• 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

Deacon923 said:
so dumb to try and spin this. The best thing Obama could do is just say, lookit, a lot of compromises had to be made to get this legislation through and there were a lot of talking points on both sides that didn't turn out to be true (death panels). Now let's start talking about all the uninsured people who are going to get insurance (as soon as we get that damn website working).

it's a debacle and trying to spin it just creates more ridicule.
Click to expand...

But even that statement that just invites more ridicule. How/why was there compromise if he just rammed it through without any Republican support? Nobody is buying that shit. And if there was compromise, (1) what idiot would compromise with someone who they had no obligation to compromise with and who wasn't compromising back; and (2) what idiot would compromise themselves into something this pathetic?

What he should do is a full mea culpa and say, hey, I agree in retrospect that this program sucks ass. We rushed into it in our haste to get something on the books while we had the political opportunity. So we're not going to implement it as written; we will keep its overall concepts in place, but we will make substantial changes before it goes into effect, because that is what is best for the American people. If the Republicans do not agree to implement those changes in the best interest of the American people, then we will make the maximum amount of administrative changes possible that do not require a re-vote (which we are not going to do), and you can blame all future problems on the Pubs and vote them out of office.
 
Clearly getting rid of the crappiest policies and making everyone pool maternity and cancer risk was a big underlying concept of ACA. the problem (this week) is that the president spent six months telling everyone who would listen that nothing was going to change.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
Deacon923 said:
Clearly getting rid of the crappiest policies and making everyone pool maternity and cancer risk was a big underlying concept of ACA. the problem (this week) is that the president spent six months telling everyone who would listen that nothing was going to change.

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

A catastrophic policy when you're 24 and strong as an ox isn't crappy, it's the one you need.
 
The 24 year old is on his parent's plan.
 
Deacon923 said:
Clearly getting rid of the crappiest policies and making everyone pool maternity and cancer risk was a big underlying concept of ACA. the problem (this week) is that the president spent six months telling everyone who would listen that nothing was going to change.

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

I think having a std set of essential health benefits is a good idea. The question is did we go too far. Maternity has always been a unique situation due to selection issues. But, pediatric dental for all kids under 19? Same on vision which includes glasses. No $ limits on infertility treatments (but nothing on adoption!)?

What I see as the issue is the 60% actuarial value floor. Some people don't want or need these benefits covered at this level. Thats the real issue here, much more than adding the EHBs. We are forcing people to buy insurance richer than they need. This will drive trend.
 
One thing Im reading a lot about is small groups moving to self insured status, say groups of 15 or 20+. Typically, self funding is only available to groups of 100 or even 500+. But, healthy small groups can buy non compliant plans (thanks ERISA), self fund them and buy stop loss to protect against big or unexpected claims. They will save by covering less benefits and self insuring. Makes a lot of sense. expect it will increase small group underwritten rates.

I think this topic will get a lot of coverage over the next 6 months and regulators will try to pass new rules like CA did on stop loss.

Im geeking out here a little but I think its really interesting to see how rational actors respond.
 
Health policy issues aside, its amazing to me that we as a nation expect employers to pay for a portion of their employees adult children's health insurance. Even if the child is married with kids of their own, they can be covered. Sigh.
 
PhDeac said:
So they'll likely get insurance from their employer.
Click to expand...

So what's your take on him going back on this promise? Putting aside the right/wrong thing to do analysis, do you agree it is dreadful politics?
 
Definitely wrong to lie about it. They should have explained which policies were grandfathered in. That would have been fairly simple.

In the grand scheme of things, it's one of many lies from all sides about ACA. Instead of working together to make health care work, one side is lying to sabotage it and the other is lying to protect their asses.

Republicans can't take the moral high road on this one. They've told plenty of lies themselves.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But even that statement that just invites more ridicule. How/why was there compromise if he just rammed it through without any Republican support? Nobody is buying that shit. And if there was compromise, (1) what idiot would compromise with someone who they had no obligation to compromise with and who wasn't compromising back; and (2) what idiot would compromise themselves into something this pathetic?

