GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

[Jack Hays]

Yes.. what I say is correct... NOT what you say...

That mandate largely doesn't affect the pool. That's because the vast majority of americans already have health insurance . About 85%...

I suggest when you link to an article.. you try to read it and UNDERSTAND what its saying , not just pick a sentence you agree with. Let me provide a little more context.





so whats the reason behind the mandate?

Again.. you should read your posted article..



That's why the mandate is necessary... not to dry to drag healthier people from that 15% that's uninsured... its so that folks that have insurance can't cancel the policy when well, then pick it up when they are sick.
85% of americans have insurance.. and insurance companies are doing fine... that 15% and that portion of that that's young healthy people.. simple don't add up to a hill of beans compared to the 85% of americans that are already covered. The mandate is so that the 85% don't drop coverage and pick it up only when sick which is what could happen when you get rid of pre existing conditions.

Again.. you are wrong. Even the article you linked to explains it to you.

Your ideological armor is apparently impenetrable. Your post makes my point. Thank you.eace

 

[jaeger19]

Your ideological armor is apparently impenetrable. Your post makes my point. Thank you.eace

Nope.. your post makes MY point.. and my point has been consistent... its your ideological armor that's impenetrable.. that's why you haven't been able to refute anything I have said.. and have to claim that it supports your point when it does not.

You have been schooled.. you are welcome.

 

[tres borrachos]

Employer mandate:

The ObamaCare employer mandate / employer penalty, originally set to begin in 2014, will be delayed until 2015 / 2016. The ObamaCare "employer mandate" is a requirement that all businesses with over 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees provide health insurance for their full-time employees, or pay a per month "Employer Shared Responsibility Payment" on their federal tax return.

Employer mandate update: Small businesses with 50-99 full-time equivalent employees will need to start insuring workers by 2016. Those with a 100 or more will need to start providing health benefits in 2015. Health care tax credits have been retroactively available to small businesses with 25 or less full-time equivalent employees since 2010.

ObamaCare Employer Mandate

 

[Jack Hays]

Nope.. your post makes MY point.. and my point has been consistent... its your ideological armor that's impenetrable.. that's why you haven't been able to refute anything I have said.. and have to claim that it supports your point when it does not.

You have been schooled.. you are welcome.

Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution rests.:roll:

 

[tres borrachos]

July 2, 2013:

The Obama administration has decided to delay the implementation of Obamacare’s employer mandate—the requirement that all firms with 50 or more employees offer health coverage, or pay steep fines—until 2015. The mandate was supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2014.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nope.. your post makes MY point.. and my point has been consistent... its your ideological armor that's impenetrable.. that's why you haven't been able to refute anything I have said.. and have to claim that it supports your point when it does not.

You have been schooled.. you are welcome.

Because I believe that victory should be used as a teachable moment, I have some homework for you. Learn it and avoid embarrassment in the future.eace

"The theory behind the individual mandate is that the way to create an insurance market that lets people with pre-existing conditions get covered at reasonable prices is to make everyone participate.

Without some way to push healthy people into the insurance market, the fear is that it'll fall apart. Mostly sick people would get insurance, which would drive up prices, which would lead to healthier people deciding not to buy any, which would force insurers to raise rates to cover their expenses, which would lead to even more healthy people opting out. That cycle is called a "death spiral" in insurancespeak.
The individual mandate is not a popular policy at all for obvious reasons (Obama himself even used to oppose it). But the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that it's Constitutional, so we have to deal with it. Massachusetts has had an individual mandate since 2007, and it's worked out pretty well there."

" Why it matters: With no penalty for not purchasing health insurance, but a requirement for insurers to accept anyone who wants insurance, many expected the costs of insurance would increase as the healthy hung back from the system and the sick flooded it. Some states learned this from experience: Kentucky, for example, attempted to eliminate pre-existing conditions in 1994 without the mandated purchase of insurance and saw its premiums spike. Its law was repealed in 2004. Health care economists expect this would happen if federal health reform didn’t include a mandate, either: They project that premiums would go up anywhere from 2 to 40 percent."

