Obamacare & Government Shutdowns

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Caution should be exercised when interpreting Gallup poll results, given that their numerous tracking polls collected during the months leading up to the general election predicted a Mitt Romney win in 2012.

Regardless of your research topic being surveyed, be it US healthcare, ObamaCare, RomneyCare, etc., caution should also be exercised when interpreting polling methods based solely upon telephone surveys as their source of data collection, as Dewey learned years ago:

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

President Obama promised us that our premiums under ACA would decrease an average of $2,500, yet they increased over $2,500, a negative swing of $5,000 from the promises. 2014 rates under ObamaCare are often much higher on average, with higher deductibles and higher out-of-pocket limits, then they were this year. And rates will skyrocket under ObamaCare if the young don’t sign up in the numbers needed to pay for the sick who will be signing up. And early indications show the young aren’t signing up as expected. I believe the ACA has language in it that the insurance companies will be reimbursed by the government for losses under the ObamaCare.

Before adopting many of the provisions of RomneyCare, the Obama Administration and its temporary two House Democratic Congressional majority should have examined the failures of RomneyCare, and learned from them. Unfortunately, they didn't learn.

Before signing the bill, former Republican Governor Romney promised reduced healthcare costs (similar to later promises by Obama), and after implementation of RomneyCare, it become one of the most expensive state healthcare systems in the nation, with 68% of newly insured heavily or completely subsidized by taxpayers, and "A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country."

Why I do NOT like both ObamaCare and earlier implemented RomneyCare has been nicely summarized in the above Wall Street Journal article link:

"Both have an individual mandate requiring most residents to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Most businesses are required to participate or pay a fine. Both rely on government-designed purchasing exchanges that also provide a platform to control private health insurance. Many of the uninsured are covered through Medicaid expansion and others receive subsidies for highly-prescriptive policies. And the apparatus requires a plethora of new government boards and agencies."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is treating Gallup's prediction as if it was cross-sectional and not longitudinal in survey design methodology. It was a tracking poll (i.e., longitudinal).

This was not a problem with one cross-sectional survey immediately before the election, rather their predictive model had been seriously flawed and resulted in their prediction results being skewed in favour of Romney, which they admitted, and now claim has been revised and improved.

Furthermore, they have changed their telephone sampling techniques because of the 2012 failure, where the prior sampling method had been confounded by a disproportionate representation of landlines, ignoring the fact that over 26% of US citizens only had mobile phones and no landlines, along with caller blocking, voice mail, no call list, and other call screening techniques that would disproportionately result in under represented mobile users.

Worst of all, I did not see any sample validation techniques (outside of telephone data collection) offered in the current poll methodology. An over reliance on telephone survey data can result in a Dewey-like error, be it 1948 or 2013. There is also a concern with the fact that only 854 subjects had been surveyed from a very demographically diverse, as well as a regionally diverse, hundred million plus eligible voter population. For example, if they attempted to regionally stratify their sample, each regional sample size as a subset of the total 854 subjects would more than likely fail to meet the 95% confidence level in one or more regions rendering the results problematic.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

"The Affordable Care Act, also known as 'Obamacare,' requires most people to have health insurance starting in 2014," states Kaiser Permanente, one of the major healthcare providers.

Parts of ObamaCare took affect immediately in 2010. Different portions of the act started at different times. The section I referenced, where 80% of insurance premiums must be spent on medical care, took affect in 2011. This section of the ACA negates the claims of some that insurance companies are raising premiums and gouging customers merely to increase profits.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Before adopting many of the provisions of RomneyCare, the Obama Administration and its temporary two House Democratic Congressional majority should have examined the failures of RomneyCare, and learned from them. Unfortunately, they didn't learn.

Before signing the bill, former Republican Governor Romney promised reduced healthcare costs (similar to later promises by Obama), and after implementation of RomneyCare, it become one of the most expensive state healthcare systems in the nation, with 68% of newly insured heavily or completely subsidized by taxpayers, and "A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country."

Why I do NOT like both ObamaCare and earlier implemented RomneyCare has been nicely summarized in the above Wall Street Journal article link:

"Both have an individual mandate requiring most residents to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Most businesses are required to participate or pay a fine. Both rely on government-designed purchasing exchanges that also provide a platform to control private health insurance. Many of the uninsured are covered through Medicaid expansion and others receive subsidies for highly-prescriptive policies. And the apparatus requires a plethora of new government boards and agencies."

Does this lead one to conclude that costs will likely increase more under ObamaCare?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Does this lead one to conclude that costs will likely increase more under ObamaCare?

Both Republican Romney and Democrat Obama promised reduced healthcare costs with RomneyCare and ObamaCare respectively. RomneyCare increased costs rather than lowering them, and because there are so many similarities between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, we can expect that ObamaCare will increase costs too.

clairefontaine

Isn't this all jumping the gun? Doesn't the website have to work first?

I haven't even looked it.

And by the way, being forced to buy health insurance .....another thing that makes no sense is what you prefer a provider out of state? My brother flies down to San Fran for his dentist, pays out of pocket for that. Ok I think that is somewhat eccentric, but that is still his choice.

Ad honestly, I prefer the medicine in the northeast to what I've experienced on the west coast, very sloppy indeed. I shouldn't be forced to pay for that.

Also where does alternative health fit in with this?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If they were that concerned about the uninsured they would revised and expanded Medicaid qualifications.

This has nothing to do with helping out the uninsured and everything to do with expanding bureaucracy and fattening up the medical cartel and insurance companies.

I agree with some of the nonsense that went on with insurance companies and pre existing conditions. I know someone who had back surgery years ago and was not even able to get any kind of health insurance, no one would take him, now they have to take him.

Actually I agree the healthcare is a mess, but I don't agree this is the solution.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The original point that I had made was that "caution" should be exercised when interpreting Gallup's results today, given that they screwed-up in 2008 and 2012. To not exercise caution would be an act of faith, not science.

The small sample size of 854 total subjects for a potential voting population of roughly 100 million is problematic, especially when we consider regional and other demographic differences. Quoting their claimed "margin of error" is also meaningless if their sampling is flawed. A flawed sample, as occurred for Gallup in 2012, and may be occurring now, can produce what we call in research as GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To reiterate for the last time (and it will be the last time, as continuing this argument in a circle has no merit), my main point regarding Gallup was that "caution" should be exercised when interpreting their poll results. With Science in general, and with Gallup in particular (given their past errors), "caution" should be exercised when interpreting poll results. To do otherwise is an act of faith, not science.

If the sampling design is flawed, reporting confidence intervals or confidence levels claimed by Gallup is misleading and ultimately meaningless, as well as percentages that assume that the sample was representative of the population, when it may be biased.

There are several limitations in the Gallup poll cited. The small sample size of 854 subjects for over 100 million plus demographically differentiated potential voters, the questionable sampling frames (especially when regional differences were ignored as if all Americans were regionally the same from coast to coast), using only telephone surveys to collect data when many potential voters will be excluded from the sample by call screening methods (which can result in sampling bias), the lack of rigorous sample validation techniques, etc. If you don't have an appreciation for the problematic nature of this Gallup poll's methodology, and reject exercising "caution" when interpreting the results, it's really pointless to continue this discussion.

MonaPizza

Amerika wrote: »

The Tea Party is concerned with the cost to the taxpayers for ObamaCare. The subsidies will cost the federal government billions, if not trillions. Since spending reductions dosen’t seem to be in this administrations vocabulary, wouldn’t you have agree that it will entail massive tax increases in order to pay for it?

50% of all Americans are sick with something right now....and that probably includes you.
Leaving aside all your blather about taxes and subsidies and what not, prudence demands that everyone have some kind of health coverage.
The biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses. Now you may have some kind of coverage (private I'm sure) that allows you to dictate to others that they don't deserve such protection. You may have a condition that is being treated because you have protection. But for you to then state that nobody else deserves such security is, quite frankly, sadistic.
If you had diabetes or arthritis or cardiovascular disease (statistics show that if you don't suffer from one of these, then you most certainly will in the next 15 years) and you had medical protection, and your sister or brother or mother also fell foul of such an affliction and didn't have health coverage would you be so cavalier in your attempts to convince them that they shouldn't have any protection from their maladies?
Because you seem to be au fait with dictating that strangers to you should not have health coverage. I would like to know if you would feel the same about friends and relatives of you in the same predicament.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

MonaPizza wrote: »

50% of all Americans are sick with something right now....and that probably includes you.
Leaving aside all your blather about taxes and subsidies and what not, prudence demands that everyone have some kind of health coverage.
The biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses. Now you may have some kind of coverage (private I'm sure) that allows you to dictate to others that they don't deserve such protection. You may have a condition that is being treated because you have protection. But for you to then state that nobody else deserves such security is, quite frankly, sadistic.
If you had diabetes or arthritis or cardiovascular disease (statistics show that if you don't suffer from one of these, then you most certainly will in the next 15 years) and you had medical protection, and your sister or brother or mother also fell foul of such an affliction and didn't have health coverage would you be so cavalier in your attempts to convince them that they shouldn't have any protection from their maladies?
Because you seem to be au fait with dictating that strangers to you should not have health coverage. I would like to know if you would feel the same about friends and relatives of you in the same predicament.

