Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Except the Air Force, they are not even in the constitution! Get rid of them!

 dementedwombat wrote:

Also my dad uses the VA for a lot of his medical stuff, and (at least up in the netherlands of Idaho) it's one of the most poorly run inefficient organizations I've ever seen. No idea if what they really need is more money or just a quick kick in the pants.

I have no idea either, as I'm not familiar with the VA. I have friends that have complained about it a great deal, but people complain about healthcare all the time; so I can't form an opinion without further research.

We got people who hate us and will never come back (and people who came in the 80s and 90s are more than likely right) and we have others that swear by us.

The backlog of evaluations and approvals is unacceptable though and it is truly a failure on our part.

That's applying for VA disability....11-12 months....going through a bunch of stuff...unlike Federal Employee's that takes less time then us and get more then on a federal disability....the article I posted back awhile go is a good indicator. VA and the Federal Disbility compensationwhatever is two different animals


As to why the US Military is so special. Either in peace or war time we do more then just the average Joe Smoe on the block.

 Jihadin wrote:
That's applying for VA disability....11-12 months....going through a bunch of stuff...unlike Federal Employee's that takes less time then us and get more then on a federal disability....the article I posted back awhile go is a good indicator. VA and the Federal Disbility compensationwhatever is two different animals


As to why the US Military is so special. Either in peace or war time we do more then just the average Joe Smoe on the block.

^ This.

Dogma... I've been on record here that I truly believe that the VA system ought to be the crown jewel of health. Congress should've started there, pour money into the system to be such a great program so that other non-service Americans would say "Hey... that's a GREAT system... what would it take to implement that for all Americans"?

 whembly wrote:

Dogma... I've been on record here that I truly believe that the VA system ought to be the crown jewel of health. Congress should've started there, pour money into the system to be such a great program so that other non-service Americans would say "Hey... that's a GREAT system... what would it take to implement that for all Americans"?

The trouble is that there are many people that would resent such action, especially if "service" were framed as equivalent to "military".

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Dogma... I've been on record here that I truly believe that the VA system ought to be the crown jewel of health. Congress should've started there, pour money into the system to be such a great program so that other non-service Americans would say "Hey... that's a GREAT system... what would it take to implement that for all Americans"?

The trouble is that there are many people that would resent such action, especially if "service" were framed as equivalent to "military".

Uh... really? o.O

The VA is exactly such system... just needs more funding and structural changes. It's a good, decent system... but, it can ABSOLUTELY be made better. That's the point.

VA= Veterans Affair........does not include regular Federal Employee's...Federal Employee's do not qualify for Tricare.....Tricare is strictly military active, reserve, and retired while Federal Employee's have Medicaid

 Jihadin wrote:
VA= Veterans Affair........does not include regular Federal Employee's...Federal Employee's do not qualify for Tricare.....Tricare is strictly military active, reserve, and retired while Federal Employee's have Medicaid

Yeah... Tricare is what I mean.

http://www.tricare.mil/prime

Edit 2

Ouze I think you misread what Whembly saying. Base a similar model of Tricare Prime, now that it is clarified of the medical system, for the Civilian Indig's. Tricare is handle by the VA. If compare to the ACA.....Tricare wins. Tricare is much more acceptable to the medical profession then the ACA is. Quick example a appendectomy. Tricare will only pay a certain amount. Say the procedure cost 1300 dollars. Tricare pays 1100. Reason....this from the OR time I did as a SurgTech...you only open supplies when needed. You do not open supplies and not have them not used at all.

I think you mean Dogma, not me. I'm familiar with the healthcare for both federal and military, as my wife is a former federal employee and my stepson was on Tricare from his dad, who is a former Marine.

 whembly wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.

Meh... they're not really invoking the 10th at all here brah.

Really? Rick Perry threatened to secede if the ACA passed. He claims, as did 15-something other atates that the mandates violated 10th amendment protections for the states. However, most of those states are the ones that need it the most.

My bad Ouze

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.

Meh... they're not really invoking the 10th at all here brah.

Really? Rick Perry threatened to secede if the ACA passed. He claims, as did 15-something other atates that the mandates violated 10th amendment protections for the states. However, most of those states are the ones that need it the most.

Yup... really.

What the states are mainly objecting to is to expand their own Medicaid programs and establish their own state ran insurance exchange. Those two things would incur enormous costs to the states (which taxes would necessarily need to rise in order to pay for it). The writers of the ACA bill thought that the states would jump on board and establish their own state exchange. However, half the states chose not too and thus it'll fall on the Federal Government manage/create the exchange and right now, it doesn't look like that the Feds would be ready by November...

I mean, just look at the following instances... okay?