1. [PDF]Adverse Selection and an Individual Mandate - American Economic ...
   
   https://www.aeaweb.org/.../retrieve.php?...‎American Economic Association
   
   
   by MB Hackmann - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
   individual mandate; consistent with an initially adversely selected insurance market. ... a centerpiece of both the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 and the Massachusetts health reform ...... with mean µstate and construct the arithmetic mean.You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 3/25/14
2. Individual Mandate - Huffington Post
   
   www.huffingtonpost.com/news/individual-mandate‎The Huffington Post
   
   
   Do You Have Math Anxiety? Maybe ... And the mercurial man behind the mammoth aggregat. ... The Obamacare deadline for this year is almost upon us. ... CBO: Five-Year Individual Mandate Delay Means 13 Million More Uninsured, Higher ...

 

[Perotista]

I agree with the above. I agree that he tabled some to protect some of the red state democrats.. for example the gun control initiatives that were brought forward by his very left leaning democrats. Heck, such could have put him in jeopardy.. (reid is pro gun if you didn't know). The gun issue would have been the democrats third rail.

I think though its possible that politics being what they are.. McConnell could have gone to Reid and asked him to table some of the things that would have also hurt the republicans, and in return, Mcconnel was able to deliver enough republican votes to pass things Reid wanted. Such as in spending, keeping the government open etc.

I don't think Christie is done.. or even close to done.. I think that bridgegate won't stick very much to him. First.. it isn't till 2016. Second its New Jersey... you don;t get to be governor of NJ without learning how to step around some cow pies.

Christie's advantage was that he was wlling to buck the GOP leadership. The question will be whether he can continue to do that in a presidential election. Romney couldn't. If he had stuck to his principles, and avoided going down the tea party road.. he could of, heck he should have won.

On Romney I noticed that down here in Georgia. In 2008 he had the party big wigs in this state for him, but the rank and file didn't trust him. Romney threw away a life time of political beliefs to run for president. He lost the Georgia Primary to McCain. In 2012, you saw very few Romney bumper stickers and there was little energy or enthusiasm for him. Heck, as long as he wasn't Obama, any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done.

As for Christie, I am keeping an eye on him. Like I pointed out he is about the only Republican presidential candidate so far anyway, of those we know that can start from a fairly even field when it comes to the electoral college. Independents have soured on him as of late, but they have little to do with the Republican nomination unless they are from a state like Georgia which doesn't have party registration and one can vote in either primary. Yep, I am keeping my eye on him.

I have been fairly peeved at both Reid and McConnell since 2010 happened. But I can't do anything about them. I think both are way too busy being Democrats and Republicans instead of Americans. But that is me.

 

[Perotista]

Polgara is referring to the news that a law firm that Christie hired (and he has long ties to the firm) has reported that it found nothing to indicate that Christie knew what was going on.

Thanks, I never heard that. But I would feel better about it is it was reported by State Assemblyman John Wisniewski who is the Democrat in charge of the bridgegate investigation reported he found nothing. I kind of like that fat guy. I don't know if I would vote for him, it would depends on whom is running on the Democratic side along with the third parties. Time will tell as I love to say.

 

[tres borrachos]

Thanks, I never heard that. But I would feel better about it is it was reported by State Assemblyman John Wisniewski who is the Democrat in charge of the bridgegate investigation reported he found nothing. I kind of like that fat guy. I don't know if I would vote for him, it would depends on whom is running on the Democratic side along with the third parties. Time will tell as I love to say.

Christie's stance on guns is going to hurt him in the primaries.

Chris Christie on Gun Control

Don't get me wrong - I like him too. I like a lot of things about him. I just don't think he'll get the base fired up.

 

[Jack Hays]

Christie's stance on guns is going to hurt him in the primaries.

Chris Christie on Gun Control

Don't get me wrong - I like him too. I like a lot of things about him. I just don't think he'll get the base fired up.

You think gun control will determine whether the base will be fired up?eace

 

[imagep]

Christie's stance on guns is going to hurt him in the primaries.

Chris Christie on Gun Control

Don't get me wrong - I like him too. I like a lot of things about him. I just don't think he'll get the base fired up.

