OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

All I want is people to rank him 1-10 and nobody will take me up on it. I give him a 2.5 or 3.

5.

[TaylorStSox]

All I want is people to rank him 1-10 and nobody will take me up on it. I give him a 2.5 or 3.

8. His biggest weakness is that he isn't liberal enough. He's been too diplomatic to the right when he should have crushed them.

[Brian]

7.

[Texsox]

I'm so disappointed in myself for voting for Obama and the public being fooled by superficiality every time. Read this about Romney calling Obama a liar. The fact people find it so necessary to blast the current president, never showing him an ounce of respect, shows how unqualified Obama was/is to be our leader.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-meet-the-press-140953473.html

 

Obama is no Ozzie Guillen, that's for certain.

[Texsox]

A lot of those were responding to his first inauguration. Yes, his hometown paper blasted him that way while he was in office. Papers all over the country did.

 

This is how the world works. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but man, it seriously needs burst. The insults heaped upon presidents are legendary. I don't know of many writers or orators who come anywhere close to the impressive insults tossed at presidents in this country's first century.

 

Andrew Jackson's "pipe-smoking woman of ill-repute" wife is still one of my favorites.

Lincoln was a republican, this just proves how the liberal press has been attacking republicans forever.

[Jake]

I'll go 6.5.

 

Minuses:

-Bevy of budget cuts to appease Rs who would never be satisfied, thus hampering our recovery

-Letting conservatives bastardize his healthcare vision

-Allowing the spying apparatus of his predecessor continue to exist and develop

-Failing to close Gitmo entirely

-Stance on whistleblowers (not including Snowden)

-Failing to institute a system of checks on drone program

 

Pluses:

-end of war in Iraq

-ending the Where's Osama? goose chase

-ending torture programs

-acting on financial crisis and preventing a depression

-passing healthcare reform, regardless of political consequences

-repeal of DADT

-becoming the first POTUS to support marriage equality

-Dodd-Frank

-restoring pre-Bush tax rates on highest earners

-reforming NCLB, extending government giving for education, putting universal Pre-K on national agenda

-presiding over a major shift in international perception of USA and its leadership abroad for the better

-avoiding several int'l conflicts that could have turned into wars

 

That's off the top of my head. Some pluses and some minuses are clearly more important than others. I find many of the minuses troubling, though I also know that they would all almost certainly still exist and perhaps to a greater extent if his opponents were in office, which is even more troubling.

[Y2HH]

I'm sorry to interject, but rating a president while they're still in office is f***ing stupid.

 

So stop.

[iamshack]

I'm sorry to interject, but rating a president while they're still in office is f***ing stupid.

 

So stop.

That's the part of this sequence of posts that you decide to call out as stupid?

[greg775]

8. His biggest weakness is that he isn't liberal enough. He's been too diplomatic to the right when he should have crushed them.

 

Is he really worth an 8?

[Jake]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/co...recosts_953.pdf

 

In 2006, 34% of people shopping in the individual market said it was either very difficult or impossible to find a plan that fit their needs. 58% said it was very difficult or impossible to find a plan they could afford. 21% were turned away by carriers whose plans they were willing to pay for.

 

43% of people on the individual market spent 5% or more of their annual income on premiums alone; 25% spent 10% or more. Despite better average health than those with employer-provided coverage, 41% people on the individual market spent over $1000 out of pocket costs (deductibles, co-pays, prescriptions) in a given year versus 30% of employer-based. Median out of pocket costs were $960 for individual market versus $575.

 

40% of people with plans that had $1000 or higher deductibles had incurred an expensive medical bill not covered by their insurer. 40% had been charged more for a service by a doctor than the insurer was willing to pay. 15% had reached benefits limits and were no longer receiving support from their insurers on bills. 15% overall on the individual market and 22% with high deductibles had taken out debt to pay for medical expenses. This is all within 12 months of the study.