A) The Elected officials (Prez, Congress, etc...) are exempt for the ACA bill. Why is that?
B) The Congressional staffers don't want to be on Obamacare (they'd rather keep their own Fed insurance)... Why is that?
C) As to the OP... the UNIONS are now realizing that it could impact their own plans and they're objection to the current iteration of Obamacare... Why is that?
D) The SIEU union (most government workers) are objecting to this... Why is that?
E) The fething IRS fething UNION reps, don't want to be placed in the same healthcare system that they're CURRENTLY empowered to enforce on taxpayers... Why is that?

See my drift?

It's like, they don't want the same system that the Plebs get... they want their own special, gold-plated plans.

And you don't have a problem with that?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Really? Rick Perry threatened to secede if the ACA passed.

I thought Rick Perry was still standing on that stage, trying to remember what the third federal agency he wanted to eliminate was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
A) The Elected officials (Prez, Congress, etc...) are exempt for the ACA bill. Why is that?
B) The Congressional staffers don't want to be on Obamacare (they'd rather keep their own Fed insurance)... Why is that?
C) As to the OP... the UNIONS are now realizing that it could impact their own plans and they're objection to the current iteration of Obamacare... Why is that?
D) The SIEU union (most government workers) are objecting to this... Why is that?
E) The fething IRS fething UNION reps, don't want to be placed in the same healthcare system that they're CURRENTLY empowered to enforce on taxpayers... Why is that?

See my drift?

It's like, they don't want the same system that the Plebs get... they want their own special, gold-plated plans.

And you don't have a problem with that?

Honestly, I really don't. The exemption for elected officials consists of, at the Federal level, a bit over 500 people, almost all of whom are rich enough that the normal rules of the game don't make any sense anyway. Its a nice rallying cry with some symbolic power, but in terms of substance it doesn't really mean anything. Adding in the Federal staffers, and then you've probably got a point that Federal insurance is fairly generous, or that the overall benefits package is.

The Unions are protesting, as we've already discussed, because acting as a middle man for insurances is a tidy little earner for them. And of course those groups that are used to a cut of pie are going to complain. But cutting those non-productive groups out of the chain is a good thing, and huge saver to the cost of healthcare.

 Jihadin wrote:

I think you misread what Whembly saying.

I don't think so.

My understanding is that Whembly wants current members of the military, veterans, and the associates* of both to receive preferential treatment with regard to healthcare spending. To my mind this is hypocritical, as it places several categories of people on pedestals for reasons that cannot be materially distinguished from those which he has provided in the excoriation of Congress for the exemptions it has created for its members.


*As presently defined.

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

I think you misread what Whembly saying.

I don't think so.

My understanding is that Whembly wants current members of the military, veterans, and the associates* of both to receive preferential treatment with regard to healthcare spending. To my mind this is hypocritical, as it places several categories of people on pedestals for reasons that cannot be materially distinguished from those which he has provided in the excoriation of Congress for the exemptions it has created for its members.


*As presently defined.

Okay... two things... what I just proposed is probably unconstitutional since it confers a sort of "nobility" class. Which, you do have a point. But, I seriously doubt anyone would try to stop something like this from be implemented.

Secondly, we sorta already have that... it's called Medicare!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Really? Rick Perry threatened to secede if the ACA passed.

I thought Rick Perry was still standing on that stage, trying to remember what the third federal agency he wanted to eliminate was.

Yeah... he's a goofball. Evidently, he was heavily medicated due to his back surgery. Should've known better to go through the primary with that ailment as he came out as a bumbling fool.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
A) The Elected officials (Prez, Congress, etc...) are exempt for the ACA bill. Why is that?
B) The Congressional staffers don't want to be on Obamacare (they'd rather keep their own Fed insurance)... Why is that?
C) As to the OP... the UNIONS are now realizing that it could impact their own plans and they're objection to the current iteration of Obamacare... Why is that?
D) The SIEU union (most government workers) are objecting to this... Why is that?
E) The fething IRS fething UNION reps, don't want to be placed in the same healthcare system that they're CURRENTLY empowered to enforce on taxpayers... Why is that?

See my drift?

It's like, they don't want the same system that the Plebs get... they want their own special, gold-plated plans.

And you don't have a problem with that?

Honestly, I really don't. The exemption for elected officials consists of, at the Federal level, a bit over 500 people, almost all of whom are rich enough that the normal rules of the game don't make any sense anyway.

Nice try... of course the elected officials wouldn't really see/feel how the ACA works... I'm talking about the 2.8 million federal civilians that may get lumped into the ACA insurance exchange.

Its a nice rallying cry with some symbolic power, but in terms of substance it doesn't really mean anything. Adding in the Federal staffers, and then you've probably got a point that Federal insurance is fairly generous, or that the overall benefits package is.

