• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Obamacare exchanges enroll 3 pct of target so far -report

Erod said:
You mean the old system, when my copays were $20 instead of $100, and when my deductible was $500 instead of $2,000?

Yes, I miss that system, and I'm fortunate to be able to afford it. This is KILLING a lot of middle-class and poor Americans right now, who aren't taking their kids to the doctor because they don't have the $100.

Not to mention, overall rates are skyrocketing, and people can't see their doctors in many cases.

Yeah, this is just great.
Click to expand...

I often wonder what ever happened to the 'HMO model'? When our kids were younger, and we lived in Maryland, we had Kaiser HMO through my wife's work....It was great! Office visits were $5, and prescriptions were $10 no matter what they were. Diagnostic services like X-ray, lab, MRI etc. were on site, and included with the office visit.

I thought that was the future of Medicine, and when she lost that plan, (too expensive for the business) we had to go back to the traditional 80/20 plan....That hurt.
 
j-mac said:
I often wonder what ever happened to the 'HMO model'? When our kids were younger, and we lived in Maryland, we had Kaiser HMO through my wife's work....It was great! Office visits were $5, and prescriptions were $10 no matter what they were. Diagnostic services like X-ray, lab, MRI etc. were on site, and included with the office visit.

I thought that was the future of Medicine, and when she lost that plan, (too expensive for the business) we had to go back to the traditional 80/20 plan....That hurt.
Click to expand...

Lawyers, fraud, and malpractice insurance.
 
sangha said:
At this point, I don't believe any of the #'s nor do I care. What counts is what happens in the longer term.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Eh...it's purdy much reality.

Oregon Health Care Exchange Has Yet To Enroll A Single Person « CBS Seattle
Click to expand...

apdst said:
At this rate, the Libbis won't get to participare in that. Lol'
Click to expand...

That is my point. If it fails, it will go down in history one way. If it survives (survives, not necessarily succeeds in a big way), then history will be written by the other team.

Personally, I wish it would succeed so all this time and money isn't wasted. I never wish my country ill. I don't cheer our losses in wars I don't approve of. But I'm skeptical of any legislation as overblown as this and containing so many individual rewards.

We'll all know well before the next election.
 
sangha said:
No, the #'s are people who signed up for coverage.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that it does not include the Administration's numbers for "people who have signed up and created accounts but not purchased insurance"? You can go ahead and click through a plan, sure, but if you don't buy, then it's meaningless.

IT may include Medicaid. In fact it probably does but that's not surprising. If someone is eligible for Medicaid, then it's a no-brainer for them. It's the cheapest option. If they're not eligible, then they have a decision to make. That takes time
Click to expand...

I think that is likely. But we need paying customers to keep this thing fiscally solvent.
 
cpwill said:
So are you saying that it does not include the Administration's numbers for "people who have signed up and created accounts but not purchased insurance"? You can go ahead and click through a plan, sure, but if you don't buy, then it's meaningless.



I think that is likely. But we need paying customers to keep this thing fiscally solvent.
Click to expand...

then that is why it is a good idea to encourage people to sign up.

oh and congress can maybe fix the problems ?
 
upsideguy said:
True, but as a practical matter, something like insurance is a complicated acquisition. You are not likely to buy the insurance on your first visit. I am in the market, I am enrolled and I am weighing the option of a silver plan vs. re-upping on my Kaiser small business plan, which will renew for one year at a 15% increase. The Kaiser silver plan appears to be more than 50% less from what I had been paying. I am trying to get comfortable that it truly is less and what I might lose moving from one to the other. So, I am a legit active buyer, but have not yet bought.
Click to expand...

Sure. But you shouldn't be captured for "having bought" statistics until you actually have. People can click through a plan and have no intention of buying, or then decide that they didn't want to.

I agree probably many of those folks - like youreslf - will buy insurance. But it is disengenious to go ahead and throw them in the count, and the Administration should make clear the distinction instead.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
then that is why it is a good idea to encourage people to sign up.
Click to expand...

:shrug: depending on your preferred future, sure.

oh and congress can maybe fix the problems ?
Click to expand...

:lol: the problems aren't a bug, they're a feature. "Fixing" Obamacare will require radical redesign, not small administrative fixes.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: depending on your preferred future, sure.



:lol: the problems aren't a bug, they're a feature. "Fixing" Obamacare will require radical redesign, not small administrative fixes.
Click to expand...

so who has the power to make those fixes?
 
iguanaman said:
You mean that big bad mandate that according to the Right is going to plunge us into socialism has no teeth? So they lied about it? Why is that not surprising?
Click to expand...

:roll: I was going to respond, and then I remembered, you're not supposed to answer a fool according to their folly.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
so who has the power to make those fixes?
Click to expand...

It would take both Congress to pass legislation seriously revamping the program and the President to sign rather than veto it (good luck on that).
 
cpwill said:
So are you saying that it does not include the Administration's numbers for "people who have signed up and created accounts but not purchased insurance"? You can go ahead and click through a plan, sure, but if you don't buy, then it's meaningless.
Click to expand...

