Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[Sun Devil 92]

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

I'm sorry, but that was never explained.

The statement was made pure and simple.

When it started to happen....the term "junk plan" suddenly became the most overused verse in political B.S.

There was no public discussion of ACA standards.

It was the lie of the year and has yet to be bested.

True.

What was explained was that insurance would have to be offered to persons with pre-existing conditions and that you could keep you child on your plan until they turn 26.

Imagine my surprise...nobody wants to talk about the overwhelming support for the good parts of the ACA...only that some fools didn't understand what it is. I would bet that if you asked conservative posters on this board, they would still--to this day--think there is a product called "obamacare".

All of this was to address an "issue" that was never truly defined.

And so you really can't know if you ever solved the issue.

While I don't know that I agree with the way pre-existing conditions were dealt with, what I never have liked (and it didn't need Obama to fix it) was that you could be cancelled if you got sick.

I wished state legislatures would have passed laws that said....if an insurance company decides to cancel you...they have to add up all your payments in over the entire time you were with them, multiply by four, then deduct your claim (no multiplier) and pay you back the difference. Then they could cancel you. How insurance companies (it was the government that allowed them to do it) could take someone who had paid in for 20 years and then cancel them was beyond me.

The 26 year old on your insurance is a response to the lousy job market for young people and little more.

But we are talking birthdays. The last poll I read showed the law still being more unfavorable than not. Much like a reflection of this poll.

 

[RKMBrown]

My view...

I want to see it repealed and replaced. Repealed because I believe punishing people for not buying what democrats want them to buy is just wrong on face.

Replaced cause there are some issues that need to be addressed. Mainly the government should be breaking up monopolies, forcing a return to free market pricing on health care, and helping health care providers recover the money from people who don't pay their health care bills.

But why would Obamacare need to be replaced to accomplish that?

1) Obamacare establishes a government monopoly on health care, funded by the american taxpayer no less. Establishing a monopoly is the opposite of breaking up a monopoly.
2) The bedrock of obamacare is the funding windfalls of forcing tens of millions of people who don't need insurance to buy insurance, and forcing the ENTIRE tax payer base who already have insurance to pay taxes to fund Obamacare for the people who sign up and get "government" assistance checks to pay their insurance premiums. Obamacare is really just another welfare program on top of medicaid. The only difference is everyone on Obamacare gets some form of welfare, rich/poor/middle class it does not matter.

Those footing the bill to pay the insurance costs of those getting artificially reduced premiums aren't getting any form of welfare.

But again why does Obamacare have to be replaced at the federal level? Why not disband it, enforce anti-trust and RICO laws, and let the free market work?

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Incorrect, tax payers are funding EVERYONE that is in Obamacare. Thus, everyone in Obamacare is on taxpayer funded welfare.

As for replacing vs disbanding.. the point was there is a need for some federal government involvement in healthcare to right the wrongs they have already done. You can't have a freemarket when the market is being monopolized by government sanctioned monopolies.

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

 

[candycorn]

But why would Obamacare need to be replaced to accomplish that?

1) Obamacare establishes a government monopoly on health care, funded by the american taxpayer no less. Establishing a monopoly is the opposite of breaking up a monopoly.
2) The bedrock of obamacare is the funding windfalls of forcing tens of millions of people who don't need insurance to buy insurance, and forcing the ENTIRE tax payer base who already have insurance to pay taxes to fund Obamacare for the people who sign up and get "government" assistance checks to pay their insurance premiums. Obamacare is really just another welfare program on top of medicaid. The only difference is everyone on Obamacare gets some form of welfare, rich/poor/middle class it does not matter.

Those footing the bill to pay the insurance costs of those getting artificially reduced premiums aren't getting any form of welfare.

But again why does Obamacare have to be replaced at the federal level? Why not disband it, enforce anti-trust and RICO laws, and let the free market work?

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Incorrect, tax payers are funding EVERYONE that is in Obamacare. Thus, everyone in Obamacare is on taxpayer funded welfare.

As for replacing vs disbanding.. the point was there is a need for some federal government involvement in healthcare to right the wrongs they have already done. You can't have a freemarket when the market is being monopolized by government sanctioned monopolies.

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

 

[candycorn]

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

I'm sorry, but that was never explained.

The statement was made pure and simple.

When it started to happen....the term "junk plan" suddenly became the most overused verse in political B.S.

There was no public discussion of ACA standards.

It was the lie of the year and has yet to be bested.

True.

What was explained was that insurance would have to be offered to persons with pre-existing conditions and that you could keep you child on your plan until they turn 26.

Imagine my surprise...nobody wants to talk about the overwhelming support for the good parts of the ACA...only that some fools didn't understand what it is. I would bet that if you asked conservative posters on this board, they would still--to this day--think there is a product called "obamacare".

All of this was to address an "issue" that was never truly defined.

And so you really can't know if you ever solved the issue.

While I don't know that I agree with the way pre-existing conditions were dealt with, what I never have liked (and it didn't need Obama to fix it) was that you could be cancelled if you got sick.

I wished state legislatures would have passed laws that said....if an insurance company decides to cancel you...they have to add up all your payments in over the entire time you were with them, multiply by four, then deduct your claim (no multiplier) and pay you back the difference. Then they could cancel you. How insurance companies (it was the government that allowed them to do it) could take someone who had paid in for 20 years and then cancel them was beyond me.

The 26 year old on your insurance is a response to the lousy job market for young people and little more.

But we are talking birthdays. The last poll I read showed the law still being more unfavorable than not. Much like a reflection of this poll.

The number of uninsured adults has dropped every year. Happy birthday to the people who USED to pay for their healthcare.

 

[candycorn]

Good to see the polling above looking favorably on Obamacare by and large. Some "unhappy" birthday.

Are we looking at the same poll ?
This poll adds up to more than 100% so all numbers have to be normalized.

But questions 4,5&6 (repeal all or most) is still more than the 1,2&3.

It's not overwhelming...but still greater.

Obviously this was set up as an attack thread on the ACA thinly veiled as an "adult conversation"....to have the poll you set up backfire on you so badly really must piss the OP off.

 

[RKMBrown]

1) Obamacare establishes a government monopoly on health care, funded by the american taxpayer no less. Establishing a monopoly is the opposite of breaking up a monopoly.
2) The bedrock of obamacare is the funding windfalls of forcing tens of millions of people who don't need insurance to buy insurance, and forcing the ENTIRE tax payer base who already have insurance to pay taxes to fund Obamacare for the people who sign up and get "government" assistance checks to pay their insurance premiums. Obamacare is really just another welfare program on top of medicaid. The only difference is everyone on Obamacare gets some form of welfare, rich/poor/middle class it does not matter.

