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.

There is not much you can do if people heard both "insurance plans will have to meet new standards" and "you will be able to keep your plan" and then somehow figured that means "you will be able to keep your plan even if it will not meet the new standards".

 Seaward wrote:

The apples to apples comparisons we have come from consumers who've actually managed to shop around in the current mire, who had individual plans before, and there hasn't been one report yet of a decrease in premium, so, take it for what it's worth.

I stated that my premium is lower than it was previously, and I am a consumer who had an individual plan.

 Seaward wrote:
But we're not ensuring competition in the exchanges, sebster.

And you'll note I said the lack of competition in some rural areas is a real problem, because it is. But what isn't a problem is the idea that government has rule that makes people buy insurance, therefore this isn't a free market and can't work... because that isn't a thing.

 dogma wrote:
I stated that my premium is lower than it was previously, and I am a consumer who had an individual plan.

Well, if you want your name in the papers, I can point you to several who are looking for you. Finding a young, healthy male whose premium actually went down would be pure gold.

Looked back over the website to see what my comparable plans would be if I were to loose my job and would be required to shop on the individual market compared to COBRA.

My full premium under my current plan would be $1392.30

If I were to pick the most expensive plan currently available on the exchange I would save $196.39.
If I were to pick the most comparable plan currently available on the exchange I would save $611.23.

My premium would be ~56% of what I would have to pay to retain my current coverage under COBRA.

Edit: If I would loose my job we would also be at ~$45,000 for a family of three, so that would kick in some subsidies.

Yes, you will pay massively less on the individual market than if you go the COBRA route. True before, true now. If we're talking apples to apples comparisons, though, that's not one.

What I'd like to see would be an individual plan before-and-after.

 Seaward wrote:
Yes, you will pay massively less on the individual market than if you go the COBRA route. True before, true now. If we're talking apples to apples comparisons, though, that's not one.

What I'd like to see would be an individual plan before-and-after.

Aren't group plans (COBRA is your employers group plan without them subsidizing it, IIRC) supposed to be cheaper that individual plan rates anyway?

 Seaward wrote:

Well, if you want your name in the papers, I can point you to several who are looking for you. Finding a young, healthy male whose premium actually went down would be pure gold.

A young, healthy, male with an individual plan; given your argument.

And such a discovery would only be "gold" for the author of the piece and the publisher.

 Maddermax wrote:
Aren't group plans (COBRA is your employers group plan without them subsidizing it, IIRC) supposed to be cheaper that individual plan rates anyway?

Not when the employer's not subsidizing it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
The CBO says that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit, so I guess that's not an option for you too.

Au contraire. I'll happily take a deficit hit now to kill yet another entitlement before it learns to walk.

Bit of a non-sequiter to what you were arguing before. "CBO says it'll cost heaps" - nope - "well then, it'll cost heaps in the future, mark my words!". Fair enough, you can think that, it's not related to your earlier point though.

 Seaward wrote:

As for an apples to apples comparison of rates, it hasn't been done yet. The Heritage foundation one, much loved by conservatives (who, strangely, hate their proposed health care system ) was severely flawed, not apples to apples, and didn't take into account subsidies at all.

'Tis almost as though the government's been keeping that information under very tight wraps, non? I mean, they went so far as to remove the "window shopping" ability of the (non-functioning) website specifically to prevent people from being able to get price information without registering.

The apples to apples comparisons we have come from consumers who've actually managed to shop around in the current mire, who had individual plans before, and there hasn't been one report yet of a decrease in premium, so, take it for what it's worth.

So, either you're very selective about the news you read, or you're deliberately spinning. Either way


With that out of the way, I'll point out that using selected news anecdotes in place of data is a bad way to work out what's happening anyway, as if you show one person getting a good deal, and one person getting a bad deal that doesn't mean that there's a 50-50 split on who's getting good and bad deals anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
Aren't group plans (COBRA is your employers group plan without them subsidizing it, IIRC) supposed to be cheaper that individual plan rates anyway?

Not when the employer's not subsidizing it.

That's exactly what I just said. The employer usually pays most of the plan (call it 60%), you pay 40%. If you now have to pay 100%, you should still be paying less than an apples-to-apples comparative individual plan, because you're still on the same group plan (which should be negotiated cheaper than on the individual market) as before.

 Maddermax wrote:
Bit of a non-sequiter to what you were arguing before. "CBO says it'll cost heaps" - nope - "well then, it'll cost heaps in the future, mark my words!". Fair enough, you can think that, it's not related to your earlier point though.

Because you're missing the bigger picture. Incurring a deficit hit now is better than incurring the constant deficit hits of having to dump more and more money into it to subsidize it year to year as rates go up. Axing it now would not cost more than running the program.

