Is Obamacare on death's door?

[+DieChecker]

16 hours ago, Startraveler said:

I'm not sure what your point is. Of course it costs you more if someone else isn't paying for the majority of your plan for you. What lesson are you taking from that? Subsidize everybody?

If I make $45 a year, then I get cheap insurance, and if I make $50 a year, it costs 4 times as much. That doesn't seem like a problem? With more then 50% of workers making more then $50?

[Startraveler]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If I make $45 a year, then I get cheap insurance, and if I make $50 a year, it costs 4 times as much. That doesn't seem like a problem? With more then 50% of workers making more then $50?

Most workers get insurance through their job. The exchange subsidy structure isn't designed for them, it's only for people who don't have an offer of coverage through work. That's a much smaller market in this country.

But even for them your statement isn't quite right. The value of the tax credit is determined by two things: 1) your income, and 2) the price of a benchmark plan in your market. And those subsidies are only available to people between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty line (or as low as 100% FPL in states that opted not to expand their Medicaid programs). 

So let's look at your own market. Below is the subsidy available to an individual (the incomes are plotted in increments of $12,060, which is 100% of the poverty level in 2017).

The first thing you can see is that the value of the premium tax credit falls to zero before you hit the income cutoff if you're below the age of about 49 or so in Portland. That means a given plan costs someone just below the 400% FPL ($48,240) cutoff the same as it costs someone just above it. The threshold has no impact. For those people in your market your statement is completely wrong.

But since older people pay higher premiums for a given plan than younger people, that's not the case if you're in your 50s or 60s. The older you get, the greater the difference between someone just below and someone just above the cutoff. So your objection is really about older people--the "near Medicare" (i.e., 55 and up) folks. 

So I'm back to asking what you're saying. Do you think subsidies should be extended to higher increments of the poverty threshold? (My chart goes to 800% FPL, though you can see for a 60-year-old the subsidy, if extended, would phase out around 700% FPL in your market.) Doing so would have no impact at all on anyone below the age of 50 or so in your city but would obviously help out older folks. Hillary Clinton had called for allowing people 55 and older to buy into Medicare--another way of helping them afford coverage, as well as getting them out of the commercial risk pool.

What is it you're looking to do here?

Edited February 8, 2017 by Startraveler

[+DieChecker]

On 2/7/2017 at 5:43 PM, Startraveler said:

Most workers get insurance through their job. The exchange subsidy structure isn't designed for them, it's only for people who don't have an offer of coverage through work. That's a much smaller market in this country.

But even for them your statement isn't quite right. The value of the tax credit is determined by two things: 1) your income, and 2) the price of a benchmark plan in your market. And those subsidies are only available to people between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty line (or as low as 100% FPL in states that opted not to expand their Medicaid programs). 

So let's look at your own market. Below is the subsidy available to an individual (the incomes are plotted in increments of $12,060, which is 100% of the poverty level in 2017).

The first thing you can see is that the value of the premium tax credit falls to zero before you hit the income cutoff if you're below the age of about 49 or so in Portland. That means a given plan costs someone just below the 400% FPL ($48,240) cutoff the same as it costs someone just above it. The threshold has no impact. For those people in your market your statement is completely wrong.

But since older people pay higher premiums for a given plan than younger people, that's not the case if you're in your 50s or 60s. The older you get, the greater the difference between someone just below and someone just above the cutoff. So your objection is really about older people--the "near Medicare" (i.e., 55 and up) folks. 

So I'm back to asking what you're saying. Do you think subsidies should be extended to higher increments of the poverty threshold? (My chart goes to 800% FPL, though you can see for a 60-year-old the subsidy, if extended, would phase out around 700% FPL in your market.) Doing so would have no impact at all on anyone below the age of 50 or so in your city but would obviously help out older folks. Hillary Clinton had called for allowing people 55 and older to buy into Medicare--another way of helping them afford coverage, as well as getting them out of the commercial risk pool.

What is it you're looking to do here?

I like the graph. Note: I am 48 now, so that age 50 line is getting closer.

I'm not saying throw it all out. I'm saying there's room for improvement. I don't think we should Enshrine the ACA as 100% perfect, but that it should regularly come up for review.

I does bother me that people are harping on the Republicans because they are now saying they want to "Fix" the ACA rather then "Repeal" it. Isn't that what the Left wants? Isn't that moving toward their side of the argument? They should be praising Congressional Republicans for being wise, rather then simply doing what the President demands.

[Harte]

16 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I does bother me that people are harping on the Republicans because they are now saying they want to "Fix" the ACA rather then "Repeal" it. Isn't that what the Left wants? Isn't that moving toward their side of the argument? They should be praising Congressional Republicans for being wise, rather then simply doing what the President demands.

If that was what they wanted, they would have originally had some discussion with the other side and presented it as an actual bill, instead of cramming it through on a technicality (reconciliation.)

Harte

[Startraveler]

19 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I does bother me that people are harping on the Republicans because they are now saying they want to "Fix" the ACA rather then "Repeal" it. Isn't that what the Left wants? Isn't that moving toward their side of the argument? They should be praising Congressional Republicans for being wise, rather then simply doing what the President demands.

Praise them for lying for years about the ACA now they've gotten caught with their hand in the cookie jar?

The reason they haven't repealed the ACA (despite floating the idea once upon a time that they would call Congress into session on Inauguration Day to do just that) is because they can't repeal the ACA. They're no longer able to lie and posture about their intent, sure. Not sure why you view that as laudable.

[Startraveler]

19 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I like the graph. Note: I am 48 now, so that age 50 line is getting closer.

Just to be clear here, one of the "fixes" they're talking about is widening the age bands. Meaning allowing insurers to charge older enrollees even more than they do now, which exacerbates the issue you're highlighting.

[Harte]

God forbid that if they are stuck with exchanges they try to make them actually viable. What are they thinking?

Harte

[Startraveler]

44 minutes ago, Harte said:

God forbid that if they are stuck with exchanges they try to make them actually viable. What are they thinking?

The GOP is "stuck" with marketplaces? Once upon a time that was the basis of their philosophy. Clearly it's not anymore, but it's still the basis of their rhetoric at least!

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Startraveler said:

Praise them for lying for years about the ACA now they've gotten caught with their hand in the cookie jar?

The reason they haven't repealed the ACA (despite floating the idea once upon a time that they would call Congress into session on Inauguration Day to do just that) is because they can't repeal the ACA. They're no longer able to lie and posture about their intent, sure. Not sure why you view that as laudable.

Once again you will be wrong and incapable of admitting it, which speaks volumes for your character.     Remember that ACA was in the vault and until December 2009, nearly a year into Obama's failed presidency and that was with large majorities in both houses.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Merc14

[Startraveler]

3 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Once again you will be wrong and incapable of admitting it, which speaks volumes for your character.     Remember that ACA was in the vault and until December 2009 of Obama's failed presidency

Did they repeal the ACA and I missed it? They sent a repeal bill up for Obama's veto a year or so ago--maybe they dusted that off (or any of the other dozens they wasted years on) and sent that up for Trump's signature and I missed it! If so, I apologize, honest mistake.

Did that happen?

[Merc14]

17 minutes ago, Startraveler said:

Did they repeal the ACA and I missed it? They sent a repeal bill up for Obama's veto a year or so ago--maybe they dusted that off (or any of the other dozens they wasted years on) and sent that up for Trump's signature and I missed it! If so, I apologize, honest mistake.

Did that happen?

Maybe if Trump was allowed to form a cabinet things would move along but we are dealing with children on the other side of the aisle.  Regardless, you have about nine more months, I am guessing, to pound that drum  so enjoy that thin soup while my prediction is finally proved true.  The Republicans had better do this right and get it correct the first time and good luck to them because ACA is wound all through the law but you will see some  major parts rescinded very shortly.

Hell, I was correct the day I made this thread and as I always said, all your cherry picking and lies will mean little when the reality hits and people start paying for this travesty. As I predicted the democrat party has paid dearly for ramming this garbage through unilaterally and by the looks of things at the moment,  will continue to do so for a decade at least. 

[Frank Merton]

31 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Maybe if Trump was allowed to form a cabinet things would move along but we are dealing with children on the other side of the aisle.  Regardless, you have about nine more months, I am guessing, to pound that drum  so enjoy that thin soup while my prediction is finally proved true.  The Republicans had better do this right and get it correct the first time and good luck to them because ACA is wound all through the law but you will see some  major parts rescinded very shortly.

