Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[gcstomp]

Chance, honest no idea what you think the outrage is here, what you think the "lies" are other than the listed little section of what you believe admin lies were, and each item there is pretty easy to defend and not outrage worthy to me, more like tinfoil hat material to me. Dont know what you think needs to be changed that isnt being worked on. Website has had some issues, you dont think president is peeved about that? Its actually been pretty bug free past couple of days from my own experience. In any case, the toll free number has always been available for someone with questions or who wanted to sign up, and the wait has always been under 60 seconds wait to get a live person.

The 14 million people affected, you feel number is off, , I havent read a better number other than between 14 and 20 mill, we can say 4 to 5 percent of country, who buy their private insurance thru brokers or directly thru insurers. This group had policies so inferior that they did not qualify for the minimum standards of the ACA and so those policies no longer exist. That some people now must get insurance, what they had prior did not meet even bare bones minimum for what insurance is, so now they need to get better product for less cost is the big deal? Now they cannot be denied coverage for a pre existing condition like diabetes, pregnancy, high BMI, or 400 other factors that insurance companies used to deny coverage for even absurdly minor conditions and people that for years could not get any kind of coverage can, its a time to cheer, not a time to kvetch.

I dont get your POV Chance, and I think I am a pretty reasonable guy. No biggie, its just a message board, ACA isnt going away thankfully for the many millions of people it will benefit. On more important note, I have 1st overall farm pick in my NL roto league next year and I am taking K Bryant, pretty excited there.

[nots]

Well, of course there's always this:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

It's a sign of total desperation when the cheerleaders have to drag the rotting corpse of the Bush Administration out to prop up the Obama Administration.
Is GITMO still open???????

[onejayhawk]

Oh, by the way, here's a fact check for y'all:



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...icans-will-ke/

I know of three couples that are losing the option covering their spouse. In two of the three cases, the spouse can get coverage. In the third, the spouse is being forced to seek coverage at three times their old family plan group rate. Official statements are well and good, but this type of anecdotal evidence is endemic.

J

[revo]

It's a sign of total desperation when the cheerleaders have to drag the rotting corpse of the Bush Administration out to prop up the Obama Administration.
Is GITMO still open???????

Cheerleader? I'm a registered Republican (since '88) who is beyond disgusted with this new obstructionist, hypocritical GOP. I'm ashamed to have ever called myself a Republican.

[johnnya24]

Cheerleader? I'm a registered Republican (since '88) who is beyond disgusted with this new obstructionist, hypocritical GOP. I'm ashamed to have ever called myself a Republican.

Hello Will McAvoy.

[revo]

Hello Will McAvoy.

I had to Google who that was, but ya, that fake character couldn't be more right:

"I call myself a Republican because I am one.
I believe in market solutions and common sense realities and the necessity to defend ourselves against a dangerous world and that’s about it.
The problem is now I have to be homophobic.
I have to count the number of times people go to church.
I have to deny facts and think scientific research is a long con.
I have to think poor people are getting a sweet ride.
And I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I fear education and intellect…in the 21st century.
But most of all, the biggest new requirement, really the only requirement is that I have to hate Democrats.
And I have to hate Chris Christie for not spitting on the president when he got off of Air Force One.

The two-party system is crucial to the whole operation. There is honor in being the loyal opposition. And I’m a Republican for the same reasons you are."

[johnnya24]

I had to Google who that was, but ya, that fake character couldn't be more right:

"I call myself a Republican because I am one.
I believe in market solutions and common sense realities and the necessity to defend ourselves against a dangerous world and that’s about it.
The problem is now I have to be homophobic.
I have to count the number of times people go to church.
I have to deny facts and think scientific research is a long con.
I have to think poor people are getting a sweet ride.
And I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I fear education and intellect…in the 21st century.
But most of all, the biggest new requirement, really the only requirement is that I have to hate Democrats.
And I have to hate Chris Christie for not spitting on the president when he got off of Air Force One.

The two-party system is crucial to the whole operation. There is honor in being the loyal opposition. And I’m a Republican for the same reasons you are."

