Can we now call Øbamacare a failure?

[SDHornet]

The annual fee for not having insurance in 2016 is $695 per adult and $347.50 per child (up to $2,085 for a family), or it’s 2.5% of your household income above the tax return filing threshold for your filing status – whichever is greater. You’ll pay 1/12 of the total fee for each full month in which a family member went without coverage or an exemption. (See other fees for each year below).

So it's a 2.5% penalty for married, jointly filing people on income over adjusted gross of $20.6k. An agi of 85k is a $1600 penalty so you pay $2085...or you can grind your way to an uber expensive plan that will cost way more than $2k a year. No wonder people aren't signing up.

[Baldy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... sing-money

Who could've predicted this?

This is awesome:

UnitedHealth expects to lose $850 million on Obamacare in 2016, while Aetna, Anthem, and Humana are all on track to lose at least $300 million each on their ACA plans this year, according to company reports and estimates from Bloomberg Intelligence. UnitedHealth says it’s quitting 31 of the 34 states where it sells ACA policies. Humana is exiting 8 of 19 states and reducing its presence to just 156 counties, from 1,351 a year ago. Anthem hasn’t announced plans to change its participation in the program.
O
n Aug. 15, Aetna said it will stop selling Obamacare plans in 11 of the 15 states where it had participated in the program, reversing its plan to expand into five new state exchanges in 2017. “The exchanges are a mess as they exist today,” says Aetna Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini. “They’re losing a lot of money for a lot of people.”

That is some serious coin lost. The penalty for not having insurance goes up this year right?

but...but...but my progtard talking point memo said the insurance companies were the ones who wrote the legislation.

[HI54UNI]

The annual fee for not having insurance in 2016 is $695 per adult and $347.50 per child (up to $2,085 for a family), or it’s 2.5% of your household income above the tax return filing threshold for your filing status – whichever is greater. You’ll pay 1/12 of the total fee for each full month in which a family member went without coverage or an exemption. (See other fees for each year below).

So it's a 2.5% penalty for married, jointly filing people on income over adjusted gross of $20.6k. An agi of 85k is a $1600 penalty so you pay $2085...or you can grind your way to an uber expensive plan that will cost way more than $2k a year. No wonder people aren't signing up.

Don't forget that they needed young, healthy people to sign up and pay premiums but made it so they can stay on mom and dad's insurance until they are 26 instead of having to buy their own policy.

[Bisonoline]

This has been a huge scam from the get go. He made it so unworkable so it would default to the one payer system.
But it cost people thousands of dollars for coverage that should have been much less.

[CID1990]

This has been a huge scam from the get go. He made it so unworkable so it would default to the one payer system.
But it cost people thousands of dollars for coverage that should have been much less.

Obama didn't MAKE anything


Unless you are referring to "making up" healthcare as a 2008 campaign platform and then suddenly realizing he needed to make good and turning the whole process over to Nancy Pelosi and a few technocrats

he was (and still is) an amateur. Saying he designed the ACA with the purpose of having it fail is ascribing too much competence to his administration - that's close to spandos territory

[GannonFan]

This has been a huge scam from the get go. He made it so unworkable so it would default to the one payer system.
But it cost people thousands of dollars for coverage that should have been much less.

Obama didn't MAKE anything


Unless you are referring to "making up" healthcare as a 2008 campaign platform and then suddenly realizing he needed to make good and turning the whole process over to Nancy Pelosi and a few technocrats

he was (and still is) an amateur. Saying he designed the ACA with the purpose of having it fail is ascribing too much competence to his administration - that's close to spandos territory

I'll agree with you with the thought that this wasn't much of Obama's doing - in 2009 he was being talked to by Congress and he got the bill they wanted to put forward. Pelosi and Reid were running the show then with the super majority and Obama was just getting his feet wet. He didn't learn how to wield the power of his office and how to push back against Congressional leaders from his own party until some time after this.

But I disagree about the design - I've always thought this was just a bridge to get people on board with single payer, and that's certainly going to be the direction the next administration wants to go. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but, as they say, the devil's in the details.

[Ibanez]

Obama didn't MAKE anything


Unless you are referring to "making up" healthcare as a 2008 campaign platform and then suddenly realizing he needed to make good and turning the whole process over to Nancy Pelosi and a few technocrats

he was (and still is) an amateur. Saying he designed the ACA with the purpose of having it fail is ascribing too much competence to his administration - that's close to spandos territory

I'll agree with you with the thought that this wasn't much of Obama's doing - in 2009 he was being talked to by Congress and he got the bill they wanted to put forward. Pelosi and Reid were running the show then with the super majority and Obama was just getting his feet wet. He didn't learn how to wield the power of his office and how to push back against Congressional leaders from his own party until some time after this.

