Tea party afraid Obamacare will be sucess

A larger pool of insured people is being created for the insurance companies so it can cover the less then 2% that actually use it. Most of the working population is healthy and would seldom require any care. The increase in cash from the mandate should by principle lower premiums but it isn't happening is it?

 

So you do agree, then, that the name "affordable care act," is completely misleading, as it makes health insurance costs goes up? You agree that Obama was flat out lying when he said it would make premiums for health insurance go down?

Curious, do you also acknowledge that this law is unconstitutional?

Actually, that's conservatism.

That WAS the heart of liberalism, back when it stood for small government, free people, and prosperity! The so called "progressives" in this nation have warped it's meaning into exactly the opposite of what it was meant to be. In a truly liberal society, you don't FORCE people to give you your money in exchange for nothing! That's called tyranny.

This is not about us conservatives not caring about the poor little children. This is about us conservatives not caring about the crackhead on the street! I favor a system where the vast majority of society works hard and pays for their own insurance, and people give to a charity for those who can't. Under the ACA, the crackhead is just as entitled to his ObamaCare subsidy as the poor children with diseases. The government has no discretion. In addition, public assistance has through the bureaucratic mess, full of fat cats making six and seven figure salaries. Do they really need anymore power? And the people who make less then that are usually represented by a union and don't have any motivation to do their job well. By contrast, a private system has to work well and give to people truly in need or the donors money, or donors will donate to another charity.

Really what it comes down to is this: Who knows how to spend your money better, you or the government?

Also, newsflash: We are out of money. American healthcare is the best in the world and a luxury; the government can't afford to give it to everybody.

Where? Every inner city hell in America?

Those places are all controlled by "liberals", and that's what you get. They're better then sub-saharan Africa; I'll give you that.

 

But all of the people being added aren't paying premiums. They are poor, correct? So who ends up paying for it?

So, essentially, what your saying is that instead of higher premiums we'd be footing a higher bill on our taxes? Whoopee, big difference.

 

No, costs were going up, they will continue to go up, but not as much as before.

Only in alternative realities, like the ones where tax cuts eliminate deficits...
In this version of reality, the real supreme court has declared the ACA constitutional...

Keep telling yourself that...

No, it's called reality, when you grow up and have a real job you'll understand.

What an interesting defense of greed, still a major FAIL.
What have all you compassionate conservatives actually done when you've had the reins of government like in Texas, 852,000 children with no health coverage.
Better that 852,000 children go without than that one crackhead get a medical treatment, is that your idea of a "philosophy"?

cute slogan, how many Marine brigades do you think are privately funded?

The wealthiest 1% have enough money to pay off the entire debt, and still have enough left to be the wealthiest 1%.

Where do you live?
Inner city hell?
Have you been to America lately?

 

Because of the medical device tax? Because men have to pay for maternity care? Because you need a lower deductible plan? Yeah, right.

I guess we'll see.

Actually, they can. When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush cut tax rates, revenues actually went up. That's because lower taxes means more economic activity and higher prosperity, so there's more money to tax. It's a win-win.

Why do you care so much about what other people think? The Supreme Court is filled with corrupt ideologues that can't do their most important job. This law is unconstitutional. To see why I say that, there's another thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=331186

That is the lamest excuse to take somebody's money I have ever heard. Yes, it is reality. The world is full of greedy power-hungry crazies on the left end of the political spectrum. But that doesn't mean you can't change it! Why bother debating politics on this site if all your going to say is "sit down and shut up."

That is symptom of a problem; it's not our fault, and ObamaCare certainly won't solve it.

I'm not defending greed. Most successful people have earned their money legitimately you know. Don't demonize it. We should all strive to be successful. Watching too many hollywood movies?

I think we can both agree there's more then one crackhead in Texas. I acknowledge that the cost of it is beyond our means. Right now we should be focusing on saving the world from economic ruin.

So you do trust the government to spend your money better then yourself, then?

Where'd you hear that? That's entirely false. The wealthy (250k+) couldn't even cover the deficit, much less pay down the existing debt. This video proves it:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNF8HYh59Rs&desktop_uri=/watch?v=dNF8HYh59Rs

It's a few years old, however it still completely destroys your worldview. It shows just how bad Washington is at managing it's finances. We are in deep trouble.

I don't live in inner city hell, but I've been there and seen statistics. You don't consider those crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, and poverty rates hell? That's what a generation of uninterrupted Democrats in power get you.

 

Ok, here's the thing, I actually know how insurance works, so I can't even pretend you might have a point.
And that whole thing about you knowing better than the Supreme Court what's constitutional, puts you squarely in ding dong land.
Then you go on to demonstrate that you really don't have a grasp on reality.
So enjoy, say hi to Peter Pan for me.....

