Monday, October 28, 2013

Obama Oversight or Lie?

This one does not look good for Team Obama and ACA cost control story.
NBC Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance

So is this a Conservative witch hunt or do you think Obama misled the American people.  Thoughts?

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

He was undoubtedly lying.

--Hiram

Sean said...

I think it's somewhere in-between. There was much hubbub yesterday about a CBS News Report about a Florida woman who had an insurance plan that cost her $54 a month and now had to get a plan that cost her $591 a month. The only problems with said report were:

Her $54/month "insurance" didn't cover ER visits or hospitalization, and only chipped in $50 per office visit.

The $591 plan wasn't the cheapest plan available, but rather was the one her insurance company was trying to sell her. Plans on the exchange in her area were available for as low as $235/month -- before the subsidies.

This woman was eligible for subsidies up to $330/month based on her income ($30,000) a year. So, instead of the 10x increase advertised, this woman was in fact able to get much better coverage for no out-of-pocket cost.

(I'm guessing) Obama would say that her $54/month plan wasn't really insurance in the first place (which is true). So losing that plan isn't really losing your insurance.

But Obama was certainly wrong to phrase it in such a way, raising unusually high expectations.

John said...

Thanks a lot !!!

You just reminded me that we tax payers are going to be buying a lot of people better insurance than they thought was necessary before this all started... Oh well.... (:-))

So Obama should have said, you will likely lose your questionable current insurance. However the tax payers will pay for you to have much better / more comprehensive policies.

Now what happens to well to do people who only have "disaster coverage"? Meaning they self insure and carry only a real high deductible health insurance policy in case of a severe or chronic problem?

Anonymous said...

"You just reminded me that we tax payers are going to be buying a lot of people better insurance than they thought was necessary before this all started."

They didn't think it was necessary because they knew the taxpayer would pick up the bill for expensive health care.

--Hiram

John said...

They certainly are generous with our tax dollars...

Anonymous said...

hey certainly are generous with our tax dollars...

That's a decision that we have already made. As my conservative friends have often pointed out, they are opposed to the denial of care. That's why they so fiercely oppose death panels. So it's a given that care will be provided; all we are talking about now is how it's to be paid for.

--Hiram

John said...

The Conservatives have said they are against the denial of care due to a government policy, committee, etc. (ie death panel) Not so sure they are against denial of care because someone makes poor choices or is unwilling to work for it.

Since Medicaid is still fully functioning or even expanded, ACA seems to have little do with helping the most needy. Instead we will be funding the healthcare of those in the lower middle and middle class on the backs of other citizens.

Still feels to socialistic for my preferences. I am sure the story will continue onward.


Laurie said...

I agree with Sean, part optimistic oversight / part lie.

the most interesting thing I read today re ACA (especially the second part):

Are All Those Insurance Company Cancellation Letters Too Good to Check?

here's the link that raises the idea of possible insurance company shenanigans:

http://prospect.org/article/time-investigate-those-insurance-company-letters

Anonymous said...

"The Conservatives have said they are against the denial of care due to a government policy, committee, etc. (ie death panel) Not so sure they are against denial of care because someone makes poor choices or is unwilling to work for it."

So death panels are ok when they consider those issues?

==Hiram

John said...

Their is no death panel in those cases. It is a natural consequence of poor decisions or bad luck.

Example: Paul chooses to drop out of high school. He chooses to not work diligently/consistently. He chooses to spend money on questionable items. He gets diabetes due to his genetics and poor diet choices.

What level of care should Paul get? Who should pay for the consequences of Paul's choices? Peter?

Sean said...

So for diseases with at least a partial genetic component, what do you do? There's no way to conclusively prove for Paul whether it was his genetic tendency or his poor behavior choices. My father and my grandfather have both had a particular type of cancer. Should I be out of luck? Or is there some sort of sliding scale of how much health care i get based on how virtuous I am?

John said...

I think you should make the right life choices to ensure you stay insured. Especially if you have a family health history.

As I have asked before, what rights should people have just for standing on American soil?