The base only matters for primaries. It's moderates and swing voters that matter in the general election. Conservatives would do themselves a big favor if they worried more about swing voters than the base. As long as the republican party keeps nominating candidates that can't win in the general election, they won't win the POTUS election.

A good strategy for republicans would be to find a candidate who the middle loves for POTUS, and then try to get as many righties as they can in congress, on a district by district bases.

Christie would have been the ideal moderate republican candidate, the middle loves him, and even the many on the left don't despise him the way that they despised Romney.

 

[jaeger19]

Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution rests.:roll:

Yes it does...:roll:

 

[tres borrachos]

The base only matters for primaries. It's moderates and swing voters that matter in the general election. Conservatives would do themselves a big favor if they worried more about swing voters than the base. As long as the republican party keeps nominating candidates that can't win in the general election, they won't win the POTUS election.

A good strategy for republicans would be to find a candidate who the middle loves for POTUS, and then try to get as many righties as they can in congress, on a district by district bases.

Christie would have been the ideal moderate republican candidate, the middle loves him, and even the many on the left don't despise him the way that they despised Romney.

He won't get into the general election if he can't win the primaries. And given the late date of the NJ primary, I see him as having trouble in many of the early primaries because of his gun stance.

I already see the effects of a left-leaning gun stance here in NH. The GOP faithful here detest Senator Shaheen, but they detest Scott Brown even more because of his stance on guns. I think Christie will have the same problem.

 

[jaeger19]

Because I believe that victory should be used as a teachable moment, I have some homework for you. Learn it and avoid embarrassment in the future.eace

"The theory behind the individual mandate is that the way to create an insurance market that lets people with pre-existing conditions get covered at reasonable prices is to make everyone participate.

Without some way to push healthy people into the insurance market, the fear is that it'll fall apart. Mostly sick people would get insurance, which would drive up prices, which would lead to healthier people deciding not to buy any, which would force insurers to raise rates to cover their expenses, which would lead to even more healthy people opting out. That cycle is called a "death spiral" in insurancespeak.
The individual mandate is not a popular policy at all for obvious reasons (Obama himself even used to oppose it). But the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that it's Constitutional, so we have to deal with it. Massachusetts has had an individual mandate since 2007, and it's worked out pretty well there."

" Why it matters: With no penalty for not purchasing health insurance, but a requirement for insurers to accept anyone who wants insurance, many expected the costs of insurance would increase as the healthy hung back from the system and the sick flooded it. Some states learned this from experience: Kentucky, for example, attempted to eliminate pre-existing conditions in 1994 without the mandated purchase of insurance and saw its premiums spike. Its law was repealed in 2004. Health care economists expect this would happen if federal health reform didn’t include a mandate, either: They project that premiums would go up anywhere from 2 to 40 percent."

1. [PDF]Adverse Selection and an Individual Mandate - American Economic ...
   
   https://www.aeaweb.org/.../retrieve.php?...‎American Economic Association
   
   
   by MB Hackmann - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
   individual mandate; consistent with an initially adversely selected insurance market. ... a centerpiece of both the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 and the Massachusetts health reform ...... with mean µstate and construct the arithmetic mean.You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 3/25/14
2. Individual Mandate - Huffington Post
   
   www.huffingtonpost.com/news/individual-mandate‎The Huffington Post
   
   
   Do You Have Math Anxiety? Maybe ... And the mercurial man behind the mammoth aggregat. ... The Obamacare deadline for this year is almost upon us. ... CBO: Five-Year Individual Mandate Delay Means 13 Million More Uninsured, Higher ...

Yes.. and all that supports my position.. the position that I have held since day one..

It does not support your narrative that "its to force young health people to buy health insurance to make the arithmetic work"...The mandate is to cover preexisting conditions by preventing folks from diving in and out of the insurance market... the arithmetic already works when it comes to health people and pools because 85% of americans are already covered.. the mandate is not necessary for that.

Which I have always stated.. and you have disagreed with.. until now that you know the truth and are trying to change your narrative.

You are the one that needs to get educated and avoid embarrassment.. not me.

 

[imagep]

He won't get into the general election if he can't win the primaries....

