Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Is Obamacare on death's door?


Merc14

Recommended Posts

Government is unethical, corrupt and inefficient.

Private industry is unethical and corrupt.

Note: Private Industry is much less inefficient. I say go with the lesser of two evils.

I'd have said in 2008, leave everything as is. Then... Put those who need insurance on Medicaid. Make medicaid easier to get and have it provide more then it did. Add to the Medicaid tax to fund this. Then regulate the crap out of the Medical Industry to attempt to bring down costs. No website necessary. No massive signup process necessary. Infrastructure needed already existed. The Dems had the votes to make this happen up until the end of 2010.

You say go with private industry over government, yet favor Medicaid over marketplaces for private insurance plans?

So are the doors to NEW applications closed on April 1? Or does the extension mean new applications are being accepted?

There are special enrollment periods for people whose life circumstances change all year, just as in any group insurance plan. But if you're talking about this one particular special enrollment period, it's for people "in line" as of today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In related stories....

This thing hasn't even come close to being fully implemented. Whenever a full cycle of employer mandates and full scale penalties, not the $95 first year favor (how kind of them), come into effect we will know how this ends up.

Edited by F3SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as this unbelievable complexity, do you not think that thousands or millions of sites process equally as complicated transactions daily in a quick, safe and secure manner

no. Not even close to the same thing. That's the point you and those with obama derangement syndrome don't understand.

and then there are people like you that think it is just fine as is.

I said no such thing.

You're right, the insurance companies will be made whole and I care because when the bill comes due, we taxpayers will make the insurance companies whole.

that's not exactly what that section says.

(door slams)

The website has been working relatively well for months. Parts of it are still in process - that's true. It is secure. The insecure meme was something obama haters found in sections that have not yet been implemented. It is probably slow because of highly increased demand at the last minute. There are virtual queues. The queues have been filling up recently during the rush. This is not surprising or unexpected.

And yes there are one heck of a lot of people who signed up in the first year. You can whine all you want. This. This is success.

aca_chart_140330b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore does it really matter if we use our old 2007 version of healthcare, or Obamacare, or universal healthcare? No, it does not, until we get the industry and the costs under control. And that is seperate from the way everything gets paid, IMHO.

Different things. Obamacare is signing up the uninsured and establishes minimum standard markets. The old 2007 version did not do that. So yes, they are very different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why bother with deadlines at all? If we're going to put deadlines into the legislation, then we should live by those deadlines. If the deadlines need the ability to be extended, shouldn't that also be put into the legislation. Just throwing out a random number of days of extension smacks of bypassing Congress.

no it's not. The secretary can create special enrollment periods. By law. Which she has done. It is NOT bypassing Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believing that Obamacare isn't growing into another ghastly government appendage has got to be one of the most deranged symptoms of Obama derangement syndrome. Of all the things to complain about, the partisan spin is that it's not growing fast enough? If it was only growing even faster, that would make the difference? herrrderp What a ridiculous pretense to argue from. It looks to me like people need real things to complain about but they have to invent nonsense like that, and snippy pops about the website, to keep the partisan fires burning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believing that Obamacare isn't growing into another ghastly government appendage has got to be one of the most deranged symptoms of Obama derangement syndrome. Of all the things to complain about, the partisan spin is that it's not growing fast enough? If it was only growing even faster, that would make the difference?

Yes. In fact, I would like everyone who is uninsured to have it, thereby reducing the cost of their uninsured healthcare to society. But that will take a few years. More participants reduces the cost. You do understand how insurance works, right? You do understand that the ACA is mostly about the uninsured and underinsured, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those with obama derangement syndrome don't understand.

What don't understand?

Edited by F3SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. In fact, I would like everyone who is uninsured to have it, thereby reducing the cost of their uninsured healthcare to society. But that will take a few years. More participants reduces the cost. You do understand how insurance works, right? You do understand that the ACA is mostly about the uninsured and underinsured, right?

You were the one complaining that it wasn't growing fast enough? I thought you were the one doing the exact opposite! Wow. Okay then forgive my criticism of the GOP doom squad. I must have been out of line.

Yes I'm aware that indigent care is just a major factor in rising health care costs. No, I'm not so blinded by partisan BS not to see that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The elephant yet in the room as I see it points to the question Fess asked. The way things were, if someone goes into most hospitals needing emergency care, they get it, insured or not. Once all these mandates are safely up to speed and running as intended, what are we going to do with the people who refused to participate? Are we going to throw them out on the street? That's what would have to happen in order for actual savings to occur. If we're not a bunch of cold-blooded sadists with our preferred partisan political programs, what are the actionable alternatives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it's not. The secretary can create special enrollment periods. By law. Which she has done. It is NOT bypassing Congress.

