GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

[GottaGo]

•Seventy-eight percent of surveyed companies said they are significantly or very significantly concerned about the administrative burden the new ACA regulations create and 62 percent say they are similarly concerned about the excise tax that begins in 2018.
[/url]

That right there. ^^^

Considering part of the war cry of those who supported the ACA was the separation of employment and health insurance, they may end up getting their wish by the number of companies that cannot carry that administrative burden, and either dump health insurance all together, or just reduce employees below the arbitrary and damaging 'full time' designation of 30 hours.

What they may view as a positive in increasing the number who have to sign up for the ACA because they lost their employer based group plan, is a detriment to the employment of America.

 

[Fenton]

For all those who were claiming, "sure they
got 7 million, but only because their existing policies were cancelled." People are signing up, with lower uninsured.

Lol !

I think the jokes on the Democrats.

Nothing pisses VOTERS off like having to pay 1-2.5 percent of their annual income to the IRS at the end of the year.

Was that the intention of the Democrat party ? To piss off millions of Americans all at one time one time per year, year after year after year ?

Because Insurance plans aren't going to get cheaper under ObamaCare, they're going to get really expensive.

Its gotta be good for your re-election chances AND for the Democrat Party's legacy, right ?

 

[MMC]

I noticed several posts that state the ACA is purely a partisan issue. So what has changed? It was partisan back in 2009 before the law was passed and continues to be so today. Looking at these polls, compliments of RCP it shows how polarized the ACA was and still is. The ACA is a political issue, not necessarily one of healthcare.
September 2009
Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?
Democrats 60% favor 22% Oppose 18% Don’t Know/Unsure
Republicans 7% favor 85% Oppose 8% Don’t Know/Unsure
Independents 27% favor 57% Oppose 16% Don’t know/Unsure
All voters 33% favor 53% Oppose 14% Don’t Know/Unsure

March 2014
Do you favor or oppose the new national health care law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2010?
Democrats 71% favor 24% Oppose 4% Don’t Know/Unsure
Republicans 12% favor 86% Oppose 2% Don’t Know/Unsure
Independents 34% favor 60% Oppose 6% Don’t Know/Unsure
All Voters 40% favor 56% Oppose 4% Don’t Know/Unsure

So what exactly has changed in 4 years, both Democrats and Republicans either favor or oppose the law down party lines, independents by about a 2-1 margin were against the ACA in the beginning and still are against it. The only changes I can see is those in favor increased 7 points and those opposed increased 3 points as those unsure/don’t knows have come off the fence to express their opinions. Overall the ACA is still a very partisan issue and there is little room in the undecided column for opinions to change, they haven’t changed much in 4 years and probably won’t change much for the foreseeable future. But those oppose in my opinion may come down as they finally accept the law, whether they like it or not. Is this the panacea the Democrats had hoped for?

Mornin' Pero. If they thought it was a done deal. They wouldn't be talking about. We need to wait 3-4 years to see whats worked and whats hasn't. Now Team O can wish and hope that it his Care package doesn't get Repealed and Replaced. He can run around and talk about how its over and all can accept this. Naturally it is just the political talk. Not the reality that's on the ground.

Obama is Desperate for money.....now. Its only going to get worse and they already know this.

Direct costs in the ACA include but are not limited to the following:”

•Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute fee;
•Temporary Reinsurance Fee;
•General ACA implementation and administrative costs;
•Excise tax on high-cost plans;
•Mandate to cover adult-children up to age 26 as dependents; and
•Other benefit mandates including covering 100 percent of preventive care services.....snip~

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Mornin' Pero. If they thought it was a done deal. They wouldn't be talking about. We need to wait 3-4 years to see whats worked and whats hasn't. Now Team O can wish and hope that it his Care package doesn't get Repealed and Replaced. He can run around and talk about how its over and all can accept this. Naturally it is just the political talk. Not the reality that's on the ground.

