How the Affordable Care Act is helping this small business and its employees.

[Darth Executor]

Sounds like even more incentives to outsource.

[Sam]

My issue? That's a huge expense on businesses that don't bring in a lot of money anyway. For some small businesses that is 1/4 of their profit. I don't like those numbers and it can force the businesses to close.

[Sam]

[Cow Poke]

....my laziness is overriding my obsessive drive for precision to defend Obamacare at any cost

fify

now, if somebody could just fix the [strike] tags.

[Mountain Man]

And now that millions of people are getting health insurance thanks to the ACA...

The actual figure is around 2.5 million, and a significant portion of those were to replace plans that were canceled because of Obamacare. Crunch the numbers and to date you're looking at around 600,000 people enrolled who previously didn't have insurance. On the flipside, 5-million have lost their plans, and millions more will probably lose them this year (although Obama pushing the employer mandate past the end of his second term could temporarily stop the bleeding). That's right, more people have lost their insurance than have signed up for Obamacare, and I don't see that gap ever closing.

It genuinely baffles me that anybody who knows the facts could look at Obamacare and think that it's a good thing.

[Darth Executor]

[Sam]

The actual figure is around 2.5 million, and a significant portion of those were to replace plans that were canceled because of Obamacare. Crunch the numbers and to date you're looking at around 600,000 people enrolled who previously didn't have insurance. On the flipside, 5-million have lost their plans, and millions more will probably lose them this year (although Obama pushing the employer mandate past the end of his second term could temporarily stop the bleeding). That's right, more people have lost their insurance than have signed up for Obamacare, and I don't see that gap ever closing.

It genuinely baffles me that anybody who knows the facts could look at Obamacare and think that it's a good thing.

[Sam]

fify

now, if somebody could just fix the [strike] tags.

Feel free, Cow Poke, to add arguments of substance to the discussion; I've gone to some length to detail the options available to Judy on the exchange and how they appear to be superior to the plan that was chosen for her by an insurance broker with a clear dislike of Obama and the ACA. Anything to say on that matter?

[Mountain Man]

This isn't correct. Most people who "lost" their insurance were in the same situation I found myself in last December or so: their non ACA-compliant plans were being discontinued and the insurers planned, by default, to enroll them into similar, ACA-compliant, plans offered. Using myself as an example, I didn't have to do anything when I got my "cancellation notice." I just waited a few weeks and a new card came in the mail. In fact, some insurers got into trouble in states like Tennessee because they were doing this without mentioning their clients might get a better deal on the exchanges. So it's totally incorrect to attribute all enrollments on the exchanges -- or even most enrollments -- to people whose plans were "cancelled."

Rule of thumb: if the "facts" of the ACA are coming from Breitbart, they probably ain't facts.

As usual, you desperately split hairs and appeal to the genetic fallacy without actually disputing the material facts.

Even the most generous estimate puts the Obamacare enrollment figure at a mere 4-million, and of those, a significant percentage -- anywhere from 60% to 90% depending on the survey -- were previously covered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-of-obamacare/

Remember, the bill was intended to provide affordable insurance to the uninsured, not simply roll the insured over into a government plan that may are may not be better than the one they were on.

[Sam]

As usual, you desperately split hairs and appeal to the genetic fallacy without actually disputing the material facts.

Even the most generous estimate puts the Obamacare enrollment figure at a mere 4-million, and of those, a significant percentage -- anywhere from 60% to 90% depending on the survey -- were previously covered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-of-obamacare/

Remember, the bill was intended to provide affordable insurance to the uninsured, not simply roll the insured over into a government plan that may are may not be better than the one they were on.

I think it's a bit of bad form accusing someone of splitting hairs when you yourself are actively engaged in moving goal posts. Your first criticism was that "more people have lost their insurance than have signed up for Obamacare, and I don't see that gap ever closing." Since you used Glenn Kessler as a source above, let's go with what he says:

------------------------------------
expected ratio by 2017 will be flipped: ~70% of enrollees will be "newly insured:"

------------------------------------

Source: Durbin�s claim that 10 million now have health insurance because of Obamacare. Glenn Kessler. The Washington Post. 2014.02.10

Of course, these percentages may change with time. Avalere, a health consulting firm, estimates that, once the law is fully implemented in 2017, about 68 percent of the people who obtained insurance through the exchanges will be newly insured. But even so, that would suggest at least a third already had insurance. (Update: New York state says that two-thirds of the people who enrolled on its exchange were previously uninsured, in line with the Avalere estimate.)

