Obamacare is Here to Stay

[cletus1]

When the kinks are worked out Obamacare will give MOST Americans something they need. Sure, young people don't want to fork over the money to buy healthcare insurance, but it is better than making everyone else pay for emergencies room visits that can mostly be avoided. If you think what we had was better than Obamacare you are deluded. I think we need single payer, not Obamacare, are you up for that?

[SFLiberal]

When the kinks are worked out Obamacare will give MOST Americans something they need. Sure, young people don't want to fork over the money to buy healthcare insurance, but it is better than making everyone else pay for emergencies room visits that can mostly be avoided. If you think what we had was better than Obamacare you are deluded. I think we need single payer, not Obamacare, are you up for that?

Single payer? Nope. I'm not into that to each according to his need, to each according to his ability thing..... What I would like to see is Obama, his family and Congress be required to enroll and use Obamacare. If that happened it would be repealed in a heartbeat. Unfortunately they are above the little people. Let them eat cake.

When are you going to accept that you were sold a bill of goods that is being run by a bunch of incompetent imbeciles? And it is only going to get worst later this year when the employer mandate exemption expires. Then the shit will really hit the fan.

Obamacare Website's Unbuilt Appeals and Errors System Causing Chaos

by Wynton Hall 3 Feb 2014

The Obamacare website is unable to fix entry mistakes or handle appeals for incorrect or denied coverage and subsidies because the government has yet to build the systems necessary to handle them.

A Washington Post investigation published on Sunday revealed that roughly 22,000 Americans have filled out seven-page paper appeals forms and mailed them to the federal government for putting them in the wrong plans, billing them incorrectly, or denying them coverage altogether. Those individuals may be waiting a long time, however, since the government has yet to even build an appeals and error corrections system for handling Obamacare mistakes.

"There is no indication that infrastructure...necessary for conducting informal reviews and fair hearings has even been created, let alone become operational," wrote National Health Law Program attorneys in a late-December letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The Washington Post reported that "the Obama Administration has not made public the fact that the appeals system for the online marketplace is not working." Furthermore, no one has any idea when such a system will be built because "it is not among the top priorities."

The Obamacare website's failure to handle and correct errors has sparked costly chaos for enrollees. Addie Wilson of West Virginia told the Post her Obamacare plan is charging her $100 a month more than it should and has set her deductible over $4,000 higher than what she should have received.

"It is definitely frustrating and not fair," said Wilson.

The government is telling people they can try to reenroll. Such advice offers individuals like Wilson little solace.

"Starting over would not help Addie Wilson, for example, because she has already begun to pay for her new insurance and would have no way to get her money back," reports the Post.

[cletus1]

I'll see your lopsided article and raise you this one.


Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news


By Michael Hiltzik
February 4, 2014, 10:16 a.m.

The Congressional Budget Office is out with its latest report on the Affordable Care Act, and here are a few bottom lines:

— The ACA is cheaper than it expected.

— It will "markedly increase" the number of Americans with health insurance.

— The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a "bailout" of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury.

Given all this, why are the first news headlines on the CBO report depicting it as calling Obamacare a job killer?

You can chalk up some of that to the crudity of headline-writing, and some to basic innumeracy in the press. But it's important to examine what the CBO actually says about the ACA's impact on the labor market. (You can find it at pages 117-127, excerpted here.)

RELATED: Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why

The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."


The entire article is here: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/...z2sSUwLwqt

[Wonky]

I'll see your lopsided article and raise you this one.


Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news


By Michael Hiltzik
February 4, 2014, 10:16 a.m.

The Congressional Budget Office is out with its latest report on the Affordable Care Act, and here are a few bottom lines:

— The ACA is cheaper than it expected.

— It will "markedly increase" the number of Americans with health insurance.

— The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a "bailout" of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury.

Given all this, why are the first news headlines on the CBO report depicting it as calling Obamacare a job killer?

You can chalk up some of that to the crudity of headline-writing, and some to basic innumeracy in the press. But it's important to examine what the CBO actually says about the ACA's impact on the labor market. (You can find it at pages 117-127, excerpted here.)

RELATED: Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why

The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."


The entire article is here: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/...z2sSUwLwqt

Convinced me!
I'm gonna vote for him again.

[cletus1]

Convinced me!
I'm gonna vote for him again.

I think I'll vote for Mrs Clinton this time.

A few old folks retiring because they won't need employer health care insurance might open up some jobs for young and middle age workers that are trying to support families. Less people competing for the limited jobs is a good thing right?

[SFLiberal]

I'll see your lopsided article and raise you this one.


Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news


By Michael Hiltzik
February 4, 2014, 10:16 a.m.

The Congressional Budget Office is out with its latest report on the Affordable Care Act, and here are a few bottom lines:

— The ACA is cheaper than it expected.