Obama is Desperate for money.....now. Its only going to get worse and they already know this.

Direct costs in the ACA include but are not limited to the following:”

•Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute fee;
•Temporary Reinsurance Fee;
•General ACA implementation and administrative costs;
•Excise tax on high-cost plans;
•Mandate to cover adult-children up to age 26 as dependents; and
•Other benefit mandates including covering 100 percent of preventive care services.....snip~

*yawn*

Funny how so many conservative movers and shakers were absolutely sure that the Heritage plan would work...until Obama took it and made it his own, and suddenly almost all conservatives are now sure it can never work....

 

[Ockham]

*yawn*

Funny how so many conservative movers and shakers were absolutely sure that the Heritage plan would work...until Obama took it and made it his own, and suddenly almost all conservatives are now sure it can never work....

Leave it to a progressive to overlook 2500+ pages of crap, mountains of lies including the liar of the year (POTUS), yet still calling it "the Heritage plan". :lamo

 

[MMC]

*yawn*


Funny how so many conservative movers and shakers were absolutely sure that the Heritage plan would work...until Obama took it and made it his own, and suddenly almost all conservatives are now sure it can never work....

Heya Glen. :2wave:

.....

..... :2razz:

Forgot about the CATO Institute's Plan.....did ya? :mrgreen:

 

[Perotista]

Mornin' Pero. If they thought it was a done deal. They wouldn't be talking about. We need to wait 3-4 years to see whats worked and whats hasn't. Now Team O can wish and hope that it his Care package doesn't get Repealed and Replaced. He can run around and talk about how its over and all can accept this. Naturally it is just the political talk. Not the reality that's on the ground.

Obama is Desperate for money.....now. Its only going to get worse and they already know this.

Direct costs in the ACA include but are not limited to the following:”

•Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute fee;
•Temporary Reinsurance Fee;
•General ACA implementation and administrative costs;
•Excise tax on high-cost plans;
•Mandate to cover adult-children up to age 26 as dependents; and
•Other benefit mandates including covering 100 percent of preventive care services.....snip~

What may be the game changer is if the American Taxpayer has to bailout the insurance companies. That is in the law, a guaranteed taxpayer bailout if the demographics are not hit. Now I think if that happens that would probably lure the remaining undecided to the against column. As for rather it is here permanently or not, I think most of the law is. I think there is a certain amount of it that will have to remain in any revised plan. So in a way, it is a victory for the Democrats even if it is repealed.

If this was a battle between just Republicans and Democrats, 55% of the current electorate. There would be a 50-50 split on the law. But for the most part, I call a 2-1 margin against the ACA the most part, Independents are siding with the Republicans on this law. The Democrats lost the indies before the law was even introduced to congress or at least voted on. Here is how the American Public felt about major legislation prior to its introduction to congress.
Social Security 65% plus of all Americans were for it before the Social Security was introduced. The vast majority of the American Public wanted it.
Medicare 60% plus of all Americans were for it before Medicare was introduced to Congress. Again the vast majority of the American public wanted it. The Republican Party knew this also as they ended up voting for both measures.
Obamacare a minority of 35% of Americans were for it before it was introduced to Congress. The majority of Americans were against it, between 53-58% depending on the poll. Unlike Social Security and Medicare, no Republican voted for it.

I suppose the bottom line when it comes to the ACA is the only ones for it was the Democratic Party. The majority of Americans were against it, this includes Republicans and independents. So for 4 years we have had a fight over the ACA, with the Democrats on one side, 30% of the electorate. The Republicans, 25% of the electorate and independents, 45% of the electorate on the other.

 

[sangha]

That's actually not an accurate statement, nor was sangha's statement that "who exactly came up with the idea is of lesser importance IMO than the fact that it found wide support amongst republicans. That is, until Obama decided that it was a good idea."

It never had "wide support" amongst the Republicans, which is what I've been posting.

