Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bro, they are on the gallows, though not all heads are in the noose yet.

And you know that non compliance penalty will grow rapidly.

And yet, they either pay or they don't. Forget for a moment what may or may not be the case next year, year after next and so on. In the here and now, they either pay or they don't. Which is it?

[Peikko 1,575]

Think about what you just wrote there for a minute......

"It's not more expensive"

This is the wishful thinking that has me so concerned, the program has not even got out of the hanger (certainly not off the ground) and you are convinced it is a money saver.... no matter what the evidence is showing.

Do you really think you are going to give stuff away for free, most of which could never have been had under the old system of using the emergency room.... and we are going to save money!

My friend this is "cost shifting" where you and I pay for it..... in the form of a healthcare tax in our premiums.

Why do you think the the Insurance industry was all in?

Think about what? If you had pre existing conditions or couldn't afford health care insurance prior to the affordable care act you did one of two things, did without preventative care and ongoing chronic health care and ended up in the emergency room which I was already paying for or paid through the nose for it cash up front. Now all these people can use health care insurance and get access to affordable care. I think that's great, don't you?

[Pooky 3,366]

Think about what? If you had pre existing conditions or couldn't afford health care insurance prior to the affordable care act you did one of two things, did without preventative care and ongoing chronic health care and ended up in the emergency room which I was already paying for or paid through the nose for it cash up front. Now all these people can use health care insurance and get access to affordable care. I think that's great, don't you?

Keep kidding yourself about the care being affordable. The deductibles and co-pays will, in a large number of cases, ensure that people who need to use the care part of the deal end up out of pocket to a greater extent than before.

And to think, the Administration had 3 years to prepare for implementation and they are still woefully unprepared. Major areas of the law are being changed on the fly and without Congressional consent. Implementation dates are falling like dominoes. All because the Democrats passed whatever pieces of carp they could muster the votes for and not a cohesive, well thought out policy. Such a shame.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Keep kidding yourself about the care being affordable. The deductibles and co-pays will, in a large number of cases, ensure that people who need to use the care part of the deal end up out of pocket to a greater extent than before.

And to think, the Administration had 3 years to prepare for implementation and they are still woefully unprepared. Major areas of the law are being changed on the fly and without Congressional consent. Implementation dates are falling like dominoes. All because the Democrats passed whatever pieces of carp they could muster the votes for and not a cohesive, well thought out policy. Such a shame.

See, here we agree. Now tell me, what cohesive, well thought out policy has the opposition brought forward? Or if we were to lower the standard, what cohesive, well thought out policy would the opposition support? That's right. None on the former and none on the latter. The opposition is in fact so confused on this issue that rather than claiming victory, they are bombarding and attacking their very own proposal.

[Pooky 3,366]

See, here we agree. Now tell me, what cohesive, well thought out policy has the opposition brought forward? Or if we were to lower the standard, what cohesive, well thought out policy would the opposition support? That's right. None on the former and none on the latter. The opposition is in fact so confused on this issue that rather than claiming victory, they are bombarding and attacking their very own proposal.

At this stage of the game, a bigger question is, if you want to implement something else, you would have to unravel the ongoing train wreck that is the current law. Not enough new enrollees have signed up, and the imbalance of too few young enrollees is creating serious upward pressure on premiums for next year. The insurances companies are positively salivating at the prospect.

Then there's the company mandate coming into play at the end of this year. Some reports make the claim that over 60% of policies are facing cancellation, which, if true, would make the last quarter of 2013 look like a picnic. The stress on the system could be catastrophic. If that happens, demographics may not be able to save the Democrats in 2016, let alone 2014.

So, before you come up with any new system, you have to ensure that you have a healthcare system left to change. And that might be a problem.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At this stage of the game, a bigger question is, if you want to implement something else, you would have to unravel the ongoing train wreck that is the current law. Not enough new enrollees have signed up, and the imbalance of too few young enrollees is creating serious upward pressure on premiums for next year. The insurances companies are positively salivating at the prospect.

Then there's the company mandate coming into play at the end of this year. Some reports make the claim that over 60% of policies are facing cancellation, which, if true, would make the last quarter of 2013 look like a picnic. The stress on the system could be catastrophic. If that happens, demographics may not be able to save the Democrats in 2016, let alone 2014.

So, before you come up with any new system, you have to ensure that you have a healthcare system left to change. And that might be a problem.

Lots of speculation there. The enrollment is fairly close to where it was projected to be albeit a bit lighter on the part of the younger crowd than hoped for. And yet, major health insurers are saying that it all is working out within their projections and expectations. Wellpoint CEO is quoted as saying that “While it is early in 2014, we are encouraged by results thus far across our businesses and we believe exchanges are tracking our general expectations,”. Not sure how we arrive at any panic from that.