Ya, that's what I am saying. When republicans think that they need candidates who to pander to the far right (to gain the nomination), they are blowing their opportunity to win the general election. No point in nominating someone who can't win.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes.. and all that supports my position.. the position that I have held since day one..

It does not support your narrative that "its to force young health people to buy health insurance to make the arithmetic work"...The mandate is to cover preexisting conditions by preventing folks from diving in and out of the insurance market... the arithmetic already works when it comes to health people and pools because 85% of americans are already covered.. the mandate is not necessary for that.

Which I have always stated.. and you have disagreed with.. until now that you know the truth and are trying to change your narrative.

You are the one that needs to get educated and avoid embarrassment.. not me.

The 85% who are already covered are irrelevant to the ACA arithmetic. The viability of ACA pools is the central question, and for that the mandate is necessary to balance the old & sick with young & healthy.eace

 

[tres borrachos]

Ya, that's what I am saying. When republicans think that they need candidates who to pander to the far right (to gain the nomination), they are blowing their opportunity to win the general election. No point in nominating someone who can't win.

I agree. But McCain and Romney were both pretty moderate when you stacked them up against guys like Santorum and Perry. At this point I'm not even sure who can actually win the 2016 general election from the GOP, especially if Hillary is on the other side (Biden is highly beatable IMO). I see the country wanting to make history with the first woman POTUS as they did with the first half-black POTUS in 2008. And I think too many young people think it's not cool to vote for the GOP candidate, regardless of who it is. Again, JMO.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes.. and all that supports my position.. the position that I have held since day one..

It does not support your narrative that "its to force young health people to buy health insurance to make the arithmetic work"...The mandate is to cover preexisting conditions by preventing folks from diving in and out of the insurance market... the arithmetic already works when it comes to health people and pools because 85% of americans are already covered.. the mandate is not necessary for that.

Which I have always stated.. and you have disagreed with.. until now that you know the truth and are trying to change your narrative.

You are the one that needs to get educated and avoid embarrassment.. not me.

[h=3]Why does the age distribution of enrollees matter?[/h] The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires insurers in the individual market to cover anyone who wishes to enroll and restricts how insurers can vary premiums based on enrollee characteristics. Premiums cannot vary at all based on health status or gender. Premium variations based on age are limited to a ratio of three to one (meaning the premiums for a 64 year-old is three times the premium for a 21 year-old). Previously, premium variations based on age were more typically about five to one.
The limit on age rating means that, on average, older adults will be paying premiums that do not fully cover their expected medical expenses, while younger adults will be paying premiums that more than cover their expenses. For this system to work, young people need to enroll in sufficient numbers to produce a surplus in premium revenues that can be used to cross-subsidize the deficit created by the enrollment of older people. If that does not occur, premium revenues will fall short of expenses and insurers may seek to raise premiums the following year. Figure 1 illustrates how average costs for adults vary by age relative to the allowed premium variation allowed under the ACA.[SUP]1[/SUP] Generally speaking, adults in their late 30s to late 50s will pay premiums that are about the same as what they would pay without any restrictions on age rating. Younger adults pay more than they would without any age rating limits and older adults pay less.eace

1. The Numbers Behind “Young Invincibles” and the Affordable Care Act
   
   kff.org/health.../the-numbers-behind-young-in...‎Kaiser Family Foundation
   
   
   Dec 17, 2013 - The limit on age rating means that, on average, older adults will be paying .... to enroll healthy as well as sick young adults, and also healthy older adults. ... Achieving a balanced risk pool in the individual insurance market will ...
2. Study: It's All Healthy People — Not Just Young Adults — Who Are ...
   
   capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/.../study-its-all-healthy-people-not-just-yo...‎
   Dec 17, 2013 - More important, they add, is that insurers recruit a balanced mix of the healthy and the sick of all ages. Many deem enrolling “young invincibles” to subsidize older, sicker ... But under ACA guidelines, insurers charge young adults as little as ... with expensive illness will be the first to sign up and healthy folks, ...
3. Older Pool of Health Care Enrollees Stirs Fears on Costs - NYTimes ...
   
   www.nytimes.com/.../health-care-plans-attracting-...‎The New York Times
   
   
   Jan 13, 2014 - Attendees at an Affordable Care Act enrollment event in LaGrange, Ky., in October. ... of younger people to balance the financial risks of covering older ... fast enough to guarantee a good balance of healthy and sick people, ...
4. No, Obamacare Is Not A Good Deal For Young People In The Long ...
   
   www.forbes.com/.../no-obamacare-is-not-a-good-deal-for-young-...‎Forbes
   
   
   Aug 23, 2013 - Healthy people get sick. ... Most people—young or old—are not that patient. ... dollars needed among young people as a group to exactly balance .... Nothing in the ACA does anything to eliminate that waste and inefficiency.

