• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

I agree it would drop more if Medicaid was expanded. But, a modest drop like this is far from what it should be. Far, far, far from it.
 
It should have been better and would have been more dramatic if not for all the lies and fearmongering.
 
RJKarl said:
It should have been better and would have been more dramatic if not for all the lies and fearmongering.
Click to expand...

You're right. Obama and Democrats shouldn't have lied so much about the ACA. And they probably should stop changing things on the fly to cover their asses for the mid terms.
 
RJ is right on this one, politics aside. At the state level the GOP did everything it could to sabotage ACA. Now Republicans are pointing at the law and saying it's a disaster, just as predicted, which is disingenuous to be sure. Especially now that many red-state governors are surreptitiously actively reaping the benefits of expanded health care for the disadvantaged.

Plenty of blame to go around on this one, for both sides of the aisle, but the GOP definitely actively made things worse for many citizens in the name of pure politics, which sucks.
 
Sigh. You cant blame the right for the failure to sign up people outside of Medcaid. Thats just political BS with no empirical back up.

Perhaps, and this is a stretch for some, the rules/regs of the law, coupled with a horrible roll out and the net costs, are the cause of low enrollments. This is a horribly complicated law whose roll out wasn't just glitched (good reading on this thread from early October).

I talk to people every day on this and I rarely hear of any political blow back...There's just utter confusion as a result of such a bad implementation. Plus, its really complicated. So even if it was flawlessly done, its still super hard to explain.

Example: Explaining the 2 types of subsidies to anyone is a daunting task...
 
I may be wrong, but I would guess that if you spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get people to get insurance, they would have signed up under the "status quo" scenario. I don't think this has much to do with the law and more to do with the HUGE marketing effort financed by the gov't.
 
CHDeac said:
Sigh. You cant blame the right for the failure to sign up people outside of Medcaid. Thats just political BS with no empirical back up
Click to expand...

You can blame the right for not expanding Medicare and setting up their own exchanges at the state level, absolutely.
 
CHDeac said:
Sigh. You cant blame the right for the failure to sign up people outside of Medcaid. Thats just political BS with no empirical back up.

Perhaps, and this is a stretch for some, the rules/regs of the law, coupled with a horrible roll out and the net costs, are the cause of low enrollments. This is a horribly complicated law whose roll out wasn't just glitched (good reading on this thread from early October).

I talk to people every day on this and I rarely hear of any political blow back...There's just utter confusion as a result of such a bad implementation. Plus, its really complicated. So even if it was flawlessly done, its still super hard to explain.

Example: Explaining the 2 types of subsidies to anyone is a daunting task...
Click to expand...

You can absolutely blame the right for not expanding Medicaid in many of the least insured states. This alone would drop the percentage of the uncovered by much more that it has been.

Add to this the intentional misinformation in those states and others that have pulled the numbers down and put people at risk.

As to people outside of Medicaid, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars spent lying to the American public have absolutely kept numbers down.

States not setting up their own exchanges have kept the numbers down.

Statements like this one are why I call you a shill.
 
Geez, guys, CH specifically excepted Medicaid in his post. Chill out with the personal attacks.

I think the low numbers can be blamed on both the administration's totally botched rollout and lack of communications in the years leading up to the rollout, plus the disinformation campaign waged by the right that filled the vacuum left by the administration from 2009-2013. Anybody who says it was all one or all the other is not being honest, and there is no real way to assign x% blame to either. Probably varies by state and demographic.
 
Once again, rj - he freely admits his connection to the health insurance industry. As such, he cannot be a shill. OTOH, until you admit your allegiance to the Democratic Party, you will correctly be labeled a shill.
 
RJKarl said:
You can absolutely blame the right for not expanding Medicaid in many of the least insured states. This alone would drop the percentage of the uncovered by much more that it has been.

Add to this the intentional misinformation in those states and others that have pulled the numbers down and put people at risk.

