Daily Obamacare Thread: Good and Bad

[esmith]

So, HHS says that 5 million people have signed up for health care. Now are the following points correct?
1. One of the objectives of Obamacare was to get 30 million people enrolled in healthcare that did not have healthcare previously?
2. When Jan 1, 2014 rolled around (the date the minimum requirements for a policy came into effect) it was estimated that over 4 million Americans lost their healthcare insurance because it did not meet the minimum standards?

Now if the above 2 points are correct, just what did Obamacare actually accomplish, as far as providing health coverage?

Try getting your facts straight: John Boehner says more people are uninsured since Obamacare took effect | PolitiFact

I really don't understand what you are attempting to say. I guess you are having problems reading. For one, did I say that there was no possibility that those who lost their coverage didn't have a chance to purchase a replacement? All I was saying is that if the those figures are correct; that is Item 1 and 2 are correct then the following is deducible.
5 million have signed up
minus 4 million had their policy canceled
equals 1 million that did not have insurance now do.

of course this is assuming that all those that had their insurance cancelled signed up for Obamacare. Just wondering where the other 29 million that did not have insurance prior to Obamacare are doing for health insurance. In other words what good did the entire Obamacare law do. Yes kids can stay on their parents health care until their 26, but that would have been a easy fix. The idea that the over 4 million that had substandard policies have had to jump through hoops just to have Obama come out and say they can keep there sub-standard polices (according to some) until after 2016 (hmmm isn't there an election coming up in 2014 and 2016) that is if the states allow it and insurance compaines will re-write the policies. Of course we don't know how many more will lose their employer supplied health care since Obama has delayed that until after the 2014 elections for some companies.

Also seem you got your skivvies in a bunch over nothing and accused me of something that I didn't say.

 

[Revoltingest]

Part of the problem is Boehner inflated the already incorrect figure....

I still didn't see anything to debunk Esmith's claim.
Now, before you make the accusation, Esmith & I are not an item.
(I'm not his type apparently.)

 

[technomage]

I guess you are having problems reading.

Oh, I read quite well, thank you.

For one, did I say that there was no possibility that those who lost their coverage didn't have a chance to purchase a replacement?

Actually, by saying:

5 million have signed up
minus 4 million had their policy canceled
equals 1 million that did not have insurance now do.

Yes. that is precisely what you said.

And thank you for making it clear which side of Hanlon's razor you fall on. I had originally thought you simply deceived by some politician's talking points. I now see your problem is not stupidity, but malice.

 

[esmith]

I still didn't see anything to debunk Esmith's claim.
Now, before you make the accusation, Esmith & I are not an item.
(I'm not his type apparently.)

Nope, I don't like broccoli!!!!!

 

[technomage]

I still didn't see anything to debunk Esmith's claim.

Esmith claims the math works out as follows:

5 million have signed up
minus 4 million had their policy canceled
equals 1 million that did not have insurance now do.

Note that word highlighted in red: Esmith's claim is that the four million that had their policies cancelled are still to be counted in the figures for those who have insurance now.

It's a false claim. As I told him, at first I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have been deceived. His ready defense of the figure indicates that he desires to be one who deceives, rather than one who is deceived.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't see the claim you quoted, but I should give up making this tedious for you.

 

[esmith]

Esmith claims the math works out as follows:



Note that word highlighted in red: Esmith's claim is that the four million that had their policies cancelled are still to be counted in the figures for those who have insurance now.

It's a false claim. As I told him, at first I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have been deceived. His ready defense of the figure indicates that he desires to be one who deceives, rather than one who is deceived.

Well let me ask you a very simple question.
1. Did over 4 million people have their policies canceled because the policies did not meet the minimum standards?
2. Do you believe that all of them did or did not go onto the exchange and get new policies? If not how many do you suppose did?
3. Did HHS say that 5 million have signed up?
4. Would not that figure(5 million reported by HHS) also count the ones that had their policies cancelled and then went on a signed up for Obamacare?
5. So, if you subtract those that lost their coverage then got new coverage through the exchange could you not reach the conclusion that the remaining figure equal those that never had insurance?
6. I was "assuming" that those that lost their coverage (4 million in my example) logged onto the healthcare web page and signed up for Obamacare. That would leave 1 million new enrollees 5-4=1 (millions)

but if you want to dispute the number of 4 million what number do you want to use for those that were cancelled then signed up? 0,1,2,3,4 take your pick and subtract from 5 million. This does not even start to reach the number of 30 million that was said not to have health care prior to Obamacare.

 

[technomage]

Well let me ask you a very simple question.

That'e _five_ questions, the first of them not so simple.

1. Did over 4 million people have their policies canceled because the policies did not meet the minimum standards?

That right there is the problem--you are equating "had their policies cancelled" with "do not have insurance." As has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to both you and Rev, the equation is blatantly false.

Just in case you're as incompetent with reading as you are with writing arguments....

What happened to canceled plans
There were many Americans notified that their insurance plans were canceled because they did not meet Obamacare's standards of coverage, despite promises that wouldn't happen. Boehner puts this at 6 million. It's a hard figure to pin down exactly.
Through an extensive reporting project, the Associated Press found at least 4.7 million Americans received notices about canceled policies; it could be higher.
Some of those policies, about half, were restored when Obama administratively allowed canceled plans to continue for another year and later through 2016.
Many others were moved to new plans, either through their insurance company or by purchasing a new policy on the marketplaces set up for Obamacare. The administration estimated that of the people with canceled plans, just 500,000 were left without coverage, and catastrophic coverage was extended to those individuals.
That's not to say this wasn't a difficult ordeal for people who lost their plans, especially if they thought the law would allow them to keep their coverage. But most of them were able to find new plans, meaning Boehner's 6 million uninsured people basically vanishes.

Emphasis added. Cite: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...oehner-says-more-people-are-uninsured-obamac/

AP says about 4.7 million. Of that 4.7 million, about half were extended, many others moved to new plans. 500,000 were initially left without coverage, and "catastrophic coverage was extended to those individuals."

So, unless my math fails me, all of the 4 million you cite still have insurance.

And just n case you find that too difficult to read, you can also check out a separate analysis at Fact-Checker. They tend to write at a fifth-grade level, so maybe you'll actually be able to understand it this time. Two paragraphs that are particularly relevant:

Charles Gaba, a blogger who has tracked the state-by-state numbers at ACAsignups.net, including known off-exchange enrollments, meanwhile calculates the actual current figure though mid-March at nearly 14 million. Even if you take a conservative estimate for paid plans and reduce the number of young Americans added to plans, you end up with about 13 million. That makes Boehner’s “net loss” claim seem especially absurd.


Meanwhile, a new Gallup poll of 28,000 people found a decline in the percentage of uninsured Americans, in almost every demographic group, in 2014: 15.9 percent through February compared with 17.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013. Gallup said the drop probably reflected the impact of the Affordable Care Act.

Oh, and if you are _still_ having problems with basic reading comprehension, I'll see if I can find some "Dick and Jane" books for you to practice with. Perhaps we'll start with "Dick and Jane learn not to repeat Faux News talking points as if they were facts."

 

[metis]

What some don't seem to understand or even care about is the simple fact that even prior to the ACA being passed, many were losing their insurance or paying higher co-pays, along with the fact the medical inflation was over 9% per year, thus doubling from 1997-2007. The situation was deteriorating even before the start of the Great Recession but then accelerated even more so after companies found themselves in a financial bind as the recession progressed.

The economic pressures on domestic companies has forced them to make cuts pretty much across the board, and since health-care expenses are terribly high, mostly because of our for-profit system that is the only one of its type worldwide, the future deterioration of our health-care system was quite predictable.

The ACA is a temporary fix, imo, but still doesn't go far enough to do what needs to be done. To me, we should really look carefully at what the Germans have done that has been remarkably successful and involves 25 non-profit insurance companies under strict minimum requirements. Obviously we would have to modify that here, but there's sufficient evidence to suggest that it could be done. However, the biggest opponents would likely be investors who continue to profit over what we have now, and at our expense.

 

[technomage]

To me, we should really look carefully at what the Germans have done that has been remarkably successful and involves 25 non-profit insurance companies under strict minimum requirements.

The German model is interesting, but I have to admit I prefer the Canadian model. Make it universal, single payer, and controlled cost, and be done with it.

However, the biggest opponents would likely be investors who continue to profit over what we have now, and at our expense.

Unfortunately, this kind of attitude has always stood in the way of progress.

 

[esmith]

That'e _five_ questions, the first of them not so simple.



That right there is the problem--you are equating "had their policies cancelled" with "do not have insurance." As has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to both you and Rev, the equation is blatantly false.

Just in case you're as incompetent with reading as you are with writing arguments....



Emphasis added. Cite: John Boehner says more people are uninsured since Obamacare took effect | PolitiFact

AP says about 4.7 million. Of that 4.7 million, about half were extended, many others moved to new plans. 500,000 were initially left without coverage, and "catastrophic coverage was extended to those individuals."

So, unless my math fails me, all of the 4 million you cite still have insurance.

And just n case you find that too difficult to read, you can also check out a separate analysis at Fact-Checker. They tend to write at a fifth-grade level, so maybe you'll actually be able to understand it this time. Two paragraphs that are particularly relevant:



Oh, and if you are _still_ having problems with basic reading comprehension, I'll see if I can find some "Dick and Jane" books for you to practice with. Perhaps we'll start with "Dick and Jane learn not to repeat Faux News talking points as if they were facts."

I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. You appear not to understand the point of my post. So, let see where we disagree on facts.
1. You show data that says that 4.7 million or more Americans had health insurance policies that did not meet the standards of Obamacare and were cancelled. Are we good up to that point?
2. You then say that some of those 4.7 million had their sub-standard policies extended through 2016. We still good up to this point.
2a. However, 21 states and the District of Columbia will not allow those policies to be extended ARTICLE
3. You list a source that says about one-half had their sub-standard policies re-issued and around one-half a million were left without insurance. You say that were offered catastrophic insurance however your link says they were eligible for a hardship exemptions only, which says they don't have to pay the fine. Seems some differences in the figures in point 2a. I will neither dispute or agree that those figures are correct since there is not hard corroborating evidence one way or another. HHS can't or will not give the figures for who or who has not paid or how many went on Medicaid.
4. Except for the confusion about exemptions, and extensions are we still good.

Now to the point of my original post using your, and HHS supplied figures. HSS says 5 million people have signed up for Obamacare. I will have to assume this means those through the Federal Exchange and the State Exchanges. Is this correct?
Now 5 million have signed up, there were 4.7 million that got their insurance cancelled. Of those 4.7 your source say around 2.35 million (1/2) got new coverage that meets the standards of Obamacare. So, if we subtract 2.35 million from the 5 million that means there were 2.65 million additional people that now have insurance. Are we still good? What I am attempt to say is that Obamacare has caused a total boondoggle over 2.65 million, so far, people. In other words, KISS. Oh, if Obamacare is such an excellent product why is this administration allowing people to keep their sub-standard policies until after the 2016 elections, allowing some businesses to not comply with the mandate until after 2014 elections. The Democrats are so damned scared of loosing their power that they are basically stripping Obamacare down to what the Republicans were attempting to do when that asked that the implementation of Obamacare be delayed until all of the kinks were worked out.

 

[technomage]

I suggest you tone down your rhetoric.

I use the rhetoric I choose to use. I tend to be scathing with dishonesty and willful ignorance. There are three simple solutions--probably the most beneficial is to stop portraying the traits I tend to be scathing about, but you may find putting me on ignore to be easier than honesty.

Or, if you feel I am exceeding the parameters set by the forum rules, flag my post to the attention of the moderation staff.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I use the rhetoric I choose to use. I tend to be scathing with dishonesty and willful ignorance. There are three simple solutions--probably the most beneficial is to stop portraying the traits I tend to be scathing about, but you may find putting me on ignore to be easier than honesty.

Or, if you feel I am exceeding the parameters set by the forum rules, flag my post to the attention of the moderation staff.

There's no need for any of that. So far you two have kept it civil.

Continue....

 

[esmith]

I use the rhetoric I choose to use. I tend to be scathing with dishonesty and willful ignorance. There are three simple solutions--probably the most beneficial is to stop portraying the traits I tend to be scathing about, but you may find putting me on ignore to be easier than honesty.

Or, if you feel I am exceeding the parameters set by the forum rules, flag my post to the attention of the moderation staff.

Some times I might misread or misinterpret an article. For that I am willing to admit I made a mistake. However, when I have an opinion, that is what it is...an opinion. There is no dishonesty in a opinion. As far as ignorance is concerned I do not tend to think I know everything. Now, are you willing to answer the questions I posed to you in the last post or are you going to ignore the facts as presented. As far as the opinion that I presented that what is going on with Obamacare is strictly political at this time, I do not expect you to agree to the obvious.