 

Haha you completely skipped over most of my points, okay whatever.

Sure you do. If you really did, your biggest talking point wouldn't be "I know how insurance works."

The Supreme Court isn't God. They can be just as corrupt and partisan as President Obama or Speaker Boehner. As for the decision, let's debate it. If your such an expert on the constitution, this should be quite easy for you.

ObamaCare is unconstitutional for the following two reasons:
1.) Taxes must originate in the House of Representatives. If the Supreme Court is going to rule that the ACA is constitutional as a tax, they need to strike it down on the grounds that it originated in the Senate.
2.) ObamaCare has been illegally altered by the President when has waived and delayed specific parts of it without the approval of congress, most significantly the mandate employers provide insurance to their employees. The President cannot, under the constitution, alter a law without executive order or the approval of congress. That's exactly what he did here, and it's illegal.

Is this smack talk really needed? I want to debate the law. No need to mindlessly insult the 15 year old you met on the Internet. Just because I'm a conservative doesn't make me an idiot.

Relatively few people my age even follow politics, if you haven't noticed. That alone puts me ahead in terms of my awareness. You want Ding Dong land, you should talk to some of the people in my government class.

 

I skipped your points because they aren't points, they are misunderstandings on your part.
Insurance isn't about you paying for what you'll need, and not a penny more, it's about sharing risk.
Most people should pay in more than they use, because someone is going to get a $600,000 heart transplant, and it might be you.
So unisex rating, which most states already have, underwrites by age, but not by sex.
So yes, men pay for abortions and women pay for prostate cancer.
It's insurance, and they need to make large pools for it to work, so that the averages work out.

And the Reagan and Bush tax cuts are what racked up most of the national debt, unless you want to call the whole thing an incredible coincidence.
If you are a serious student of politics, look it up, there's the tax cut and right after it comes record deficits.

The ACA that was passed began as H.R. 3590, as in House Resolution 3590.

If ObamaCare has been illegally altered, then the GOP should sue to have the law implemented as passed, that would be their available remedy.
Presidents have broad discretion in how they execute the laws, if the GOP feels the law isn't being implemented as passed, the law remains on the books as passed, but you see the dilemma if they sue for immediate implementation of the employer mandate.

Sorry, but conservatives become a blur, and they keep coming up with the same stuff, stuff that has been debunked a hundred times.

Here's what you should know about the ACA.

It's almost identical to the law implemented in Massachusetts 6 years ago, which currently has a 66% approval rating.
In the first month of that law, 123 people signed up, eventually over 400,000 uninsured signed up.
It took two years to get all the kinks out of the web site.
Today there are virtually no children without health coverage in Massachusetts, and over 97% of the people in the state are covered, compare that to the national average of 83%.

A number of countries have individual mandates, and in those countries it's popular and it works.
The ACA is on a sound actuarial basis, it pays for itself and it reduces the deficit.

 

Your friend is full of it. Who is Obamacare going to be good for? Should work just fine? LOL!!!

 

He's a health actuary and you are obviously clueless about health insurance, he says ObamaCare is fine, and you, and a whole lot of other people who don't know very much about health insurance, make a bunch of vague, conflicting claims about how ObamaCare is going to fail, (these are the same people who predicted that by now we'd be experiencing hyper inflation), so I'm going to ignore the people who have been wrong about nearly everything, and go with the experts on this one.
Feel free to remain with the people who have been wrong about nearly everything, I mean that birth certificate could get here from Kenya, and then gosh I'd look stupid....

 

Sure, we believe you. The fact that such a letter has never been published by anyone even though it would probably be worth a million bucks to the Tea Party and must have been sent to at least several thousand other people in the same situation casts no doubt at all on your statement

 

I guess time will tell.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I received the letter from Anthem BCBS. You don't have to believe it though. It is happening. Check out: http://mycancellation.com/. My plan was cancelled, and they said I could have a new plan if I wanted to, but the premiums were almost double. Luckily, I have gainful employment now after 8 months unemployed, and will be on the company-provided plan.

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-increase-20131119,0,6410053,full.story#axzz2lILVz3zZ





WASHINGTON — Despite the disastrous rollout of the federal government's healthcare website, enrollment is surging in many states as tens of thousands of consumers sign up for insurance plans made available by President Obama's health law.

A number of states that use their own systems, including California, are on track to hit enrollment targets for 2014 because of a sharp increase in November, according to state officials.

"What we are seeing is incredible momentum," said Peter Lee, director of Covered California, the nation's largest state insurance marketplace, which accounted for a third of all enrollments nationally in October. California — which enrolled about 31,000 people in health plans last month — nearly doubled that in the first two weeks of this month.