Those footing the bill to pay the insurance costs of those getting artificially reduced premiums aren't getting any form of welfare.

But again why does Obamacare have to be replaced at the federal level? Why not disband it, enforce anti-trust and RICO laws, and let the free market work?

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Incorrect, tax payers are funding EVERYONE that is in Obamacare. Thus, everyone in Obamacare is on taxpayer funded welfare.

As for replacing vs disbanding.. the point was there is a need for some federal government involvement in healthcare to right the wrongs they have already done. You can't have a freemarket when the market is being monopolized by government sanctioned monopolies.

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Obamacare s Illegal Insurance Company Bailout - Conn Carroll

From the above web site:
========================
"Reinsurance: Obamacare’s reinsurance program is paid for by a $63 tax on all health plans. The money then goes to any health insurance company who spends more than $60,000 on any Obamacare patient in any single year. Since the tax applies to all health care plans, but the benefits only go to Obamacare plans, the reinsurance program is really just a transfer of wealth from those who had insurance coverage before Obamacare to those who are now covered by Obamacare.

Risk Adjustment: The risk adjustment program is designed to stop insurance companies from marketing or pricing their plans in such a way that they only attract healthy, and therefore lower-cost, patients. The program accomplishes this by assessing the patient population of each insurer and then determining which insurers are covering healthier people and which are covering sicker people. The plans covering the healthy people are then forced to pay money to the plans covering sicker people. All transfers between insurance companies even out.

Risk Corridors: The risk corridor program is intended to encourage insurers to price their premiums low by protecting them from losses if their patients turn out to require more care than anticipated. The program uses a complex formula to take money from those insurers that do not spend a lot of money paying for patient health care, and then gives that money to other insurers that do spend a lot of money on patient care.

The big difference between the three programs is that the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs either have a dedicated stream of income (the $63 tax on all health care plans) or the payouts are limited to what the program takes in (all transfers equal out in the risk adjustment program).

But the risk corridor program has no guaranteed stream of funding. What if more health insurance plans underprice their Obamacare plans in an effort to gain market share? What if they all end up spending more on health care than they originally planned?

Then everyone would be demanding payment from the system but no one would be paying in. Who would make up the difference in such a situation?

When the CBO originally scored Obamacare, they assumed the Three Rs would end up costing taxpayers nothing. And then, when they rescored the bill again in February 2014, they optimistically estimated that the risk corridor program would actually save taxpayers $8 billion over the next 10 years.

But CBO’s computer models rarely, if ever, come close to matching reality. And Obamacare has been no different.
...

Obamacare Bailout to the Rescue

Health insurance CEOs immediately demanded a meeting with Obama, which happened in the White House the day after his Friday announcement. According to health insurance lobbyist emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Obama agreed that day to increase payments for both the risk corridor and reinsurance programs.

But some savvy Republicans on Capitol Hill were watching this drama and began to push back. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even introduced a bill just four days after Obama’s November 15th rule change that would have repealed the risk corridor program entirely. “Washington’s bailout culture must end, and eliminating ObamaCare’s blank check for a bailout of insurance companies is a common sense step to protect taxpayers when ObamaCare fails,” Rubio said in a statement.

Not wanting a fight with Republicans over insurance company bailouts, the first draft of HHS’s regulation governing the risk corridor program, published in March 2014, promised that the program would be implemented in “a budget neutral manner.” In other words, payments out of the program would not be greater than payments into the program. There would be no bailout.

The health insurance industry promptly freaked out. According to emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell sent Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett a memo threatening health insurance premium spikes of “as much as 20 percent” if the risk corridor program was run in a “budget neutral” manner.

Obama got the message. The final HHS regulation published in May 2014 said that, “In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year ... HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments.”

In other words, the risk corridor bailout is on.

And according to a survey of Obamacare insurers conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Obama administration is expected to make $725 million in net payments out of the risk corridor program in 2015 alone. Throw in the increased reinsurance payments and the bailout will top $1 billion."
...

The original Obamacare legislation did not contain any appropriations to build the federal health insurance exchange either. So Obama simply stole $454 million from the law’s “Prevention Fund” program and used it to build the exchanges instead.

========================

As I said... Everyone on Obamacare is receiving welfare. The checks are not going to them directly... instead the checks are going from the government (taxpayer funds) to insurance companies and to government employees who are managing Obama care. Hell just look at the people we added to the IRS to run this beast. All tax payer funded... all of it.

 

[candycorn]

Those footing the bill to pay the insurance costs of those getting artificially reduced premiums aren't getting any form of welfare.

But again why does Obamacare have to be replaced at the federal level? Why not disband it, enforce anti-trust and RICO laws, and let the free market work?

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Incorrect, tax payers are funding EVERYONE that is in Obamacare. Thus, everyone in Obamacare is on taxpayer funded welfare.

As for replacing vs disbanding.. the point was there is a need for some federal government involvement in healthcare to right the wrongs they have already done. You can't have a freemarket when the market is being monopolized by government sanctioned monopolies.

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Obamacare s Illegal Insurance Company Bailout - Conn Carroll

From the above web site:
========================
"Reinsurance: Obamacare’s reinsurance program is paid for by a $63 tax on all health plans. The money then goes to any health insurance company who spends more than $60,000 on any Obamacare patient in any single year. Since the tax applies to all health care plans, but the benefits only go to Obamacare plans, the reinsurance program is really just a transfer of wealth from those who had insurance coverage before Obamacare to those who are now covered by Obamacare.

Risk Adjustment: The risk adjustment program is designed to stop insurance companies from marketing or pricing their plans in such a way that they only attract healthy, and therefore lower-cost, patients. The program accomplishes this by assessing the patient population of each insurer and then determining which insurers are covering healthier people and which are covering sicker people. The plans covering the healthy people are then forced to pay money to the plans covering sicker people. All transfers between insurance companies even out.

Risk Corridors: The risk corridor program is intended to encourage insurers to price their premiums low by protecting them from losses if their patients turn out to require more care than anticipated. The program uses a complex formula to take money from those insurers that do not spend a lot of money paying for patient health care, and then gives that money to other insurers that do spend a lot of money on patient care.

The big difference between the three programs is that the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs either have a dedicated stream of income (the $63 tax on all health care plans) or the payouts are limited to what the program takes in (all transfers equal out in the risk adjustment program).

