From Glitches to Lies

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:00 pm

Maybe the title should be "From Lies to Glitches"

By now it is common knowledge the great opening of the Obamacare has been a total flop. I could go on that. For some reason I find outright lies more interesting.

President Obama has added a caveat to his oft-repeated pledge that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.

USA TODAY

"Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed,

Really?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:54 pm

We have both Health insurance that you pay a health care insurance agency to acquire. But you're still up for thousands of dollars out of pocket. But we also have medicare which is free to all. I have finally found a doctor who 'bulk bills' so going to the doctor now is essentially free. (no out of pocket expenses) That's what our medicare is all about . Everyone who earns over a certain amount annually pays a medicare levy out of their tax returns each year to pay for the running of the medicare system . I've never understood why anyone would complain about this levy . People still have to pay TAC insurance as part of their Car registration each year to pay the Traffic Accident Commission to look after those in motor vehicle accidents .

Also why do Americans not want their poor to have medical attention? You're all part of the one society aren't you ? You all contribute at some stage to it . So why would anyone want a rich kid to have medical attention but all the poor kids can just go and die ...........I don't understand .

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:12 pm

I have difficulty understanding the motivation for certain political groups to celebrate people having difficulty getting healthcare. Maybe I just don't understand politics. It would seem that having a healthy population would be a good thing and not something to be feared or loathed.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:39 pm

I just can't stop wondering what would have happened if the TeaBaggers had spent the last 4 years working to improve the ACA rather than trying to torpedo it. We could have had a top-notch healthcare system, by now.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:25 pm

LarsMac;1439619 wrote: I just can't stop wondering what would have happened if the TeaBaggers had spent the last 4 years working to improve the ACA rather than trying to torpedo it. We could have had a top-notch healthcare system, by now.From observing the tea party it appears to me that most of its members aren't smart enough to add anything positive to any debate much less something as complicated and important as health care. I doubt any input they'd offer would make health care better never mind 'top notch'.

The tea party appears to be made up of people who prefer American society not evolve and remain static. They complain about everything from the perspective of a victim's mentality.

The ironic part of the tea party as well as many conservatives in general is that for a bunch of people who deny evolution, they prefer a motivation concept that consists of fear of extinction as a prime mover - i.e. don't work, don't eat or have access to health care. These people completely ignore the reality that even in the healthiest of economies 5% pf the working eligible public will be unemployed. That means in a population that consists of 300 million working age people about 15 million will be out of work, not to mention kids and those who simply lack the physical or mental capacity to work. That escapes tea party members because everything is so cut and dry in their very narrow world view.

As has been pointed out in posts preceding this one tea party people consistently vocalize support for issues which are contrary to their own self interest. Why? Perhaps many of them possess a martyr's complex personality. And, they're really difficult to have anything even suggestive of an intelligible conversation with. I suppose that's due to the fact that tea party people are mainly ditto heads who throw up strawman arguments and don't understand the concept of factual reality.

Whatever the reason is the majority of the tea party people can't participate in legitimate debate, the fact is they don't. I suggest that''s because they can't.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:50 am

LarsMac;1439619 wrote: I just can't stop wondering what would have happened if the TeaBaggers had spent the last 4 years working to improve the ACA rather than trying to torpedo it. We could have had a top-notch healthcare system, by now.

No way.

There is no working with a proven liar. The ACA is Berry's pride and joy, signature legislation if you will. We are now witnessing exactly what he wanted, destruction of individual choice.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:39 am

tude dog;1439658 wrote: No way.

There is no working with a proven liar. The ACA is Berry's pride and joy, signature legislation if you will. We are now witnessing exactly what he wanted, destruction of individual choice.How very concise a post. Thank you!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:38 am

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:03 am

If your opinions are based on those caricatures I might agree with you...........my world isn't like that, doubt your real world is either.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:00 am

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies | Fox News

And this is from FOX News, who usually seems to work very hard at making Obama and the Dems look bad.

