More Obamacare fuckups

[ClydeR]

What is wrong with a more limited healthcare plan?

Or just allow people to go without any health insurance.

And actually... Obamacare didn't really get rid of high deductibles, which is one of the only silver linings so far. Most of the plans in the exchanges have very high deductibles. The best sort of thing is an HSA though, and Obamacare has various rules that have attacked the existence of HSA, but the fact that so many exchange plans are high deductible is a good thing.

Not so. It's natural to assume that, since Republicans have traditionally been strong supporters of HSAs but strongly oppose Obamacare. But, in fact, HSAs will thrive, not just survive, under the rules of the Obamacare exchanges. It's almost like somebody invented a system to encourage HSAs and then named it Obamacare.

http://www.hsacoalition.org/issue-an...l-value-rules/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillm...least-for-now/

Obama and his minions have done a terrible job of explaining Obamacare to the public. About the only thing most people understand about it is that the website doesn't work.

[vasplieon]

No, that is reserved for Chris Matthews

Are you sure it doesn't send a thrill up your leg instead?

[Whirlin]

There are LOTS of videos of his speeches on Youtube etc saying that you can keep your PLAN.

I had done a quick Google search, and most of them referred to insurance, and not specifically plan. Thank you for the source. You're right, he did promise plans.

You should work for MSNBC with the way you took the entire sentence apart just to take things out of context. I think even you can figure out that I was promoting people to speak out and not remain silent if there is something troubling them with our political system. Next tactic will be racism labeling. ;-)

Speeches typically use very specific word choices in order to convey ideas in broader terms, to allow listeners to hear what they want to imagine the message is. It's very commonplace in politics. There was another thread where republicans got upset when Obama said that he was not being as as partisan as he could be, because it was interpreted as him not being not partisan, rather than being a reference to a location on a spectrum.

Zhalas provided the speech where he specified plan, so I was wrong with that part of my post. The top few news articles that I Googled for had stated that you could keep your insurance, plus, as I referenced, on the local NPR stations, they were also stating that his promise was insurance.

What is wrong with a more limited healthcare plan? I mean, other than the fact that they reduce overall healthcare spending, overconsumption, moral hazard, and market distortions created by the third party payment system, what else is bad about them? If a consenting adult decides they want such a plan, why is it appropriate that a paternalistic government tells them they're not allowed to have it? We do not dictate that everyone drive a cadillac, or that everyone only buy organic free range eggs, afterall.

I don't think there's any denying that it's a socialist bill at it's core. It requires those minimums to distribute the burden evenly, rather than opting out. It's similar to fire and police services that you can't opt out of and stop paying for. Opting out would disrupt the structure and apply uneven strain.

Stop defending it.. it makes you look like a silly, uninformed voter. I honestly don't blame Obama.. I blame the people who handles him. They knew this wasn't the case, but they had to sell Obamacare to the people for the 2010 election (oops), and would basically say anything to sell it. Republicans were saying that healthcare plans would be cancelled (and they are) under Obamacare and this was their best answer for it.

Does it upset you that much when people have differing opinions that you need to tell them to stop trying to have a conversation? If you would read the rest of my post, you'd have noticed that I also highlighted that the statement inherently didn't make sense, because the entire concept of implementation of new baselines would disrupt existing plans. Just because I offer up a question and a challenge doesn't mean that I'm a zealot supporter, I'm just looking for more information from the people about their opinions.

Yes, his handlers f'ed up, and likely didn't know the bill was on version 6.2 while the speech writers and advisers only read version 1.0, and gave him poor direction, which I also agree, is a reflection of his choice in people that he decided to surround himself with.

[Latrinsorm]

I mean, other than the fact that they reduce overall healthcare spending, overconsumption, moral hazard, and market distortions created by the third party payment system, what else is bad about them?

You cannot overconsume a diagnostic service, because the point of a diagnostic is you don't (and can't possibly) know what you have. The word itself comes from gnostic, "to learn".

If a consenting adult decides they want such a plan, why is it appropriate that a paternalistic government tells them they're not allowed to have it?

The point of requiring an adult to make decisions is the hope that by being an adult they will make an informed decision, but this is not possible when it comes to healthcare. Partially this is due to my previous point, that with your lack of training and equipment you make a lousy diagnostician (as do I, and Terrence, and President Barack Hussein Obama). Additionally, you have very very poor records for your family history, and very little way of deducing your odds from that. You don't have any idea what you have, you don't have any idea what you will have, and you want us to believe you're making an informed decision when it comes to healthcare? Sir, surely you jest.