Liberals seem to believe every person on American soild should have the right to government provided food, housing, education, healthcare, etc. These of course being funded by the tax payers.

With this in place, why would the "not so highly motivated" even choose to go to work?

John said...

I am not sure everyone cares to continually improve all the way to the top... It takes a lot of work and self reflection.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Anonymous said...

Their is no death panel in those cases. It is a natural consequence of poor decisions or bad luck.

If there is no death panel, no one to deny care, care must be providef. It's like an old Dilbert cartoon. Dilbert, in an encounter with Mordac his company's denier of tech services, says he wants nothing. In the last frame of the strip, he is showing a friend his new office computer saying "Hey, I can launch the space shuttle with this thing".

This has in fact been a real problem with health care. Since we don't deny health care, and since we don't limit the health care we do provide, two things a death panel we would do, costs inevitably skyrocket. That's what we mean when we say health care costs are out of control. We have literally chosen not to control them.

--Hiram

Sean said...

John, don't you get tired of building up and destroying the same strawman over and over and over again? I'm tired, and I haven't been here that long.

John said...

Hiram,
And as long as individuals are paying for their own insurance or their own healthcare bills, why would "we" try to control healthcare costs? It is the government involvement and this idea of "fairness" that seems to make this necessary.

Should the government try to control the prices of cars, food, houses, etc? Personally I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

And as long as individuals are paying for their own insurance or their own healthcare bills, why would "we" try to control healthcare costs?

But they aren't. The bills go to the rest of us. That's because there are no death panels charged with saying no.

--Hiram

John said...

Sean,
I don't disagree, often these discussion go no where since we are for the most part firmly entrenched in our positions. However, I guess I am curious about your thoughts and rationale regarding...

"Liberals seem to believe every person on American soild should have the right to government provided food, housing, education, healthcare, etc. These of course being funded by the tax payers.

With this in place, why would the "not so highly motivated" even choose to go to work?"

Do you agree or disagree? Your rationale?

If we meet the base needs of many Americans just because they are here, do you think people will find the intrinsic motivation to strive for improvement and self actualization?

Or will a significant portion just take what they are given and be satisfied?

If the USA is saddled with a portion of "free loaders", how do you envision our staying competitive globally against societies that don't fund that behavior?

How would you encourage Americans to pay more for "American Made" products, therefore lowering unemployment and driving up wages?

I am sorry, but taking money from the successful people and giving money to the unsuccessful folks is just a bandaid that damages our global competitiveness even more. You are treating a symptom while making the illness worse.

Are you willing to ask yourself could I be wrong.

I whole heartedly agree that it is terrible that some people are unlucky/unsuccessful. Therefore I give to charities and pay a premium for American products.

However I totally disagree that the problem can be solved via intrusive government policy that taxes successful people at 30+%, and gives it to unsuccessful people just because they are standing on American soil. It just doesn't resonate with my world view of how people are motivated.

As I said before, taking money from my most responsible saving hard working daughter and giving it to my least responsible saving motivated daughter would end badly, and be bad for both of them...

Do you agree this would be bad?

If so, what is your rationale for believing that the USA population is any different than my household?

What do you truly believe about human nature and motivation?

Sean said...

You imply that you think the "liberal" position is that we think most of society should be content to sit back and live off of the work of others.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of a safety net is to help people while they are down so that they can get back up and be productive again.

You can't hold a job if you're constantly sick. You can't hold a job if you don't have anything to eat. You can't hold a job if you didn't get a decent education.

It's interesting how you argue our global competitiveness is at risk from our safety net. Many of the folks we're competing against provide a far more expensive benefit programs than we do.

So why don't we stop with the broad strawmen and talk rationally about where the lines should be drawn. Not in parables, but in policies.

John said...

Avoiding discussing the basis of and rationale for your beliefs... Oh well, maybe later...

Who would you recommend as a globally competitive world leader who is providing far more expensive benefit programs than we do?

