The Man Who Called It Right

[Threegoofs]

Yeah, except all those who are being dropped from their coverages. Here is a little more insight about the catch after the law was passed.


PolitiFact combed through dozens of instances where the President talked about health insurance and his proposed health insurance law. Angie Holan, the Editor of PolitiFact Florida, says that the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, and that President Obama receives a PANTS ON FIRE for his recent claim.

"We have at least 37 different times where President Obama said, basically, that if you liked your current health insurance and your doctor, you could keep it. There would be nothing in the law that would force you to get different insurance coverage or a different doctor," Holan said. "Now, the President has changed his tune and is kind of giving us 'revisionist history', where he says that you can keep your health insurance plan AS LONG AS it complies with the standards set in the Affordable Care Act."

Holan says that the President made a sweeping statement about health insurance coverage under his proposed Obamacare legislation, and while doing so, he didn't leave the door open for any insurance coverage changes that would have to be made after the ACA became law. Because of that, President Obama's current claim that coverage won't change unless it doesn't meet the ACA minimum standards rates PANTS ON FIRE on the Truth-O-Meter.....snip

PolitiFact Weekly Wrap-Up Obama Crist Grayson | Politics

You apparently didnt understand the graphic I posted. Very few people will be getting rate increases, and most of those people will be getting much better insurance with that increase. Those people are mostly the ones who were paying way too much for crap insurance - mini med plans, etc.

And if you understood the law, you would have understood that insurance plans wouldnt qualify. When Paul Ryan tells you that your taxes wont go up, and then you get a raise and go into a higher tax bracket, did he lie? No.

 

[MMC]

You apparently didnt understand the graphic I posted. Very few people will be getting rate increases, and most of those people will be getting much better insurance with that increase. Those people are mostly the ones who were paying way too much for crap insurance - mini med plans, etc.

And if you understood the law, you would have understood that insurance plans wouldnt qualify. When Paul Ryan tells you that your taxes wont go up, and then you get a raise and go into a higher tax bracket, did he lie? No.

Here was just California's Alone.....hardly just a few TG.

Obamacare to increase rates by up to 146% in California.....

Yes you read that right, insurance rates could increase by 146% in California thanks to the new healthcare bill that is currently being implemented. While the bill was sold as a way to cut rates and help people pay for healthcare in a more affordable way it is now doing just the opposite. In fact in most cases it is causing rates to skyrocket from 25 to now 146 percent (64% to 146% in CA alone) according to this new story from Forbes.

Obamacare “Slight of Hand” to hide rate hikes?

Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange.

“The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”

That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.....snip~

Truth About Bills | Obamacare to increase rates by up to 146% in California - Truth About Bills

 

[Threegoofs]

Here was just California's Alone.....hardly just a few TG.

Obamacare to increase rates by up to 146% in California.....

Yes you read that right, insurance rates could increase by 146% in California thanks to the new healthcare bill that is currently being implemented. While the bill was sold as a way to cut rates and help people pay for healthcare in a more affordable way it is now doing just the opposite. In fact in most cases it is causing rates to skyrocket from 25 to now 146 percent (64% to 146% in CA alone) according to this new story from Forbes.

Obamacare “Slight of Hand” to hide rate hikes?

Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange.

“The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”

That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.....snip~

Truth About Bills | Obamacare to increase rates by up to 146% in California - Truth About Bills

Its a small percentage. The actual numbers wont be known for months, but it sure looks like the increases arent across the board by any means, and most of the numbers thrown about (like 146%) dismiss the concept of subsidies and are exaggerated. Notice your post says RATES INCREASE BY 146%!! and the actual article qualifies it by saying "as much as" 146%. In other words, if you had some crappy mini med plan that you paid hundreds a year and got virtually no benefit from, your'e actually getting real insurance and it will cost you. No duh!

There are some winners and a few losers, mostly those with good health and high incomes.

For decent analysis, read:

Why Some Are Seeing Premiums Go Up As Affordable Care Act Goes Into Effect | State of Health Blog from KQED News

And by the way, the reason Edmonton did so well last night with poorer talent was clearly because of the quality of the Canadian health care system... :2razz:

 

[MMC]

Its a small percentage. The actual numbers wont be known for months, but it sure looks like the increases arent across the board by any means, and most of the numbers thrown about (like 146%) dismiss the concept of subsidies and are exaggerated. Notice your post says RATES INCREASE BY 146%!! and the actual article qualifies it by saying "as much as" 146%. In other words, if you had some crappy mini med plan that you paid hundreds a year and got virtually no benefit from, your'e actually getting real insurance and it will cost you. No duh!