Several other states, including Connecticut and Kentucky, are outpacing their enrollment estimates, even as states that depend on the federal website lag far behind. In Minnesota, enrollment in the second half of October ran at triple the rate of the first half, officials said. Washington state is also on track to easily exceed its October enrollment figure, officials said.

PHOTOS: 2013's memorable political moments

The growing enrollment in those states is a rare bit of good news for backers of the Affordable Care Act and suggests that the serious problems with the law's rollout may not be fatal, despite critics' renewed calls for repeal.

But the trend also emphasizes how widely experience with the new law varies by location.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia, covering about one-third of the nation's population, are operating their own Obamacare marketplaces and have their own enrollment websites. The others, including most states with Republican-led governments, have declined to do so, making their residents dependent on the malfunctioning federal site.

In addition to better-functioning websites, many states that are running their own marketplaces also have significantly more resources to help consumers sign up for coverage.

Many of the states that have declined to run their own websites have also refused to expand the joint federal-state Medicaid program, as the new law allows.

Overall enrollment totals in states using the federal site were dismal in October, according to figures released last week by the Health and Human Services Department.

For example, just 2,991 people successfully enrolled in health plans in Texas in October. That was fewer enrollees than in Kentucky, which has a sixth as many residents.

Altogether, 106,000 people enrolled in health coverage nationwide last month, a figure far below administration projections.

Nearly half of those who enrolled in October were in California or New York. Both states have continued to show growth in their numbers. In New York, enrollment has continued at roughly October's rate and stands at 24,509, according to state officials.

PHOTOS: The battle over Obamacare

Even with the growing consumer interest in health insurance in many states, the new marketplaces created by the health law need millions more enrollees. The Obama administration aims to get 7 million consumers into health insurance plans in 2014 to ensure that the marketplaces have enough people to be sustainable.

With fixes still being made to the federal website, it is unclear whether enrollment will catch up everywhere.

White House officials repeatedly have said they hope to have the healthcare.gov website working for the "vast majority" of users by the end of this month. But spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that the administration also is working with insurance companies to allow consumers to bypass the troubled site and enroll directly with insurers.

In California, Lee said Monday that the federal troubles have made enrollment more difficult even for states that use their own sites. State officials believe enrollment through Covered California has been depressed by media reports of problems with the federal site, Lee told reporters during a call organized by the consumer group Families USA.

Covered California has had to change its marketing strategy to remind Californians that the state website is different from healthcare.gov.

But while politicians in Washington, D.C., have been fixated on the website problems, many state officials are feeling considerably more optimistic about the law's long-term prospects.

"We're going to ride all this stuff out," said Kevin Counihan, chief executive of Access Health CT, Connecticut's marketplace.

Counihan, who worked for the marketplace that Massachusetts created after its trailblazing 2006 reforms, said he had been expecting even lower enrollment. Connecticut saw growing enrollment in November: 3,201 people signed up for health plans in the first two weeks of this month, nearing the 4,371 total for all of October.

Enrollment has been even stronger in many Medicaid programs.

About half the states have agreed to expand their Medicaid programs to most low-income residents in 2014. Under the law, the federal government picks up nearly the entire cost of that expansion for the first several years.

Nationwide, nearly 400,000 new people qualified for Medicaid coverage in October, according to federal data. In Oregon, whose marketplace has been one of the few trouble-plagued state sites, the state reported that it had already signed up 70,000 new people for Medicaid.

Officials nationwide cautioned that drawing firm conclusions about enrollment patterns was difficult at this early stage.

"It's hard to know what normal looks like yet," said Bethany Frey, a spokeswoman for Washington state's marketplace, known as Washington Healthplanfinder.

Many state officials say they think the biggest enrollment surge will take place after Thanksgiving. Consumers face a Dec. 15 deadline to sign up if coverage is to be effective Jan. 1.

The open enrollment period under the law lasts until March 31, giving consumers an additional three months to select health plans in 2014.

Experts also expect more people to sign up for coverage through 2014 as their circumstances change in ways that make them eligible to enroll outside of the regular enrollment period.

"We are in the beginning of the first inning of a nine-inning game," Lee said.

noam.levey@latimes.com





OBAMACARE - A VICTORY FOR AMERICA!!!!!

 

Not if you only have one insurance company in your state. They can do whatever the heck they want to. But hey, it's going to be better for some, but who cares about the ones getting screwed, right?

 

|"Tea Party afraid Obamacare will be a success". Not. By Tea Party I assume you mean those Americans that believe the Federal Government is going to bankrupt the country, is overtaxing us, over regulating us and interfering with our Constitutional freedoms.

