Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Max White]

So I have been hearing something about Obama admitting problems with Obamacare, and actually from a reliable source? Well if you count Chas Licciardello as reliable, he is one of the most honest men out there either way.

[Sheb]

Well, between his half-truth during the election campaign about how you could keep your plan and the massive fuck up that was the roll-out of Healthcare.gov, he's been admitting problem and apologizing for a while.

[Leafsnail]

Spoiler: Large image of a torturer hopelessly failing to look badass (click to show/hide)

[GreatJustice]

Well, between his half-truth during the election campaign about how you could keep your plan and the massive fuck up that was the roll-out of Healthcare.gov, he's been admitting problem and apologizing for a while.

Possibly with good reason, since the rollout has been so bad that people actually trust the House Republicans more than they do Obama.

Of course, in the long term, letting people keep their old plans isn't such a good idea because a lot of them are basically the equivalent of just not getting insurance (extremely cheap, basically no coverage), and the people holding them tend to be the younger and healthier people that are supposed to be paying into the system to keep premiums down.

[Sheb]

Sure. I think right now he is using the time-honoured method of kicking the can down the road by allowing a 1-year extension for those plans.

[Leafsnail]

Most of the cancelled plans are much worse than not getting insurance.  Like, they're cheap but there's almost no possible scenario in which they'll pay for themselves.

[Sheb]

And I doubt they'd be cheaper than not taking insurance and paying the penalty.

[GreatJustice]

Most of the cancelled plans are much worse than not getting insurance.  Like, they're cheap but there's almost no possible scenario in which they'll pay for themselves.

Assuming no Obamacare, possibly. But with it, it basically offers an out for people who don't want insurance but also don't want to pay the penalty, which is great for them but not so good for a system relying on those very same people shouldering the costs of everyone else

[Sheb]

The penalty (like much of Obamacare) is apparently being phased in over a few years, to top out at 695$ in 2016. I hate the way they did that to have snappy soundbite while hiding how it works (like the fact that the federal government is funding 100% of the Medicaid expansion for a few years only).

So yeah, I guess some really crappy plans could be cheaper than that.

[mainiac]

while hiding how it works (like the fact that the federal government is funding 100% of the Medicaid expansion for a few years only).

...after which the federal government slowly declines to a mere 90% funding level.

It's not like they weren't upfront about this from the start.  And it's not exactly onerous either.  The feds are picking up the vast majority of the tab.  The tiny contribution the states are being asked is probably less than the money they will save by not needing to cover these people through other channels (like state funded high risk pools, payments to hospitals to cover loss on the uninsured).  This expansion is from a state government perspective a massive, massive win.  And it's even better if you are from a red state which had previously skimped on coverage and will get a lot more of the federal largess.

Nobody has hidden any of this, they've been upfront about it from the start.  And frankly, federal funding shares this high are unprecedented for a program of this size, not to mention one that benefits red states this much at the cost of blue states.  You can't say they are sticking the states with hidden costs when the states come out way ahead.

So yeah, I guess some really crappy plans could be cheaper than that.

I don't think any plan is cheaper than $95 a year which is the mandate level someone in a cut rate plan could expect if they aren't poor enough to qualify for medicaid in a blue state or poverty exemption in a plutocrat red one.  $95 a month maybe but not $95 a year.

[Sheb]

1) I'm not saying it's a bad deal for the states. But if you're only going to fund 90%, why start at 100% and decrease, if not for a snappy soundbite? Why not directly fund it at 90%?

As for the penalty, it's going to raise to 695$ by 2016. Again, the 95$ are there for a snappy soundbite.

[mainiac]

1) I'm not saying it's a bad deal for the states. But if you're only going to fund 90%, why start at 100% and decrease, if not for a snappy soundbite? Why not directly fund it at 90%?

As for the penalty, it's going to raise to 695$ by 2016. Again, the 95$ are there for a snappy soundbite.

Can you point me to any videos of these soundbites in action?  I get my news through written media exclusively so I was unaware that these things are soundbites.  They don't seem exactly seem like the stuff of soundbites to me.

[Sheb]

Okay, maybe soundbite is not the right term, what I mean is that progressive roll-out of Obamacare is only there so POTUS can claim that the penalty is very low or the state don't have to pay a dime, while this is only true for a few years.

Why not offer only 90% and charge 695$ directly?

[Max White]

Because your not posting in "FJ's reasonable and coherent action in regards to national American policy" thread... Your posting in a politics thread.

[Descan]

A reasonable reason (lolrecursion. I think.) to do a gradual build up to 700 dollars is because going from 0 to 700 in one year is a huge leap while going from 95 to (300? 400?) and then to 700 is a bit more gradual and can be budgeted for better by Americans, and gives them time to afford insurance.