American Cultural Revolution

[Lotta Booze]

The Maniac’s plan is not to fix Obamacare, it’s to allow it to implode under it’s own weight rendering it useless. Obamacare was supposed to accomplish the following:

A. Enroll over 20 million people in exchanges. Actual is 10 and declining. Less than 50%. Grade : F
B. Provide for 700k insurance for those with Pre-exisiting Conditions which could not otherwise have gotten it. Actual is 56k. Approx 8%. Grade: F-
C. Cost was supposed to be 13K per enrollee. Actual cost is $29k. Almost 125% more expensive than projected. Grade: F
D. Percent of exchange enrollees without subsidies was supposed to be 25%. Actual 17%. 30% delta. Grade: C
E. Spending on subsidies was supposed to be $59B and was $56B. Grade: A
F. Uninsured was supposed to be 20% and is 11%. Grade: A
G. Deductibles (I’ll only cite family as others are similar or worse)- Projected to be $4200, is $8k. Approx 90% higher. Grade: F
H. Lastly, overall cost over 10 year period was supposed to be $900B but is now $1.7T. Over by 88%. I’ll put an asterisk on this one because I believe the latter number to be over 11 years which would bring the overage down into the 70% range. Grade: F

You’re in a non-government business and your Major Program Manager presents you Obamacare. You decide to implement. He’s still with the company 7 years later. Do you:

A. Promote him to VP of Business Excellence?
B. Leave him in the same position to develop & implement another suck as program to completely destroy your company?
C. Realize you needed to fire him 3 years ago & replace him with someone to dismantle his program, stop buying his BS and find some boxes to move his crap off the facility premises?

I'm not entirely clear who the Major Program Manager is in this analogy. Obama? If so then I guess the analogous result would be the Major Program Manager retires and leaves you holding the bag on this mess. And a lot of people have really gotten behind a new guy to be his replacement who is crass and has a shady past but the other option for his replacement is just...ugggghhhhh the worst. So you hire this new guy named Dump and his proposal to improve things is to...let it implode on itself?? Do you think that the company leadership accepts that as a great proposal? To blow it all up?

If we're playing with this analogy and it's a healthcare company then to increase profits it's simple: only cover healthy young people, deny coverage to anyone with pre-existing conditions, collect those premiums, do everything you can to deny claims at every turn, and you should turn a profit. Good job.

 

[Lotta Booze]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I do champion accountability and responsibility. That’s why I specifically blamed John McCain. Republicans voted for the bill that they wrote. He single-handedly defeated it. There you go.

The vote in the House got pushed because they weren't sure they would have enough votes when the Republicans controlled the House and it still BARELY passed. And then 3 Republicans voted against it in the Senate, not just McCain. But Trump has villainized that man to a wild degree so his followers target him. And Trump is the Executive . Going along with Liberty's analogy, if this were a company and the CEO made pledges to install plans and improve things and then failed to get it done, blaming one person lower down the ladder amongst many is an abdication of responsibility. You're letting Trump off the hook.

In terms of “catastrophically weakening” key provisions ofbthevACA, that’s a good start. I’d prefer ObamaCare 0.1, but 0.5 is a good strt. Remember, this was the plan that after several years nobody even wanted it when it was free. Almost everybody who signed up for it we’re the free people on Medicaid. Medicaid is the program whose health outcomes are worse than having no insurance at all.

For what though? Just to get even HIGHER premiums and reduce the deficit by an amount that's so insignificant that the current administration would have already pissed it away? And to kick poor people off insurance? Just seems cruel for the sake of being cruel

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The vote in the House got pushed because they weren't sure they would have enough votes when the Republicans controlled the House and it still BARELY passed. And then 3 Republicans voted against it in the Senate, not just McCain. But Trump has villainized that man to a wild degree so his followers target him. And Trump is the Executive . Going along with Liberty's analogy, if this were a company and the CEO made pledges to install plans and improve things and then failed to get it done, blaming one person lower down the ladder amongst many is an abdication of responsibility. You're letting Trump off the hook.



For what though? Just to get even HIGHER premiums and reduce the deficit by an amount that's so insignificant that the current administration would have already pissed it away? And to kick poor people off insurance? Just seems cruel for the sake of being cruel

McCain was the last to vote - his vote would have passed the bill. Republicans passed it in the House. Republicans in the Senate only needed McCain - a man who had campaigned against the ACA for years. When the rubber met the road, say what you will about Trump and the Republicans, but they had the bill completely passed, but for 1 man who had been with them the entire time. Yes, I blame McCain.

"Just to get even HIGHER premiums?"
My premiums were not $30,000/year before Obama was President. They weren't $25,000/year. They weren't $20,000/year. My premiums and deductibles skyrocketed like that as a direct result of having to pay for all kinds of things I don't need and will never use. So yes, I want to remove all that BS and cut my costs back down. Poor people don't need to get kicked off Medicaid. They can keep it. Although again I will remind you that health outcomes on Medicaid are worse than having no insurance at all. So I'm not sure which route is actually more cruel to be honest with you.

Wanting to stop paying for all the crap I have to has literally no bearing on whether poor people can keep their Medicaid.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I'm not entirely clear who the Major Program Manager is in this analogy. Obama? If so then I guess the analogous result would be the Major Program Manager retires and leaves you holding the bag on this mess. And a lot of people have really gotten behind a new guy to be his replacement who is crass and has a shady past but the other option for his replacement is just...ugggghhhhh the worst. So you hire this new guy named Dump and his proposal to improve things is to...let it implode on itself?? Do you think that the company leadership accepts that as a great proposal? To blow it all up?

If we're playing with this analogy and it's a healthcare company then to increase profits it's simple: only cover healthy young people, deny coverage to anyone with pre-existing conditions, collect those premiums, do everything you can to deny claims at every turn, and you should turn a profit. Good job.

Yes, Obama running behind an armada of Liberals coupled with some complicit Republicans are responsible for this mess. We re-elected them despite everyone knowing how big a cluster this program was. Why is that? Why do people vote for people who gravely harm our country?

I don’t agree with the tactic of letting it implode on itself but the Maniac cannot develop a strong enough block of legislators to overturn OR modify it, so he’s apparently letting it destroy itself.

I see no proposals that address any of Obamacare’s primary failures. Every bunch of political BS that’s being flung out is just to score points & if enacted would have the effect of doubling down on a horrible piece of legislation. You think businesses are going to be gracious enough to forego profits in order to promote some social program at the expense of their shareholders?

Why don’t we fix healthcare? Fix exorbitant costs by addressing an out of control legal system, remove regulatory roadblocks preventing cost-effective R&D, promote competition by removing interstate prohibitions on companies offering options across state lines, attack fraud waste & abuse in government entities, etc?

The reason we don’t was Obamacare was a huge payback to political sponsors. Hundreds of millions of dollars were donated to political campaigns to bolster their stranglehold on the American people & increase their power so they could personally benefit. The program was packaged as a huge socialist giveaway to the disadvantaged to curry favor with that voting block despite the fact in decreased their standard of living thru depressed wages & made them more dependent on the Nanny State.

It’s a mess & once it became law it’s nearly impossible to fix.

 

[Lotta Booze]

"Just to get even HIGHER premiums?"
My premiums were not $30,000/year before Obama was President. They weren't $25,000/year. They weren't $20,000/year. My premiums and deductibles skyrocketed like that as a direct result of having to pay for all kinds of things I don't need

But you're presenting a false choice. Trumpcare wasn't going to get premiums lower. CBO predicted higher premiums

And yes, McCain supported repeal and replace. And while I can't read his mind I imagine he voted against it because repealing and replacing with an even bigger POS isn't worth it

 

[Deleted member 2897]

But you're presenting a false choice. Trumpcare wasn't going to get premiums lower. CBO predicted higher premiums

And yes, McCain supported repeal and replace. And while I can't read his mind I imagine he voted against it because repealing and replacing with an even bigger POS isn't worth it

It predicted premiums 5% higher in year 1. But after a couple years, premiums were predicted to be significantly LOWER. The CBO estimated that 1/3rd of the country would see premiums 20% lower.

Most of that would come from the fact that less healthy people and older people (who are also less healthy) would pay significantly more than younger people without any health problems. Which you know, is kind of how its supposed to be. The notion that a fit, healthy person with no health issues should pay the same amount as a fat, sedentary vaper is obnoxious to me.