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Fi...arket_ib_v2.pdf

 

A couple years later, 73% of those eligible for individual market insurance said they did not purchase insurance because they could not afford the premiums. Of healthy people, 66% didn't buy insurance (80% of people who had a health problem didn't buy insurance). 45% of healthy pepole said it was very difficult/impossible to find insurance could afford. 26% of healthy people (!) were either turned down or charged a higher price than advertised.

 

64% of adults on the individual market were paying more than $3,000 on premiums alone, 31% more than $6,000. 51% of people with insurance on the individual market were paying 10% or more of their income on medical costs. 72% over 5%. This is with 85% of people who make less than 200% of the poverty line w/o insurance at all and thus not even in these figures. Of those low incomes with private insurance, 60% spent 10% or more of their annual incomes on medical expenses. Of people with $1000 annual deductibles, 69% ended up spending $1000 or more on non-premium medical costs. 24% spent $5000 or more. For $500-999 deductibles, it was still 63% paying more than $1000, but down to 13% paying $5000 or more.

 

Between 2003 and 2007, the proportion of nonelderly adults who are underinsured went from 10% to 18%. For those on the individual market, it went from 17% to 30%. Individual plans are 5 times as likely to not provide prescription drug coverage than employer coverage and four times as likely not to provide dental coverage. 1/3 of all adults with insurance had problems paying a medical bill within that year - that means they either had to "change their way of life," had been contacted by a collections agency, or currently had past due medical bills being paid off. Less than half of adults with insurance say they are "confident" that they can get medical care they need or safe and quality care. 36% on the individual market said that. 41% of those with individual insurance (24% with employer-provided) had done of the four things in the past year: not filled a prescription due to cost, skipped a test/treatment/appointment with a doctor due to cost, had a medical problem but did not see a doctor due to cost, or did not see a specialist they were referred to due to cost.

 

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/6/210.full#R14

 

Between 1996-2000, only 17% of those with individual market insurance kept the same plan for two years or longer. This is because, as they always do, insurance providers constantly change coverage and thus "drop" people. By law, as they did then and are doing now, they must offer all of their other options as well as the opt-out at the end of the 12-month contract.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-...tters-obamacare

 

Insurance companies sending cancellation letters are misleading consumers. Many of them are only offering more expensive plans, for sure. However, these letters do not direct people to the marketplace or let them know that they may get subsidies if they make less than 400% of the poverty line. One person in this article was paying $700/month for catastrophic coverage w/ a $10,000 deductible on the individual market. She makes $40,000 per year. She was notified by her insurer that she could have a "best match" coverage for $1000/month and it would automatically renew if she didn't call in. She now has a non-catastrophic plan through the marketplace that costs her $80/month after subsidy with a $250 deductible.

 

How many people are like her? Freaking out, having an already huge burden grow even larger, but not knowing how much the exchange might help?

 

Why share all this information?

When you hear people complaining about the insurance market right now, realize that it was completely and utterly f***ed up before. People weren't able to afford insurance, and when they bought it, they were still becoming indebted, settling for less coverage than they wanted, and encountering all kinds of other problems. When people b**** about something in the law, realize it is likely the same problem existed before and it is occurring less now. Realize that there are a lot of people acting and speaking in bad faith. Most of these people aren't the scared consumers being profiled in articles all around - it is the reporters that tell their stories without even finding out if they can be helped or if they misunderstand the process, because being helped isn't a good story.

 

 

[Y2HH]

That's the part of this sequence of posts that you decide to call out as stupid?

 

The reason I think it's stupid to rate a President, especially while they're in office, is for two key reasons.

 

1) A lot of legislation presidents sign into law won't mature for years to come, such as the ACA, as an easy example, which also happens to be on topic of this thread.

 

2) The Senate/Congress are probably more at fault for a lot of what we see than the President himself.

 

People blaming or crediting presidents with the state of the economy is also ridiculous. As a lot of the consequences we see now was the result of laws signed in the 80's and 90's, and these new laws or moves by current presidents are reactions TO those laws.