But I disagree about the design - I've always thought this was just a bridge to get people on board with single payer, and that's certainly going to be the direction the next administration wants to go. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but, as they say, the devil's in the details.

The devil is in the details...but we won't know what's in it until we pass it!

[Pwns]

I've always thought this was just a bridge to get people on board with single payer, and that's certainly going to be the direction the next administration wants to go. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but, as they say, the devil's in the details.

All I can ask for is that if we do talk about single payer that we have an honest discussion and stop pretending like single-payer magically controls costs while the quality and availability of care doesn't change at all.

1. Most everyone above the poverty line will be paying more money out of pocket through one conduit or another. Anyone that tells you corporations and the wealthiest 1% or 5% will pay for SP is FoS.

2. The government will be deciding what treatments and procedures you will get. It's not going to let doctors have complete free reign to decide what to do for you. You won't be getting that titanium artificial hip or the elective surgery to make it less painful for you to just walk to your mailbox in your old age. You won't be getting as much preventative care (including for cancer) and only the people willing to pay lots of money out of pocket will get the cutting edge treatments.

If people realize those two inescapable realities and still want it, well okay then. Of course, we won't have an honest discussion and we'll get duped into supporting it and anyone opposed will be called heartless because they don't want people to have health care.

[GannonFan]

I've always thought this was just a bridge to get people on board with single payer, and that's certainly going to be the direction the next administration wants to go. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but, as they say, the devil's in the details.

All I can ask for is that if we do talk about single payer that we have an honest discussion and stop pretending like single-payer magically controls costs while the quality and availability of care doesn't change at all.

1. Most everyone above the poverty line will be paying more money out of pocket through one conduit or another. Anyone that tells you corporations and the wealthiest 1% or 5% will pay for SP is FoS.

2. The government will be deciding what treatments and procedures you will get. It's not going to let doctors have complete free reign to decide what to do for you. You won't be getting that titanium artificial hip or the elective surgery to make it less painful for you to just walk to your mailbox in your old age. You won't be getting as much preventative care (including for cancer) and only the people willing to pay lots of money out of pocket will get the cutting edge treatments.

If people realize those two inescapable realities and still want it, well okay then. Of course, we won't have an honest discussion and we'll get duped into supporting it and anyone opposed will be called heartless because they don't want people to have health care.

And that will be some of the details. In this country, we've gotten used to getting whatever procedure, medicine, or treatment we want the moment we want it and largely pay little or nothing for it (well, mainly when Medicare kicks in). Health care on demand and as cheap (out of pocket) as can be. We're dwindling down on those days, however, and I'm not sure it's a bad thing. It would be good to know what something costs before you choose to do it. Not exactly a novel idea.

[Ivytalk]

Obama didn't MAKE anything


Unless you are referring to "making up" healthcare as a 2008 campaign platform and then suddenly realizing he needed to make good and turning the whole process over to Nancy Pelosi and a few technocrats

he was (and still is) an amateur. Saying he designed the ACA with the purpose of having it fail is ascribing too much competence to his administration - that's close to spandos territory

I'll agree with you with the thought that this wasn't much of Obama's doing - in 2009 he was being talked to by Congress and he got the bill they wanted to put forward. Pelosi and Reid were running the show then with the super majority and Obama was just getting his feet wet. He didn't learn how to wield the power of his office and how to push back against Congressional leaders from his own party until some time after this.

But I disagree about the design - I've always thought this was just a bridge to get people on board with single payer, and that's certainly going to be the direction the next administration wants to go. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but, as they say, the devil's in the details.

And if you think the federal guvmint can administer a national healthcare program better than those big bad insurance companies, I have a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you. Some moderate you are.

[GannonFan]

I'll agree with you with the thought that this wasn't much of Obama's doing - in 2009 he was being talked to by Congress and he got the bill they wanted to put forward. Pelosi and Reid were running the show then with the super majority and Obama was just getting his feet wet. He didn't learn how to wield the power of his office and how to push back against Congressional leaders from his own party until some time after this.

But I disagree about the design - I've always thought this was just a bridge to get people on board with single payer, and that's certainly going to be the direction the next administration wants to go. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but, as they say, the devil's in the details.

And if you think the federal guvmint can administer a national healthcare program better than those big bad insurance companies, I have a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you. Some moderate you are.

I'd be fine if we had a national healthcare system that wasn't run by the government, but we don't have that now either, just a hodgepodge of uncoordinated insurance plans. I don't think it has to be single payer, per se, but it needs to be coordinated and nationalized.

How does that detract from my moderate stance? It's basically a compromise between what the left wants (i.e. import the NHS from the UK) and what the right wants (i.e. every person for themselves).

