Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[KJ.]

I clearly need to go back and re-read where this discussion between sd'sker, KJ. and myself started, because I'm not following your replies at all, KJ.

I'll try to get what you're saying, but it's gonna have to wait. Too busy right now. But one thing's for sure - we're having different discussions.

Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind.

 

[JJ Husker]

Were you in a coma when this bill was passed? It did not have bipartisan support (thus rammed through) and it was widely known that most if not all congress persons had not read the bill and really didn't understand much of what they were actually voting for or against. I really don't think examples or links of this situation are necessary. If you can't accept this as common knowledge, I don't want to play your game.

I actually read through significantly most of this bill and I would bet dollars for donuts , to this day, I read way more of it than anyone in congress has read of it yet.

So it passed the Senate 60-39. That's a super-majority to avoid the filibuster. Rammed through? Hardly.

If you could show me a link where senate and house members say that they had no idea what they were voting on, I guess I'd accept that. Maybe they didn't want to read through it, but the notion that they didn't have time is laughable. Widely accepted by Fox News, maybe. That's fine if you don't want to play the game of "evidence" to support your accusations, it just makes your argument weak.

I'm not going to argue semantics. Either they didn't have enough time to read it (which, if I recall correctly, was the case) or they didn't choose to read it. Either way it is a terrible way to legislate or vote on bills.

How is that different from almost anything that goes through Congress? Too much voting on things because they are told to, and not because they actually read it and thought it was a good or bad idea. Quite frankly we have some members in Congress who would be completely incapable of understanding most of what they vote on.

I would agree and never stated that this bill or issue were any different. However, the thing that makes it stand out in this case is the sheer size and widespread impact of the ACA. One should at least hope that they would try a little harder on a bill of this magnitude and importance.

 

[Junior]

Were you in a coma when this bill was passed? It did not have bipartisan support (thus rammed through) and it was widely known that most if not all congress persons had not read the bill and really didn't understand much of what they were actually voting for or against. I really don't think examples or links of this situation are necessary. If you can't accept this as common knowledge, I don't want to play your game.

I actually read through significantly most of this bill and I would bet dollars for donuts , to this day, I read way more of it than anyone in congress has read of it yet.

So it passed the Senate 60-39. That's a super-majority to avoid the filibuster. Rammed through? Hardly.

If you could show me a link where senate and house members say that they had no idea what they were voting on, I guess I'd accept that. Maybe they didn't want to read through it, but the notion that they didn't have time is laughable. Widely accepted by Fox News, maybe. That's fine if you don't want to play the game of "evidence" to support your accusations, it just makes your argument weak.

I'm not going to argue semantics. Either they didn't have enough time to read it (which, if I recall correctly, was the case) or they didn't choose to read it. Either way it is a terrible way to legislate or vote on bills.

That's not semantics to say they didn't have enough time versus they chose not to. Very different things. I won't argue that it is a terrible way to legislate (not reading bills you are voting on), but how would that be Obama's fault?

 

[sd'sker]

I clearly need to go back and re-read where this discussion between sd'sker, KJ. and myself started, because I'm not following your replies at all, KJ.

I'll try to get what you're saying, but it's gonna have to wait. Too busy right now. But one thing's for sure - we're having different discussions.

Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind.

i do get it, i just do not get why you think it is important. all insurance is a redistribution of wealth because you will probably get more out of it than you put in. so you are saying it is a redistribution of the cost of risk. well, employer-based plans already operate like that. so what is your point?

my point has always been that the aca will make insurance better (and overall cheaper and more accessible, which is why it was desperately needed). i do agree that we have been talking at each other rather than with each other, but why does that make my point any less valid and your point any clearer or more valid? again, so you see it as a redistribution of wealth. so what? that is the point of insurance and over time it should even out, thus the need of a mandate and how insurance needs to work. but i guess you would rather look at how insurance and premiums work for a group of people for one year and base your entire assessment of aca on that. that is fine, that is your prerogative.

 

[carlfense]

Not quite in line with the original topic . . . but probably as good a place as any. This is the most accurate summary of ACA opposition that I've seen yet.