 

[esmith]

There's no need for any of that. So far you two have kept it civil.

Continue....

Thanks for the comment and I have no problem other than being called ignorant; hard-headed, and opinionated yes but not ignorant. Which I will ignore.

 

[technomage]

There's no need for any of that. So far you two have kept it civil.

I will freely admit that my comments would probably not be considered "civil" by many people. I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade, or worse than that if necessary. But I have to admit, I'm still finding my way between making my feelings known strongly while staying within the boundaries of the forum rules.

 

[esmith]

According to some sources, premiums are expected to rise in the coming months especially areas of the country with older, sicker or smaller populations are likely to be hit hardest while others might not see substantial increases at all. one insurance official, who hails from a populous swing state, said his company expects to triple its rates next year on the ObamaCare exchange.

Read more: O-Care premiums to skyrocket | TheHill




​

 

[technomage]

Some times I might misread or misinterpret an article.

Esmith, I can most certainly understand being fed bad information, then having to change one's stance when better information comes to light. And I can certainly understand misreading or misinterpreting an article. But _even after I pointed out that the article says something different than what you were saying_, you continued to defend your statements.

To have the facts right there in front of you, and continue to say that the article says one thing after having been shown that it says something entirely different ... If that's not willful ignorance or dishonesty, then what is it?

As far as the opinion that I presented that what is going on with Obamacare is strictly political at this time, I do not expect you to agree to the obvious.

Political opinions also fall under the common but crude phrase comparing opinions to excretory anatomy. Yes, we all have political opinions ... and some of them stink.

I fully respect your right to hold, express, and defend your political opinions. I do not respect ANYONE'S right to do so with false statements--including my own so-called "right" to do so.

I don't expect you to change your opinion on the PPACA based on the argument above--it would be absurd of me to do so anyway, as I prefer a single-payer system to Obamacare. But in this particular case, you attempted to buttress your opinion with a false statement. If I see something like that, yes, I will refute the false statement--and I not only encourage, but actively request, that you do the same for me should I attempt similar.

Ignorance is no "crime" or "sin"--we all have areas of our lives in which we are ignorant.

 

[esmith]

Esmith, I can most certainly understand being fed bad information, then having to change one's stance when better information comes to light. And I can certainly understand misreading or misinterpreting an article. But _even after I pointed out that the article says something different than what you were saying_, you continued to defend your statements.

To have the facts right there in front of you, and continue to say that the article says one thing after having been shown that it says something entirely different ... If that's not willful ignorance or dishonesty, then what is it?




I fully respect your right to hold, express, and defend your political opinions. I do not respect ANYONE'S right to do so with false statements--including my own so-called "right" to do so.

I don't expect you to change your opinion on the PPACA based on the argument above--it would be absurd of me to do so anyway, as I prefer a single-payer system to Obamacare. But in this particular case, you attempted to buttress your opinion with a false statement. If I see something like that, yes, I will refute the false statement--and I not only encourage, but actively request, that you do the same for me should I attempt similar.

Ignorance is no "crime" or "sin"--we all have areas of our lives in which we are ignorant.

In the two red highlighted (my highlight) you say that I gave a false statement. Now let's look at the first statement that started this "discussion"

So, HHS says that 5 million people have signed up for health care. Now are the following points correct?
1. One of the objectives of Obamacare was to get 30 million people enrolled in healthcare that did not have healthcare previously?
2. When Jan 1, 2014 rolled around (the date the minimum requirements for a policy came into effect) it was estimated that over 4 million Americans lost their healthcare insurance because it did not meet the minimum standards?

Now if the above 2 points are correct, just what did Obamacare actually accomplish, as far as providing health coverage?

Is the statement that HSS says that 5 million people are enrolled false?
Is the statement that over 4 million Americans lost their healthcare insurance because it did not meet the minimum standards? Yes, I agree that a certain percentage have that number have healthcare now, some through the exchanges, some by the administration changing their mind. But a fact is a fact: see black highlight. I never said that they do now not have health insurance, you read that into the statement.

 

[metis]

I can't explain how the figure is derived, but on numerous occasions I have heard and read that the ACA will or would cover 27 million of those who did not have insurance coverage. Besides those who do not have insurance, I would also assume that it would extend into Medicaid as well.

However, with many states refusing to get into that program, which I believe is terribly unethical, maybe the above figure may not be reached-- at least in the short haul.