Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[rowjimmy]

STFU Neely.

[antelope19]

STFU Neely.

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

[nab]

I'm not trying to win an argument. What would be the point, no one on this board has any interest in being or capacity to be swayed.

Also, if the truth shocks you, you aren't paying attention.

I disagree with this statement.  Personally, my own opinions and stances have been altered(swayed) numerous times over the years based on useful content and discussions I have found on this board.

I thought that was just RJ's way of calling us all stupid. 

[runawayjimbo]

You sure can run on at the keyboard.

tl;dc
(too long; don't care)

He asked, I answered (while putting off actual work I have to do). I honestly didn't expect you to read, nor do I care (but thanks for making it clear).

1) You can argue against reforming health care, and you'd be on the wrong side of morality and history (eventually).

Since I just spelled out how I'd reform heath care, I am obviously not against it. Not sure what this point means.

That point is a general position. After the TL,DC, my post was directed to the universe not just you.
You are not the only person out there.

You (RJ, not the collective "you") use this tactic a lot.

"You [generally condescending comment]."
"[pushback]"
"I wasn't talking about you."

It's frustrating.

2) You can argue that the ACA is not the solution to the problem and you'd be right. Single payer, public healthcare is the solution. The "free market" had its chance and it kills people.

Ooh, shock value, that's a good way to win an argument.

I'm not trying to win an argument. What would be the point, no one on this board has any interest in being or capacity to be swayed.

Also, if the truth shocks you, you aren't paying attention.

Sorry, contribute to a (formerly) good natured exchange of ideas.

Here's the truth: private corporations - including health insurance companies - have contributed far more to the improvement of living standards and health outcomes than gov't ever has. It's not even close.

C) You can say that the ACA isn't movement in the correct direction. But you'd be wrong. Covering more people is the right direction. And, when this phase of changing healthcare in the country proves out its imperfections, the nation will know which way to push. (see point 2)

Covering people for the sake of covering people does not reduce costs. Unfortunately for your side, when this phase ends, people will be going the other way. Because for as much as people dislike GOP, more of their predictions about the consequences of the ACA are proving true than the WH's. Single payer is not an option this country will entertain. And thank goodness for that. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to use your "death panels are stupid" line. Among other things.

"Covering people for the sake of covering people"? What the fuck?
It's called covering people so that they have an opportunity to live and even thrive without the burden of going bankrupt for or being denied  what should be a given right: good health.

I don't know where in your ideology you find "let 'em fight it out" but it doesn't fit into mine.

Health care should not be a business.

Failing to reduce costs will continue to bankrupt people along with the gov't. Then everyone loses. That is why coverage should not be the goal of reform but bringing down the cost of health care in this country. Then people will be able to afford better options and the gov't can continue to provide a safety net for the neediest people without putting the entire system at risk. Which is what the both ACA and single payer would do.

Health care is a business. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have improvements and technological achievements. The private sector is the only way to allocate capital efficiently (see "just a website"). Scarcity dominates all economics, even health care. Benefits are not free, they come with tradeoffs, some obvious and some unseen. This should be embraced, not feared.

[rowjimmy]

You (RJ, not the collective "you") use this tactic a lot.

"You [generally condescending comment]."
"[pushback]"
"I wasn't talking about you."

It's frustrating.

I'm sorry if you can't separate yourself from generalizations.
Maybe get your ego out of the way.
(THAT's for you, personally.)

Here's the truth: private corporations - including health insurance companies - have contributed far more to the improvement of living standards and health outcomes than gov't ever has. It's not even close.

Yep. That's probably true. Especially if one rules out government mandated health standards.
But it's only because the government has only had a few toes in these waters up to now.

This goes right back to the automobile analogy. Private industry has systematically screwed the impoverished and disadvantaged because they're unprofitable. But certainly the wealthy have had their health standards raised over the years. Good for them.

Health care is a business. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have improvements and technological achievements. The private sector is the only way to allocate capital efficiently (see "just a website"). Scarcity dominates all economics, even health care. Benefits are not free, they come with tradeoffs, some obvious and some unseen. This should be embraced, not feared.

I didn't say that Health care "isn't" a business.
I said,

Health care should not be a business.

Big difference.

I'm not trying to win an argument. What would be the point, no one on this board has any interest in being or capacity to be swayed.

Also, if the truth shocks you, you aren't paying attention.

I disagree with this statement.  Personally, my own opinions and stances have been altered(swayed) numerous times over the years based on useful content and discussions I have found on this board.

I thought that was just RJ's way of calling us all stupid. 

Nope. I was saying that, ime, most folks here are fairly locked into their positions and this exercise is generally one of futility.

Which is why I take long breaks from this part of the site.

[mbw]

Sorry, contribute to a (formerly) good natured exchange of ideas.

I'm at fault here.  My apologies if it appeared I was trying to be good natured.

[runawayjimbo]

You (RJ, not the collective "you") use this tactic a lot.

"You [generally condescending comment]."
"[pushback]"
"I wasn't talking about you."

It's frustrating.

I'm sorry if you can't separate yourself from generalizations.
Maybe get your ego out of the way.
(THAT's for you, personally.)

I'm not buying this at all. You are way too crafty with your words to pretend you can't see how what you are saying could be taken this way. It's your passive-aggressive way of zinging people. Own up to it and tell me I'm an idiot for not agreeing with you. I promise, my ego can take it.

Here's the truth: private corporations - including health insurance companies - have contributed far more to the improvement of living standards and health outcomes than gov't ever has. It's not even close.

Yep. That's probably true. Especially if one rules out government mandated health standards.
But it's only because the government has only had a few toes in these waters up to now.

