^

Probably plenty of "rogue" missions in play right now.

Maybe the movies aren't so far off...

12/15/2013 8:46:01 PM

It's not the president's fault. He's powerless in matters such as these, and has no say in what government employees and contractors do. I'll bet he's as surprised by all of this as anyone. Poor guy.

12/15/2013 11:20:47 PM

oh man look at these judicial picks in georgia

[Edited on December 23, 2013 at 4:43 PM. Reason : obamacare deadline extended !]

12/23/2013 4:34:17 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0

Quote :

"Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

12/29/2013 2:52:56 PM

I just want actual info on the ACA. Where can I find data on all of these people that are losing their policies.

12/31/2013 6:35:12 AM

Projections/estimates or actual people to date? You will have to wait awhile (maybe never?) for real numbers, and since they kept changing the rules about existing plans even the updated projections and estimates probably aren't out yet. We know it will be some number of millions, but beyond that there doesn't seem to be much agreement.

12/31/2013 9:27:05 AM

Huh? We have plenty of real numbers. As of December 28:

2.1M have signed up for private insurance through the exchanges
3.9M have signed up for Medicaid
3.0M under 26 are under their parents plans

All told 9 million people are now covered thanks to Obamacare. Also those numbers don't include people who were directly signed up or moved to a new plan by their insurance company. As far as I'm concerned, it's already impossible to repeal. Good luck ever winning another election if you take away health care from 9+ million people.

12/31/2013 5:06:30 PM

It wouldn't require taking most peoples healthcare to repeal it.

But it can't be repealed because most people support the keystone portions which are coverage for preexisting conditions, and no lifetime limits.

These ideas necessitate most of the rest of the bill

12/31/2013 6:34:03 PM

social security 2.0... a mathematically unsustainable system put in place to win votes and kept in place to keep those votes. i used to just worry about future generations, now i worry about mine.

[Edited on December 31, 2013 at 8:26 PM. Reason : ]

12/31/2013 8:25:42 PM

Quote :

"Huh? We have plenty of real numbers. As of December 28: 2.1M have signed up for private insurance through the exchanges 3.9M have signed up for Medicaid 3.0M under 26 are under their parents plans"

uh, he asked about how many people have lost insurance. we don't have real numbers for that (but its more than have gained insurance)

[Edited on December 31, 2013 at 8:28 PM. Reason : so no, no real answers. like i said. ]

12/31/2013 8:27:06 PM

so what we're seeing is that we have a net loss of people with health insurance "thanks to Obamacare"? that's just incredible (and entirely expected).

Quote :

"When that fine is going to kick in, you’re going to see people trotting to sign on like you’ve never seen it before,"

- Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.)

1/1/2014 10:47:43 AM

No that's bullshit. Most of the people who supposedly "lost" coverage will either be able to renew their existing plans or enroll in an affordable plan through the exchange. Only about 10,000 people will be worse off than before, forced to pay more to stay covered.

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ACA-Coverage-Statistics-2013-12-31.pdf

Quote :

"This leaves fewer than 10,000 people nationwide who would be unable to renew their cancelled policies, unable to receive subsidized coverage through the marketplace or Medicaid, and unable to enroll in catastrophic coverage. This represents less than 0.2% of the 4.7 million people who will reportedly receive cancellation letters. "

The talking points are all dead, the law will be unassailable by this time next year.

1/2/2014 12:18:07 PM

those Republican claims about millions losing insurance are actually based on White House projections

Quote :

"Most of the people who supposedly "lost" coverage will either be able to renew their existing plans or enroll in an affordable plan through the exchange."

see, the problem is that the affordable plans are not affordable. they are significantly more expensive, often more than double the cost. and this isn't just a case of people having shitty coverage before, even people with good and adequate plans are having to pay twice as much. and some people can't afford it.

its a problem that's compounded by the fact that a couple million people have at least a $1000 incentive to pay the penalty vs. getting a new and more expensive plan.



[Edited on January 2, 2014 at 3:23 PM. Reason : don't be a partisan apologist]

1/2/2014 3:23:13 PM

Yeah dude, that's just not true. You're just buying the GOP's line of bullshit. The plans are affordable thanks to the subsidies, which 60% of those with cancelled policies are eligible for. They won't be paying any more than before and they'll have more comprehensive coverage. The rest are eligible for either an extremely cheap catastrophic coverage plan or Medicaid.

Quote :

" and this isn't just a case of people having shitty coverage before, even people with good and adequate plans are having to pay twice as much. and some people can't afford it."

Yeah, and according to the most recent report, the number of people for which that is the case = 10,000.

Look, the private individual insurance market prior to Obamacare was a goddamn mess. There was greater than 50% turnover in plans each year. People had plans cancelled for all sorts of reasons and most didn't even keep their plans for more than 2 years. When you did lose your plan, you had literally no recourse, you were fucked. The law does away with all of that while also ensuring you actually get decent coverage with even the cheapest of plans. There is no possible way you can spin this as a "net loss" of people being covered or that the private individual insurance market is worse off.

1/2/2014 3:56:52 PM

Quote :

" The plans are affordable thanks to the subsidies, which 60% of those with cancelled policies are eligible for."

NO

subsidies are only for 100%-400% of poverty and are graduated, they do not offset increased prices. For a 27 year old man, you have to be making less than $30k to breakeven vs. premium increases (which is about half the median income). A 40 year old man would need to be making less than about $40k to break even (again about half the median income). The only people benefiting or coming close to breaking even are old people.

because they capped spending differences at 1:3 (actual is 1:6-1:7), young people are literally subsidizing healthcare for old people. this is a problem since old people are better off financially by about 20%.

(and in subsidies are a poor way to control costs because over time they will increase costs)

Quote :

"hey won't be paying any more than before and they'll have more comprehensive coverage. "

NO
this is just so far from true I'm not sure how to take you seriously. The national average premium increase is 99% for men and 62% for women. For a 27 year old man in NC, the Bronze-level premium increase is 267%, for a woman it is 151%. For a 40 year old dude, its over 300%.

Quote :

" Yeah, and according to the most recent report, the number of people for which that is the case = 10,000. "

false. This is the number of people who don't have access to a catastrophic plan at all. It is not the number of people who do not have access to affordable healthcare This is per your source. Not all of the canceled plans were shitty, most were more than actuarially adequate.

[Edited on January 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2014 4:14:33 PM

Quote :

"NO subsidies are only for 100%-400% of poverty and are graduated, they do not offset increased prices. For a 27 year old man, you have to be making less than $30k to breakeven vs. premium increases (which is about half the median income). A 40 year old man would need to be making less than about $40k to break even (again about half the median income). The only people benefiting or coming close to breaking even are old people. "

And? Guess what the median income is for uninsured adults under 30? Less than $30k per year, actually around $22k per year. For most of those people, getting insurance today is much cheaper than it would have been a year ago. So no, there are plenty of non-old people who will benefit thanks to the subsidies.

Quote :

"NO this is just so far from true I'm not sure how to take you seriously. The national average premium increase is 99% for men and 62% for women. For a 27 year old man in NC, the Bronze-level premium increase is 267%, for a woman it is 151%. For a 40 year old dude, its over 300%."

Sure, but we're not talking about the national average premium increase, which is heavily skewed by states that had a mostly unregulated health insurance market. We're talking about people who will be receiving cancellation notices and won't be able to renew their existing plans. Most of them, when it's all said and done, will not see any increase at all or might even pay less for a better plan.

Quote :

"false. This is the number of people who don't have access to a catastrophic plan at all. It is not the number of people who do not have access to affordable healthcare This is per your source. Not all of the canceled plans were shitty, most were more than actuarially adequate."

It is the number of people who won't be able to replace their cancelled policies with an affordable option, either a subsidized regular plan, a catastrophic plan, or medicaid. Again, you can't possibly say that the private insurance market is worse off today due to Obamacare. Yes, there are losers, but they are mostly young healthy people who make a lot of money and aren't covered by their employer. Their premiums will go up in exchange for more people having access to affordable health insurance. Which was the whole point of the law.

1/2/2014 4:59:35 PM

Quote :

"young people are literally subsidizing healthcare for old people. this is a problem since old people are better off financially by about 20%. "

Exactly like the old system...