— It will "markedly increase" the number of Americans with health insurance.

— The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a "bailout" of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury.

Given all this, why are the first news headlines on the CBO report depicting it as calling Obamacare a job killer?

You can chalk up some of that to the crudity of headline-writing, and some to basic innumeracy in the press. But it's important to examine what the CBO actually says about the ACA's impact on the labor market. (You can find it at pages 117-127, excerpted here.)

RELATED: Yes, men should pay for pregnancy coverage, and here's why

The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."


The entire article is here: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/...z2sSUwLwqt

Wow. Talk about spin. You can put lipstick on a pig......

Obamacare’s scorekeepers deliver a game-changer

By Dana Milbank, Published: February 4

For years, the White House has trotted out the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to show that Obamacare would cut health-care costs and reduce deficits:

“CBO Confirms Families Will Save Money Under Health Reform.”

“CBO Update Shows Lower Costs for the New Health Care Law.”

“CBO Confirms: The Health Care Law Reduces the Deficit.”

Live by the sword, die by the sword, the Bible tells us. In Washington, it’s slightly different: Live by the CBO, die by the CBO.

The congressional number-crunchers, perhaps the capital’s closest thing to a neutral referee, came out with a new report Tuesday, and it wasn’t pretty for Obamacare. The CBO predicted the law would have a “substantially larger” impact on the labor market than it had previously expected: The law would reduce the workforce in 2021 by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers, well more than the 800,000 originally anticipated. This will inevitably be a drag on economic growth, as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes.

This is grim news for the White House and for Democrats on the ballot in November. This independent arbiter, long embraced by the White House, has validated a core complaint of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) critics: that it will discourage work and become an ungainly entitlement. Disputing Republicans’ charges is much easier than refuting the federal government’s official scorekeepers.

White House officials rushed to dispute the referee’s call — arguing, somewhat contradictorily, that the finding was both flawed and really good news if interpreted properly.

Press secretary Jay Carney quickly issued a statement saying that the CBO report was, by its own admission, “incomplete” and “does not take into account” some favorable effects of the law.

Carney postponed his daily press briefing, then arrived with Jason Furman, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, who argued that the Affordable Care Act couldn’t possibly be a job killer because 8.1 million jobs had been created since it became law. This is true — but irrelevant to the CBO finding.

Meanwhile, Gene Sperling, Obama’s top economic-policy adviser, walked to the White House lawn and told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he rejected the finding. “When you have two parents and they’re both working full time to provide health care and they don’t feel they’re there to do homework with their kids and this allows one of [them] to work a little less because they have health care, that’s not costing jobs,” Sperling argued.

Sounds nice, except the CBO said its more pessimistic workforce view had been shaped by recent studies, “in particular” those looking at “expansions or contractions in Medicaid eligibility for childless adults.” In general, the CBO explained, phasing out subsidies to buy health insurance when income rises “effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates?.?.?. thus discouraging work.”

There was some good news about Obamacare (and about shrinking deficits) in the report: Premiums are lower than expected, and there “is no compelling evidence” that employers are shifting to part-time jobs in response to the law. The law will give health insurance to an additional 13 million people this year and 25 million in 2016 and beyond.

But it was immediately clear that the government’s green eyeshades had bestowed a big gift on the law’s Republican critics.

Fox News put up a breaking-news banner: “Bombshell CBO report predicts 2.3 million jobs will be lost under Obamacare.” Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), one of the law’s fiercest foes, did a celebratory interview with Fox. “There are other surprises yet to come,” he promised. Republicans went to the Senate floor to tout the findings. For a brief time, the CBO Web site went down; online traffic surges aren’t usually a problem for the agency.

In the White House briefing room, Furman navigated a river of skeptical questions. “Doesn’t just the sheer idea of losing 2.5 million jobs over 10 years have a negative economic impact??.?.?. You’re saying it may be a good thing if there are 2 million fewer workers??.?.?. How do you answer Republicans who now have this evidence that they can wave to say, ‘Aha, the ACA is bad for the economy’?”

Furman attempted to dispute the report (“I haven’t accepted the number”) without disparaging the authors (“We cite CBO all the time”). Delicately, he said the report “is subject to misinterpretation, doesn’t take into account every factor, and there’s uncertainty and debate around it.”

But there’s only so much White House officials could do. Obamacare has been undermined by the very entity they had used to validate it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...story.html

I love the excuse the spokesman Obama sent out yesterday in a feeble attempt to counter this devastating CBO report:

"It will about people to spend more time at home with their families"

"It will allow people to work less hours because they will receive subsidies"

"it will allow people to explore entrepreneurship because the can keep their healthcare if they leave their job"

"People won't have to work 40 hours a week because they will receive subsidies"

There was soooo much spin that some reporters were dizzy when they stood up after the press briefing was over and fell on their faces.

[SFLiberal]

Convinced me!
I'm gonna vote for him again.

I think I'll vote for Mrs Clinton this time.

A few old folks retiring because they won't need employer health care insurance might open up some jobs for young and middle age workers that are trying to support families. Less people competing for the limited jobs is a good thing right?

Let's be truthful here. Obama is not creating jobs. All he is doing is creating incentives not to work. He is consigning people to poverty. Jobs are what get people out of poverty. Jobs are what get people on a mobility track to better income and jobs are what reduce inequality. Obama's solution is more and more subsidies, not jobs. He is placing the chains of poverty and government dependence on the ankles of the middle class while under his policies the upper class as flourished and gained wealth at an unprecedented rate.

[Scrapper]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...roy-23-mi/

John Boehner says Obamacare is “expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs”

[SFLiberal]

The CBO director DOUG ELMENDORF testified in Congress today about their findings. Here's what he said:

REP. PAUL RYAN: Just to understand this, it is not that employers are laying people off, but that people aren't working in the work force, aren't supply labor to the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, and as a result work force participation rate, less labor supply lowers economic growth.

DOUG ELMENDORF, CBO: That is right, Mr. Chairman.

RYAN: So, who are these workers? Who are the people typically in this category? What kind of worker from an income scale side are being affected by this?

ELMENDORF: The effect is principally on the labor supply of lower wage workers. The reason is what the Affordable Care Act does is provide subsidies focused on lower and more middle income people to buy health insurance, and in order to encourage sufficient number of people to buy an insurance like health insurance the subsidies are fairly large in dollar terms. Those subsidies are then withdrawn over time for people as their income rises. By providing heavily subsidized health-insurance to people with very low income and withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, creates a disincentive for people to work, relative to what would have been the case in the absence of that act. The subsidies are, of course, make those lower income people better off. This is an implicit tax, not the sort fo tax we normally think about, where if the government raises taxes we are worse off and face a disincentive to work more, but providing a subsidy people are better off, but they have less incentive to work.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2..._work.html

He proves the point:

[SFLiberal]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...roy-23-mi/

John Boehner says Obamacare is “expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs”

Boehner is right. The CBO report doesn't say 2.3 individual jobs will be lost/destroyed. It says that 2.3 million net jobs will be lost. I'll make it simple for even you to follow. A person is working a 40 hour week because by doing so he gets a job benefit of getting health insurance. Now under Obamacare this employee realizes that he can drop his hours to 30 hours a week (or the employer reduces his hours to avoid having to pay for the employees healthcare) and lose his employer based healthcare, but due to his reduced income he can get government subsidized healthcare while working less hours. His net is the same. He works less and yet his net is the same when the Obamacare subsidies are added. Now you multiply this by several million people in the same situation and you end up with a net loss of 2.3 million jobs. The problem is is that now you have less tax money coming into the system (reduced hours the employee is working) AND the employee is getting a government subsidy that is being paid for by someone else. Remember that despite popular progressive belief, money doesn't grow on trees, someone else is footing the bill and as the CBO director said today it "Creates A Disincentive For People To Work".

Got it?

[Wonky]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...roy-23-mi/

John Boehner says Obamacare is “expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs”

Boehner is right. The CBO report doesn't say 2.3 individual jobs will be lost/destroyed. It says that 2.3 million net jobs will be lost. I'll make it simple for even you to follow. A person is working a 40 hour week because by doing so he gets a job benefit of getting health insurance. Now under Obamacare this employee realizes that he can drop his hours to 30 hours a week (or the employer reduces his hours to avoid having to pay for the employees healthcare) and lose his employer based healthcare, but due to his reduced income he can get government subsidized healthcare while working less hours. His net is the same. He works less and yet his net is the same when the Obamacare subsidies are added. Now you multiply this by several million people in the same situation and you end up with a net loss of 2.3 million jobs. The problem is is that now you have less tax money coming into the system (reduced hours the employee is working) AND the employee is getting a government subsidy that is being paid for by someone else. Remember that despite popular progressive belief, money doesn't grow on trees, someone else is footing the bill and as the CBO director said today it "Creates A Disincentive For People To Work".

Got it?

" A person is working a 40 hour week because by doing so he gets a job benefit of getting health insurance."
And that was fast becoming a thing of the past before the ACA. (Can you say WalMart?)
I hope you got yours, because dear friend, lots and lots of good folks out there are "out there".
Got it?