Yup... see my previous point.

The Unions are protesting, as we've already discussed, because acting as a middle man for insurances is a tidy little earner for them. And of course those groups that are used to a cut of pie are going to complain. But cutting those non-productive groups out of the chain is a good thing, and huge saver to the cost of healthcare.

But... they have it good now and thought they'd be exempted. How do you figure that in this case, it's "non-productive"??? Don't you see the irony?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saw this on my twitter feed about this NYT interview with Obama is something else... it's because "He can, so shut up":

...
NYT: People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally -- to delay the employer mandate. Did you consult with your lawyer?

MR. OBAMA: Jackie, if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security --

NYT: No, but specifically –

MR. OBAMA: -- but where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don't have some folks in Congress who say that I'm usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don't think that's a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions -- very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.

I am concerned about the folks who I spoke to today who are working really hard, are trying to figure out how they can send their kids to college, are trying to make sure that they can save for their retirement. And if I can take steps on their behalf, then I’m going to do so. And I would hope that more and more of Congress will say, you know what, since that’s our primary focus, we’re willing to work with you to advance those ideals. But I’m not just going to sit back if the only message from some of these folks is no on everything, and sit around and twiddle my thumbs for the next 1,200 days.

NYT: Polls this week have shown your health care law has lost support. What are you going to be doing to build support?

MR. OBAMA: We’re going to implement it.
...

Evidently if Congress doesn’t do what he wants, he enjoys legal authority under the Doin’ Good For The People Clause of the Constitution to do it himself.

Nothing is going to happen from this... it isn't like someone is going to take this to court to force the employer mandate... eh?
It's interesting that when a law is inconvenient for the president politically (mid-term election is coming!), even when it’s part of his own signature legislation, he can simply ignore it. Because... he says so.

Look who posted an op-ed on the WSJ:

Love that pict!

Anyhoo... here's the article... Imma going to do some fisking:

By HOWARD DEAN
Continuing efforts by congressional Republicans to "defund" further implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, even if it takes shutting down the federal government, are willfully destructive. As Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) told the press last week, "I think it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard . . . as long as Barack Obama is president the Affordable Care Act is gonna be law."

Clearly, the foremost achievement of President Obama's first term is the Affordable Care Act, and when fully implemented the law will move America closer to universal health coverage—something many progressives have sought for years. Like it or not, the law—at least its foundation—is here to stay, and lawmakers ought to focus over the next year on ensuring a relatively smooth implementation.

Although I've been critical of many components of the law, there is still much to applaud. Accountable Care Organizations could eliminate duplicative services and prevent medical errors while seeking to reduce costs for individuals, particularly if their creation ultimately leads to the end of fee-for-service medicine, as I believe it will. In addition, the Health Insurance Marketplace exchange systems, once implemented, will provide individuals with competitive plan options based on price, services, quality and other factors. Even more important, the exchanges will make the process of securing health insurance much easier and more transparent for millions who don't currently have it.

The administration's decision to delay implementation of the employer mandate until 2015 will help funnel individuals and families who do not get insurance through their employer into the exchanges. While this may benefit the participating insurers in the short term, this also accelerates the trend toward divorcing health care from employment. This is not a radical idea, and was even proposed by Sen. John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign. That development will lead to the end of job lock for workers and contribute to a more competitive American business community in the longer run.

That said, the law still has its flaws, and American lawmakers and citizens have both an opportunity and responsibility to fix them.

There now... being a good supportive Democrat there... now what's next?

One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.

Now... I could've swore this was mentioned by a certain someone... now... who was that?
...
still thinking...
...
...
Oh yeah! By none other than Sara Palin's Death Panel statement where she was roundly criticized for... imagine that would ya?

There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting—the essential mechanism of the IPAB—has a 40-year track record of failure. What ends up happening in these schemes (which many states including my home state of Vermont have implemented with virtually no long-term effect on costs) is that patients and physicians get aggravated because bureaucrats in either the private or public sector are making medical decisions without knowing the patients. Most important, once again, these kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic.

Would someone please tell Mr. Dean here that he's making too much sense! My head is going splody:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the IPAB, in its current form, won't save a single dime before 2021. As everyone in Washington knows, but less frequently admits, CBO projections of any kind—past five years or so—are really just speculation. I believe the IPAB will never control costs based on the long record of previous attempts in many of the states, including my own state of Vermont.

I'm shocked!... SHOCKED! That "everyone in Washington knows" that the CBO projections beyond 5 years is purely BS. SHOCKED!

If Medicare is to have a secure future, we have to move away from fee-for-service medicine, which is all about incentives to spend more, and has no incentives in the system to keep patients healthy. The IPAB has no possibility of helping to solve this major problem and will almost certainly make the system more bureaucratic and therefore drive up administrative costs.