 

Needless to say, things are a LOT LOT LOT *1trillion more complicated than people want to believe. It's easy to point a finger and blame one guy for everything that's ever happened up until now, while disregarding the fact that a lot of what's happened over the past 10 years was set into motion a decade earlier.

 

I think like most presidents before him, Obama is trying to do what HE feels is right, how he feels he can in the current state of the world, with the current makeup of the Senate/House. I don't, for a single second, think Obama, Bush Jr, or anyone else was purposefully trying to sabotage our economy or destroy the world.

[Balta1701]

I don't, for a single second, think Obama, Bush Jr, or anyone else was purposefully trying to sabotage our economy or destroy the world.

I don't think one of these guys could have done better if he'd been trying.

[LittleHurt05]

We had a president that put us in an unwinnable war, watched the stock market crash, and watched unemployment tank while he spent 30% of his presidency "on vacation" and you think BO will be worse than him.

 

I understand Obama having detractors, but Greg, you maybe the most misinformed person on this board. I'm starting to see why others mock you so much.

 

I find it silly when people complain about Bush's vacations or Obama's golfing. It's the 21st century, I'm sure the President is in constant contact with all important people. At a moment's notice, he can jump into a plane and fly to DC or wherever be needed. It's not like Bush is out on a ranch where the closest contact is a post office 5 miles away via horseback. Let them have a little time to relax their mind, I'm sure the job is a 24-hour s***show.

[Y2HH]

I don't think one of these guys could have done better if he'd been trying.

 

Regardless of which you mean, this simplifies everything into the basic and incorrect thought that they caused everything that was set into motion 10-20 years before they were elected.

 

It's ridiculous simplification of a complex situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

I find it silly when people complain about Bush's vacations or Obama's golfing. It's the 21st century, I'm sure the President is in constant contact with all important people. At a moment's notice, he can jump into a plane and fly to DC or wherever be needed. It's not like Bush is out on a ranch where the closest contact is a post office 5 miles away via horseback. Let them have a little time to relax their mind, I'm sure the job is a 24-hour s***show.

 

And didn't Bush use his ranch as a place to conduct business and host world leaders? I always thought he used that ranch as his personal camp david. But I agree, the 21st century president is 24/7, 365 no matter where he is.

[Jake]

The vacation/golf stuff doesn't bother me either. We want the president to be working hard, for sure. Very hard. Do you think that working on literally world-changing matters every single day for most hours of the day is going to leave you working optimally? I'm happy for these people to take some leisure time. I want them rested, happy, and thinking clearly, not overworked, bitter, unhealthy, etc.

 

I do get great amusement in the fact that the Republican presidents since 1980 have taken many more vacation days just because people freak out every time the Obama family goes on vacation

[Y2HH]

The vacation/golf stuff doesn't bother me either. We want the president to be working hard, for sure. Very hard. Do you think that working on literally world-changing matters every single day for most hours of the day is going to leave you working optimally? I'm happy for these people to take some leisure time. I want them rested, happy, and thinking clearly, not overworked, bitter, unhealthy, etc.

 

I do get great amusement in the fact that the Republican presidents since 1980 have taken many more vacation days just because people freak out every time the Obama family goes on vacation

 

Pretty much every President since I've been alive enters office with a full head of dark hair, and within 2 months of having that job are full on grey and look as if they've aged 30 years in 20 minutes.

 

People need to stop pretending this is a disconnected world. Presidents have f***ing cell phones.

[Balta1701]

The vacation/golf stuff doesn't bother me either. We want the president to be working hard, for sure. Very hard. Do you think that working on literally world-changing matters every single day for most hours of the day is going to leave you working optimally? I'm happy for these people to take some leisure time. I want them rested, happy, and thinking clearly, not overworked, bitter, unhealthy, etc.

 

I do get great amusement in the fact that the Republican presidents since 1980 have taken many more vacation days just because people freak out every time the Obama family goes on vacation

I agree with you with one notable exception:

[cabiness42]

People need to stop pretending this is a disconnected world. Presidents have f***ing cell phones.

