Did you turn down subsidies intentionally?
That’s my issue with the administration’s rosy talk. Unless most of these policyholders were well off, we’re supposed to believe that they just meekly bought the new plan and left thousands of dollars on the table in the process. If they did, why do we have the exchanges then?
We would have to believe that only a tiny slice of the individual market is going to bother to use the exchanges. So just get rid of them if that’s the case.
It’s a silly claim because it’s all about politics and nothing about real world people. Who cares what the results are on Jan 1 – what matters is what the results are long term.
Ridiculous political bullshit. You’re wrong about everything here, and apparently all that seems to matter to you is the President’s political approval. If the ACA is fondly thought of in 5 or 10 years, even if it’s modified significantly, Obama will be easily thought of as one of the greatest Democratic Presidents of the last century. If it’s a big failure, then opinions of his presidency will be much, much lower. But worrying about enrollment numbers and approval numbers right now is pure politics, and it just doesn’t really matter that much for a second term president. This “Presidency is over” stuff is just nonsense. It’s a fifth grade analysis at best. Weak, weak, stuff, worthy perhaps of such buffoons as Mark Halperin.
Got a cite for any or all of the assertions you made here?
Specifically, show that insurers cannot cancel policies. Then show that they do not do this. Then show which law you think you are talking about. Then show that policies are being cancelled “to comply with ACA”.
That’s at least 4 cites you need to provide.
Thereby missing the point entirely. Those who lost their current policies are not just dumped into the individual markets. Most were in employer groups, who will get new policies in their employer’s group.
Like I said, gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. While denying you’re breaking any and accusing those who say you are of being liars. There should be a political price for doing that and hopefully there will be.
Meaningless blather. Politicians play politics. I care far more about how legislation affects people in the real world, and in the long term.
This is really basic stuff. So let’s fight some ignorance here:
http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/private-insurance/legal-rights/hipaa-and-portability-of.html
For consumers who are HIPAA-eligible and who seek to purchase a policy in the individual market, HIPAA does the following:
guarantees the right to purchase individual coverage;
prohibits preexisting condition exclusions for the specified HIPAA policies;
requires the issuance of certificates of creditable coverage; and
guarantees renewal of individual health insurance coverage.
The fact that people will die today to save more tomorrow(maybe) is a pretty serious decision that should require informed consent from the populace. That informed consent became impossible when Democrats lied. And they went much further than typical politics. They wanted this so bad that they were willing to smear their opponents in personal terms.
Now it’s a fair point that how the law works in the long term is important. But that’s why I’m a libertarian: politics infects EVERYTHING the government does. We might not find out how the law will do long term because the law might not survive past 2016. Or, the law will survive, but be worse than the status quo, but it won’t matter because in the realm of health care, people want to keep what they have and fear change. Politics is why contraception and maternity coverage are free, whereas cancer treatment requires a co-pay and is subject to a deductible.
Politics means that the law could be good and get repealed, or it could be bad and remain on the books for the next 100 years. So it matters.
Silly again. “Smear their opponents…” describes pretty much every politician ever, especially the successful ones. Obama was certainly no worse than many of his opponents. Spare me any claims that Obama was different or special here- he ran good campaigns, and according to the fact-raters, was actually better than most in his claims.
Sounds good to me- hopefully, in the future, cancer treatment will be free as well. Baby steps.
Of course it matters – but in your last few posts, apparently that’s all that matters to you… and only at an elementary school level. The politics of the immediate present will have pretty much nothing to do with the long term existence and success of the ACA – it is the law, and because Obama was re-elected, it won’t be repealed for at least several years.
The evidence is that you don’t know, which means it’s possible that your claims here are complete bunk. It’s because you have no idea how many with cancelled plans got new ones and, more importantly, how many people who were previously uninsured will now have insurance through the exchanges, subsidized assitance, Medicaid expansion, etc. After all, your claim is that there will be more uninsured due to ACA, a claim for which there is zero evidence.
So is this the fault of Congress or the President? I’m actually not opposed to the minimum standards that the new law requires, as some catastrophic policies were financially dangerous for those who had them. I do wish that this had been communicated better, but that doesn’t make it bad law.
No, we do want to know. What we’re pretty sure of is that ACA will result in more Americans with insurance than without, and there is abundant evidence to back that up. If the SCOTUS hadn’t allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, it would be an even rosier picture, but even with that decision’s negative impact, there should still be a great reduction in the number of uninsured Americans.