Nodding with Mr. Dean here...

To date, 22 Democrats have joined Republicans in the House and Senate in support of legislation to do away with the IPAB. Yet because of the extraordinary partisanship on Capitol Hill and Republican threats to defund the law through the appropriations process, it is unlikely that any change in the Affordable Care Act will take place soon.

Yup... partisan politics at it's best. Congress critters don't care if American gets the shaft...

The IPAB will cause frustration to providers and patients alike, and it will fail to control costs. When, and if, the atmosphere on Capitol Hill improves and leadership becomes interested again in addressing real problems instead of posturing, getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.

Some of us can say (namely Palin)... "I told ya so!".

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... he's a goofball. Evidently, he was heavily medicated due to his back surgery. Should've known better to go through the primary with that ailment as he came out as a bumbling fool.

That was the claim that came after, yeah. It might be true. But outside of that campaign the guy has hardly been an impressive specimen of intellectual reasoning, so I'm not overly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Nice try... of course the elected officials wouldn't really see/feel how the ACA works... I'm talking about the 2.8 million federal civilians that may get lumped into the ACA insurance exchange.

Yeah, and my point is that individuals being unhappy about being moved from one scheme to another doesn't actually say anything about the new scheme, because its entirely likely that the old scheme was just too generous.

It's like, say your mate has a kid, and that kid is pissed because your mate is buying them an Accord. You can't look at that situation and say 'therefore Accords suck'. What you can do is look at the situation and see that the kid is pissed because they had previously been used to driving Dad's BMW...

Now, that might not be the situation, but the point is just saying 'someone is pissed' says nothing about the healthcare on offer. To actually have some substance, you have to go through the healthcare they can expect to collect through the exchanges, and point out where you feel it is inadequate for a person on a Federal wage.

But... they have it good now and thought they'd be exempted. How do you figure that in this case, it's "non-productive"??? Don't you see the irony?

I see the irony in Republicans trying to score political points by mentioning that the unions are upset about losing a nice little money earner, yeah

And the middle man is non-productive by definition. He might sometimes be necessary (private insurance is basically a middle man, afterall), but in situations where he isn't necessary, or you can make him unecessary, then its always a good idea to cut him and save the transaction costs. The system has changed to make the group purchasing of insurance no longer necessary.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nice try... of course the elected officials wouldn't really see/feel how the ACA works... I'm talking about the 2.8 million federal civilians that may get lumped into the ACA insurance exchange.

Yeah, and my point is that individuals being unhappy about being moved from one scheme to another doesn't actually say anything about the new scheme, because its entirely likely that the old scheme was just too generous.

You don't know that Seb... you're over generalizing here... case in point. Did you know that the current exchange only covers advanced breast cancer diagnosis/treatment for women aged 50 and over? I personally know 2 women who has breast cancer... and they were in their thirties. (note, this will get changed, but it highlights the problem).

It's like, say your mate has a kid, and that kid is pissed because your mate is buying them an Accord. You can't look at that situation and say 'therefore Accords suck'. What you can do is look at the situation and see that the kid is pissed because they had previously been used to driving Dad's BMW...

Now, that might not be the situation, but the point is just saying 'someone is pissed' says nothing about the healthcare on offer. To actually have some substance, you have to go through the healthcare they can expect to collect through the exchanges, and point out where you feel it is inadequate for a person on a Federal wage.

Sorry dude... but, that's a horrible analogy. I think you're mixing your experience of your state sponsored healthcare and trying to impose it over here.

Folks are pissed because they worked hard for a particular health insurance.. remember, it's part of their benefit/compensation package from their employer/union.

That's different from what you experience in Au/Canada or in other parts of Europe that has state healthcare.

But... they have it good now and thought they'd be exempted. How do you figure that in this case, it's "non-productive"??? Don't you see the irony?

I see the irony in Republicans trying to score political points by mentioning that the unions are upset about losing a nice little money earner, yeah

And the middle man is non-productive by definition. He might sometimes be necessary (private insurance is basically a middle man, afterall), but in situations where he isn't necessary, or you can make him unecessary, then its always a good idea to cut him and save the transaction costs. The system has changed to make the group purchasing of insurance no longer necessary.

We're trading one fething middle man for another... the ACA is the SAME system as it always has been. It's NOT the pie-in-the-sky system that AU/Canadian/UK enjoys! All it is that the FEDERAL government now dictate rules (up to the head of HHS... who has sweeping powah now) what the state exchange should be and new regulation that private insurance would have to abide by, who are at a distinct comptetive disadvantage compared to the state exchanges.