There are some winners and a few losers, mostly those with good health and high incomes.

For decent analysis, read:

Why Some Are Seeing Premiums Go Up As Affordable Care Act Goes Into Effect | State of Health Blog from KQED News

And by the way, the reason Edmonton did so well last night with poorer talent was clearly because of the quality of the Canadian health care system... :2razz:

I think we had a thread up with several of the states.....and see another detriment to Obamacare is the deal about Parents keeping their kids on their insurance until they are 26. Obama needs the young people to make his Obamacare work. People keeping kids on their policies until 26 takes away from all of that. As then they wont go and buy any insurance since they do not need to and are Protected from the Mandate.

 

[SBu]

Its a small percentage. The actual numbers wont be known for months, but it sure looks like the increases arent across the board by any means, and most of the numbers thrown about (like 146%) dismiss the concept of subsidies and are exaggerated. Notice your post says RATES INCREASE BY 146%!! and the actual article qualifies it by saying "as much as" 146%. In other words, if you had some crappy mini med plan that you paid hundreds a year and got virtually no benefit from, your'e actually getting real insurance and it will cost you. No duh!

There are some winners and a few losers, mostly those with good health and high incomes.

For decent analysis, read:

Why Some Are Seeing Premiums Go Up As Affordable Care Act Goes Into Effect | State of Health Blog from KQED News

And by the way, the reason Edmonton did so well last night with poorer talent was clearly because of the quality of the Canadian health care system... :2razz:

I understand you are trying to defend a law that you think will be good in the long run and you want people to keep sight of that possible idea.

What you are either not getting or ignoring is that he "intentionally misled" or "lied to" the people (depending on who you ask), in order to get the law passed in the first place and probably to help get re-elected. Most people are disgusted with that. Perhaps if you recognized that, your argument would be better received.

That being said, this law will ultimately survive or die based on how many people sign up that are actually paying into it rather than benefiting (receiving) from it. I haven't seen one positive estimate yet that claims this is happening. Here's why: The law assumes that people care about government so much that they will buy in to the idea of paying more so that others can benefit. The majority of Americans are so disengaged from government and politics that they probably won't understand what is happening until they either receive a policy cancellation or are surprised with an extra tax when they file their taxes (because they hadn't signed up for insurance). Republicans shouldn't overplay their hand yet, and Democrats shouldn't fall on the sword yet. We'll have a much better idea in mid-2014 how this is going.

 

[Threegoofs]

I understand you are trying to defend a law that you think will be good in the long run and you want people to keep sight of that possible idea.

What you are either not getting or ignoring is that he "intentionally misled" or "lied to" the people (depending on who you ask), in order to get the law passed in the first place and probably to help get re-elected. Most people are disgusted with that. Perhaps if you recognized that, your argument would be better received.

That being said, this law will ultimately survive or die based on how many people sign up that are actually paying into it rather than benefiting (receiving) from it. I haven't seen one positive estimate yet that claims this is happening. Here's why: The law assumes that people care about government so much that they will buy in to the idea of paying more so that others can benefit. The majority of Americans are so disengaged from government and politics that they probably won't understand what is happening until they either receive a policy cancellation or are surprised with an extra tax when they file their taxes (because they hadn't signed up for insurance). Republicans shouldn't overplay their hand yet, and Democrats shouldn't fall on the sword yet. We'll have a much better idea in mid-2014 how this is going.

I agree. Its too early to tell. But from everything I know about the law, the benefits should overwhelm the costs.

 

[KLATTU]

IF the thing were so great, why did Obama repeatedly lie about it?

And the much bigger lie hasn't even been exposed yet. " It will not add a dime to the deficit"

That is most asuredly a lie- and again, an intentional one.Any deficit reduction depens on Medicare cuts and the chances of those happening are {cue Dean Wormer) Zero POINT Zero.

 

[joko104]

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Yeah, like that pie chart has anything to do with reality. :lamo

 

[cpwill]

I agree. Its too early to tell. But from everything I know about the law, the benefits should overwhelm the costs.

:raises eyebrow:

So far it looks like more people are going to lose their insurance than will gain it - especially when the employer mandate catches up to us next year (just before the election) and all those notices start going out, just as they have for the last couple of weeks.

Remember how the Administration tried to force defense contractors to illegally refuse to notify their employees that they might be let go prior to 2012, because those employees might be in swing states? I don't really see them being so lucky as to pull off a nation-wide effort on that in 2014.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

:raises eyebrow:


Remember how the Administration tried to force defense contractors to illegally refuse to notify their employees that they might be let go prior to 2012, because those employees might be in swing states?.

funny you bring that up, because that sort of practice is what this company is being sued for.