But the risk corridor program has no guaranteed stream of funding. What if more health insurance plans underprice their Obamacare plans in an effort to gain market share? What if they all end up spending more on health care than they originally planned?

Then everyone would be demanding payment from the system but no one would be paying in. Who would make up the difference in such a situation?

When the CBO originally scored Obamacare, they assumed the Three Rs would end up costing taxpayers nothing. And then, when they rescored the bill again in February 2014, they optimistically estimated that the risk corridor program would actually save taxpayers $8 billion over the next 10 years.

But CBO’s computer models rarely, if ever, come close to matching reality. And Obamacare has been no different.
...

Obamacare Bailout to the Rescue

Health insurance CEOs immediately demanded a meeting with Obama, which happened in the White House the day after his Friday announcement. According to health insurance lobbyist emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Obama agreed that day to increase payments for both the risk corridor and reinsurance programs.

But some savvy Republicans on Capitol Hill were watching this drama and began to push back. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even introduced a bill just four days after Obama’s November 15th rule change that would have repealed the risk corridor program entirely. “Washington’s bailout culture must end, and eliminating ObamaCare’s blank check for a bailout of insurance companies is a common sense step to protect taxpayers when ObamaCare fails,” Rubio said in a statement.

Not wanting a fight with Republicans over insurance company bailouts, the first draft of HHS’s regulation governing the risk corridor program, published in March 2014, promised that the program would be implemented in “a budget neutral manner.” In other words, payments out of the program would not be greater than payments into the program. There would be no bailout.

The health insurance industry promptly freaked out. According to emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell sent Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett a memo threatening health insurance premium spikes of “as much as 20 percent” if the risk corridor program was run in a “budget neutral” manner.

Obama got the message. The final HHS regulation published in May 2014 said that, “In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year ... HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments.”

In other words, the risk corridor bailout is on.

And according to a survey of Obamacare insurers conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Obama administration is expected to make $725 million in net payments out of the risk corridor program in 2015 alone. Throw in the increased reinsurance payments and the bailout will top $1 billion."
...

The original Obamacare legislation did not contain any appropriations to build the federal health insurance exchange either. So Obama simply stole $454 million from the law’s “Prevention Fund” program and used it to build the exchanges instead.

========================

As I said... Everyone on Obamacare is receiving welfare. The checks are not going to them directly... instead the checks are going from the government (taxpayer funds) to insurance companies and to government employees who are managing Obama care. Hell just look at the people we added to the IRS to run this beast. All tax payer funded... all of it.

Much in the same way that whenever you drive on a road, someone else paid taxes for you to drive on it so, by you definition, all drivers are on welfare....right?

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect, tax payers are funding EVERYONE that is in Obamacare. Thus, everyone in Obamacare is on taxpayer funded welfare.

As for replacing vs disbanding.. the point was there is a need for some federal government involvement in healthcare to right the wrongs they have already done. You can't have a freemarket when the market is being monopolized by government sanctioned monopolies.

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Obamacare s Illegal Insurance Company Bailout - Conn Carroll

From the above web site:
========================
"Reinsurance: Obamacare’s reinsurance program is paid for by a $63 tax on all health plans. The money then goes to any health insurance company who spends more than $60,000 on any Obamacare patient in any single year. Since the tax applies to all health care plans, but the benefits only go to Obamacare plans, the reinsurance program is really just a transfer of wealth from those who had insurance coverage before Obamacare to those who are now covered by Obamacare.

Risk Adjustment: The risk adjustment program is designed to stop insurance companies from marketing or pricing their plans in such a way that they only attract healthy, and therefore lower-cost, patients. The program accomplishes this by assessing the patient population of each insurer and then determining which insurers are covering healthier people and which are covering sicker people. The plans covering the healthy people are then forced to pay money to the plans covering sicker people. All transfers between insurance companies even out.

Risk Corridors: The risk corridor program is intended to encourage insurers to price their premiums low by protecting them from losses if their patients turn out to require more care than anticipated. The program uses a complex formula to take money from those insurers that do not spend a lot of money paying for patient health care, and then gives that money to other insurers that do spend a lot of money on patient care.

The big difference between the three programs is that the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs either have a dedicated stream of income (the $63 tax on all health care plans) or the payouts are limited to what the program takes in (all transfers equal out in the risk adjustment program).

But the risk corridor program has no guaranteed stream of funding. What if more health insurance plans underprice their Obamacare plans in an effort to gain market share? What if they all end up spending more on health care than they originally planned?

Then everyone would be demanding payment from the system but no one would be paying in. Who would make up the difference in such a situation?

When the CBO originally scored Obamacare, they assumed the Three Rs would end up costing taxpayers nothing. And then, when they rescored the bill again in February 2014, they optimistically estimated that the risk corridor program would actually save taxpayers $8 billion over the next 10 years.

But CBO’s computer models rarely, if ever, come close to matching reality. And Obamacare has been no different.
...

Obamacare Bailout to the Rescue

Health insurance CEOs immediately demanded a meeting with Obama, which happened in the White House the day after his Friday announcement. According to health insurance lobbyist emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Obama agreed that day to increase payments for both the risk corridor and reinsurance programs.

But some savvy Republicans on Capitol Hill were watching this drama and began to push back. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even introduced a bill just four days after Obama’s November 15th rule change that would have repealed the risk corridor program entirely. “Washington’s bailout culture must end, and eliminating ObamaCare’s blank check for a bailout of insurance companies is a common sense step to protect taxpayers when ObamaCare fails,” Rubio said in a statement.

Not wanting a fight with Republicans over insurance company bailouts, the first draft of HHS’s regulation governing the risk corridor program, published in March 2014, promised that the program would be implemented in “a budget neutral manner.” In other words, payments out of the program would not be greater than payments into the program. There would be no bailout.

The health insurance industry promptly freaked out. According to emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell sent Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett a memo threatening health insurance premium spikes of “as much as 20 percent” if the risk corridor program was run in a “budget neutral” manner.

Obama got the message. The final HHS regulation published in May 2014 said that, “In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year ... HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments.”

In other words, the risk corridor bailout is on.

And according to a survey of Obamacare insurers conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Obama administration is expected to make $725 million in net payments out of the risk corridor program in 2015 alone. Throw in the increased reinsurance payments and the bailout will top $1 billion."
...

The original Obamacare legislation did not contain any appropriations to build the federal health insurance exchange either. So Obama simply stole $454 million from the law’s “Prevention Fund” program and used it to build the exchanges instead.

========================

As I said... Everyone on Obamacare is receiving welfare. The checks are not going to them directly... instead the checks are going from the government (taxpayer funds) to insurance companies and to government employees who are managing Obama care. Hell just look at the people we added to the IRS to run this beast. All tax payer funded... all of it.

Much in the same way that whenever you drive on a road, someone else paid taxes for you to drive on it so, by you definition, all drivers are on welfare....right?

No, not all drivers are on welfare. However, in some states where federal funds are being used, yes the people in those states who get the "bonus" of being on the right side of federal waste are in fact living on tax payer funded welfare. That said, there is only a % of people in the USA who are gaining benefit from this new taxpayer waste aka. Obamacare. Thus... all of these new taxes that are only benefiting Obamacare enrolled people at the expense of the American taxpayers who are footing the bill with no benefit... yeah that's welfare through redistribution of income, plain and simple. You folks on the left are forcing my family to go without so that you can benefit from my hard labor. Enjoy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

I'm sorry, but that was never explained.

The statement was made pure and simple.

When it started to happen....the term "junk plan" suddenly became the most overused verse in political B.S.

There was no public discussion of ACA standards.

It was the lie of the year and has yet to be bested.

True.

What was explained was that insurance would have to be offered to persons with pre-existing conditions and that you could keep you child on your plan until they turn 26.

Imagine my surprise...nobody wants to talk about the overwhelming support for the good parts of the ACA...only that some fools didn't understand what it is. I would bet that if you asked conservative posters on this board, they would still--to this day--think there is a product called "obamacare".

All of this was to address an "issue" that was never truly defined.

And so you really can't know if you ever solved the issue.

While I don't know that I agree with the way pre-existing conditions were dealt with, what I never have liked (and it didn't need Obama to fix it) was that you could be cancelled if you got sick.

I wished state legislatures would have passed laws that said....if an insurance company decides to cancel you...they have to add up all your payments in over the entire time you were with them, multiply by four, then deduct your claim (no multiplier) and pay you back the difference. Then they could cancel you. How insurance companies (it was the government that allowed them to do it) could take someone who had paid in for 20 years and then cancel them was beyond me.

The 26 year old on your insurance is a response to the lousy job market for young people and little more.

But we are talking birthdays. The last poll I read showed the law still being more unfavorable than not. Much like a reflection of this poll.

The number of uninsured adults has dropped every year. Happy birthday to the people who USED to pay for their healthcare.

If they are now paying more for theirs (than what they were paying combined before)...maybe not.

I don't know what the truth is and, frankly, I am not sure anyone does.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Incorrect, tax payers are funding EVERYONE that is in Obamacare. Thus, everyone in Obamacare is on taxpayer funded welfare.

As for replacing vs disbanding.. the point was there is a need for some federal government involvement in healthcare to right the wrongs they have already done. You can't have a freemarket when the market is being monopolized by government sanctioned monopolies.

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Obamacare s Illegal Insurance Company Bailout - Conn Carroll

From the above web site:
========================
"Reinsurance: Obamacare’s reinsurance program is paid for by a $63 tax on all health plans. The money then goes to any health insurance company who spends more than $60,000 on any Obamacare patient in any single year. Since the tax applies to all health care plans, but the benefits only go to Obamacare plans, the reinsurance program is really just a transfer of wealth from those who had insurance coverage before Obamacare to those who are now covered by Obamacare.

Risk Adjustment: The risk adjustment program is designed to stop insurance companies from marketing or pricing their plans in such a way that they only attract healthy, and therefore lower-cost, patients. The program accomplishes this by assessing the patient population of each insurer and then determining which insurers are covering healthier people and which are covering sicker people. The plans covering the healthy people are then forced to pay money to the plans covering sicker people. All transfers between insurance companies even out.

Risk Corridors: The risk corridor program is intended to encourage insurers to price their premiums low by protecting them from losses if their patients turn out to require more care than anticipated. The program uses a complex formula to take money from those insurers that do not spend a lot of money paying for patient health care, and then gives that money to other insurers that do spend a lot of money on patient care.

The big difference between the three programs is that the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs either have a dedicated stream of income (the $63 tax on all health care plans) or the payouts are limited to what the program takes in (all transfers equal out in the risk adjustment program).

But the risk corridor program has no guaranteed stream of funding. What if more health insurance plans underprice their Obamacare plans in an effort to gain market share? What if they all end up spending more on health care than they originally planned?

Then everyone would be demanding payment from the system but no one would be paying in. Who would make up the difference in such a situation?

When the CBO originally scored Obamacare, they assumed the Three Rs would end up costing taxpayers nothing. And then, when they rescored the bill again in February 2014, they optimistically estimated that the risk corridor program would actually save taxpayers $8 billion over the next 10 years.

But CBO’s computer models rarely, if ever, come close to matching reality. And Obamacare has been no different.
...

Obamacare Bailout to the Rescue

Health insurance CEOs immediately demanded a meeting with Obama, which happened in the White House the day after his Friday announcement. According to health insurance lobbyist emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Obama agreed that day to increase payments for both the risk corridor and reinsurance programs.

But some savvy Republicans on Capitol Hill were watching this drama and began to push back. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even introduced a bill just four days after Obama’s November 15th rule change that would have repealed the risk corridor program entirely. “Washington’s bailout culture must end, and eliminating ObamaCare’s blank check for a bailout of insurance companies is a common sense step to protect taxpayers when ObamaCare fails,” Rubio said in a statement.

Not wanting a fight with Republicans over insurance company bailouts, the first draft of HHS’s regulation governing the risk corridor program, published in March 2014, promised that the program would be implemented in “a budget neutral manner.” In other words, payments out of the program would not be greater than payments into the program. There would be no bailout.

The health insurance industry promptly freaked out. According to emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell sent Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett a memo threatening health insurance premium spikes of “as much as 20 percent” if the risk corridor program was run in a “budget neutral” manner.

Obama got the message. The final HHS regulation published in May 2014 said that, “In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year ... HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments.”

In other words, the risk corridor bailout is on.

And according to a survey of Obamacare insurers conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Obama administration is expected to make $725 million in net payments out of the risk corridor program in 2015 alone. Throw in the increased reinsurance payments and the bailout will top $1 billion."
...

The original Obamacare legislation did not contain any appropriations to build the federal health insurance exchange either. So Obama simply stole $454 million from the law’s “Prevention Fund” program and used it to build the exchanges instead.