I said it before... it's still a gak sandwich of a law. This isn’t about making sense or seeing the light. This is about Leftism or, really Statism (notice I didn't say Liberalism)... in that its intentional stratagems and deceits and how brilliantly Leftists exploit failure, turn crisis into opportunity. Obscuring and spinning the truth of the death panels, hidden costs, the 50 full-time employee rule, the birth control pill for all... at the outset was necessary and intentional. Now, the argument against death panels, 50 employees, etc... — and the feigned mea culpas and vows to rectify (see my Dean post above)— is a preemptive attempt to force the Republicans into a partial fix which in fact concedes the institutional reality of Obamacare — as opposed to an effort to defund or repeal the entire thing. If Republicans don’t agree, they’re left holding the bag on all the bad things coming out of this act, ie death panels. The goal is to fob off the horror of the death panels and such on Republicans, just as they are trying to hysterically fob off the horror and failure of Detroit on them (which will work because low information voters are ignorant of that fact).

Because... you know... it's the Republican's fault.

To be honest... I've already conceded the institutional realities of Obamacare. All the noise from Ted Cruz & company to defund Obamacare is impossible. Because it was written into law in the same manner as Medicare and Social Security as it's part of the "Mandatory Spending" entitlement. So, even if the Stop the Government ala Gingrich in '94 happens, most of Obamacare rules/taxs/subsidy would still kick in... and there's one thing that we know to be an almost absolute truth. Once an entitlement goes live, it's impossible to get rid of... doesn't make it any less of a gak sandwich law.

 whembly wrote:

You don't know that Seb... you're over generalizing here... case in point.

Well, no he does know that. If a person is unhappy about a system which they are a party to, it does not mean that the system itself is bad, only that the person is unhappy. Now, they may be unhappy for legitimate reasons, or they may be unhappy due to something frivolous. Indeed, Sebster alludes to this very fact in his post when he notes that emphasizing specific reasons for the dissatisfaction of a particular person, or group of people, is far more important than emphasizing the dissatisfaction itself.

Its the difference between being constructive, and adding to the, already prodigious, amount of noise surround ACA.

 whembly wrote:

Folks are pissed because they worked hard for a particular health insurance.. remember, it's part of their benefit/compensation package from their employer/union.

Yes, and employers and unions alter benefit and compensation packages all the time, and have done so in order to achieve statutory compliance in the past. Simply because you were compensated in a particular manner before does not entitle you to similar compensation in the future, even if all else is held equal.

 whembly wrote:

This isn’t about making sense or seeing the light. This is about Leftism or, really Statism (notice I didn't say Liberalism)... in that its intentional stratagems and deceits and how brilliantly Leftists exploit failure, turn crisis into opportunity Obscuring and spinning the truth of the death panels, hidden costs, the 50 full-time employee rule, the birth control pill for all... at the outset was necessary and intentional.

So, if it isn't about "making sense or seeing the light" am I to infer that it is about reifying your own political beliefs?

At any rate, spin and selective emphasis are part and parcel to democratic governance. Singling out Leftists and Statists because they utilize these tactics is myopic in the extreme.

 whembly wrote:

Now, the argument against death panels, 50 employees, etc... — and the feigned mea culpas and vows to rectify (see my Dean post above)— is a preemptive attempt to force the Republicans into a partial fix which in fact concedes the institutional reality of Obamacare — as opposed to an effort to defund or repeal the entire thing.

Interestingly, that's essentially as much of a favor to the Republicans as it is an excellent strategy on the part of the Democrats, because eliminating the ACA in its entirety is essentially impossible. The GOP would be much better served in focusing on specific issues with the bill that it finds especially onerous, and devoting itself to handling those.

 whembly wrote:

If Republicans don’t agree, they’re left holding the bag on all the bad things coming out of this act, ie death panels. The goal is to fob off the horror of the death panels and such on Republicans, just as they are trying to hysterically fob off the horror and failure of Detroit on them (which will work because low information voters are ignorant of that fact).

What's hilarious is that a great many of my Democratically inclined friends have much the same to say about the GOP regarding "...the death panels and such..."

Honestly the last 4.5 years have been pretty interesting, as both sides (especially the associated elements of the peanut gallery) have essentially resorted to using arguments that are mirror images on each other; creating what is little more than a shouting match.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.

Meh... they're not really invoking the 10th at all here brah.

Really? Rick Perry threatened to secede if the ACA passed. He claims, as did 15-something other atates that the mandates violated 10th amendment protections for the states. However, most of those states are the ones that need it the most.

Incorrect. Rick Perry threatened to secede. Rick Perry's hair, which really runs the governorship, disagreed.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You don't know that Seb... you're over generalizing here... case in point.