Newsroom should be at the top of your to-do list. Excellent series. Jeff Daniels is brilliant as Will McAvoy, indeed, I think he won the best actor Emmy this year for the role.



Oh and Olivia Munn :swoon: I'm not sure what kind of genetic concoction she is, but whatever it is, I want it.

... and Sloan Sabbith at her best (best if you've seen the series as there may be spoilers)

[dslaw]

I know of three couples that are losing the option covering their spouse. In two of the three cases, the spouse can get coverage. In the third, the spouse is being forced to seek coverage at three times their old family plan group rate. Official statements are well and good, but this type of anecdotal evidence is endemic.

J

So 3 couples lose the option of covering spouses but two of those three can get coverage? A little confused as you say they lose the option to cover their spouse but the next sentence says the spouse gets coverage. I think you mean the couples used to have family plans but now just the employee is covered and the spouse gets a new, separate policy. Then you say the third couple must get coverage at triple the old rates. Since you don't mention the rates on the first two couples I assume they are roughly the same as before or else you would be using them to 'prove' what a crappy law this is. So if my interpretation is correct one out of three has to pay more. This is a catastrophe!!!

I just can't understand why some people say "I know a family that has to pay more. This is a terrible law that needs to be repealed" without realizing that, in total, there are probably more people helped by this than hurt by it. I am going to pay almost double in my premiums during 2014 but I also see where many people, some single and some family, get coverage where they had none before or else get much cheaper rates. I work in healthcare and everyone at the main office is seeing rates climb like mine are. I also know five nurses and four are getting cheaper rates for their families while the other is about the same. Using your theory of sample size I can extrapolate the 5 cases I know to all our nurses throughout the company and the employees in my office and I can say 78% of all Americans are coming out ahead so it is the best law ever.

I think everyone has to realize that for each story you have about someone paying more, like I am or your one friend is, there are an equal number of stories of people saving money. Even if it comes out to be 50/50 isn't having insurance for everyone worth it?

[Pogues]

Since you don't mention the rates on the first two couples I assume they are roughly the same as before or else you would be using them to 'prove' what a crappy law this is. So if my interpretation is correct one out of three has to pay more. This is a catastrophe!!!

I just can't understand why some people say "I know a family that has to pay more. This is a terrible law that needs to be repealed" without realizing that, in total, there are probably more people helped by this than hurt by it.

First off, he didn't say anywhere in that statement that it was a catastrophe, the terrible law needs to be repealed, the sky is falling, the martians are attacking, or a giant meteor is going to pummel the Earth in 44 hours.

Secondly, Hornsby stated about 15-20 posts ago "Factual experience will trump hyperbole...eventually." It seems to me that what 1Jay is saying is that it's not all candy and roses, which to be honest is how a lot of this thread reads. He was just countering with a personal experience (2nd hand) what Hornsby alluded to, that all is great.

Now, I might be a bit off on my interpretation, but I'm willing to guess I'm a lot closer than you are.

[nots]

Only a noob would call Revo an Obama cheerleader.

If your response in a thread about problems in the Obama Administration is to list the many problems of the Bush Administration, you are a cheerleader.
I think the Bush failures have been covered rather fully here in the Bar.

[onejayhawk]

So 3 couples lose the option of covering spouses but two of those three can get coverage? A little confused as you say they lose the option to cover their spouse but the next sentence says the spouse gets coverage. I think you mean the couples used to have family plans but now just the employee is covered and the spouse gets a new, separate policy. Then you say the third couple must get coverage at triple the old rates. Since you don't mention the rates on the first two couples I assume they are roughly the same as before or else you would be using them to 'prove' what a crappy law this is. So if my interpretation is correct one out of three has to pay more. This is a catastrophe!!!

I just can't understand why some people say "I know a family that has to pay more. This is a terrible law that needs to be repealed" without realizing that, in total, there are probably more people helped by this than hurt by it. I am going to pay almost double in my premiums during 2014 but I also see where many people, some single and some family, get coverage where they had none before or else get much cheaper rates. I work in healthcare and everyone at the main office is seeing rates climb like mine are. I also know five nurses and four are getting cheaper rates for their families while the other is about the same. Using your theory of sample size I can extrapolate the 5 cases I know to all our nurses throughout the company and the employees in my office and I can say 78% of all Americans are coming out ahead so it is the best law ever.

I think everyone has to realize that for each story you have about someone paying more, like I am or your one friend is, there are an equal number of stories of people saving money. Even if it comes out to be 50/50 isn't having insurance for everyone worth it?

I have yet to meet anyone that benefitted. Two of the cases were very annoying, since it restricts their options. The other is a fairly serious problem.

J

[Kevin Seitzer]

If your response in a thread about problems in the Obama Administration is to list the many problems of the Bush Administration, you are a cheerleader.
I think the Bush failures have been covered rather fully here in the Bar.

Some of us former Republicans don't think the Republican Party learned any lessons from the Bush failures, but rather has doubled down on them. It doesn't excuse the failures of the Obama administration, but it does make the alternative completely unpalatable.

[johnnya24]

Even if it comes out to be 50/50 isn't having insurance for everyone worth it?

Not if you're a neo-liberal ideologue. Even worse are the old fashioned liberals who don't fully comprehend the post-globalization neo-liberal economic system. Judging from the nonsense I hear, most GOP politicians (and many Democrats also) seem to fall into this category.

The old liberal system believed that the poor through the virtues of hard work and dedication could raise themselves into the middle classes within 1 generation. A myth in itself, but one that gained traction in the post-war boom years. The post 1980's neo-liberal economic system demands that the middle classes get sucked further and further down the ladder while the money continues to flow up. As long as people still believe the rhetoric of the old system in the midst of the new system, you have a very dangerous out-of-kilter reality. We've seen that in action during the ACA debate.

Within the neo-liberal system it is now accepted that the poor as a "class" are beyond help and are permanent and expanding fixture. So the system should only throw enough bones to keep people content. Anything more is just wasted profit. There is no point believing in the myth of social mobility anymore. Let's just be real, and extract as much profit as we can from them via extortionate interest rates and permanent debt.

This "class" increasingly includes the lower middle classes and the underemployed / over-educated children of the middle classes born into a neo-liberal system that does not have the capacity to accommodate their expectations. This new educated underclass is much more dangerous to the system than the traditional lower classes. The only reason to even bother helping them is to prevent social upheaval which could potentially destabilize the system. The Occupy movement was populated by this dissatisfied underclass.

Also, many people are just greedy, racist, "entitled" and lack any real compassion for their fellow human beings.

The ACA is a frikkin' bone. That's all. The fact that so many people are upset about it just shows how warped the world is.

[nots]

Some of us former Republicans don't think the Republican Party learned any lessons from the Bush failures, but rather has doubled down on them. It doesn't excuse the failures of the Obama administration, but it does make the alternative completely unpalatable.

All well and good, but if the discussion is about the ACA rollout, I don't see how posting about How Bush lied the US into a war with Iraq doesn't come across as either a huge deflection or some pretty vigorous Pom Pom shakin' cheer leading.

[dslaw]

I have yet to meet anyone that benefitted. Two of the cases were very annoying, since it restricts their options. The other is a fairly serious problem.

J

Some people, like the one couple you know, will be hurt. I haven't met anyone with a problem as bad as that but it certainly doesn't surprise me. About 20 pages ago I quoted a story about a guy who was uninsured getting family coverage cheap next year. I don't personally know anyone with that much savings but it doesn't surprise me either. I am going to pay about $750 a year for the same coverage I used to have, the people I do know are saving between $500 & $1,500 per year for the same coverage. I think the bad stories, like the people you know paying triple, and the good stories, like the family in the paper here, will get all the press but the vast majority will be in the middle with some saving a bit and some paying a bit. I think it will be a bell curve but "local accountant pays $750 per year more" doesn't make a good story.

I just think looking at only the people we personally know and drawing conclusions is terribly narrow minded. I know one person who has tried to access the website and he said it was no problem, got on the first time and made his choice. I have tried once and was able to get in without a problem. But with all the news surrounding the site I am inclined to believe we were lucky, not that the site is good even though 100% of my personal knowledge says the site is great.