Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » And Now I’m Confused

And Now I’m Confused

By Mitch Berg

Obama apologizes for loss of heath plans…

…that, last week, were “junk plans” that we’re better off without?

This entry was posted by by Mitch Berg on Friday, November 8th, 2013 at 2:57 pm and is filed under Health Care. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

33 Responses to “And Now I’m Confused”

Troy Says:
November 8th, 2013 at 3:31 pm
Plans we liked only because we were too stupid to understand our own interests.
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 8th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
The spin on the left about this is unbelievable. ‘Only five million’? It’s a marginal thing, if five million lost their health insurance, millions and millions more saw their health insurance cover less, become more expensive, or both.
When did the Left begin to believe that its okay to f*ck with a minority to achieve the goals of the majority.
No integrity on that side.
But they all believe in evolution! And global warming! And amnesty for illegals!
Yossarian Says:
November 8th, 2013 at 4:59 pm
See, the Left only obsesses about the 1%. The 5% is an acceptable number. They’re not sure what to think about 2% milk–they think it’s only half way evil.
Dog Gone Says:
November 8th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Only five million are in the individual market.

Not all of those have junk plans.

We have a national population of 317,022,000.

So, yeah…….we’re talking about very few people, comparatively, and most of those the right has trotted out whining – like the bunch on Hannity – turned out to be a farce, talking lies about the ACA. They all did better with the ACA insurance.

And yes, anthropogenic global warming is fact, as is evolution.

Seriously – you’re trotting out that old tattered, dusty, worn out boogeyman, amnesty for aliens? You are worried about what your secular saint, Ronnie Ray-gun did in 1986?

Do you check under the bed every night for commies and illegal aliens too?

Obama is soothing the faux hysteria ginned up by the lying right wing media. The fact checkers are not terribly favorable to you guys.

I would refer you to the analysis done by Consumer Reports.
mnbubba Says:
November 8th, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Thasss Racissss!!!!!!!
Yossarian Says:
November 8th, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Only five million are in the individual market.

Sweet Jebus, DG. You must have a cat that just jumps on your keyboard and then takes a dump on the “Enter” button. There’s no other explanation for the kind of nonsense that appears here under your nom de fume.
Joe Says:
November 8th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
“So, yeah…….we’re talking about very few people …”

But if it saves only one life … ?
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 12:15 am
Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of health insurance they had
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html#storylink=cpy

Dog Gone, you are a moron. Not only do you have no idea how to evaluate, you have no desire to do so. You want the world to confirm your bourgeois expectations. The real world people live in is not the bourgeois world. Those of us who live in the real world have lives to live. Please leave us alone.
Emery Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 9:01 am
What was intended was for young, healthy, and richer Americans to pay more for their existing healthcare, so that more older, sicker and poorer Americans would receive more healthcare. That’s what “adding people to the risk pool” means.

If the young, healthy, and rich pay the fine instead of signing up, or if companies decide to pay their fine and drop their employees onto the exchanges, then costs to the federal government skyrocket. But we don’t actually know if that will happen, yet.

The better policy has to stop Americans from using so much healthcare, pay some doctors (specialists) a lot less, and squeeze the hospitals. Removing the insurance companies from the equation doesn’t help that much. Their margins are relatively small.

So how do you sell single payer to the American taxpayer? Cover more people? Most are covered now, and the rest don’t vote. Lower costs? Most Americans don’t know how much their healthcare costs. They do know single payer will be a big, government-run system, which the US is really poor at.

To sell single payer to the people, the people need to first be transitioned to universal care with individual plans without tax breaks, so they can see what they’re actually paying. Then a promise of lower costs might convince enough to support it.
Mitch Berg Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 9:04 am
To sell single payer to the people, the people need to first be transitioned to universal care with individual plans without tax breaks, so they can see what they’re actually paying.

“The people need to be transitioned”.

Do libs ever get how creepy they sound?
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 9:06 am
Emery wrote:
Removing the insurance companies from the equation doesn’t help that much. Their margins are relatively small.
As far as I can tell the ideologues who wrote the ACA believe the opposite of this. If the government gives you the right, not to healthcare, but the right to ‘access to healthcare’, what exactly have they given you?
kel Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 9:08 am
Emery: “The people need to be transitioned”.
Stalin: “The kulaks need to be liquidated as a class”
Emery Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 9:47 am
@Kel
Consumers don’t realize the actual costs of healthcare, unless they’re paying out of pocket for services or treatment. Is single payer the answer? I don’t know. I can say, I am no fan of the ACA. It’s a huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Does the Republican leadership have a alternative to the ACA?. As we are seeing, healthcare is a tricky thing and there will be no one particular solution that satisfies everyone.