Correct. I'm saying those #'s, from state exchanges (not the federal one) are people who have actually enrolled in a health plan.



I think that is likely. But we need paying customers to keep this thing fiscally solvent.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do but I don't think it's reasonable to assume the #'s in the first months will be the same as the #'s in the later months.
 
j-mac said:
Pull the trigger! I think every liberal supporter of passing this crap should be forced to get it. What the hell are you waiting for? Even your "trying to get comfortable that it truly is less and what I might lose..." shows that even you don't believe your own parties words selling you the plan....What a joke.

Liberal ideas - Ideas so good they have to be mandatory!
Click to expand...

No, its an insurance policy. One needs to understand its particulars. I do understand that it will cost me $1200 a month less.
 
Erod said:
You mean the old system, when my copays were $20 instead of $100, and when my deductible was $500 instead of $2,000?

Yes, I miss that system, and I'm fortunate to be able to afford it. This is KILLING a lot of middle-class and poor Americans right now, who aren't taking their kids to the doctor because they don't have the $100.

Not to mention, overall rates are skyrocketing, and people can't see their doctors in many cases.

Yeah, this is just great.
Click to expand...

Of course, the one thing that is mandated under the new program is that preventive visits (annual check-ups and screenings) are free... without any co-pays.
 
upsideguy said:
Of course, the one thing that is mandated under the new program is that preventive visits (annual check-ups and screenings) are free... without any co-pays.
Click to expand...

That is not the only coverage mandated...
 
sangha said:
Correct. I'm saying those #'s, from state exchanges (not the federal one) are people who have actually enrolled in a health plan.
Click to expand...

Only 1% of the needed goal of sign ups have so far occurred...And the numbers from the state exchanges are 80% to 90% Medicaid. That's a different program.

Yes, we do but I don't think it's reasonable to assume the #'s in the first months will be the same as the #'s in the later months.
Click to expand...

The favorite go to for comparison is Medicare Part D, however by this point in Med part d had 10% signed up, whereas this failure only has 1% so far...If they don't get their target number this isn't going to work....
 
j-mac said:
Only 1% of the needed goal of sign ups have so far occurred...And the numbers from the state exchanges are 80% to 90% Medicaid. That's a different program.



The favorite go to for comparison is Medicare Part D, however by this point in Med part d had 10% signed up, whereas this failure only has 1% so far...If they don't get their target number this isn't going to work....
Click to expand...

I suggest you go to the horse races and see how many of the winning horses were in the lead out of the gate.
 
upsideguy said:
No, its an insurance policy. One needs to understand its particulars. I do understand that it will cost me $1200 a month less.
Click to expand...

You mean you don't believe it...and you shouldn't....

"(CBS News) CBS News has uncovered a serious pricing problem with HealthCare.gov. It stems from the Obama administration's efforts to improve its health care website. A new online feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of insurance.

The administration announced it would provide a new "shop and browse" feature Sunday, but it's not giving consumers the real picture. In some cases, people could end up paying double of what they see on the website, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported Wednesday on "CBS This Morning."

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark - CBS News
 
sangha said:
I suggest you go to the horse races and see how many of the winning horses were in the lead out of the gate.
Click to expand...

We'll see....Believe it or not, at this point I actually hope it doesn't fail, only because the damage to the insurance markets has been done, and that may be worse than if it works.
 
j-mac said:
We'll see....Believe it or not, at this point I actually hope it doesn't fail, only because the damage to the insurance markets has been done, and that may be worse than if it works.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that. Your actions, as well as those of many on the right, strongly indicate that you are hoping for failure, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over people's having the policies changed is just for effect.
 
sangha said:
I suggest you go to the horse races and see how many of the winning horses were in the lead out of the gate.
Click to expand...

To see what? That early speed horses win at a rate much higher than closers?

His point is valid.
 
sangha said:
I don't believe that. Your actions, as well as those of many on the right, strongly indicate that you are hoping for failure, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over people's having the policies changed is just for effect.
Click to expand...

This law was a failure when it passed. There is no hope to it.
 
sangha said:
I don't believe that. Your actions, as well as those of many on the right, strongly indicate that you are hoping for failure, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over people's having the policies changed is just for effect.
Click to expand...

Regardless, the yoke is yours to carry....We are going to make damned sure of that.
 
upsideguy said:
Of course, the one thing that is mandated under the new program is that preventive visits (annual check-ups and screenings) are free... without any co-pays.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. You have mistaken "hidden, socialized costs" for "free". You pay for those visits in the form of higher premiums - but pay for them you shall.
 
cpwill said:
That is incorrect. You have mistaken "hidden, socialized costs" for "free". You pay for those visits in the form of higher premiums - but pay for them you shall.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between the content of your post and what a barber is paid to do?
 
upsideguy said:
Do you know the difference between the content of your post and what a barber is paid to do?
Click to expand...

:roll: You claimed they were free. Objectively they are not - you pay for them. Their costs are simply hidden from you to allow for the exact deceit that you were attempting to engage in - that the preventative care was costless to the recipient.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom