Obamacare: 7million exchange enrollments, ~8-9m plans sold directly, ~8m covered by other provisions

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.

**daedalus**

That's what, about 15% of your monthly income post tax?

**Relapse**

This might be the final nail in the coffin for Obamacare.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/13/administration-adds-major-new-exemption-for-obamacare-individual-mandate/

**dogma**

Gee, its almost like a public option would have been a good idea.

**Co'tor Shas**

dogma wrote:
Gee, its almost like a public option would have been a good idea.

It was pretty stupid of the Ds to get rid of it when they could have passed the ACA with not a single R vote.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
Gee, its almost like a public option would have been a good idea.

Yup.

**dogma**

Co'tor Shas wrote:

It was pretty stupid of the Ds to get rid of it when they could have passed the ACA with not a single R vote.

They pushed for bipartisan legislation, and got bipartisan legislation.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

It was pretty stupid of the Ds to get rid of it when they could have passed the ACA with not a single R vote.

They pushed for bipartisan legislation, and got bipartisan legislation.

wait... wut?

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

It was pretty stupid of the Ds to get rid of it when they could have passed the ACA with not a single R vote.

They pushed for bipartisan legislation, and got bipartisan legislation.

wait... wut?

It was the Rs who got rid of public option.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:

It was pretty stupid of the Ds to get rid of it when they could have passed the ACA with not a single R vote.

They pushed for bipartisan legislation, and got bipartisan legislation.

wait... wut?

It was the Rs who got rid of public option.

Some Dems didn't want it either.

The ACA wasn't bipartisan.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

wait... wut?

The Democrats made a big deal, by way of Obama, about being bipartisan in an era where "bipartisan" will almost certainly be equivalent to "bad" due to a high degree of partisanship within the political class and the citizenry.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

wait... wut?

The Democrats made a big deal, by way of Obama, about being bipartisan in an era where "bipartisan" will almost certainly be equivalent to "bad" due to a high degree of partisanship within the political class and the citizenry.

Why are you still pushing this tired BS...

Putting in what the Dems thought the Republicans wanted, without letting the Republicans have a say in the matter, is not being bipartisan.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

Why are you still pushing this tired BS...

Putting in what the Dems thought the Republicans wanted, without letting the Republicans have a say in the matter, is not being bipartisan.

I didn't say it was bipartisan, I said the Democrats were pushing the idea of bipartisanship; making sacrifices all along the way. This was stupid, because the Republicans were going to fight anything the Democrats put out that wasn't acquiescence (and maybe even then), because that's how national American politics work right now.

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Why are you still pushing this tired BS...

Putting in what the Dems thought the Republicans wanted, without letting the Republicans have a say in the matter, is not being bipartisan.

I didn't say it was bipartisan, I said the Democrats were pushing the idea of bipartisanship; making sacrifices all along the way. This was stupid, because the Republicans were going to fight anything the Democrats put out that wasn't acquiescence (and maybe even then), because that's how national American politics work right now.

Considering how how the rollout is affecting people and the Democrats just lost an election because of the it, it would seemthat the Republicans had the right idea about voting against this thing.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:

Considering how how the rollout is affecting people and the Democrats just lost an election because of the it, it would seemthat the Republicans had the right idea about voting against this thing.

Wishful thinking?

David Jolly won a seat that was vacated, by way of death, by a Republican who had served since 1970. It should shock no one that a district that continually reelected a Republican for over 40 years elected another Republican in a special election.

Indeed, the only shocking thing is that Sink came so close to beating Jolly.

**Relapse**

Not really, since the Democrats outspent the Republicans by 3 to 1 and sent people like Bill Clinton in there to beat the bushes for voters. For all that effort and money they still lost an election they were desperate to win.
As an aside, Jolly was considered a weak candidate, While Sink was look at as quite strong.

**sebster**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
It was pretty stupid of the Ds to get rid of it when they could have passed the ACA with not a single R vote.

It wasn't dropped just as an offering to the Republicans, but also to get the blue dogs to sign on. There was no way a bill including a public option would have got the vote of all 60 Democrats in the senate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Not really, since the Democrats outspent the Republicans by 3 to 1 and sent people like Bill Clinton in there to beat the bushes for voters. For all that effort and money they still lost an election they were desperate to win.
As an aside, Jolly was considered a weak candidate, While Sink was look at as quite strong.

Sink had a stronger record of service, but Jolly was seen as the stronger campaigner. And local issues played a significant role, as they always do.

The impact of ACA or any other national level issue can only be guessed at. Shockingly enough, because they won Republicans are claiming it was all about national issues, especially ACA. Had Democrats won, they would have been doing the same. Such is the tedious nature of the party faithful.