1/2/2014 5:15:30 PM

No, much worse than the old system. It's capped at 1:3 now.

Quote :

"Most of them, when it's all said and done, will not see any increase at all or might even pay less for a better plan."

stop being so fucking wrong dude, these people will see huge increases

Quote :

"Again, you can't possibly say that the private insurance market is worse off today due to Obamacare. "

oh, the private insurance companies are loving it. consumers are worse off though.

[Edited on January 2, 2014 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

1/2/2014 5:16:01 PM

Quote :

"stop being so fucking wrong dude, these people will see huge increases"

I'm sorry that reality doesn't match with your pre-conceived notions, but the ACA haters like yourself have been proven wrong time and time again. Stop being a baby about it.

[Edited on January 2, 2014 at 5:30 PM. Reason : :]

1/2/2014 5:29:54 PM

You haven't proven shit wrong, I just explained to you how much more expensive it is. It's 267% more expensive for a 27 year old NC man. That's not affordable you halfwit.

1/2/2014 5:32:16 PM

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0&pagewanted=printawful

Michale Moore pretty much nails it there. It's an insurance company handout.

1/2/2014 6:33:20 PM

^^I just saw the biggest year to year insurance increase since I started my career. So I can say I'm definitely not a fan.

1/3/2014 8:51:35 AM

I would have absolutely no problem paying significantly more if it was actually a good solution, but ACA is a terrible solution. It's mandated shoveling of public money to private insurers, its the worst plan we could have. A couple things about it are good, but they just don't do enough to offset how bad it is.

1/3/2014 9:06:22 AM

Was the original plan for the ACA better but now is worse off because of concessions that had to be made just to get it passed?

1/3/2014 10:47:36 AM

^ The public option comes to mind.

1/3/2014 10:55:02 AM

losing the public option was the most significant loss. it now looks like some states will start creating their own public options (in fact its already started), but that's not going to help out anyone in Republican states.

1/3/2014 11:07:26 AM

The medicaid loophole was a compromise as wel.

Quote :

"All eyes are on Vermont’s plan for a single-payer system, starting in 2017. If it flies, it will change everything, with many states sure to follow suit by setting up their own versions. That’s why corporate money will soon flood into Vermont to crush it. The legislators who’ll go to the mat for this will need all the support they can get: If you live east of the Mississippi, look up the bus schedule to Montpelier. "

If this plays out, could be bit. 2017 is a long time away though.

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ]

1/3/2014 11:28:35 AM

You cannot compare the product they are getting today vs what they had in the past. Besides the fact that for a lot of people, the actual coverage is more comprehensive with a lower deductible, having health insurance is actually a guarantee now. You can't lose coverage simply because the health plan you're on is no longer profitable to the company (this happened). You can't get dropped because they looked into your medical records and found you tested for high blood pressure once 10 years ago (this happened). If you lose your employer health plan, you can actually get private health insurance now without fear of being denied.

You can't go bankrupt due to medical expenses anymore. 75% of medical bankruptcies were people who had insurance, you know whose wonderful plans that may be getting cancelled or replaced with something a bit more expensive. Why? Because in reality they didn't cover shit, and in many cases when they did, the insurance companies found ways to avoid paying. Has anyone here even had a prolonged hospital stay? How did you like it when you had to start taking calls from your insurance company while trying to recover from a traumatic surgery because they were denying your claims. All that is done with. It's not apples to apples. You cannot compare the plans people get today vs what they had before Obamacare. They are better in almost every measurable and immeasurable way.

Going sour grapes on the ACA because it's not single payer is retarded. Single payer would have never passed. It took control of both houses and a super majority in the Senate to even pass this thing, via reconciliation. It cost Obama the political will to do much of anything else his entire first term. This was practically the only legislatively possible solution to the problems the health care industry faced. The fact that it's better for consumers than the old way is unquestionable. What's left to see is what the long term effect on health care costs will be, but at least now people will actually get what they pay for.

1/3/2014 11:41:38 AM

stop it, just stop apologizing for this shit

1/3/2014 11:44:53 AM

There is nothing to apologize for. The claims of millions losing their coverage was completely debunked. The website is working fine now. Do you realize your current opinion on the law is to the right of people who think poor kids should be forced to clean floors at their school so they get free lunches? Some of those fuckers are even asking for people to stop calling it Obamacare because they realize it's going to be a popular success. Think about that for a second. You're literally dumber than the Tea Party right now.

