What is your ongoing opinion of the Affordable Care Act? (Title Edited)

[lance_strongarm]

@Terr

Yep. It was ACA that forced their employer to change their plan.

Yes, in the case of congressional staff.

But not for any other American.

[lance_strongarm]

@Terr

So, are you dropping your “argument” that Congress is being treated “unfairly” because employees are getting dropped from the previous plan they had? Seeing how thousands (more probably millions) of Americans are getting the same treatment?

That is not my argument. They are not getting the same treatment.

[Terr]

@lance_strongarm

That is not my argument. They are not getting the same treatment.

They are, just like Congress critters and staffers, losing their employer-funded plans. How is that not different?

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

An easy fix would be to get rid of most of the coverage mandates. It’s too late now to get people their old insurance back, but we can at least make those types of plans available again. **Not the cheapy ones with lifetime limits, **but the ones that were pretty darn good but may have left out a few things, in exchange for a better network and access to tertiary care centers.

But that’s an OUTRAGE! You’re taking away people’s insurance! Etc.

The employer health care system is not broken. It doesn’t need fixing.

I wish we could fix the whole thing without changing a thing with the employer side, but it won’t work.

[Terr]

@lance_strongarm

Yes, in the case of congressional staff.

But not for any other American.

I see you just ignored the articles I posted that clearly showed that yes, other Americans are getting dropped from their employee-sponsored plans due to ACA. At least thousands of them, and probably millions.

[Typo_Knig]

@Terr

Yep. A typical liberal’s plaintive cry of “people are stoooopid”.

Listen to yourself. You are parroting the endless campaign of lies and propaganda that has been spewed about Obamacare since it was proposed. No wonder people - people who are pretty smart but who are too busy to keep up with boring political news - think that Obamacare is a bad thing. Because of all the smears against Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act polls much, much better. I’m confident that most of the people who don’t know that Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are smart but busy, or are smart and no more interested in politics or insurance or watching paint dry than I am in sports or reality shows.

I do not think “people are stoooopid”. I think people are susceptible to targeted messaging. If only there was a place online dedicated to fighting ignorance, even if it’s taking longer than we thought.

[adaher]

If ACA requires you to change your plan to a more comprehensive one, then you can’t say an employer chose to change their plan. And since the administration writes the rules about what constitutes comprehensive insurance, then it’s fair to say that the administration ordered companies to charge their employees more.

[adaher]

@Typo_Knig

I do not think “people are stoooopid”. I think people are susceptible to targeted messaging. If only there was a place online dedicated to fighting ignorance, even if it’s taking longer than we thought.

People see how it affects them. “fighting ignorance”, in your view, is apparently telling them they are better off when I think they are grown up enough to understand whether they are or aren’t when it comes to their personal finances and health coverage.

If you believe bureaucrats with law and political science degrees are more qualified to tell ordinary people how to manage their finances, then why are we stopping at health coverage? Let’s make complex rules about who may own and who may rent, since people making poor decisions in that regard contributed to the economic collapse in 2008.

[lance_strongarm]

@Terr

I see you just ignored the articles I posted that clearly showed that yes, other Americans are getting dropped from their employee-sponsored plans due to ACA. At least thousands of them, and probably millions.

But that is not the same thing at all.

Some people are being dropped (and many simply added back to new plans with slight changes, but whatever) because their plans were inadequate. In most cases, the employer will simply provide new and better ones.

Congressional staff have no access to an employee-provided plan at all, even though it was more than adequate. They are pawns, nothing more.

[adaher]

And please, let’s get over the “endless campaign of lies and propaganda”, Typo King. These lies contributed to selling the law:

1. You can keep your plan if you like it.
2. You can keep your doctor if you like him/her.
3. The average family will save $2500.

So I think it’s time to quit whining.

[adaher]

@lance_strongarm

Some people are being dropped (and many simply added back to new plans with slight changes, but whatever) because their plans were inadequate. In most cases, the employer will simply provide new and better ones.

They were not inadequate, they just didn’t cover everything the government thought was necessary at the co-pays the government desired.

For example, the government doesn’t require tertiary care center coverage, yet many employer plans have it. Many individual plans do as well. I would think that losing access to tertiary care centers makes your plan inadequate if you ever need that kind of care. Hey, but in exchange, you get free contraception!

My point is that what the government requires is often arbitrary. What the government labels “inadequate” is extremely arbitrary.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

And please, let’s get over the “endless campaign of lies and propaganda”, Typo King. These lies contributed to selling the law:

1. You can keep your plan if you like it.
2. You can keep your doctor if you like him/her.
3. The average family will save $2500.

So I think it’s time to quit whining.

Does this mean you’re urging Terr to drop his ridiculous claims and move on?

[Typo_Knig]

@adaher

… The employer health care system is not broken. It doesn’t need fixing.

WRONG!!! The employer-based health insurance system was on a slow, but definite, path to completely unraveling. Costs were going up quickly and without limit. Plans were being priced out of what people could afford - even people with jobs. There was a higher percentage of unisured every year, which in turn drove up costs and reduced good health outcomes. Also people could not afford to leave their jobs for better jobs for fear of losing health coverage. The lack of coverage for the unemployed is a huge problem. You may delude yourself that the US health insurance system prior to PPACA was all rainbows and puppy dogs and unicorns, but there is no factual basis for your claim.

[Terr]

@lance_strongarm

But that is not the same thing at all.

Some people are being dropped (and many simply added back to new plans with slight changes, but whatever) because their plans were inadequate.

No. Because the LAW said that they are inadequate. You realize these two concepts are different, right?

In most cases, the employer will simply provide new and better ones.

Seriously, which portion of “However, the portion of small employers that say they’re likely to eliminate health benefits within five years jumped from 22% in 2012 to 31% in 2013.” was unclear to you? Or “[Disney will] simply stop offering health insurance to part-timers, matching moves made by Universal Orlando and SeaWorld”?

Congressional staff have no access to an employee-provided plan at all, even though it was more than adequate. They are pawns, nothing more.

They won’t have access to it because the law says so. Same as millions of other Americans. Except of course Congress staffers consider themselves better than the hoi-polloi, so it’s terribly “unfair”.

[Typo_Knig]

@adaher

And please, let’s get over the “endless campaign of lies and propaganda”, Typo King. These lies contributed to selling the law:

1. You can keep your plan if you like it.
2. You can keep your doctor if you like him/her.
3. The average family will save $2500.

So I think it’s time to quit whining.

After just the “death panels” bullshit I would put my side’s credibility against your side’s any day of the week. It’s back to work for me, but do continue, Governor.

[adaher]

@Typo_Knig

WRONG!!! The employer-based health insurance system was on a slow, but definite, path to completely unraveling. Costs were going up quickly and without limit. Plans were being priced out of what people could afford - even people with jobs. There was a higher percentage of unisured every year, which in turn drove up costs and reduced good health outcomes. Also people could not afford to leave their jobs for better jobs for fear of losing health coverage. The lack of coverage for the unemployed is a huge problem. You may delude yourself that the US health insurance system prior to PPACA was all rainbows and puppy dogs and unicorns, but there is no factual basis for your claim.

I should have been more specific, my bad. I meant that the coverage itself wasn’t broken. It didn’t need to be improved except at low wage jobs like Pizza Hut and Wal-mart who had lifetime maxes.

Even union insurance is “inadequate” because it doesn’t offer free contraceptives. Yet many of those plans are also cadillac plans that will be taxed.

Priorities need to be set if this law is to function. If we’re trying to expand coverage, we failed, because too many people find it too expensive to bother. So we need to reduce those coverage mandates to make insurance cheaper.

[adaher]

@Typo_Knig

After just the “death panels” bullshit I would put my side’s credibility against your side’s any day of the week. It’s back to work for me, but do continue, Governor.

