OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[StrangeSox]

This is definitely annoying but 99% of it comes out of them screwing themselves with the website for several months, so those delays I get. Still wish Sebelius's job was replaced as a consequence though.

 

I'm think they're waiting until the next session of Congress at this point instead of changing leadership while they're still scrambling to patch things up.

[Jake]

I'm really glad I didn't accept the huge rate increase to keep my old plan without checking out the exchange, where I paid about 10 dollars more for a lot, lot better plan. I had a "good" plan already in that it's a lot for a pretty healthy young man like me, but my new one has the same deductible, lower out-of-pocket max, lower co-pays, my monthly med goes from $70 to $35 and my regular doctor visits to get that med go from $90 to $10. Even better is it's the same company where I saved a buttload of money by going to the exchange (BCBSIL).

 

Also interesting that the available dental plans aren't too bad. I'm still mooching off my parents' for that though, where I add about $5 to their plan. Their plan sucks and requires me to get dental check-ups only on my infrequent visits home, but it works for now until I get coverage from my grad program.

 

The requirement that all the companies give you a summary of benefits on the same kind of form is also great. Really helps you compare apples to apples. They also explain terms that a lot of folks won't understand. Co-pay means, coinsurance means that, these things are included in your deductible and these things are not.

 

I'm also assuming the fact that many of these plans cover in-patient addiction services at no cost or 20% coinsurance is not out of the goodness of the hearts of the insurers and was required. I'm sure some people will be pissed they're paying for that, but reducing the barriers to getting help for people will offer society a nice-sized benefit. If you don't want people to be addicted to drugs, it's cool now that we're also willing to offer something beyond shame to get them out of that cycle.

[Balta1701]

Vermont and Massachusetts are getting ready to sue CGI General, the company that they and the Federal Government contracted with to build their exchange websites.

 

Entirely plausible that the Federal Government will take some action against this company at some point as well. Over the last couple months their priority had to be "undoing the damage we already did", but now that things appear to be working at an almost tolerable level, a legal response seems warranted.

[mr_genius]

Vermont and Massachusetts are getting ready to sue CGI General, the company that they and the Federal Government contracted with to build their exchange websites.

 

Entirely plausible that the Federal Government will take some action against this company at some point as well. Over the last couple months their priority had to be "undoing the damage we already did", but now that things appear to be working at an almost tolerable level, a legal response seems warranted.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if CGI donated tens of millions to Obama's re-election campaign and his various personal slush funds. The bribes likely came with assurances that they would get billions in Obamacare contracts.

 

Obama will protect them.

 

[EvilMonkey]

People in this admin tend to fail upwards if possible. But since the various states didn't get kickbacks, it will take some serious juice to keep THEM from going after their money.

[StrangeSox]

More results from the ongoing Oregon Medicaid expansion study. In the first 15 month period, ER visits increased slightly for the covered population.

 

http://www.samefacts.com/2014/01/uncategor...ou-can-keep-it/

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpres...ecessarily-bad/

[StrangeSox]

No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal

 

Scott Lemeuix has had several posts lately really pushing back against the idea that Obamacare was a "Republican" or "Heritage" plan. They've been aimed at people attacking Obama from the left for "not even trying" for single-payer and instead just going with a conservative policy proposal, but I think he does a really good job pointing out that, while the PPACA may be far from ideal (from the let's perspective), the core components of it have never been 'conservative.'

 

from one of his earlier blog posts, his exhaustive list of the similarities between the Heritage plan and Obamacare:

 

Edited January 3, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cbo-obamacar...-154956476.html

 

That's nice.

[Reddy]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cbo-obamacar...-154956476.html

 

That's nice.

 

lol yeah ok.

[Jake]

Will be interesting what the effects of increasing the amount of people with health insurance and vastly improving the average person's health insurance will have

[Balta1701]

Just to be clear what that says...it doesn't say there will be 2 million fewer jobs, it says that people will drop out of the labor force. The number of total jobs will not be effected.

 

This is something you could quite easily predict...for example, it's safe to say that there are a number of people who otherwise could not afford to buy insurance on their own who are being locked into jobs because they need the health benefits. If those people are able to get insurance elsewhere, some fraction of them will drop out of the labor force.