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM. Reason : :]

1/3/2014 11:55:27 AM

a healthcare plan so awesome they felt the need to force people to pay a penalty if they didn't go along with it.

think about that for a minute.

1/3/2014 12:26:23 PM

^ ha, no.

You don't really believe that do you?

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/3/2014 12:52:35 PM

Quote :

"The claims of millions losing their coverage was completely debunked"

its only debunked if you think that a 300% price increase is okay

and most people don't think that

Quote :

"The website is working fine now."

its working better, but they still haven't fixed problems with errors being reported to insurance companies and some people still don't have a way to pay for their coverage (they are only covered because Obama asked the insurance companies for a forgiveness period for people who can't pay, which they were not required to do)

Quote :

" Do you realize your current opinion on the law is to the right of people who think poor kids should be forced to clean floors at their school so they get free lunches?"

wanting socialized medicine, or at least a public option or single payer, is an opinion of the right? put down the crack pipe dude. (your support of the Heritage Foundation-created ACA puts you waaay right of me)

Quote :

"Some of those fuckers are even asking for people to stop calling it Obamacare because they realize it's going to be a popular success. Think about that for a second."

who on the right is doing this? examples?

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2014 12:58:25 PM

The law of unintended consequences is a bitch, especially for the ACA.


http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/03/study-expanding-health-coverage-increases-emergency-room-use/

Oops.

Basically if you go from no insurance to medicaid, you're still going to go to the ER over a primary care physician, which undermines another one of Obama's selling points.

1/3/2014 1:42:22 PM

*Conservative Heritage Foundation's selling points

1/3/2014 1:54:57 PM

Quote :

"Do you realize your current opinion on the law is to the right of people who think poor kids should be forced to clean floors at their school so they get free lunches? Some of those fuckers are even asking for people to stop calling it Obamacare because they realize it's going to be a popular success. Think about that for a second. You're literally dumber than the Tea Party right now."

i don't even know where to begin with this but apparently michael moore is now further right than the tea party, according to Shrike's System of Party-Line Logic

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html

1/3/2014 2:26:31 PM

^^^
lol, we're 3 days into the year.

Seems like that's something people can learn to do differently.

It would be nice if the ACA detractors would talk about real structural problems with ACA instead of picking on the dumbest things to complain about.

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ]

1/3/2014 2:44:57 PM

i've been doing that

1/3/2014 3:00:01 PM

I wasn't complaining. Just passing on an article from Time magazine.

1/3/2014 3:00:55 PM

Quote :

"^ ha, no. You don't really believe that do you?"

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/

Quote :

"If someone who can afford health insurance doesn’t have coverage in 2014, they may have to pay a fee. They also have to pay for all of their health care."

it doesn't get much simpler than that moron. the only time this doesn't apply is if someone is deemed unable to afford health insurance.. through whatever arbitrary method they decided on.

1/3/2014 3:09:56 PM

^ the mandate isn't there because the plans are bad, it's there because the insurance companies demanded it, because they claimed being forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions and get rid of lifetime caps would cost too much.

It's possible that the system would have worked okay without the mandates (with the insurance companies cutting into profits), but do you really think insurance company lobbyists would have let this fly?

^^^ I know. But even "the media" is doing a piss poor job of reporting the details of the ACA that are "causing" some of the angst. Ive yet to see an analysis or an interview with insurance companies about their books. Aren't some of those guys publicly traded companies? Shouldn't they be filing information about how the law affects them financially?

Howard Dean was arguing that ACA might have worked without the mandate, the only way we can know if this is true would be to know the costs to the actual insurance companies. It's frustrating how little real info is being reported on ACA.

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

1/3/2014 3:18:15 PM

Quote :

"the mandate isn't there because the plans are bad of the ACA"

you're like the girl that gets mad at the other girl her boyfriend sleeps with because she flirted with him. you got cheated on, and the other girl isn't the core of the problem.

the insurance industry sucks, but ACA certainly isn't the answer as much as you wanted it to be.