Well, no he does know that. If a person is unhappy about a system which they are a party to, it does not mean that the system itself is bad, only that the person is unhappy. Now, they may be unhappy for legitimate reasons, or they may be unhappy due to something frivolous. Indeed, Sebster alludes to this very fact in his post when he notes that emphasizing specific reasons for the dissatisfaction of a particular person, or group of people, is far more important than emphasizing the dissatisfaction itself.

Its the difference between being constructive, and adding to the, already prodigious, amount of noise surround ACA.

I was referring to his "because its entirely likely that the old scheme was just too generous" blurb... not how unhappy folks are.

We can have an cordial discussion here w/o the rah-rah Republican vs Democrat politicking... hence, why I'm stirring the pot!

 whembly wrote:

Folks are pissed because they worked hard for a particular health insurance.. remember, it's part of their benefit/compensation package from their employer/union.

Yes, and employers and unions alter benefit and compensation packages all the time, and have done so in order to achieve statutory compliance in the past. Simply because you were compensated in a particular manner before does not entitle you to similar compensation in the future, even if all else is held equal.

Right... that's true. I was trying to elaborate on this point as it's different from his perspective.

 whembly wrote:

This isn’t about making sense or seeing the light. This is about Leftism or, really Statism (notice I didn't say Liberalism)... in that its intentional stratagems and deceits and how brilliantly Leftists exploit failure, turn crisis into opportunity Obscuring and spinning the truth of the death panels, hidden costs, the 50 full-time employee rule, the birth control pill for all... at the outset was necessary and intentional.

So, if it isn't about "making sense or seeing the light" am I to infer that it is about reifying your own political beliefs?

Not really...

At any rate, spin and selective emphasis are part and parcel to democratic governance. Singling out Leftists and Statists because they utilize these tactics is myopic in the extreme.

So...you're a accept the status quo guy...eh? I'm singling them out IN THIS INSTANCE to explain how it all came about.

 whembly wrote:

Now, the argument against death panels, 50 employees, etc... — and the feigned mea culpas and vows to rectify (see my Dean post above)— is a preemptive attempt to force the Republicans into a partial fix which in fact concedes the institutional reality of Obamacare — as opposed to an effort to defund or repeal the entire thing.

Interestingly, that's essentially as much of a favor to the Republicans as it is an excellent strategy on the part of the Democrats, because eliminating the ACA in its entirety is essentially impossible.

Huh? I don't follow... if the voters really want the ACA repealed, they could face being primaried.

The GOP would be much better served in focusing on specific issues with the bill that it finds especially onerous, and devoting itself to handling those.

I actually agree with you there... or, they could shock the nation and advocate for single payer with a repeal/replace package (plus, change tax codes to support it). Never gunna happen tho.

 whembly wrote:

If Republicans don’t agree, they’re left holding the bag on all the bad things coming out of this act, ie death panels. The goal is to fob off the horror of the death panels and such on Republicans, just as they are trying to hysterically fob off the horror and failure of Detroit on them (which will work because low information voters are ignorant of that fact).

What's hilarious is that a great many of my Democratically inclined friends have much the same to say about the GOP regarding "...the death panels and such..."

They're blaming Republicans for this? o.O

Honestly the last 4.5 years have been pretty interesting, as both sides (especially the associated elements of the peanut gallery) have essentially resorted to using arguments that are mirror images on each other; creating what is little more than a shouting match.

You're right about that... they're all crooks.

Here's an interesting analysis on how it sorta went down and how now Congress and their aides are forced to use the state exchange, but the Government isn't allowed to help with the premiums:

Today’s NYT had an amusing story about how members of Congress and their staffs are concerned about a provision in the PPACA that requires them to obtain insurance through exchanges because, among other things, it will require a substantial increase in out-of-pocket costs.

Under a wrinkle that dates back to enactment of the law, members of Congress and thousands of their aides are required to get their coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the law does not provide any obvious way for the federal government to continue paying its share of the premiums for the comprehensive coverage.

If the government cannot do so, it could mean an additional expense of $5,000 a year for individuals and $11,000 for families under some of the most popular plans.

Not surprisingly, that idea is unpopular on Capitol Hill. . . .

With the exchanges scheduled to open in just nine weeks, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a creative interpretation of the health care law that would allow the federal government to kick in for insurance as private employers do, but so far an answer has proved elusive.

The issue is politically charged because the White House and Congress are highly sensitive to any suggestion that lawmakers or their aides are getting special treatment under the health law. The administration is already under fire from Republicans for delaying a requirement that larger businesses offer insurance to their full-time employees.

The article also provides a useful reminder that what became the PPACA was a draft bill that its supporters never intended to become law. The Senate-passed health care reform bill was intended to serve as the Senate’s contribution to a House-Senate conference that would iron out all the final details. Yet after Scott Brown was elected to the Senate, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority and had to use the Senate bill as the basis for the final law. From the NYT account:

Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the Senate was responsible for the provision requiring lawmakers and many aides to get insurance in the exchanges.