Be aware that I am going to look into their diversity levels, their tendency to buy domestic vs buy foreign, the size/population of their country, culture, amount of gov't control, etc. Since all of these are factors that may allow "it" to work there and fail miserably here.

Germany is usually a "good example", however they are small, relatively homogenuous and incredibly loyal to "buy German".

Who else is big, highly "Buy Cheap/Value", very diverse, very competitive, etc and supports your claim?

Remember that making it work in Sweden is like making it work in Vermont... Much easier.

Sean said...

You're demanding that I have to debate the issue on your terms. I would cite, Germany, in fact. As of 2009, Germany spends about 8% more of GDP on public social expenditures than we do, according to the OECD.

And I would argue that the factors you cite -- lower levels of diversity and higher levels of buying loyalty -- should mean that they ought to actually require lower levels of such spending than we do. Yet, they spend a lot more and are still very competitive.

John said...

I thought you were the one dictating terms. (Ie no deep meaningful belief stuff, just the policies)

If Germany is your answer? I'll do some research and post on it.

Anything speccific you want me to consider or address?

John said...

Any links you think are relevant?

John said...

CNN Romney On Obama Speech

""In the years since the Massachusetts health care law went into effect, nothing has changed my view that a plan crafted to fit the unique circumstances of a single state should not be grafted onto the entire country," Romney said."

I liked this statement and it makes sense to me. ACA might make sense in a small country with a very powerful Federal rule. However in a union of strong states, it is going to be very rocky...

Anonymous said...


"I liked this statement and it makes sense to me. ACA might make sense in a small country with a very powerful Federal rule. However in a union of strong states, it is going to be very rocky."

We wanted a rocky system, and so I don't think it's any surprise that that's what we got. From a practical standpoint, implementing health care on a state by state basis is a ridiculous idea The simpler systems, the ones that would have been easy to implement, like expansion of Medicare, were always political non starters.

It's sort of like the tax code. Everyone says they want simplicity in theory, but in practice no one ever does.

--Hiram

John said...

The challenge is that we are more like the whole EU and folks keep wanting to compare us to just one of their countries.

Sean said...

Mr. Romney's position on this has -- shall we say -- evolved.

Allow me to quote from an op-ed authored by Romney in July 2009:

"Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it."

And there's more, like:

"First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did."

There's your individual mandate and subsidies.

http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2009-op-eds/mr-president-whats-the-rush/

Sean said...

We can talk philosophy and make up parables to support our ideology until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't do anything to fix the problem.

It'd be great if the problem were as black-and-white as having one good kid and one lazy kid. In the real world, it's not. Everyone is different shades of gray and we have to decide where to draw the line.

John said...

Mr President What's the Rush Link

I of course disagree, to talk policy without considering and discussing basic human behavior and the likely consequences of the policy change seems very shallow and short sighted.

I think the current state of the country has been created by just such self centered policy creation. However I am flexible.

Anything I should review before I post on Germany vs America?

John said...

By the way, what program ended when ACA began?

I must say I was surprised to find that Medicaid was supposed to be expanded rather than killed when ACA came on line...

Sean said...

Feel free to research Germany v. America as you wish.

Now, by citing Germany, I'm not necessarily endorsing any of their specific policies -- just pointing out that you can have a globally competitive economy with more social spending than we have today.

John said...

Well then, what policies do you endorse?

John said...

More Food for Thought:
CNN WH Pressuring Insurance Industry to Keep Quiet

CNN Too Few Young Invincibles

jerrye92002 said...

Obama wasn't lying. A lie is the intentional relation of non-truth in order to deceive. Obama has absolutely zero knowledge of what reality and truth are. He doesn't even care to know and in fact believes that the truth is whatever he says it is. It's a messiah complex.

jerrye92002 said...

By the way, the Captcha tag for my previous comment was "EVELTIL 43." It should have been "NO Evil 'til 44"

A recent debate on Dennis Prager was whether evil was irrational and good was rational. In the case of Obama, I don't think it matters whether he is evil, irrational, or just incompetent; the result has been an unmitigated disaster.