@MBerg
Young people have much lower health care costs, but have many other expenses (children, buying houses, starting careers). Old people have fewer expenses other than healthcare. But Obamacare explicitly forbids discrimination on the basis of age, and limits the premiums that old people can be charged. Does it do so by offering a government subsidy for old people seeking insurance? No, it forces insurers to compensate for underpayment by old people by overcharging young people. Why does it do this? Because by forcing insurers to overcharge young working people, it hides the cost of the program. Obamacare, with its system of subsidies, mandates, and premium limits, is yet another tax on the young working people of the United States, sapping the vitality of the country to pay for social programs for indolent boomers who have never had to pay for the government they vastly expanded, leaving it for the next generation to settle their debts.
Emery Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 9:54 am
@PM
I’m a big fan of block grants (ht to Paul Ryan). Even the ACA is built on state based exchanges. It wouldn’t take much in the way of tweaks to allow more freedom there. Transfer all of the big entitlements to the states. Allow the states to expand or contract them as they wish. Let each state experiment with health care reform by giving them all of the Medicare and Medicaid money collected in that state, together with the power to change those taxes. That should solve gridlock.
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 11:57 am
Emery-
Some wealth has always been transferred from the young to the old. Even in the old days when children took care of their elderly parents. The obligation to do so crossed cultures. The idea that the state should do so (in one way or another) is untried, and the state’s interests are not necessarily the interests of its citizens — or subjects, if you prefer.
In the past, things like social security and medicare were popular because most of the people experienced an immediate benefit. Almost everyone immediately got more back than they contributed, or expected to.
One of the mistakes made with the ACA is that it cost many people money, now, and got no support from the other party. It created a resentful class and gave them a representative party. Jeez, that was dumb. Or at least it shows how parochial the worldview of the Democrats is. They see world through a distorted lens that shows them that their progressive ideology is capital-T Truth.
Emery Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Obamacare means:
If you are young, rich, or healthy you will pay more and receive less. If you are older, poorer, or sick, you will be able to afford more healthcare. It increases the level of transfers and subsidies that already existed. It does not affect the overall cost of healthcare. It just increases the level of socialism in what was already a socialist system.

The corollory to this is that, because Obamacare doesn’t actually increase Federal spending much, the extra transfers are coming from higher premiums, from healthy, young individuals purchasing healthcare first and foremost, but also from those on corporate plans.

Those inexpensive “not very good” plans being cancelled were inexpensive because the individuals were young and healthy.

PM, what would “Mingocare” look like?
Dog Gone Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 2:14 pm
“It’s a marginal thing, if five million lost their health insurance, millions and millions more saw their health insurance cover less, become more expensive, or both.”

The reality is that the number of cancellations of policies because they are being discontinued in the private insurance market is not significantly different than during any other period of time. That has always been a volatile market, prone to changes in policy offerings and to coverage.

It is not a case that millions and millions are seeing their health insurance cover less, but that the overwhelming number of people are getting more covered for their premium dollar.

The reality is that pre-Obamacare, people were seeing their premiums go up all the time, and increasing much much more than they are now, while those premiums paid for less coverage every year.

A lot of these letters from insurance companies to the private market policy holders are trying to scare them into switching to more expensive policies when there is better, and cheaper policies available. It is an unethical business response to the pressure of competition.

That has been slowed, and in some cases stopped, and you conveniently leave out (thank you Senator Franken) that when insurance companies charge people a lot more than what they actually need to pay for care, people are getting refunds.

The bottom line is NOT that Obamacare is bad (although it could be improved if some of the changes intended to make it less successful that were maliciously inserted by conservatives were removed) but that it is working, it is having an constructive effect on controlling the health care costs that were among the highest (and delivering the least) of any developed country. It is great because large numbers of people — including young healthy people – are getting insurance coverage, either because they are buying it themselves (at better prices than they would have paid pre-Obamacare) or because they are able to stay on their parents insurance coverage. People with pre-existing conditions are covered.

Republicans haven’t come up with anything better, and the one thing they did come up with also involves exchanges just like Obamacare.

The reality is that a broken system was fixed, huge improvements have been made, the claims of MILLIONS of people being hurt are GROSSLY exaggerated and don’t hold up to scrutiny.

And people are liking it more and more EVERY day.