 

The NSA can confirm this.

[StrangeSox]

WaPo has another story digging into what exactly went wrong with Healthcare.gov and why

 

HealthCare.gov: How political fear was pitted against technical needs

[NorthSideSox72]

WTF?

 

I mean, I can guess where you're going here, maybe with "trying to solve a problem but has too many handouts to big business" or something like that, but seriously, WTF? I can't even get close.

Meaning, it is a transitional setup, whose gains are more or less offset by negative consequences. Still represents, in some fashion, a key step to other things in the future. But as much as you gain in some aspects, you lose at least as much in others. And that is fine, as long as you are headed somewhere with it.

 

[caulfield12]

I find it silly when people complain about Bush's vacations or Obama's golfing. It's the 21st century, I'm sure the President is in constant contact with all important people. At a moment's notice, he can jump into a plane and fly to DC or wherever be needed. It's not like Bush is out on a ranch where the closest contact is a post office 5 miles away via horseback. Let them have a little time to relax their mind, I'm sure the job is a 24-hour s***show.

 

 

 

It's like all the people complaining about C. Rice being on the FBS selection committee or ripping Obama for filling out NCAA brackets.

 

 

Everyone needs hobbies or ways to relax. For Bush, it was his ranch and hunting/hiking/pretending to look busy and like an everyman.

 

For Obama, it's basketball, smoking and watching sports on television.

 

The Clintons, for example, were consumed by watching movies in the White House theatre, Bill in particular.

[StrangeSox]

Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers

 

Under the new LifeWise plan, Donna would have to pay more than $1,000 a month, a nearly $300 per month increase and a huge hit for a family with an income around $40,000. It was bare-bones coverage by ACA standards, with a $6,350 deductible.

 

....Fast forward a month, and Donna was able to log onto Washington's marketplace and shop for insurance. And what did she find? Options. A LifeWise plan with the same deductible they offered her outside the exchange was a little cheaper. Plans with a lower deductible had the same or lower premiums as the LifeWise plan. What she ended up buying was a plan through Community Health Plan of Washington with a $250 deductible.

 

And crucially, she also discovered she would qualify for a federal tax subsidy that would knock her monthly premium to $80. Her daughter could enroll in Medicaid, at no cost to the family.

 

So here's the bottom line: If Donna had taken the default option that LifeWise offered outside of the marketplace, she would have paid nearly $1,000 more per month for a worse plan than she was able to obtain on the marketplace.

[Y2HH]

Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers

 

Kind of a stupid story if you ask me.

 

Of course insurance company X isn't going to advertise for cheaper alternatives elsewhere. If you aren't aware of Healthcare.gov or the exchanges by now, it's incredibly hard for me to feel bad that if you go directly to Humana they pretend no alternatives exist.

 

That's like expecting a Ford dealership to tell you, you know...you can get this same truck under the Chevy name for 20,000$ less.

 

While a quandary many of you are unable to deal with, these companies are just that, companies...and they have no moral obligations as such.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Of course insurance company X isn't going to advertise for cheaper alternatives elsewhere. If you aren't aware of Healthcare.gov or the exchanges by now, it's incredibly hard for me to feel bad that if you go directly to Humana they pretend no alternatives exist.

 

That's like expecting a Ford dealership to tell you, you know...you can get this same truck under the Chevy name for 20,000$ less.

 

No, it's not. Even the plans from the same company were cheaper on the exchange website.

 

It's like taking your Ford to the dealership and they tell you that your car's brakes are shot and will cost $1000 to replace, when they're advertising on a website that new brakes are $500. It's really shady.

 

Edit: for the record, BCBS of North Carolina's prices listed on the exchange website were the same as the quote they sent me in the mail as part of my "your current plan is going away" letter. The letter also said that the quote was for the most similar plan, but that other plans were available and I should look them up.

Edited November 4, 2013 by CrimsonWeltall