Hell, I was correct the day I made this thread and as I always said, all your cherry picking and lies will mean little when the reality hits and people start paying for this travesty. As I predicted the democrat party has paid dearly for ramming this garbage through unilaterally and by the looks of things at the moment,  will continue to do so for a decade at least. 

Looks like it's turning out Obamacare was a better idea than you thought and the Republicans are afraid to ditch it.

[Startraveler]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Maybe if Trump was allowed to form a cabinet things would move along but we are dealing with children on the other side of the aisle.  Regardless, you have about nine more months, I am guessing, to pound that drum  so enjoy that thin soup while my prediction is finally proved true.  The Republicans had better do this right and get it correct the first time and good luck to them because ACA is wound all through the law but you will see some  major parts rescinded very shortly.

Nine more months? That's new, where did that come from?

I'm old enough to remember when repealing the ACA was supposed to be a priority.

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Startraveler said:

Praise them for lying for years about the ACA now they've gotten caught with their hand in the cookie jar?

The reason they haven't repealed the ACA (despite floating the idea once upon a time that they would call Congress into session on Inauguration Day to do just that) is because they can't repeal the ACA. They're no longer able to lie and posture about their intent, sure. Not sure why you view that as laudable.

I think that is BS Star', they could repeal it and have nothing. There is nothing really stopping them. Things would quickly revert to what they were. I think the reason they haven't repealed it is because they know that there are parts that are worth saving. And, I still think it shows wisdom to stop and think and plan. There shouldn't be just, "Y'r evil!", being thrown around from both sides. 

 

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Startraveler said:

Just to be clear here, one of the "fixes" they're talking about is widening the age bands. Meaning allowing insurers to charge older enrollees even more than they do now, which exacerbates the issue you're highlighting.

I think it is worth talking about if it "fixes" things for a greater majority. Are we trying to help everyone here, or playing Identity Politics?

I think it is great they are "talking". That means they are still working on it. Just because one cog appears to move things back doesn't mean the other 200 cogs will not move things forward.

[Startraveler]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think that is BS Star', they could repeal it and have nothing. There is nothing really stopping them. Things would quickly revert to what they were. I think the reason they haven't repealed it is because they know that there are parts that are worth saving. And, I still think it shows wisdom to stop and think and plan. There shouldn't be just, "Y'r evil!", being thrown around from both sides. 

 

Are you saying they've been lying for seven years? I recall quite a bit of talk about tearing the ACA out "root and branch," not much about "there are parts that are worth saving."

Have they been lying about their position and the ACA for the better part of a decade? Have they secretly liked major parts of it all along?

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think it is worth talking about if it "fixes" things for a greater majority. Are we trying to help everyone here, or playing Identity Politics?

I think it is great they are "talking". That means they are still working on it. Just because one cog appears to move things back doesn't mean the other 200 cogs will not move things forward.

Identity politics? You're the one that brought up the 400% FPL "cliff" (which, as I pointed out, is exclusively an issue for older people) as a problem with the ACA that someone needs to fix. The GOP's approach is to exacerbate it, make the cliff bigger.

And now, on a dime, you don't view your own issue here as a problem? Good! Then I think we just solved that one. One "problem" with the ACA evaporated, on to the next.

[Merc14]

12 hours ago, Startraveler said:

Nine more months? That's new, where did that come from?

I'm old enough to remember when repealing the ACA was supposed to be a priority.

I heard it on the news from one of the house leaders and he also stated that ripping the program out is still most definitely a prioroity.  

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think that is BS Star', they could repeal it and have nothing. There is nothing really stopping them. Things would quickly revert to what they were. I think the reason they haven't repealed it is because they know that there are parts that are worth saving. And, I still think it shows wisdom to stop and think and plan. There shouldn't be just, "Y'r evil!", being thrown around from both sides. 

 

Don't let star bait you, he was caught in a lie and also proven to be terribly wrong in what he was selling and now is trying to change the subject.  You or I would simply admit our error and hope the replacement is better than the mess our side left the country with but people like star, leftist ideologues, don't have character enough to admit an error and are far to full of sanctimony to ever hope the new succeeds where theirs has failed so miserably.  In other words he'll never have anything god to day about anything done the next 4-8 years.  

