Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] upheld by Supreme Court Health Care Decision Today...

[oladub]

For those of us who aren't insurance policy wonks, could you translate this into English? For example, what does "An actuarial value of 0.48" mean for us lay people?

With that said, my health insurance premium has more-than-doubled in the past ten years. You can't blame any of that on the Affordable Care Act.

The answer to your first question regarding "An actuarial value of 0.48" is found in the article. Health care premiums went up 14% in the first two years after Obamacare was passed not entirely because of new mandates and court rulings. However, the insurance company guy addressed the expected additional costs of types of insurance policies his company sells as more Obamacare mandates and taxes have to be added and passed along.

[ghettopalmetto]

The answer to your first question regarding "An actuarial value of 0.48" is found in the article. Health care premiums went up 14% in the first two years after Obamacare was passed not entirely because of new mandates and court rulings. However, the insurance company guy addressed the expected additional costs of types of insurance policies his company sells as more Obamacare mandates and taxes have to be added and passed along.

In other words, you didn't understand a damned thing you read. Good work.

A 14% increase in two years? That's pretty good compared to the previous ten years, if you ask me.

Of course, most provisions of the ACA don't take effect until 2014, so I'm not entirely sure how you can blame the Act for increases in premiums that had been occurring at an exponential rate as long as I can remember. You're just picking two things and then forcing an association on the basis of ​"because I said so".

Would you like to compare and contrast this op-ed, er, "article" with the numerical analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office? Or are you only interested in off-the-cuff opinions that suit your preordained groupthink?

[rb336]

Or are you only interested in off-the-cuff opinions that suit your preordained groupthink?

bingo! that's the MO for as long as I can recall

[TKshreve]

In other words, you didn't understand a damned thing you read. Good work.

A 14% increase in two years? That's pretty good compared to the previous ten years, if you ask me.

Of course, most provisions of the ACA don't take effect until 2014, so I'm not entirely sure how you can blame the Act for increases in premiums that had been occurring at an exponential rate as long as I can remember. You're just picking two things and then forcing an association on the basis of ​"because I said so".

Would you like to compare and contrast this op-ed, er, "article" with the numerical analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office? Or are you only interested in off-the-cuff opinions that suit your preordained groupthink?

There are so many logical talking points that support the ACA and deride the current joke of a system, which has me often overstepping by looking deeper into the debate. It is not necessary.

Of course our premiums have been going up for years and years. And why? Because insurance giants have formed and oligopoly, which allows them to joins arms, and raise premiums for the f*ck of it.......citing far fetched reasons behind these hikes. OMG!....... the uninsured........ Emergency room insurance.......... death panels........ Serenity now!

Once again, logic rules this debate.

[Detroitej72]

Of course, most provisions of the ACA don't take effect until 2014, so I'm not entirely sure how you can blame the Act for increases in premiums that had been occurring at an exponential rate as long as I can remember.

I have often argued this point with cons and have only been told the usual, party line. You know how it goes, "Obamacare bad, it's socialist, it takes away our freedoms, it is a huge tax".

Besides, it really doesn't matter what kind of health care act was past, those bitching and complaining would be against anything that covers all citizens because they think the free market will solve it all.

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto: In other words, you didn't understand a damned thing you read. Good work.

A 14% increase in two years? That's pretty good compared to the previous ten years, if you ask me.

You are confusing your personal bills with the national average. Your statement was, "my health insurance premium has more-than-doubled in the past ten years". The point is that Obamacare was supposed to bring down the cost of health care and so far it hasn't. I think what you were trying to respond to, though, was the insurance premium increases the insurance guy projected in the future and his reasons given.

Of course, most provisions of the ACA don't take effect until 2014, so I'm not entirely sure how you can blame the Act for increases in premiums that had been occurring at an exponential rate as long as I can remember. You're just picking two things and then forcing an association on the basis of ​"because I said so".

That is what the article was about. The projected future increases in the cost of health insurance. So far, only a couple of major provisions of coverage have been added to existing health plans if they didn't have them. It all costs money though and insurance companies will be sure to pass the cost on to customers.