19 out of 43 Republican Senators pushed the HEART Act in 1993. It contained an individual mandate. It got no further support beyond those 19, and in fact 1 of the 19 withdrew his support 11 months later.

And of those 19 Senators, only 3 were still in the Senate as Republicans at the time of the ACA proposals and votes: Robert Bennett, Kit Bond and Orrin Hatch. The 4th remaining Senator was Arlen Specter who switched to the Democratic Party prior to the ACA vote. All of the others who co-sponsored the HEART Act were gone in the late 1990s to early 2000s.

So why is this important? The constant chants from the pro-ACA folks/Democrats/anti-Republican/whatever that Republicans were for the individual mandate before they were against it only applies to3 Republicans who were still around 16 years later to vote for or have input in the ACA. There was never any wide acceptance of the individual mandate by the Republicans from the beginning (less than half of them supported it in 1993), and those who were in the Senate for the ACA vote, only these 3 supported the HEART Act in 1993.

Three.

This is why the statements are untrue. Kit Bond, Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch - 3 Senators - do not support the incessant claims that all Republicans were for the individual mandate. It is disingenous for people to make that claim, and I've watched people repeat that same lie for the last 4 years.

Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, John Cornyn, Judd Gregg, John Cornyn, Saxvy Chambliss....etc, etc, etc. List all of the Republican Senators in 2009 except for Bond, Bennett & Hatch - none of them were in the Senate in 1993, none of them were in The Heritage Foundation in 1989, and none of them ever were in favor of the mandates before they voted against them in 2009.

It is very disturbing to see people rewriting history for partisan reasons.

If it were only 19 out of 43, that alone would qualify as wide support. Add in the other signs of support, like the nomination of a supporter of individual mandates as the party's candidate for president, overwhelming support for the individual mandate in Medicare D, etc and there is no question that the idea had wide support within the party

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Heya Glen. :2wave:

.....

..... :2razz:

Forgot about the CATO Institute's Plan.....did ya? :mrgreen:

Huh? If I said it was the Cato Institute instead of the Heritage Foundation, I was wrong...because it was certainly the latter.

 

[sangha]

What may be the game changer is if the American Taxpayer has to bailout the insurance companies. That is in the law, a guaranteed taxpayer bailout if the demographics are not hit. Now I think if that happens that would probably lure the remaining undecided to the against column. As for rather it is here permanently or not, I think most of the law is. I think there is a certain amount of it that will have to remain in any revised plan. So in a way, it is a victory for the Democrats even if it is repealed.

Untrue

The funds to reimburse insurers who end up with a disproportionately high # of high cost clients comes from a fee on the insurers who end up with a disproportionately low # of high cost clients. The american taxpayer doesn't contribute a penny to that.

 

[Perotista]

Untrue

The funds to reimburse insurers who end up with a disproportionately high # of high cost clients comes from a fee on the insurers who end up with a disproportionately low # of high cost clients. The american taxpayer doesn't contribute a penny to that.

That's not what I heard. I am not saying whose right or wrong about this. But the way I heard it and that is the key, I heard and have no seen anything in writing is the bailout is in the law and will kick in if the insurance companies start to lose money on the ACA due to the wrong demographics. If you have something in writing, I would appreciate it if you would pass it along. Getting into a he said, she said does neither of us any good.

 

[MMC]

Huh? If I said it was the Cato Institute instead of the Heritage Foundation, I was wrong...because it was certainly the latter.

Yeah, and my Point was there was more than just the Heritage Plan being out there.....Perkins and crew don't even speak for All Conservatives let alone Republicans.

 

[sangha]

That's not what I heard. I am not saying whose right or wrong about this. But the way I heard it and that is the key, I heard and have no seen anything in writing is the bailout is in the law and will kick in if the insurance companies start to lose money on the ACA due to the wrong demographics. If you have something in writing, I would appreciate it if you would pass it along. Getting into a he said, she said does neither of us any good.

yes, insurers will receive payments if they end up insuring high-risk individuals (ie "wrong demographics"). The money for those payments come from the other insurers who, because the insurers receiving the payments insured all those high risk patients, ended up not insuring many high risk patients.