 

In order to draw them back in, things like "increased wages" would be useful.

[StrangeSox]

Just to be clear what that says...it doesn't say there will be 2 million fewer jobs, it says that people will drop out of the labor force. The number of total jobs will not be effected.

 

This is something you could quite easily predict...for example, it's safe to say that there are a number of people who otherwise could not afford to buy insurance on their own who are being locked into jobs because they need the health benefits. If those people are able to get insurance elsewhere, some fraction of them will drop out of the labor force.

 

In order to draw them back in, things like "increased wages" would be useful.

 

It's more related to the ACA subsidies being means-tested. If working an extra five hours a week means you make some more money but also lose some of your subsidy, the net gain isn't all that high. It's labor/leisure utility curves from econ 101. That's always an inherent problem with means-tested programs; even if you try to scale the phase-out to not be so ridiculous (e.g. $1 under the line and you get 100% subsidy, $1 over the line and you get 0%), you're still going to have this marginal return problem.

 

You don't see this in single-payer countries like Canada because everyone is eligible regardless of income level. I'm not sure about in countries like Germany.

[Jenksismyhero]

Just to be clear what that says...it doesn't say there will be 2 million fewer jobs, it says that people will drop out of the labor force. The number of total jobs will not be effected.

 

This is something you could quite easily predict...for example, it's safe to say that there are a number of people who otherwise could not afford to buy insurance on their own who are being locked into jobs because they need the health benefits. If those people are able to get insurance elsewhere, some fraction of them will drop out of the labor force.

 

In order to draw them back in, things like "increased wages" would be useful.

 

Well, it doesn't say that either. It just say 2 million people won't be working. That could be because they drop out, and it could also be because their jobs are being lost so that employers don't have to provide them with benefits. Like the guy today that went after Obama for this very problem. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/37030...-andrew-johnson

 

As to the first bolded section, I love how you just poo-poo these things away. "Of course, this was obvious to begin with!" It occurring, yes. The degree to which it may occur, no. I read somewhere it's three times the original CBO estimate.

 

And the seconded bolded there makes no sense. People are quitting their jobs with health benefits so they can....get health benefits?

 

And ah, yes, the new talking point, "increased wages." Add it to the list of must-haves to cure the world.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Personally, I can't wait for the Republican campaign message of "against government welfare, against increased wages"

 

eta: did not realize that Bill Brady had embraced that idea earlier today when I posted it!

Edited February 5, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Well, it doesn't say that either. It just say 2 million people won't be working. That could be because they drop out, and it could also be because their jobs are being lost so that employers don't have to provide them with benefits. Like the guy today that went after Obama for this very problem. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/37030...-andrew-johnson

 

As to the first bolded section, I love how you just poo-poo these things away. "Of course, this was obvious to begin with!" It occurring, yes. The degree to which it may occur, no. I read somewhere it's three times the original CBO estimate.

 

And the seconded bolded there makes no sense. People are quitting their jobs with health benefits so they can....get health benefits?

 

And ah, yes, the new talking point, "increased wages." Add it to the list of must-haves to cure the world.

Of course...the problem with your anecdote is that the CBO report you just cited and deliberately misinterpreted actually, specifically states that it sees no evidence of a significant shift of workers to part-time instead of full-time. Here is the direct quote: “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA,”

 

And yes, it specifically states that these people will leave the labor force. In fact, the detailed version winds up suggesting that a consequence of this is a healthier labor force because some people who are currently sick but working to keep coverage will opt for things like treatment or retirement.

 

Again, to supply the direct quote:

“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”

It literally says, word for word, what you think it doesn't say.

[StrangeSox]

Another thing in the cbo report is that they've gone from scoring it as budget neutral to a net savings of $8b to the federal government.

[StrangeSox]

Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news

 

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.

 

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."

[StrangeSox]

The NYT editorial board also has a piece out pushing back against the idea that this will "cost jobs" or raise unemployment/underemployment

 

Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap

 

The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). It also found “no compelling evidence” that, as of now, part-time employment has increased as a result of the reform law, a frequent claim of critics. Whether that will hold up after a mandate that requires employers to provide coverage, which was delayed until 2015, kicks in is uncertain.