And btw, before folks wonder if I'm being cruel to people who have cancer and can't help it. No, I'm not. We spend 7x as much on healthcare costs for obese people than we do for people with cancer. $1.1 Trillion on obesity related healthcare expenses versus $175 Billion on cancer.

 

[RonJohn]

The US has gone through other eras of divided politics. There was probably more division in the 1970s than there is currently. There definitely was more division in the 1860s.

It seems to me that it isn't really ideology that is dividing people, it is tribalism. Left/Right, Dem/Rep, most arguments don't seem to actually be about whatever the supposed issue is, they are about beating the other side. Most people are not as far apart on ideas as it appears. They just put labels on their ideas that the "other side's" ideas and then argue about the labels. Hardly anyone, if anyone, speaks practically and pragmatically.

 

[MWBATL]

My premiums were not $30,000/year before Obama was President. They weren't $25,000/year. They weren't $20,000/year. My premiums and deductibles skyrocketed like that as a direct result of having to pay for all kinds of things I don't need and will never use. So yes, I want to remove all that BS and cut my costs back down. Poor people don't need to get kicked off Medicaid. They can keep it. Although again I will remind you that health outcomes on Medicaid are worse than having no insurance at all. So I'm not sure which route is actually more cruel to be honest with you.

Count me as another whose premium costs have more than doubled (I do think close to tripled now) since ObamaCare. And my plan was canceled, and in a couple of cases we could not keep our doctors.

 

[MWBATL]

The US has gone through other eras of divided politics. There was probably more division in the 1970s than there is currently. There definitely was more division in the 1860s.

It seems to me that it isn't really ideology that is dividing people, it is tribalism. Left/Right, Dem/Rep, most arguments don't seem to actually be about whatever the supposed issue is, they are about beating the other side. Most people are not as far apart on ideas as it appears. They just put labels on their ideas that the "other side's" ideas and then argue about the labels. Hardly anyone, if anyone, speaks practically and pragmatically.

Having lived through the 1970's, I would say today is marginally worse.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Count me as another whose premium costs have more than doubled (I do think close to tripled now) since ObamaCare. And my plan was canceled, and in a couple of cases we could not keep our doctors.

Quit your whining. You are a privileged rich dude living in a fantastically rich house no doubt you got from getting breaks from your rich parents & their friends/associates, attending GT because you grew up in one of those neighborhoods where they teach you how to game the system, got a “hook up” from some other rich dude into one of those jobs where you don’t have to work hard & can spend all day beating down the little guy. You can afford to give up your special rich man’s doctor & fork over a lot more of your undeserved riches so the little guy has a chance to see a doctor & not die in the street like an animal. After all you’re the reason he was in that place to begin with.

 

[Lotta Booze]

It predicted premiums 5% higher in year 1. But after a couple years, premiums were predicted to be significantly LOWER. The CBO estimated that 1/3rd of the country would see premiums 20% lower.

Ok. Which still isn't great

 

[Lotta Booze]

The US has gone through other eras of divided politics. There was probably more division in the 1970s than there is currently. There definitely was more division in the 1860s.

It seems to me that it isn't really ideology that is dividing people, it is tribalism. Left/Right, Dem/Rep, most arguments don't seem to actually be about whatever the supposed issue is, they are about beating the other side. Most people are not as far apart on ideas as it appears. They just put labels on their ideas that the "other side's" ideas and then argue about the labels. Hardly anyone, if anyone, speaks practically and pragmatically.

The tribalism is wild. It doesn't make any sense at all but if I know how you feel about climate change I also know how you likely feel about an NFL player taking a knee during the anthem. There is zero connection between those two things... but the correlation is pretty high.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Quit your whining. You are a privileged rich dude living in a fantastically rich house no doubt you got from getting breaks from your rich parents & their friends/associates, attending GT because you grew up in one of those neighborhoods where they teach you how to game the system, got a “hook up” from some other rich dude into one of those jobs where you don’t have to work hard & can spend all day beating down the little guy. You can afford to give up your special rich man’s doctor & fork over a lot more of your undeserved riches so the little guy has a chance to see a doctor & not die in the street like an animal. After all you’re the reason he was in that place to begin with.

Congratulations Liberty. You've reached full wokeness

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The tribalism is wild. It doesn't make any sense at all but if I know how you feel about climate change I also know how you likely feel about an NFL player taking a knee during the anthem. There is zero connection between those two things... but the correlation is pretty high.

And yet ironically. I probably feel completely differently than he does on those 2 things. And I fashion myself as a conservative. And I didn’t vote for Trump. So go figure LOL.

 

[LibertyTurns]

The tribalism is wild. It doesn't make any sense at all but if I know how you feel about climate change I also know how you likely feel about an NFL player taking a knee during the anthem. There is zero connection between those two things... but the correlation is pretty high.

Let me get this straight. If you have a problem with people falsifying data to promote an agenda along with stifling dissent because you want to crush independent thought AND you don’t like mixing sports & politics, then it says you’ve got a certain type of ideology that makes you susceptible to desiring liberty and freedom?

 

[Lotta Booze]

Let me get this straight. If you have a problem with people falsifying data to promote an agenda along with stifling dissent because you want to crush independent thought AND you don’t like mixing sports & politics, then it says you’ve got a certain type of ideology that makes you susceptible to desiring liberty and freedom?

L.O.L.

 

[MWBATL]

Ok. Which still isn't great

Interesting rif in the WSJ that I just now noticed...the overall editorial was about the significant drop in disability claims since the economy has gotten stronger under Trump's leadership <gasp!>

Now the bad news: The Medicare Hospital Trust Fund is expected to go broke by 2026. Recall how Democrats passed a 3.8-percentage-point tax surcharge on high earners’ investment income as part of ObamaCare supposedly to finance Medicare. Barack Obama then proclaimed “we’re going to be able to help ensure Medicare’s solvency for an additional decade” and “reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.”

The additional revenues have instead fed ObamaCare’s middle-class entitlement. Remember this as Democrats try to sell Americans on a slew of new taxes to finance Medicare for All and higher Social Security benefits.

@Lotta Juice , I think they mean for you to be reading this.....

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Since Trump gets blamed every time some loony bird shoots a Muslim or Immigrant or person of color, when is the media going to play it fair and blame the Synogogue shooting in California or Tlibi, AOC, and Omar? I won’t hold my breath.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Interesting rif in the WSJ that I just now noticed...the overall editorial was about the significant drop in disability claims since the economy has gotten stronger under Trump's leadership <gasp!>

Now the bad news: The Medicare Hospital Trust Fund is expected to go broke by 2026. Recall how Democrats passed a 3.8-percentage-point tax surcharge on high earners’ investment income as part of ObamaCare supposedly to finance Medicare. Barack Obama then proclaimed “we’re going to be able to help ensure Medicare’s solvency for an additional decade” and “reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.”

The additional revenues have instead fed ObamaCare’s middle-class entitlement. Remember this as Democrats try to sell Americans on a slew of new taxes to finance Medicare for All and higher Social Security benefits.

@Lotta Juice , I think they mean for you to be reading this.....

Below is a projection from 2013 where actuaries correctly projected what is transpiring now. The economy has certainly helped accelerate the improvement, but note near the end of Sec 2 below the beneficial impact of illegal aliens.

https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_031413a.html

 

[Lotta Booze]

Interesting rif in the WSJ that I just now noticed...the overall editorial was about the significant drop in disability claims since the economy has gotten stronger under Trump's leadership <gasp!>

Now the bad news: The Medicare Hospital Trust Fund is expected to go broke by 2026. Recall how Democrats passed a 3.8-percentage-point tax surcharge on high earners’ investment income as part of ObamaCare supposedly to finance Medicare. Barack Obama then proclaimed “we’re going to be able to help ensure Medicare’s solvency for an additional decade” and “reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.”

The additional revenues have instead fed ObamaCare’s middle-class entitlement. Remember this as Democrats try to sell Americans on a slew of new taxes to finance Medicare for All and higher Social Security benefits.

@Lotta Juice , I think they mean for you to be reading this.....

Of course the projected insolvency year moved up. Trump's tax cut reduced money going into the fund. So no, it doesn't surprise me that an administration and Congress that has shown the inability to balance a budget and apparently wants the system to collapse on itself has led to a more insolvent fund. The average "buffer" of years to keep the fund solvent from 2010 to 2016 was over 14 years. And now it's 9. Medicare has miles to go on improvement but if the administration doesn't want to improve it then it won't happen.