ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?

What did I distort in that post? Obama made the claim about the percentage of people having problems with the law. I pointed out that the law was passed because the same percentage of people did not have health insurance. Where is the inaccuracy or distortion?

All of the above, basically.

You want to look at figures from right now and claim that they are reflective of the impact for a law that won't even be fully implemented for a couple of years!

ALSO, you ignore WHY so many people don't understand the law... and that is because they listen, LIKE YOU, to heavily right wing and largely anti-government sites. THOSE sites have no interest in making things really better of in perpetuating truth, the sole agenda is to find any way to attack anything htey consider "government" and pretend that it is some big "cause".

The information HAS been out there, but if , lik eyou, they only pay attention to the right wing rhetoric then, no, you won't find anything... THOSE folks, aka the folks you seem to listen to , don't want anyone to know what is in the healthcare reform act, because if people really paid attention, they might not be so opposed.

Why wouldn't we want people to know about the massive amounts of taxes and control the federal government has enacted and is forcing upon the American people? It's the Democrats who refused to share what was in it before passing it.[/quote]
Maybe becuase that is very, very far from the whole story!

But, of course, you, like many others, won't bother to investigate, you just recite what you have heard because it is convenient to believe any attack is "truth".

Other stuff you got wrong:
The claim that "Obama said everyone can keep their insurance" -- what he actually said was that there is nothing in the law preventing anyone who has insurance that meets basic criteria from keeping it.

The claim that "it won't cost more" -- he actually said that the overwhelming majority of people making less than 25O thousand will see no change. A few people, those getting what are now being called "cadillac policies" (those with NO copayments, few or no penalties for thingsl ike no show appointments, covering a lot of things most people might consider optional like elective plastic surgery-- NOT reconstructive surgery to correct abnormalities or injury, but things like "nose jobs", etc.). There was also a small group of tohers that were always identified as likely to wind up paying more, but getting into those details is apparently "too complicated" -- and too truthful.

I could go on, but you tend to ignore real criticisms of what you put forward as it is.

What part of "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it under this law" do you not understand? It's plain language that Obama repeated profusely. Yet it has been a lie. Why can't you acknowledge that instead of worshipping big government?

I anwered that above.

BUT.. add in "if they would keep it before, they can keep it now" along with the other clarification I already stated, "nothing in the law prevents people from keeping their insurance". THat was in response to repub claims that the law would make people lose their insurance. It does not.

The real problem is that employers get to decide insurance, nothing to do with this bill. They have ALWAYS had the option to cancel, change and most DO. We have had our insurance changed every year for the pat 15 years, NOT counting the times when my husband changed jobs -- in each case, the prior employer AND the current employer had changed their insurance that year or the year prior (depending on the fiscal year date).

By the way, why do you want to punish those people who have great insurance plans? I thought you wanted to lower costs and provide great health care. I guess all you truly want is for everyone to have the exact same mediocre government provided plan?

Funny, that comment. The fact is that these policies represent a tax-free addition to their income. We are looking at balancing a very skewed budget.

I would have all NEEDED care to be paid for in a national program, but things like non-medically indicated massages and nose jobs for teens who don't like their faces don't need to be subsidized by taxpayers.

Oh, yeah... and along with all your criticisms, how about telling us how you would actually do things better? Because so far, nothing you have put forward really will work.

I would make it harder to sue for medical malpractice so that dozens of unnecessary tests aren't performed. [/quote]
Good, something I have said many times... but how? In the past you have simply advocated limits to payments. That won't solve anything. It will just remove what recourse people have now.

I would require that the prices for procedures all be publicly listed and available both online and in service providers.

No dice.

For very basic, standard care that can work, but overall, health outcomes DECREASE, rather than increase with competition. This has been explained to you many times and you repeatedly ignore the data in preference of perpetuating this myth.

Also, even when it does work, it requires access. People don't have options in most medical situations. Again, when they do... things like back care, some preventative services, more providers tend to increase useage and decrease the good outcomes per dollar spent, not the reverse.

Backs are the easiset to demonstrate. Basically, doctors wind up doing surgery on people with fewer problems. In areas with fewer specialists, the doctors would be more likely to tellt he "borderline" cases to "wait and see" or to try some non-invasive measures first. HOWEVER, when there are more doctors around a combination of doctors just talking to each other and convincing themselvs that they can fix more problems than they really might be able to fix AND a realization that if they don't take this patient, someone else will... all of those and some other factors are big reasons why competition results in more cost for medical care, not less.

The above is just one example, documented, data given to you before, but there are many, many reasons why standard competition models don't apply to medical care.

I would remove the employer-based system we have in favor of individuals making their own decisions.

