Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:How do you cast a flattering light on this? (Score 1) 354

It appeared from the transition forward that Mr. Obama was (and presumably is) also deeply impressed by the big-time consulting culture (McKinsey and their ilk). That inclination tends not to go too well with a need to get actual work completed.

sPh

Comment: Re:This is supposed to be the *WAY* they do their (Score 1) 354

Wow - a very large attack of hard right wing hide raters today.

http://www.vox.com/cards/obama...

Americans who purchased coverage are paying for it (payment rates running a bit higher than privately-placed insurance, so yes "they paid for it"). Americans who could not previously afford any health insurance and therefore were essentially locked out from most health care are now being subsidized at a level about 40% of all the US' G8 peers. With that subsidy they are able to obtain reasonably-priced basic medical service thus greatly enriching their lives and - it is believed by 97.3% of health care economists - lowering the overall cost of medical care to the entire nation.

Your complaint is?

sPh

Comment: Re:Only $11 million per person! (Actually $20 mill (Score 1) 354

Can't help but noticing you left the duration out of those Breitbert-ized numbers.

You also ignored the cost of what happens if we _don't_ have 12 million people in reasonably-managed health insurance plans. While people in the US with no insurance plan may not get much care during their lives they usually get pulled into the standard system in their last years and generate huge costs - which could have been managed or avoided with lifelong basic health care. And of course there is the loss of productivity to the economy when people are unable to obtain basic medical care during the productive years of their lives.

Also about 1437 other factors you left out or simply put a hard right wing glibertarian spin on.

sPh

Comment: Re:Only $11 million per person! (Actually $20 mill (Score 1) 354

- - - - - And nobody liked Obamacare. That is why it was able to be made into a law. - - - - - -

That's a fundamental characteristic of all human endeavors in which diverse viewpoints are summarized into (conceptually) binary action choices. People disagree on stuff. We need to take actions in some areas where we disagree. "Everyone equally unhappy" is just the other half of the Pareto walnut.

sPh

Comment: Re:Was it really so bad? (Score 2) 354

by hey! (#47956707) Attached to: Emails Cast Unflattering Light On Internal Politics of Healthcare.gov Rollout

Imagine if a state like Mississippi or Oklahoma had to get a system made? They'd hire a guy named Jom Bob from church to do it. They'd piss away the entire budget before they even found Jim Bob. They'd run it on index cards and toilet paper in type writers with no correction ink.

Well to be fair the deep-red state Kentucky had a very successful rollout of Obamacare (rebranded as "Kynect"), including it's own health insurance exchange AND medicaid expansion -- the whole Obamacare enchilada.

Under Obamacare, the federal insurance exchange was never intended to serve the entire country. In fact ideally nobody would have to use it, because states were supposed to set up their own exchanges that would better reflect the needs of their citizens than a federal one would. If you are forced to use the federal exhange, it's because politicians who run your state made that choice for you.

Of course some states have had their own exchange rollout disasters -- including blue states like Maryland and Oregon. If you're experienced with this kind of project you'd expect that. But others have had very successful rollouts, including a handful of red states like Kentucky.

Comment: Re:This is supposed to be the *WAY* they do their (Score 2, Informative) 354

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau...

"CBO and JCT project that 12 million more
nonelderly people will have health insurance in 2014
than would have had it in the absence of the ACA. They
also project that 19 million more people will be insured
in 2015, 25 million more will be insured in 2016, and
26 million more will be insured each year from 2017
through 2024 than would have been the case without the
ACA."

"Relative to their previous projections, CBO and JCT now
estimate that the ACA’s coverage provisions will result in
lower net costs to the federal government: The agencies
now project a net cost of $36 billion for 2014, $5 billion
less than the previous projection for the year; and
$1,383 billion for the 2015–2024 period, $104 billion
less than the previous projection.
[...]
Those estimates address only the insurance coverage pro-
visions of the ACA, which do not generate all of the act’s
budgetary effects. Many other provisions, on net, are
expected to reduce budget deficits. Considering all of
the provisions—including the coverage provisions—
CBO and JCT estimated in July 2012 (their most recent
comprehensive estimate) that the ACA’s overall effect
would be to reduce federal deficits."

Forbes? Really? REALLY?

sPh

Comment: Re:Only $11 million per person! (Actually $20 mill (Score -1, Flamebait) 354

Can't help but noticing you left the duration out of those Breitbert-ized numbers.

You also ignored the cost of what happens if we _don't_ have 12 million people in reasonably-managed health insurance plans. While people in the US with no insurance plan may not get much care during their lives they usually get pulled into the standard system in their last years and generate huge costs - which could have been managed or avoided with lifelong basic health care. And of course there is the loss of productivity to the economy when people are unable to obtain basic medical care during the productive years of their lives.

Also about 1437 other factors you left out or simply put a hard right wing glibertarian spin on.

sPh

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr

Working...