Not much, because the IPAB can’t do that. Only sleazy ads claim that it can.
You do know that even pre-ACA Medicare already could deny a claim and does so fairly often (PDF). Right?
And where are the angry headlines about the evil, greedy Medicare program?
Also, Economics 101: the ability to set prices is the ability to ration.
OK, let’s set some ground rules; do you believe rationing of health care is a good thing or a bad thing?
A necessary evil, IF we are transparent about doing it. It’s just plain evil if we claim to be giving everyone everything they need when we’re not.
I’m sure you will come back here with a cite if anyone ever makes that claim.
YOu know what’s interesting? Democrats keep on claiming that the law needs fixing, but haven’t brought any bills to the floor of the Senate to fix the law. Only Republicans have been voting on, and passing, bills to fix it.
The White House’s excuse on the latest two bills is particularly rich: it would create “reporting burdens” for the administration. Funny, businesses constantly complain about such burdens and the administration thinks they can handle it just fine.
You didn’t understand the article you posted.
I was also going to say that - but what’s the point?
We have a radio station here, that advertises “only hear the good stuff”
Adaher only sees what he wants to see, regardless of the facts, so what’s the point?
Bullshit - the Dems passed a bill to fix the volunteer firefighter problem.
There are now ten million people with insurance under the ACA who wouldn’t otherwise have it. As that number grows, throwing them back under the bus is not going to be politically palatable. Time for the Republicans to stop with the temper tantrums, they lost and aren’t going to scuttle this any more than they can Social Security or Medicare.
They haven’t haven’t even stopped trying to scuttle Social Security or Medicare. There are a few things that Republicans are better at than Democrats – perseverance is one of them.
This thread is a year old, today.
I think we can safely say that, for the most part, opinions are unchanged. If you supported ACA on 1-17-2013, you support it on 1-17-2014. If you were against it then, you’re still against it now.
Anybody here have an opinion change w/in the previous year from “For” to “Against” (or vice versa)?
^^^^^
Yeah, this thread evolved into this board’s central hub for ACA discussion in a lot of ways, which I’m perfectly happy with. I too would be interested to see whether anybody has changed their positions over the past year.
Going back to BobLibDem’s post, I honestly don’t see how ACA repeal would even be possible at this point. I mean, there are just far too many gears that have already been set into motion that would make repeal hugely untenable if not outright impossible.
Think about it, there’s been hundreds of millions of dollars invested into the R&D of the federal exchange website with just as much $$$ also flowing to the states who opted to create their own marketplaces. There have been thousands of pages of regulations that have been issued in order to define and implement the law itself. Medicaid has finally been expanded. There are now national multi-million dollar ad campaigns that are touting the law’s benefits and driving individuals to enroll, and these campaigns are not only being driven by government agencies but also by the insurers themselves who have a huge financial stake in making sure that the ACA is successful. Perhaps most of all, ten million people are insured today who otherwise wouldn’t have been without the ACA.
You can’t just magically make all of that go away with a repeal proposal.
True, but a lesser change could do it. Washington State reform in the 90s was derailed a few years later when the purchase mandate was removed.
Looking at that, it is easy to understand the “just get rid of the mandate” comments in this thread. It is code for killing the ACA.
It’s off the the Death Panel with him, where the government will decide whether his life is worth saving, of course.
No, seriously, he’s denied. So what? Private insurance denies treatments or drugs too. Of course it does. It can’t just allow any treatment or drug. As you must admitted, rationing is necessary.
If the GOP does not like limiting care, are they proposing unlimited care? Where’s the money for that going to come from? The GOP push[sup]1[/sup] to keep young people from signing up for health insurance brings up the question of what is their alternative to being insured? Can the GOP guarantee each young person that does not sign up for Obamacare that they will never get sick, old or injured? Does the GOP have a warehouse full of oil portraits that age in place of the “young immortals” who reject Obamacare based on GOP advice? I’m just asking questions here. 
[sup]1[/sup] The Independent Diction Review Board has told me I’ve used up my allotment of the words “propaganda” and “lies” for this thread, and all variants thereof.
The magic powers of the free market will determine life and death. If you generate enough income to pay for fixing whatever breaks, you can live forever!
His point is that when private insurance does it, it is wholesome and good because it is private insurance. When Medicare does it, it is intrinsically evil because anything run by the government is by definition evil.
For whoever the hell it was gleefully explaining to us that a bit of slop in the wording of the state exchange section of the law would destroy it all: Not.
Seems this number is well above the 6 million White House is claiming. And their claim of 6 million earned 3 Pinoccios from the Washington Post Fact Checker which criticizes including 3.9 million Medicaid enrollments in that 6 million number.
The Wall Street Journal (in an article behind a paywall) levies the criticism that many of those enrolled were previously insured. Claiming all Obamacare enrollees as persons who previously did not have coverage (or were unable to get coverage) is not a fair assumption. A Forbes article describing the WSJ report detail surveys of persons enrolled in marketplace plans indicating less than one third were previously uninsured.
Supporters want to promote higher numbers. Detractors want to disparage any reports of success. Not dealing honestly with the numbers does no one any favors in trying to make an informed opinion about how enrollment is proceeding. Given that expanding coverage to the previously uninsured and uninsurable was a goal of the PPACA then getting an honest before-and-after picture would be helpful. Damn hard to find a neutral “cameraman” to take that snapshot.