Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 239

I see you have a very selective memory. Please read the original plan and then follow the idiotic path of compromises that Republicans forced onto it rendering it into the watered down ridiculous mess that it is.

Your memory isn't so good either. Obamacare was written by Democrats and "progressive" lobbyists*, voted for by Democrats, and implemented by a Democratic administration. They own it lock, stock, and barrel. The Republicans didn't vote for it, you can't blame the Obamacare debacle on them.

If you're going to create a massive new entitlement program grabbing control of 16% of the economy then you should have a broad consensus and support for doing it, and do it with care. The Democrats didn't have that but decided to force a badly written, ill conceived boondoggle on the country. We'll be paying the price for that for years, and I doubt that the Democrats will pay any real price at all.

* Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"

Comment: Re:This is supposed to be the *WAY* they do their (Score 1) 239

I wouldn't worry about it. Once a Republican is back in the Oval Office the MSM will be interested in journalism again so there will be more places to find corroborating stories. Besides, the MSM won't have much choice, they'll need a break - carrying all that water wears on the arms and Obama has called for more than most. If only his presidency had turned out as well as Jimmy Carters. If only ...

Comment: Re:I'm wrong, shouldn't figure trillions in my hea (Score 1) 239

You forgot to include the economic costs of people having their hours cut so they no longer qualify for benefits and end up working two part time jobs without benefits to make ends meet. You left out the costs of businesses cutting jobs and locations, and refusing to expand, to avoid the fines, penalties, and costs associated with Obamacare. You left out the costs of people that had benefits but lost them due to companies being forced to drop benefits due to the unnecessary costs forced on them if they offer healthcare due to Obamacare. You left out the stifling of innovation due to the punitive costs and structure of the medical device tax. You forgot to include the cost of trying to force people to violate their conscience as Obamacare is doing.

And perhaps most important, you forgot to include the dangerous precedent of allowing the Federal government to directly force nearly everyone to go buy a very expensive service specified at the whim of the government and its bureaucrats.

What will you have to say if the next administration decides to enforce the militia clause by requiring every adult not convicted of a felony to purchase a $800 rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition and keep it locked in their homes, available for yearly inspection? Not much different than Obamacare, which is now enforced by the IRS. Well, actually that is probably a lot cheaper than most people's Obamacare bill.

. Most of the cost of Obamacare is recognizing costs that were, until now, hidden.

Obamacare is creating plenty of new costs all by itself. It is been a debacle and it has barely started. It will be inflicting plenty more damage on the economy and society in the years to come baring a repeal.

Comment: Re:Expert. (Score 1) 338

I see, thanks for the info.

Interesting how open-source software is far superior to proprietary stuff: with the proprietary stuff, you're paying good money for something which is, in fact, crippled: it sees some watermark and won't work. The open-source software, OTOH, doesn't care about some watermark and plays what it's told to play, because it isn't made in collusion with media corporations.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 239

If you are having trouble with your current premiums, the people on the Healthcare.gov hotline are very helpful.

They're not going to help here, because our situation is exactly what the law calls for. If you're making more than $60k, you don't GET subsidies, you have to GIVE subsidies to other people (like you). The premiums and high deductibles I mentioned are set up exactly as the ACA calls for. No hotline worker is going to wave their hands and make insurance regulators in a state lower the rates to the point where the insurance companies are forced to lose money on selling an account without a subsidy taken from someone else to pay for it. And they're not going to give subsidies to someone who makes lower-middle-income money (which in our area is anyone under $75k, since things like tiny 1100 square foot townhouses in bad neighborhoods cost $300,000+.

So unless we deliberately earn less money so we can get subsidies (which still is a net loss in overall cash), we are walking financial organ donors for ... you. And there's nothing to complain to a hotline about, because that's exactly what Pelosi and Reid and Obama wanted. They said as much, they wrote the law that way, and they got one party (and only one) to ram it through congress.

Let's work toward fixing the ACA's problems for EVERYONE (you and me included) instead of just propagating negativity.

Who are you proposing to tax, instead of me, to fix it? And we haven't even SEEN the results on employer programs yet, because Obama broke the law and chose to put off actually enforcing that part of the law (he chose to ignore the law's statutory date requirements). When all of THOSE rates and deductibles go through the roof, you'll hear a lot of negativity from more than just people like me - you'll hear it from tens of millions of people whose insurance will suddenly no longer be viable, according to the ACA.

The fixes for this (cross-state shopping, tort reform, etc) were utterly rejected by the Democrats because their constituents (say, the trial lawyers) didn't want to give up their gravy train.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 239

Please read the original plan and then follow the idiotic path of compromises that Republicans forced onto it rendering it into the watered down ridiculous mess that it is.

