More Obamacare fuckups

[Atlanteax]

and only if you have the INF1DL license place.

[Parkbandit]

According to the Obamacare paperwork I got from my employer Friday, all I have to do to not get "fined" for not having health insurance is say it's for religious purposes.

I can't imagine they would have left that loophole.

You really can't imagine a politician putting in a loophole into a law?

[Thondalar]

You really can't imagine a politician putting in a loophole into a law?

Oh no, I fully expect that...I guess I'm meaning more like...I expected more religious persecution from federally mandated healthcare, not less...and certainly not a "get out of taxes free" card.

[Latrinsorm]

It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.
What this means for a typical family of four
$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected population and multiplied the result by 4.
Interactive Guide: What Will Obamacare Cost You?
Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...amily-of-four/

You must get really outraged by advertisements if this is what you honestly believe "up to" means.

With some in Congress arguing lawmakers and their staff should not get subsidies to cover their health insurance as President Obama’s health-care law goes into effect, the Republican senator from Kentucky told The Daily Caller on Sunday that he’s going to start pushing a constitutional amendment that goes even further.

lol

[ClydeR]

This article says Obamacare will mean a longer wait for a doctor appointment.

About 25 million Americans are expected to gain coverage under the health law, commonly known as Obamacare. Starting Oct. 1, as many as 7 million uninsured Americans will begin shopping for private plans through government-run exchanges, with many people eligible to have their premiums subsidized by taxpayers. On Jan. 1, Medicaid programs for low-income people will be expanded in about half the U.S. states.

Strained System

The increase in newly insured patients arrives at a time when the nation has 15,230 fewer primary-care doctors than it needs, according to an Aug. 28 assessment by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And emergency rooms report being strained with visits that have risen at twice the rate of population growth.

“It’s like we’re handing out bus tickets and the bus is already full,” said Perry Pugno, vice president for medical education at the American Academy of Family Physicians, by telephone. “The shortfall of primary-care access is not an insignificant problem, and it’s going to get worse.”

More...

[Jarvan]

You know.. I had 3 more friends ask me today why the republicans are using funding the government to try to get rid or delay Obamacare. They wanted to know what one had to do with the other.

Took me a jaw dropping moment to reply.. What, you think Obamacare was free?

Frankly, CBO has already stated that Obamacare will cost at least 2x what originally was promised. Which means that not only does it have to do with the budget, it really has to do with the budget. The Repubs went about this the wrong way though. They should have just fought for a delay right now.. Senators voting to NOT delay the individual mandate a year when the Pres gave that away without a vote to the Businesses, would be better, and much more likely to get traction. Then, run on it again next year, see if you can take back then senate, THEN defund it.

[Atlanteax]

Frankly, CBO has already stated that Obamacare will cost at least 2x what originally was promised.

But Back said it will reduce costs!!

[Methais]

But Back said it will reduce costs!!

[crb]

Businesses have to be forced to do the right thing, this is news how?

No they don't, it is in a business' self interest to do what their customers want, which is generally the "right" thing.

When a pig named Snowball dictates what is right or wrong... well yes, then you might have to use force. Remember, when your solution to a problem starts with "The government should force..." you've proven yourself an enlightened individual.


Obamacare is a big fuckup, trying to stop it is a waste of time, let it happen and prove to be a big fuckup, it'll be a hard lesson but apparently the electorate has to learn it.

Most liberals cheerleader for Obamacare without understanding it, especially without understanding how it doesn't cover all the uninsured (the most recent estimates say it'll cover an additional 11m people, out of 50m supposedly uninsured), will not prevent people from going bankrupt from medical bills, will not lower healthcare costs, and generally is the worst possible way to get universal coverage, it fixes nothing. They're annoying in the same way liberals who carry Obama's foreign policy water would have been foaming at the mouth if it was McCain in office doing the exact same things.

Likewise, most conservatives hate Obamacare because socialism, and taxes, and spending, and while they are technically accurate in trying Obamacare to taxes and spending, those are pretty broad targets and hard to miss. Most can't articulate the true problems with it, why they're problems, and what an alternative would be. Even John McCain, who ran for president, on a platform that included a healthcare plan, that was at the time time more socialist than Obamacare, and better than Obamacare, and would have covered more people than Obamacare, probably couldn't articulate any details about it.

Why? With few exceptions, the people in Washington are power hungry idiots who care only for partisan battles and not for policy, and the electorate is largely incapable for thinking for themselves and instead takes their cues from celebrities and talking heads.

But anyways, if anyone here would like some actual information, on yet another Obamacare fuckup.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/out-of-po...rnia-exchange/ its a great example of how insurance works and how humans behave and how our system is incentivizing the wrong behavior.

The individual mandate lacks teeth, the insurance plans offered in the exchanges favor healthy individuals, this is going to result in people self selecting into different risk pools and for the sickest to self select into specific risk pools that, because the individual mandate lacks teeth and the exchange offerings, will not have enough healthy people off setting their consumption. Premiums will rise astronomically, the government well will run dry and unless you think Democrats are going to gain a supermajority in both houses increasing subsidies is not going to happen. The thing is going to implode, especially since the law does absolutely nothing about medical cost inflation, which is the actual true problem that needs to be addressed (uninsured people are simply a result of people being priced out of the insurance market due to medical cost inflation).

The saddest part of all of this, I think if it were called "Bushcare" and Bush had passed this exact same law in 2007, I think Washington would at least have the stomach to fix it.

[Latrinsorm]

No they don't, it is in a business' self interest to do what their customers want, which is generally the "right" thing.

There are three problems with this statement:

1. No entity always does what is in its self-interest. There are times it is unwilling or incapable of doing so, and there are times it simply does not know.

2. It is in a business' self interest for its customers to believe it is giving them what they want. Enron workers happily made 401k contributions, for instance.

3. What the mob wants is not generally the right thing (that's why we don't have mob rule in the first place) and even if it was businesses have no way of knowing what that is. If they did, why would businesses ever release busts? Windows ME, Vista, 8, I could go on.