 

[Greenbeard]

This is false. Employers are not required to provide healthcare plans to anyone at this point, let alone the employee's family members.

Any plan, employer-based or not, offering dependent coverage has to extend that coverage to dependents up to age 27. That's been the case for nearly 4 years. So if the extension of dependent coverage (or the elimination of annual and lifetime benefit caps, or the requirement to cover preventive service) is your example of "So while 98% currently provide insurance a lot of it isn't at the level that will be required by the mandate" then you're mistaken. Because employers offering coverage--as virtually all of those who will be subject to the employer mandate already do--are already subject to those provisions.

 

[imagep]

I agree. But McCain and Romney were both pretty moderate when you stacked them up against guys like Santorum and Perry. At this point I'm not even sure who can actually win the 2016 general election from the GOP, especially if Hillary is on the other side (Biden is highly beatable IMO). I see the country wanting to make history with the first woman POTUS as they did with the first half-black POTUS in 2008. And I think too many young people think it's not cool to vote for the GOP candidate, regardless of who it is. Again, JMO.

Romney lost a lot of moderate votes because he was pandering to the base right up until the debates.

Then his 47% remarks in front of a group of wealthy folk pretty much canceled out his more moderate approach during the debates. A candidate can't offend 99% of the voters and still expect to win - I say 99% because at some point in life, almost everyone is in the 47%, including a lot of retired folk and students.

He has historically always been a moderate, but all that matters to swing voters is how they feel on election day.

Romney lost some moderate votes four years earlier when he ran tv ads where he claimed to want to cut "middle class taxes", then he said he wanted to "eliminate the death tax and capital gains taxes". I guess that might have fooled a few folk, but a lot caught on to the fact that those taxes were primarily on the rich, not the middle class.

 

[polgara]

I agree. But McCain and Romney were both pretty moderate when you stacked them up against guys like Santorum and Perry. At this point I'm not even sure who can actually win the 2016 general election from the GOP, especially if Hillary is on the other side (Biden is highly beatable IMO). I see the country wanting to make history with the first woman POTUS as they did with the first half-black POTUS in 2008. And I think too many young people think it's not cool to vote for the GOP candidate, regardless of who it is. Again, JMO.

That mindset may be changing. The Young Republicans Group is very active and growing in numbers in my area, and they are seen as polite and knowledgeable about current affairs. They seem to be able to separate what is promised from what is actually being done, and they aren't shy about pointing out the differences. Most have jobs, and see their future as being in their own hands, not someone else's. Time will tell.

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

 

[imagep]

they are seen as polite and knowledgeable about current affairs...

A lot of times, people who think they are "informed" are actually "disinformed".

I try to watch a little Fox News ever night, and more or less equal time on that liberal show and CNN. It's fairly often that a Fox News contributor will tell something that isn't factually accurate, usually when they are citing statistics, and no one ever bothers to correct the inaccuracy.

Just last weekend, during the Saturday morning "money block", there were at least four inaccurate numbers quoted - I don't mean just rounded off, but totally wrong.

A facebook friend of mine recently posted that people should only watch Fox News if they want to be informed. I posted that if someone really wants to be informed, they should get their news from a variety of sources, and fact check all of them. Then I explained that the only reason someone would watch any one particular news show, especially when that show is well known to be ideologically slanted, is because of confirmation bias. She defriended me.

The four lies last week (probably a lot more than that, but 4 is all I caught):

1) Someone claimed that the civilian labor force participation rate is as low as it has been since the great depression. Not true, it is as low as it has been since 1978, and it is currently higher than at any point prior to 1978.

