Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

I acknowledge this as true and accurate. In a vacuum if that was all there is to it, you have made your point.

But this is not in a vacuum and there is more to it - do you agree or not? I really would like to know the net impact. One person argues a ratio of $15 in increased cost to every $1 in savings. I am interested in what real people are experiencing. On a net basis.

The Ratio of Obamacare's Medicare Cuts to New 'Benefits' is Fifteen-to-One - Forbes

I talked to my father in detail, and he claims that he has not saved any money. I will continue to talk to people and get more first hand accounts - I am fully aware of the talking points - on boths sides of the political argument.

 

Ace....please point me to the section of the CBO report that describes the Medicare 15-1 cut-to-spending ratio referred to in the acknowledged bias editorial. I skimmed it and was unable to find it.

I understand how selected anecdotal first hand accounts and biased editorials may support your position, bur they rarely offer a complete and objective analysis.

 

The CBO acknowledges the uncertainty in projecting the costs or savings of Obamacare or the repeal of Obamacare. At this point actual costs or savings is determined based on assumptions. Depending on the methodology used, different results are achieved. I have read various ranges of savings or costs of Obamacare - I made that clear in my post. Here is a quote from the CBO letter to the Speaker when he was considering repeal.

CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

Do you seriously hold the view that CBO and other government projections/reports/studies can not be questioned? We have been through this type of exchange several times and I am not sure if you really hold the belief I question. You seem to take issue with me anytime I question an "official" report/projection/study/etc.

 

THE CBO makes projections using widely accepted protocols and modeling under various economic assumptions, which is quite different from cherry picking data to fit a political agenda.

 

The CBO's economic projections are wrong 100% of the time.

The vast majority of the time their projections are not even close to being correct.

Do you ever go back and examine what the CBO projected relative to what actually happens? If you ever do that I think you would have a better appreciation of the importance of understanding their methodology and assumptions used for their projections. I respect the people doing the work - but part of my respect is based on understanding the challenges they actually have and putting their work in its proper perspective.

 

Is this part of his economic plan? Is hitting records on the major exchanges what he campaigned on? Is so, give him credit. I seemed to recall his economic agenda focused on job creation. When companies are focused on hiring, training and developing people there are major costs to these activities that hurt profitability in the short-run.

 

Yo' DC where are you? I assume you have read the latest IRS ruling on Obamacare subsidies. Some people are projecting about 40 million will go uninsured. Admit it, this was poorly crafted legislation from the very beginning and now that we are getting rules/regulations and interpretations it is truely a mess and won't end up helping many people at all while potentially bankrupting the nation. Way to go!

IRS Ruling To Create Millions Of Uninsured Americans As It Undermines The Very Intent of Obamacare - Forbes

 

Ace, I agree the IRS rules create a glich in the potential coverage for some currently in employer based plans as a result of the intent to prevent a mass exodus from employer plans to private plans on the Exchanges.

But the 40 million going uninsured is a typical over-reaction by those opposed to the ACA...unless thousands of existing employers suddenly decide to no longer contribute to employees' premium costs.

There is an easy legislative fix but Republicans in Congress are still more intent on wasting time trying to repeal the law, leaving more than 40 million uninsured with much greater certainty.

 

And a fix to the increasing numbers of employees getting their hours cut so that employers can avoid penalties?
and a fix to regularly increasing cost projections?
and a fix to the ever expanding list of exceptions being granted by the administration?
Etc.
Etc.

And we are still getting new rules and regulations and interpretations of this law - and we can expect countless court rulings on controversial issues...perhaps the bill should have been read before passage. At least don't you agree with that? why didn't they simply get these easy fixes right from the beginning?

 

And millions of folks have already benefited (seniors, kids with pre-existing conditions, women lacking affordable reproductive services, young adults w/o insurance, families facing bankruptcy as a result of a medical crisis, etc.) and millions more, specifically the currently uninsured, will starting next January.
--- merged: Feb 6, 2013 at 5:52 PM ---
Ooops. I forget that you dont personally know any of those millions already benefiting, so they dont count.

 

You deserve a medal or something as one of the greatest Obama administration apologists of all time. Net healthcare costs are up, there has been no net improvement in the delivery of healthcare, so if you think shifting costs and benefits around is a good thing, that it actually solves a problem - I see your point of view. In my view it is nothing but a shell game, pure smoke and mirrors, a parlor trick intent on deception of the one's not paying attention.

My idea was to simply provide medical coverage for every child in the country, no questions asked. And for that i would pay whatever taxes necessary. Obamacare is bad law, it can bankrupt the country - I want it repealed and replace with something that really addresses the problems.

 

Ace> I have said all along that the ACA is not a perfect solution but a significant step in the right direction to both provide more and better coverage with a system that will be incentivized to be more efficient.

Unlike you, I understand that complex overhauling of the health care system will take time. There is no magic pill that will reduce health health care costs overnight.

Millions have benefited already and models are in place, like competitive biding for Medicare Advantage providers, coordinated and bundled payment plans for diagnostics/treatment/hospitals, etc.. And even provisions as simple as incentivizing preventive care with no co-pay, which are common sense (except to wing nuts).

The heart of the ACA, providing coverage to 30+ million currently uninsured through a "marketplace" requiring competition among providers and offering various levels of coverage to satisfy consumer choice was a Republican idea until Obama made it the centerpiece of his proposal.

I hope you dont face a family medical emergency that might cost $millions. If y0u do, thank the ACA for protecting you from lifetime limits.

 

Is it about 20 states that are not going to set up exchanges?
CBO projects the 10 year cost at over $1 trillion.
CBO projects about 26 million will gain coverage once fully implemented, leaving about 20 million uninsured.
The IRS estimates the least expensive plan under Obamacare will be around $20,000 per family.

And there is still uncertainty and we can expect the projections to change.

 

Individuals in states not offering an Exchange will be covered by a federally operated Exchange, much like federal employees, where there willbe numerous choices costing far less than $20,000 with many individuals subsidized in the same manner as an employer subsidy.

Dont cherry pick CBO or IRS data out of context.

Get your facts straight, Ace.
--- merged: Feb 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM ---
As I noted, the Exchanges are a Republican concept to encourage greater competition and driving down prices. Now they are socialism. Go figure.

Some savings (or slower rise in premiums) will come with that larger pool and new loss ratios .

But the real cost savings will only come with greater efficiencies, many of which will be piloted under the ACA.

 

A report released today:

--- merged: Feb 8, 2013 at 1:17 PM ---
The above report follows on the heels of a Commonwealth Fund report that found the ACA saved consumers $1.5 billion in 2011 alone by forcing insurers to refund money that customers overpaid for health coverage, primarily as a result of the new medical loss ratios.

​