Would you like to compare and contrast this op-ed, er, "article" with the numerical analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office? Or are you only interested in off-the-cuff opinions that suit your preordained groupthink?

The revised CBO analysis has already been posted here. It refers to government costs. The Insurance guy referred to policy costs. Those are different things. Here is the link if anyone is interested.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-...163500655.html

You can compare that with the article I posted causing all the flailing and rending.
http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/...ice-president/

See? One is about government cost increases and the other is about certain health plan premium costs due to Obamacare.

Let's take a trip down memory lane and put this in perspective:

“When I am president, we will have universal health care in this country by the end of my first term in office. It’s a plan that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premiums by $2,500 a year.” -Senator Barack Obama's campaign trail promise made in Manchester Hew Hampshire 9/3/07

[firstandten]

The point is that Obamacare was supposed to bring down the cost of health care and so far it hasn't. I think what you were trying to respond to, though, was the insurance premium increases the insurance guy projected in the future and his reasons given.

That is what the article was about. The projected future increases in the cost of health insurance. So far, only a couple of major provisions of coverage have been added to existing health plans if they didn't have them. It all costs money though and insurance companies will be sure to pass the cost on to customers.


The revised CBO analysis has already been posted here. It refers to government costs. The Insurance guy referred to policy costs. Those are different things. Here is the link if anyone is interested.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-...163500655.html

Lets address the gov't cost of ACA for a minute. The frustration that rb feels that GP feels and I feel with your debate style is that you continue to take things out of context, give half of the story. Its all right if you post links that don't cleanly mesh with your narrative. Obama has done things policy wise that don't mesh well with my overall narrative of him and his performance but I will admit those when challenged.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...e-exploded.php

This link relates directly to the link you posted

A few lines from the article

Republicans and conservative media are cherry-picking a figure in a new Congressional Budget Office spending estimate [[PDF) to assert that the cost of “Obamacare” has nearly doubled to $1.76 trillion. But the claim ignores the corresponding savings during the additional period of the spending projection, thus distorting the actual cost estimates of the law.

You make references to promises Obama made as a Senator, candidate Obama, I don't know maybe even when he was in state gov't as promises broken because he didn't hit the numbers he mentioned on the mark.

I maintain that in many cases while fulfilling his promises as President he has at least maintain the spirit of the promise if not the absolute letter of the promise.

[ghettopalmetto]

You make references to promises Obama made as a Senator, candidate Obama, I don't know maybe even when he was in state gov't as promises broken because he didn't hit the numbers he mentioned on the mark.

I maintain that in many cases while fulfilling his promises as President he has at least maintain the spirit of the promise if not the absolute letter of the promise.

Oladub would rather a President promise absolutely nothing--and then deliver 100% of that promise!

[oladub]

firstandten: Lets address the gov't cost of ACA for a minute. The frustration that rb feels that GP feels and I feel with your debate style is that you continue to take things out of context, give half of the story. Its all right if you post links that don't cleanly mesh with your narrative. Obama has done things policy wise that don't mesh well with my overall narrative of him and his performance but I will admit those when challenged.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...e-exploded.php

This link relates directly to the link you posted

A few lines from the article

Republicans and conservative media are cherry-picking a figure in a new Congressional Budget Office spending estimate [[PDF) to assert that the cost of “Obamacare” has nearly doubled to $1.76 trillion. But the claim ignores the corresponding savings during the additional period of the spending projection, thus distorting the actual cost estimates of the law.

The other side of the story has already been presented by the Democratic Party. Obamacare was supposed to cut costs, save money, reduce health insurance costs, and make American companies want to keep jobs here. This quote was from the CBO link in the link you posted " Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion."

You make references to promises Obama made as a Senator, candidate Obama, I don't know maybe even when he was in state gov't as promises broken because he didn't hit the numbers he mentioned on the mark.

I maintain that in many cases while fulfilling his promises as President he has at least maintain the spirit of the promise if not the absolute letter of the promise.

Obama made the promise as a US Senator running for President. I think most businesses that similarly did not keep their promises would be in trouble for bait and switch or fraud even if the reason was just incompetence.

gp says" "Oladub would rather a President promise absolutely nothing--and then deliver 100% of that promise!