**Breotan**

sebster wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Not really, since the Democrats outspent the Republicans by 3 to 1 and sent people like Bill Clinton in there to beat the bushes for voters. For all that effort and money they still lost an election they were desperate to win. As an aside, Jolly was considered a weak candidate, While Sink was look at as quite strong.
Sink had a stronger record of service, but Jolly was seen as the stronger campaigner. And local issues played a significant role, as they always do.

The impact of ACA or any other national level issue can only be guessed at. Shockingly enough, because they won Republicans are claiming it was all about national issues, especially ACA. Had Democrats won, they would have been doing the same. Such is the tedious nature of the party faithful.

Don't forget that there was a 3rd party candidate that took around 5% of the vote. That is alleged to have come mostly from the Republican. This means that while Jolly didn't win in a landslide, Sink certainly lost in one. But politicians see things through a different prism and as a group are some of the biggest Kool-aid drinkers on the planet.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:
Not really, since the Democrats outspent the Republicans by 3 to 1 and sent people like Bill Clinton in there to beat the bushes for voters. For all that effort and money they still lost an election they were desperate to win.

They had the opportunity to pick up a (vulnerable) seat in the House and expended the resources at their disposal in order to do so. I don't see how that implies desperation.

Relapse wrote:

As an aside, Jolly was considered a weak candidate, While Sink was look at as quite strong.

Jolly was Bill Young's general counsel until 2007, and Bill Young had been in office for more than 40 years. With that sort of association you cannot legitimately be considered a weak candidate.

Breotan wrote:
Don't forget that there was a 3rd party candidate that took around 5% of the vote. That is alleged to have come mostly from the Republican. This means that while Jolly didn't win in a landslide, Sink certainly lost in one. But politicians see things through a different prism and as a group are some of the biggest Kool-aid drinkers on the planet.

Well, no.

The "...biggest Kool-aid drinkers..." on the planet are the average people that dedicate themselves to a particular political party in the way one might dedicate oneself to a particular sports team. I mean, at least politicians stand to make professional gains due to their allegiances; average people stand to feel warm and fuzzy on the inside.

**whembly**

Guys... I actually agree with dogma here.

In other news... looks like the Vermont single-payer plan is flatlining:

In 2011, while the rest of America argued the merits of the president's Affordable Care Act, Vermont jumped the progressive curve, promising to launch the nation's first health single-payer system, in which state government pays providers to care for all residents.

Now, even Democrats say that plan, called Green Mountain Care, isn't ready for its proposed 2017 rollout, and Rep. Jim Condon told Vermont Watchdog it's time for Gov. Peter Shumlin to shelve the ambitious plan immediately.

"The deadlines for proposing financing have been missed two years in a row now, so to me that's very disappointing. It's becoming clearer and clearer that there is no financing plan," Condon told Vermont Watchdog.

As Vermont Watchdog reported, an independent report by the Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm Avalere Health concluded that the costs of Green Mountain Care would require Vermont to raise tax revenue roughly equal to the state's tax collections from all sources today.

Condon, a Democrat from Colchester, said he thinks a single-payer system in Vermont would "cost more" than a couple of previous estimates. Those estimates pegged the cost for single-payer at anywhere from $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion annually.

"It's a government program [so] I think it's going to cost more than that. Given that, I think it would be in the best interest of Vermonters to redirect our energies away from single-payer health care to trying to improve the system we're in now," Condon added.

Condon was one of three "Blue Dog Democrats" to vote against Act 48, the legislation establishing the transition to a single-payer health care system. According to Act 48, Green Mountain Care cannot have any negative implications for Vermont's economy. But Condon said he's not aware of any other way to pay for it outside of federal funding or raising taxes. And for that reason, Condon said he's urging Gov. Shumlin not to seek a waiver from Obamacare, which the state must obtain from the federal government in order for single-payer to be implemented.

Yeowsers!

That goes to show... single-payer would only work if it's implemented Federally...

Maybe Texas and California could pull it off???

**sebster**

Breotan wrote:
Don't forget that there was a 3rd party candidate that took around 5% of the vote. That is alleged to have come mostly from the Republican. This means that while Jolly didn't win in a landslide, Sink certainly lost in one.

I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction there.

But politicians see things through a different prism and as a group are some of the biggest Kool-aid drinkers on the planet.

To the extent that politics is just another kind of marketing, and marketeers regularly end up believing their own sales pitch, I agree with what you are saying.

But as dogma rightly points out, they aren't anything compared to the people who swallow that marketing and dedicate themselves to one party or another.

**Breotan**

sebster wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Don't forget that there was a 3rd party candidate that took around 5% of the vote. That is alleged to have come mostly from the Republican. This means that while Jolly didn't win in a landslide, Sink certainly lost in one.
I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction there.

The Democrat's platform was soundly rejected by the voters in a district that Obama carried twice, even factoring in an attempt to split the vote of the winning side.