“We had to take the Senate version of the health care bill,” Ms. DeGette said. “This is not anything we spent time talking about here in the House.”

Another House Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “This was a stupid provision that never should have gotten into the law.”

Because the Senate bill was used as the basis for the PPACA, and only subject to limited reconciliation amendments, there are quite a few provisions were enacted that were not what health care reform supporters wanted. (This likely explains the language at issue with the IRS tax credit rule too.) The problem is that intentions are not law, and if Congress passes an imperfect or ill-conceived statute, it’s still the law of the land.

Here's how I'd sum that article up...

That was a cleverly designed poison pill inserted into the law by the herculean ACA opponent Chuck Grassley. This provision is currently working as intended... it was intended to cause pain and confusion for legislators and their staffs, and it's succeeding. (Of course, it's real purpose was deterring Senate Democrats from moving ahead on the ACA, and in that it failed. ) It's obviously poison pill designed to table the bill... wondering if Pelosi wished she read the bill before passing it?

Grassley snuck in this act by "saying" it put the Senate and their staffers on the same footing as their constituents (not true). What happened here is just like that a hypothetical worker, who had access to generous employer-provided healthcare met all the standards set forth by ACA... all the sudden found that their employers had no clear way to legally kick in a share of the premiums, as most private employers do today.

Again, that impacts only the Congressional critters and their aides... not the other Federal Employees who'd still qualify for their current FEHBP. I was wrong about that earlier... I thought they were exempt. It's just that most Senator/House can afford private insurance... it's just makes things really expensive for the Congressional aides. The optics would be REALLY bad now if Congress tries to fix that now.

Sneaky Grassley...

Well... Obama just fix this problem for Congress:

Obama Solves Health Care Problem for Lawmakers, Staff (Updated)

Updated: 10:41 p.m. | Just a day after President Barack Obama told Senate Democrats he had personally engaged in the issue of his signature health care law’s effect on lawmakers and their staff, it appears there’s a solution.

Word began circulating around Capitol Hill that the Office of Personnel Management would soon issue guidance to address the way the health care law’s exchanges affect members of Congress and those employed in their offices. Senate aides initially declined to discuss the matter, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed the existence of a deal to CQ Roll Call leaving the Capitol late Thursday — and a White House official confirmed details of the plan later Thursday evening.

Basically, OPM needed to determine that the federal government could help pay the cost of premiums on the exchanges for congressional employees.

“I’m glad it’s done,” the Nevada Democrat said, directing a request for details to the White House.

A White House official confirmed to CQ Roll Call that OPM will issue the new regulation next week, and in turn lawmakers and aides will not be eligible for the law’s tax credits and subsidies to buy insurance.

During a meeting in the Capitol Wednesday with the Senate Democratic caucus, Obama said that he would personally step in to work on the issue before the health care law’s requirement that those on Capitol Hill get insurance through the exchanges. Obama’s comments were first reported by Politico and later confirmed by CQ Roll Call.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., released a statement Thursday night reiterating that staff and lawmakers must sign up for the exchanges.

“Members of Congress and their staffs must enroll in health marketplaces as the Affordable Care Act requires.

“As we continue our work to ensure the smooth implementation of this law and look forward to the start of enrollment on October 1st, we will continue our efforts this August to educate consumers on the law’s provisions and tout the critical benefits already in place for millions of Americans,” she said, with no mention of the deal that OPM is set to announce.

The decision is the latest made by the administration to try and smooth the implementation of the law. Obama had earlier come under fire for his decision to not enforce the employer mandate for a year without passing a legislative fix.

Not a bad plan to do this waaay before the mid-term election.

 whembly wrote:

So...you're a accept the status quo guy...eh?

No, I'm a guy that has studied politics for 11 years and has never encountered a system of governance in which spin, and selective emphasis can be removed from the equation; nor can I imagine a system in which they could be. Because, at the end of the day, you cannot please everyone and so you must make your decisions at least palatable to those who are not immediately in favor of them.

 whembly wrote:

Huh? I don't follow... if the voters really want the ACA repealed, they could face being primaried.

They face the same problem if no progress is made in repealing the ACA. However, with certain Democrats now vowing to rectify the deficiencies of the bill, Republicans now have the opportunity to call their bluff (assuming it is one) and make headway on actually fixing the legislation as written.

At least assuming loud proclamations of doing the impossible are no longer sufficient to hold, or take, office; which they probably are.

If its bad for unions it can only be a good thing... right?

chaos0xomega wrote:
If its bad for unions it can only be a good thing... right?