So basically are you saying that the Enrollment period ended and a new Special one was enacted?

I don't believe that. I actually believe what Star was posting that only people "In Line" get this extension.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way things were, if someone goes into most hospitals needing emergency care, they get it, insured or not.

what are we going to do with the people who refused to participate? Are we going to throw them out on the street?

Ironically, that was a crucial argument for the ACA. Without it, people were just going to be dying in the streets.

So I do ask that as both a serious question and as an underhanded way of getting the bleeding heart liberal, whomever that may be, to do a little soul searching. If they champion their ideology they couldn't possibly just not accept who ever needs care, if only minimal. And they will. Which puts US back at square one. Lots of people insured and many not paying anything at all. If they choose otherwise the search will find that the bleeding heart is everything they loathe. So I ask again; if I don't comply, whatcha gonna do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say go with private industry over government, yet favor Medicaid over marketplaces for private insurance plans?

To get those uninsured people insured faster, I would. Yet, if everyone else liked their insurance the way it was, I'd have left that segment alone.

There are special enrollment periods for people whose life circumstances change all year, just as in any group insurance plan. But if you're talking about this one particular special enrollment period, it's for people "in line" as of today.

OK that makes sense to me. I was just wondering if more people would be allowed to begin enrolling on April 1. That does not seem to be the case, except for special situations, such as new children be born, or adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no. Not even close to the same thing. That's the point you and those with obama derangement syndrome don't understand.

I said no such thing.

that's not exactly what that section says.

The website has been working relatively well for months. Parts of it are still in process - that's true. It is secure. The insecure meme was something obama haters found in sections that have not yet been implemented. It is probably slow because of highly increased demand at the last minute. There are virtual queues. The queues have been filling up recently during the rush. This is not surprising or unexpected.

And yes there are one heck of a lot of people who signed up in the first year. You can whine all you want. This. This is success.

aca_chart_140330b.jpg

Idiotic graph again. Good lord, what a tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, that was a crucial argument for the ACA. Without it, people were just going to be dying in the streets.

So I do ask that as both a serious question and as an underhanded way of getting the bleeding heart liberal, whomever that may be, to do a little soul searching. If they champion their ideology they couldn't possibly just not accept who ever needs care, if only minimal. And they will. Which puts US back at square one. Lots of people insured and many not paying anything at all. If they choose otherwise the search will find that the bleeding heart is everything they loathe. So I ask again; if I don't comply, whatcha gonna do?

Exactly, and there was no evidence of that happening. So it all but begs your question, how are we going to enforce this program? They're going to penalize us with fines! And what if we don't pay? So I think your observations are astute. I think they're unwittingly inviting what they falsely claimed was already the problem. Who knows what they're going to do (just support it anyway, drones!).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they're unwittingly inviting what they falsely claimed was already the problem.

Once again proving that... Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said from the beginning that it was designed to fail. Thus forcing the government to put us all universal health care.

That is the Progressive Lefts dream thus a reality in the making and there is no one in their way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the point I am hearing is that our Healthcare as it was, pre-Obamacare, was NOT that bad of healthcare. It was simply a lot more expensive as far as results per dollar. Correct?

Do we need universal healthcare to lower costs? No, I don't think so. Federal healthcare programs have not shown to be run under budget, and seem prone to fraud, overpayments and mismanagement.

Would going to universal healthcare in the US reduce costs to European levels? Again, I don't think so. The healthcare industry is a monolith and would continue to demand its monetary sacrifice. The government would literally have to destroy the healthcare industry and rebuild it from the ground up.

Does anyone really believe that if the US had universal healthcare that somehow our citizens would live longer, or be more healthy? Like you said, the US lifestyle is more to blame then our healthcare. IMHO.

Therefore does it really matter if we use our old 2007 version of healthcare, or Obamacare, or universal healthcare? No, it does not, until we get the industry and the costs under control. And that is seperate from the way everything gets paid, IMHO.

Government is unethical, corrupt and inefficient.

Private industry is unethical and corrupt.

Note: Private Industry is much less inefficient. I say go with the lesser of two evils.

I'd have said in 2008, leave everything as is. Then... Put those who need insurance on Medicaid. Make medicaid easier to get and have it provide more then it did. Add to the Medicaid tax to fund this. Then regulate the crap out of the Medical Industry to attempt to bring down costs. No website necessary. No massive signup process necessary. Infrastructure needed already existed. The Dems had the votes to make this happen up until the end of 2010.

Creating a huge monstrocity on spite alone = inefficient.