========================

As I said... Everyone on Obamacare is receiving welfare. The checks are not going to them directly... instead the checks are going from the government (taxpayer funds) to insurance companies and to government employees who are managing Obama care. Hell just look at the people we added to the IRS to run this beast. All tax payer funded... all of it.

Much in the same way that whenever you drive on a road, someone else paid taxes for you to drive on it so, by you definition, all drivers are on welfare....right?

Not sure how that works. You pay for a portion of the road every time you gas up. The only people getting a free ride are those in solar powered vehicles, on bikes, or free public transportation.

So, I don't think this argument holds water.

What I find strange is that you made the statement that Obamacare is not a product. So what is RKMBrown making reference to ?

I noticed RKMBrown used the term "massive" when describing the amount of tax payer money in a particular premium. What is "massive" ?

 

[RKMBrown]

 

[RKMBrown]

I'd say an average of 17k per enrolled person is... massive.

CoOportinuty Health Isn t An Obamacare Problem It s A Cooperative Problem - Forbes

We won't know just how screwed up this country has become thanks to Obamacare till after the guy leaves the WH.

 

[candycorn]

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Obamacare s Illegal Insurance Company Bailout - Conn Carroll

From the above web site:
========================
"Reinsurance: Obamacare’s reinsurance program is paid for by a $63 tax on all health plans. The money then goes to any health insurance company who spends more than $60,000 on any Obamacare patient in any single year. Since the tax applies to all health care plans, but the benefits only go to Obamacare plans, the reinsurance program is really just a transfer of wealth from those who had insurance coverage before Obamacare to those who are now covered by Obamacare.

Risk Adjustment: The risk adjustment program is designed to stop insurance companies from marketing or pricing their plans in such a way that they only attract healthy, and therefore lower-cost, patients. The program accomplishes this by assessing the patient population of each insurer and then determining which insurers are covering healthier people and which are covering sicker people. The plans covering the healthy people are then forced to pay money to the plans covering sicker people. All transfers between insurance companies even out.

Risk Corridors: The risk corridor program is intended to encourage insurers to price their premiums low by protecting them from losses if their patients turn out to require more care than anticipated. The program uses a complex formula to take money from those insurers that do not spend a lot of money paying for patient health care, and then gives that money to other insurers that do spend a lot of money on patient care.

The big difference between the three programs is that the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs either have a dedicated stream of income (the $63 tax on all health care plans) or the payouts are limited to what the program takes in (all transfers equal out in the risk adjustment program).

But the risk corridor program has no guaranteed stream of funding. What if more health insurance plans underprice their Obamacare plans in an effort to gain market share? What if they all end up spending more on health care than they originally planned?

Then everyone would be demanding payment from the system but no one would be paying in. Who would make up the difference in such a situation?

When the CBO originally scored Obamacare, they assumed the Three Rs would end up costing taxpayers nothing. And then, when they rescored the bill again in February 2014, they optimistically estimated that the risk corridor program would actually save taxpayers $8 billion over the next 10 years.

But CBO’s computer models rarely, if ever, come close to matching reality. And Obamacare has been no different.
...

Obamacare Bailout to the Rescue

Health insurance CEOs immediately demanded a meeting with Obama, which happened in the White House the day after his Friday announcement. According to health insurance lobbyist emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Obama agreed that day to increase payments for both the risk corridor and reinsurance programs.

But some savvy Republicans on Capitol Hill were watching this drama and began to push back. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even introduced a bill just four days after Obama’s November 15th rule change that would have repealed the risk corridor program entirely. “Washington’s bailout culture must end, and eliminating ObamaCare’s blank check for a bailout of insurance companies is a common sense step to protect taxpayers when ObamaCare fails,” Rubio said in a statement.

Not wanting a fight with Republicans over insurance company bailouts, the first draft of HHS’s regulation governing the risk corridor program, published in March 2014, promised that the program would be implemented in “a budget neutral manner.” In other words, payments out of the program would not be greater than payments into the program. There would be no bailout.

The health insurance industry promptly freaked out. According to emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell sent Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett a memo threatening health insurance premium spikes of “as much as 20 percent” if the risk corridor program was run in a “budget neutral” manner.

Obama got the message. The final HHS regulation published in May 2014 said that, “In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year ... HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments.”

In other words, the risk corridor bailout is on.

And according to a survey of Obamacare insurers conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Obama administration is expected to make $725 million in net payments out of the risk corridor program in 2015 alone. Throw in the increased reinsurance payments and the bailout will top $1 billion."
...

The original Obamacare legislation did not contain any appropriations to build the federal health insurance exchange either. So Obama simply stole $454 million from the law’s “Prevention Fund” program and used it to build the exchanges instead.

========================

As I said... Everyone on Obamacare is receiving welfare. The checks are not going to them directly... instead the checks are going from the government (taxpayer funds) to insurance companies and to government employees who are managing Obama care. Hell just look at the people we added to the IRS to run this beast. All tax payer funded... all of it.

Much in the same way that whenever you drive on a road, someone else paid taxes for you to drive on it so, by you definition, all drivers are on welfare....right?

No, not all drivers are on welfare.

Well, they are using a road they didn't 100% pay for. What do you call it when someone else pays for what you use? Oh yeah, welfare.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'd say an average of 17k per enrolled person is... massive.

CoOportinuty Health Isn t An Obamacare Problem It s A Cooperative Problem - Forbes

We won't know just how screwed up this country has become thanks to Obamacare till after the guy leaves the WH.

Something isn't right here.

I am not saying your numbers are wrong. But when I see something that says a company is getting 85K per enrollee......

I mean c'mon. Don't you think that seems a bit ridiculous ?

There are plenty of places that are getting 2 to 5 thousand dollars which is still high (again...I have to wonder).

But your article is about one of the places on the list (which apparently isn't getting enough).

If this reflects an overall trend, then I have to ask what is going on. That is more than the average medical bankruptcy. Seems like we'd be better off just handing out those tax dollars directly.

 

[candycorn]

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

I'm sorry, but that was never explained.

The statement was made pure and simple.

When it started to happen....the term "junk plan" suddenly became the most overused verse in political B.S.

There was no public discussion of ACA standards.

It was the lie of the year and has yet to be bested.

True.

What was explained was that insurance would have to be offered to persons with pre-existing conditions and that you could keep you child on your plan until they turn 26.

Imagine my surprise...nobody wants to talk about the overwhelming support for the good parts of the ACA...only that some fools didn't understand what it is. I would bet that if you asked conservative posters on this board, they would still--to this day--think there is a product called "obamacare".

All of this was to address an "issue" that was never truly defined.

And so you really can't know if you ever solved the issue.

While I don't know that I agree with the way pre-existing conditions were dealt with, what I never have liked (and it didn't need Obama to fix it) was that you could be cancelled if you got sick.

I wished state legislatures would have passed laws that said....if an insurance company decides to cancel you...they have to add up all your payments in over the entire time you were with them, multiply by four, then deduct your claim (no multiplier) and pay you back the difference. Then they could cancel you. How insurance companies (it was the government that allowed them to do it) could take someone who had paid in for 20 years and then cancel them was beyond me.

The 26 year old on your insurance is a response to the lousy job market for young people and little more.

But we are talking birthdays. The last poll I read showed the law still being more unfavorable than not. Much like a reflection of this poll.

The number of uninsured adults has dropped every year. Happy birthday to the people who USED to pay for their healthcare.

If they are now paying more for theirs (than what they were paying combined before)...maybe not.

I don't know what the truth is and, frankly, I am not sure anyone does.

All adults (pretty much) have seen insurance rate raise before the ACA. Now when rates rise, we're surprised and scream bloody murder? No.

 

[candycorn]

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Obamacare s Illegal Insurance Company Bailout - Conn Carroll

From the above web site:
========================
"Reinsurance: Obamacare’s reinsurance program is paid for by a $63 tax on all health plans. The money then goes to any health insurance company who spends more than $60,000 on any Obamacare patient in any single year. Since the tax applies to all health care plans, but the benefits only go to Obamacare plans, the reinsurance program is really just a transfer of wealth from those who had insurance coverage before Obamacare to those who are now covered by Obamacare.

Risk Adjustment: The risk adjustment program is designed to stop insurance companies from marketing or pricing their plans in such a way that they only attract healthy, and therefore lower-cost, patients. The program accomplishes this by assessing the patient population of each insurer and then determining which insurers are covering healthier people and which are covering sicker people. The plans covering the healthy people are then forced to pay money to the plans covering sicker people. All transfers between insurance companies even out.

Risk Corridors: The risk corridor program is intended to encourage insurers to price their premiums low by protecting them from losses if their patients turn out to require more care than anticipated. The program uses a complex formula to take money from those insurers that do not spend a lot of money paying for patient health care, and then gives that money to other insurers that do spend a lot of money on patient care.

The big difference between the three programs is that the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs either have a dedicated stream of income (the $63 tax on all health care plans) or the payouts are limited to what the program takes in (all transfers equal out in the risk adjustment program).

But the risk corridor program has no guaranteed stream of funding. What if more health insurance plans underprice their Obamacare plans in an effort to gain market share? What if they all end up spending more on health care than they originally planned?

Then everyone would be demanding payment from the system but no one would be paying in. Who would make up the difference in such a situation?

When the CBO originally scored Obamacare, they assumed the Three Rs would end up costing taxpayers nothing. And then, when they rescored the bill again in February 2014, they optimistically estimated that the risk corridor program would actually save taxpayers $8 billion over the next 10 years.

But CBO’s computer models rarely, if ever, come close to matching reality. And Obamacare has been no different.
...

Obamacare Bailout to the Rescue

Health insurance CEOs immediately demanded a meeting with Obama, which happened in the White House the day after his Friday announcement. According to health insurance lobbyist emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Obama agreed that day to increase payments for both the risk corridor and reinsurance programs.

But some savvy Republicans on Capitol Hill were watching this drama and began to push back. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even introduced a bill just four days after Obama’s November 15th rule change that would have repealed the risk corridor program entirely. “Washington’s bailout culture must end, and eliminating ObamaCare’s blank check for a bailout of insurance companies is a common sense step to protect taxpayers when ObamaCare fails,” Rubio said in a statement.

Not wanting a fight with Republicans over insurance company bailouts, the first draft of HHS’s regulation governing the risk corridor program, published in March 2014, promised that the program would be implemented in “a budget neutral manner.” In other words, payments out of the program would not be greater than payments into the program. There would be no bailout.

The health insurance industry promptly freaked out. According to emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell sent Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett a memo threatening health insurance premium spikes of “as much as 20 percent” if the risk corridor program was run in a “budget neutral” manner.

Obama got the message. The final HHS regulation published in May 2014 said that, “In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year ... HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments.”

In other words, the risk corridor bailout is on.

And according to a survey of Obamacare insurers conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Obama administration is expected to make $725 million in net payments out of the risk corridor program in 2015 alone. Throw in the increased reinsurance payments and the bailout will top $1 billion."
...

The original Obamacare legislation did not contain any appropriations to build the federal health insurance exchange either. So Obama simply stole $454 million from the law’s “Prevention Fund” program and used it to build the exchanges instead.

========================

As I said... Everyone on Obamacare is receiving welfare. The checks are not going to them directly... instead the checks are going from the government (taxpayer funds) to insurance companies and to government employees who are managing Obama care. Hell just look at the people we added to the IRS to run this beast. All tax payer funded... all of it.

Much in the same way that whenever you drive on a road, someone else paid taxes for you to drive on it so, by you definition, all drivers are on welfare....right?

Not sure how that works. You pay for a portion of the road every time you gas up. The only people getting a free ride are those in solar powered vehicles, on bikes, or free public transportation.

So, I don't think this argument holds water.

What I find strange is that you made the statement that Obamacare is not a product. So what is RKMBrown making reference to ?

I noticed RKMBrown used the term "massive" when describing the amount of tax payer money in a particular premium. What is "massive" ?

Sure it holds water...in no way has anyone paid, in taxes, for the roads outside of their houses....not the original costs, not the upkeep, not the lights....nobody.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm sorry, but that was never explained.

The statement was made pure and simple.

When it started to happen....the term "junk plan" suddenly became the most overused verse in political B.S.

There was no public discussion of ACA standards.

It was the lie of the year and has yet to be bested.

True.

What was explained was that insurance would have to be offered to persons with pre-existing conditions and that you could keep you child on your plan until they turn 26.

Imagine my surprise...nobody wants to talk about the overwhelming support for the good parts of the ACA...only that some fools didn't understand what it is. I would bet that if you asked conservative posters on this board, they would still--to this day--think there is a product called "obamacare".

All of this was to address an "issue" that was never truly defined.

And so you really can't know if you ever solved the issue.

