The bills from the Obama administration will dwarf the minor fraction of debt that was from the Iraq war.
The amount wasted on the war due to incompetence in carrying out the occupation would easily pay for the health care for all uninsured citizens for almost a decade.
Hyundai managed to convert themselves from being a discount car manufacturer to a more upscale brand, but Hyundai didn't have the problem with their brand reputation that Microsoft has. Microsoft has made cheap crap for so long, I don't see how they manage to convince everyone that they are now an "upscale" high quality manufacturer of products and services.
Yeah, but if you look at the history of car brands in the U.S. that was actually a time-tested well-accepted strategy. In no particular order, Honda, Toyota, Nissan (Datsun), and V.W. had all done the same thing.
Awesome!! So if the ACA is such a fucking success where is the $2500/year [politifact.com] I am supposed to be saving vs. the actual observed increase of ~$2000/yr I see now?
Right now what we know is that some people are saving, some people are paying more, and we have no idea what the overall balance is.
Oh wait.. I must be a republicrat for even mentioning that and thus not worthy of a response...
No, you have provided a single data point, which is interesting but by itself no indication of the overall trend. That's altogether fine as far as it goes.
My ranty response to lgw was because he is insisting that the numbers are not what they actually are, with no evidence at all to support his assertion, and in spite of ample contradictory evidence--the very definition of a delusion. Now of course the fact that your post changes the subject to an altogether different aspect of the ACA implementation as a rebuttal to that is somewhat trollish--changing the subject to costs does not in any way change my point about the numbers of newly-insured--but it does at least address a valid point. (I also am paying about $2,000/yr more now.)
I'm sorry that I called you a liar and was generally shitty to you in my last reply. I shouldn't have done that. You hit a nerve and I was having a bad day. I hope that you have a nice weekend.
My tone with you was pretty much asking for the kind of reply you gave me, since it was based on someone else's post and completely inappropriate as a response to what you had said.
I was really really tired of the bullshit lies being spread around, and was slamming someone who had baldly misrepresented the numbers. But unfortunately got confused as to what thread I was currently in. So your response, though curt, was accurate when you said I was either confused or a liar. (And the "or a confused liar" was a nice touch, something I'd have been proud to have written myself!)
No, you DO NOT unless you have children, or are elderly, or disabled.
The federal government sets the baseline, and then states have some leeway with exact eligibility.
"Obamacare" expanded Medicaid so that any single adult under the age of 65 with a 2014 income under $15,521 would be covered.
If your state will not cover you under Medicaid, it is not the fault of Obamacare. Your state could have covered you before Obamacare, but chose not to. Obamacare's Medicaid expansion would have required your state to cover you, but Republican governors sued to have that requirement neutered.
And back to your original point:
But the government taxes you under the ACA even if you have no income. If you don't buy insurance, they assess the penalties until you start earning income. They are, literally, taxing you for breathing.
That is complete bullshit. The following groups are exempt from the penalty: Individuals with income below the income tax filing threshold; Individuals for whom the cost of getting health insurance (net of ACA subsidies) would exceed 8% of household income in 2014; Individuals in states that did not accept the ACA’s Medicaid expansion who would have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion; Members of Indian tribes; Members of certain religious faiths; Members of a health care sharing ministry; Individuals not legally in the U.S. (undocumented aliens); Incarcerated individuals.
If I can trust the rest of your story (which, frankly, I'm doubting at this point, since so much of your objection is pure fantasy with no basis at all in reality), then you qualify for all of the first 3 exemptions.
Looking back, I see that it was indeed someone else who stated that the source I quoted showed that the majority of newly-insured were from Medicaid--when, as you acknowledge, that is simply not true.
Oh, was I not clear? The gains are not coming from the marketplace.
No, in fact, you said they were coming from Medicaid. Which is wrong. I pointed out that they're coming from Medicaid and employer-sponsored insurance.
3) Okay, THREE things. how many of those people are in the demographic that the ACA needs to get insured to make the bookkeeping balance - if not enough of the "young invincibles" sign up, health insurance prices for NEXT year are going to be taking quite a jump....
Well, we hope that the sick previously-uninsurable signed up early because they would be highly motivated to do so, and that the surge was "young invincibles" because they would be the ones to procrastinate. But it will be a year before we'll really have any clear idea about the relative utilization of services between the newly- and previously-insured.
I expect the numbers are right, but the question is what all is included. This wouldn't be just the federal web site. They're almost certainly counting those who signed up through state exchanges. They're also going to count anyone who signed up on paper. All of that is fine, as this is a measure of the program, not of the web site.
Yes. That number is total marketplace plans, no matter which exchange, no matter online or paper.
But does it include those who signed up for expanded Medicare? Those are people who weren't insured before, and now are thanks to the new law, but it's not what most people think of when they say "Obamacare."