What he should do is a full mea culpa and say, hey, I agree in retrospect that this program sucks ass. We rushed into it in our haste to get something on the books while we had the political opportunity. So we're not going to implement it as written; we will keep its overall concepts in place, but we will make substantial changes before it goes into effect, because that is what is best for the American people. If the Republicans do not agree to implement those changes in the best interest of the American people, then we will make the maximum amount of administrative changes possible that do not require a re-vote (which we are not going to do), and you can blame all future problems on the Pubs and vote them out of office.
Click to expand...

It was a brilliant move by the GOP. Get the Dems to accept 160 Republican amendments then not give them a single vote so all blame falls on the Dems.
 
It's hilarious that Republicans can look at the convoluted process that it took to pass ACA and say that Democrats had no interest in compromising. The only reason it took so long is because Dems bent over backwards to compromise and at the end had to do it without them. Republicans had no interest in working with Obama. Never.
 
CHDeac said:
I think having a std set of essential health benefits is a good idea. The question is did we go too far. Maternity has always been a unique situation due to selection issues. But, pediatric dental for all kids under 19? Same on vision which includes glasses. No $ limits on infertility treatments (but nothing on adoption!)?

What I see as the issue is the 60% actuarial value floor. Some people don't want or need these benefits covered at this level. Thats the real issue here, much more than adding the EHBs. We are forcing people to buy insurance richer than they need. This will drive trend.
Click to expand...

Don't we do this all the time by paying taxes? I know you are speaking from a business standpoint, but just because my house isn't on fire doesn't mean I can cut my local fire departments out of my taxes.
 
Last edited:
ONW said:
Don't we do this all the time by paying taxes? I know you are speaking from a business standpoint, but just because my house isn't on fire doesn't mean I can cut my local fire departments out of my taxes.
Click to expand...

It's more like being charged for flood insurance when you live in Tucson, AZ.
 
PhDeac said:
Definitely wrong to lie about it. They should have explained which policies were grandfathered in. That would have been fairly simple.

In the grand scheme of things, it's one of many lies from all sides about ACA. Instead of working together to make health care work, one side is lying to sabotage it and the other is lying to protect their asses.

Republicans can't take the moral high road on this one. They've told plenty of lies themselves.
Click to expand...

In fairness to him, if he had told the truth it would it would still be the ACB, not the ACA. Made it to the second term before anyone bothered to question him on it. Masterstroke.
 
And that's why we tell lies, especially lies that outpace the truth.

A year into the second term for people to find out. A year after that to clean it up or for people to realize the ACA plans are better before midterms.
 
PhDeac said:
And that's why we tell lies, especially lies that outpace the truth.

A year into the second term for people to find out. A year after that to clean it up or for people to realize the ACA plans are better before midterms.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you need to the consent of the governed. If the Supreme Court says that the government can tax you for not buying health insurance (generally), does that mean that the government can now deny people their own choice of specific health insurance plans? It's one thing to say that you have to health insurance generally, but to state which specific policy you must buy, i.e., the more expensive one-size-fits-all omnibus plan that provide coverages you don't need (and which you are not allowed to buy, i.e., the affordable ones that meet your personal needs) seems to be a bit far over the handlebars of paternalism to me...but especially after you break the signature promise of your Presidency in doing so. He's in a bad spot, b/c the strategy I would advise him to pursue "Okay, your policy is now better than the one you had because now it is actually worth the paper it is written on: they can't drop you when you need them most" is so easily countered by the "But you said....". There's no plausible counter to that question that doesn't begin, "Well, what I said is not true, but...". That he's pressing with the implausible counter of "What you heard me say on the video tape 34 times is not what I said. Period." borders on delusion.
 
ONW said:
Don't we do this all the time by paying taxes? I know you are speaking from a business standpoint, but just because my house isn't on fire doesn't mean I can cut my local fire departments out of my taxes.
Click to expand...

No. Its like having a firehouse on every street. Or using bottled water to put out the fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top