The Republicans forced no such thing. Not a single one of them voted for it. The Democrats were the only people who wanted, and who rammed through, the law they put together.

democrats didn't help things either since they were so desperate to get SOMETHING through that they were willing to do just about anything without really thinking through the consequences of their actions

What are you talking about? Everything that's happened was predicted in plain language for everyone involved before they "deemed" it passed in a 100% partisan maneuver. Larger deficits? Playing out exactly as predicted. Huge jump in premiums and deductibles for those that don't get entitlement subsidies? Playing out exactly as predicted. That's what the Democrats WANTED: get insurance for more people by taking more money from one group and giving to another. It's a transfer tax that reduces benefits for those that actually pay in order to give SOME benefits to those that don't, or who pay only part of the way.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 239

Right. So when any of the normal annual changes take place (the way they handle certain experimental drugs or therapies, the way they handle certain hospital scenarios, etc), the insurer can no longer provide the plan - the ACA shuts it down because it doesn't provide post-menopausal women maternity care, etc.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 239

repeatedly by publicizing Obamacare horror stories that completely fall apart when verified

But this isn't a horror story. This is just the ACA, doing exactly what it's designed to do. Obviously it's not doing what Obama repeatedly promised it would do, but that was all lies in advance of them ramming the law through. There's nothing shocking (from the point of view of the law) about our situation, it's exactly what was intended - use the higher rates as a new tax to fund a huge entitlement expansion for people who make less money. Self employed middle class people are the beasts of burden in this scenario.

P.S. You say "Were forced to go to a new plan," if you didn't go through the exchange, your insurance company may be the one shafting you.

There is no exchange. Our state spend hundreds of millions of dollars, but couldn't get it to work, have decided to scrap the entire thing, and buy a copy of the exchange that another state built. Regardless, by law in our state, you don't get anything by going through the exchange except discounts when you qualify for subsidies. The subsidies aren't meant for people who make >$60k, so the exchange (if they ever get it working) won't apply. Insurers offering ANY plan in the state have to do so at the exchange rates. Essentially, the numbers I mentioned ARE the exchange rates. That's the cheapest plan you can buy. If we choose a lower deductible (say, $5,000 instead of $12,000) our monthly rate would have jumped from our earlier
The only "shafting" that's going on is by way of the ACA itself and the requirements it places on new policies. And since we work hard to make more than $60k (in an area where that's essentially poverty-level income, given the local cost of living), we get none of the candy they're taking from other people. We're the ones they're taking the candy from. New outlets didn't need special cases like us, because we're not a special case. There's a whole state full of people like us, unless you're in the huge group who have opted to pay the no-insurance-tax/fine and save the money.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 3, Insightful) 239

Obama correctly outlawed them. He did them a favor.

What? Obama's new wonder-plan is what TOOK AWAY our low deductible plan and forced us, for more money, to buy one that will cost us thousands more each year in premiums, and ten thousand more a year in deductibles. The people you're defending - Obama, Pelosi, Reid - forced us to buy a high deductible plan with fewer benefits, minus the doctor we'd used for years, and more. Obama didn't "outlaw" bad, expensive coverage, he just forced us into that exact situation. Thanks for shilling for him, though - it's nice to see that BS so transparently on display for all to see.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 4, Informative) 239

please describe _exactly_ what you find so objectionable about the Affordable Care Act

I used to have affordable insurance for my wife and I. The ACA killed it. Were forced to go to a new plan that:

1) Has much higher monthly premiums (we went from roughly $230/month to about $500/month)

2) Has a hugely higher deductible (we went from $2,500 a year to about $12,000 a year). This means that we are much, much farther out of pocket every year, especially if we actually need medical care beyond one or two simple visits annually.

3) We are past any risk of pregnancy. None the less, we are being forced to pay for elaborate maternity care that we cannot possibly use.

4) The new plan forced us to give up the doctor we've been using for 15 years unless we want to pay cash for that in a way that doesn't help with our deductible.

5) The two best local hospitals are no longer available to us unless we want to pay retail for their use, and get no benefit against our deductible.

Prior to this "affordable" new act, we had no need to change insurance, doctors, hospitals or anything else for well over 10 years.

Because of how the math is working out, we're told to expect that next year's premiums will go up by another 45-55%. Thanks, Mr. Obamacare Cheerleader, if you're one of the people who helped to empower the people who snuck this 100% partisan monstrosity through congress on Pelosi's "deeming" technique. Thanks a lot.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 2) 239

hatchet job using cherry picked emails to smear political opponents over now solved problems. nothing to see here, move along.

So you are ALSO saying that the information presented is incorrect ... that the people at HHS had NO idea that the site wasn't full of holes in terms of security and functionality. That the "cherry-picked" emails that show the administration knew the site was a train wreck are referring to something else, because the site wasn't a train wreck when it went live. Right? I see. So if that's incorrect, then what you're saying is that the administration did NOT know that the site was a train wreck. Which makes them stupefyingly incompetent.

So your idea of "nothing to see here" is either:

1) The administration knew exactly what a train wreck the thing was, but lied about it. Or...

2) The administration, at every level, was so foolish and incompetent that it had no idea whether or not the system was useless, and in lacking any sort of knowledge one way or the other, just assumed it was fine.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 4, Interesting) 239

So what you're saying is that: 1) The administration didn't knowingly force people to use a badly designed, insecure web site that wasn't ready for prime time. That's just something the administration's critics made up, out of context. 2) The administration has fixed all of the security concerns, and that the whole platform is now working as they promised it would, and that anyone saying otherwise is lying and spinning the glorious real facts on the ground. I see.

"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch

Working...