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ]

1/3/2014 4:19:22 PM

LOL saying "ACA isn't the answer" is definite proof you don't know what you're talking about.

You realize the thing is thousands of pages? It's a combination of many ideas? Which of them "isn't the answer"? What parts need to be added/removed/changed to make it "the answer"?

1/3/2014 4:27:51 PM

Quote :

"LOL saying "ACA isn't the answer" is definite proof you don't know what you're talking about."

yes, definitely, definitely.

Quote :

"What parts need to be added/removed/changed to make it "the answer"?"

for one, consider the millions of dollars spent on the infrastructure for the whole thing. those were tax dollars like mine being blown to set up a system and website that ended up requiring even more money to make work after its release. i used to be a federal contractor and i can tell you one thing... a heavy portion of that money went into the pockets of contractor companies. IT contracts are notorious for this, and one of the bigger reasons i got out of it. that one's too late. the money's gone, a few people are richer, the rest of us aren't. again.

secondly, it shouldn't force insurance companies to accept any and all comers. i'm sorry, but it shouldn't. insurance companies aren't hurting for cash; there's a reason they exist in the first place. so now we're going to intentionally funnel more customers to them by law? this does two things: 1) hit insurance companies' bottom lines because of what will be a huge increase in claims over time and 2) cause insurance companies to raise their rates across the board to cover and still make a profit.

it's going to have a much deeper impact than you think it will. i'm already seeing it. my wife works for a hospital, and now she's actually having to worry about whether or not she will keep her job because the hospital is restructuring due to budget cuts specifically because of the healthcare reform and she isn't the only one.

Quote :

"You realize the thing is thousands of pages? It's a combination of many ideas?"

nah.. i thought it was just an essay man.. i read a bumper sticker and just assumed the whole thing sucked

[Edited on January 3, 2014 at 5:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/3/2014 5:27:14 PM

Quote :

"You can't go bankrupt due to medical expenses anymore."

Facts not in evidence, unless you mean they've changed bankruptcy law like they did for student loans. In fact, we have this, from way back (http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=53#13680396) when we were discussing medical bankruptcy when this law was being proposed:

http://www.bcsalliance.com/bankruptcy_medical_debt.html

87% of bankruptcy due to medical debt was for amounts less than 10k, 40% less than 5k. Even the Gold plans in NC have a 4-5k annual out of pocket max, and it gets worse the lower you go (with more out of pocket up front, meaning you're more likely to have the high costs). And that's after you spend ~$300 / month on the insurance.

1/3/2014 5:46:29 PM

Quote :

"secondly, it shouldn't force insurance companies to accept any and all comers. i'm sorry, but it shouldn't. insurance companies aren't hurting for cash; there's a reason they exist in the first place. so now we're going to intentionally funnel more customers to them by law? this does two things: 1) hit insurance companies' bottom lines because of what will be a huge increase in claims over time and 2) cause insurance companies to raise their rates across the board to cover and still make a profit. "

If you're saying a component of health reform shouldn't include coverage of preexisting conditions, then what tenants are you looking for in fixing the US healthcare system? Or were you just happy with the status quo as it was before? I'm assuming you don't support a public option?

1/3/2014 5:47:04 PM

Quote :

"Or were you just happy with the status quo as it was before"

why would i be? just because you don't like a grease fire in your kitchen, that doesn't mean you should just throw a pot of water on it. you should look for a solution that actually helps the situation. you don't have to make the problem worse just for the sake of change. in this case, i'd rather have the status quo until a better plan came out; that doesn't make me "happy" with it.

1/3/2014 6:07:11 PM

What would make a "better" plan or what would make ACA better?

You've already stated you don't think insurers should have to cover pre existing conditions, which puts you in a small minority of people.

So either you feel the government should cover these people, or they should suck it up and die gracefully from their illnesses.

1/3/2014 6:33:00 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/al-qaeda-force-captures-fallujah-amid-rise-in-violence-in-iraq/2014/01/03/8abaeb2a-74aa-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html

1/3/2014 6:40:30 PM

^^ Obviously he supports the GOP reform plan which is

...

1/3/2014 6:55:03 PM