It is all described in Sec 1341 of PPACA

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

Here's the text that establishes the reinsurers

(a) In General <<NOTE: Deadline.>> .--Each State shall, not later
than January 1, 2014--

[[Page 124 STAT. 209]]

(1) include in the Federal standards or State law or
regulation the State adopts and has in effect under section
1321(b) the provisions described in subsection (b); and
(2) <<NOTE: Contracts.>> establish (or enter into a contract
with) 1 or more applicable reinsurance entities to carry out the
reinsurance program under this section.

Here's the text that specifies who pays for the re-insurance

(A) <<NOTE: Effective date. Time period.>> health
insurance issuers, and third party administrators on
behalf of group health plans, are required to make
payments to an applicable reinsurance entity for any
plan year beginning in the 3-year period beginning
January 1, 2014 (as specified in paragraph (3); and

And here's the text that says the money paid to the re-insurer will be paid to insurers who cover high risk individuals.

(B) the applicable reinsurance entity collects
payments under subparagraph (A) and uses amounts so
collected to make reinsurance payments to health
insurance issuers described in subparagraph (A) that
cover high risk individuals in the individual market
(excluding grandfathered health plans) for any plan year
beginning in such 3-year period.

Here's a description of it that you may find more comprehensible

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-...sk-adjustment-reinsurance-and-risk-corridors/

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yeah, and my Point was there was more than just the Heritage Plan being out there.....Perkins and crew don't even speak for All Conservatives let alone Republicans.

But you know what? When Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House, he DID speak for the majority of the Republicans in America...and he strongly supported that plan.

You can deny, reject, pretend that it was only a few dogmatic outliers who supported the plan...but it was the most powerful Republican in America that pushed for it...and it was the 2012 Republican nominee for president who first implemented it.

Maybe you and every Republican you know hated it from the start...but it was those who REPRESENTED the majority of the GOP who were its strongest proponents. THAT, sir, is a matter of provable historical record...and all your denials and rejections and pretensions can't change that fact.

Ah, but I forget...facts have a liberal bias....

 

[MMC]

But you know what? When Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House, he DID speak for the majority of the Republicans in America...and he strongly supported that plan.

You can deny, reject, pretend that it was only a few dogmatic outliers who supported the plan...but it was the most powerful Republican in America that pushed for it...and it was the 2012 Republican nominee for president who first implemented it.

Maybe you and every Republican you know hated it from the start...but it was those who REPRESENTED the majority of the GOP who were its strongest proponents. THAT, sir, is a matter of provable historical record...and all your denials and rejections and pretensions can't change that fact.

Ah, but I forget...facts have a liberal bias....

No.....the liberal bias can still hold the truth within it. This I have always stated. So that you need not fear with me......I don't mind being wrong. As I am not much of the time. There is a 3% margin for error.....and that's on the count of, I wasn't created Perfectly. Just sayin!

 

[Glen Contrarian]

No.....the liberal bias can still hold the truth within it. This I have always stated. So that you need not fear with me......I don't mind being wrong. As I am not much of the time. There is a 3% margin for error.....and that's on the count of, I wasn't created Perfectly. Just sayin!

You're the very first conservative I've ever seen that said that he didn't mind being wrong.

I've often said I'm not afraid of being wrong - I'm only afraid of choosing to remain wrong when someone's shown me my error. I think you would appreciate that particular outlook.

 

[MTAtech]

Lol !

I think the jokes on the Democrats.

Nothing pisses VOTERS off like having to pay 1-2.5 percent of their annual income to the IRS at the end of the year.

Was that the intention of the Democrat party ? To piss off millions of Americans all at one time one time per year, year after year after year ?

Because Insurance plans aren't going to get cheaper under ObamaCare, they're going to get really expensive.

