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

Statements like this are very dubious. Employers have been blaming the ACA for years when the actual effects have been negligible. We got a rate hike in 2010 and had to pass some of that cost on to employees. Our broker said 'You could just tell them it's because of the ACA'. We opted to tell them the truth...that it was due to a few large claims on our plan that had effected our experience rating.

You don't strike me as someone to just have blind faith that employers are going to be honest with their employees.

The problem with this is that part of the Administration's pitch was that passage of the ACA would bring the cost of health insurance down, which so far doesn't seem to be the case.

Edited by DawgBone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And after this long stretch of two weeks, you'd expect results by now! rolleyes.gif

Well, again, interpret it how you like. The Pitchman wasn't specific either way, but he didn't say it would take 6 months, a year, 2 years for rates to start coming down. We were simply told that costs would be more affordable. They're not. We'll see.

Edited by DawgBone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this is that part of the Administration's pitch was that passage of the ACA would bring the cost of health insurance down, which so far doesn't seem to be the case.

I will criticize the disastrous rollout of the ACA and I will criticize Obama blatantly lying about being able to keep your plan. However it's way too early to criticize any effect on costs that the ACA is going to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this is that part of the Administration's pitch was that passage of the ACA would bring the cost of health insurance down, which so far doesn't seem to be the case.

Increase is rates has actually slowed since the ACA was passed.

That said...it's been THREE WEEKS! Is our collective attention span so short that we expect a complete reform in just three weeks? Further, I don't understand how people can believe that government can do NOTHING right, yet simultaneously incur that the ACA's full benefit would be felt in three weeks? It's ridiculous.

I'm not saying it rules, or that it will rule. It's been a mess so far. But it will take years to evaluate the effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, again, interpret it how you like. The Pitchman wasn't specific either way, but he didn't say it would take 6 months, a year, 2 years for rates to start coming down. We were simply told that costs would be more affordable. They're not. We'll see.

So you measure the success of a policy based on the rhetoric used to support it? I would rather judge a policy based on its actual implementation after an appropriate amount of time has passed.

You realize that the economic boom promised by Reagan in his 1980 campaign did not occur in 1981 or even 1982. In fact, the economy sank deeper into recession in the years following the enactment of his fiscal policies. By your account, because the economy wasn't booming in the weeks after his budget passed, his policies were a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said...it's been THREE WEEKS! Is our collective attention span so short that we expect a complete reform in just three weeks? Further, I don't understand how people can believe that government can do NOTHING right, yet simultaneously incur that the ACA's full benefit would be felt in three weeks? It's ridiculous.

Well, in my case it's working out precisely how I anticipated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you measure the success of a policy based on the rhetoric used to support it? I would rather judge a policy based on its actual implementation after an appropriate amount of time has passed.

You realize that the economic boom promised by Reagan in his 1980 campaign did not occur in 1981 or even 1982. In fact, the economy sank deeper into recession in the years following the enactment of his fiscal policies. By your account, because the economy wasn't booming in the weeks after his budget passed, his policies were a failure.

First, I'm no Reagan lover. On a scale of 10, how optimistic are you that 2 years from now I'll be eating crow regarding cost of health insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is right in line with what our company has been quoted for the last 5 years or so.

Did he mention what his plan was before?

No, I'm not sure they even had coverage since he harped on cost.I can only say that he said this version was unaffordable.

The employer mandate doesn't take effect until next year (it was delayed a year). That's the problem with these talk radio programs. They make s*** up.

As for the other states, four of them are working fine. I've heard great things about the Kentucky website, in particular.

This wasn't a "talk show making things up", it was a caller on a news type show relating his personal experience. You say they are working fine, Dan Rather said different this AM.

Statements like this are very dubious. Employers have been blaming the ACA for years when the actual effects have been negligible. We got a rate hike in 2010 and had to pass some of that cost on to employees. Our broker said 'You could just tell them it's because of the ACA'. We opted to tell them the truth...that it was due to a few large claims on our plan that had effected our experience rating.

You don't strike me as someone to just have blind faith that employers are going to be honest with their employees.

Personally, my insurance only shot up a lot 1 time and that was because I was force out of the lower cost option that I had. That may very well have been company choice for whatever reason.

I haven't seen open enrollment yet, it's been delayed.

I don't have blind faith in anything anyone says that's not from my immediate family (and some of those, I don't have blind faith in what they say). I'm not swearing by the guy's statement but offered it up to the discussion. There's been plenty of people interviewed with similar stories so it's hard for me to not believe it but people are slanted on both sides so you never know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'm no Reagan lover. On a scale of 10, how optimistic are you that 2 years from now I'll be eating crow regarding cost of health insurance?

The point isn't whether you like Reagan or not. The point is that it takes years for policies to take effect.