I agree with you to a point. I think that healthcare is different can should not be handled the same way as other industries. I think that profiting from sickness and death is hugely unethical. If the private industry is to rule out healthcare system, then I think it should be only non-profit private entities. Otherwise there exists a perverse incentive to keep people sick and withhold true cures because it is more profitable, not to mention have huge mark-ups on prices to drastically increase profits- which in most markets would not fly, as people would just not purchase the good/service if the price was too high, but sick and dying people will mortgage the house to live a little longer. I think that private for profit industry would simply take advantage of people, and have been shown to do so. The for profit efficient private industry is NOT incentivized properly to handle our health care system ethically.

Edited by Einsteinium
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harte, from Forbes (link below excerpt):

Regarding the legality of the deadline extension, Phil Klein finds the statutory language that indicates that the extension is in fact illegal:

Specifically, Section 1311 of the healthcare law reads, “ENROLLMENT PERIODS: The Secretary shall require an Exchange to provide for– (A) an initial open enrollment,
as determined by the Secretary (such determination to be made not later than July 1, 2012).”

Given that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already determined that the enrollment period must end on March 31 — and nearly 16 months has passed since she made that determination — extending the period would require an act of Congress to change the law.

Full article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/03/25/surprise-white-house-to-delay-firm-obamacare-enrollment-deadline-past-march-31/

Sebelius can determine, by July 1, 2012, that the open enrollment period can be extended at her discretion.

End of that particular legal argument, which was made to sell news.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you to a point. I think that healthcare is different can should not be handled the same way as other industries. I think that profiting from sickness and death is hugely unethical. If the private industry is to rule out healthcare system, then I think it should be only non-profit private entities. Otherwise there exists a perverse incentive to keep people sick and withhold true cures because it is more profitable, not to mention have huge mark-ups on prices to drastically increase profits- which in most markets would not fly, as people would just not purchase the good/service if the price was too high, but sick and dying people will mortgage the house to live a little longer. I think that private for profit industry would simply take advantage of people, and have been shown to do so. The for profit efficient private industry is NOT incentivized properly to handle our health care system ethically.

I'd argue that if you gave a special treatment to Controls on healthcare costs, that eventually people will try to apply that same logic to transportation, food, housing and clothing. How could it be a right to cheap healthcare, and not be a right to cheap food, housing, clothing and trasportation. Maybe even communication. Then it is just a step away from government controls of all industry. And then just a step from Dystopia.

I understand that we Do need controls and regulations to a point, but it is that point I think that is often the topic of heated debate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Obamacare on death's door?

Based on recent news, I'm going to go ahead and say no.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on recent news, I'm going to go ahead and say no.

You're buying this hype? Of course you are. Fear of the feds, cooking the books and half of them haven't paid and never will and HHS wouldn't know if they did. Yeah, this is a great day.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're buying this hype? Of course you are. Fear of the feds, cooking the books and half of them haven't paid and never will and HHS wouldn't know if they did. Yeah, this is a great day.

I don't know when it is you decided that seeing people gain access to health services was going to be painful to you (probably in 2010?), but you have my pity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want your pity, I want you to stop lying to people here and that is a strawman slur above. There was far cheaper ways to get healthcare to people than this mess and your insistence that it is a huge success and is working fine, means you are an inveterate liar, left wing zealot, a moron or some combination of the three ? Which is it? Do you really believe the numbers they are pushing? Seriously?

Not really, their numbers are almost certainly understated. 7.1 million is merely the number of people who've enrolled in private coverage through an exchange so far. Those still "in line" as of yesterday will get to continue enrolling for at least a couple weeks. Anyone experiencing a change in life circumstances will also be able to buy a plan through an exchange at any point. So the number of exchange enrollments will climb above 7.1, perhaps toward 8 million.

Then there's another ~4.7 million that've enrolled in Medicaid since October due to the ACA's new eligibility rules, and ~1.8 million "woodworkers" in Medicaid who owe their enrollment to the ACA and related outreach efforts. The Medicaid numbers will growth throughout the year, as there's no end to Medicaid enrollment and more states are beginning their Medicaid expansions (Michigan and New Hampshire are just launching their expansions now).

Then add on all the folks (who haven't even been counted yet) benefiting from ACA-compliant plans they purchased off-exchange (and so aren't counted in the 7.1 million).

Then add on the ~3 million or so 20-somethings who have coverage due to the ACA's rules that plans have to allow folks to stay on family plans through age 26.

So 7.1 million is in fact a misleading number. It's vastly underestimating the impact the ACA has had so far.

Edited by Startraveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.