[Parkbandit]

Does it upset you that much when people have differing opinions that you need to tell them to stop trying to have a conversation? If you would read the rest of my post, you'd have noticed that I also highlighted that the statement inherently didn't make sense, because the entire concept of implementation of new baselines would disrupt existing plans. Just because I offer up a question and a challenge doesn't mean that I'm a zealot supporter, I'm just looking for more information from the people about their opinions.

It was a dumb thing to say.. and you excusing it makes you look dumb as well. I'm not trying to stop the conversation.. please, continue. It's entertaining as hell.

Yes, his handlers f'ed up, and likely didn't know the bill was on version 6.2 while the speech writers and advisers only read version 1.0, and gave him poor direction, which I also agree, is a reflection of his choice in people that he decided to surround himself with.

Bullshit. It was widely stated that the ACA would end up forcing people out of their health insurance plans... but the Obama Administration didn't like the narrative and was forced to forcefully say that no one would lose their plans. They knew that was bullshit, but wanted to give people a false sense of security.

It was a lie... nothing more.

But I do agree with you... Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of idiots who know very little about politics.

[Whirlin]

I have a little more information about the HSA thing though...

HSAs were previously a lot less restrictive on stuff that you could distribute the money on. For 2014, they are tightened.

Some examples: In 2013, I could use an HSA to pay for gym memberships, athletic equipment, etc... I could even use an HSA for new running shoes if I wanted to. The umbrella for paying for things out of the HSA to better your health was incredibly broad.

In 2014, HSAs are much more specific to prescription benefits and doctor visits. You can no longer expense things through an HSA for peripheral health activities like a kayak or gym membership.


Other changes is that in 2013 or earlier, HSA was on an annual use-it-or-lose-it basis. As of 2014, the HSA will persist year-to-year (which kinda also can create a secondary retirement account).

Due to the re-structuring of the HSA, all HSA distributions in 2014 can be used towards your annual health insurance deductible... so it's a bit easier to track your progress towards reaching that deductible.

Similarly to before, 2013 and 2014 HSA contributions are applied after SS/Medicare taxes, but before federal and state income taxes, similarly to 401(k) contributions.


Source: Many internal HR sessions on our 2014 health plans.

[Methais]

The point of requiring an adult to make decisions is the hope that by being an adult they will make an informed decision, but this is not possible when it comes to healthcare

Adults making informed decisions is the bane of almost every politician in existence. They depend on people being uninformed when it comes to just about everything, which I'm sure you already know.

[Latrinsorm]

Adults making informed decisions is the bane of almost every politician in existence. They depend on people being uninformed when it comes to just about everything, which I'm sure you already know.

I haven't seen any empirical evidence on or basis for "uninformed". One thing I have seen is this...

Person A: I believe X.
Person B: I do not believe X. Furthermore, I find such beliefs incomprehensible, therefore you are uninformed/ignorant/stupid/Obama.

[Whirlin]

It was a lie... nothing more.

But I do agree with you... Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of idiots who know very little about politics.

It's an argument over intent, which I think we're at a complete impasse on. You're absolutely right, the delivery of his speeches were not accurate; they were a lie.

Whether or not it's actively him choosing to lie, one of his advisers actively deciding to tell a lie, which implies an active decision, versus not adequately researching, and not knowing the facts, which is passive.

Basically, perjury or negligence...

The complexity comes in when considering that for it to be an active decision to lie, you have faith in him and the people he surrounds himself with in order to make the active decision, which supports his abilities as a leader. Whereas the passive alternative, which is generally considered a lesser impact by denotation, infers his inability as a leader and weak individuals surrounding him, and a lack of respect for him.

But it's kinda like getting into a debate about what's worse between getting Jeril's or Foxes' STDs... either way, it'll sting when you pee.

[Parkbandit]

It's an argument over intent, which I think we're at a complete impasse on. You're absolutely right, the delivery of his speeches were not accurate; they were a lie.

Whether or not it's actively him choosing to lie, one of his advisers actively deciding to tell a lie, which implies an active decision, versus not adequately researching, and not knowing the facts, which is passive.

Basically, perjury or negligence...

But there was plenty of reports.. even from places other than OMGFAUXNEWZ! that pointed out that many healthcare plans wouldn't comply with the regulations of the ACA and would obviously get dropped. Pointed out many times. You STILL have the President going on TV and making claims that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. Period.?

It was a calculated gamble to move public opinion that didn't work then.. but is now biting them in the ass.. enough to have the President go on TV and say he's sorry.

The complexity comes in when considering that for it to be an active decision to lie, you have faith in him and the people he surrounds himself with in order to make the active decision, which supports his abilities as a leader. Whereas the passive alternative, which is generally considered a lesser impact by denotation, infers his inability as a leader and weak individuals surrounding him, and a lack of respect for him.

One would require you to suspend all reality of the situation and see the best in someone who has consistently been a poor leader, just because of a letter behind his name.