 

They also point out that what the CBO is saying is that millions of Americans will be empowered over this and won't have to take or keep a job just for health insurance benefits.

 

The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don’t like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster.

 

In other words, it's a step in the right direction of disentangling employers and health insurance.

[EvilMonkey]

The NYT editorial board also has a piece out pushing back against the idea that this will "cost jobs" or raise unemployment/underemployment

 

Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap

 

 

 

They also point out that what the CBO is saying is that millions of Americans will be empowered over this and won't have to take or keep a job just for health insurance benefits.

 

 

 

In other words, it's a step in the right direction of disentangling employers and health insurance.

So that means that the rest of the taxpayers get to subsidize their lazy asses so they can follow their dreams or some other such crap. Entangle it all you want, just don't make taxpayers pay for it.

[StrangeSox]

The articles go into more detail. It's not "lazy asses" or "follow[ing] their dreams or crap" that would see the biggest benefit here.

 

Anyway yet another example of where nationalized single-payer would be a far better system with far better outcomes.

[Balta1701]

So that means that the rest of the taxpayers get to subsidize their lazy asses so they can follow their dreams or some other such crap. Entangle it all you want, just don't make taxpayers pay for it.

My mother taught middle school for >25 years. In her early 60's when she was not eligible for Medicare, she had a knee replaced after several years of it causing a lot of problems. After the replacement, she could barely walk correctly for a couple years and frankly she should have retired. But she couldn't, because she couldn't get health care on the individual market, so she basically taught her class from a chair for the next couple years until she became eligible.

 

Please call more people like this lazy asses to their faces. Please.

[Jake]

My mother taught middle school for >25 years. In her early 60's when she was not eligible for Medicare, she had a knee replaced after several years of it causing a lot of problems. After the replacement, she could barely walk correctly for a couple years and frankly she should have retired. But she couldn't, because she couldn't get health care on the individual market, so she basically taught her class from a chair for the next couple years until she became eligible.

 

Please call more people like this lazy asses to their faces. Please.

 

I await this morphing into a "this is why teacher's unions are evil!" discussion

[EvilMonkey]

My mother taught middle school for >25 years. In her early 60's when she was not eligible for Medicare, she had a knee replaced after several years of it causing a lot of problems. After the replacement, she could barely walk correctly for a couple years and frankly she should have retired. But she couldn't, because she couldn't get health care on the individual market, so she basically taught her class from a chair for the next couple years until she became eligible.

 

Please call more people like this lazy asses to their faces. Please.

I will call the people who will quit their jobs to 'follow their passion' or whatever lazy asses all I want. 'Struggling artists'? Get a job. Why should I subsidize your crappy art. You want to spend your years volunteering for Obama, or Greenpeace or whatever? Fine, don't expect me to help pay for your insurance. And your mom should be pissed at her union for not taking care of her when it comes to insurance. And the doc who did her knees so bad she could barely walk.

[StrangeSox]

Artists and Obama volunteers: the only people who would like to do something else! You never, ever hear about people saying that they'd start their own business and become the vaunted Small Business Owner/Job Creator if they didn't have to stick to their job to get health insurance. It's lazy moochers all the way down.

 

edit: also why should Balta's mom be pissed at her union? Sometimes your body breaks down and there's not a whole lot medicine can do for it. If she wanted to keep her union insurance, she needed to keep working until she reached full union retirement age, otherwise she would have been paying huge Cobra prices. Even if it was the doctor's fault for a bad procedure, she still had to keep working and putting a lot of wear on bad knees just to keep health insurance. On what planet is this a good, desirable system? Why doesn't any other developed country in the world envy it?

Edited February 5, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I will call the people who will quit their jobs to 'follow their passion' or whatever lazy asses all I want. 'Struggling artists'? Get a job. Why should I subsidize your crappy art. You want to spend your years volunteering for Obama, or Greenpeace or whatever? Fine, don't expect me to help pay for your insurance. And your mom should be pissed at her union for not taking care of her when it comes to insurance. And the doc who did her knees so bad she could barely walk.

I think I'll just prefer to be pissed at the person who is a d*** about it to everyone.