Its gotta be good for your re-election chances AND for the Democrat Party's legacy, right ?

What do you do when what are sure will happen ends up not being so?

Study: Obamacare Is Cheaper Than Employer-Backed Plans - NationalJournal.com
A top consulting firm ran the numbers and found comparable health plans are 20 percent cheaper on the exchanges.

 

[Perotista]

yes, insurers will receive payments if they end up insuring high-risk individuals (ie "wrong demographics"). The money for those payments come from the other insurers who, because the insurers receiving the payments insured all those high risk patients, ended up not insuring many high risk patients.

It is all described in Sec 1341 of PPACA

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

Here's the text that establishes the reinsurers


Here's the text that specifies who pays for the re-insurance



And here's the text that says the money paid to the re-insurer will be paid to insurers who cover high risk individuals.



Here's a description of it that you may find more comprehensible

Explaining Health Care Reform: Risk Adjustment, Reinsurance, and Risk Corridors | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

I am just about as confused after this reply as I was before it. Legalese is not my specialty. So correct me if I am wrong, the say I take it there is a tax on all health insurance plans which would be given back to the insurance companies if the demographics do not come out as they are suppose to. If I am close, it seems to me the insurances companies will pass on this tax to the individuals they insure in the form of higher premiums. At least that is what I would do if I was an insurance company.

 

[MMC]

You're the very first conservative I've ever seen that said that he didn't mind being wrong.

I've often said I'm not afraid of being wrong - I'm only afraid of choosing to remain wrong when someone's shown me my error. I think you would appreciate that particular outlook.

Well.....like I said I have to go with not being perfect. But there is a key too.

I try not to talk about something that I have no clue about and act like I know it.

 

[sangha]

I am just about as confused after this reply as I was before it. Legalese is not my specialty. So correct me if I am wrong, the say I take it there is a tax on all health insurance plans which would be given back to the insurance companies if the demographics do not come out as they are suppose to. If I am close, it seems to me the insurances companies will pass on this tax to the individuals they insure in the form of higher premiums. At least that is what I would do if I was an insurance company.

Not quite.

The "tax" is based on the # of high risk individuals (HRI) they cover. The more HRI's they cover, the less they pay and the more they receive. Conversely, the fewer HRI's they cover, the more they pay and receive less (or nothing)

As far as passing on this "tax", it won't happen because the one's who pay it will pay it out of the extra profits they made because they insured so few HRI's. Their premium was based on the assumption that they would cover a certain percentage of the HRI's. Because they covered a lower percentage, their costs were lower than expected so their profit was higher than expected. That extra profit is where the money to pay the tax comes from

 

[Fenton]

What do you do when what are sure will happen ends up not being so?

Study: Obamacare Is Cheaper Than Employer-Backed Plans - NationalJournal.com
A top consulting firm ran the numbers and found comparable health plans are 20 percent cheaper on the exchanges.

How ideologically TWISTED do you have to be to defend this monstrosity ?? It's cult like behavior. This continued insistence that this is a Good law that will make healh care AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE.



ObamaCare Raises Health Insurance Premiums, Especially For The Young - Forbes

"The Affordable Care Act has dramatically increased the cost of buying a health insurance plan on the individual market in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Georgia, and North Carolina, states that account for more than half of America’s uninsured adults, according to a study by Sector & Sovereign, a sell-side firm that focuses on advising investors what sectors to put their money in.

Worse, the firm argued in a note earlier this week, the increases in cost are most substantial for the young.


According to S&S, the average deductible – the amount of money you spend out of pocket before your health insurance kicks in– for plans purchased by a 21-year old man in 2013 was $3,649, bought at an average monthly premium of $144. To purchase a plan with the same deductible now, a 21-year-old would have to pay $261, an 81% increase."

