Jump to content

The Obamacare Website - How Does It Represent A Failure Of Government?


Leon Troutsky
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Obama connection is an extreme stretch considering that CGI got clearance to present no-bid contracts under the Bush administration. But the rest of it, I completely agree. That's what people should be upset about, and yet these chuckle heads don't even know that is what happened.

Im just commenting on the lack of information. I dont think that no-bid contracts are particularly nefarious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im just commenting on the lack of information. I dont think that no-bid contracts are particularly nefarious.

By themselves, maybe not. But the way they've been used, I have a real problem with it. As I said in another thread (or maybe earlier in this thread), the lowest bidder isn't always the best, but a complete lack of competition isn't the answer either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, while people are pronouncing the apocalypse from Obamacare, perhaps someone could explain to me what is wrong with creating a marketplace where insurance companies compete with one another for customers. I thought we believed in the free market as a way to drive down costs.

The "marketplace" already existed. Further, they still aren't competing because of state line restrictions. Why aren't the Democrats open to letting all companies countrywide compete in every "marketplace"? I mean if they believe in the free market and all this should only increase competition. Defending this garbage shows your true political colors...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "marketplace" already existed. Further, they still aren't competing because of state line restrictions. Why aren't the Democrats open to letting all companies countrywide compete in every "marketplace"? I mean if they believe in the free market and all this should only increase competition. Defending this garbage shows your true political colors...

It's because the lobby wanted it this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely correct...

But if we wanted anything to help the consumer, but bite into the insurance bottom line it would have been viewed as evil and a commercial campaign would have been waged to make sure it didnt happen. People would have gotten behind it like it was dem vs small business... more money more voice more sheep votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if we wanted anything to help the consumer, but bite into the insurance bottom line it would have been viewed as evil and a commercial campaign would have been waged to make sure it didnt happen. People would have gotten behind it like it was dem vs small business... more money more voice more sheep votes.

Yep, spot on sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "marketplace" already existed. Further, they still aren't competing because of state line restrictions. Why aren't the Democrats open to letting all companies countrywide compete in every "marketplace"? I mean if they believe in the free market and all this should only increase competition. Defending this garbage shows your true political colors...

The marketplace as it existed was inefficient and confusing for consumers. Part of the reason you get the mess we had was because there was no easy and efficient way for consumers to compare policies in regards to price and coverage.

I'm not opposed to interstate insurance, per se. Under the previous system, it was a bad idea because insurance companies could simply flock to the state with the fewest consumer protection regulations, which would ironically lower the level of competition. Now that there are minimum requirements regarding coverage, I'm more open to it. But that doesn't mean the exchanges are a bad idea. Companies couldn't sell across state lines prior to the exchanges.

As far as my "political colors" and my support for the idea of an exchange that will drive down costs through competition, I suppose that makes me a conservative Republican from about 20 years ago. My economic political views are more in line with Ronald Reagan's policies than yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The marketplace as it existed was inefficient and confusing for consumers. Part of the reason you get the mess we had was because there was no easy and efficient way for consumers to compare policies in regards to price and coverage.

I'm not opposed to interstate insurance, per se. Under the previous system, it was a bad idea because insurance companies could simply flock to the state with the fewest consumer protection regulations, which would ironically lower the level of competition. Now that there are minimum requirements regarding coverage, I'm more open to it. But that doesn't mean the exchanges are a bad idea. Companies couldn't sell across state lines prior to the exchanges.

As far as my "political colors" and my support for the idea of an exchange that will drive down costs through competition, I suppose that makes me a conservative Republican from about 20 years ago. My economic political views are more in line with Ronald Reagan's policies than yours.

What consumer protection regulations are you referring to? I don't agree with "minimum requirements" for products. If someone wants just catastrophic coverage then they shouldn't be forced to pay for "preventative services" that they could probably pay out of pocket cheaper than their new "protection". The exchanges aren't a bad idea because of the inability to sell across lines, they are a bad because they already existed. Anyone could go to "e-health" and gotten all the quotes they wanted for any plan they wanted. They are further a bad idea because it doesn't increase choice nor does it do anything to encourage competition. Apparently, now everyone pays one price with different level plans and still limited choices. YAY consumer. Nah, open up state lines, let them all compete with different TYPES of products.

Okay, so your colors don't line up with mine, I kind of already knew that. No shocking revalation there...

I don't think Cap is one of those "Ronald Reagan is Jesus 2.0" conservative Republican types.

Not even remotely close...laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone could go to "e-health" and gotten all the quotes they wanted for any plan they wanted.

I was just about to post the same. So we spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create a website so people could compare and contrast plans, when such websites already exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The marketplace as it existed was inefficient and confusing for consumers. Part of the reason you get the mess we had was because there was no easy and efficient way for consumers to compare policies in regards to price and coverage.

I'm not opposed to interstate insurance, per se. Under the previous system, it was a bad idea because insurance companies could simply flock to the state with the fewest consumer protection regulations, which would ironically lower the level of competition. Now that there are minimum requirements regarding coverage, I'm more open to it. But that doesn't mean the exchanges are a bad idea. Companies couldn't sell across state lines prior to the exchanges.

As far as my "political colors" and my support for the idea of an exchange that will drive down costs through competition, I suppose that makes me a conservative Republican from about 20 years ago. My economic political views are more in line with Ronald Reagan's policies than yours.

Good thing Obamacare cleaned up the confusion aspect of health insurance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's private health insurance being purchased, so...

But this was a question about the health care exchanges, not the individual mandate. What's wrong with an exchange?

when the federal gov't comes in and regulates the insurance companies to the hilt, its no longer private health insurance. It may be private in name, but not in practice and reality. Because of Obamacare, the Feds are in the door enough now to regulate the private insurers to the point of driving out profits..a "for profit" company will cease to exist after sustained period of losing money.

