Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[KJ.]

I clearly need to go back and re-read where this discussion between sd'sker, KJ. and myself started, because I'm not following your replies at all, KJ.

 

I'll try to get what you're saying, but it's gonna have to wait. Too busy right now. But one thing's for sure - we're having different discussions.

Nailed it. I think Carl and I are on the same page. sd'sker is about 23 chapters behind.

i do get it, i just do not get why you think it is important. all insurance is a redistribution of wealth because you will probably get more out of it than you put in. so you are saying it is a redistribution of the cost of risk. well, employer-based plans already operate like that. so what is your point?

 

my point has always been that the aca will make insurance better (and overall cheaper and more accessible, which is why it was desperately needed). i do agree that we have been talking at each other rather than with each other, but why does that make my point any less valid and your point any clearer or more valid? again, so you see it as a redistribution of wealth. so what? that is the point of insurance and over time it should even out, thus the need of a mandate and how insurance needs to work. but i guess you would rather look at how insurance and premiums work for a group of people for one year and base your entire assessment of aca on that. that is fine, that is your prerogative.

I stopped reading at this point. We have no business trying to talk about insurance if this is the intelligence I'm working with here.

[carlfense]

I'm sure you noticed that the website is merely hosting a research study done by an actuarial consulting firm that doesn't play in the health insurance market and is widely considered as the premier research firm in the insurance industry. The report is nothing more than a description of the results of predictive modeling on the 91 variables that affect the ACA. I don't care if The Onion is who posted a link to the study, it doesn't change the contents of that pdf.

I've never worked for an actuarial consulting firm but I did do a brief stint at a lobbying firm. (Very brief . . . thank goodness.) I learned that a lobbying firm who disseminates studies that shows facts unfavorable to their client will probably lose their client. I'd imagine that the health insurance industry would be quite the client to lose . . .

 

The real problem with my hypothetical is that I tried to make it simple enough for people here to understand. The ACA obviously can not be boiled down to that, but nobody here is intelligent enough to understand (that's not a condescending jab, I'm not either) the aggregate effect of the entire ACA. That's what the study is for, their models are incredibly good at quantifying and projecting premiums based on all sorts of combinations of those 91 variables. I obviously can only give an example that focuses on the one or two most significant variables, which is what i did.

In that case, hang tight. We'll see the real world effects soon enough.

[KJ.]

I've never worked for an actuarial consulting firm but I did do a brief stint at a lobbying firm. (Very brief . . . thank goodness.) I learned that a lobbying firm who disseminates studies that shows facts unfavorable to their client will probably lose their client. I'd imagine that the health insurance industry would be quite the client to lose . . .

I don't know why you feel the need to get defensive and attack the source when it doesn't even give opinions regarding the findings. You're the one that bitches people out constantly for posting bad or biased sources, so I'm a little surprised to see you try to discredit the output of a stochastic model, which is all the report is.

 

If it would make you feel better, I can plug the same legal restrictions they did into the same program they used and send you the results. I have no ties to the health industry, and even if i did, nobody listens to a panda on the internet so that would hopefully be unbiased enough for you.

[Someone]

Here is a list of people who have died in the past 10 years and never received healthcare in their life:

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. 
   
5. 
   
6. 
   
7. 
   
8. 
   
9. 
   
10. 
    

Did I miss anyone?

[carlfense]

I've never worked for an actuarial consulting firm but I did do a brief stint at a lobbying firm. (Very brief . . . thank goodness.) I learned that a lobbying firm who disseminates studies that shows facts unfavorable to their client will probably lose their client. I'd imagine that the health insurance industry would be quite the client to lose . . .

I don't know why you feel the need to get defensive and attack the source when it doesn't even give opinions regarding the findings. You're the one that bitches people out constantly for posting bad or biased sources, so I'm a little surprised to see you try to discredit the output of a stochastic model, which is all the report is.

 

If it would make you feel better, I can plug the same legal restrictions they did into the same program they used and send you the results. I have no ties to the health industry, and even if i did, nobody listens to a panda on the internet so that would hopefully be unbiased enough for you.

The fact that you'd include the bold within this post . . .

[carlfense]

Not quite in line with the original topic . . . but probably as good a place as any. This is the most accurate summary of ACA opposition that I've seen yet.

 

That isn't to say there are no conservatives who care about health care, because there are a few (like the folks at the Heritage Foundation who came up with the individual mandate!). But they are few and far between on the right. Your typical Republican, on the other hand, cares deeply about issues like taxes and defense policy, and works hard to understand them and come up with ideas for where they should go in the future. But had President Obama not passed health-care reform, they would have been perfectly happy to let the status quo continue indefinitely. They donned their fervent opposition to Obamacare like a new jacket, for reasons of politics, not policy. Sure, it was in many ways a conservative plan, much of whose complexity comes from the fact that it works to expand coverage within the private market. But it was big and important, and it was Obama, and it was a way to articulate their anti-government philosophy, and so they got fired up about it. But it isn't because health-care policy is something they're passionate about. Republicans care about taxes whether or not at the moment we happen to be having a big public debate about taxes. But if we weren't debating health care, they wouldn't be staying up nights coming up with interesting solutions to health-care problems, because it just isn't their thing.

http://prospect.org/...re-turns-out-ok

[Someone]

Talked to a CPA today.

 

He has a client that pays 80% of health insurance for his 30 employees (all full time). The client is pissed about Obamacare and believes that he is not going to be able to afford paying 80% next year.

 

The CPA has explained that it is unlikely that Obamacare will actually effect what it costs to insure his employees next year. Further, because he is the owner he has a high net worth but keeps his taxable income low, which means he will actually quality for a $1000 a month tax credit from Obamacare.

 

The business owner is still just as mad and just a confused.

[TGHusker]

More fuel for the fire. I wished the article had supportive details behind it. At this point I hear all of the noise that the obamacare house is on fire and contrary noise that it isn't - I don't think we'll know until it actually goes into affect - kind of like "we don't know what's in the bill until we pass it'

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/07/01/the-insiders-democrats-are-trying-to-suppress-the-confusion-and-hide-the-cost-of-obamacare/?hpid=z2

[BigRedBuster]

screw him. people act like we are the only country that spies on other countries.

[TGHusker]

screw him. people act like we are the only country that spies on other countries.

I believe you posted this in the wrong thread!!

[BigRedBuster]

Wow...that is really weird. I was in that thread and honestly just scrolled down and posted it after reading the post I was referring to.

[sd'sker]

Wow...that is really weird. I was in that thread and honestly just scrolled down and posted it after reading the post I was referring to.

[redacted by NSA]

[TGHusker]

Wow...that is really weird. I was in that thread and honestly just scrolled down and posted it after reading the post I was referring to.

[redacted by NSA]

ah so true

[Mavric]

Employer provision delayed until 2015

[HSKR]

Employer provision delayed until 2015

 

I guess somebody finally read the damned thing.