Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
ACA repeal wheels in motion vs The Twilight Zone and railroad switch yards.....
This individual certainly appears about as authoritative as he needs to be, and your 'position of authority' disqualification is spurious. Bogle's not in a position of authority either anymore, but I think most would have no problem calling him such a voice.
Regardless, with such experience and tracking of history and legislation, you should write commentary and/or letters to the eds, not just post here. (Or perhaps you already do.)
Krug and others have usefully analyzed the three legs of the healthcare stool --- all-coverage, mandated participation, and means-tested subsidization --- but this article focuses on the main screw for the last, and hence the pubs' intractable, comic, pickle.
I found lots of troubling things in the NY p post article but this paragraph was the single most puzzling. Can people defend this statement with facts? I am eagerto see them."There is ample evidence to suggest that Medicaid provides little if any benefit. One notable experiment in Oregon found no improvements in health outcomes from Medicaid enrollment. But regardless, repeal of ObamaCare is unlikely to have any short-term impact on Medicaid.
."There is ample evidence to suggest that Medicaid provides little if any benefit. One notable experiment in Oregon found no improvements in health outcomes from Medicaid enrollment. But regardless, repeal of ObamaCare is unlikely to have any short-term impact on Medicaid.
In my opinion Medicaid is not a medical "care" program so much as it is a "means tested" medical "payment" program. If the only barrier to care is the payment method then I can see how medical outcomes could very well be impacted. Care providers that have the right to refuse certain patients based on their payment method (medicare, medicaid, Acme Insurance, whatever) may have fewer choices and quite possibly inferior choices.
@DH, see if you can think hard and figure out the reason for those three articles. Then ask pasha what the relationship is between the reason you have come up with and ACA itself. (Helpful hint: There is no relationship.) We know you are rooting for ACA failure and the subsequent ending of healthcare for many many millions, but still.
@DH, see if you can think hard and figure out the reason for those three articles. Then ask pasha what the relationship is between the reason you have come up with and ACA itself. (Helpful hint: There is no relationship.) We know you are rooting for ACA failure and the subsequent ending of healthcare for many many millions, but still.
Ask yourself this question: If there are no health insurance providers providing health insurance to the public, does Obamcare exist? (Helpful hint: An Obama supporter would say yes and it is very successful, just look at all the people paying the tax penalty!)
Real facts, real facts, look at the numbers newly insured. Of course be sure then to root for its failure and for them to have no coverage. Go for it!
Are 'real facts' like your 'alternative facts'? Does saying 'real facts' twice have a special meaning?
Ask yourself this question: If there are no health insurance providers providing health insurance to the public and newly insured, does Obamcare exist? (Helpful hint: An Obama supporter would say yes and it is very successful, just look at all the people paying the tax penalty!)
Here is my skeptical view on insurance providers; they are very much aware of their influence on Obama Care's survival and their influence on how the GOP is tinkering with the next plan. And there will be a next plan, but it will be their plan so all good. What they, the insurance companies are doing is positioning themselves for higher returns by threatening to pull out of coverage. Higher returns for them were somewhat squelched under Obama Care. My guess is they would be making a whole lot more $ without it, and by design, we will be paying more to compensate them in the future if Obama Care is repealed.
If the party in power wants to gut the program, why should an insurer hang around to be caught in the detritus? The pullout of providers is simply due to the impending demise via the hands of the GOP...nothing more.
Exactly!!! That's the only influence they have. That's their card to play. They can make more with no government intervention. If they play their hand and pull out... Great ($$$) for them. But who pays?
omg, is that a serious question? ACA is a huge success for insuring many millions who were not insured before. Actual people, and their kids. Dex, you really have to read outside your bubble.
Serious request: Explain why you root so hard for things to fail. Especially for your countrymen not to be able to get healthcare. I know destructiveness is all the fad now. But Pasha wasn't a 'no firefighters for me' libertarian, was he?
'Just to be clear, Republicans are asking the court to delay their own lawsuit pretty much indefinitely, because they’ve become terrified of what would happen if they succeed.'
A fine summary for another rough week: ... health reform has been a hugely liberating experience for millions. It means that workers don’t have to fear that quitting a job with a large company will mean loss of health coverage, and that entrepreneurs don’t have to fear striking out on their own. It means that those 20 million people who gained coverage don’t have to fear financial ruin if they get sick — or unnecessary death if they can’t afford treatment. For there is no real question that Obamacare is saving tens of thousands of lives every year. So why do Republicans hate Obamacare so much? It’s not because they have better ideas; as we’ve seen over the past few weeks, they’re coming up empty-handed on the “replace” part of “repeal and replace.” It’s not ... because they are deeply committed to Americans’ right to buy the insurance policy of their choice. No, mainly they hate Obamacare for two reasons: It demonstrates that the government can make people’s lives better, and it’s paid for in large part with taxes on the wealthy. Their overriding goal is to make those taxes go away. And if getting those taxes cut means that quite a few people end up dying, remember: freedom!
Oh, Dex, as of tonight there is no more tax penalty enforcement, so now the downward spiral you so devoutly wish for can happen more freely.
