ACA Running Thread

[PhDeac]

If that is the case, which I'm not saying it is, then there were a hell of a lot straighter lines to get from A to B than via the shitshow of Obamacare. It is a complete, unmitigated disaster, which anyone with any ounce of intellect knew from the moment its details were released (after passing it, of course).

No there weren't. Not even close.

 

[awaken]

Expanding Medicare/aid is a straighter line.

 

[Wrangor]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's really little Obama could do if he even wanted to. Congress sure as hell isn't going to cooperate. They'd rather watch it burn than try to enact any fixes. Political expediency before welfare of the people.

Of course they would. Because they told him not to do it in the first place. Sometimes when you build a building you need to live in it. They told him not to build on the swamp, and he did it anyway. Now supporters are complaining because they are knee deep in the muck. Big shock to pretty much no one who predicted it would be a disaster.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

'don't build in the swamp! we already have a perfectly fine house of cards right here!"

 

[WFU71]

The truth is that we need single payer. Basically what the rest of the 1st world has.

The Democrats blew it by at least including a public option, but the real problem was not having a stronger individual mandate. You have to have the "good lives" enrolled to balance the load that the "sick lives" bring with them.

 

[CHDeac]

I think that will leave Guilford and Forysth County with one ACA choice. Super expensive BCBS.

Super expensive BCBS might be the correctly priced for this segment given the departures of the lower priced options.

 

[CHDeac]

The Democrats blew it by at least including a public option, but the real problem was not having a stronger individual mandate. You have to have the "good lives" enrolled to balance the load that the "sick lives" bring with them.

The dems didnt have the votes...I think the PO had 38 supporters in the Senate at the time. And remember, it passed by 1 vote in the house.

 

[CHDeac]

The funny thing is folks think ACA was written by insurers' lobbyists. Insurers are the ones leaving this because they are losing money. The medical providers are having record years financially due to ACA. Their lobbyists wrote the law. Want to see doctors and hospitals howl? Offer cancelling the ACA and just expanding Medicare and Medicaid like they should have done in the first place. Their margins on Medicare/aid are low. Of course, you'd have to raise taxes to fund expanded Medicare/aid. No politician wants to do that, so lets make a system that makes insurers raise their rates and protect the providers margins.

THis is 95% great post. I'll ignore critiquing the Medicaid/Medicare expansion argument.

 

[awaken]

That's above my average, I'll take it! :thumbsup:

 

[WFU71]

The dems didnt have the votes...I think the PO had 38 supporters in the Senate at the time. And remember, it passed by 1 vote in the house.

Tom Harkin disagrees, if you're talking about a public option:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/225812-harkin-dems-better-off-without-obamacare

"Harkin, however, believes Obama and Democratic leaders could have enacted better policy had they stood up to three centrists who balked at the public option: Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), a Democrat turned independent, Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

He argues they could have been persuaded to vote for the legislation if Obama had put more effort into lobbying them.

“The House passed public option. We had the votes in the Senate for cloture,” he said.

“There were only three Democrats that held out and we could have had those three,” he added. "We had “[Sen.] Mark Pryor [D-Ark.] so we could have had Lincoln. We could have had all three of them if the president would have been just willing to do some political things but he wouldn’t do it."

 

[CHDeac]

Tom Harkin disagrees, if you're talking about a public option:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/225812-harkin-dems-better-off-without-obamacare

"Harkin, however, believes Obama and Democratic leaders could have enacted better policy had they stood up to three centrists who balked at the public option: Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), a Democrat turned independent, Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

He argues they could have been persuaded to vote for the legislation if Obama had put more effort into lobbying them.

“The House passed public option. We had the votes in the Senate for cloture,” he said.

“There were only three Democrats that held out and we could have had those three,” he added. "We had “[Sen.] Mark Pryor [D-Ark.] so we could have had Lincoln. We could have had all three of them if the president would have been just willing to do some political things but he wouldn’t do it."

Yeah, Im going with what some lobbyists I know very well and trust told me. They weren't terribly worried about it and I suspect Harkin is spinning some here.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

No there weren't. Not even close.

Come on man. That's like saying Bzz was the only way to fix Dino's problems.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's really little Obama could do if he even wanted to. Congress sure as hell isn't going to cooperate. They'd rather watch it burn than try to enact any fixes. Political expediency before welfare of the people.

Oh there is definitely something he could have done about it. Had he come to the table after his second election and admitted that Obamacare is a horrific program and agreed to repeal it completely but only if a legit plan was compromised upon for the good of the country, then I think he could have gotten them to come together. But he pulled a Wellman and just kept maintaining that his initial decision was a great one.

 

[Deacsfan27]

I wonder what the ACA would have looked like if there hadn't been so many compromises to get it written in its current form?

ETA: This isn't a "oh Obama's way would have been much better", but rather a sincere thought as to what the differences would have been.

 

[LCDeacon]

The daily servicing of Obamacare plans is almost laughable. Today had a couple add a newborn to their existing Aetna policy. Government adds the kid, then proceeds to kick the mom and previous child off the policy until they can get denied by Medicaid. Medicaid says it will be at least 45 days to generate a denial (which they had done for the mom and kid back in December), so now this lady/child have no coverage and can't get on a policy until October at the earliest, all because she added a child to the plan. This crap happens everyday.

 

[buckets]

Why

 

[knowell]

Why

Gubmint.

 

[Wrangor]

Come on man. That's like saying Bzz was the only way to fix Dino's problems.

The correlation between ACA defenders and our athletic administration's defense of [Redacted] is uncanny. We had a problem that had to be fixed! Join in the process and we can make this better! We know you told us this was going to be a bad idea but we are going to try and manipulate the numbers so that we can spin this positively! It was a bad program from the start. You don't solve a spending problem by removing spending from the equation. Splitting the baby simply doesn't work. Either you need a single payer option in which the government has control over the spending, or you need a free market system where the individual has control over the spending. You don't set up a system in which neither party has any control, and then place the burden of that spending on the backs of small businesses during a recession. It was a botched thesis from the start. This is when someone chimes in: "It was a Republican idea! So it's their fault!". Sorry. ACA is to Republicans what slavery is to Democrats. Yeah, maybe they thought of some similar ideas a long time ago (almost 30 years now for ACA), but it doesn't represent who they are now. Eventually ACA will fail (and it is going to fail) and we will replace it with something better. Both parties are angling to be the one who gets credit for fixing it. Republicans are either waiting for an admission of fault before they step in (I would do the same thing) and the Democrats are going to blame it on Republicans for not helping. We go round and round, but the Democrats own this one. For better or for worse it is their baby.

 

[CHDeac]

What I find so interesting is the role the federal agency, in his case HHS but also DOL and the IRS, plays setting how the ACA actually works. Its still Obama's to own but HHS has made some interesting implementation decisions.

Some of the fixes though are owned by HHS, NOT congress, so thats a bit of a red herring.

 

[Wrangor]

What I find so interesting is the role the federal agency, in his case HHS but also DOL and the IRS, plays setting how the ACA actually works. Its still Obama's to own but HHS has made some interesting implementation decisions.

Some of the fixes though are owned by HHS, NOT congress, so thats a bit of a red herring.

Explain, not challenging your assertion. You are closer to this. Would like to know more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk