US Politics Mega-thread - Page 573

On October 27 2013 13:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
Well, getting an amendment to the constitution is also a giant hassle. It's an incredibly transparent political ploy.

On October 27 2013 13:10 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Obamacare was created with two stated primary intentions: To insure the uninsured, and to lower costs/premiums.

As it stands now, there are more people uninsured due to the law, and the premiums are skyrocketing. This is what we shall see in the coming days: the most unhealthy and expensive health care consumers will be the ones who spend the most time and effort trying to sign up for obamacare, and the healthy and young people will spend little or no time battling the broken system. As a result you will have a sudden surge of massive undistributed costs at the taxpayer dime, which will further raise premiums and make it even less feasible for the healthy to sign up.

Those who are healthy have little incentive to sign up, since they can wait to get unhealthy and then sign up and suffer no consequences. Why would you pay for insurance when you are already effectively insured? The only incentive is the fines, and as it stands now the fines are still cheaper than the obamacare premiums. The real cost is not in the premiums anyway, it is in the deductibles, but you won't hear that mentioned much in the media.

And yet, you will hear countless "liberals" who believe in socialized medicine coming to the defense of a broken bill which forces people to buy a product from private companies. They cannot see the blatant ideological inconsistency so long as they are still opposing the republican party.

On October 27 2013 13:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:

It's also hilarious if you think about it. Laws do apply to people in congress, as much as people like to joke about it. Does a politician really want to publicly spread the pretense that he, and everyone in his party (even ignoring his opposition...) are currently above the law?



.....................has it even gone into effect yet?

On October 27 2013 13:23 Thomas Sowell wrote:

Enrollment in the marketplace began October 1st.

Employers dropping their employees health insurance in anticipation of the law began even before that.

Over 500,000 individuals have seen their insurance policies cancelled in just 3 states. In all 50 states, only 476,000 applications have been "filed" in an exchange. (Even though we are still learning the true definition of "filed.")

Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

But it’s difficult to determine exactly how lopsided the rates of cancellations versus the rates of enrollment are — the Obama administration jealously guards the official enrollment numbers, refusing to release them to even the law’s loyal Democratic supporters.

Several states have released Obamacare enrollment data, however, revealing extremely low rates. South Dakota reported that only 23 people enrolled in the exchanges, a mere 0.0000276 percent of that state’s population. North Dakota enrolled only 20 residents.

Alaska, meanwhile, comes in at seven total enrollees, or 0.000957 percent of Alaskans.

Sources inside the Department of Health and Human Services told The Daily Mail that only 6,200 Americans signed up for coverage the day HealthCare.gov launched, while only 51,000 applied in the first week.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More U.S. adults were uninsured in the third quarter of 2013 than in any quarter in nearly six years of Gallup and Heathways tracking, with 18% reporting they lacked health insurance. This represents the third consecutive quarter in which the uninsured rate has ticked up.

On October 27 2013 14:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:


...so...again. It hasn't even been fully implemented, and according to what you're stating here, not everyone has even filed their application, and you're trying to make a point about...?

On October 27 2013 14:15 Thomas Sowell wrote:

I am not judging a fully implemented law. I am judging the consequences of the law as they currently stand. Obviously laws have consequences even before they are implemented. So far they are in direct opposition to the stated goals of the law, which isn't an unhappy coincidence.

But I get it, you will into the future continue to ignore any negative data with your "wait and see" attitude. No doubt if the early results were positive you'd hear the praises of Obamacare being sung from the mountain tops.

On October 27 2013 14:00 zlefin wrote:
Haters gonna hate. Sowell is a hater.

I think we should nationalize the emergency medicine system (but not other parts).
Since emergency medicine is like fire/police, you cover everyone regardless of what they can afford, it makes sense to nationalize it; and nobody makes money on it. All (or nearly all) emergency rooms lose money, and hospitals have to make up the money elsewhere, so it's not like any companies are getting hurt by nationalizing emergency rooms.

On October 27 2013 14:33 DoubleReed wrote:

We have Obamacare, so everyone is going to get insurance (unless they decide to opt out or whatever).

Industry analysts, such as Jonathan Wu, point to how the website lumps people only into two broad categories: “49 or under” and “50 or older.” Wu said it’s “incredibly misleading for people that are trying to get a sense of what they’re paying.” Prices for everyone in the 49-or-under group are based on what a 27-year-old would pay. In the 50-or-older group, prices are based on what a 50-year-old would pay. CBS News ran the numbers for a 48-year-old in Charlotte, N.C., ineligible for subsidies. According to HealthCare.gov, she would pay $231 a month, but the actual plan on BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina’s website costs $360, more than a 50 percent increase. The difference: BlueCross BlueShield requests your birthday before providing more accurate estimates. The numbers for older Americans are even more striking. A 62-year-old in Charlotte looking for the same basic plan would get a price estimate on the government website of $394. The actual price is $634.

On October 27 2013 14:41 Thomas Sowell wrote:
Speaking of bugs:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-feature-often-lists-wrong-prices-for-coverage/

Wait, what am I saying. That's not a bug, that's design.

On October 27 2013 14:33 DoubleReed wrote:


???

We have Obamacare, so everyone is going to get insurance (unless they decide to opt out or whatever). Insurance covers emergency care. The reason why emergency rooms 'lose money' is because people who don't have insurance are essentially 'free riders,' where the hospital every taxpayer has to make up the cost.