Flemish saying, "Fine words butter no parsnips". I prefer to vote for candidates who either keep their promises but am an easy mark for candidates who promise good weather.

[ghettopalmetto]

The other side of the story has already been presented by the Democratic Party. Obamacare was supposed to cut costs, save money, reduce health insurance costs, and make American companies want to keep jobs here. This quote was from the CBO link in the link you posted " Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion."

How stupid do you think we are??? You know the COST of every little piss-ant thing on earth, but see absolutely no value in any of it.

The article you cite does not use the phraseology "increase deficits". It cites those numbers as the OUTLAYS.

Of course, since you were rambling on about the Gold Standard, Libya, and Pope Ron Paul II during the entire ACA debate, you may have missed the part where there were ADDITIONAL TAXES AND SPENDING CUTS enacted as part of the law in order to fund it.

Christ on toast. This is 1st grade math.

[Wheels]

Open letter to Mister Obama:

Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ring tone.While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"!During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based on the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me."
Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.
Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD

[firstandten]

The other side of the story has already been presented by the Democratic Party.

So I guess its buyers beware when it concerns your narratives. Or, I'm not going to lie to you but the truth you have to find on your own. As long as I know the game I'm cool with it.

Spoken like a true Libertarian.

Obama made the promise as a US Senator running for President. I think most businesses that similarly did not keep their promises would be in trouble for bait and switch or fraud even if the reason was just incompetence.

He did keep most of his promises, However given the political realities he was faced with he needed to make adjustments to some of the finer points

So in your world is it all or nothing ?

If he doesn't cross every T and dot every i, then is it in your world a promise broken ? Or does this standard only apply to Obama ?

When businesses make promises they are usually not constrained by a political process geared to compromise. In other words with private business there are many more factors under there control.

[rb336]

can you at least be original?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/starner.asp

[rb336]

ok, wheels, I will supply a response to your doctor's comment, also not my own:

"No, Dr. Jones, I don’t agree. Our country already pays for this woman’s health care — but in the most expensive possible way. Your easy moralisms don’t prevent vices or solve our nation’s actual health care problem, which isn’t “culture” but spiraling costs. We are all going broke in the current system, and indigent care is a big reason. So is prevention, or rather the lack thereof.As for the culture of poor, black Mississippi smokers living in the land of fried food and vending-machine junk: I’ll assume that, as a professional healer licensed by the state to “first do no harm,” you spoke to this patient about the importance of diet, exercise, and breaking her addiction to nicotine. If not, then I’ll assume [[charitably) that you didn’t bother because Medicaid won’t cover those services.You might be interested to know that Canada and the UK freely provide them, and have produced massive cuts in preventable illness [[thus bringing the social costs of medicine down). Only in “free market” American healthcare are these problems still so problematic; only in America is health coverage so damned expensive that poor, black women in Mississippi cannot afford a primary care provider to offer them these services.Knowing your state’s history of economic and social oppression of slave descendants, I recognize the patient’s “lifestyle” as the product of poverty. Eating right is more expensive than a pack of cigarettes a day; junk food is cheap, while cigarettes and booze kill her pain. She is only vaguely aware of the deadly crap marketed to her in those shiny plastic wrappers. It’s what she was born to, and unless something changes it is how she will die. Your patient is not unique."

but at least I will make the attribution:
http://www.osborneink.com/2010/01/de...-jones-md.html

[firstandten]

Open letter to Mister Obama:

Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ring tone.While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"!During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based on the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me."
Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.
Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD

Gee ! Are you resurrecting Reagan's welfare queen myth ?

Look there are a whole bunch of irresponsible people, people who will game the system. But there are people who literally went bankrupt due to health care cost or refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions. The doctor happens to leave those cases out.

Now he wants Obama to change these people's culture to act like they have some sense.

I guess now people want Obama to part the Red Sea, or feed the multudes with two loafs of bread and five fish.

[rb336]

I guess now people want Obama to part the Red Sea, or feed the multudes with two loafs of bread and five fish.

giving people food? that's socialist!!! or fascist!!! or muslim!!! or Chicago style politics!!! or something