Remember, this isn't politics to the left,  it is a religion and they are zealots, perpetually angry zealots who are incapable of seeing anything their religion does as wrong.  That is why a $4T increase in debt and a GDP of 5.1% under Bush was "unopatriotic" and the worst economy in 50 years and a $10T increase in debt with a GDP that never exceeded 3% for eight years (a first in US history) under Obama is fine because it is the new normal. the media is in on it as well. 

I had to laugh the other day when CBS trotted out the unemployment figures and for the first time in 8 years I once again saw the U6 numbers.  The U6 numbers were a dark and dirty secret during the Obama regime because the U6 is the real unemployment number.  I'll let Investopedia explain:

In contrast to the U-3 rate, the U-6 unemployment rate includes all of these cases. Consequently, the U-6 rate is much truer to a natural, non-technical understanding of what it means to be unemployed. By capturing discouraged workers, underemployed workers and other folks who exist on the margins of the labor market, the U-6 rate provides a broad picture of the underutilization of labor in the country. In this sense, the U-6 rate is the true unemployment rate.

Read more: The True Unemployment Rate: U6 Vs. U3 | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-unemployment-rate-u6-vs-u3.asp#ixzz4YON38fTB 
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

The dirty secret they have been hiding is Obama has been at 13%-15% unemployment rate most of his 8 years and was near 20% for a time.  Current U6 is 10.1% BoL and 14.4% Gallup but the day that Barry was leaving the U3 numbers were used and that number was 4.4% unemployment.  CBS' intention is to give the impression unemployment jumped from 4.4 to 10.1 since Obama left.  Watch for this in the future now that you know how the numbers are derived.

Same thing will happen with healthcare.  As the republicans start dismantling star's baby the networks will suddenly discover the horrors people have been reporting here for years as if it is something new.  I guarantee this will happen.  

Edited February 11, 2017 by Merc14

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Startraveler said:

Are you saying they've been lying for seven years? I recall quite a bit of talk about tearing the ACA out "root and branch," not much about "there are parts that are worth saving."

Have they been lying about their position and the ACA for the better part of a decade? Have they secretly liked major parts of it all along?

Depends. Are we talking about REAL regular people, including both Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats, or are we ONLY talking about the line-toeing bobble heads that pretend to run things in Washington DC?

Seems to me that I've seen lots of good ideas. They just don't make the news much. Party because the News outlets are so liberal, and partly because it didn't matter, since Obama was going to Veto ANYTHING that came to his desk regarding Obamacare. However with a new Sheriff in town, who might sign such legislation, dusting off old ideas might be just the thing to get the CBO to see if it might work.

Quote

Identity politics? You're the one that brought up the 400% FPL "cliff" (which, as I pointed out, is exclusively an issue for older people) as a problem with the ACA that someone needs to fix. The GOP's approach is to exacerbate it, make the cliff bigger.

And now, on a dime, you don't view your own issue here as a problem? Good! Then I think we just solved that one. One "problem" with the ACA evaporated, on to the next.

You totally ignored my argument and are attempting to defect the discussion. Should Healthcare support the needs of the Majority, or only pander to the few who are the worst off? Is it worth it to take one step back if the result is four steps forward? Can you say with confidence that what is being proposed MUST make things worse? Or are you viewing the subject by way of bias?

It is Identity Politics to pander to the tiny few at the expense of the many. I'll admit that the elderly need more help, however we have to keep in mind the elderly also account for the largest part of the pie chart. Is it "Fair" to hand them more then everyone else? Should we, instead of basing Social Security on what you paid in and how much, simply just hand out a base amount increasing with age? Is that "Fair". I think everyone who is not elderly would say No, and those who are elderly would mostly say Yes. Because people want what is advantageous to themselves. It is the nature of humanity.

[OldNate]

Cool, another thread with the Left and the Right ripping at each other.  Never gets old.  In the meantime, my mother is going in for a knee replacement in a couple months.  She's not saving up, she's not considering spending her retirement savings on it, and she's not even using company benefits.  She does not have to worry about complications extending her stay and driving her bills up, she does not have to worry if some rich person is getting better care than her, the only thing she has to worry about is taking a bit of weight off before the surgery, and then recovering. She will never even know the cost of her surgery, let alone receive a bill.  I'm so happy Canada decided to have universal health care instead of an oversized, overused military.  

