[HighLow21]

Back to the original topic -- here are two EXCELLENT aticles about the Winners vs. Losers of Obamacare -- focusing more on the empirical analysis we were talking about a couple of days ago:

http://washingtonexa...article/2538650

http://www.washingto...amaca047702.php

[HighLow21]

And another -- a review of Obamacare, public opinion on it, and the author's take (he's a conservative who has championed Obama from the beginning):

http://dish.andrewsu...ctoral-poision/

[Vampyr]

HighLow21, on 2013-November-07, 13:15, said:

Here's an excellent article on the policy cancellations now that Obamacare/ACA is rolling out.

In essence -- the plans are going away because they are terrible.

Mainly, yes, but cases have been in the news where policies have been cancelled because they didn't include some of the ten points or whatever are required, for instance maternity or pediatrics, which the person or people in question would never need.

HighLow21, on 2013-November-07, 16:54, said:

Mike,

You're talking about what happened to Ma Bell 50+ years after the fact. If you rewind to the time Winston is talking about, it was indeed the leader and the envy of the world. It ran its course over the long arc of time, and eventually was broken up for a host of other profitable companies like Verizon and Lucent.

The profits from the monopoly were not channeled to shareholders, but allowed Bell Labs to be one of the world's best producers of pure research.

[kenberg]

In The Maltese Falcon Bogart is taking Mary Astor to task for all the lies she has told him. With regard to one of them he says "That one doesn't count because we didn't believe you anyway".

I guess it could be called obvious that if the ACA sets standards for what health coverage has to include, then some people with health coverage will not be able to keep their plan as it currently is. This observation gets muddled a bit by the provision for grandfathering some plans, and muddled further by clauses that weaken the grandfathering, but all in all it seems that if the ACA sets minimum standards for policies then some people will not be able to keep their policies.

The problem is: Which people are the some people?

I suppose that a lot of people, when Obama announced that people who liked their policies would be able to keep them, assumed (if they gave it much thought at all) that this meant that the "some people" were people other than themselves. They are now finding that this was an optimistic assumption and they are not happy. Myself, I have not dedicated my waking hours to understanding all the subtleties of the ACA, and I imagine a guy with kids and a forty hour (or more) a week job has considerably less time to spare for such a study. He heard the words that he could keep his plan, he said ok, that's good. He finds out now that it is not so, and he is pissed. Any explanation that this is because his plan is no good will fall on deaf ears. Too little, too late.

"A terrible health plan" is, at least somewhat, in the eye of the beholder. Total security is a mirage, people do what they can, and hope for the best. Some plan better than others, some have more resources than others, some have more sense than others. But no one wants to be told that they can keep his plan, and then receive a cancellation notice. This reaction is extremely predictable, and I cannot imagine what the president and his advisers were thinking when the promise was made. Just as people who get lousy health plans are not adequately preparing for what the future might bring, it seems that the same can be said of Obama.

[Winstonm]

As has become normal in these times, if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or in a 60-second soundbyte, it didn't happen. To wit:

Quote

....Sundby wasn't shoved into this predicament because the ACA law forced her insurance provider out of the ballgame. UnitedHealthcare, one of the most notorious insurance providers before the ACA was passed, responsible for canceling policies and penalizing customers, decided to voluntarily bail out of the individual insurance game as a matter of corporate strategy. In doing so, it could avoid taking on less healthy customers early in the exchange sign-up process, forcing other insurers to absorb the risk....

UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley said, "The company's plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest." He continued, "UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have 'a pent-up appetite' for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that."

The difficulty comes when the explanation is a little too complex and varied to fit into a nice, neat sound byte. Those opposed realize this and use that flaw in communications to provide disinformation in order to confuse and to promote an agenda - much like the tobacco industry and other industries fought their battles.

It is true that some people have lost and will lose their current policies because those policies do not meet the minimum standards of the ACA - some will. Journalists attempt to report facts - there are few journalists left to uphold that tradition, it seems.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-08, 07:29, said:

It is true that some people have lost and will lose their current policies because those policies do not meet the minimum standards of the ACA - some will.

Yes, this is true. It is also true that the president emphatically claimed that this would not happen. If he, or his advisers, did not anticipate trouble when these opposing facts collided then they are totally out of touch with reality. "So I lied, so what, get over it" doesn't play well in Peoria or anywhere.

I imagine that they figured that with the website up and running and millions of people happily signing up, no one would pay much attention to this little detail. Oh well, another plan gone wrong.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2013-November-08, 08:13, said:

Yes, this is true. It is also true that the president emphatically claimed that this would not happen. If he, or his advisers, did not anticipate trouble when these opposing facts collided then they are totally out of touch with reality. "So I lied, so what, get over it" doesn't play well in Peoria or anywhere.

Probably what happened is that he said what his advisors told him. I doubt he reads legislation himself, or does his own industry analysis. Aides do that, and he relies on it. Chances are, whoever recommended this particular line or PR is faring poorly these days.

[kenberg]

I read somewhere, probably in the Post, that there was disagreement. His political advisers like the line, others in the administration thought that words should have some relationship to reality and so opposed it. Surprise! Surprise! The political advisers got their way. Some of these guys seem to be incapable of thinking much more than three days down the road.

[jeffford76]

kenberg, on 2013-November-08, 06:07, said:

In The Maltese Falcon Bogart is taking Mary Astor to task for all the lies she has told him. With regard to one of them he says "That one doesn't count because we didn't believe you anyway".

"Obama did not lie"

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-November-08, 08:13, said:

Yes, this is true. It is also true that the president emphatically claimed that this would not happen. If he, or his advisers, did not anticipate trouble when these opposing facts collided then they are totally out of touch with reality. "So I lied, so what, get over it" doesn't play well in Peoria or anywhere.

I imagine that they figured that with the website up and running and millions of people happily signing up, no one would pay much attention to this little detail. Oh well, another plan gone wrong.

I agree, Ken. I am not one of those ardent admirers of Obama - in fact, in 1994 I was a Republican. However, I've come to see the errors of my thinking and now view LBJ as one of the best presidents we've had, if you exclude the Vietnam War (of,course, it cannot be excluded leaving Johnson's legacy overall negative, in my opinion). I recently registered Democrat (I decided local elections can still have an effect, as per the government shutdown. I will do my best to make sure tea party idiots are not part of anyone's representation.)

Obama is neither LBJ or Bill Clinton - he came into office without enough experience or toughness for the job. At the same time, I am with you that he should have at least had the political savvy to explain the ACA's ramifications correctly.

[Winstonm]

jeffford76, on 2013-November-08, 11:45, said:

"Obama did not lie"

I support the ACA (I would prefer single payer) but I do not accept the lame argument presented in the link.

[ArtK78]

jeffford76, on 2013-November-08, 11:45, said:

"Obama did not lie"

Lame is an understatement.

In any case, I am a strong supporter of Obama and the ACA. We will see in the fullness of time where we wind up.

[kenberg]

Guys, the "Obama did not lie" argument presented in the link from jefford76 was not intended as support for either Obama or for the ACA. Quite the contrary!

Added: Unlike the author of the linked piece, I still have faint hopes that this can all work. But I would not place a heavy bet on success.Of course we are all, through government, placing a very heavy bet.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2013-November-08, 15:29, said:

I agree, Ken. I am not one of those ardent admirers of Obama - in fact, in 1994 I was a Republican.

Your secret is safe with me.
Althouugh "secret" is a word that future generations will ask the meaning of.

[awm]

The funny thing about that statement is that insurers cancel policies all the time, replacing them with more expensive policies with higher deductibles. I don't think Obama's statement was intended (or taken, by anyone serious) to mean that your existing policy would be locked in for all time... only that the ACA would not force insurers to cancel or modify the existing policy.

In fact a lot of continuing policies are "grandfathered in" despite failing to meet some of the requirements in the new law. But not all of them. I'm curious what the real breakdown of cancellations is among: 1. Cases where the insurance company wanted to significantly modify the policy on their own and then blamed it on ACA vs. 2. Cases where ACA forced a modification of the policy. I'd bet there are actually a lot of the first case. And of course there is the argument that some of these are "junk insurance" to begin with.

[FM75]

Ok. He is sorry.
No "The buck stops here." from Obama. You probably won't hear him admit that he lied, either.

From Bloomberg News:
"Yet, administration officials knew by June 2010 that as many as 10 million people with individual insurance probably would be thrown off existing plans. The cancellations are a result of provisions in the act, which Obama signed into law in March 2010, that say policies that fail to offer benefits such as prescription drug coverage and free preventive care can't be sold after this year even if they're [sic] cheaper."

No "My bad", 3 months after signing the bill, or for that matter 3 years later.



Also from Bloomberg:
"Obama's pledge that individuals would be able to keep their coverage and their doctors was a central selling point of his health-care overhaul, aimed at calming consumers concerned that they would be forced to give up policies and doctors they liked as the program expanded coverage to many of the nation's 48 million uninsured."
The administration had set a target of 800,000 Obamacare enrollments for the first two months. Speaking to a Senate panel on Nov. 6, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the initial enrollment for the first month of the program, which will be announced by the administration next week, will be "very low," though she declined to provide specific figures.




OK - Let's do the math.

First let's assume that they could meet their target of 800,000 for first 2 months. That is 400,000 / month. So the 10 million that they knew they had lied about would take 25 months to get through the system. So Jan 2016 - I guess on average half of them will get one full year of tax penalties in addition to losing their coverage.

