Questions for Obama supporters

[Sam]

I did some checking on healthcare.gov. The quickie chart says it "could" save me money in monthly premiums but would not save me in yearly healthcare costs. Who cares about "premiums" by themselves? It is the overall healthcare costs that matter. If the premiums end up making you pay more per year than you are now in healthcare costs, then you lose. If the premiums are cheaper but the healthcare costs per year go up (and the chart was for a typical person, not even someone with serious chronic illness) then you still lose.

Yet someone who is on medicaid "wins" because the rest of us end up paying more? Doesn't sound fair to me.

[Cow Poke]

I have heard precious few success stories, but I have heard quite a few that weren't positive in the least. For some reason, these stories seem to get dismissed altogether.

Yeah, and I fully realize that both my world view AND my circle of acquaintances are not likely to highlight the "success stories", so I search for them the same way I would search for criticisms.

It very much appears that no counter evidence is even possible, in the Obamacare debate.

My favorite is the recent responses from the Obama supporters to explain how good it is that a whole bunch of people will become underemployed, but that's GOOD, cause they'll have more time to pursue their own interests!

[Sparko]

But why should I have to suffer and perhaps forgo health care for myself just so somebody else who might be too lazy to get a proper job can get cheap healthcare? And if my costs go up, then the cost of salaries for workers goes up, which rises the cost of goods, which costs everyone in the end. Shuffling my money into someone else's pockets doesn't help the economy. It hurts it.

Not to mention, as far as I can tell the costs are going up for a lot more people than the costs are going down for. So in the end ACA isn't affordable at all for most people. Which means it is not fulfilling its purpose at all.

[Sam]

That sure doesn't square with what I've checked out for a wide range of people in my community, Sam, but I have no reason not to take you at your word.

I think, if there were glowing success stories, the Obama admin would be parading them for all to see.... I've searched, and I find things like a lesbian couple in California who were paying 1300 a month for insurance, but with Obamacare, they only pay 142 a month due to subsidies. So, rather than pay their OWN health insurance, I get to pay mine and theirs TOO. The article goes on to admit that their deductible is higher, but this is "one of the success stories you never hear about".

The article also mentioned that their previous provider "decided to tighten its rules", but doesn't indicate whether this may have been a result of Obama's "if you like your health insurance (and I don't think it's a crappy plan) you can keep it --- PERIOD.

So, in this "success story", a lesbian couple gets WAY cheaper premiums, higher deductible, and the taxpayers foot the difference.

[Zymologist]

Yeah, and I fully realize that both my world view AND my circle of acquaintances are not likely to highlight the "success stories", so I search for them the same way I would search for criticisms.



My favorite is the recent responses from the Obama supporters to explain how good it is that a whole bunch of people will become underemployed, but that's GOOD, cause they'll have more time to pursue their own interests!

I'm blown away by that. I read an opinion column by E.J. Dionne this morning in which he discussed the "willful stupidity" of the Obamacare debate, because the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 million jobs was being seen as a bad thing.

The head of the CBO said, "By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work." It's incredible to me that this is being defended as a positive, and that anyone who thinks that the loss of jobs is actually bad is, well, clearly just a partisan idiot.

[Cow Poke]

Sam, you don't really think that IF the Obama supporters had large numbers of success stories they'd be touting them as vindication of Obamacare? And some of the "success stories" they HAVE touted have blown up in their faces.

As for "crunch the data" --- one of the things liberals are HORRIBLE at is "the numbers", because they ASSume that whatever actions they put in place, people will respond as they ASSumed they would, rather than as human nature leads.

Obamacare is CHOCK FULL of unintended consequences, because things were not clearly thought out.

Unless you want to admit that there's some grand conspiracy to kick millions of people off their own plans, you'd have to admit that it was an unintended consequence. After all, the promise had been made, if you LIKE your plan.... later amended, of course, to "if you LIKE your plan, and blah blah blah....

And I noticed you bought into the "junk plans" nonsense.

[Bill the Cat]

Not to mention, as far as I can tell the costs are going up for a lot more people than the costs are going down for. So in the end ACA isn't affordable at all for most people. Which means it is not fulfilling its purpose at all.

Add to that the story a few days ago that 1 in 5 that signed up didn't make their first payment.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/30/news...care-premiums/

Around one in five people who picked health insurance policies on the state and federal exchanges last year haven't paid their first month's premiums, according to insurers polled by CNNMoney. These folks will likely see their policy selection canceled and they'll be left uninsured.

Some 2.1 million people signed up for a plan in time for their coverage to start January 1, according to the Obama administration. But with the payment deadlines stretching until January 31 at the latest, anywhere between 12% and 30% of those folks still haven't paid up, insurers say.

[Sam]

I'm blown away by that. I read an opinion column by E.J. Dionne this morning in which he discussed the "willful stupidity" of the Obamacare debate, because the loss of the equivalent of 2.3 million jobs was being seen as a bad thing.

The head of the CBO said, "By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work." It's incredible to me that this is being defended as a positive, and that anyone who thinks that the loss of jobs is actually bad is, well, clearly just a partisan idiot.

[Cow Poke]

It "incentivizes" them to work less hours in order to get more benefits at the expense of those of use who work.

[Sparko]

How's that Koolaid taste, Sam?

[Zymologist]

Do you disagree with the head of the CBO in that quote? Do you think it's a good thing to "disincentivize" work?

[Sam]

Do you disagree with the head of the CBO in that quote? Do you think it's a good thing to "disincentivize" work?

those people should be working harder. And the truth of that statement will depend exactly on who those people

[Cow Poke]

That depends. Social Security disincentives work by allowing people to retire.

Woah... hold the bus.... the premise was that Social Security would be self-supporting, and that workers would pay into it, and receive benefits AFTER paying in. That's some fancy wordsmithing ya got goin' on there, Sam.

From the Social Security Admin's own website... (bolding mine)

The Design of the Original Social Security Act

The new social insurance program the Committee on Economic Security (CES) was designing in 1934 was different than welfare in that it was a contributory program in which workers and their employers paid for the cost of the benefits--with the government's role being that of the fund's administrator, rather than its payer. This was very important to President Roosevelt who signaled early on that he did not want the federal government to subsidize the program--that it was to be "self-supporting." He would eventually observe: "If I have anything to say about it, it will always be contributed, both on the part of the employer and the employee, on a sound actuarial basis. It means no money out of the Treasury."

[One Bad Pig]

Woah... hold the bus.... the premise was that Social Security would be self-supporting, and that workers would pay into it, and receive benefits AFTER paying in. That's some fancy wordsmithing ya got goin' on there, Sam.

From the Social Security Admin's own website... (bolding mine)

The Design of the Original Social Security Act

The new social insurance program the Committee on Economic Security (CES) was designing in 1934 was different than welfare in that it was a contributory program in which workers and their employers paid for the cost of the benefits--with the government's role being that of the fund's administrator, rather than its payer. This was very important to President Roosevelt who signaled early on that he did not want the federal government to subsidize the program--that it was to be "self-supporting." He would eventually observe: "If I have anything to say about it, it will always be contributed, both on the part of the employer and the employee, on a sound actuarial basis. It means no money out of the Treasury."

Eh, FDR was extremely gifted at saying what people wanted to hear and concealing his actual feelings (to the point it frustrated both friend and foe).

[Cow Poke]

Eh, FDR was extremely gifted at saying what people wanted to hear and concealing his actual feelings (to the point it frustrated both friend and foe).

As is Obama. Well... gifted at saying what people wanted to hear --- maybe not so much at concealing his actual intent.