© Copyright Original Source

------------------------------------

Which brings us around to the third criticism, that the law (it's been a long time since it was a bill) is intended to provide affordable insurance to the uninsured. Well, that's almost right. The ACA is intended to expand the insurance pool by making insurance affordable to those who previously could not afford it (and were therefore uninsured) but also to make insurance more affordable to the great majority of citizens regardless of their previous insurance status. That means creating the exchanges, which function as a competitive marketplace for insurers to clearly compare their products. That means instituting essential benefits so insurers can't cherry-pick the healthiest individuals and so drive up rates for the majority of enrollees. That means bending the cost-curve of health expenditures so that premiums increase at a slower annual rate (check, check and check). People are still entirely free to avoid being "rolled into" the exchanges. You can eschew the subsidies available on the exchanges and get insurance directly from an insurer. In fact, those whose policies were "cancelled," as noted above by myself and Kessler, probably were put into that situation by default

[Cow Poke]

Feel free, Cow Poke, to add arguments of substance to the discussion; I've gone to some length to detail the options available to Judy on the exchange and how they appear to be superior to the plan that was chosen for her by an insurance broker with a clear dislike of Obama and the ACA. Anything to say on that matter?

I'm not nearly as concerned about "Judy", Sam, as I am about the three people I'm dealing with in my own Church who were kicked off their insurance. One of them obtained NEW insurance with tremendous difficulty, but ALL her meds were changed to generics her doctor won't allow. But, I guess that's not a problem, since she doesn't get to keep that doctor anyway. PERIOD.

But feel free, Sam, to continue to shill for this disastrous piece of crap foisted on us in the middle of the night in a totally partisan vote. Even after you GET "coverage", if there's ANY wrinkle in it -- good luck trying to find somebody who can give straight answers.

[Sam]

I'm not nearly as concerned about "Judy", Sam, as I am about the three people I'm dealing with in my own Church who were kicked off their insurance. One of them obtained NEW insurance with tremendous difficulty, but ALL her meds were changed to generics her doctor won't allow. But, I guess that's not a problem, since she doesn't get to keep that doctor anyway. PERIOD.

But feel free, Sam, to continue to shill for this disastrous piece of crap foisted on us in the middle of the night in a totally partisan vote. Even after you GET "coverage", if there's ANY wrinkle in it -- good luck trying to find somebody who can give straight answers.

Well, I'm certainly sympathetic to anyone struggling to get adequate coverage. Heaven knows that Texas has done precious little to help its citizens as far as making an easy transition goes. I would of course be happy to run anonymous information through the marketplace if any of them need some basic help. They can also utilize the ACA navigators at Healthcare.gov:

https://localhelp.healthcare.gov/

[Cow Poke]

Well, I'm certainly sympathetic to anyone struggling to get adequate coverage. Heaven knows that Texas has done precious little to help its citizens as far as making an easy transition goes. I would of course be happy to run anonymous information through the marketplace if any of them need some basic help. They can also utilize the ACA navigators at Healthcare.gov:

https://localhelp.healthcare.gov/

Play your hypothetics all you want, Sam -- in the real world, it sucks.

By the way, relative to your snide anti-Texas remark, the lady who has all the problems signed up in New Hampshire. Her Texas sister drove up there to get her, and bring her back to Texas. The Texas lady is the wife of a medical doctor who is so disgusted with Obamacare, that this has really pushed him over the top. He is from the Dominican Republic, and is seriously thinking about going back there to practice medicine.

[Zymologist]

Play your hypothetics all you want, Sam -- in the real world, it sucks.

Hypothetics? Are those kinda like orthotics? I just got my orthotics today!

[Cow Poke]

Hypothetics? Are those kinda like orthotics? I just got my orthotics today!

Just got back from taking my wife to another visit at MD Anderson -- probably shouldn't be typing, cause I'm not really in a very good frame of mind.