Conservatives don’t have a good alternative, much less a better one.
Dog Gone Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 2:40 pm
http://www.examiner.com/article/more-republicans-than-democrats-have-signed-up-for-obamacare

More Republicans than Democrats have signed up for Obamacare
“It would seem that no self-respecting Republican would be caught dead participating in such an evil, socialistic, communist law. However, it’s not true. A survey published last week found more Republicans than Democrats have signed up for one of the most popular provisions of Obamacare. It also debunked Republican assertions that young people do not want health insurance.

Do Young Adults Want Health Care From ObamaCare?
The Commonwealth Fund looked at young adults who have been going without health insurance. One of the most popular provisions of the law lets people age 26 and younger stay on their parents’ health insurance.

They found that by last March, 63% of young adults identifying as Republicans had enrolled in a parent’s health plan in the last 12 months, compared to 45% of Democrats. The report found that overall, 15 million 19-to-25-year-olds, or about half of all Americans this age, are on their parents’ health plan. That means 7 million are insured thanks to Obamacare that would hat have been had Republicans succeeded in killing it.”
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
“Conservatives don’t have a good alternative, much less a better one.”
I imagine the 5,000,000 people with canceled policies think otherwise.
jimf Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 6:23 pm
DG-“It could be improved if some of the changes intended to make it (Obamacare) less successful that were maliciously inserted by conservatives…” Seeing as not one Republican voted for the train-wreck, how were things “maliciously inserted”? “And yes, anthropogenic global warming is fact.” Really? Data, please. Anyway, how much (according to the climate astrologers) is by man? 10%, 5%, 50%? If you can’t answer that question, which you can’t, you don’t know what your talking about. Or is the 17 years or so of no warming your proof of the “warming”?
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 7:11 pm
From the latest IPCC press release:

“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2°C for the two high scenarios,” said Co-Chair Thomas Stocker. “Heat waves are very likely to occur more frequently and last longer.”

And at the end of the report:

In this IPCC assessment report, specific terms are used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result. For those terms used above: virtually certain means 99–100% probability, extremely likely: 95–100%, very likely: 90–100%, likely: 66–100%.

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf

What is the chance that evolution really happened? 66%? What is the chance that the acceleration of gravity at the Earth’s surface is 9.2 m/s^2? 90%?
This ain’t science, it’s fortune telling.
Joe Doakes Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
If you like your Corolla, you can keep it.

Well, no, you can’t. Look outside, that’s the repo man hauling it away. But you can buy a new Chevy Nova for only slightly more and it has a built-in 8-trac player plus cup holders front and rear. You get more options you didn’t want to buy for the extra money you didn’t want to spend. You should be Grateful.

.
Joe Doakes Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
“Does the Republican leadership have a alternative to the ACA?. As we are seeing, healthcare is a tricky thing and there will be no one particular solution that satisfies everyone.”

No, they don’t have a solution. They’re busy fighting off the TEA Party to keep the RINOs in control.

Real conservatives want LESS government control in their lives, not MORE. We probably won’t be able to convince voters to see the sense of it, until Obama-care and QE4 bring the world to economic ruin. Then, possibly, people might begin to realize that self-sufficiency is not only cruel, it’s also essential, and once a new generation learns that lesson, there’s hope for a new nation.

United States 1.0 (Slavery edition) lasted from 1787 to 1861; United States 2.0 (Manifest Destiny edition) lasted from 1865 to 1965. United States 3.0 (Gimme Free Stuff edition) is unlikely to last until 2065.
Joe Doakes Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Five million SO FAR, and that’s only the individual market. There are more whose employers are dumping coverage and there will be more in coming years as union contracts expire and employers dump “unsustainable” coverage.

The real number will likely be 16-20 million policies which, when you figure some cover policies more than one person, amounts to maybe 50 million people. There are 300 million people in the country but half of them already have coverage from medicare or medicaid so they’re not affected.

50 of 150: we’re talking 1/3 of the people who had insurance losing their policies, all of whom were satisfied with their coverage and all of whom were lied to.
Emery Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 8:27 pm
When the time of reckoning comes, neither party is likely to enjoy the majorities that President Obama had in 2010. I hope the compromise arrived at will create a simple and limited mandate to provide basic healthcare for all, together with a block grant to the states. That is the only chance for those who want single payer healthcare to receive it. That is also the only chance for those who want a voucher system to receive it. Yes, that delegation to the states will create some failures, but eventually success is contagious, and the states will eventually coalesce around a solution. The federal government acting alone, particularly with the support of only one party, will never be adventurous enough to find a good solution.