**dogma**

Breotan wrote:
The Democrat's platform was soundly rejected by the voters in a district that Obama carried twice, even factoring in an attempt to split the vote of the winning side.

I was unaware that Obama was elected to the US House in Florida.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
Breotan wrote:
The Democrat's platform was soundly rejected by the voters in a district that Obama carried twice, even factoring in an attempt to split the vote of the winning side.

I was unaware that Obama was elected to the US House in Florida.

Hanging chads. They feth with everything.

**whembly**

Next week the HHS abortifact/contraception/sterilization mandate will be argued in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm hoping the Court would join the majority of lower courts in backing religious expression, religious freedom, and economic liberty.

This is why this HHS mandate on abortifact/contraception/sterilization is so mind boggling. It's an extremely hot issue here... had this sterilization mandate NOT been conceived (pun!), most religious groups would be in favor of the PPACA.

**sebster**

Breotan wrote:
The Democrat's platform was soundly rejected by the voters in a district that Obama carried twice, even factoring in an attempt to split the vote of the winning side.

That's not a thing.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

This is why this HHS mandate on abortifact/contraception/sterilization is so mind boggling.

An abortifacient is not an "abortifact" (whatever that is), and it is not equivalent to sterilization, or contraception.

whembly wrote:

It's an extremely hot issue here... had this sterilization mandate NOT been conceived (pun!), most religious groups would be in favor of the PPACA.

There are no sterilization, abortion, or contraception mandates contained within Obamacare laws.

But, as to religious groups, that isn't true at all. At best they would be neutral, as most US religious groups are opposed to Democrat policies as a matter of course. Further, there are plenty of conservatives who are on board with sterilizing certain people.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

This is why this HHS mandate on abortifact/contraception/sterilization is so mind boggling.

An abortifacient is not an "abortifact" (whatever that is), and it is not equivalent to sterilization, or contraception.

whembly wrote:

It's an extremely hot issue here... had this sterilization mandate NOT been conceived (pun!), most religious groups would be in favor of the PPACA.

There are no sterilization, abortion, or contraception mandates contained within Obamacare laws.

I guess that largely depends on when you think pregnancy begins.

But, as to religious groups, that isn't true at all. At best they would be neutral, as most US religious groups are opposed to Democrat policies as a matter of course. Further, there are plenty of conservatives who are on board with sterilizing certain people.

There are PLENTY of religious groups who'd be advocates of the PPACA had the HHS contraceptive mandate NOT been implemented. Particularly the Catholics and Baptists.

feth... Cardinal Dolan pretty much said it:
Cardinal Dolan says Catholic church could be Obamacare's biggest 'cheerleader'

Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT:
*************************************************************************************************************************
Here's the 2nd interesting SC case: Halbig v. Sebelius

Here's a good summary of the plantif's argument:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/19/professor-james-blumstein-on-halbig-v-sebelius/
Cliffnotes:

So, the IRS rode to the rescue. It wrote a regulation that, despite the provisions in the ACA itself, provided a subsidy for all income-qualified purchasers, even those on federally-run exchanges. A result is that an employer could face a substantial new tax if just one employee receives a federal subsidy, even if the employer’s state has chosen not to set up an exchange. And the states would no longer have an incentive to run an exchange since residents would receive federal subsidy on federally-run exchanges.

This seems pretty straightforward: There are two types of exchanges under the ACA, one established by states, and another established by the federal government. The statute only authorizes subsidy on state-run exchanges.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

I guess that largely depends on when you think pregnancy begins.

Are you trying to argue that pregnancy begins at the birth of the people that cause it? Because that's what equating birth control and abortifacients with sterilization entails.

whembly wrote:

There are PLENTY of religious groups who'd be advocates of the PPACA had the HHS contraceptive mandate NOT been implemented. Particularly the Catholics and Baptists.

Catholics, yeah, probably.

Baptists, at least the prominent (read:Southern) ones, never.

At any rate one probable group is hardly "plenty" of groups.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I guess that largely depends on when you think pregnancy begins.

Are you trying to argue that pregnancy begins at the birth of the people that cause it? Because that's what equating birth control and abortifacients with sterilization entails.

Nah... there will always be a debate when "preggy" begins. Meaning, is it at fertilization? Or when egg attaches to uterine wall? Or at whichever stage.

whembly wrote:

There are PLENTY of religious groups who'd be advocates of the PPACA had the HHS contraceptive mandate NOT been implemented. Particularly the Catholics and Baptists.

Catholics, yeah, probably.

Baptists, at least the prominent (read:Southern) ones, never.

At any rate one probable group is hardly "plenty" of groups.

Why do you say Southern Baptist "never"??? (and don't say it's because "it's the south". That's lazy.)

**Relapse**

Now the AMA is getting a little worried about a part of Obamacare, if this report is anything to go by:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/20/medical-group-that-backed-obamacare-warns-obscure-rule-could-hurt-doctors/