It turns out that some people in the individual care market – about 5 percent of the overall insurance market -- are having their insurance policies cancelled.

It is estimated that half of those folks will get better coverage for a lower price. Some people will even get subsidies to help them pay the lower price.

But some people losing their current policies [and being offered better coverage] are going to have to pay a higher price. Taking crocodile tears to a new level, ObamaCare opponents are now rushing to their defense and calling the president a liar.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:36 am

Bruv;1444293 wrote: If your opinions are based on those caricatures I might agree with you...........my world isn't like that, doubt your real world is either.

I do enjoy many of the Hitler parodies based on the movie Downfall. Some are just plain flat out funny.

I just came across this one, based on Barry's lies about Obamacare. As I watched it that gay thing by Out 2 Enroll came to mind.

They seem to go together.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:48 am

LarsMac;1444294 wrote: Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies | Fox News

And this is from FOX News, who usually seems to work very hard at making Obama and the Dems look bad.

If Barry looks bad, he did it all himself. He repeatedly lied knowing full well his reelection depended on that lie.

They got away with it and now we are suppose to be grateful for higher rates and deductibles.:-5

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:35 am

tude dog;1444296 wrote: If Barry looks bad, he did it all himself. He repeatedly lied knowing full well his reelection depended on that lie.

They got away with it and now we are suppose to be grateful for higher rates and deductibles.:-5

.

I personally know 20 people who had their health plans cancelled. 15 of them had horrendous plans which only paid out health benefits if they had some sort of catastrophic event, and then the deductible was equal to three-four month's wages. the other five were not quite that bad, but they were paying 40% of their monthly salary for health benefits.

Of the twenty, only one will be paying more than they were before ACA coverage began. And the plans they all are picking up are far better than what was cancelled.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:16 pm

I also know people who are getting better insurance thanks to the state insurance exchanges (thanks to the ACA). For the first time, they could compare apples and apples when shopping for insurance, rather than the usual insurance company deceptive sales tactics.

It's a step in the right direction.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:27 pm

You're all wrong! Obummer's a communist trying to make this country over into a socialist Kenya!! I bet he's secretly a homosexual too!!!

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:36 pm

Snooz;1444319 wrote: You're all wrong! Obummer's a communist trying to make this country over into a socialist Kenya!! I bet he's secretly a homosexual too!!!

Wow! I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:01 am

Forget about keeping the insurance or doctor you like. The real struggle will be to keep your job.

CBO nearly triples estimate of working hours lost by 2021 due to Affordable Care Act

A historically high number of people will be locked out of the workforce by 2021, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.

President Barack Obama's signature health-care law will contribute to this phenomenon, the CBO said, citing new estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cause a larger-than-expected reduction in working hours—eliminating the equivalent of about 2.3 million workers in 2021.

In 2011, the CBO estimated the law would cause a reduction of about 800,000 full-time equivalent workers.

CNBC

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:23 am

We can't have the doctor or health plan we desire nor any incentive to earn more money.

In its latest U.S. fiscal outlook, the nonpartisan CBO said the health law would lead some workers, particularly those with lower incomes, to limit their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies that Obamacare provides to help pay for health insurance and other healthcare costs.

White House officials characterized reduced hours as a reflection of new choices for workers. CBO officials pointed to older workers as one example, saying some nearing retirement could decide to keep their work hours shorter to maintain healthcare subsidies until they qualified for Medicare.

But the report also referred to healthcare subsidies in less upbeat terms, saying assistance would "reduce incentives to work" and pose an "implicit tax on working" for those returning to a job with health insurance.

REUTERS

Just a thought. How many hours of work will disappear under the table?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:16 am

As an outsider looking in.................

First thoughts................Why don't they get the CBO to run the country ?

Second thought..................Just a tiny bit.......over the top ?

Third thought..............do you people believe everything they throw at you ?

Last thoughts......................sounds like the downfall of civilisation McCarthy styleeee......again.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:41 am

The CBO is predicting such thing. Rather than whining about it, or throwing fits, Congress should investigate how to fix it. They have until 2017.