You mix a real concept and a distortion. The real bit is that employers have no business in the health insurance business. The fiction is that people will and can make the best medical decisions for themselves. Medicine is a speciality. It takes years and years to be trained in just one facet of the field. You are either an expert in nureosurgery OR vascular sugery OR general practice, not all of the above. No individual without that training really can, as you claim "make their own decisions". What people do is listen to the experts and decide if they TRUST what they hear, LIKE the person. In your case, add in you are, like many males in particular (not a slur.. this is verified reality), of the belief that you are somehow going to avoid most of the really major problems and therefore "don't really need" most of the tests and coverage recommended. Oh, yeah... an dyou feel fine wiht uysing payment of medical care to put forward your agenda regarding women's health.

And then I would allow individuals to choose their plans based on any plan offered in the country instead of the artificial limits of "minimum" coverage imposed by each state.

FAIL... as explained above. Those minimums are there for very good reasons.

Now... before you start, I am not going to say that they should not be adjusted, (though in most cases the adjustment needs to be up, not down, particular for preventative care measures). Medical care changes faster than just about any industry on Earth, so of course constant adjustments are necessary. However, the basic idea tthat there is a minimum level of care that ALL people need... even those of you who seem to htink you will stay fully healthy "forever".

You don't have the RIGHT to claim you don't need care for expensive things, becuase in the end, if you don't pay now, we ALL pay later. What you are putting forward as "free choice" is really just the old game of pushing off costs to later.. and, in this case onto others too boot, its not really intelligent and full thinking.

[PLAYER57832]

Fine, point accepted, with one caveat.

The bill being online for people to read (usually without a team of lawyers) does not really "help" to know what is in Obamacare.

LOL -- not if you refuse to actually read, no.

BUT... the biggest point is that there are ALSO plenty of verified summaries. The trouble is that you want to only believe those that seem to agee with your pre-determined ideas. In other words, if anything actually tells you you are wrong, you reject it in favor of sites that agree with you. You won't bother to investigate which is telling the truth, you just stick with what you like.

That is NOT a historic normal way of doing things, but it apparently has become acceptable to your generations of internet only folks.

This online thread, to discuss Obamacare as it trickles out bit by bit over the years and shows how it specifically will/won't affect, is far more "helpful"

It would if people actually listened to those who disagree, actually investigated the claims instead of just looking for the next point hey can attack because its far more important to "win" than to learn.

You will never be educated as long as you persist in refusing to accept or even investigate anything that seems to disagree with your pre-formed ideas.

You were against the healthcare reform act before it was even written, simply becuase it was put fowrard by Obama and Democrats. You have not seriously considered anything but ways to attack it from the get-go. That doesn't lead to education or illumination at all. It leads to supporting your existing biases, not education.

You attack me, but I am, ironically enough, one of the people who has actually changed positions based on things i have read here.. BUT, after verifying, not just because I liked what I read or the person who wrote it.

[Woodruff]

Took me, like, a few hours.

It definitely took me longer. And I read at a pretty decent clip.

Did you just skim?

[AndyDufresne]

After vigorous research, I've determined this is how Phatscotty understands Obamacare:




--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

How long did it take you to read the Obamacare bill, Woodruff?

The problem is that you are the one who has claimed to already know what is in it and to be sufficiently informed to both condemn the bill AND to dispute anyone who disagreed with you... but, you did this without actually having researched your views.

[Woodruff]

After vigorous research, I've determined this is how Phatscotty understands Obamacare:


--Andy

Andy, you're on quite the Star Trek: TOS kick with the clips lately. I heartily approve.

[Night Strike]

I thought Obamacare was fully funded upon passage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/04/states-blindsided-by-plan-to-shift-costs-un-insurable-to-them-under-obamacare/

[Phatscotty]

After vigorous research, I've determined this is how Phatscotty understands Obamacare:


--Andy

haha



So you guys know what the rules used to be, before they changed them, and got all their waivers in, and ran into budget shortfalls and are completely scrapping certain sections and revenue streams and state exchanges are all doing it differently or not at all.

I heard joke once...

[GreecePwns]

Look at all these supposed leftists, defending corporate welfare of their preferred type and rhetoric of their preferred type.

[BigBallinStalin]

Look at all these supposed leftists, defending corporate welfare of their preferred type and rhetoric of their preferred type.

You have to admit that they are adorable--thinking that they're helping the poor and all that.

[thegreekdog]

Look at all these supposed leftists, defending corporate welfare of their preferred type and rhetoric of their preferred type.

You have to admit that they are adorable--thinking that they're helping the poor and all that.

To be fair, they are helping the poor. They are also helping the super wealthy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Look at all these supposed leftists, defending corporate welfare of their preferred type and rhetoric of their preferred type.

You have to admit that they are adorable--thinking that they're helping the poor and all that.

To be fair, they are helping the poor. They are also helping the super wealthy.

Except for those who work less than 30 hours or will be made to work less than 30 hours, so that the employer doesn't have to provide the new, more expensive insurance--and instead pay a fine.