I'm in the mortgage business. The mortgage industry had gotten out of control from 2000-2007 and needed to be reeled in - after significant losses, the industry worked to clean itself up and did so in about 2 years - by 2009, it was cleaned up - after the clean-up, here enters the feds(too late), and they have regulated the mortgage industry to death and about 30% of the industry left the business. About 1/2 of the "mom-n-pops" (smaller businesses) left the industry - the business consolidated because the smaller companies could not absorb all the added compliance which did nothing to help the industry and was just costly and burdemsome. The new mortgage laws were written by congress with the help of the big bank lobby and they targeted the smaller mortgage brokers (who had no effective washington lobby).

What has happened since? less competition, higher fees, higher rates. To those that cite "low rates" as a counter - its irrelevant insofar as rates go up/down w/ economy/employment/unemployment/fed monetary policy - but the added burdemsome regulation is "baked in" to the rates/closing costs.

The same thing is now happening with health insurance. Insurers have more costs and those will pass to the health consumer - on top of all the subsidies and the sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What consumer protection regulations are you referring to? I don't agree with "minimum requirements" for products. If someone wants just catastrophic coverage then they shouldn't be forced to pay for "preventative services" that they could probably pay out of pocket cheaper than their new "protection". The exchanges aren't a bad idea because of the inability to sell across lines, they are a bad because they already existed. Anyone could go to "e-health" and gotten all the quotes they wanted for any plan they wanted. They are further a bad idea because it doesn't increase choice nor does it do anything to encourage competition. Apparently, now everyone pays one price with different level plans and still limited choices. YAY consumer. Nah, open up state lines, let them all compete with different TYPES of products.

Okay, so your colors don't line up with mine, I kind of already knew that. No shocking revalation there...

The problem is not catastrophic coverage. The problem is crap policies that don't cover even some of the bare necessities. That's like saying "if I want to buy spinach that has a great chance of being contaminated then I should have that right". The minimum requirements are intended to protect consumers against predatory insurance practices with hidden riders and clauses that effectively results in little or no coverage. Consumer protection is a basic function of government.

ehealth and other websites also do not allow people to see their subsidy levels nor does it weed out predatory companies selling crap policies. And not everyone "pays one price" on these exchanges. Where did you get that from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thing Obamacare cleaned up the confusion aspect of health insurance.

It's working just fine in Kentucky, California, and Washington. Also been working very well in Massachusetts for over six years. Once again, the problem is with the specific website and the people who were responsible for hiring decisions. It's not a problem with the law itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when the federal gov't comes in and regulates the insurance companies to the hilt, its no longer private health insurance. It may be private in name, but not in practice and reality. Because of Obamacare, the Feds are in the door enough now to regulate the private insurers to the point of driving out profits..a "for profit" company will cease to exist after sustained period of losing money.

I'm in the mortgage business. The mortgage industry had gotten out of control from 2000-2007 and needed to be reeled in - after significant losses, the industry worked to clean itself up and did so in about 2 years - by 2009, it was cleaned up - after the clean-up, here enters the feds(too late), and they have regulated the mortgage industry to death and about 30% of the industry left the business. About 1/2 of the "mom-n-pops" (smaller businesses) left the industry - the business consolidated because the smaller companies could not absorb all the added compliance which did nothing to help the industry and was just costly and burdemsome. The new mortgage laws were written by congress with the help of the big bank lobby and they targeted the smaller mortgage brokers (who had no effective washington lobby).

What has happened since? less competition, higher fees, higher rates. To those that cite "low rates" as a counter - its irrelevant insofar as rates go up/down w/ economy/employment/unemployment/fed monetary policy - but the added burdemsome regulation is "baked in" to the rates/closing costs.

The same thing is now happening with health insurance. Insurers have more costs and those will pass to the health consumer - on top of all the subsidies and the sick.

And yet the rise of health care costs has been lower in the past two years since Obamacare than it was the previous years. This idea that regulation spins costs out of control isn't supported by the facts.

Not that there is any evidence that government regulation is so stringent that we no longer have a free market. That's just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's working just fine in Kentucky, California, and Washington. Also been working very well in Massachusetts for over six years. Once again, the problem is with the specific website and the people who were responsible for hiring decisions. It's not a problem with the law itself.

The sites have worked well, but thus far the program has not. Roughly 80% of applicants in Kentucky and Washington are Medicaid applicants.

And besides, that doesn't explain why Healthcare.gov is so screwed up.

And because I know you'll request links:

http://nypost.com/2013/10/25/most-ny-obamacare-enrollees-choosing-medicaid/

Edited by DawgBone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sites have worked well, but thus far the program has not. Roughly 80% of applicants in Kentucky and Washington are Medicaid applicants.

That's what the CBO estimated - that more people will sign up for Medicaid than private insurance during the first year or so.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf

And considering that Medicaid expansion was part of the law, that shouldn't be much of a surprise that a lot of people looking at the exchange early will qualify for Medicaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sites have worked well, but thus far the program has not. Roughly 80% of applicants in Kentucky and Washington are Medicaid applicants.

And besides, that doesn't explain why Healthcare.gov is so screwed up.

And because I know you'll request links:

http://nypost.com/20...osing-medicaid/

Also, despite all of these grandiose claims about the failure of the private sector under Obamacare, I would note that Massachusetts has been implementing the same program for years now. Private insurance still exists there, more people are covered, and costs don't see to be out of control.

Isn't it possible that all of these grandiose claims of imminent disaster are just a bunch of noise made by politicians lying to their supporters because they oppose the policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...