribute; you pay premiums to buy an insurance product; the only taxes you might pay are fines for not having insurance. If you die after a long, healthy life and never use the insurance you bought and not get back a cent of the premiums you paid.

The premiums under ACA go to private insurance companies; whereas contributions under Social Security come under government management. Currently the tax rate is 12.4% of earned income (up to $113k) and the money is paid into the Social Security Trust fund, not the general fund. Is the model flawed? Yes, but only to the extent that the outflow of pensions paid is generally greater than the inflow of taxes collected. In other words, it's not self-sustaining. Under the ACA, premiums can be adjusted to cover total healthcare costs, but Social Security taxes
can only be raised by Congress, and from time to time it raises the tax rate and changes the eligibility rules hoping to balance outflow with inflow, but it only manages to give the program 20-30 more years of life, and has to come back later with new fixes. Fixing Social Security is our most contentious political issue--the so-called 'third rail' of American politics. The ACA manages to avoid that when it comes to raising or lowering premiums. It's political problems are of a different nature, as you've no doubt seen.