Are there "some reports" that claim that the health care system will collapse? Yes. Are there some reports that the sky is falling? Yes. There are. Last I checked, the sky was still in its right place. There have been some reports that Obama would be a one-term president. There have been some reports that Mitt Romney would be President. There have been some reports that Obama was born in Kenya. There have been some reports that aliens have plucked MH370 out of the sky. Whatever it is one wants to dream up, there will be some reports supporting it. One can elect, however, to give them the attention that they would appear to deserve - none.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,366]

Lots of speculation there. The enrollment is fairly close to where it was projected to be albeit a bit lighter on the part of the younger crowd than hoped for. And yet, major health insurers are saying that it all is working out within their projections and expectations. Wellpoint CEO is quoted as saying that While it is early in 2014, we are encouraged by results thus far across our businesses and we believe exchanges are tracking our general expectations,. Not sure how we arrive at any panic from that.

Are there "some reports" that claim that the health care system will collapse? Yes. Are there some reports that the sky is falling? Yes. There are. Last I checked, the sky was still in its right place. There have been some reports that Obama would be a one-term president. There have been some reports that Mitt Romney would be President. There have been some reports that Obama was born in Kenya. There have been some reports that aliens have plucked MH370 out of the sky. Whatever it is one wants to dream up, there will be some reports supporting it. One can elect, however, to give them the attention that they would appear to deserve - none.

You could also take the reports from those with a vested interest in seeing the PPACA stay in place whatever it takes, both political and monetary, with a healthy dose of skepticism and draw your own conclusions. But you choose not to. Your loss.

What is patently obvious is that the law that was passed and is still being amended, because it was a hopeless shambles from the outset, has set back any chance of real, substantive healthcare reform by years, if not decades. President Obama's signature policy achievement will come to be an albatross around the neck of his Presidency., because the Democrats chose to do something, just not the right thing.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You could also take the reports from those with a vested interest in seeing the PPACA stay in place whatever it takes, both political and monetary, with a healthy dose of skepticism and draw your own conclusions. But you choose not to. Your loss.

What is patently obvious is that the law that was passed and is still being amended, because it was a hopeless shambles from the outset, has set back any chance of real, substantive healthcare reform by years, if not decades. President Obama's signature policy achievement will come to be an albatross around the neck of his Presidency., because the Democrats chose to do something, just not the right thing.

That actually makes no sense at all. Firstly, this was the first, substantive health care reform package in decades. It's been tried time and again and has failed time and again until 2010 when the first substantive reform package actually passed. It's far from perfect and it will need many changes and adjustments - possibly a complete overhaul - down the road. Maybe this piece of legislation is what will eventually force the complete overhaul, though I doubt it. But it hasn't stifled or set back a thing because there wasn't a thing to be set back or stifled to begin with.

There was a status quo that left tens of thousands of Americans for dead each year and a status quo that forced me to fund the free ride for slackers that failed to provide for themselves - not because they couldn't but because they chose not to. That status quo needed changing and the ACA did a good bit of that. It also provided some cost control mechanisms that will prove valuable in years to come. Some chose to call those death panels and some chose to jump on that silly bandwagon.

I get it that many feel that total course change, a single payer model or something along those lines was needed. And I don't disagree with that at all. However, I was around in 2009 and 2010 and it was clear to me then and it is clear to me still that such a fundamental change just wasn't possible. One can deny that reality, of course, but it was the reality all the same. The politics of even a non-private insurer (the public option) were impossible - not the least because it is corporate America who runs Congress and the White House.

[Danno 1,228]

Now all these people can use health care insurance and get access to affordable care. I think that's great, don't you?

I agree, it is always cool if you can get others to pay your way.

At the root of this debate is this question-

Do people have a fundamental right to demand others pay for their care?

I don't think so.

Yet that doesn't mean that we can't do something in the spirit of charity.... which is what it essentially is, though they don't see it that way (and that is one of the problems).

You brought up those with preexisting conditions. The first person responsible for my health care needs is me, then my family then my community.

One of the huge downfalls of Gov'y intervention is, the Govt is the sole provider, the sole entity which goes around forcing others to pay for my care.

My own father is no more expected to contribute than a stranger 200 miles away. This is the social dynamic which the Left has brought to this country.

Used to be if you were down and out, you would go to a relief agency, they would contact your family and impress upon them to help out.

Of course that often worked back then, now your own mother directs you to the foodstamp office rather than buy you a bag of groceries or make payments on your hospital bill.

[deleted-05292014 331]

I agree, it is always cool if you can get others to pay your way.