[Ivytalk]

And if you think the federal guvmint can administer a national healthcare program better than those big bad insurance companies, I have a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you. Some moderate you are.

I'd be fine if we had a national healthcare system that wasn't run by the government, but we don't have that now either, just a hodgepodge of uncoordinated insurance plans. I don't think it has to be single payer, per se, but it needs to be coordinated and nationalized.

How does that detract from my moderate stance? It's basically a compromise between what the left wants (i.e. import the NHS from the UK) and what the right wants (i.e. every person for themselves).

And how does that differ from single-payer? "Coordinated and nationalized"? Sort of like "No Child Left Behind" for health care? "Nationalized" doesn't just mean national standards. But you knew that.

[GannonFan]

I'd be fine if we had a national healthcare system that wasn't run by the government, but we don't have that now either, just a hodgepodge of uncoordinated insurance plans. I don't think it has to be single payer, per se, but it needs to be coordinated and nationalized.

How does that detract from my moderate stance? It's basically a compromise between what the left wants (i.e. import the NHS from the UK) and what the right wants (i.e. every person for themselves).

And how does that differ from single-payer? "Coordinated and nationalized"? Sort of like "No Child Left Behind" for health care? "Nationalized" doesn't just mean national standards. But you knew that.

I don't have an answer for what it looks like, hence the discussion. And yes, it would probably be more than standards. More like a Federal Reserve type model might work, but that will really give the skivvies to the liberatarian types.

[SDHornet]

I like this discussion. Let's give the Fed full control/administration over the healthcare system, what could possibly go wrong?

[HI54UNI]

I like this discussion. Let's give the Fed full control/administration over the healthcare system, what could possibly go wrong?

No shit! They do everything else so well!

[AZGrizFan]

I like this discussion. Let's give the Fed full control/administration over the healthcare system, what could possibly go wrong?

[houndawg]

This has been a huge scam from the get go. He made it so unworkable so it would default to the one payer system.
But it cost people thousands of dollars for coverage that should have been much less.

Obama didn't MAKE anything


Unless you are referring to "making up" healthcare as a 2008 campaign platform and then suddenly realizing he needed to make good and turning the whole process over to Nancy Pelosi and a few technocrats

he was (and still is) an amateur. Saying he designed the ACA with the purpose of having it fail is ascribing too much competence to his administration - that's close to spandos territory

So is giving Nancy Pelosi and the technocrats credit for the Heritage Foundation's health care plan.


Single Payer.

[houndawg]

And if you think the federal guvmint can administer a national healthcare program better than those big bad insurance companies, I have a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you. Some moderate you are.

I'd be fine if we had a national healthcare system that wasn't run by the government, but we don't have that now either, just a hodgepodge of uncoordinated insurance plans. I don't think it has to be single payer, per se, but it needs to be coordinated and nationalized.

How does that detract from my moderate stance? It's basically a compromise between what the left wants (i.e. import the NHS from the UK) and what the right wants (i.e. every person for themselves).

Probably be as smashing of a success as private prisons and charter schools.

[BDKJMU]

I've always thought this was just a bridge to get people on board with single payer, and that's certainly going to be the direction the next administration wants to go. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but, as they say, the devil's in the details.

All I can ask for is that if we do talk about single payer that we have an honest discussion and stop pretending like single-payer magically controls costs while the quality and availability of care doesn't change at all.

1. Most everyone above the poverty line will be paying more money out of pocket through one conduit or another. Anyone that tells you corporations and the wealthiest 1% or 5% will pay for SP is FoS.

2. The government will be deciding what treatments and procedures you will get. It's not going to let doctors have complete free reign to decide what to do for you. You won't be getting that titanium artificial hip or the elective surgery to make it less painful for you to just walk to your mailbox in your old age. You won't be getting as much preventative care (including for cancer) and only the people willing to pay lots of money out of pocket will get the cutting edge treatments.

If people realize those two inescapable realities and still want it, well okay then. Of course, we won't have an honest discussion and we'll get duped into supporting it and anyone opposed will be called heartless because they don't want people to have health care.

1. True.

2. People with $$ will get whatever precedures they can want and can afford.

Single payer will be for the poor, lower middle, middle class, & much of the upper middle class. In other words for about 90-95%. The best quality health care with low wait times will be for the wealthy and upper middle class who are willing and able to pay for it...

And people will still complain how the system is "unfair" about how there are 2 standards of medical care in this country, the the lower quality single payer for most, and the high quality private for the wealthy..

[CID1990]

Obama didn't MAKE anything


Unless you are referring to "making up" healthcare as a 2008 campaign platform and then suddenly realizing he needed to make good and turning the whole process over to Nancy Pelosi and a few technocrats

he was (and still is) an amateur. Saying he designed the ACA with the purpose of having it fail is ascribing too much competence to his administration - that's close to spandos territory

So is giving Nancy Pelosi and the technocrats credit for the Heritage Foundation's health care plan.


Single Payer.

i was going to say houndawg feel free to drop in and spray moron all over the place but apparently you don't need the invitation

[kalm]

This is awesome:

That is some sehttp://www.wsj.com/articles/aetna-profit-rises ... 26988rious coin lost. The penalty for not having insurance goes up this year right?

but...but...but my progtard talking point memo said the insurance companies were the ones who wrote the legislation.

That was the rumor. Who do you think wrote it? Pelosi? Didn't she say we needed to pass it before we could see what's in it? And how much in campaign contributions did Obama and the dems get from big healthcare in 2008?

It looks like the lobbyists took the Heritage/Romney plan and along with the Democrats showed they were as stupid as the conks who originally wrote it. (Sorry CID, I know that hurts your feelings.)

But all is not lost...Aetna reported a 38% increase in profits the last quarter of '15...thanks to...wait for it...decreasing spending on medical costs and their Medicaid and Medicare business.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/aetna-profi ... 1454326988


Yay free market!!!!

[Baldy]

but...but...but my progtard talking point memo said the insurance companies were the ones who wrote the legislation.

That was the rumor. Who do you think wrote it? Pelosi? Didn't she say we needed to pass it before we could see what's in it? And how much in campaign contributions did Obama and the dems get from big healthcare in 2008?

It looks like the lobbyists took the Heritage/Romney plan and along with the Democrats showed they were as stupid as the conks who originally wrote it. (Sorry CID, I know that hurts your feelings.)

But all is not lost...Aetna reported a 38% increase in profits the last quarter of '15...thanks to...wait for it...decreasing spending on medical costs and their Medicaid and Medicare business.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/aetna-profi ... 1454326988


Yay free market!!!!

I see you are still a big fan of myths and Donk talking points.

Don't fool yourself, Obamacare was sitting in some Donk operatives desk for years just waiting for the day it could be pulled out and crammed down the throats of the American people. Congratulations.

You still think Medicare and Medicaid is the free market.

[kalm]

That was the rumor. Who do you think wrote it? Pelosi? Didn't she say we needed to pass it before we could see what's in it? And how much in campaign contributions did Obama and the dems get from big healthcare in 2008?

It looks like the lobbyists took the Heritage/Romney plan and along with the Democrats showed they were as stupid as the conks who originally wrote it. (Sorry CID, I know that hurts your feelings.)

But all is not lost...Aetna reported a 38% increase in profits the last quarter of '15...thanks to...wait for it...decreasing spending on medical costs and their Medicaid and Medicare business.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/aetna-profi ... 1454326988


Yay free market!!!!

I see you are still a big fan of myths and Donk talking points.

Don't fool yoursehttp://www.redstate.com/diary/lakeworthcane/20 ... as-past/lf, Obamacare was sitting in some Donk operatives desk for years just waiting for the day it could be pulled out and crammed down the throats of the American people. Congratulations.

You still think Medicare and Medicaid is the free market.

Taking a ride on the slow train today I see.

No, Medicare and Medicaid are clearly not free market...hence the rofl emoji. But poor over-burdened capitalistic Aetna is happy about that right now.

Here's a quaint little piece about the history of the ACA and who wrote it from that bastion of progtardism, Redstate, to help with your enlightenment, Balderdash...

http://www.redstate.com/diary/lakeworth ... acas-past/

[Chizzang]

The"Free Market" and "Health Care" are NOT compatible agents in a chemistry set...
And nobody really knows what the answer is

[Baldy]

I see you are still a big fan of myths and Donk talking points.

Don't fool yoursehttp://www.redstate.com/diary/lakeworthcane/20 ... as-past/lf, Obamacare was sitting in some Donk operatives desk for years just waiting for the day it could be pulled out and crammed down the throats of the American people. Congratulations.

You still think Medicare and Medicaid is the free market.

Taking a ride on the slow train today I see.

No, Medicare and Medicaid are clearly not free market...hence the rofl emoji. But poor over-burdened capitalistic Aetna is happy about that right now.

Here's a quaint little piece about the history of the ACA and who wrote it from that bastion of progtardism, Redstate, to help with your enlightenment, Balderdash...

http://www.redstate.com/diary/lakeworth ... acas-past/

Grasping at straws I see.

The article you posted had lots of phrases like "data suggests", "I suppose", and "most likely". Not to mention, the main "source" of the article is linked to a now defunct website. With top notch evidence like that, you should have included a link to a spandos youtube video as well.

Get a good night's rest, klam. Maybe you'll have a better day tomorrow.