Those of us that see how the ACA is poised to raise our premiums, our deductibles our out of pocket costs need not fear it will be a success. It has been doomed from the day it was passed by the Democrats. I have advised my representatives to let it be, stop trying to repeal it and just let it fail, which it will.

 

Oh the irony!

 

Proud **********!

Right wingers sure are a funny lot!!!

 

this line of BS just cracks me up...we are afraid it will succeed...

Do they care about the Millions of people who are Losing their Insurance because of this law ok'd by Obama?

No all they care is trying to save this incompetent piece of crap law and Obama's legacy..sad stuff

 

The answer is simple: sign up for Obamacare and you will be fully covered.

 

Doesn't seem to be the case. Click here.

 

growing pains - no problem ....

 

I guess time will tell. Unfortunately, Obamacare will probably wind up being another government leviathan that costs the taxpayers dearly, and all those temporary politicians that voted for it will be gone.

 

The President and the Democrats misrepresented the cost and the content of the PPACA to pass it without the support of Republicans, Independents and the majority of the citizens/voters in 2010. Now many of the concerns citizens and Republicans had are coming true. I am not happy as I am married to a Doctor and have worked in Medical Management for over 36+years and knew from the start that the law would have major problems that would result in premiums increasing and the cost to taxpayers/federal government would increase. There should have been a law passed that regulated the Health Insurance Industry, adding protections to policy holders. Including regulating premium increases just as the Federal Government regulated Utility Companies . Health Insurance Companies should not be exempt from the Sherman Act and other regulatory laws.They should have to "prove the necessity for premium increases", only be allowed to increase premiums by a set/documented in the contract percentage'; annually. Only allowed to cancel policies under regulated terms. Not allowed to set life-time payout limits while premiums are in good standing. Must add newborns to the family insurance and then cover the newborn for the life of the policy at a predetermined cost/increase to the family premium(based on the current cost of insurance for additional family members. (much as new employees are covered under group health insurance).

This is what has been needed for years.
The Dems assertion that the cost of providing health care to medicare patients is decreasing is at this time nothing more than money acquired by performing "Witch hunts" that attempt to recover money paid to physicians most often for services they actually provided and for which Medicare originally approved but now claims were for services not covered. Most of these services were provided and either the "code" the provider used determined to be in correct or the information the Provider given by Medicare regarding the applicable code was incorrect. While there are many cases of insured and provider fraud, that is not the norm. The coding and payment system has become more and more complex and it is nearly impossible for providers to get accurate information regarding the coding of services provided or for that matter any answer to their questions that they can rely on. Paying providers less is not the same as lowering the cost of Health Care. Paying those providing the treatment, medical equipment, nursing home, home health care; does not equate to lowering the cost of health care. The Government is lumping the cost of treating Medicare and Medicaid insureds/patients with the cost of Individual/Group health insurance premiums. Not the same at all. They are talking about "THEIR" cost of providing health care to Medicare and Medicaid patients. Inherently this cost, especially that of Medicare will continue to increase unless those covered by Medicare pay a higher monthly cost. Why? Because the cost of providing treatment has increased as development of diagnostic technology, drugs, surgical treatments and instruments, operating costs(rents, utilities, wages, educational costs, etc) and not to mention the increasing number of individuals qualifying for medicare and Medicaid. Decreasing the amount providers are paid to provide the care is not the answer as it is forcing many physicians to leave practice, many hospitals to close and nursing homes to provide sub-standard care.

PPA is not going to decrease the number of Emergency room visits as the number of uninsured illegals has not changed, the number of people that even though have insurance wait until the last minute( when it becomes an emergency) will still exist and the number with true emergencies will still exist. Emergency care will always be more costly regardless if the individual has insurance or not.

Ever had to take a pet to an animal hospital, most which are open after normal vet hours. It costs an arm and a leg. Yet I find many are more willing to pay for the emergency care of their pet. Back surgery for a dog/cat is avg. $3000 up People pay this.

Hey what about dental care. Many don't realize that bad teeth can cause many deadly illnesses including heart disease and death. Yet, health insurance normally will only pay for treatment of a tooth abcess including removal of the tooth causing it, YET won't pay for that tooth to be replaced which can lead to poor digestion and subsequent disease. Heath insurance should cover dental where their is the potential or where it is causing medical problems. Dental Insurance is unregulated and has ridiculous limits. PPA should have mandated coverage for Dental for adults not Maternity and newborn for those that would never need it in the future.

 

I work in the medical insurance and billing area and I have also worked with contracting with health insurance carriers. The fee schedules that each company has per contract is what is determining the cost for those health services. All of them pay the same basically across the board and what they pay for health services codes is low and does not justify the premium cost of insurance.

 

Here's a big clue, there aren't millions of people who are losing their insurance, that is one of the real lies about ObamaCare.....