At the root of this debate is this question-

Do people have a fundamental right to demand others pay for their care?

I don't think so.

Yet that doesn't mean that we can't do something in the spirit of charity.... which is what it essentially is, though they don't see it that way (and that is one of the problems).

You brought up those with preexisting conditions. The first person responsible for my health care needs is me, then my family then my community..

Your first point is that irregardless of what you say about paying for peoples care, who paid for someones care when they are brought to the emergency room and do not have health insurance?

Pre-exisiting conditions you totally miss the point. People want to buy insurance and pay for their care but insurance companies were denying people because in order for health insurances to make a profit they need to deny people care. That is the problem.

[Pooky 3,366]

That actually makes no sense at all. Firstly, this was the first, substantive health care reform package in decades. It's been tried time and again and has failed time and again until 2010 when the first substantive reform package actually passed. It's far from perfect and it will need many changes and adjustments - possibly a complete overhaul - down the road. Maybe this piece of legislation is what will eventually force the complete overhaul, though I doubt it. But it hasn't stifled or set back a thing because there wasn't a thing to be set back or stifled to begin with.

There was a status quo that left tens of thousands of Americans for dead each year and a status quo that forced me to fund the free ride for slackers that failed to provide for themselves - not because they couldn't but because they chose not to. That status quo needed changing and the ACA did a good bit of that. It also provided some cost control mechanisms that will prove valuable in years to come. Some chose to call those death panels and some chose to jump on that silly bandwagon.

I get it that many feel that total course change, a single payer model or something along those lines was needed. And I don't disagree with that at all. However, I was around in 2009 and 2010 and it was clear to me then and it is clear to me still that such a fundamental change just wasn't possible. One can deny that reality, of course, but it was the reality all the same. The politics of even a non-private insurer (the public option) were impossible - not the least because it is corporate America who runs Congress and the White House.

It makes perfect sense, once you understand the context. After the 2008 election, President Obama was presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a real, substantive difference to the provision of healthcare in this country. For a time, he was gifted with a filibuster-proof Congressional majority. Regardless of their opinion on policy, the Republicans in the Senate did not have sufficient numbers to block legislation.

Instead of seizing the opportunity and leading the policy direction, the President sat back and left the drafting to the career politicians in Congress. Instead of being daring and establishing a policy record that had substance, the President determined, almost from the outset, that his main purpose in his first term was to win re-election in 2012.

The idiots in Congress, on the other hand, saw an opportunity to cram as much carp into the bill as they could dream up, giving rise to Then-Speaker Pelosi's infamous quote, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." On top of that, Democrats who thought they might be vulnerable made the push to water down what they could, to make it less offensive to their electorate, and to exact a hard price to buy their Congressional votes. The infighting and horse-trading dragged on, past Senator Ted Kennedy's demise, which brought the Republican filibuster back into play in the Senate. The opportunity was lost.

The problems with the PPACA are many. The number of uninsured who will remain uninsured is estimated at between 30 and 45 million, giving a net gain in those having health insurance at zero, or close to zero. Although some are seeing their insurance premiums reduced through subsidies, the insurance companies have been hiking the base premiums through the roof. Change the law now and the premium baseline is significantly higher than it would have been without the PPACA. And that figure of 60% of employer insurance policies facing cancellation at year's end? That's the government's own estimate, and a mid-range estimate at that. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364177/2010-administration-predicted-majority-employer-based-health-plans-would-disappear

If you think a few million individual policies caused a fuss at the end of 2013, can you imagine the chaos that canceling 80-odd million policy cancellations are going to cause at the end of this year? And with the premium decision gate delayed past the 2014 mid-terms, the period to resolve any issues is far shorter than that for the individual insurance debacle.

The end result of the PPACA will be to make real substantive change to healthcare, something this bill never really addressed, far harder to accomplish than it already was. Meanwhile, President Obama still has his legacy, the insurance companies are taking it to the bank and the pharmaceutical companies are enjoying unfettered control over the drug supply, and therefore the pricing structure, in the US.

So, the only people getting shafted in this whole deal are the American people. This country still spends over 17% of GDP on healthcare, far more than most other developed nations, for healthcare that is nowhere near as good. The PPACA did nothing to change that. Which is a shame.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Pooky

[Danno 1,228]

Your first point is that irregardless of what you say about paying for peoples care, who paid for someones care when they are brought to the emergency room and do not have health insurance?

Pre-exisiting conditions you totally miss the point. People want to buy insurance and pay for their care but insurance companies were denying people because in order for health insurances to make a profit they need to deny people care. That is the problem.