No, that number does not include the Medicaid expansion nor the increase in employer-sponsored plans from the employer mandate.
My daughter-in-law attempted to sign up for Obamacare. She is in school and makes no money. Between her and my stepson, they make maybe $4-$5k per year, about $10,000 of which goes to pay for school. Yes, I know that doesn't add up. Anyway, she tried to sign up for Obamacare, and the cheapest plan she could get would have cost her $143 a month. She can't afford that, so she didn't sign up. She asked about the penalty and they said since she didn't make much money, she doesn't have to pay the penalty. So what does that mean? It means Obamacare did nothing. Poor people still don't have insurance. They don't have to pay the penalty either. They just go to the emergency room like they used to. Nothing has changed except that the people who already HAD insurance now pay twice as much.
They should be eligible for Medicaid.
I'm sure if my stepson and daughter-in-law were to drop out of school have a kid and sit at home all day THEN Obamacare would kick in and pay for them. After all, that is what Obama really wants, is for people to sit at home and make babies, not waste their time on education.
Well, at least they're trying to better themselves, rather than growing up to be a fucking ignorant bitter racist troll like yourself.
2) If your doctor charges you $40, but you have a $50 copay if you use insurance, it is because your doctor is illegally charging you less money than the insurance company. He may be stealing from them, or giving you a break, but he is breaking the law.
That depends on what state you're in. (And I'm assuming, like you, that the doctor knows about your insurance.)
3) If you get in a car accident your car insurance will NOT pay for your medical - it pays the guy you hit medical, not yours. (Unless you paid extra for worthless insurance).
That depends on what state you're in. Also note that in a tort state (which is what you're describing) your insurance will only make a single payment for that guy's medical bills, negotiated or litigated sometime before the statute of limitations--it is an absolutely barbaric system.
The only point I see is someone that radically overestimates how much insurance everyone ELSE has while complaining about how much he personally is being told to buy.
I saw a twit who had no clue how much he's likely to have to spend on health care some day--accident, infection, heart disease, cancer, whatever. We're all likely to have an expensive illness at some point in our lives.
That Rand study says that only 1.4 million people buying exchange plans were previously uninsured, and that the vast majority of the 9 million were new Medicaid recipients.
Uhm, no. The vast majority came from the sum of expansion of Medicaid (5.9 million) plus expansion of employer-sponsored insurance (8.2 million). The employer mandates and Medicaid expansion were always expected to have the greatest effect. The marketplace, intended for those with a job that pays too much for Medicaid but not covered by the employer mandate, got disproportionate attention in recent months because of the disastrous initial failure of the federal exchange. But the exchange was never the main driver of expanded access, forcing big companies to contribute to health care for more of their employees is the "main act" of this complicated thing.
But the government taxes you under the ACA even if you have no income. If you don't buy insurance, they assess the penalties until you start earning income. They are, literally, taxing you for breathing.
Bullshit. If you have no income, you're eligible for Medicaid.
When the number was 6 million, the breakdown was roughly 3 million new on Medicaid, 2 million thanks to the "stay on your parents plan till 25" stuff, 1 million new exchange plans (and many, many million who lost their company plans).
Right, the number on the exchange was never 6 million. (It was 3.9 million in mid-March, and jumped to 7.1 million by the end of March, and I'm pretty sure there was no announcement in between.)
Now the numbers are 7.1 million on the exchange, 5.9 million new on Medicaid, and 8.2 million new on employer-sponsored insurance, for a net increase of probably 9.3 million after accounting for those who just shuffled from one form of insurance to another. WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO CLICK THE LINK I PROVIDED TO ACTUAL SOLID DATA, INSTEAD OF JUST SPEWING YOUR PATHETIC MISINFORMED FUCKING TROLLING!
The DailyMail article says that a RAND Corporation study estimates that the number of previously uninsured people who have actually paid for their policies is: 858,000 (well under a million!). I haven't found a source for this. I believe they computed this number themselves, by reading the RAND report and by using the percentages in that report.
I suspect that was based on an earlier RAND study which was based on data prior to this surge. Anyway, the latest from RAND concludes probably 9.3 million previously uninsured now have insurance--this includes the marketplace, Medicaid expansion, and expansion in employer-sponsored plans.
Slashdot Mirror
The bills from the Obama administration will dwarf the minor fraction of debt that was from the Iraq war.
The amount wasted on the war due to incompetence in carrying out the occupation would easily pay for the health care for all uninsured citizens for almost a decade.
Hyundai managed to convert themselves from being a discount car manufacturer to a more upscale brand, but Hyundai didn't have the problem with their brand reputation that Microsoft has. Microsoft has made cheap crap for so long, I don't see how they manage to convince everyone that they are now an "upscale" high quality manufacturer of products and services.