I am so tired of the cons wasting years, money and energy trying to subvert the ACA, instead of working to fix the problems with it.

Nobody ever said the plan was perfect. We've had several years to work on how to tune it up and improve it. But Boehner and his cronies have done nothing but try and dismantle the government.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:18 pm

Bruv;1447116 wrote: As an outsider looking in.................

Sorry that the view is ugly looking.

Bruv;1447116 wrote: First thoughts................Why don't they get the CBO to run the country ?

Seriously, the Congressional Budget Office is an accounting office of the Presidential Branch of our Federal Government.

Bruv;1447116 wrote: Second thought..................Just a tiny bit.......over the top ?

Third thought..............do you people believe everything they throw at you ?

Last thoughts......................sounds like the downfall of civilisation McCarthy styleeee......again.

You got a point. The Presidents own men are stabbing him in the back.:-3

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm

LarsMac;1447131 wrote: The CBO is predicting such thing. Rather than whining about it, or throwing fits, Congress should investigate how to fix it. They have until 2017.

I am so tired of the cons wasting years, money and energy trying to subvert the ACA, instead of working to fix the problems with it.

Nobody ever said the plan was perfect. We've had several years to work on how to tune it up and improve it. But Boehner and his cronies have done nothing but try and dismantle the government.

So the "cons" wasted so many years trying to abort OBAMACARE.

Only fix was to kill it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:36 pm

tude dog;1447226 wrote: So the "cons" wasted so many years trying to kill a terrible concept as OBAMACARE.

Only fix was to kill it.

What was said is that they tried to dismantle the Government, not kill Medicare - that's also how it appears from here and there's a huge difference.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:05 pm

tude dog;1447226 wrote: So the "cons" wasted so many years trying to abort OBAMACARE.

Only fix was to kill it.

If you actually read the bill, there were some very good provisions in it. It was a start. The congress could have gone after the problem items, and worked on them to make it even better. By now, it could be far better.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:33 pm

LarsMac;1447243 wrote: If you actually read the bill, there were some very good provisions in it. It was a start. The congress could have gone after the problem items, and worked on them to make it even better. By now, it could be far better.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:13 pm

The CBO report says that some people who only continued to work so they could afford healthcare are realizing that this is no longer the case and that some of them might cut back their hours or leave the workforce. So, access to affordable healthcare outside of employment is a bad thing?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:30 pm

tude dog;1447246 wrote:

The bill was readily available for anyone to read during the whole process. And taking a sound bite out of context does not change that.

Of course most conservatives simply let the pinhead pundits tell them what was wrong with the bill, and never bothered to see for themselves what was in it.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:33 pm

tude dog;1447221 wrote: Sorry that the view is ugly looking.

Seriously, the Congressional Budget Office is an accounting office of the Presidential Branch of our Federal Government.

You got a point. The Presidents own men are stabbing him in the back.:-3

You didn't even read your own link.

from which the first paragraph reads:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government that provides economic data to Congress.[1] The CBO was created as a nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:25 pm

LarsMac;1447249 wrote: You didn't even read your own link.

from which the first paragraph reads:

Fair enough.

Facts remain the same.

Before I posted I was encouraged by this commentary:

Obamacare’s scorekeepers deliver a game-changer

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 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.

Washington Post

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:41 pm

But also from the Washington Post, in the article titled "Fact Check: Anti-Obamacare chorus is off key", the report is quoted as saying, "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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Shouldn't you read the CBO report, rather than rely on all of the media mouthpieces to tell you what the CBO report says?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:58 pm

Wandrin;1447247 wrote: The CBO report says that some people who only continued to work so they could afford healthcare are realizing that this is no longer the case and that some of them might cut back their hours or leave the workforce. So, access to affordable healthcare outside of employment is a bad thing?

Wandrin;1447255 wrote: But also from the Washington Post, in the article titled "Fact Check: Anti-Obamacare chorus is off key", the report is quoted as saying, "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.

