"Obamacare"

[ednksu]

There is nothing to explain to you people.  There is no point of rhetoric.   You two don't know what this law actually does.  You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out.  Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing.  Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic.  Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger.  I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.

That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.

The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy.  They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think.  Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges.  They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans.  The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

There is nothing to explain to you people.  There is no point of rhetoric.   You two don't know what this law actually does.  You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out.  Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing.  Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic.  Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger.  I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.

That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.

The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy.  They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think.  Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges.  They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans.  The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.

I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.

[p1k3]

is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?

we both know he's not.

Top two?

we'll settle for this.

[ednksu]

There is nothing to explain to you people.  There is no point of rhetoric.   You two don't know what this law actually does.  You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out.  Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing.  Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic.  Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger.  I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.

That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.

The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy.  They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think.  Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges.  They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans.  The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.

I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.

see dobber this is what I'm talking about.  First anything he disagrees with is a "liberal talking point."  He never asked for education before condeming my remark.  If he was interested in education or a the very least civil discourse he wouldn't have  first approached the isse with ad hominem attacks.  Overview his entire position now with the fact he and KSU have condemned the ACA without caring to educate themselves on how the bill functions at its most basci levels.

Now I don't expect much from the ole birther pit anymore since the majority of posters here are only interested in spouting recycled talking points from foxnews or the daily caller.   But we should hide behind the veil of faux moderate questioning from extermists like these two.  I've given them all the key words to google if they wanted to educate themselves.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There is nothing to explain to you people.  There is no point of rhetoric.   You two don't know what this law actually does.  You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out.  Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing.  Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic.  Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger.  I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.

That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.

The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy.  They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think.  Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges.  They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans.  The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.

I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.

see dobber this is what I'm talking about.  First anything he disagrees with is a "liberal talking point."  He never asked for education before condeming my remark.  If he was interested in education or a the very least civil discourse he wouldn't have  first approached the isse with ad hominem attacks.  Overview his entire position now with the fact he and KSU have condemned the ACA without caring to educate themselves on how the bill functions at its most basci levels.

Now I don't expect much from the ole birther pit anymore since the majority of posters here are only interested in spouting recycled talking points from foxnews or the daily caller.   But we should hide behind the veil of faux moderate questioning from extermists like these two.  I've given them all the key words to google if they wanted to educate themselves.

  You got us, ed. Nice trollin'.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Obama is rolling out the latest excuse for his lie. From his speech today:

"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.

"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."

"You see, people are just too stupid to decide how much insurance they really need. The Affordable Care Act fixes that. We know what's best for you. We'll take care of you. People need to stop complaining and pay for the coverage they really need."

[sys]

representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. 

well, he's a liar

hall didn't say that.  he asked sebelius if she was raised in meade, ks, because he thought he saw her there when he was in third grade.  sebelius told him she had been born in cincinnati.  hall didn't clarify, but he left the impression that he'd just been passing though meade, checking out the third grade girls.

you should be able to find it in the congressional record, if you want to verify who was in meade, ks, and when.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

There is nothing to explain to you people.  There is no point of rhetoric.   You two don't know what this law actually does.  You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out.  Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing.  Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic.  Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger.  I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.

That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.

The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy.  They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think.  Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges.  They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans.  The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.

I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.

see dobber this is what I'm talking about.  First anything he disagrees with is a "liberal talking point."  He never asked for education before condeming my remark.  If he was interested in education or a the very least civil discourse he wouldn't have  first approached the isse with ad hominem attacks.  Overview his entire position now with the fact he and KSU have condemned the ACA without caring to educate themselves on how the bill functions at its most basci levels.

Now I don't expect much from the ole birther pit anymore since the majority of posters here are only interested in spouting recycled talking points from foxnews or the daily caller.   But we should hide behind the veil of faux moderate questioning from extermists like these two.  I've given them all the key words to google if they wanted to educate themselves.

Ha ha. Good work. I'm now certain you have zero knowledge regarding the ACA. You could have shown off some of your vast understanding of the rollout but instead you waste 2 paragraphs attacking Olbermann style.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Oh crap. Turns out one of the people getting effed by ObamaCare is Daily Beast columnist David Frum.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html

It's always exciting to be part of a chapter in American history. I happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people whose insurance coverage was canceled for not complying with the terms of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, not only will I pay more, but I have had to divert many otherwise useful hours to futzing around with websites and paperwork.

President Obama promised, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." It was a more ambiguous promise than it sounded. Who likes his or her health insurance? But it was there, and it did its job.

I probably need to be clear straight off that I am not presenting myself as any kind of hard-luck case. Maybe from some social justice perspective it's perfectly fair and reasonable to load all the costs of health reform onto people like me. The trouble is, this administration has been less than candid about what those costs would be.

As best I can tell, the ACA will require me to pay $200 a month more for a policy that is marginally worse than the one I have now.

Here's the before and after contrast:

My family was enrolled in a Carefirst high-deductible plan that cost $667.63 per month. In-network deductible, $5,400; out of network, $10,800. Out-of-pocket limit: $6,400 in-network; $12,800 out of network. The plan was joined to an HSA.

The most directly comparable plan on the D.C. health exchange will cost $865. The deductibles are somewhat higher: $6,000 and $12,000. The out-of-pocket limits are very slightly lower: $6,000 and $12,000.

That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall.  [ Now he's getting it! The "winners" and "losers."]

If that extra $2,400 per year in insurance premiums were the end of my ACA costs, I'd congratulate myself on getting off easy: I'll also be paying considerably more than that in higher taxes to support the program. As I said, I'm not a hard-luck case.

The ACA was ingeniously designed to deliver benefits to Democratic constituencies and impose costs on Republican ones. The big surprise in the ACA rollout is that this design is going awry. It's not only plutocrats and one-percenters who will find themselves worse off; not only the comparatively affluent retirees enrolled in Medicare Plus programs. Self-employed professionals who earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies will soon discover what I have discovered: They are paying more for a worse product.

[Brock Landers]

Obama is rolling out the latest excuse for his lie. From his speech today:

"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.

"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."

"You see, people are just too stupid to decide how much insurance they really need. The Affordable Care Act fixes that. We know what's best for you. We'll take care of you. People need to stop complaining and pay for the coverage they really need."

 

[Rams]

representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. 

well, he's a liar

hall didn't say that.  he asked sebelius if she was raised in meade, ks, because he thought he saw her there when he was in third grade.  sebelius told him she had been born in cincinnati.  hall didn't clarify, but he left the impression that he'd just been passing though meade, checking out the third grade girls.

you should be able to find it in the congressional record, if you want to verify who was in meade, ks, and when.

actually he said he was in the third grade in meade.  I guess I mistakenly extrapolated that to mean he spent the first few years of his life there, which I don't know to be true.  sorry for the confusion everybody.  whatever the case, it was a very weird exchange.  glad we could clear this up.

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/188689-rep-hall-to-sebelius-i-thought-i-saw-you-on-a-tricycle

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Obama is rolling out the latest excuse for his lie. From his speech today:

"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.

"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."

"You see, people are just too stupid to decide how much insurance they really need. The Affordable Care Act fixes that. We know what's best for you. We'll take care of you. People need to stop complaining and pay for the coverage they really need."

 

Yeah, I took a little "artistic license" with that last paragraph just to see if anyone was paying attention. It's what he believes, of course, but he would obviously never say it.

[chum1]

Oh crap. Turns out one of the people getting effed by ObamaCare is Daily Beast columnist David Frum.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html

It's always exciting to be part of a chapter in American history. I happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people whose insurance coverage was canceled for not complying with the terms of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, not only will I pay more, but I have had to divert many otherwise useful hours to futzing around with websites and paperwork.

President Obama promised, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." It was a more ambiguous promise than it sounded. Who likes his or her health insurance? But it was there, and it did its job.

I probably need to be clear straight off that I am not presenting myself as any kind of hard-luck case. Maybe from some social justice perspective it's perfectly fair and reasonable to load all the costs of health reform onto people like me. The trouble is, this administration has been less than candid about what those costs would be.

As best I can tell, the ACA will require me to pay $200 a month more for a policy that is marginally worse than the one I have now.

Here's the before and after contrast:

My family was enrolled in a Carefirst high-deductible plan that cost $667.63 per month. In-network deductible, $5,400; out of network, $10,800. Out-of-pocket limit: $6,400 in-network; $12,800 out of network. The plan was joined to an HSA.

The most directly comparable plan on the D.C. health exchange will cost $865. The deductibles are somewhat higher: $6,000 and $12,000. The out-of-pocket limits are very slightly lower: $6,000 and $12,000.

That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall.  [ Now he's getting it! The "winners" and "losers."]

If that extra $2,400 per year in insurance premiums were the end of my ACA costs, I'd congratulate myself on getting off easy: I'll also be paying considerably more than that in higher taxes to support the program. As I said, I'm not a hard-luck case.

The ACA was ingeniously designed to deliver benefits to Democratic constituencies and impose costs on Republican ones. The big surprise in the ACA rollout is that this design is going awry. It's not only plutocrats and one-percenters who will find themselves worse off; not only the comparatively affluent retirees enrolled in Medicare Plus programs. Self-employed professionals who earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies will soon discover what I have discovered: They are paying more for a worse product.

I didn't read the whole thing, but I don't understand why he thinks he must use an exchange plan.

[Unruly]

I just want to go on record saying that endksu looks like a complete dumbass in this thread, probably IRL too.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Oh crap. Turns out one of the people getting effed by ObamaCare is Daily Beast columnist David Frum.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html

It's always exciting to be part of a chapter in American history. I happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people whose insurance coverage was canceled for not complying with the terms of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, not only will I pay more, but I have had to divert many otherwise useful hours to futzing around with websites and paperwork.

President Obama promised, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." It was a more ambiguous promise than it sounded. Who likes his or her health insurance? But it was there, and it did its job.

I probably need to be clear straight off that I am not presenting myself as any kind of hard-luck case. Maybe from some social justice perspective it's perfectly fair and reasonable to load all the costs of health reform onto people like me. The trouble is, this administration has been less than candid about what those costs would be.

As best I can tell, the ACA will require me to pay $200 a month more for a policy that is marginally worse than the one I have now.

Here's the before and after contrast:

My family was enrolled in a Carefirst high-deductible plan that cost $667.63 per month. In-network deductible, $5,400; out of network, $10,800. Out-of-pocket limit: $6,400 in-network; $12,800 out of network. The plan was joined to an HSA.

The most directly comparable plan on the D.C. health exchange will cost $865. The deductibles are somewhat higher: $6,000 and $12,000. The out-of-pocket limits are very slightly lower: $6,000 and $12,000.

That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall.  [ Now he's getting it! The "winners" and "losers."]

If that extra $2,400 per year in insurance premiums were the end of my ACA costs, I'd congratulate myself on getting off easy: I'll also be paying considerably more than that in higher taxes to support the program. As I said, I'm not a hard-luck case.

The ACA was ingeniously designed to deliver benefits to Democratic constituencies and impose costs on Republican ones. The big surprise in the ACA rollout is that this design is going awry. It's not only plutocrats and one-percenters who will find themselves worse off; not only the comparatively affluent retirees enrolled in Medicare Plus programs. Self-employed professionals who earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies will soon discover what I have discovered: They are paying more for a worse product.

I didn't read the whole thing, but I don't understand why he thinks he must use an exchange plan.

Because he lives in DC, so he doesn't have a choice. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/your-money/health-insurance-options-arent-limited-to-obamacare-exchanges.html?_r=0 Besides, I'm not aware of any evidence that plans sold outside the exchanges are a better value - all new policies have to provide the inflated coverage required by the Obamacare mandates. So you're probably not gonna save much, if any, money shopping outside the exchanges, but you will lose any subsidies, to the extent you were eligible for them in the first place.

[chum1]

Oh crap. Turns out one of the people getting effed by ObamaCare is Daily Beast columnist David Frum.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html

It's always exciting to be part of a chapter in American history. I happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people whose insurance coverage was canceled for not complying with the terms of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, not only will I pay more, but I have had to divert many otherwise useful hours to futzing around with websites and paperwork.

President Obama promised, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." It was a more ambiguous promise than it sounded. Who likes his or her health insurance? But it was there, and it did its job.

I probably need to be clear straight off that I am not presenting myself as any kind of hard-luck case. Maybe from some social justice perspective it's perfectly fair and reasonable to load all the costs of health reform onto people like me. The trouble is, this administration has been less than candid about what those costs would be.

As best I can tell, the ACA will require me to pay $200 a month more for a policy that is marginally worse than the one I have now.

Here's the before and after contrast:

My family was enrolled in a Carefirst high-deductible plan that cost $667.63 per month. In-network deductible, $5,400; out of network, $10,800. Out-of-pocket limit: $6,400 in-network; $12,800 out of network. The plan was joined to an HSA.

The most directly comparable plan on the D.C. health exchange will cost $865. The deductibles are somewhat higher: $6,000 and $12,000. The out-of-pocket limits are very slightly lower: $6,000 and $12,000.

That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall.  [ Now he's getting it! The "winners" and "losers."]

If that extra $2,400 per year in insurance premiums were the end of my ACA costs, I'd congratulate myself on getting off easy: I'll also be paying considerably more than that in higher taxes to support the program. As I said, I'm not a hard-luck case.

The ACA was ingeniously designed to deliver benefits to Democratic constituencies and impose costs on Republican ones. The big surprise in the ACA rollout is that this design is going awry. It's not only plutocrats and one-percenters who will find themselves worse off; not only the comparatively affluent retirees enrolled in Medicare Plus programs. Self-employed professionals who earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies will soon discover what I have discovered: They are paying more for a worse product.

I didn't read the whole thing, but I don't understand why he thinks he must use an exchange plan.

Because he lives in DC, so he doesn't have a choice. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/your-money/health-insurance-options-arent-limited-to-obamacare-exchanges.html?_r=0 Besides, I'm not aware of any evidence that plans sold outside the exchanges are a better value - all new policies have to provide the inflated coverage required by the Obamacare mandates. So you're probably not gonna save much, if any, money shopping outside the exchanges, but you will lose any subsidies, to the extent you were eligible for them in the first place.

I've said it a bunch, but Obamacare mandated changes don't affect premiums that much.  From 1999 to 2009, they  increased like 130%.  Since, during the time that Obamacare mandates started taking effect, they've gone up 5-10% per year, including 2014.  (Lots of reasons for this. One is that in the 2000s states were implementing laws which were merely duplicated by Obamacare on a national level later on.).  If you had an individual plan in 2013, a regular commercial 2014 plan isn't going to be way more expensive.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Check it out, you can now shop policies on healthcare.gov without registering (this is what should have been allowed all along). You just have to click through a few pages that make abundantly clear that it might not really cost you this much if you're eligible for a subsidy. The government is really worried about the sticker shock. https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/

JFC. $500/mo for a "bronze level" family plan (covering 60% of costs). Glad I get to get to choose from all 2 of the insurance providers who elected to participate in the Kansas exchange (not that it really matters, since the Obamacare mandates apply nationwide).

I'm thinking it would be neat if you could just buy whatever level of insurance you want, from whereever you want. Might bring costs down. But I guess people are just too stupid to make these kinds of decisions for themselves, you know?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I've said it a bunch, but Obamacare mandated changes don't affect premiums that much.  From 1999 to 2009, they  increased like 130%.  Since, during the time that Obamacare mandates started taking effect, they've gone up 5-10% per year, including 2014.  (Lots of reasons for this. One is that in the 2000s states were implementing laws which were merely duplicated by Obamacare on a national level later on.).  If you had an individual plan in 2013, a regular commercial 2014 plan isn't going to be way more expensive.

Sorry chum, you're just wrong. Avik Roy has done a lot of comparisons between preACA and postACA plans (his articles are linked in posts several pages back), and he found significant price increases. This isn't really a surprise. If you add guaranteed issue, plus a lot of additional coverage, the price shoots up. This is common sense.

[Brock Landers]

Obama is rolling out the latest excuse for his lie. From his speech today:

"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.

"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."

"You see, people are just too stupid to decide how much insurance they really need. The Affordable Care Act fixes that. We know what's best for you. We'll take care of you. People need to stop complaining and pay for the coverage they really need."

 

Yeah, I took a little "artistic license" with that last paragraph just to see if anyone was paying attention. It's what he believes, of course, but he would obviously never say it.

 

[chum1]

I've said it a bunch, but Obamacare mandated changes don't affect premiums that much.  From 1999 to 2009, they  increased like 130%.  Since, during the time that Obamacare mandates started taking effect, they've gone up 5-10% per year, including 2014.  (Lots of reasons for this. One is that in the 2000s states were implementing laws which were merely duplicated by Obamacare on a national level later on.).  If you had an individual plan in 2013, a regular commercial 2014 plan isn't going to be way more expensive.

Sorry chum, you're just wrong. Avik Roy has done a lot of comparisons between preACA and postACA plans (his articles are linked in posts several pages back), and he found significant price increases. This isn't really a surprise. If you add guaranteed issue, plus a lot of additional coverage, the price shoots up. This is common sense.

Common sense tells me that most people who are really sick already found coverage of one kind or another.  People don't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pockets.  It also tells me that most people who didn't have coverage before, like students, wouldn't have used it if they had it - apart from a few hard luck cases.

I've also said a buch of times that there aren't really any benefit changes mandated from 2013 to 2014, which is the time period I was talking about.  This isn't common sense, but these changes are documented.

[ednksu]

There is nothing to explain to you people.  There is no point of rhetoric.   You two don't know what this law actually does.  You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out.  Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing.  Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic.  Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger.  I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.

That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.

The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy.  They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think.  Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges.  They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans.  The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.

I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.

see dobber this is what I'm talking about.  First anything he disagrees with is a "liberal talking point."  He never asked for education before condeming my remark.  If he was interested in education or a the very least civil discourse he wouldn't have  first approached the isse with ad hominem attacks.  Overview his entire position now with the fact he and KSU have condemned the ACA without caring to educate themselves on how the bill functions at its most basci levels.

Now I don't expect much from the ole birther pit anymore since the majority of posters here are only interested in spouting recycled talking points from foxnews or the daily caller.   But we should hide behind the veil of faux moderate questioning from extermists like these two.  I've given them all the key words to google if they wanted to educate themselves.

Ha ha. Good work. I'm now certain you have zero knowledge regarding the ACA. You could have shown off some of your vast understanding of the rollout but instead you waste 2 paragraphs attacking Olbermann style.

How about you play the game you always create.  Disprove the negative.  I've made a claim based on fact, you disprove it.

[puniraptor]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/9-levels-of-shade-kathleen-sebelius-threw-at-republicans

[chum1]

I've said it a bunch, but Obamacare mandated changes don't affect premiums that much.  From 1999 to 2009, they  increased like 130%.  Since, during the time that Obamacare mandates started taking effect, they've gone up 5-10% per year, including 2014.  (Lots of reasons for this. One is that in the 2000s states were implementing laws which were merely duplicated by Obamacare on a national level later on.).  If you had an individual plan in 2013, a regular commercial 2014 plan isn't going to be way more expensive.

Sorry chum, you're just wrong. Avik Roy has done a lot of comparisons between preACA and postACA plans (his articles are linked in posts several pages back), and he found significant price increases. This isn't really a surprise. If you add guaranteed issue, plus a lot of additional coverage, the price shoots up. This is common sense.

Common sense tells me that most people who are really sick already found coverage of one kind or another.  People don't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pockets.  It also tells me that most people who didn't have coverage before, like students, wouldn't have used it if they had it - apart from a few hard luck cases.

I've also said a buch of times that there aren't really any benefit changes mandated from 2013 to 2014, which is the time period I was talking about.  This isn't common sense, but these changes are documented.

Also, Avik Roy was an advisor to Mitt Romney.  Given that Obama was advised so poorly, why should we even listen to his counterpart's advisor in the first place?  Unless we've already made up our minds, of couse.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's worse than I thought. So far, Obamacare is basically just adding a ton of new enrollments to Medicaid, which is already the most unsustainable of our entitlement programs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/31/in-first-month-the-vast-majority-of-obamacare-sign-ups-are-in-medicaid/?hpid=z3

The first month of the new health law’s rollout reveals an unexpected pattern in several states: a crush of people applying for an expansion of Medicaid and a trickle of sign-ups for private insurance.

This early imbalance — in some places, nine out of 10 enrollees are in Medicaid — has taken some experts by surprise. The Affordable Care Act, which expanded Medicaid to cover millions of the poorest Americans who couldn’t otherwise afford coverage, envisions a more even split with an expanded, robust private market.

“When we first saw the numbers, everyone’s eyes kind of bugged out,” said Matt Salo, who runs the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “Of the people walking through the door, 90 percent are on Medicaid. We’re thinking, what planet is this happening on?” [That's easy - it's Entitlement USA, Land of Dependency! We're hoping to add 15-30 million more soon!]

The yawning gap between public and private enrollment is handing Republicans yet another line of criticism against President Obama’s health overhaul — that the law is primarily becoming an expansion of a costly entitlement program.

Supporters, however, caution against reading too much into the early numbers. Some of the states that set up their own exchanges, including Maryland, are suffering Web site glitches similar to those of the national system, and that is delaying private plan enrollments.

But if this trend continues, experts say it could prove costly for states that will have to help pay for some of these new Medicaid enrollees. It would widen disparities between the states that opted to expand the entitlement program and those that have not. [Damn you Brownback! Right, edn?]

Low enrollment in private insurance, meanwhile, could increase premiums as it would likely indicate that only sick people, who really need coverage, were signing up. [Unless you subscribe to Chum's version of "common sense."]

[chum1]

It's worse than I thought. So far, Obamacare is basically just adding a ton of new enrollments to Medicaid

You're surprised that people who are offered Medicaid, WHICH IS FREE, would sign up for Medicaid?