While I don't know that I agree with the way pre-existing conditions were dealt with, what I never have liked (and it didn't need Obama to fix it) was that you could be cancelled if you got sick.

I wished state legislatures would have passed laws that said....if an insurance company decides to cancel you...they have to add up all your payments in over the entire time you were with them, multiply by four, then deduct your claim (no multiplier) and pay you back the difference. Then they could cancel you. How insurance companies (it was the government that allowed them to do it) could take someone who had paid in for 20 years and then cancel them was beyond me.

The 26 year old on your insurance is a response to the lousy job market for young people and little more.

But we are talking birthdays. The last poll I read showed the law still being more unfavorable than not. Much like a reflection of this poll.

The number of uninsured adults has dropped every year. Happy birthday to the people who USED to pay for their healthcare.

If they are now paying more for theirs (than what they were paying combined before)...maybe not.

I don't know what the truth is and, frankly, I am not sure anyone does.

All adults (pretty much) have seen insurance rate raise before the ACA. Now when rates rise, we're surprised and scream bloody murder? No.

That wasn't my point.

You said that we should (and I am paraphrasing here) celbrate that we are not paying for others health care.

I responded that if theirs and mind (then) is cheaper than mine (now) then I might not be in such a festive mood.

I also said, I don't know that anyone knows if that is the case.

Your first statement is true. Your second is not something I can confirm.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Obamacare s Illegal Insurance Company Bailout - Conn Carroll

From the above web site:
========================
"Reinsurance: Obamacare’s reinsurance program is paid for by a $63 tax on all health plans. The money then goes to any health insurance company who spends more than $60,000 on any Obamacare patient in any single year. Since the tax applies to all health care plans, but the benefits only go to Obamacare plans, the reinsurance program is really just a transfer of wealth from those who had insurance coverage before Obamacare to those who are now covered by Obamacare.

Risk Adjustment: The risk adjustment program is designed to stop insurance companies from marketing or pricing their plans in such a way that they only attract healthy, and therefore lower-cost, patients. The program accomplishes this by assessing the patient population of each insurer and then determining which insurers are covering healthier people and which are covering sicker people. The plans covering the healthy people are then forced to pay money to the plans covering sicker people. All transfers between insurance companies even out.

Risk Corridors: The risk corridor program is intended to encourage insurers to price their premiums low by protecting them from losses if their patients turn out to require more care than anticipated. The program uses a complex formula to take money from those insurers that do not spend a lot of money paying for patient health care, and then gives that money to other insurers that do spend a lot of money on patient care.

The big difference between the three programs is that the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs either have a dedicated stream of income (the $63 tax on all health care plans) or the payouts are limited to what the program takes in (all transfers equal out in the risk adjustment program).

But the risk corridor program has no guaranteed stream of funding. What if more health insurance plans underprice their Obamacare plans in an effort to gain market share? What if they all end up spending more on health care than they originally planned?

Then everyone would be demanding payment from the system but no one would be paying in. Who would make up the difference in such a situation?

When the CBO originally scored Obamacare, they assumed the Three Rs would end up costing taxpayers nothing. And then, when they rescored the bill again in February 2014, they optimistically estimated that the risk corridor program would actually save taxpayers $8 billion over the next 10 years.

But CBO’s computer models rarely, if ever, come close to matching reality. And Obamacare has been no different.
...

Obamacare Bailout to the Rescue

Health insurance CEOs immediately demanded a meeting with Obama, which happened in the White House the day after his Friday announcement. According to health insurance lobbyist emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Obama agreed that day to increase payments for both the risk corridor and reinsurance programs.

But some savvy Republicans on Capitol Hill were watching this drama and began to push back. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even introduced a bill just four days after Obama’s November 15th rule change that would have repealed the risk corridor program entirely. “Washington’s bailout culture must end, and eliminating ObamaCare’s blank check for a bailout of insurance companies is a common sense step to protect taxpayers when ObamaCare fails,” Rubio said in a statement.

Not wanting a fight with Republicans over insurance company bailouts, the first draft of HHS’s regulation governing the risk corridor program, published in March 2014, promised that the program would be implemented in “a budget neutral manner.” In other words, payments out of the program would not be greater than payments into the program. There would be no bailout.

The health insurance industry promptly freaked out. According to emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell sent Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett a memo threatening health insurance premium spikes of “as much as 20 percent” if the risk corridor program was run in a “budget neutral” manner.

Obama got the message. The final HHS regulation published in May 2014 said that, “In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year ... HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments.”

In other words, the risk corridor bailout is on.

And according to a survey of Obamacare insurers conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Obama administration is expected to make $725 million in net payments out of the risk corridor program in 2015 alone. Throw in the increased reinsurance payments and the bailout will top $1 billion."
...

The original Obamacare legislation did not contain any appropriations to build the federal health insurance exchange either. So Obama simply stole $454 million from the law’s “Prevention Fund” program and used it to build the exchanges instead.

========================

As I said... Everyone on Obamacare is receiving welfare. The checks are not going to them directly... instead the checks are going from the government (taxpayer funds) to insurance companies and to government employees who are managing Obama care. Hell just look at the people we added to the IRS to run this beast. All tax payer funded... all of it.

Much in the same way that whenever you drive on a road, someone else paid taxes for you to drive on it so, by you definition, all drivers are on welfare....right?

Not sure how that works. You pay for a portion of the road every time you gas up. The only people getting a free ride are those in solar powered vehicles, on bikes, or free public transportation.

So, I don't think this argument holds water.

What I find strange is that you made the statement that Obamacare is not a product. So what is RKMBrown making reference to ?

I noticed RKMBrown used the term "massive" when describing the amount of tax payer money in a particular premium. What is "massive" ?

Sure it holds water...in no way has anyone paid, in taxes, for the roads outside of their houses....not the original costs, not the upkeep, not the lights....nobody.

Incorrect. A MASSIVE PORTION OF EVERYONE'S INSURANCE ON OBAMACARE IS BEING FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER. Yes, a portion of people on obamacare get EXTRA taxpayer funding in the form of subsidies on top of the subsidies that EVERYONE ON OBAMACARE IS GETTING.

Sorry but you're simply wrong.

Obamacare s Illegal Insurance Company Bailout - Conn Carroll

From the above web site:
========================
"Reinsurance: Obamacare’s reinsurance program is paid for by a $63 tax on all health plans. The money then goes to any health insurance company who spends more than $60,000 on any Obamacare patient in any single year. Since the tax applies to all health care plans, but the benefits only go to Obamacare plans, the reinsurance program is really just a transfer of wealth from those who had insurance coverage before Obamacare to those who are now covered by Obamacare.

