Success of Obamacare, and Debunking Myths

[Geilinor]

You claim to be an industry insider. What reason do I have to believe this claim?
You're claiming things as fact. If you want us to believe you, you need to back your claims up with real sources.

I have no personal stake in lying to you about what I do for living, or the shop talk I hear.

At this point you're desperately trying to save your position in this thread.

[Galloism]

"Insurers not getting paid" is not what the lawsuit in your source is about. I suggest in the future that if you're going to provide sources to back up your claims that you make an effort to ensure that they actually do so.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... at-a-loss/

This has been happening for around a year and a half, and covers the time healthcare.gov lost $3 Billion. Insurers provided coverage they were never paid for. Brokers sold policies they never were paid for. The government paid money to someone, but not insurers or brokers. This isn't going away.

This article says insurers have not received all their money that the insured were required to pay, not that they didn't receive the money the government sent them.

We're talking about the $3 billion from the government, remember? That's what you were trying to prove the insurers didn't receive.

[Todeslager]

I have no personal stake in lying to you about what I do for living, or the shop talk I hear.

At this point you're desperately trying to save your position in this thread.

Nothing desperate at all about trying to enlighten the willfully uneducable. It's not a hobby either.

[Todeslager]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... at-a-loss/

This has been happening for around a year and a half, and covers the time healthcare.gov lost $3 Billion. Insurers provided coverage they were never paid for. Brokers sold policies they never were paid for. The government paid money to someone, but not insurers or brokers. This isn't going away.

This article says insurers have not received all their money that the insured were required to pay, not that they didn't receive the money the government sent them.

That's a bizarre way to parse an article about insurance companies not being paid by the government for services rendered on behalf of health care subsidy recipients. I can see the objection is either borne of a misunderstanding of the written word, or baiting jackassery.

We're talking about the $3 billion from the government, remember? That's what you were trying to prove the insurers didn't receive.

Yep. Let's try predicate logic....

Insurance companies do the accounting for Obamacare exchanges
Insurance companies discovered $3 Billion missing
Government can't explain the loss because insurance companies do their accounting

Government claims it has paid insurance companies, insurance companies who do their accounting cry bullshit!

[Geilinor]

This article says insurers have not received all their money that the insured were required to pay, not that they didn't receive the money the government sent them.

That's a bizarre way to parse an article about insurance companies not being paid by the government for services rendered on behalf of health care subsidy recipients. I can see the objection is either borne of a misunderstanding of the written word, or baiting jackassery.

The government does not pay insurance companies, the insured do.

[Nordengrund]

I'm am a conservative and a Republican, but I am open to Obamacare. I don't support but I am willing to listen to the advocates, but I am also looking into other options before I make a decision.

[Geilinor]

I'm am a conservative and a Republican, but I am open to Obamacare. I don't support but I am willing to listen to the advocates, but I am also looking into other options before I make a decision.

I love your attitude, all issues should be discussed this way.

[Todeslager]

That's a bizarre way to parse an article about insurance companies not being paid by the government for services rendered on behalf of health care subsidy recipients. I can see the objection is either borne of a misunderstanding of the written word, or baiting jackassery.

The government does not pay insurance companies, the insured do.

The government can't account for $3 Billion it claims it paid insurance companies. :facepalm:

FFS, just stop.

[Todeslager]

I'm am a conservative and a Republican, but I am open to Obamacare. I don't support but I am willing to listen to the advocates, but I am also looking into other options before I make a decision.

I'm hip. The individual mandate route to affordable health care began as an idea from the conservative Heritage Foundation, and it wouldn't serve my interests as someone working for a health insurance corporation to try to stop the government from forcing people to be my customers.

It's the execution that has stank, not the idea. The implementation of the PPACA has been a clusterfuck. It needs work, but that will never happen without enough politicians going bipartisan and backing away from their home party's respective "Obamacare is a success" or "Obamacare WTFLOL watch them lose elections" stances.

I'm not on the Obamacare is a success side, but I'm not opposed to reforming it into a functioning system.

[Fartsniffage]

The government does not pay insurance companies, the insured do.

The government can't account for $3 Billion it claims it paid insurance companies. :facepalm:

FFS, just stop.

Why would the government be paying the insurance companies? What for?

[Todeslager]

The government can't account for $3 Billion it claims it paid insurance companies. :facepalm:

FFS, just stop.

Why would the government be paying the insurance companies? What for?

Many reasons, but the main point being the government is claiming it can't account for $3 Billion it allegedly paid to insurance companies (and brokers) that it most certainly absolutely god damn didn't.

And insurance companies want their money. Alot of it is policies enrolled and coverage provided to federal exchange applicants under orders from the Obama administration during the disastrous megafail rollout of healthcare.gov

Brokers didn't receive their commissions, insurers didn't receive their premiums, and healthcare.gov "website navigator" call center reps got to sit around playing Candy Crush for $20 an hour with no incoming calls... Clusterfuck.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

I'm am a conservative and a Republican, but I am open to Obamacare. I don't support but I am willing to listen to the advocates, but I am also looking into other options before I make a decision.

I appreciate that. Some Republicans i know aren't willing to compromise on Obamacare simply because it was a Democratic law. If both parties can come together on a bill that expands health access, I would be in full support.What I also hate though is the condescending tone of voice that certain politicians (like Walker) adopt in their speeches, as if they are always right. They won't negotiate at the table.

[Galloism]

This article says insurers have not received all their money that the insured were required to pay, not that they didn't receive the money the government sent them.

That's a bizarre way to parse an article about insurance companies not being paid by the government for services rendered on behalf of health care subsidy recipients. I can see the objection is either borne of a misunderstanding of the written word, or baiting jackassery.

Here's what it says:

HHS assured reporters that it would be “urging issuers to give consumers additional time to pay their first month’s premium and still have coverage beginning January 1, 2014.” In other words, urging them to offer free care to those who haven’t paid. This is a problem because the government has yet to build the system that allows people who’ve signed up for plans to actually pay for them. “One client reports only 15 percent [of applicants] have paid so far,” Bob Laszewski told Charles Ornstein. “So far I’m hearing from health plans that around 5 percent and 10 percent of consumers who have made it through the data transfer gauntlet have paid first month’s premium and therefore truly enrolled,” said Kip Piper

this is about consumer payments. There are now two types of payments to insurers: consumers and the government on behalf of said consumers. Put a simpler way, Dick and Jane both pay Bob a certain portion of Dick's insurance policy. Dick hasnt paid, but that says nothing about whether or not Jane has paid. Maybe she has and maybe she hasn't, but Dick's failure says nothing about whether or not Jane has paid.

Being fair, I dont HHS think should force that, but it's not the thing you claimed.

We're talking about the $3 billion from the government, remember? That's what you were trying to prove the insurers didn't receive.

Yep. Let's try predicate logic....

Insurance companies do the accounting for Obamacare exchanges
Insurance companies discovered $3 Billion missing

source? When did insurance companies discover the 3 billion missing?

Government can't explain the loss because insurance companies do their accounting

Government claims it has paid insurance companies, insurance companies who do their accounting cry bullshit!

Still waiting for a source for this claim: that insurance companies are claiming they never saw the $3bn the fed says it paid them.

[Lalaki]

I'm am a conservative and a Republican, but I am open to Obamacare. I don't support but I am willing to listen to the advocates, but I am also looking into other options before I make a decision.

I'm hip. The individual mandate route to affordable health care began as an idea from the conservative Heritage Foundation, and it wouldn't serve my interests as someone working for a health insurance corporation to try to stop the government from forcing people to be my customers.

It's the execution that has stank, not the idea. The implementation of the PPACA has been a clusterfuck. It needs work, but that will never happen without enough politicians going bipartisan and backing away from their home party's respective "Obamacare is a success" or "Obamacare WTFLOL watch them lose elections" stances.

I'm not on the Obamacare is a success side, but I'm not opposed to reforming it into a functioning system.

Then we have something to work with.

I got into an intense debate with my speech coach over Obamacare. I was advocating keeping the majority of the law that has worked, while reforming what hasn't with bipartisan fixes. He said that it wouldn't work because "Democrats forced a junk health bill on Republicans, so the latter shouldn't stand for negotiating with a dishonest administration." While I respect that, it's absolutely unproductive to jump on the repeal and replace bandwagon without a plan for making sure the millions of people who have gained insurance and those that are still uncovered can get a new policy.

To be clear, I support a single-payer system. But right now, I'm for making Obamacare work.

[Dyakovo]

I'm hip. The individual mandate route to affordable health care began as an idea from the conservative Heritage Foundation, and it wouldn't serve my interests as someone working for a health insurance corporation to try to stop the government from forcing people to be my customers.

It's the execution that has stank, not the idea. The implementation of the PPACA has been a clusterfuck. It needs work, but that will never happen without enough politicians going bipartisan and backing away from their home party's respective "Obamacare is a success" or "Obamacare WTFLOL watch them lose elections" stances.

I'm not on the Obamacare is a success side, but I'm not opposed to reforming it into a functioning system.

Then we have something to work with.

I got into an intense debate with my speech coach over Obamacare. I was advocating keeping the majority of the law that has worked, while reforming what hasn't with bipartisan fixes. He said that it wouldn't work because "Democrats forced a junk health bill on Republicans, so the latter shouldn't stand for negotiating with a dishonest administration." While I respect that, it's absolutely unproductive to jump on the repeal and replace bandwagon without a plan for making sure the millions of people who have gained insurance and those that are still uncovered can get a new policy.

To be clear, I support a single-payer system. But right now, I'm for making Obamacare work.

The thing I find amusing is that the main thing the GOP likes to bitch about is the mandates - the parts they insisted upon.

[Dyakovo]

The government can't account for $3 Billion it claims it paid insurance companies. :facepalm:

FFS, just stop.