Yeah, but if you look at the history of car brands in the U.S. that was actually a time-tested well-accepted strategy. In no particular order, Honda, Toyota, Nissan (Datsun), and V.W. had all done the same thing.
If you break up a rape and beat the crap out of the perpetrator, you are hailed a hero.
That depends entirely on locale. Some prosecutors would go after you for the assault.
Awesome!! So if the ACA is such a fucking success where is the $2500/year [politifact.com] I am supposed to be saving vs. the actual observed increase of ~$2000/yr I see now?
Right now what we know is that some people are saving, some people are paying more, and we have no idea what the overall balance is.
Oh wait.. I must be a republicrat for even mentioning that and thus not worthy of a response...
No, you have provided a single data point, which is interesting but by itself no indication of the overall trend. That's altogether fine as far as it goes.
My ranty response to lgw was because he is insisting that the numbers are not what they actually are, with no evidence at all to support his assertion, and in spite of ample contradictory evidence--the very definition of a delusion. Now of course the fact that your post changes the subject to an altogether different aspect of the ACA implementation as a rebuttal to that is somewhat trollish--changing the subject to costs does not in any way change my point about the numbers of newly-insured--but it does at least address a valid point. (I also am paying about $2,000/yr more now.)
Watch out for those blanket generalizations, they bite back.
Especially the ones that reek of classist arrogance and condescension ;-)
I'm sorry that I called you a liar and was generally shitty to you in my last reply. I shouldn't have done that. You hit a nerve and I was having a bad day. I hope that you have a nice weekend.
My tone with you was pretty much asking for the kind of reply you gave me, since it was based on someone else's post and completely inappropriate as a response to what you had said.
I was really really tired of the bullshit lies being spread around, and was slamming someone who had baldly misrepresented the numbers. But unfortunately got confused as to what thread I was currently in. So your response, though curt, was accurate when you said I was either confused or a liar. (And the "or a confused liar" was a nice touch, something I'd have been proud to have written myself!)
OK, one more thing about the penalty, for further information, see pages 53651-53655 and 53659 of “Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage”
No, you DO NOT unless you have children, or are elderly, or disabled.
And back to your original point:
But the government taxes you under the ACA even if you have no income. If you don't buy insurance, they assess the penalties until you start earning income. They are, literally, taxing you for breathing.
That is complete bullshit. The following groups are exempt from the penalty: Individuals with income below the income tax filing threshold; Individuals for whom the cost of getting health insurance (net of ACA subsidies) would exceed 8% of household income in 2014; Individuals in states that did not accept the ACA’s Medicaid expansion who would have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion; Members of Indian tribes; Members of certain religious faiths; Members of a health care sharing ministry; Individuals not legally in the U.S. (undocumented aliens); Incarcerated individuals.
If I can trust the rest of your story (which, frankly, I'm doubting at this point, since so much of your objection is pure fantasy with no basis at all in reality), then you qualify for all of the first 3 exemptions.
What about income levels for subsidies?
It's a good question. I seriously doubt that Schedule C gross counts, rather than AGI--but I cannot state it as a verified fact.
No, in fact, I did not.
Looking back, I see that it was indeed someone else who stated that the source I quoted showed that the majority of newly-insured were from Medicaid--when, as you acknowledge, that is simply not true.
Oh, was I not clear? The gains are not coming from the marketplace.
No, in fact, you said they were coming from Medicaid. Which is wrong. I pointed out that they're coming from Medicaid and employer-sponsored insurance.
Then I remembered that this particular subject is the President's legacy achievement, so it's probably less credible than usual.
Well, let's do compare that to the prior administration's legacy achievement, $3 trillion spent on restoring peace, freedom and democracy in Iraq.
The 7.1million number is bullshit, and it does include some medicaid enrollees.
No, it does not. Medicaid expansion is counted separately.
3) Okay, THREE things. how many of those people are in the demographic that the ACA needs to get insured to make the bookkeeping balance - if not enough of the "young invincibles" sign up, health insurance prices for NEXT year are going to be taking quite a jump....
Well, we hope that the sick previously-uninsurable signed up early because they would be highly motivated to do so, and that the surge was "young invincibles" because they would be the ones to procrastinate. But it will be a year before we'll really have any clear idea about the relative utilization of services between the newly- and previously-insured.
I expect the numbers are right, but the question is what all is included. This wouldn't be just the federal web site. They're almost certainly counting those who signed up through state exchanges. They're also going to count anyone who signed up on paper. All of that is fine, as this is a measure of the program, not of the web site.
Yes. That number is total marketplace plans, no matter which exchange, no matter online or paper.
But does it include those who signed up for expanded Medicare? Those are people who weren't insured before, and now are thanks to the new law, but it's not what most people think of when they say "Obamacare."
No, that number does not include the Medicaid expansion nor the increase in employer-sponsored plans from the employer mandate.
My daughter-in-law attempted to sign up for Obamacare. She is in school and makes no money. Between her and my stepson, they make maybe $4-$5k per year, about $10,000 of which goes to pay for school. Yes, I know that doesn't add up. Anyway, she tried to sign up for Obamacare, and the cheapest plan she could get would have cost her $143 a month. She can't afford that, so she didn't sign up. She asked about the penalty and they said since she didn't make much money, she doesn't have to pay the penalty. So what does that mean? It means Obamacare did nothing. Poor people still don't have insurance. They don't have to pay the penalty either. They just go to the emergency room like they used to. Nothing has changed except that the people who already HAD insurance now pay twice as much.
They should be eligible for Medicaid.
I'm sure if my stepson and daughter-in-law were to drop out of school have a kid and sit at home all day THEN Obamacare would kick in and pay for them. After all, that is what Obama really wants, is for people to sit at home and make babies, not waste their time on education.
Well, at least they're trying to better themselves, rather than growing up to be a fucking ignorant bitter racist troll like yourself.
You'll also happily pay a discounted $75 for the same $100 test that my insurance company negotiates to $7. Which test is marked up that much?
Ahem, try $49 vs $1,800. No, I did not make that one up...
2) If your doctor charges you $40, but you have a $50 copay if you use insurance, it is because your doctor is illegally charging you less money than the insurance company. He may be stealing from them, or giving you a break, but he is breaking the law.
That depends on what state you're in. (And I'm assuming, like you, that the doctor knows about your insurance.)
3) If you get in a car accident your car insurance will NOT pay for your medical - it pays the guy you hit medical, not yours. (Unless you paid extra for worthless insurance).
That depends on what state you're in. Also note that in a tort state (which is what you're describing) your insurance will only make a single payment for that guy's medical bills, negotiated or litigated sometime before the statute of limitations--it is an absolutely barbaric system.
The only point I see is someone that radically overestimates how much insurance everyone ELSE has while complaining about how much he personally is being told to buy.
I saw a twit who had no clue how much he's likely to have to spend on health care some day--accident, infection, heart disease, cancer, whatever. We're all likely to have an expensive illness at some point in our lives.
According to your source, the gains are not coming from the marketplace.
Correct. 9.3 million net newly-insured because of ACA, of which the marketplace is just one small part. Now, what was your point exactly???
That Rand study says that only 1.4 million people buying exchange plans were previously uninsured, and that the vast majority of the 9 million were new Medicaid recipients.
Uhm, no. The vast majority came from the sum of expansion of Medicaid (5.9 million) plus expansion of employer-sponsored insurance (8.2 million). The employer mandates and Medicaid expansion were always expected to have the greatest effect. The marketplace, intended for those with a job that pays too much for Medicaid but not covered by the employer mandate, got disproportionate attention in recent months because of the disastrous initial failure of the federal exchange. But the exchange was never the main driver of expanded access, forcing big companies to contribute to health care for more of their employees is the "main act" of this complicated thing.
If Obama had followed what is allowed by the Constitution he would not of had the problem he is currently having with it.
Exactly what problem would that be?
But the government taxes you under the ACA even if you have no income. If you don't buy insurance, they assess the penalties until you start earning income. They are, literally, taxing you for breathing.
Bullshit. If you have no income, you're eligible for Medicaid.
What a lot of crap.
When the number was 6 million, the breakdown was roughly 3 million new on Medicaid, 2 million thanks to the "stay on your parents plan till 25" stuff, 1 million new exchange plans (and many, many million who lost their company plans).
Right, the number on the exchange was never 6 million. (It was 3.9 million in mid-March, and jumped to 7.1 million by the end of March, and I'm pretty sure there was no announcement in between.)
Now the numbers are 7.1 million on the exchange, 5.9 million new on Medicaid, and 8.2 million new on employer-sponsored insurance, for a net increase of probably 9.3 million after accounting for those who just shuffled from one form of insurance to another. WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO CLICK THE LINK I PROVIDED TO ACTUAL SOLID DATA, INSTEAD OF JUST SPEWING YOUR PATHETIC MISINFORMED FUCKING TROLLING!
I have an HSA and a HDHP, and it is vastly more cost effective (for me) than the plans available on the ACA website.
Same here. And that is why I didn't bother arguing with that fucking troll, but just limited my response to the 1 word that best fit: "bullshit" ;-)
The DailyMail article says that a RAND Corporation study estimates that the number of previously uninsured people who have actually paid for their policies is: 858,000 (well under a million!). I haven't found a source for this. I believe they computed this number themselves, by reading the RAND report and by using the percentages in that report.
I suspect that was based on an earlier RAND study which was based on data prior to this surge. Anyway, the latest from RAND concludes probably 9.3 million previously uninsured now have insurance--this includes the marketplace, Medicaid expansion, and expansion in employer-sponsored plans.