Anthem Blue Cross is sued over policy cancellations - latimes.com

The two plaintiffs are asking the courts to block any policy cancellations unless Anthem customers are allowed to switch back to their previous grandfathered health plans.



In their Los Angeles County Superior Court suits, Simon and Coker allege that Anthem pressured them in 2011 to give up their grandfathered status, a position that would have shielded them from changes under the healthcare law.

People who bought their individual policy before March 2010, when the healthcare law was enacted, and kept it in place aren't affected by the current changes in the market. In California, nearly half of the 2 million individual policyholders are expected to lose their current coverage and must find a new plan by Jan. 1.

"This is about an insurance company manipulating the situation and concealing the facts," said William Shernoff, a Claremont attorney for both plaintiffs. "We are asking the court to give our clients and everybody else in the same situation the option of going back to their grandfathered policies."

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Yeah, like that pie chart has anything to do with reality. :lamo

one chart is not enough then try this.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/30/us/why-some-people-cant-keep-their-insurance-plans.html?ref=us

 

[ttwtt78640]

:raises eyebrow:

So far it looks like more people are going to lose their insurance than will gain it - especially when the employer mandate catches up to us next year (just before the election) and all those notices start going out, just as they have for the last couple of weeks.

Remember how the Administration tried to force defense contractors to illegally refuse to notify their employees that they might be let go prior to 2012, because those employees might be in swing states? I don't really see them being so lucky as to pull off a nation-wide effort on that in 2014.

The clever play, to try to prevent that bad timing, is to slide all of PPACA 6 months into the future - citing technical (website) problems. The republicants may be dumb enough to think that is a good idea (a political mini-victory) and that lets the demorats make the PPACA employer mandate rollout occur after the 2014 election is over. Since the individual private insurance market is only about 5% they will be outnumbered by those getting subsidies and Medicaid expansion benefits. As you said, the real hammer doesn't drop untii the employer mandate happens.

 

[cpwill]

funny you bring that up, because that sort of practice is what this company is being sued for.

Er - no. This is about health insurance policies. The law requires companies to notify employees before they are fired en masse, which is what the contractors were looking to have to do. The administration told them to not inform their employees, threatened their business if they did so, and agreed to have the U.S. government cover any legal costs if and when the employees sued the company for violating the law.

Anthem Blue Cross is sued over policy cancellations - latimes.com

The two plaintiffs are asking the courts to block any policy cancellations unless Anthem customers are allowed to switch back to their previous grandfathered health plans.



In their Los Angeles County Superior Court suits, Simon and Coker allege that Anthem pressured them in 2011 to give up their grandfathered status, a position that would have shielded them from changes under the healthcare law.

People who bought their individual policy before March 2010, when the healthcare law was enacted, and kept it in place aren't affected by the current changes in the market. In California, nearly half of the 2 million individual policyholders are expected to lose their current coverage and must find a new plan by Jan. 1.

"This is about an insurance company manipulating the situation and concealing the facts," said William Shernoff, a Claremont attorney for both plaintiffs. "We are asking the court to give our clients and everybody else in the same situation the option of going back to their grandfathered policies."

Um. Dude - think about this. Are you really sure you want to build your case on the fact that people are desperate to escape Obamacare and get back onto grandfathered plans?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The clever play, to try to prevent that bad timing, is to slide all of PPACA 6 months into the future - citing technical (website) problems. The republicants may be dumb enough to think that is a good idea (a political mini-victory) and that lets the demorats make the PPACA employer mandate rollout occur after the 2014 election is over. Since the individual private insurance market is only about 5% they will be outnumbered by those getting subsidies and Medicaid expansion benefits. As you said, the real hammer doesn't drop untii the employer mandate happens.

and what if delaying the mandate proves more costly? has anyone bothered to predict what would happen?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimates that a one-year delay of the mandate would decrease the number of Americans expected to gain insurance coverage in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act by approximately 85 percent. CBO’s earlier projection that 13 million Americans would gain coverage in 2014 with the mandate in place would be reduced to just 2 million persons, leaving 11 million fewer people without coverage. In total, 55 million Americans would be uninsured in 2014.

The Costs of Delaying the Individual Mandate | Center for American Progress

the 55 million number was a prediction by the CBO

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr2668_2.pdf

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Er - no. This is about health insurance policies. The law requires companies to notify employees before they are fired en masse, which is what the contractors were looking to have to do. The administration told them to not inform their employees, threatened their business if they did so, and agreed to have the U.S. government cover any legal costs if and when the employees sued the company for violating the law.