So, either you're very selective about the news you read, or you're deliberately spinning. Either way

If you've got examples of individuals paying less, other than our own dear dogma, I'll be happy to see them. Or even a general analysis.

That's exactly what I just said. The employer usually pays most of the plan (call it 60%), you pay 40%. If you now have to pay 100%, you should still be paying less than an apples-to-apples comparative individual plan, because you're still on the same group plan (which should be negotiated cheaper than on the individual market) as before.

Except, no, that's not correct.

 Seaward wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
So, either you're very selective about the news you read, or you're deliberately spinning. Either way

If you've got examples of individuals paying less, other than our own dear dogma, I'll be happy to see them. Or even a general analysis.

Google is hard is it?

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Obamacare-in-Calif-Saves-One-Family-400-a-Month-227458951.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/01/signing-up-for-obamacare-it-will-save-me-over-6000-for-that-i-would-have-waited-all-day/
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56973885-78/family-health-exchange-plans.html.csp
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/02/2721501/butch-matthews-obamacare-convert/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/21/was-obamacare-guinea-pig/
http://acasuccessstories.tumblr.com/page/3
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57604291/how-affordable-are-affordable-care-act-premiums/
Half of uninsured 18-34 year olds could pay less than $50 a month

 Seaward wrote:

That's exactly what I just said. The employer usually pays most of the plan (call it 60%), you pay 40%. If you now have to pay 100%, you should still be paying less than an apples-to-apples comparative individual plan, because you're still on the same group plan (which should be negotiated cheaper than on the individual market) as before.

Except, no, that's not correct.

This isn't even really a salient point to the main argument (it was only to see if COBRA plans are comparably priced to equivilant individual plans and therefore could be used to make a comparison to ACA prices), so it isn't exactly important, but can I ask why that isn't correct? For COBRA you pay what the plan actually costs, plus up to 2% admin fee, rather than splitting the cost with your employer.

Papers now reporting Administration knew up to 80% of people would lose their existing plans as far back as 2010.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

I thank my stars I'm employed atm. Through my employer, my health insurance costs are about half the price of the cheapest "Catastrophic" coverage for Cuyahoga County.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I thank my stars I'm employed atm. Through my employer, my health insurance costs are about half the price of the cheapest "Catastrophic" coverage for Cuyahoga County.

How much does your employer pay before tax breaks though? That plus your contribution is what you're comparing it to. Or how much your COBRA coverage would cost, if you lost your job.

 Maddermax wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I thank my stars I'm employed atm. Through my employer, my health insurance costs are about half the price of the cheapest "Catastrophic" coverage for Cuyahoga County.

How much does your employer pay before tax breaks though? That plus your contribution is what you're comparing it to. Or how much your COBRA coverage would cost, if you lost your job.

I'm aware my employer helping pick up the tab is part of the reason why I'm paying what I'm paying (thus why I said I was thankful I was emplyed) because I'd hate to be unemployed, be saddled with the debt that I have, and have to pay for insurance I'm not needing atm, or the fine for not enrolling. Granted I'm not needing my employer provided insurance atm, but my job provides me with the money to pay for the, "just in case I need it" sort of thing.

Though if we're going to compare the same plan I was looking at to my "Employee before tax Contributions" and my "Employer Contributions" I'm 'paying' $7,151 a year in health insurance for just myself (but again my employer picks up the lions share of this). If I were to pick up a Silver Plan (which I believe is slightly worse coverage than what I get, but it's what the subsidy calculator uses) I would pay about $2,343 a year, I would receive no subsidy based on my income and number of people in my house. Now if I lost my job, I would go to 0 income, and would qualify for Ohio's Medicaid program (which is being expanded surprisingly). Also I 1) don't know much about COBRA and 2) Wouldn't know how to Calculate it should I need it. If you could help a dakkanaut out then I'd gladly compare those costs for you.

 dogma wrote:
How might one distinguish between a person or action that is clumsy (ham-fisted), if not by recognition of error?

Maybe by reading the definitions I provided - things like clunky, inelegant, etc. Error was not mentioned in a single one of them.

 dogma wrote:
Yes, because the relevant pieces of legislation were not identical.

So according to you because the legislation was not identical, but the result was the same (i.e. the delay of the individual mandate by one year) then the Democrats sudden about face is in no way hypocritical.
For the sake of clarity what exactly was the difference in the legislation?

 motyak wrote:
Isn't the counter argument that the Democrats say the manner in which the Republicans were doing it was illegal, irresponsible, and dangerous to the nation's economy, while the Democrats are trying to do it through the proper channels?