2) Someone claimed that in the Febuary jobs report, 650,000 left the job market. Not true, 250,000 entered the jobs market - thats why the unemployment rate increased despite more people being employed!

3) Someone claimed that for every $1 in tax revenues taken in, we are spending $1.40. Thats not true. For every $1 in tax revenues we are spending about $1.14

4) Someone claimed that we are running a $950 billion dollar deficit. Not true either, last years deficit was something around $650 billion, and it's projected by the CBO to be around $550 billion this year. By the way, the CBO typically over estimates the deficit.

I hear people repeating these lies all the time. They don't have a clue that they are lies, because they heard them on Fox News (or some other relyable source like Rush Limbough), thus in their confirmation biased minds, they must be true.

 

[jaeger19]

On Romney I noticed that down here in Georgia. In 2008 he had the party big wigs in this state for him, but the rank and file didn't trust him. Romney threw away a life time of political beliefs to run for president. He lost the Georgia Primary to McCain. In 2012, you saw very few Romney bumper stickers and there was little energy or enthusiasm for him. Heck, as long as he wasn't Obama, any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done.

As for Christie, I am keeping an eye on him. Like I pointed out he is about the only Republican presidential candidate so far anyway, of those we know that can start from a fairly even field when it comes to the electoral college. Independents have soured on him as of late, but they have little to do with the Republican nomination unless they are from a state like Georgia which doesn't have party registration and one can vote in either primary. Yep, I am keeping my eye on him.

I have been fairly peeved at both Reid and McConnell since 2010 happened. But I can't do anything about them. I think both are way too busy being Democrats and Republicans instead of Americans. But that is me.

That's a great statement about Romney "he threw away a lifetime of political beliefs"...

I supported Romney in the first primaries in 2008 and was discouraged that he dropped out. I supported him in the primaries in 2012 but he was not the candidate he should have been. ultimately, I felt disgusted.. He simply bent over backward for the wackadoos in the party. And how stupid... how can you think you are going to win a national election when you tell folks.. that you don't care about 47% of americans? I personally think the someone on the Obama team caught on to how Romney was a dancing chicken. That's why I think for a time they came out with things like Obama and gay marriage, and Obama and immigration... simply because they new that Romney would be forced by the republicans to come out and attack Obama for these policies. and he came off like a turd and he let Obama dictate his message...

I wanted to hear Romney say on the gay marriage thing.."well its nice that Obama has finally made up his mind.. but I'd like him to spend more time on the economy then on gay marriage.".. And here is what we need to do on the economy.

I bet. someone, somewhere has calculated the statistics on how many times Romney talked about the economy and about how many times he talked about other things like gay marriage etc. And I bet you would find that for a guy that was so strong on economic issues.. he spent more time talking about other things than his strength.

 

[jaeger19]

The 85% who are already covered are irrelevant to the ACA arithmetic. The viability of ACA pools is the central question, and for that the mandate is necessary to balance the old & sick with young & healthy.eace

No.. that's completely and utterly incorrect.. I am sorry but you simply do not have a grasp of the ACA and health insurance..

IF IF the aca was a public insurance policy.. if it was government insurance.. then you would have a point.. since a "public option".. that was going to provide insurance for those uninsured under private plans.. would have to have a pool of healthy people in that group to balance out any not so healthy people...

But that's not how the aca is structured... instead it uses private insurance companies that are already in the pool that include the 85%.. that's why the 85% are NOT irrelevant to the ACA arithmetic. That 85% is very relevant.

The mandate is NOT for that section.. its really as already explained about the rest of the 85% that are already insured. It prevents those 85% from getting rid of their insurance when the pre existing clause goes into effect. It also protects that 85% from increases due to a few outliers (but expensive outliers) in the uninsured group when one of those folks gets in a wreck and racks up 400,000 in bills and doesn't pay. eace

 

[bubbabgone]

The fact that you are admitting that Obamacare is at this time not remotely successful or popular is a good start. And the only way it will become successful or popular on ny level is if it is altered to the point that it no longer resembles the ponzi scheme that was unconstitutionally signed into law!

Where you been all my DP life?