And except for those healthy individuals in the middle-class whose rates will rise dramatically. (Note: the young adults of middle-class families, whose start-up well-being they depend on, usually start in the bottom 20% bracket, 'cuz they're poor').

And then there are those (some of whom are in the bottom 20%) who will simply opt to pay for the fine instead of getting insurance--because the price of insurance on being healthy will significantly rise.

Oh, well-intended voters, what have you done? (Remained uninformed). Will the costs of your poor decisions be significantly felt by you and your favored politicians? (In most cases, no). Will you learn from the mistakes you've created? (No, it's cheaper to remain uninformed yet well-intended).

The Tragedy of Ideology, which is the favored substitute of becoming informed.

[Metsfanmax]

Will the costs of your poor decisions be significantly felt by you and your favored politicians?

What, specifically, are the poor decisions made by the voters in question?

[BigBallinStalin]

Will the costs of your poor decisions be significantly felt by you and your favored politicians?

What, specifically, are the poor decisions made by the voters in question?

Choosing and promoting particular politicians who provided that age-old meme: "I have a plan" (Obamacare). The decisions were made poorly because the voters were (and still are) uninformed.

[Metsfanmax]

Will the costs of your poor decisions be significantly felt by you and your favored politicians?

What, specifically, are the poor decisions made by the voters in question?

Choosing and promoting particular politicians who provided that age-old meme: "I have a plan" (Obamacare). The decisions were made poorly because the voters were (and still are) uninformed.

How might voters have effected a better health care law had they been better informed? The number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large.

[BigBallinStalin]

Will the costs of your poor decisions be significantly felt by you and your favored politicians?

What, specifically, are the poor decisions made by the voters in question?

Choosing and promoting particular politicians who provided that age-old meme: "I have a plan" (Obamacare). The decisions were made poorly because the voters were (and still are) uninformed.

How might voters have effected a better health care law had they been better informed? The number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large.

Suppose a group of people is totally ignorant and has little incentive to understand the political issues or the political process--or even substitutes like markets. Do you think that they would create a demand for Great Politicians? Do you think that they'd be more susceptible to rhetoric than reason?

It's not just the number; it's the quality. The problem with democracy is that the voters get the kind of politicians which they demand, and not all votes are equally influential--it depends on their organizational capability (e.g. special interest groups v. the average Joe on his street who belongs to no special interest group).


Think of this way: Behold the common politician of the US. He/she tells the people what they want to hear, and then exploits taxpayers by transferring wealth from the nation to her own particular constituents and special interest groups which fund her campaign. She logrolls (exchanges favors) with other politicians in order to accrue political clout, so that she can further implement later bills via limitation riders and etc., which benefit particular groups. Some of the most powerful politicians in the US are not presidents, but rather particular congressmembers on specific committees.

Do you think the average voter knows what I'm talking about? Do you even think they care? About 50% do not vote on the presidential election, and significantly less vote for State and municipal elections.

Do you realize how little most voters know about politics and economics? In a state of ignorance, do you realize how susceptible people are to a superior's authority? In other words, if one lacks the knowledge to refute claims, then they're much more likely to accept them as true.

For example, "the Federal Reserve will continue expansionary monetary policy because it (a) stimulates the economy and/or (b) prevents utter collapse which is the worst option"; "A Central Bank prevents financial crises--or it lessens them, thus the Great Moderation"; "The financial aid to Somalia must continue; otherwise, innocent people will die, and Somalia will not be able to stand up on its own"; "We cannot pull out our troops from Iraq; otherwise, the situation will get worse"; "We must implement laws A through X in order to protect our citizens from terrorism"; "Anarchy means 'no rules'!"; "Markets exploit the common working man"; "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer." (You know, ignorant and/or misleading claims like that).

Perhaps more voters may become intelligent enough to say, "gee, this is complex, and I don't see how a 2000+ page bill, which was deliberated for a couple of weeks, is really going to solve the insurance problem. Also, what would there be to prevent 'pork-barrel' politics? How do I know that this bill will not become a boondoggle for insurance companies?" "Hey, this Obama sounds great, but why is he receiving millions from the large banks?" "Do the activities of politicians really promote the general interest?" "Do my good intentions lead to good outcomes?" "Do I care?"

That's what's missing. Instead, you get a lot of ignorant claims and ideological positions (e.g. Player, JB, PS, NS, and many others at a significantly lesser frequency).

RE: the underlined, since the late 1880s, policies have become increasingly politicized at a national level. Solutions are constrained toward the roads of D.C. Your question reflects that kind of thinking; it's exemplary of such conditioning. Voters do not realize the alternatives, and they possess an ideological--at times fanatical--faith in the state to solve perceived problems. That's a huge problem, and it persists from a lack of knowledge--i.e. being uninformed.