Risk Adjustment: The risk adjustment program is designed to stop insurance companies from marketing or pricing their plans in such a way that they only attract healthy, and therefore lower-cost, patients. The program accomplishes this by assessing the patient population of each insurer and then determining which insurers are covering healthier people and which are covering sicker people. The plans covering the healthy people are then forced to pay money to the plans covering sicker people. All transfers between insurance companies even out.

Risk Corridors: The risk corridor program is intended to encourage insurers to price their premiums low by protecting them from losses if their patients turn out to require more care than anticipated. The program uses a complex formula to take money from those insurers that do not spend a lot of money paying for patient health care, and then gives that money to other insurers that do spend a lot of money on patient care.

The big difference between the three programs is that the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs either have a dedicated stream of income (the $63 tax on all health care plans) or the payouts are limited to what the program takes in (all transfers equal out in the risk adjustment program).

But the risk corridor program has no guaranteed stream of funding. What if more health insurance plans underprice their Obamacare plans in an effort to gain market share? What if they all end up spending more on health care than they originally planned?

Then everyone would be demanding payment from the system but no one would be paying in. Who would make up the difference in such a situation?

When the CBO originally scored Obamacare, they assumed the Three Rs would end up costing taxpayers nothing. And then, when they rescored the bill again in February 2014, they optimistically estimated that the risk corridor program would actually save taxpayers $8 billion over the next 10 years.

But CBO’s computer models rarely, if ever, come close to matching reality. And Obamacare has been no different.
...

Obamacare Bailout to the Rescue

Health insurance CEOs immediately demanded a meeting with Obama, which happened in the White House the day after his Friday announcement. According to health insurance lobbyist emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Obama agreed that day to increase payments for both the risk corridor and reinsurance programs.

But some savvy Republicans on Capitol Hill were watching this drama and began to push back. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even introduced a bill just four days after Obama’s November 15th rule change that would have repealed the risk corridor program entirely. “Washington’s bailout culture must end, and eliminating ObamaCare’s blank check for a bailout of insurance companies is a common sense step to protect taxpayers when ObamaCare fails,” Rubio said in a statement.

Not wanting a fight with Republicans over insurance company bailouts, the first draft of HHS’s regulation governing the risk corridor program, published in March 2014, promised that the program would be implemented in “a budget neutral manner.” In other words, payments out of the program would not be greater than payments into the program. There would be no bailout.

The health insurance industry promptly freaked out. According to emails obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell sent Obama Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett a memo threatening health insurance premium spikes of “as much as 20 percent” if the risk corridor program was run in a “budget neutral” manner.

Obama got the message. The final HHS regulation published in May 2014 said that, “In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year ... HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments.”

In other words, the risk corridor bailout is on.

And according to a survey of Obamacare insurers conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Obama administration is expected to make $725 million in net payments out of the risk corridor program in 2015 alone. Throw in the increased reinsurance payments and the bailout will top $1 billion."
...

The original Obamacare legislation did not contain any appropriations to build the federal health insurance exchange either. So Obama simply stole $454 million from the law’s “Prevention Fund” program and used it to build the exchanges instead.

========================

As I said... Everyone on Obamacare is receiving welfare. The checks are not going to them directly... instead the checks are going from the government (taxpayer funds) to insurance companies and to government employees who are managing Obama care. Hell just look at the people we added to the IRS to run this beast. All tax payer funded... all of it.

Much in the same way that whenever you drive on a road, someone else paid taxes for you to drive on it so, by you definition, all drivers are on welfare....right?

Not sure how that works. You pay for a portion of the road every time you gas up. The only people getting a free ride are those in solar powered vehicles, on bikes, or free public transportation.

So, I don't think this argument holds water.

What I find strange is that you made the statement that Obamacare is not a product. So what is RKMBrown making reference to ?

I noticed RKMBrown used the term "massive" when describing the amount of tax payer money in a particular premium. What is "massive" ?

Sure it holds water...in no way has anyone paid, in taxes, for the roads outside of their houses....not the original costs, not the upkeep, not the lights....nobody.

I would contend that they have to pay for more than that.

But if you buy 1,800 in gas a year, you pay about $400 in taxes. That would be more than enough to cover the asphault and lighting outside your house over a number of years.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

Regardless of what the law does. It is not as popular as unpopular and that seems stagnant.

That might be due to a viscious smear campaign, but it still not popular.

I've heard people say we will like it more over time. I think the opposite is true.

 

[dblack]

I'm sorry, but that was never explained.

The statement was made pure and simple.

When it started to happen....the term "junk plan" suddenly became the most overused verse in political B.S.

There was no public discussion of ACA standards.

It was the lie of the year and has yet to be bested.

True.

What was explained was that insurance would have to be offered to persons with pre-existing conditions and that you could keep you child on your plan until they turn 26.

Imagine my surprise...nobody wants to talk about the overwhelming support for the good parts of the ACA...only that some fools didn't understand what it is. I would bet that if you asked conservative posters on this board, they would still--to this day--think there is a product called "obamacare".

All of this was to address an "issue" that was never truly defined.

And so you really can't know if you ever solved the issue.

While I don't know that I agree with the way pre-existing conditions were dealt with, what I never have liked (and it didn't need Obama to fix it) was that you could be cancelled if you got sick.

I wished state legislatures would have passed laws that said....if an insurance company decides to cancel you...they have to add up all your payments in over the entire time you were with them, multiply by four, then deduct your claim (no multiplier) and pay you back the difference. Then they could cancel you. How insurance companies (it was the government that allowed them to do it) could take someone who had paid in for 20 years and then cancel them was beyond me.

The 26 year old on your insurance is a response to the lousy job market for young people and little more.

But we are talking birthdays. The last poll I read showed the law still being more unfavorable than not. Much like a reflection of this poll.

The number of uninsured adults has dropped every year. Happy birthday to the people who USED to pay for their healthcare.

If they are now paying more for theirs (than what they were paying combined before)...maybe not.

I don't know what the truth is and, frankly, I am not sure anyone does.

All adults (pretty much) have seen insurance rate raise before the ACA. Now when rates rise, we're surprised and scream bloody murder? No.

We scream bloody murder because we gave up our rights to control our own health care spending. Some people, though I'm not one of them, expect to see something in exchange for that loss - like lower health insurance rates and lower health care costs. As it is we've given up essential liberty for false security.