Again, do you have ANY evidence backing up your claim that there will be a larger number of uninsured post ACA?
I never claimed that there WOULD be fewer uninsured, only that there could very well be. I also claimed that in a world where ACA is even minimally functioning well, fewer people being covered shouldn’t even be a possibility.
I don’t see how you can dispute this. The goalpost moving since this thread started has been incredible. ACA has underperformed to a greater extent than even its harshest critics predicted. So now supporters say, give it a few years. It has three.
The title of this thread has long since become obsolete. Obamacare is not fully enacted, it will never be fully enacted. Democrats and the administration recognize that it is completely unworkable as written.
Such hilarious nonsense. The only goalpost shifting has been by you. Supporters have always been saying that we would not know the full effect and success of the ACA for a few and perhaps even several years. The most important parts of the ACA are things like the mandate, the banning of rejection due to pre-existing conditions, the allowance to keep children on your coverage until 26 (IIRC), and possibly a few other things. These provisions still exist.
healthcare.gov != Obamacare
The mandate doesn’t look very viable. Neither do the exchanges, although I expect we’ll keep them because they do no harm. It’s useful to have a place to compare plans, although such sites already exist.
It does appear that much of the law will survive even if Republicans take complete control in 2016. And if Democrats want to take credit for that, they are welcome to. But the law will be gutted to a large extent. The mandate will go away, the subsidies will go away, the regulations stating what is acceptable coverage will go away. And that’s okay too. The mandate is the most hated part of the bill and one the administration doesn’t feel comfortable actually enforcing. They will simply not be stupid enough to make millions of people pay a penalty in an election year. And if they delay it a year, they’ll have to delay it another year and the next year as well. it will never be implemented. The subsidies aren’t being taken advantage of. Less than 1 million people so far are receiving them. If that number doesn’t increase dramatically, there won’t be enough people invested in them to make them politically viable. And finally, the insurance regulations are becoming hated as well, because that’s the source of increased premiums, deductibles, and reduced provider networks. only individuals can judge what is good health insurance for them. the government has proven that they are idiots in this regard.
the exchanges are just a small part of ACA? Okay.
This is what I’m talking about with the goalpost moving. Everything that’s been postponed or failed is called “not that important to the law”. Suddenly the employer mandate doesn’t matter, the exchanges don’t matter, and heck, it doesn’t even matter anymore if young people even sign up.
What supporters are basically saying is that none of it matters. It’s the ideological win that’s important. There is a universal health care system in this country. Whether it works is of secondary importance.
All of this is nonsense. You are incorrect with every claim.
Straw man and totally incorrect understanding of ACA supporters. Wrong again. We’re (or at least I am) pissed at the poor rollout, fine with many of the tweaks, and still very hopeful and optimistic that in the long run this law will greatly improve the American health care system, with better outcomes for Americans in general.
If the mandate is viable, let’s see them enforce it. Please, I’m begging the administration, enforce the mandate in an election year with millions not signed up. But once again, what the administration says casts doubt: when an administration spokesman was asked if anyone would have to pay the penalty, he evaded. An administration undecided on enforcing the mandate at this late date is a bad sign.
As for the exchanges, you’ve got a million old farts on them. Wait till the insurance companies have to reevaluate their risk pool in time for the election. Oh wait, they delayed the announcement of the new price levels until after the election.
See, it’s easy to tell the law is failing because the administration acts as if they fear the consequences of the law being implemented as written. The adjustments they are making have nothing to do with making the law work better. They have always been simply for short term political interest.
You guys are trying to have it both ways. Things that don’t work aren’t important, but you’re pissed they don’t work. Are they important, or not?
You’ve already pretty much said that it doesn’t matter if more people are uninsured next year than the year before. That’s a basic goal of the law, to expand coverage. Actually, it’s the entire purpose of the law. Now sure, it should expand coverage in later years. if more people are uninsured in 2016 than in 2013 that would really be something. The law would certainly deserve repeal then, would it not?
When asked whether anybody would pay the mandate penalty in 2014, Simas demurred.
“I can’t talk to you about how many people are going to be subject to the penalty,” he said, pointing to Massachusetts, where there was a rush of people signing up very late under its health reform law.
Read more: ACA mandate change adds confusion - POLITICO