Now let's do the math on the 48 million. At 400,000 per month, it will only take 10 YEARS to get them signed up.

Give me a break. Everybody who voted/signed this into law should go back to grade school.

[ArtK78]

FM75, on 2013-November-08, 21:56, said:

Ok. He is sorry.
No "The buck stops here." from Obama. You probably won't hear him admit that he lied, either.

From Bloomberg News:
"Yet, administration officials knew by June 2010 that as many as 10 million people with individual insurance probably would be thrown off existing plans. The cancellations are a result of provisions in the act, which Obama signed into law in March 2010, that say policies that fail to offer benefits such as prescription drug coverage and free preventive care can't be sold after this year even if they're [sic] cheaper."

No "My bad", 3 months after signing the bill, or for that matter 3 years later.



Also from Bloomberg:
"Obama's pledge that individuals would be able to keep their coverage and their doctors was a central selling point of his health-care overhaul, aimed at calming consumers concerned that they would be forced to give up policies and doctors they liked as the program expanded coverage to many of the nation's 48 million uninsured."
The administration had set a target of 800,000 Obamacare enrollments for the first two months. Speaking to a Senate panel on Nov. 6, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the initial enrollment for the first month of the program, which will be announced by the administration next week, will be "very low," though she declined to provide specific figures.




OK - Let's do the math.

First let's assume that they could meet their target of 800,000 for first 2 months. That is 400,000 / month. So the 10 million that they knew they had lied about would take 25 months to get through the system. So Jan 2016 - I guess on average half of them will get one full year of tax penalties in addition to losing their coverage.

Now let's do the math on the 48 million. At 400,000 per month, it will only take 10 YEARS to get them signed up.

Give me a break. Everybody who voted/signed this into law should go back to grade school.

You can join them there. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the 10,000,000 figure is accurate (which I highly doubt), most of those individuals will have their policies replaced with the same insurance company that covered them to begin with, not through the exchanges.

[FM75]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-08, 23:00, said:

You can join them there. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the 10,000,000 figure is accurate (which I highly doubt), most of those individuals will have their policies replaced with the same insurance company that covered them to begin with, not through the exchanges.

Actually the 10 million is probably an underestimate. Recent estimates showed about 19 million individuals nationwide self-insured and estimates were that 80% were getting bounced. 100% of the people (1) that I know that paid her own insurance already got notice.

They can't keep the same policy or rate.

The 10 million was the White House estimate. The 48 million was also a government estimate.

You conveniently ducked the second larger number, ducked the math, so you don't need to go back to school. It is clearly just religion for you, fella. You believe - facts be damned. Don't let those math and science guys get in your way. You are born again. Give Barack a big kiss and tell him how much you love Him and believe in Him.

BTW. Pick the amount you want to bet. My bet is the number of people at the end of the month won't even have the right order of magnitude, i.e. they won't even have 100,000, much less 400,000.

[Trinidad]

I don't get this outrage about (not) being able to keep your current plan. As I understand it, Obamacare basically is the following:

1. Everybody needs to have health insurance.
2. That health insurance needs to meet certain standards.
3. Everybody who has health insurance that meets the standards can keep theirs if they want to.
4. For everybody else (and for those who would like to change) Obamacare will facilitate a way to obtain an insurance that meets the standards.

Assuming that I understood that right, then it only makes sense that many people can keep their current insurance and others can not. How can this come as a surprise?

I do have one explanation: People hear very little information and a lot of rhetoric. Facts are less important than fears.

Rik

[kenberg]

For me, I am not outraged. But I am disappointed. The old Eagles song Lying eyes comes to mind "Did you get tired or maybe just get lazy".

Here is how I remember the trajectory. As the ACA was being debated, there were various issues of practicality. The nuimbers did not add up, critics said. Stuff and nonsense, supporters said. Perhaps over-estimating my abilities, I figured that I could have gone through it all and decided for myself. But, also maybe incorrectly, I regard myself as a realist. I figured it would take maybe three months, maybe six, of full time effort to read the bill, look into the numbers, get help as needed, check it all out, and come to an opinion that I would be confident of. No, not for the first time, I decided to wait and see how it goes.

Well, it is not going well. There appears to me to be a sufficient mixture of deceit and incompetence so that all bets are off as to whether this will get home safely. The American Health system needed and needs a fix. Most people can see that. Obama set out to do it, he gets credit for that. But to make it work he needs a good basic plan and he needs support. It's not reasonable to think that I, or most any citizen, will read all of the details and have rock solid opinions based on a thorough study. Liberal voters don't do that, conservative voters don't do that. Billw, a few posts back, opined that Obama was probably not sure of exactly what was in the bill. Quite possibly so. But at any rate, I am not up for being quizzed on all of the contents.

We look at what is taking place and we ask: Do his words conform to reality? Is it working? The answers so far are not encouraging.