I don't know how likely the law is to succeed. I know that it's been in place in Massachusetts for years and it's worked okay. I also know that there are problems with the law and that it's not going to be perfect. But it will be a year or two before we can make an accurate decision, that's about all I know at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point isn't whether you like Reagan or not. The point is that it takes years for policies to take effect.

I don't know how likely the law is to succeed. I know that it's been in place in Massachusetts for years and it's worked okay. I also know that there are problems with the law and that it's not going to be perfect. But it will be a year or two before we can make an accurate decision, that's about all I know at this point.

State level is where this type of policy belongs, not federal, that's where it fails IMO...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't a "talk show making things up", it was a caller on a news type show relating his personal experience. You say they are working fine, Dan Rather said different this AM.

News shows don't take callers. What was the show and who was the host?

The caller was either making it up, or the company he worked for was making it up, or both were completely uninformed. Again, the employer mandate was delayed for a year. The story he is telling is flat out false. His employer was not rushed to find a plan because of impending fines. That is factually untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least for comparison's sake, Reagan's economy was built on tax cuts and government spending. Obamacare is essentially a tax hike and government spending. Maybe in 2 years I'll be comparing Obamacare's successes to Reagan's. We'll see.

The economy will never boom during Obama's term the way that it boomed under Reagan. However, Reagan also increased taxes many, many times in the subsequent years. So the economy did well even while tax rates were going up. Same happened in the Clinton years, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'm no Reagan lover. On a scale of 10, how optimistic are you that 2 years from now I'll be eating crow regarding cost of health insurance?

The problem is that most people will not take into consideration what the cost likely would have been had we done nothing about health care. It could go up 2%, and people would take to the streets in protest...all the while ignoring that rates were going up much faster than that prior to the ACA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shifting gears a little bit...

I try to avoid cable news like the plague, but stumbled across a few of the networks this morning. The left on these shows are not even acting like they support this thing now - I must have heard "I just want single-payer" on 3 different shows.

This thing is a jumbled mess, but apart from completely eliminating private industry's involvement, why in the world would anybody be so supportive of single payer? You think people are angry about having to pay for this??? Imagine how a program like that would hamper an economy the size of the U.S.

Edited by DawgBone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, my insurance only shot up a lot 1 time and that was because I was force out of the lower cost option that I had. That may very well have been company choice for whatever reason.

I haven't seen open enrollment yet, it's been delayed.

Understood.

But I think it's important to understand that people who had no insurance before are OBVIOUSLY going to pay more under the ACA, since they now have to be insured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that most people will not take into consideration what the cost likely would have been had we done nothing about health care. It could go up 2%, and people would take to the streets in protest...all the while ignoring that rates were going up much faster than that prior to the ACA.

And that's a real problem with American government and society right now. Politicians can implement good, effective policies and get punished for it. Other politicians can yell loudly about the supposed failure of a successful policy and get rewarded for it on Election Day. There needs to be a way for our system of government to reward effective policy-making and punish unrealistic fantasy-land political rhetoric.

[side note: I am not saying that Obamacare is a good, effective policy. I'm speaking abstractly here.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shifting gears a little bit...

I try to avoid cable news like the plague, but stumbled across a few of the networks this morning. The left on these shows are not even acting like they support this thing now - I must have heard "I just want single-payer" on 3 different shows.

This thing is a jumbled mess, but apart from completely eliminating private industry's involvement, why in the world would anybody be so supportive of single payer? You think people are angry about having to pay for this??? Imagine how a program like that would hamper an economy the size of the U.S.

Actually, most advanced industrial democracies around the world that have universal health care or single-payer systems pay a much lower percent of their GDP in health care. Our health care system is unique in how much of a drain it has become on our economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to hear a credible alternative to Obamacare from the right. All that I've heard so far is "tort reform". But tort reform is not going to keep uninsured people from going to the ER, which increases costs for everyone. Tort reform is not going to help people who have preexisting conditions from getting insurance to cover their illnesses.

So we have Obamacare and we have a system modeled on what other countries around the world have done (like single payer). And from the right, we have what proposal or plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on average your payroll tax rate is in the neighborhood of 35%. How will that affect an already hobbled economy? So income tax on an individual is likely in the neighborhood of 50% before you even factor in State and property tax.

I lived in London for 8 years. Dealing with the NHS was an eye-opening experience. I don't want that here.

Edited by DawgBone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on average your payroll tax rate is in the neighborhood of 35%. How will that affect an already hobbled economy? So income tax on an individual is likely in the neighborhood of 50% before you even factor in State and property tax.

I lived in London for 8 years. Dealing with the NHS was an eye-opening experience. I don't want that here.

Then what is your alternative proposal? What ideas are there from the right to bring down the costs and increase the number of insured people?

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...