That isn't to say there are no conservatives who care about health care, because there are a few (like the folks at the Heritage Foundation who came up with the individual mandate!). But they are few and far between on the right. Your typical Republican, on the other hand, cares deeply about issues like taxes and defense policy, and works hard to understand them and come up with ideas for where they should go in the future. But had President Obama not passed health-care reform, they would have been perfectly happy to let the status quo continue indefinitely. They donned their fervent opposition to Obamacare like a new jacket, for reasons of politics, not policy. Sure, it was in many ways a conservative plan, much of whose complexity comes from the fact that it works to expand coverage within the private market. But it was big and important, and it was Obama, and it was a way to articulate their anti-government philosophy, and so they got fired up about it. But it isn't because health-care policy is something they're passionate about. Republicans care about taxes whether or not at the moment we happen to be having a big public debate about taxes. But if we weren't debating health care, they wouldn't be staying up nights coming up with interesting solutions to health-care problems, because it just isn't their thing.

http://prospect.org/...re-turns-out-ok

 

[JJ Husker]

Junior- your insecurity is showing. Nowhere in this thread have I stated tthe manner in which this bill was passed was Obama's fault. I will however hold him responsible for how it turns out and if it ends up being a good thing or a bad thing. After all it is the landmark legislation of his presidency. I hope it turns out well but, so far, I have serious doubts.

 

[carlfense]

So it passed the Senate 60-39. That's a super-majority to avoid the filibuster. Rammed through? Hardly.

Yep. Elections have consequences.

 

[Someone]

I clearly need to go back and re-read where this discussion between sd'sker, KJ. and myself started, because I'm not following your replies at all, KJ.

I'll try to get what you're saying, but it's gonna have to wait. Too busy right now. But one thing's for sure - we're having different discussions.

Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind.

i do get it, i just do not get why you think it is important. all insurance is a redistribution of wealth because you will probably get more out of it than you put in. so you are saying it is a redistribution of the cost of risk. well, employer-based plans already operate like that. so what is your point?

my point has always been that the aca will make insurance better (and overall cheaper and more accessible, which is why it was desperately needed). i do agree that we have been talking at each other rather than with each other, but why does that make my point any less valid and your point any clearer or more valid? again, so you see it as a redistribution of wealth. so what? that is the point of insurance and over time it should even out, thus the need of a mandate and how insurance needs to work. but i guess you would rather look at how insurance and premiums work for a group of people for one year and base your entire assessment of aca on that. that is fine, that is your prerogative.

1. KD has a point. If you are born in the woods without any access for medical care, raised by wolves and die when a beer comes to your cave and eats you, you will not need health insurance. Everyone else---not so much. Of course, wolf cave boy most likely doesn't file a tax return since he lives in isolation completely unknown to society so the ACA doesn't really impact him anyway.

2. Even if you have never been to a doctor a day in your life, you don't get to determine how you die. You could stroke out while driving/walking to work. If you are found laying on the sidewalk unconscience, our healthcare with take care of you.

 

[carlfense]

Pretty Diverse

Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American journalist, blogger and columnist. He is currently a blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and a political blogger at the same publication.

I try to not get too hung up on titles. Judge him by his body of work.

Likewise, keep in mind that Forbes has published things like this:

Prediction: Romney Crushes Obama In Presidential Election Blowout

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2012/05/22/romney-crushes-obama-in-presidential-election-blowout/

 

[KJ.]

I clearly need to go back and re-read where this discussion between sd'sker, KJ. and myself started, because I'm not following your replies at all, KJ.

I'll try to get what you're saying, but it's gonna have to wait. Too busy right now. But one thing's for sure - we're having different discussions.

Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind.

i do get it, i just do not get why you think it is important. all insurance is a redistribution of wealth because you will probably get more out of it than you put in. so you are saying it is a redistribution of the cost of risk. well, employer-based plans already operate like that. so what is your point?

my point has always been that the aca will make insurance better (and overall cheaper and more accessible, which is why it was desperately needed). i do agree that we have been talking at each other rather than with each other, but why does that make my point any less valid and your point any clearer or more valid? again, so you see it as a redistribution of wealth. so what? that is the point of insurance and over time it should even out, thus the need of a mandate and how insurance needs to work. but i guess you would rather look at how insurance and premiums work for a group of people for one year and base your entire assessment of aca on that. that is fine, that is your prerogative.

I stopped reading at this point. We have no business trying to talk about insurance if this is the intelligence I'm working with here.