>QE is trickling pennies into Joe six-pack’s pocket and sequester is pulling dollars out. ;^)
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 9:36 pm
Mr. Doakes, aren’t you an actuarial or a finance person? What do you think of the IPCC’s characterization of 67% odds of “true” and to 33% “false” as “67% to 100% true”? It’s weird and conveys greater certainty than really exists. You would never say that the chances of getting tails when flipping a coin is 50% to 100%. It’s fifty-fifty, you take the lower number. One of the reasons you can’t trust those bastards at the IPCC. They are politicians, not scientists, even if they have degrees in the sciences. They are talking public policy, not physics.
The chair of the IPCC mentioned in the doc, Rajendra Pachauri, is a railroad engineer (the kind who designs railroads, not a train driver) and industrial economist by training.
golfdoc50 Says:
November 9th, 2013 at 9:59 pm
The goal of the ACA is to grease the skids for single payer, government run health insurance. The Liar-in Chief let the gullible MSM report his now famous eleven words “If you like your health plan, you can keep it. Period,” over and over in order to assuage the faint of heart who weren’t ready to jump to the colonies’ version of the NHS because they liked their plans and they were gulled by trumped up anecdotes of the uninsureds’ dire plights. Many of the uninsured went that way by way of choice. A very heralded but flawed study alleged that medical costs were the cause of most personal bankruptcies. In fact, bankrupt people owe money to many creditors, not just doctors. Singling out medical costs as the driving factor in bankruptcy ignores the intrinsic causes of spending more than one earns.
Most Minnesotans who’ve signed up for insurance on MNSure are going to get Medical Assistance. http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_24323025/mnsure-signs-up-3-700-so-far-health
This is a feature, not a bug. Those citizens who are in the private market are finding out that what’s available is too expensive, covers conditions they don’t want to be covered for (maternity, chemical dependence for example.)
ACA is a big time, rent-seeking, wealth transferring scheme. The fact that they bungled the website is amusing but immaterial to the larger crime that’s been committed.
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 10th, 2013 at 12:11 am
“A very heralded but flawed study alleged that medical costs were the cause of most personal bankruptcies.”
That was Elizabeth Warren’s study, wasn’t it? The same Elizabeth Warren who is behind the CFPB? And is now senator from Massachusetts? The one who faked native american ancestry to get positions at U Penn and Harvard?
Megan McArdle has some interesting thoughts on Warren’s scholarship, here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/
Emery Says:
November 10th, 2013 at 8:31 am
Obamacare means:
If you are young, rich, or healthy you will pay more and receive less. If you are older, poorer, or sick, you will be able to afford more healthcare. It increases the level of transfers and subsidies that already existed. It does not affect the overall cost of healthcare. It just increases the level of socialism in what was already a socialist system.

The corollory to this is that, because Obamacare doesn’t actually increase Federal spending much, the extra transfers are coming from higher premiums, from healthy, young individuals purchasing healthcare first and foremost, but also from those on corporate plans.

Those inexpensive “not very good” plans being cancelled were inexpensive because the individuals were young and healthy.

PM, what would “Mingocare” look like?
Emery Says:
November 10th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
MBerg
Absent foul language or multiple Weblinks, is there a trick to avoiding your moderation queue?
Mitch Berg Says:
November 10th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Multiple links or words on the block list getcha every time.

Hint: “Socialist” includes within it the name of an ED drug that was the subject of a lot of spam…
Powhatan Mingo Says:
November 10th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Emery-
“mingocare” would first acknowledge that healthcare is a scarce good and must be rationed in some fashion. It would, second, seek to empower individuals and not the political state.
The goal of Obamacare seemed to have been to empower the federal bureaucracy at the expense of the individual and private business.
swiftee Says:
November 11th, 2013 at 7:33 am
There is a reason Barry exempted employers from the mandate until 2015.

The Tea Party represents, and consists of middle class working families. The ones who are going to suffer the most under this disaster. Once 3M, Ford, GE & their peers start tucking cancellation notices in pay envelopes we will see an uprising worthy of the Tea Party’s name.

It would be embarrassing for the party of feral children, wankers, tossers, slackers & reprobates to see their candidates for office being held down by union thugs while engineers, teachers, nurses & etc. tarred & feathered them.

Obama’s a scumbag, but he’s not stupid.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

And Now I’m Confused

33 Responses to “And Now I’m Confused”

Leave a Reply

Pages

Archives

Categories