So to you the cost controls in the PPACA don't exist. Are we seeing faster or slower medical inflation right now?

Edit - harsher than I meant it. What I'm getting at is that some of the non-insurance cost control aspects seem to be working quite well so far.
And to speak to the wider effects of the law - even if a GOP House, Senate and Presidency totally repeal Obamacare, you will never again be denied insurance because of a pre existing condition. Because good luck to the politician arguing for THAT.

To counter a small part of bubbles original post, in which he declared Obamacare a failure.

You're talking about a long-lasting and far-reaching piece of legislation that has been off the ground for a very short time. There are a lot of problems, some expected, some unexpected. Some inexcusable, some understandable.

But you don't declare a winner in the marathon after three miles. You can start predicting after ten, fifteen. Give it time. Whether you want it to succeed or fail, calling the game five minutes in is worse than useless.

Although as usual here in the Seventh Level of nice people saying ridiculous things, deaf ears, deaf ears.

Like Pelosi.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsd...-pen-obama.jpg

Then there is this look of utter disgust by a non-team member.


http://images.politico.com/global/ne...ama_ap_605.jpg

Well that's as scientific as it gets, folks.

Yep, about the same amount of attention and business theory used to create a HC law that involved understanding the open markets concerning insurance companies that these Senators know little about.

Pelosi: "Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It" This is very scientific.

That's pithy but wrong.

There's plenty of understanding of how the individual health insurance market worked (or didn't work, to be more accurate).
Hence higher standards for plans, subsidies to help for higher quality (therefore higher cost) plans, and a mandate to ensure risk-pooling to keep the cost balance right and to ensure that the market, you know, functions as a service delivery mechanism.


But I'll admit there's nothing like facial expressions to appeal to people who already agree with you.

Who understands it? If it was understood we would not be in this predicament. The insurance folks understood it. These folks advised DC what would occur. I find it hard to believe they stood quietly by. Wyoming Senator Enzi in 2010 understood it. He read the bill. The others have very little understanding or choice not to understand it once explained. Bill signed. I will not be convinced that those in DC have a true understanding of open market. It is not open. Each state has less than a handful to compare pricing. Each county in the state reduces that handful even more. True open market is having access to all including over state lines.

Hi level of scandals, dirt, incompetence is pretty much on par with the last two presidents, so what.

True, but some scandals are much more resounding than others. This one ranks right up at the top area of not so good for all involved.

What predicament?


If you're talking about website problems, that's an implementation problem that will get fixed, not something due to misunderstanding markets.

If you're talking about cancelled plans, it's not a predicament at all. It's supposed to happen. Nobody should be surprised by this. Politicians aren't and insurers aren't. Politicians who say they are are just riding public anger. It's disingenuous.

The president never should have made that promise. It's true for the vast majority of customers, but flat out wrong for enough people to make out a stupid statement to make, and even worse to stick by.

People with low-cost low-coverage individual plans susceptible to rescission lost those plans because they are not up to ACA standards. They were always going to lose those plans, they can get much better, subsidised (mostly) coverage through exchanges.

The stupid part of all this fuss is that nobody keeps their plan year to year, realistically speaking. Year to year, deductibles change, coverage changes, networks change. If these cancelled plans are brought back, under the legislation regarding preexisting conditions etc - they won't be profitable for insurers, suo they'll just up premiums to make up the difference.

A thought hit me the other day, and I just didn't bother posting it until now. There is this argument that I think we have all used, myself included.

The words used vary, but the statement is essentially the same. Some off the cuff examples:
- "Yeah well, this ex president did this that and this other thing"
- "All politicians lie"
- "So what, on par with the last two presidents" (not picking on you neal, you just happen to use the classic example)

Old schoolyard sayings that are more or less equivalent:
- "I know what you are but what am i"
- "Yeah, well, your mamma wears combat boots!"

This argument, this statement, is a defense given when there is no defense. It's an attempt to level the morality playing field in order to remove the wrong doings of whatever political topic is being discussed by passing it as something normal; hence rendering the verbal attack as moot or irrelevant.

Here's the thing, past wrong doings of past politicians do not make the current wrong doings of current politicians any less wrong or egregious. Wrong is wrong no matter how you slice it, and as another old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

While the above is undeniably true, that particular response is usually aimed not at the acknowledgement that a president has done wrong, but at the one-sided accusation that the president in question is the bad guy for doing so. Both sides play the game of "see how bad yours is" while conveniently ignoring the wrongdoings of their own. It's not that both sides do it, it's that both sides act like it's something new, and somehow the other side's guy is "the worst ever."

It just ain't so.

Tchocky:
No I'm not. The website is a disgrace, cash grab by a no bid contractor and three years with nothing to show for it. Disgraceful.


Yes sir, we should be surprised by this. "If you like your plan you can keep it. Period" Seems clear to me. Wyoming Senator Enzi knew this was coming in 2010 because he read the bill. The others summarily ignored him. But yes, disingenuous is dead on.

Agreed. He knowingly perpetrated the falsehood. I also believe he knew that delaying the employer mandate would push this forthcoming cancellations past the next election cycle and help control the fire started by the individual mandate coming into play producing cancellations currently.


Sadly, "If you like your plan you can keep it. Period" was what was peddled to the voting public. Grandfathered in was peddled to the voting public. Granddad just died. No where did BO or anyone else gung ho for the legislation state if you are not up to snuff you will be dropped.

Plenty keep their plan year to year. Our premiums increase but by and large the plan remains the same. Here is the catch with the "Grandfather Clause", if any changes to your plan occur the Grandfathering is now null and void. This change in the law was perpetrated over a year ago. They knew folks do change or tweak their insurances from year to year. It was a set up plus it prevents people from rushing to change their plans to dirt cheap and avoid having to use the Market Place. Cleverly laid out.

From a practical point of view, I would argue that the "worst" is whoever the current office holder is for one simple reason. The current office hold is still in power, and able to do further harm. The past office holder is no longer in power, and is no longer able to cause further harm. They are irrelevant, though granted they may have left a policy legacy that continues to be felt. (Like the Patriot act :shifty: )

However, to put it another way, one should be concerned about the threat that is closest to them, not one that is way down the street and round the corner down memory lane. Of course I'm speaking mainly for myself. I'm probably pragmatic in this regard to an excess. In any event, I reject the notion of the argument that I talked about in my previous post. Just because dillweeds in the past were abusive in office, doesn't mean the current dillweed can be abusive. That is no excuse, nor justfication, nor a defense.

I completely agree. My comment wasn't directed toward better, worse or worst, just at the people who only make the accusations when it's convenient for them. It's not "Your guy did it too!" so much as "I didn't hear you saying anything when your guy was doing it."

That is a valid and excellent point. There are a lot of "team players". Be that team an ideology or the team that embodies that ideology. Now that I think about it, in one way or another, we are all team players. The only difference is what team we are fanboys of. I'm a big fan of the Constitution myself, even though far too many our politicians like to use it for toilet paper.