Not exactly. As of the date of this post (Feb 15) there is no longer the promise of stricter enforcement, that's all. From a tax filing perspective, nothing has changed. People were not required to provide their health coverage information on their tax returns under Obama, and Trump made sure that this didn't change.
The IRS is still required to enforce the mandate, just as it was required under Obama. Taxpayers weren't required to hand the IRS information to help with that enforcement before, and they're still not.
Interesting National Review opinion piece on this: Refusing to Enforce the Law Is the Wrong Way to Defeat Obamacare In essence, it posits that "this should vex any conservative who is concerned by the executive’s increasing tendency toward the non-enforcement of law."
"This year [2017], the IRS put in place system changes that would reject tax returns during processing in instances where the taxpayer didn’t provide information related to health coverage.
"However, the Jan. 20, 2017, executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden. Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn’t indicate their coverage status."
Comments
As always this is a fine piece of analysis and context, and you really should post it as a comment, but you're hairsplitting over my diction.
See
https://weatherhead.case.edu/faculty/j-b-silvers
This individual certainly appears about as authoritative as he needs to be, and your 'position of authority' disqualification is spurious. Bogle's not in a position of authority either anymore, but I think most would have no problem calling him such a voice.
Regardless, with such experience and tracking of history and legislation, you should write commentary and/or letters to the eds, not just post here. (Or perhaps you already do.)
Krug and others have usefully analyzed the three legs of the healthcare stool --- all-coverage, mandated participation, and means-tested subsidization --- but this article focuses on the main screw for the last, and hence the pubs' intractable, comic, pickle.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-battle-for-obamacare-starts-now/
Regards,
Ted
Twilight Zone Theme:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/magazine/will-obamacare-really-go-under-the-knife.html
Humana to Stop Selling Health Plans on Obamacare Marketplace
http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/tns-humana-obamacare.html
Aetna Joins Other Major Insurers In Pulling Back From Obamacare
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/16/490207169/aetna-joins-other-major-insurers-in-pulling-back-from-obamacare
Obamacare is so great you won't be able to find insurance pretty soon.
One-Third of Counties Will Have Just One Obamacare Insurer by 2017
http://time.com/money/4470574/obamacare-providers-2017/
Of course be sure then to root for its failure and for them to have no coverage. Go for it!
Ask yourself this question: If there are no health insurance providers providing health insurance to the public and newly insured, does Obamcare exist? (Helpful hint: An Obama supporter would say yes and it is very successful, just look at all the people paying the tax penalty!)
Sorry, no supporting articles, just my 2-cents.
Exactly!!! That's the only influence they have. That's their card to play. They can make more with no government intervention. If they play their hand and pull out... Great ($$$) for them. But who pays?
Two GOP's who don't want to wait any longer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/15/freedom-caucus-ready-for-obamacare-replacement-that-expands-hcas-bans-abortion-funding/?utm_term=.5a28680ccc64
Go hang out at an ER, meet some truly straitened people, and have yourself a good time.
See this first; it may not go as you wish. Or it may indeed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/magazine/will-obamacare-really-go-under-the-knife.html
Serious request: Explain why you root so hard for things to fail. Especially for your countrymen not to be able to get healthcare. I know destructiveness is all the fad now. But Pasha wasn't a 'no firefighters for me' libertarian, was he?
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-ryan-20170217-story.html
'Just to be clear, Republicans are asking the court to delay their own lawsuit pretty much indefinitely, because they’ve become terrified of what would happen if they succeed.'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/02/22/republicans-suddenly-realize-burning-down-health-system-might-not-be-a-great-idea/
The Paul Ryan tweet is priceless --- magic of the markets! Freeeeeedom!
... health reform has been a hugely liberating experience for millions. It means that workers don’t have to fear that quitting a job with a large company will mean loss of health coverage, and that entrepreneurs don’t have to fear striking out on their own. It means that those 20 million people who gained coverage don’t have to fear financial ruin if they get sick — or unnecessary death if they can’t afford treatment. For there is no real question that Obamacare is saving tens of thousands of lives every year.
So why do Republicans hate Obamacare so much? It’s not because they have better ideas; as we’ve seen over the past few weeks, they’re coming up empty-handed on the “replace” part of “repeal and replace.” It’s not ... because they are deeply committed to Americans’ right to buy the insurance policy of their choice.
No, mainly they hate Obamacare for two reasons: It demonstrates that the government can make people’s lives better, and it’s paid for in large part with taxes on the wealthy. Their overriding goal is to make those taxes go away. And if getting those taxes cut means that quite a few people end up dying, remember: freedom!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/opinion/death-and-tax-cuts.html
The IRS is still required to enforce the mandate, just as it was required under Obama. Taxpayers weren't required to hand the IRS information to help with that enforcement before, and they're still not.
Interesting National Review opinion piece on this: Refusing to Enforce the Law Is the Wrong Way to Defeat Obamacare In essence, it posits that "this should vex any conservative who is concerned by the executive’s increasing tendency toward the non-enforcement of law."
The IRS confirms this "non-change":