Obama White House Continues to Swindle Young People Through "Affordable" Care Act - Katie Pavlich

" My AEI colleague Kelly Funderburk and I looked at four states: Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Texas. We then looked at a typical 30-year old at one of six different annual income brackets: $20,000 in annual income, $25K, $30K, $35K, $40K, and $45K. For each of the four states, we computed how much an Aetna Classic Silver plan would cost the same 30 year old at each of these six income bands. We looked at monthly premiums, deductibles, and out of pocket limits. We chose the Aetna plan because it operated across all of these markets, and represented a median price point among the silver plans.

Look at our numbers (laid out in the charts below) and you’ll see why so many Millennials have Obamacare sticker shock. Someone, for example, earning $25K annually in Arizona will pay $2,424 in total monthly premiums for Obamacare (10% of their annual income) and still be stuck with a $4,000 deductible and a $5,200 cap on their out of pocket costs. The same person in Illinois will pay $3,576 in annual premiums, and in low cost Texas $2,460.

What about the same 30 year old who now earns $30,000 annually – the average salary for a pre-school teacher according to census data? In Arizona, their annual cost for carrying the Obamacare plan runs $2,772 and their deductible is $5,000. In Illinois, the same person will spend $4,092 for the same health plan, and also have a $5,000 deductible before their full health coverage kicks in. "

And those cost are going up as more and more people chose to pay the fine over paying for a policy they cant afford. Like I said, millions of Americans having to fork up 1 % of their annual income in a Obama Economy isn't anything to get exited over, especially if your'e a Democrat.

From the beginning of this disaster, Obama and the democrats haven't felt the need to honest what so ever to the American people. From '" you can keep your plan and doctor" to the cost of this monstrosity. Its just a long list of Democrat lies.

Lies may impress you but not me.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Well.....like I said I have to go with not being perfect. But there is a key too.

I try not to talk about something that I have no clue about and act like I know it.

I'm a little different there - I'll jump into a conversation concerning a subject I'm not well-versed in...and get rhetorically slapped around by those there who do know what they're talking about...and I learn. I spent several years on blogcritics.com and there were several conservatives there who smacked me around on a regular basis...and I learned to be grateful for it.

It's sorta like playing chess - I learn a lot more by playing those who know more than I do (and getting my butt kicked in the process) than I do by sticking to what I know.

 

[MMC]

I'm a little different there - I'll jump into a conversation concerning a subject I'm not well-versed in...and get rhetorically slapped around by those there who do know what they're talking about...and I learn. I spent several years on blogcritics.com and there were several conservatives there who smacked me around on a regular basis...and I learned to be grateful for it.

It's sorta like playing chess - I learn a lot more by playing those who know more than I do (and getting my butt kicked in the process) than I do by sticking to what I know.

Well there are different learning processes.....but then that key part you just explained. You don't go into that process thinking and acting like you know it all. Even a Grandmaster in Chess can out think his own self sometimes.

 

[JasperL]

I am just about as confused after this reply as I was before it. Legalese is not my specialty. So correct me if I am wrong, the say I take it there is a tax on all health insurance plans which would be given back to the insurance companies if the demographics do not come out as they are suppose to. If I am close, it seems to me the insurances companies will pass on this tax to the individuals they insure in the form of higher premiums. At least that is what I would do if I was an insurance company.

That's sort of true, but the way I understand it it's a zero sum arrangement. So for every insurer paying a 'tax' and having to raise premiums, that tax is offsetting premiums at some other plan. So a net nothing. And the purpose is to discourage insurers from finding 'creative' ways to only sign up healthy people and exclude the sick, as well as to keep insurers who had a bunch of high risk/cost enrollees from getting killed.

 

[Oozlefinch]

What do you do when what are sure will happen ends up not being so?

Study: Obamacare Is Cheaper Than Employer-Backed Plans - NationalJournal.com
A top consulting firm ran the numbers and found comparable health plans are 20 percent cheaper on the exchanges.

Then why was I quoted an annual premium of over $17,000 a year? Both of my employers (as well as my wife's employer) offer plans that are far less expensive then that.