“Death panels” was YOUR side’s lie, because one person said it and then you tried to use it as a way to discredit all the legitimate arguments made by our side. Arguments which turned out to be true.

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

“Death panels” was YOUR side’s lie, because one person said it and then you tried to use it as a way to discredit all the legitimate arguments made by our side. Arguments which turned out to be true.

Though it clearly cries out for it, I’m not even going to poke that turd with a stick.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@adaher

“Death panels” was YOUR side’s lie, because one person said it and then you tried to use it as a way to discredit all the legitimate arguments made by our side. Arguments which turned out to be true.

Cite?
Death panel

“Death panel” is a political term that originated during the 2009 debate about federal health care legislation to cover the uninsured in the United States. The term was coined in August 2009 by Sarah Palin, the former Republican Governor of Alaska, when she charged that the then-proposed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would create a “death panel” of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or children with Down syndrome—were “worthy of medical care”. Palin’s claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the “death panel myth”,[1] as nothing in any proposed legislation would have led to individuals being judged to see if they were worthy of health care.[2] Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

Palin’s claim was reported as false and criticized by mainstream news media, fact-checkers, academics, physicians, Democrats, and some Republicans. Other prominent Republicans such as Newt Gingrich and conservative talk radio hosts Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin backed Palin’s statement. One poll showed that after it spread, about 85% of Americans were familiar with the charge and of those who were familiar with it, about 30% thought it was true.[1]

…

On July 16, 2009, former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, a longtime opponent of federal healthcare legislation[3][4] said Section 1233 of HR 3200 was “a vicious assault on elderly people”[5] because it would “absolutely require” Medicare patients to have counseling sessions every five years that would “tell them how to end their life sooner”.[6] Conservative talk radio hosts including [7] Rush Limbaugh,[6] Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham repeated McCaughey’s claim.[8] The AARP, a non-profit lobby group for retired persons, responded that the sessions were in no way designed to encourage euthanasia, but would instead help seniors make better decisions and would help ensure that their wishes were followed.[6][9] PolitiFact said the proposal provided Medicare coverage for optional counseling sessions for patients who wanted to learn more about end-of-life-planning.[6]
On July 24, 2009, an op-ed by McCaughey was published in the New York Post.[10] In the piece, which was titled “Deadly Doctors”, McCaughey falsely asserted that presidential advisor Ezekiel Emanuel believed the disabled should not be entitled to medical care, and quoted him out of context.[11][12] On July 27, excerpts from the McCaughey’s op-ed were read, with approval, by Representative (Rep.) Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.[5][12] Within days, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), then the Minority Leader of the House and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), the Republican Policy Committee Chairman, repeated claims that Section 1233 would encourage “government-sponsored” euthanasia,[7][13][14] and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) charged that the proposal would “put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”[15][16] On July 30, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, declared that the House bill had “a bias toward euthanasia”.[17][18] The Washington Post reported on August 1, 2009 that the claim had been spreading via “religious e-mail lists” and internet blogs.[7] In early August, members of Congress held town hall meetings that were marked by hostility—including shouting, sporadic, physical altercations and comparisons between the proposed reforms and Nazi Germany.[19]

@Sarah Palin

[G]overnment health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.[24]

Though Palin’s post did not identify a portion of legislation she believed mandated “death panels”,[25] a spokesperson pointed to HR 3200, Section 1233,[26][27][28] and Palin herself followed up in an August 12 Facebook note clarifying her argument by discussing Section 1233.[25] However, neither Section 1233 nor any other provision in any health care bill provided for a system to determine if individuals were worthy of health care.[2]

[adaher]

@Fear_Itself

Though it clearly cries out for it, I’m not even going to poke that turd with a stick.

You cannot even compare an isolated statement from Sarah Palin to a campaign of propaganda from the President of the United States.

That isolated statement was repeated again and again by liberals. It’s even dishonest to try to portray it as part of the campaign against the law, because it was used 90% of the time by the left to discredit opposition, rather than by the right to actually try to convince people there were death panels.