No... why would that be good? o.O

chaos0xomega wrote:
If its bad for unions it can only be a good thing... right?

maybe in some twisted world if it was something that was a detriment to the unions and a benefit to the workers at large, maybe... But when we all have to abide by something that feths over the normal person and the unions... not a good thing.

Can we stop this nonsense that it'll be cheaper for everyone?

Obamacare will increase premiums by 122% in eight states.

The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.

The late July report, largely overlooked by the press, provides detailed information on insurance plans today in all 50 states, from the cheapest plans offered to a 30-year-old nonsmoker to the most expensive plans 55-year-old couples can buy.

A separate report from the Maryland insurance department lists the lowest-cost "bronze" plans proposed for ObamaCare exchanges in eight states.

Comparing the two reveals a wide gulf between the cheapest plans available now and those that will be sold next year under ObamaCare.

In Ohio, for example, the least expensive "bronze" plan for a 25-year-old will cost $1,956 a year. That's almost three times higher than the cheapest plan in that state today, and higher than even the median-priced plan in the state, according to the GAO report.

In Virginia, the lowest "bronze" premium is $1,608 — which is 252% higher than the cheapest policy available today.

And Maryland's least expensive ObamaCare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in that state this year.

Aetna (AET) on Thursday pulled out of Maryland's exchange after state officials pressed it to lower its proposed rates by up to 29%.

Subsidies, Benefits Touted

ObamaCare backers point out that many people couldn't get these current low rates either because they aren't sold in their local area, or because of their health status. And these plans often include higher deductibles and skimpier benefits than ObamaCare allows.

They also point out that exchange subsidies will offset higher ObamaCare costs for many, and that in any case, higher premiums are worth it given the protections against coverage denials and the more comprehensive benefits required.

But not everyone will be eligible for these subsidies, which phase out entirely at 400% of the poverty rate. And even with them, costs will still go up for many. A young worker making $20,000 in Maryland, for example, would pay about $1,000 for the cheapest ObamaCare plan, after the subsidy. That's still $278 more than the least expensive plan offered in the state today.

And higher rates pose a significant risk to ObamaCare's success. If not enough young people sign up, premium costs will spiral upward.

That's been the experience in six states that have already imposed ObamaCare-style market reforms — known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating."

These rules prevent insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are sick. But they can easily backfire.

 whembly wrote:
Can we stop this nonsense that it'll be cheaper for everyone?

Obamacare will increase premiums by 122% in eight states.

The average price for the lowest-cost ObamaCare "bronze" plan in eight states is 122% higher than the cheapest plan currently available in those states, according to an IBD analysis of rate filings and a recent Government Accountability Office report.

The late July report, largely overlooked by the press, provides detailed information on insurance plans today in all 50 states, from the cheapest plans offered to a 30-year-old nonsmoker to the most expensive plans 55-year-old couples can buy.

A separate report from the Maryland insurance department lists the lowest-cost "bronze" plans proposed for ObamaCare exchanges in eight states.

Comparing the two reveals a wide gulf between the cheapest plans available now and those that will be sold next year under ObamaCare.

In Ohio, for example, the least expensive "bronze" plan for a 25-year-old will cost $1,956 a year. That's almost three times higher than the cheapest plan in that state today, and higher than even the median-priced plan in the state, according to the GAO report.

In Virginia, the lowest "bronze" premium is $1,608 — which is 252% higher than the cheapest policy available today.

And Maryland's least expensive ObamaCare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in that state this year.

Aetna (AET) on Thursday pulled out of Maryland's exchange after state officials pressed it to lower its proposed rates by up to 29%.

Subsidies, Benefits Touted

ObamaCare backers point out that many people couldn't get these current low rates either because they aren't sold in their local area, or because of their health status. And these plans often include higher deductibles and skimpier benefits than ObamaCare allows.

They also point out that exchange subsidies will offset higher ObamaCare costs for many, and that in any case, higher premiums are worth it given the protections against coverage denials and the more comprehensive benefits required.

But not everyone will be eligible for these subsidies, which phase out entirely at 400% of the poverty rate. And even with them, costs will still go up for many. A young worker making $20,000 in Maryland, for example, would pay about $1,000 for the cheapest ObamaCare plan, after the subsidy. That's still $278 more than the least expensive plan offered in the state today.

And higher rates pose a significant risk to ObamaCare's success. If not enough young people sign up, premium costs will spiral upward.

That's been the experience in six states that have already imposed ObamaCare-style market reforms — known as "guaranteed issue" and "community rating."

These rules prevent insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are sick. But they can easily backfire.

The hilarity that will ensue with this piece of crap legislation is going to be a grand thing to experience. I just hope the unions and all others who helped foist this on us get to enjoy it in full measure instead of somehow sliming their way out of it.