Lulz

Health care is a business. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have improvements and technological achievements. The private sector is the only way to allocate capital efficiently (see "just a website"). Scarcity dominates all economics, even health care. Benefits are not free, they come with tradeoffs, some obvious and some unseen. This should be embraced, not feared.

I didn't say that Health care "isn't" a business.
I said,

Health care should not be a business.

Big difference.

I know, and I was clarifying why we should be thankful that it is.

Sorry, contribute to a (formerly) good natured exchange of ideas.

I'm at fault here.  My apologies if it appeared I was trying to be good natured.

You are an idiot.

No, not you.

[runawayjimbo]

Back on topic...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/13/69359/

About 106,000 people enrolled in Obamacare last month

Just over 106,000 people selected insurance plans during the health care law's first month of open enrollment, the Obama administration announced Wednesday.

Approximately 27,000 of those sign-ups came from 36 states where the federal government is running the exchange, which has been beset with technical difficulties. The additional 79,000 came through the 15 marketplaces run by states and the District of Columbia.

"There is no doubt the level of interest is strong. We expect enrollment will grow substantially throughout the next five months, mirroring the pattern that Massachusetts experienced," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said. They're also numbers that will grow as the website, HealthCare.gov, continues to make steady improvements."

The numbers represent a fraction of the half-million health sign-ups the Obama administration had initially projected, before healthcare.gov's rocky roll out thwarted many shoppers' attempts to sign up for insurance. Budget forecasters previously projected that 7 million people would enroll in coverage during this year's open enrollment period, which runs until March 31.

The Obama administration expects that as the technical issues get sorted out enrollment will increase.

"The numbers are effected by the website issues," a senior administration official said. "So its no surprise they're lower than projections."

The administration's sign-up account includes shoppers who have selected a plan through the online exchange. The federal government does not have data on who, among those people, has paid the first month's premium for January.

The federal government also counted just over 396,000 people who have been determined eligible for Medicaid, the public program for low-income Americans that the health care law expanded.

The full report is below.

[rowjimmy]

You are not an idiot for disagreeing with me but you might be if you take everything I say personally.

[runawayjimbo]

The dance continues...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/14/breaking-obama-to-make-statement-on-health-care/?hpt=hp_t2

Obama to push administrative fix for insurance cancellations

(CNN) - President Barack Obama will lay out an administrative solution to address the problem of people getting cancellation notices from their health insurance providers, a senior Democratic source familiar with the plan tells CNN's Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash.

Obama will deliver remarks at 11:35 a.m. ET in the White House Press Briefing Room, the White House announced Thursday morning.

The plan will in part call for insurance policies to be renewed for one year for those who already have insurance policies in the individual market, the source said.

Also, the source added, insurance companies will be required to notify policyholders of alternative coverage and what benefits they would be losing by keeping their existing plan.

When selling Obamacare, the President repeatedly assured Americans they would be able to keep their plans if they liked them. However, many Americans have been getting dropped from their providers because their existing policies don't work with the new regulations.

Obama has since apologized for people losing their coverage and pledged to find a solution.

[mbw]

Sorry, contribute to a (formerly) good natured exchange of ideas.

I'm at fault here.  My apologies if it appeared I was trying to be good natured.

You are an idiot.

No, not you.

[runawayjimbo]

Sorry, contribute to a (formerly) good natured exchange of ideas.

I'm at fault here.  My apologies if it appeared I was trying to be good natured.

You are an idiot.

No, not you.

[antelope19]

I applaud the president for addressing the public today, owning up to this mess, and laying out a solution.  I am optimistic that this will be fixed sooner than later. But I'm sorry, stating that you underestimated how difficult and complex a process it is to purchase an insurance policy? Apparently no one has attempted to navigate the Medicare system? Have you not learned anything from the complaints and struggles of the existing infrastructure?

[runawayjimbo]

I applaud the president for addressing the public today, owning up to this mess, and laying out a solution.  I am optimistic that this will be fixed sooner than later. But I'm sorry, stating that you underestimated how difficult and complex a process it is to purchase an insurance policy? Apparently no one has attempted to navigate the Medicare system? Have you not learned anything from the complaints and struggles of the existing infrastructure?

I (shockingly) take a more cynical view. This was not an apology and definitely not a solution. It will be extremely difficult for insurers to reissue cancelled policies given that they have been making changes to systems for months (maybe years). This looks to me an attempt to shift blame to insurers.

The original tactic was having official spokespeople run out the "ACA didn't cancel your plan, the insurers did!" line. That failed, mostly because pundits on both the right and the left called it for what it was (BS). So they moved to plan B, which was allow (retroactively) insurers to reissue plans even though I am quite sure the WH is aware of the logistical nightmare that will be (actually, I'm not quite sure as they don't appear to be aware of anything). Now if they insurers push back it will be all their fault. I gotta hand it to him, it's a brilliant political move. Unfortunately, the political fix is only short-term; assuming insurers can get the policies reissued, this will create a much more difficult long-term adverse selection problem.

If people can keep their old, presumably cheaper limited plans, who is going to sign up for ACA plans? People who need the more expansive coverage the most. Since rates were set under the assumption that everyone would be buying the ACA-approved plans, they will be woefully inadequate as the pool insureds buying exchange policies are more costly than the general population. Rates will have to rise (possibly dramatically) and insurers may even pull out of the exchanges all together (especially if they feel they've been thrown under the bus by this latest move). That is the ACA death spiral.

Oh by the way, this is a one-year extension which, shockingly, just happens to be a mid-term election year. What are the odds?!?

[rowjimmy]

Fucking dick can't even apologize correctly.