The Republicans asked to delay the mandate by a year as part of the sequester talks. The Democrats refused to do so saying that any attempt was illegal etc. because one of the issues that the candidates ran on at the last election was the ACA. (Please bear in mind that the previous two elections also had promises to be open and transparent, and to close Gitmo - both of which have yet to happen and the Democrats aren't in a hurry to say that not fulfilling these election promises is unlawful) So the Democrats said that the will of the people showed that the ACA should not be delayed. The Democrats then went ahead and delayed the same individual mandate the Republicans requested be delayed after they had initially refused to do so and in effect helped bring about the sequester (it did still take both parties to bring the sequester about though so I'm not blaming any one party exclusively).

 Piston Honda wrote:
Have to wonder why Obama and company doesn't want to repeal or replace it at this stage.

Obama already has his second term, trashing it will not make him look weak. Keeping it will only kill Dems in 2014, 2016 and beyond.

There is no advantage of keeping this.

He's caught between a rock and a hard place. This is his legacy legislation, he ran for a second term on this promise, it bears his name. If he scraps it then he has to admit that he was wrong and that his Administration squandered hundreds of millions of dollars on the website alone.

 d-usa wrote:
Because getting rid of all the positives of the ACA because of a crappy website with crappy code is the sensible thing to do...

To echo the words of someone much wiser than myself, as posted above;
If people are truly unable to comprehend the difference between why people want to get rid of the ACA because of the way it has been implemented, and the increased costs to policy holders versus all the promises, and the issues with the website (which may take a while to fix but should not be permanent), then there really isn't much anyone can do.

 Maddermax wrote:
The CBO says that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit, so I guess that's not an option for you too.

That same CBO which massively underestimated the costs of the ACA's implementation? You'll forgive my obvious skepticism concerning their figures

 Frazzled wrote:
Papers now reporting Administration knew up to 80% of people would lose their existing plans as far back as 2010.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

That sort of goes against the promise that if you like your plan that you can keep it. Should we expect the standard Administration response that the POTUS didn't know about this?

I'm wondering if there is a difference between states taht actually set-up State Exchanges vs. states who are counting on the federal exchanges only in rates?

I know for a fact that my state's exchange had far less roll out probelms and was stabilized faster than the Federal exchange. That doesn't mean it was smooth, but it was resolved quicker because my state actually built their own exchange that only interfaced with the Fed's at a couple points.

 Easy E wrote:
I'm wondering if there is a difference between states taht actually set-up State Exchanges vs. states who are counting on the federal exchanges only in rates?

I know for a fact that my state's exchange had far less roll out probelms and was stabilized faster than the Federal exchange. That doesn't mean it was smooth, but it was resolved quicker because my state actually built their own exchange that only interfaced with the Fed's at a couple points.

At this point in time smoke signals in a blizzard may be more effective

 d-usa wrote:
If Republicans were willing to fix the ACA or replace it with something else, they would have already introduced bills to do such a thing and campaigned on it.

Getting rid of it without something already passed to replace it would be stupid.

Why would the Republican wanna fix something they didn't want or vote for? Assuming that it's fixable to begin with....

Then propose a replacement, which they have never done.

You have to be a complete idiot to trust that they would replace it with anything if they ever get it repealed without an alternative ever in place.

 d-usa wrote:
Then propose a replacement, which they have never done.

Really? What are these then?
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23/a-serious-republican-health-care-plan.html
http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare

And those are only the recent ones...

You have to be a complete idiot to trust that they would replace it with anything if they ever get it repealed without an alternative ever in place.

I'd be for the pre-ACA status-quo right now with a few tweaks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You mean like passing the PPACA via budget reconciliation (that by-passes any filibuster) rather than let it be voted on the floor on its own merit?

PPACA was not passed via budget reconciliation.

I'm more puzzled about the claim that it should have been voted for on the floor on its own merit... when the Republicans were filibustering to prevent it reaching the floor for a vote. It really is like we're through the looking glass, sometimes...

Why are you puzzle'ed by it?

From wiki, I've highlighted the salient points:

The election of Scott Brown meant Democrats could no longer break a filibuster in the Senate. In response, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel argued the Democrats should scale back for a less ambitious bill; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back, dismissing Emanuel's scaled-down approach as "Kiddie Care."[107][108] Obama also remained insistent on comprehensive reform, and the news that Anthem Blue Cross in California intended to raise premium rates for its patients by as much as 39% gave him a new line of argument to reassure nervous Democrats after Scott Brown's win.[107][108] On February 22 Obama laid out a "Senate-leaning" proposal to consolidate the bills.[109] He also held a meeting, on February 25, with leaders of both parties urging passage of a reform bill.[70] The summit proved successful in shifting the political narrative away from the Massachusetts loss back to healthcare policy.[108]

With Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 24, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate's bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, instead. Various health policy experts encouraged the House to pass the Senate version of the bill.[110] However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill.[106] With that option off the table, as any bill that emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.[106] They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed via the reconciliation process.[107][111][112] Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. However, the process is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill like the ACA in the first place; such a bill would have inherently non-budgetary regulations.[113][114] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation."[111]

They used a budgetary procedure in the Senate to get around a filibuster in order to pass the PPACA, after the people of Massachusetts sent a Republican in Ted Kennedy’s place to try to stop it.