Thank you for your concern over my health. Yes I have health issues… most on your list. I’ve also had my spine reconstructed after being hit by a car. Doctors say I should be on disability, but I refuse to go that route, and as long as I’m functional I will continue to work as best I can. I see far too many people in my personal life on disability who are capable of working and being an asset to society, but refuse and would rather be a leech. I also have cancer and have about 4 years left on my hourglass according to the specialists. I have had to make professional sacrifices in order to have health care insurance with high deductibles because of my issues. I take responsibility for myself and don’t feel others should be paying for me if I am able to one way or another. If I were incapable of providing for my own, that would be a different story, then as a conservative I believe it’s the job of the government to help the most unfortunate of our society. I pay quite a bit for my health care insurance, and it has forced us to make sacrifices in order to keep it. Why would I want others to pay for me? Who said life is fair and wouldn’t be tough?

Now, I normally wouldn’t accept help from anyone as I’m steadfast in my resolve to provide for myself, but I’ll make an exception in your case since you are so eager to help a stranger in need like myself. Contact me and I’ll let you know where to send the money that you so desperately feel you should be paying extra to help out someone like me.

ChicagoJoe

Those who run down Obamacare need to suggest what they would do instead. Would they live 50 million Americans uninsured? America has worse healthcare outcomes than most peer countries, worse even than Cuba in some cases. If the konw alls were sincere they'd suggest ways of making it better. A lot of polices being offered via Obama will have very big deductibles, big co-payments and won't cover everything either. Lots of middle class families who already buy insurance directly that suits them will see their existing policies disbanded and be forced to take out new polices where they will subsize those the goverment deems worthy of paying reduced rates.

Amerika

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Those who run down Obamacare need to suggest what they would do instead.

Why? Perhaps if as is being forecast by some experts that the net effect of ObamaCare will make 8 million more uninsured than before ObamaCare, we just go back to the drawing board and get some bi-partisan changes to health care. But I forecast we will just be calling for a one-payer universal health care system when ObamaCare collapses as the answer. And one has to wonder if that wasn't the real plan all along.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

we just go back to the drawing board and get some bi-partisan changes to health care

You and Paul Ryan right? LOL!

We've been going back to the "drawing board" for over thirty years now.

clairefontaine

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Those who run down Obamacare need to suggest what they would do instead. Would they live 50 million Americans uninsured? America has worse healthcare outcomes than most peer countries, worse even than Cuba in some cases. If the konw alls were sincere they'd suggest ways of making it better. A lot of polices being offered via Obama will have very big deductibles, big co-payments and won't cover everything either. Lots of middle class families who already buy insurance directly that suits them will see their existing policies disbanded and be forced to take out new polices where they will subsize those the goverment deems worthy of paying reduced rates.

I have already said many many times what I would do, and I will get repetitive stress disorder if I have to do it again.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

You and Paul Ryan right? LOL!

We've been going back to the "drawing board" for over thirty years now.

What did you think of the health care plan George W Bush proposed in early 2007 that would have made insurance cheaper for the people who need it most, expanded coverage to an additional 11 million with zero increase in federal spending commitments, and CBO estimates that it would have reduced the deficit by $334 Billion from 2008 to 2017? Perhaps we could build on that in a bi-partisan manner. Or is it taboo becasue of the "W" factor?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

What did you think of the health care plan George W Bush proposed in early 2007 that would have made insurance cheaper for the people who need it most,

But you dont actually explain the details do you? Just that his miracle "plan" would make healthcare cheaper for everyone. yay! wohoo!

It was simply high deductible plans. Which isnt a bad idea for the young and healthy (and is incorporated into ObamaCare. )

But utterly useless for anyone over the age of about 30. It was like a bandaid on a broken leg.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

But you dont actually explain the details do you? Just that his miracle "plan" would make healthcare cheaper for everyone. yay! wohoo!

It was simply high deductible plans. Which isnt a bad idea for the young and healthy (and is incorporated into ObamaCare. )

But utterly useless for anyone over the age of about 30. It was like a bandaid on a broken leg.

Oh it was a bit more than that, and could well serve as the starting point for replacing Obamacare.

Here a good read to help you to better understand it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/04/30/how-george-w-bush-would-have-replaced-obamacare/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChicagoJoe

As far as I can see, the Republicans because like FG V FF in Ireland, they are opposing the law claiming it will exacerbate problems with cost and access. And then Republicans throw in the red herring that the mere existence of the Act undermines notions of federalism and the proper role of government. Opportunism, nothing else.