As to people outside of Medicaid, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars spent lying to the American public have absolutely kept numbers down.

States not setting up their own exchanges have kept the numbers down.

Statements like this one are why I call you a shill.
Click to expand...

NC has the 10th largest population but the 5th most enrollments. It has a federally run exchange and has been the target of a lot of anti ACA attention b/c of Hagan. It didn't expand Medicaid. Yet, its #5.

And how does a federally run exchange dampen enrollment? Really?

Maybe, just maybe, HHS (and you) should take a long hard look at how things were designed and rolled out. I wish we got a ton of enrollments but we haven't. Lets keep in mind this program is the same program that allowed kids to stay on their parents plans until 26 yet are shocked young people aren't signing up on the exchanges! We are adults. Lets take some accountability.

Oh wait, Oct 1st was a Tuesday and we all know who hard Tuesdays are.
 
bigdoublezero said:
You can blame the right for not expanding Medicare and setting up their own exchanges at the state level, absolutely.
Click to expand...

Um, thats what I said. But lets also talk about the lawmakers who passed a law that says if states didn't expand Medicaid, subsidies would go from 133% of FPL to 100%. Why did they stop there? Why not drop it lower. Ive talked to dozens of people who make a few bucks under 100% of FPL who are SOL and as Ive said, thats not right. 80% of it falls on the states but 20% falls on a horribly written law.
 
Deacon923 said:
Geez, guys, CH specifically excepted Medicaid in his post. Chill out with the personal attacks.

I think the low numbers can be blamed on both the administration's totally botched rollout and lack of communications in the years leading up to the rollout, plus the disinformation campaign waged by the right that filled the vacuum left by the administration from 2009-2013. Anybody who says it was all one or all the other is not being honest, and there is no real way to assign x% blame to either. Probably varies by state and demographic.
Click to expand...

Sure, but lets look at the individual mandate. 1% of income (with caps) or $95. A person making 50k who isn't APTC eligible can be $500 OR buy a plan for $3600+. At some point its just rational economics.
 
CHDeac said:
Um, thats what I said. But lets also talk about the lawmakers who passed a law that says if states didn't expand Medicaid, subsidies would go from 133% of FPL to 100%. Why did they stop there? Why not drop it lower. Ive talked to dozens of people who make a few bucks under 100% of FPL who are SOL and as Ive said, thats not right. 80% of it falls on the states but 20% falls on a horribly written law.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing the law itself couldn't be better or that there were serious execution issues that were largely avoidable. I'm arguing that the implementation of ACA could have been more successful if certain red states hadn't tried to sabotage it at the state level. I think that's disingenuous.
 
On Medicaid I agree. And at the margins of the non Medicaid market sure. But, to blame low enrollments on the right isn't defensible, IMHO.
 
CHDeac said:
Sure, but lets look at the individual mandate. 1% of income (with caps) or $95. A person making 50k who isn't APTC eligible can be $500 OR buy a plan for $3600+. At some point its just rational economics.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, no question the design decisions are a major issue too. I thought people were arguing about communications so that's what I addressed. Didn't mean to imply that was the exclusive cause of life enrollment, my post wasn't as clear as it could have been.

My big concern all along was that subsidies would be much higher than expected. I wonder how low enrollment will impact subsidy numbers.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
Deacon923 said:
Oh sure, no question the design decisions are a major issue too. I thought people were arguing about communications so that's what I addressed. Didn't mean to imply that was the exclusive cause of life enrollment, my post wasn't as clear as it could have been.

My big concern all along was that subsidies would be much higher than expected. I wonder how low enrollment will impact subsidy numbers.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow your question. I will add that the enrollments are skewing low income, really low actually. The non subsidized are sitting this one out or staying with their current sub standard plan, you know, if they like it...

Long therm this poses a real threat since subsidies are pegged to income which grows slower than medical inflation / premium. So subsidies will increase as prices increase. Thats not a good scenario for the tax payer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top