Wrap your head about that for a moment... a Republican won that seat... in MASSACHUSETTS for feth's sake!

The filibuster is a tool meant to stop something like this from happening.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Maybe by reading the definitions I provided - things like clunky, inelegant, etc. Error was not mentioned in a single one of them.

Listing synonyms for the word "clumsy" will not help someone distinguish between a person or action that is clumsy, and one which is not.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So according to you because the legislation was not identical, but the result was the same (i.e. the delay of the individual mandate by one year) then the Democrats sudden about face is in no way hypocritical.

Well, no, the result was not the same. The only Democrat proposing legislation which delays the relevant provisions of Obamacare by a year is Joe Manchin, and taking that as being definitive of the Democrat position is foolish.

 whembly wrote:

They used a budgetary procedure in the Senate to get around a filibuster in order to pass the PPACA, after the people of Massachusetts sent a Republican in Ted Kennedy’s place to try to stop it.

No, they used a budgetary procedure to pass the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.

 dogma wrote:

Well, no, the result was not the same. The only Democrat proposing legislation which delays the relevant provisions of Obamacare by a year is Joe Manchin, and taking that as being definitive of the Democrat position is foolish.

Just like taking one guy's plan from the Heritage Foundation from the '80s as being definitive of the Republican's position is foolish... amirite?

Also... this is why there's so much acrimony towards the PPACA:


sourced:
http://images.politico.com/global/2013/09/18/09-18-2003_legislation_table.html

Simply put, the PPACA was the most partisan piece of social legislation passed in the last 100 years.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

No, they used a budgetary procedure to pass the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.

Good lord dogma... that "Health Care" is the PPACA.

Yeah Dogma, the HCERA was an amendment to the PPACA, to make it what it is today.

The original PPACA was something they could get through the filibuster, and then they used the reconciliation act to sneak around it to fit in even more crap.

 whembly wrote:

Just like taking one guy's plan from the Heritage Foundation from the '80s as being definitive of the Republican's position is foolish... amirite?

I didn't make that claim, so I'm not sure why you're quoting me.

 whembly wrote:

Simply put, the PPACA was the most partisan piece of social legislation passed in the last 100 years.

That's true, but party affiliation doesn't mean what it once did. Back in the day ideology was not confined to a given party, or even a given region.

Anyway, the pieces of legislation noted in the graph you presented are not exclusively social legislation, unless you are arguing that he Revenue Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act are pieces of social legislation? Just as a heads-up, "social legislation" is not a phrase that can be used interchangeably with "domestic legislation".

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Just like taking one guy's plan from the Heritage Foundation from the '80s as being definitive of the Republican's position is foolish... amirite?

I didn't make that claim, so I'm not sure why you're quoting me.

Sorry...you're right... that should be aimed at sebster.

 whembly wrote:

Simply put, the PPACA was the most partisan piece of social legislation passed in the last 100 years.

That's true, but party affiliation doesn't mean what it once did. Back in the day ideology was not confined to a given party, or even a given region.

Anyway, the pieces of legislation noted in the graph you presented are not exclusively social legislation, unless you are arguing that he Revenue Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act are pieces of social legislation? Just as a heads-up, "social legislation" is not a phrase that can be used interchangeably with "domestic legislation".

Nitpick much?

Still... that's incredible. I'm searching for some sort of repository that lists out major laws to see if anything comes close to this.

Security hole found already.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/29/technology/obamacare-security/index.html?iid=Lead

 Frazzled wrote:
Security hole found already.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/29/technology/obamacare-security/index.html?iid=Lead

Security hole?

Probably the NSA

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm wondering if there is a difference between states taht actually set-up State Exchanges vs. states who are counting on the federal exchanges only in rates?

I know for a fact that my state's exchange had far less roll out probelms and was stabilized faster than the Federal exchange. That doesn't mean it was smooth, but it was resolved quicker because my state actually built their own exchange that only interfaced with the Fed's at a couple points.

At this point in time smoke signals in a blizzard may be more effective

So, if the Republican states had built their own exchanges like they were suppose to we might not be having these sign-up problems now.

Tinfoil Hat ON!