Why would the government be paying the insurance companies? What for?

The government pays the subsidies for low income enrollees.

[Papal Republics]

I see nothing wrong with finding a middle ground on this issue. That is the only way we will get things done.

Conservative Reforms:
-Repeal the individual and employer mandates.
-Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
-Grant exemptions to the minimum benefits requirement if one does not need the protections.
-Enact medical malpractice reforms.
-Streamline the exchange process.
-Allow Medicare/Medicaid recipients to further explore other options (as the Advantage program has done).
-Restructuring the broken bronze-silver-gold-platinum planning system.

Liberal Reforms:
-Expand the subsidies that the Affordable Care Act established to the point of all citizens being able to afford adequate coverage.
-Keep Medicaid expansion, and close the coverage gap in non-participating states by means of vouchers.
-Focus not just on the uninusred, but also the underinsured by means of policy changes.

[The Black Forrest]

I see nothing wrong with finding a middle ground on this issue. That is the only way we will get things done.

Conservative Reforms:
-Repeal the individual and employer mandates.

Universal coverage?

-Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

That's either not going to happen or do much. Why aren't the big companies using their lobbiests to get the barriers eliminated for example?

They aren't seriously going to compete. Did you ever hear of the phrase "biopoly"? Used when describing the "competition" between coke and pepsi.

Basically; they will "compete" by more or less having the same coverage in the same range.

-Grant exemptions to the minimum benefits requirement if one does not need the protections.

They have that?

-Enact medical malpractice reforms.

Ahh the repubs just love this one. If we eliminated the lawyers then all would be better! Problem is how do you eliminate the hacks? A buddy was in marine recon; he had a shoulder injury which required surgery. The surgeon botched the job. It ended his military career. Well he couldn't accept a desk job in the corp as he was a fighting man. So he went for civilian job. He will live with constant pain for the rest of his days.

So the surgeon should get a slap on the hand?

[Papal Republics]

I see nothing wrong with finding a middle ground on this issue. That is the only way we will get things done.

Conservative Reforms:
-Repeal the individual and employer mandates.

Universal coverage?

-Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

That's either not going to happen or do much. Why aren't the big companies using their lobbiests to get the barriers eliminated for example?

They aren't seriously going to compete. Did you ever hear of the phrase "biopoly"? Used when describing the "competition" between coke and pepsi.

Basically; they will "compete" by more or less having the same coverage in the same range.

-Grant exemptions to the minimum benefits requirement if one does not need the protections.

They have that?

-Enact medical malpractice reforms.

Ahh the repubs just love this one. If we eliminated the lawyers then all would be better! Problem is how do you eliminate the hacks? A buddy was in marine recon; he had a shoulder injury which required surgery. The surgeon botched the job. It ended his military career. Well he couldn't accept a desk job in the corp as he was a fighting man. So he went for civilian job. He will live with constant pain for the rest of his days.

So the surgeon should get a slap on the hand?

-Universal coverage via voluntary vouchers for the poor/elderly instead of mandates that (a) restrict individual freedom and (b) have economic effects on businesses and individuals.
-Any unreasonable restriction on the free market (such as having insurance companies limited to one state) is one that should be repealed.
-Yes, they do. Many people have been booted off their affordable and satisfactory health plans and forced to buy expensive policies with protections they may not need and cannot pay for.
-Medical malpractice reform would obviously be tailored to prevent those types of situations. The point is, doctors order unnecessary treatments that raise costs in order to prevent legal liability. We need to fix that.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

I see nothing wrong with finding a middle ground on this issue. That is the only way we will get things done.

Conservative Reforms:
-Repeal the individual and employer mandates.
-Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
-Grant exemptions to the minimum benefits requirement if one does not need the protections.
-Enact medical malpractice reforms.
-Streamline the exchange process.
-Allow Medicare/Medicaid recipients to further explore other options (as the Advantage program has done).
-Restructuring the broken bronze-silver-gold-platinum planning system.

Liberal Reforms:
-Expand the subsidies that the Affordable Care Act established to the point of all citizens being able to afford adequate coverage.
-Keep Medicaid expansion, and close the coverage gap in non-participating states by means of vouchers.
-Focus not just on the uninusred, but also the underinsured by means of policy changes.

1) Repealing the mandates and therefore leaving people uninsured will lead to them getting sick without coverage, with the taxpayers paying for their treatment in the ER. Unless you are an Ayn Rand-Rand Paul person who believes hospitals should be able to deny people having heart attacks or strokes because of they can't pay, requiring people to carry a policy can actually be seen as protecting individual freedom of fellow citizens.

2) Which will end up requiring people who do need those minimum benefits paying higher prices than those that do not. Why should one person have to be more limited in their income because of something they cannot control by any means?

3) The reason we were able to control Medicare costs and therefore reduce the projected government deficit is because we realized that MA does not work as effectively as the public plan. It will do nothing to control costs.

[Geilinor]

I support adding an option which would allow people to buy into Medicare, increasing competition for insurance.