 

[carlfense]

I'm sure you noticed that the website is merely hosting a research study done by an actuarial consulting firm that doesn't play in the health insurance market and is widely considered as the premier research firm in the insurance industry. The report is nothing more than a description of the results of predictive modeling on the 91 variables that affect the ACA. I don't care if The Onion is who posted a link to the study, it doesn't change the contents of that pdf.

I've never worked for an actuarial consulting firm but I did do a brief stint at a lobbying firm. (Very brief . . . thank goodness.) I learned that a lobbying firm who disseminates studies that shows facts unfavorable to their client will probably lose their client. I'd imagine that the health insurance industry would be quite the client to lose . . .

The real problem with my hypothetical is that I tried to make it simple enough for people here to understand. The ACA obviously can not be boiled down to that, but nobody here is intelligent enough to understand (that's not a condescending jab, I'm not either) the aggregate effect of the entire ACA. That's what the study is for, their models are incredibly good at quantifying and projecting premiums based on all sorts of combinations of those 91 variables. I obviously can only give an example that focuses on the one or two most significant variables, which is what i did.

In that case, hang tight. We'll see the real world effects soon enough.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

Pretty Diverse

Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American journalist, blogger and columnist. He is currently a blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Bloomberg, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and a political blogger at the same publication.

I try to not get too hung up on titles. Judge him by his body of work.

Likewise, keep in mind that Forbes has published things like this:

Prediction: Romney Crushes Obama In Presidential Election Blowout

http://www.forbes.co...ection-blowout/

Well played. You have once again changed the scope (I admit I helped a little bit). You are good at that.

You have taken it from the discussion of an individual to an organization. You began this thread discussion how Obamacare costs are lower than expected because Ezra Klein says so.

It's good that you were able to provide one of, likely thousands of stories in the Forbes library, that was wrong. This definitely proves that Ezra Klein has Obamacare figures correct. You are implying Obamacare costs are less than expected because Ezra Klein says so. It would be equally as sorry for me to post a story that by Ann Coulter saying Obamacare is bad.

Judge him by his body of work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

http://newsbusters.org/media-and-places/media-scandals/journolist

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-scandal-proves-media-bias/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-08-05-maines04_ST_N.htm?csp=34

 

[carlfense]

Well played. You have once again changed the scope (I admit I helped a little bit). You are good at that.

You have taken it from the discussion of an individual to an organization.

What is Forbes? I prefer Wonkblog.

^^^^^

Looks like you did a bit more than helping "a little bit."

You began this thread discussion how Obamacare costs are lower than expected because Ezra Klein says so.

That's incorrect.

It's good that you were able to provide one of, likely thousands of stories in the Forbes library, that was wrong. This definitely proves that Ezra Klein has Obamacare figures correct.

I'd certainly welcome you to provide the correct figures. You shouldn't take Klein's (or anyone else's) word for it. Go look at the CBO projection from 2009. Compare that number to the actual cost of the medium level plan on California's exchange. You might be surprised at what you find . . . or you could just return to attacking the source since the numbers might cause cognitive dissonance.

You are implying Obamacare costs are less than expected because Ezra Klein says so. It would be equally as sorry for me to post a story that by Ann Coulter saying Obamacare is bad.

What?

 

[KJ.]

I've never worked for an actuarial consulting firm but I did do a brief stint at a lobbying firm. (Very brief . . . thank goodness.) I learned that a lobbying firm who disseminates studies that shows facts unfavorable to their client will probably lose their client. I'd imagine that the health insurance industry would be quite the client to lose . . .

I don't know why you feel the need to get defensive and attack the source when it doesn't even give opinions regarding the findings. You're the one that bitches people out constantly for posting bad or biased sources, so I'm a little surprised to see you try to discredit the output of a stochastic model, which is all the report is.

If it would make you feel better, I can plug the same legal restrictions they did into the same program they used and send you the results. I have no ties to the health industry, and even if i did, nobody listens to a panda on the internet so that would hopefully be unbiased enough for you.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

(1)I didn't post the Forbes link. I also didn't present the Forbes link as fact.

(2) Backtrack all you want. This is reminisent of that gem you had about Romney's inability to spell America. If you don't remember that, click HERE.

(3)It has nothing to do with the CBO. Your OP doesn't say anything about the CBO. You posted Ezra Klein's opinion. Ezra is not a member of the extreme left wing media, he is carrying the baton.

(4)You're no idiot I know that. What you are good at is changing the subject. You picked a bad source for an OP. Judge him by his body of work.