FACT CHECK: Anti-Obamacare chorus is off key - The Washington Post

Exactly. The majority of workers lost is from part-time jobs of people who maintain the job primarily to retain and pay for existing healthcare policies that they will no longer need.

The report also points out that an increase in wages will be likely.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:05 am

As an outside observer......................I find it amazing that the richest nation on earth has to question whether it be right to support the health of it's citizens, it questions if it is for the benefit of the nation.................this is the country that spent a fortune on a moon landing program.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:23 am

Bruv;1447294 wrote: As an outside observer......................I find it amazing that the richest nation on earth has to question whether it be right to support the health of it's citizens, it questions if it is for the benefit of the nation.................this is the country that spent a fortune on a moon landing program.

As inside observers, many of us share that notion.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:11 am

That anyone can even utter the words "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it" is staggering never mind that it's a major politician.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark methinks.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:28 am

Bryn Mawr;1447312 wrote: That anyone can even utter the words "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it" is staggering never mind that it's a major politician.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark methinks.

I have actually never looked into the context of that sound bite. It does, of course seem ludicrous, taken on its own.

I suppose it would be useful to investigate the background behind it.

Though it is from several years ago, early in the debate over the bill.

I can think of at least one scenario that would actually make her statement seem somewhat logical.

1. the bill was still in the House, being debated, and until it is revised and passed by the House, and sent to the Senate, we really do not know what will be in it.

EDIT:

After posting this, I decided now is as good a time as any, and I went looking for it.

This Link discusses the comment, and even includes transcript of the entire speech.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:23 pm

Thanks for the link Lars, I had forgotten the background of that.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:02 pm

LarsMac;1447326 wrote: I have actually never looked into the context of that sound bite. It does, of course seem ludicrous, taken on its own.

I suppose it would be useful to investigate the background behind it.

Though it is from several years ago, early in the debate over the bill.

I can think of at least one scenario that would actually make her statement seem somewhat logical.

1. the bill was still in the House, being debated, and until it is revised and passed by the House, and sent to the Senate, we really do not know what will be in it.

EDIT:

After posting this, I decided now is as good a time as any, and I went looking for it.

This Link discusses the comment, and even includes transcript of the entire speech.

Thanks for the link.

That quote was a gem in the steaming pile.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:07 pm

tude dog;1447428 wrote: ...

That quote was a gem in the steaming pile.

Don't think I could have said that better, myself.

Though I suspect we refer to different 'piles'.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 7:05 am

If anyone would care to join me, there's an interesting free 13-week online course from Harvard University coming up in three weeks.

https://www.edx.org/school/harvardx

PH210x: United States Health Policy

Learn the essentials of U.S. health care policy from some of the nation's top experts.

This site has sufficient people who have voiced opinions on the topic in the past. Would anyone like to join me and keep a thread running week by week on the extent to which we believe what's presented? Harvard does have a reputation to uphold, after all.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:20 am

I must turn down your kind invitation. My spare moments are spent in self-evolution, mostly through mediation & yoga. I think you hit on a great idea for the future, though, that we take courses together & discuss them.

Not this subject, though, not for me.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:31 am

I like the idea of it, but it's not for me, thanks.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:08 am

I'm game

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:14 am

LarsMac;1450763 wrote: I'm game

It will, I hope, be both informative and interesting.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:46 pm

It never ends.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:30 pm

tude dog;1451270 wrote: It never ends.

Your hatred for the president?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:31 pm

Wandrin;1451294 wrote: Your hatred for the president?

Great Comeback!!!!!!!!!!!

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:01 pm

Wandrin;1451294 wrote: Your hatred for the president?

My hatred didn't happen overnight, but he managed to earn it.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:33 pm

tude dog;1451299 wrote: My hatred didn't happen overnight, but he managed to earn it.

I'm sure that you'll find someone else after his term is over.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:07 pm

Wandrin;1451302 wrote: I'm sure that you'll find someone else after his term is over.

I don't go looking for someone to hate.