So, that's that.

[thegreekdog]

Will the costs of your poor decisions be significantly felt by you and your favored politicians?

What, specifically, are the poor decisions made by the voters in question?

Choosing and promoting particular politicians who provided that age-old meme: "I have a plan" (Obamacare). The decisions were made poorly because the voters were (and still are) uninformed.

How might voters have effected a better health care law had they been better informed? The number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large.

Why do you think the number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large?

[Symmetry]

Will the costs of your poor decisions be significantly felt by you and your favored politicians?

What, specifically, are the poor decisions made by the voters in question?

Choosing and promoting particular politicians who provided that age-old meme: "I have a plan" (Obamacare). The decisions were made poorly because the voters were (and still are) uninformed.

How might voters have effected a better health care law had they been better informed? The number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large.

Why do you think the number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large?

Why would you doubt that?

[Phatscotty]

Retailers are cutting worker hours at a rate not seen in more than three decades — a sudden shift that can only be explained by the onset of ObamaCare’s employer mandates.

Nonsupervisory employees logged an average 30.0 hours per week in April, the shortest retail workweek since early 2010, Labor Department data out Friday show.

Even as retail payrolls have kept rising, with rank-and-file employment up 132,000, or 1%, over the past year, aggregate hours worked have fallen 0.9% over that span.

The average retail workweek was 2% shorter in April than a year earlier, the steepest sustained decline since 1980, an IBD analysis found.

The retail workweek recovered steadily as the job market strengthened from the start of 2010 until the spring of 2012. Since then, it has been all downhill, with the apparent pace of decline accelerating in recent months.

This reversal doesn’t appear related to the economy, which has been consistently mediocre. Instead, all evidence points to the coming launch of ObamaCare, which the retail industry has warned would cause just such a result.

[john9blue]

Will the costs of your poor decisions be significantly felt by you and your favored politicians?

What, specifically, are the poor decisions made by the voters in question?

Choosing and promoting particular politicians who provided that age-old meme: "I have a plan" (Obamacare). The decisions were made poorly because the voters were (and still are) uninformed.

How might voters have effected a better health care law had they been better informed? The number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large.

Why do you think the number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large?

Why would you doubt that?

*insert some shit about burden of proof, symmetry's an idiot/troll, etc.*

[Phatscotty]

Why would a voter who has values and principles, like, say, believes in limited government/Freedom, necessarily need to be better informed about the details health care law (whether or not they change the rules as they go along)?

It's perfectly okay to reject the trillion dollar entitlement program on principle and knowledge of the history of government and proposed spending programs

[BigBallinStalin]

Why would a voter who has values and principles, like, say, believes in limited government/Freedom, necessarily need to be better informed about the details health care law (whether or not they change the rules as they go along)?

It's perfectly okay to reject the trillion dollar entitlement program on principle and knowledge of the history of government and proposed spending programs

You're conflating two different things. The first paragraph isn't about knowledge, then the second is about knowledge, so what are you trying to say?

[thegreekdog]

Why do you think the number of politicians to choose from is not particularly large?

Why would you doubt that?

*insert some shit about burden of proof, symmetry's an idiot/troll, etc.*

Hey! You can be my Symmetry spokesperson now!

[Phatscotty]

Why would a voter who has values and principles, like, say, believes in limited government/Freedom, necessarily need to be better informed about the details health care law (whether or not they change the rules as they go along)?

It's perfectly okay to reject the trillion dollar entitlement program on principle and knowledge of the history of government and proposed spending programs

You're conflating two different things. The first paragraph isn't about knowledge, then the second is about knowledge, so what are you trying to say?

It's perfectly okay to reject the trillion dollar entitlement program on principle and knowledge of the history of government and proposed spending programs, not necessarily knowledge of Obamacare.

It's not a direct response to Symm, just towards something he said

[BigBallinStalin]

Why would a voter who has values and principles, like, say, believes in limited government/Freedom, necessarily need to be better informed about the details health care law (whether or not they change the rules as they go along)?

It's perfectly okay to reject the trillion dollar entitlement program on principle and knowledge of the history of government and proposed spending programs

You're conflating two different things. The first paragraph isn't about knowledge, then the second is about knowledge, so what are you trying to say?

It's perfectly okay to reject the trillion dollar entitlement program on principle and knowledge of the history of government and proposed spending programs, not necessarily knowledge of Obamacare.

It's not a direct response to Symm, just towards something he said

Oh, by being 'informed', it's not about having the particular knowledge of a particular policy. It's generally about understanding the political process, the market process, etc.

E.g. an uninformed mechanic is a mechanic who doesn't know much about fixing cars, but nonetheless gets to predominantly rely on his feelings and beliefs when fixing your car. He lacks an education/understanding on what's he doing and can't really see/understand the outcomes.