-Emergency room justification: IF the emergency room bills were too high, how could it be less costly to create a system where these same poor people get free coverage with ten times the available services? Emergency room care is very very limited. As We all know Obama care demands that even birth control be provided. Even Sex Change services and ####### implants are or will be covered.

We will be like the shop owner who went from loosing money from shop lifters to allowing them to just take what they need or want.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It makes perfect sense, once you understand the context. After the 2008 election, President Obama was presented with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a real, substantive difference to the provision of healthcare in this country. For a time, he was gifted with a filibuster-proof Congressional majority. Regardless of their opinion on policy, the Republicans in the Senate did not have sufficient numbers to block legislation.

Instead of seizing the opportunity and leading the policy direction, the President sat back and left the drafting to the career politicians in Congress. Instead of being daring and establishing a policy record that had substance, the President determined, almost from the outset, that his main purpose in his first term was to win re-election in 2012.

The idiots in Congress, on the other hand, saw an opportunity to cram as much carp into the bill as they could dream up, giving rise to Then-Speaker Pelosi's infamous quote, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." On top of that, Democrats who thought they might be vulnerable made the push to water down what they could, to make it less offensive to their electorate, and to exact a hard price to buy their Congressional votes. The infighting and horse-trading dragged on, past Senator Ted Kennedy's demise, which brought the Republican filibuster back into play in the Senate. The opportunity was lost.

The problems with the PPACA are many. The number of uninsured who will remain uninsured is estimated at between 30 and 45 million, giving a net gain in those having health insurance at zero, or close to zero. Although some are seeing their insurance premiums reduced through subsidies, the insurance companies have been hiking the base premiums through the roof. Change the law now and the premium baseline is significantly higher than it would have been without the PPACA. And that figure of 60% of employer insurance policies facing cancellation at year's end? That's the government's own estimate, and a mid-range estimate at that. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364177/2010-administration-predicted-majority-employer-based-health-plans-would-disappear

If you think a few million individual policies caused a fuss at the end of 2013, can you imagine the chaos that canceling 80-odd million policy cancellations are going to cause at the end of this year? And with the premium decision gate delayed past the 2014 mid-terms, the period to resolve any issues is far shorter than that for the individual insurance debacle.

The end result of the PPACA will be to make real substantive change to healthcare, something this bill never really addressed, far harder to accomplish than it already was. Meanwhile, President Obama still has his legacy, the insurance companies are taking it to the bank and the pharmaceutical companies are enjoying unfettered control over the drug supply, and therefore the pricing structure, in the US.

So, the only people getting shafted in this whole deal are the American people. This country still spends over 17% of GDP on healthcare, far more than most other developed nations, for healthcare that is nowhere near as good. The PPACA did nothing to change that. Which is a shame.

I understand the context perfectly. Firstly, there wasn't a perfect opportunity for the grand reform once much of the 2008 political capital had to be spent on saving the economy from the abyss against the war-like opposition of the Republican party. Once that was done, the grand opportunity you speak of was not all that different from what Clinton had in 1992. Clinton, of course, grossly overestimated his actual opportunity, overreached and accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of health care reform as a result of that. That's the context that needs to be understood. And Obama understood it just fine. His detractors were hoping that he wouldn't. They were hoping for him to overreach and fail the same way Clinton did almost two decades earlier. And now they're pizzed off because he did not.

[Pooky 3,366]

I understand the context perfectly. Firstly, there wasn't a perfect opportunity for the grand reform once much of the 2008 political capital had to be spent on saving the economy from the abyss against the war-like opposition of the Republican party. Once that was done, the grand opportunity you speak of was not all that different from what Clinton had in 1992. Clinton, of course, grossly overestimated his actual opportunity, overreached and accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of health care reform as a result of that. That's the context that needs to be understood. And Obama understood it just fine. His detractors were hoping that he wouldn't. They were hoping for him to overreach and fail the same way Clinton did almost two decades earlier. And now they're pizzed off because he did not.

Obama didn't even try. He was happy to sit back and let the career dingbats determine the contents of the bill, instead of driving its direction, with a view to letting others take the fall for any mis-steps. That was the lesson he took from Clinton's trainwreck.

However, President Obama's opportunity was so much better, because the only obstacles he faced were from his own party. That they turned out to be so problematic is down to the lack of leadership and the safety first mindset of the politicians involved.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Keep kidding yourself about the care being affordable. The deductibles and co-pays will, in a large number of cases, ensure that people who need to use the care part of the deal end up out of pocket to a greater extent than before.

I don't know about that. Say somebody on Obama care needs to have an operation. Sure their might be a large deductible, but that still beats the alternative of losing the family home, or being put so deep in the red, that only alternative is filing for bankruptcy.