Um. Dude - think about this. Are you really sure you want to build your case on the fact that people are desperate to escape Obamacare and get back onto grandfathered plans?

just as you have a bias against anything the federal government says, i have a strong distrust of anything a corporation says, especially when it comes to how they go about their business.

what control does the federal government have over the actions of insurance companys.

Anthem blue cross lied to the two people in the article and forced them to drop change their plan from one that would have been protected under the health care law.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yeah, like that pie chart has anything to do with reality. :lamo

If you have something to contribute, why dont you offer up some referenced sources that dispute this information?

I'm guessing because you dont have any, you dont care to look for any, and if you found them you wouldnt recognize them anyway.

Amirite?

 

[Threegoofs]

:raises eyebrow:

So far it looks like more people are going to lose their insurance than will gain it - especially when the employer mandate catches up to us next year (just before the election) and all those notices start going out, just as they have for the last couple of weeks..

And this is based upon your vast study of the statistics of this data, or your deep reading of Daily Caller articles?

 

[cpwill]

just as you have a bias against anything the federal government says, i have a strong distrust of anything a corporation says, especially when it comes to how they go about their business.

That was the federal government saying it.

what control does the federal government have over the actions of insurance companys.

Well, when you are a monopsony, quite a lot. If you tell (for example) Boeing, "Hey, unless you do (thing I want you to do), you won't get any contracts for at least 2 years" (making this up), or hint to them however lightly that they may face additional problems in the bidding process, you are basically threatening their company.

Anthem blue cross lied to the two people in the article and forced them to drop change their plan from one that would have been protected under the health care law.

Protected FROM the healthcare law. That's what they lost. These people want to be protected from the healthcare law, and are suing in order to be protected from the healthcare law. Again, that's not actually a particularly great argument for your side - that insurance companies are so evil that they refuse to protect people from the havoc wrecked by your policies.

 

[cpwill]

And this is based upon your vast study of the statistics of this data, or your deep reading of Daily Caller articles?

Aw, cute, look, an ad sourcinem attack that is equal parts fallacy and uneducated. I don't read the Daily Caller. Which is neither here nor there.

SO far, millions have received notices that they are losing their health insurance, millions are looking at sticker shock,... and thousands are signing up through the exchanges - and the vast majority of those appear to be Medicaid recipients, which doesn't really do much for your health.

The "so far it looks like more losers than winners" bit isn't exactly some kind of extreme forceast here as much as it is a description of what seems to be happening.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

That was the federal government saying it.



Well, when you are a monopsony, quite a lot. If you tell (for example) Boeing, "Hey, unless you do (thing I want you to do), you won't get any contracts for at least 2 years" (making this up), or hint to them however lightly that they may face additional problems in the bidding process, you are basically threatening their company.



Protected FROM the healthcare law. That's what they lost. These people want to be protected from the healthcare law, and are suing in order to be protected from the healthcare law. Again, that's not actually a particularly great argument for your side - that insurance companies are so evil that they refuse to protect people from the havoc wrecked by your policies.

the cancelations were not ordered by the government, it was from the insurance companys who chose not to cover people they considered too sick to cover and hurt their bottom line.

i don't think you are looking at all potential angles

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/30/us/why-some-people-cant-keep-their-insurance-plans.html?ref=us

 

[cpwill]

and what if delaying the mandate proves more costly? has anyone bothered to predict what would happen?

The Costs of Delaying the Individual Mandate | Center for American Progress

the 55 million number was a prediction by the CBO

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr2668_2.pdf

Yeah, but the CBO also appears to have way overestimated the effects of the fee tax on motivating the uninsured to sign up. :shrug: I agree you would reduce sign-up, but I don't think anywhere close to what the CBO's model would suggest.

 

[cpwill]

the cancelations were not ordered by the government, it was from the insurance companys who chose not to cover people they considered too sick to cover and hurt their bottom line.

i don't think you are looking at all potential angles

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/30/us/why-some-people-cant-keep-their-insurance-plans.html?ref=us

:shrug: perhaps it was. Which alters the fact that these people are demanding to be protected from Obamacare not at all.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

:shrug: perhaps it was. Which alters the fact that these people are demanding to be protected from Obamacare not at all.

then who protects them from the insurance companies.

 

[cpwill]

then who protects them from the insurance companies.

Well, apparently these folks are suing in order to run back to the option they think at least least-bad .

 

[The Man]

Your darn right I called it right.