Another cool fact:  we have lots of space up here!!  We love immigrants, and if you're the type of American that would move to Canada, chances are you're the type of American we like.  Come on up!  The beer's good, and the health care is free (which even the Right up here thinks is a good idea), and most of us are not even scared of Muslims!  

[F3SS]

You guys hear OldNate up there? Go on! It's just what you're looking for. 

[Harte]

16 hours ago, Startraveler said:

The GOP is "stuck" with marketplaces? Once upon a time that was the basis of their philosophy. Clearly it's not anymore, but it's still the basis of their rhetoric at least!

Currently, exchanges clearly are not working, and haven't been in a couple of years.

However, Democrats did nothing to alleviate this problem, and idiots re-elected the architect, so "stuck" is now the correct term.

So, having enshrined this method - federal exchanges - the Dems abdicated their role to make what they own work, and now that the system is entrenched, it is incumbent upon the Republicans to make the necessary repairs.

IOW, due to Democratic Party intransigence, the Republican Party is now about to own the repairs they are FORCED to make to the Democrats' poorly constructed vote-buying health care scheme.

Harte

[Gromdor]

45 minutes ago, F3SS said:

You guys hear OldNate up there? Go on! It's just what you're looking for. 

If we are going to build a wall to stop immigrants from coming in, what right do we have to encourage immigrants from going out?

[F3SS]

7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

If we are going to build a wall to stop immigrants from coming in, what right do we have to encourage immigrants from going out?

I, we, have every right to do so. Besides, you're using straw man wording. A wall is about stifling illegal immigration. Nobody and I mean nobody has ever taken an issue with the act of legal immigration.

[Gromdor]

Just now, F3SS said:

I, we, have every right to do so. Besides, you're using straw man wording. A wall is about stifling illegal immigration. Nobody and I mean nobody has ever taken an issue with the act of legal immigration.

Green cards and visas are legal immigration and we just had a big issue with that....

[Startraveler]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Depends. Are we talking about REAL regular people, including both Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats, or are we ONLY talking about the line-toeing bobble heads that pretend to run things in Washington DC?

Seems to me that I've seen lots of good ideas. They just don't make the news much. Party because the News outlets are so liberal, and partly because it didn't matter, since Obama was going to Veto ANYTHING that came to his desk regarding Obamacare. However with a new Sheriff in town, who might sign such legislation, dusting off old ideas might be just the thing to get the CBO to see if it might work.

You totally ignored my argument and are attempting to defect the discussion. Should Healthcare support the needs of the Majority, or only pander to the few who are the worst off? Is it worth it to take one step back if the result is four steps forward? Can you say with confidence that what is being proposed MUST make things worse? Or are you viewing the subject by way of bias?

It is Identity Politics to pander to the tiny few at the expense of the many. I'll admit that the elderly need more help, however we have to keep in mind the elderly also account for the largest part of the pie chart. Is it "Fair" to hand them more then everyone else? Should we, instead of basing Social Security on what you paid in and how much, simply just hand out a base amount increasing with age? Is that "Fair". I think everyone who is not elderly would say No, and those who are elderly would mostly say Yes. Because people want what is advantageous to themselves. It is the nature of humanity.

I'm talking about the GOP, which has pretended to want to repeal the ACA for years. 

As for the old folks, I don't have any particular objection to raising their costs (I thought you did!). One could easily argue that the ACA has been far too generous to them, at the expense of the young. Which makes no sense from a political perspective, as the young are a Dem constituency and the old are GOP constituency. The GOP can now do what it wants to its voters.

I expect that to occur in the individual market and Medicare not too long after. 

 

25 minutes ago, Harte said:

Currently, exchanges clearly are not working, and haven't been in a couple of years.

However, Democrats did nothing to alleviate this problem, and idiots re-elected the architect, so "stuck" is now the correct term.

So, having enshrined this method - federal exchanges - the Dems abdicated their role to make what they own work, and now that the system is entrenched, it is incumbent upon the Republicans to make the necessary repairs.

IOW, due to Democratic Party intransigence, the Republican Party is now about to own the repairs they are FORCED to make to the Democrats' poorly constructed vote-buying health care scheme.

Harte

If the GOP wants to improve exchanges, that's great!