[tvguy]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...roy-23-mi/

John Boehner says Obamacare is “expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs”

Boehner is right. The CBO report doesn't say 2.3 individual jobs will be lost/destroyed. It says that 2.3 million net jobs will be lost. I'll make it simple for even you to follow. A person is working a 40 hour week because by doing so he gets a job benefit of getting health insurance. Now under Obamacare this employee realizes that he can drop his hours to 30 hours a week (or the employer reduces his hours to avoid having to pay for the employees healthcare) and lose his employer based healthcare, but due to his reduced income he can get government subsidized healthcare while working less hours. His net is the same. He works less and yet his net is the same when the Obamacare subsidies are added. Now you multiply this by several million people in the same situation and you end up with a net loss of 2.3 million jobs. The problem is is that now you have less tax money coming into the system (reduced hours the employee is working) AND the employee is getting a government subsidy that is being paid for by someone else. Remember that despite popular progressive belief, money doesn't grow on trees, someone else is footing the bill and as the CBO director said today it "Creates A Disincentive For People To Work".

Got it?

" A person is working a 40 hour week because by doing so he gets a job benefit of getting health insurance."
And that was fast becoming a thing of the past before the ACA. (Can you say WalMart?)
I hope you got yours, because dear friend, lots and lots of good folks out there are "out there".
Got it?

I can say Walmart. Even though you can't hear me. Do I get something? A prize or?
BTW the wife and I just got on the Oregon health plan , I already went to an MD.
That stands for Mister doctor.

Thanks Obanga, it's your fault he stuck a finger up my but.

[orygunluvr]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...roy-23-mi/

John Boehner says Obamacare is “expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs”

Boehner is right. The CBO report doesn't say 2.3 individual jobs will be lost/destroyed. It says that 2.3 million net jobs will be lost. I'll make it simple for even you to follow. A person is working a 40 hour week because by doing so he gets a job benefit of getting health insurance. Now under Obamacare this employee realizes that he can drop his hours to 30 hours a week (or the employer reduces his hours to avoid having to pay for the employees healthcare) and lose his employer based healthcare, but due to his reduced income he can get government subsidized healthcare while working less hours. His net is the same. He works less and yet his net is the same when the Obamacare subsidies are added. Now you multiply this by several million people in the same situation and you end up with a net loss of 2.3 million jobs. The problem is is that now you have less tax money coming into the system (reduced hours the employee is working) AND the employee is getting a government subsidy that is being paid for by someone else. Remember that despite popular progressive belief, money doesn't grow on trees, someone else is footing the bill and as the CBO director said today it "Creates A Disincentive For People To Work".

Got it?

" A person is working a 40 hour week because by doing so he gets a job benefit of getting health insurance."
And that was fast becoming a thing of the past before the ACA. (Can you say WalMart?)
I hope you got yours, because dear friend, lots and lots of good folks out there are "out there".
Got it?

I can say Walmart. Even though you can't hear me. Do I get something? A prize or?
BTW the wife and I just got on the Oregon health plan , I already went to an MD.
That stands for Mister doctor.

Thanks Obanga, it's your fault he stuck a finger up my but.

No shit?

[tornado]

A liberal walks outside and espies a steaming dog pile. Stooping low, she sniffs it, and declares: it looks like dog poop, it smells like dog poop, by god, it is dog poop. I'm glad I didn't step in it.

[Wonky]

A liberal walks outside and espies a steaming dog pile. Stooping low, she sniffs it, and declares: it looks like dog poop, it smells like dog poop, by god, it is dog poop. I'm glad I didn't step in it.

Maybe you didn't step in it because you don't understand what dog poop is.

[tvguy]

A liberal walks outside and espies a steaming dog pile. Stooping low, she sniffs it, and declares: it looks like dog poop, it smells like dog poop, by god, it is dog poop. I'm glad I didn't step in it.

Do you know who Cheech and Chong are?

[tornado]

A liberal walks outside and espies a steaming dog pile. Stooping low, she sniffs it, and declares: it looks like dog poop, it smells like dog poop, by god, it is dog poop. I'm glad I didn't step in it.

Do you know who Cheech and Chong are?

King Kong went to Hong Kong to play ping pong. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong went along. illcommandante has been unthroned.

[tvguy]

A liberal walks outside and espies a steaming dog pile. Stooping low, she sniffs it, and declares: it looks like dog poop, it smells like dog poop, by god, it is dog poop. I'm glad I didn't step in it.

Do you know who Cheech and Chong are?

King Kong went to Hong Kong to play ping pong. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong went along. illcommandante has been unthroned.

[SFLiberal]

Yesterday, the CBO projected that by 2021, the Affordable Care Act will enable more than 2 million workers to escape ‘job-lock’ — the situation where workers remain tied to employers for access to health insurance benefits. Nancy Pelosi

[SFLiberal]

Pretty much sums it up....