What am I missing?

[william the wie]

I have a thread in the clean debate zone whose thesis is that the ACA has become a tarbaby. That I agree with, at this point blaming a meteor strike on the ACA would probably gain some measurable level of traction among voters. But not all economic bad news even about healthcare is necessarily connected to ACA. Reforming, replacing or repealing ACA will not address problems that have little or nothing to do with the ACA. So here are some of the problems that can be properly attributed to ACA:

Gaining the bad effects of a European labor market by ACA running up labor expenses at the margin:

Slow hiring and fast firing is becoming more profitable.

Fewer people will buy insurance because of reduced wages.

Adverse selection:

The current sticker shock problem will get worse on or about May 15 the normative date for applying for premium increases from state insurance commissioners. (States can and probably do vary on such dating but that is the date I got from Antares an insurance broker who posts on this board.)

Incentives for only the sickest and poorest to use exchange insurance:

Only exchange policies can offer medicaid subsidies.

The exchange approved formularies do not necessarily offer reimbursement for the maintenance drugs required by those with pre-existing conditions.

Federal Medicaid subsidies are a lien against the estate of the insured. State medicaid payments can be and sometimes are treated as a non-recourse loan.

Many areas of the country have one or no exchange insurance options making non-exchange carriers highly attractive.

1) Did I miss any legit problems with ACA?

The old insurance system is gone and it will not magically reappear.

When the China driven real estate bubble pops it will have effects in the US. This is not being caused by the ACA.

The collapse of emerging market currencies is not being caused by the ACA.

The EU's growing problems such as its utility companies increasingly being rated as speculative are not related to the ACA.

2) are there other economic problems unrelated to the ACA whose effects will be attributed to the ACA as 2 of the above 3 already have?

 

[Rshermr]

I have a thread in the clean debate zone whose thesis is that the ACA has become a tarbaby. That I agree with, at this point blaming a meteor strike on the ACA would probably gain some measurable level of traction among voters. But not all economic bad news even about healthcare is necessarily connected to ACA. Reforming, replacing or repealing ACA will not address problems that have little or nothing to do with the ACA. So here are some of the problems that can be properly attributed to ACA:

Gaining the bad effects of a European labor market by ACA running up labor expenses at the margin:

Slow hiring and fast firing is becoming more profitable.

Fewer people will buy insurance because of reduced wages.

Adverse selection:

The current sticker shock problem will get worse on or about May 15 the normative date for applying for premium increases from state insurance commissioners. (States can and probably do vary on such dating but that is the date I got from Antares an insurance broker who posts on this board.)

Incentives for only the sickest and poorest to use exchange insurance:

Only exchange policies can offer medicaid subsidies.

The exchange approved formularies do not necessarily offer reimbursement for the maintenance drugs required by those with pre-existing conditions.

Federal Medicaid subsidies are a lien against the estate of the insured. State medicaid payments can be and sometimes are treated as a non-recourse loan.

Many areas of the country have one or no exchange insurance options making non-exchange carriers highly attractive.

1) Did I miss any legit problems with ACA?

The old insurance system is gone and it will not magically reappear.

When the China driven real estate bubble pops it will have effects in the US. This is not being caused by the ACA.

The collapse of emerging market currencies is not being caused by the ACA.

The EU's growing problems such as its utility companies increasingly being rated as speculative are not related to the ACA.

2) are there other economic problems unrelated to the ACA whose effects will be attributed to the ACA as 2 of the above 3 already have?

Hmmmm. What ARE you missing. You create threads that are always based on bat shit crazy con web sites. Then forget to credit them. Which makes you prejudiced and dishonest.
So, what ARE you missing. Why, a brain, of course. Come up with a more difficult question next time.

 

[HenryBHough]

"Tarbaby" is racist.

Apologize.

 

[f252863]

I have a thread in the clean debate zone whose thesis is that the ACA has become a tarbaby. That I agree with, at this point blaming a meteor strike on the ACA would probably gain some measurable level of traction among voters. But not all economic bad news even about healthcare is necessarily connected to ACA. Reforming, replacing or repealing ACA will not address problems that have little or nothing to do with the ACA. So here are some of the problems that can be properly attributed to ACA:

Gaining the bad effects of a European labor market by ACA running up labor expenses at the margin:

Slow hiring and fast firing is becoming more profitable.

Fewer people will buy insurance because of reduced wages.

Adverse selection:

The current sticker shock problem will get worse on or about May 15 the normative date for applying for premium increases from state insurance commissioners. (States can and probably do vary on such dating but that is the date I got from Antares an insurance broker who posts on this board.)

Incentives for only the sickest and poorest to use exchange insurance:

Only exchange policies can offer medicaid subsidies.

The exchange approved formularies do not necessarily offer reimbursement for the maintenance drugs required by those with pre-existing conditions.

Federal Medicaid subsidies are a lien against the estate of the insured. State medicaid payments can be and sometimes are treated as a non-recourse loan.

Many areas of the country have one or no exchange insurance options making non-exchange carriers highly attractive.

1) Did I miss any legit problems with ACA?

The old insurance system is gone and it will not magically reappear.

When the China driven real estate bubble pops it will have effects in the US. This is not being caused by the ACA.

The collapse of emerging market currencies is not being caused by the ACA.

The EU's growing problems such as its utility companies increasingly being rated as speculative are not related to the ACA.

2) are there other economic problems unrelated to the ACA whose effects will be attributed to the ACA as 2 of the above 3 already have?

Lower reimbursement rates leading to a shortage of quality doctors for treatment.

 

[william the wie]

Very good point think you.

 

[Rshermr]

I have a thread in the clean debate zone whose thesis is that the ACA has become a tarbaby. That I agree with, at this point blaming a meteor strike on the ACA would probably gain some measurable level of traction among voters. But not all economic bad news even about healthcare is necessarily connected to ACA. Reforming, replacing or repealing ACA will not address problems that have little or nothing to do with the ACA. So here are some of the problems that can be properly attributed to ACA:

Gaining the bad effects of a European labor market by ACA running up labor expenses at the margin:

Slow hiring and fast firing is becoming more profitable.

Fewer people will buy insurance because of reduced wages.

Adverse selection:

The current sticker shock problem will get worse on or about May 15 the normative date for applying for premium increases from state insurance commissioners. (States can and probably do vary on such dating but that is the date I got from Antares an insurance broker who posts on this board.)

Incentives for only the sickest and poorest to use exchange insurance:

Only exchange policies can offer medicaid subsidies.

The exchange approved formularies do not necessarily offer reimbursement for the maintenance drugs required by those with pre-existing conditions.

Federal Medicaid subsidies are a lien against the estate of the insured. State medicaid payments can be and sometimes are treated as a non-recourse loan.

Many areas of the country have one or no exchange insurance options making non-exchange carriers highly attractive.

1) Did I miss any legit problems with ACA?

The old insurance system is gone and it will not magically reappear.

When the China driven real estate bubble pops it will have effects in the US. This is not being caused by the ACA.

The collapse of emerging market currencies is not being caused by the ACA.

The EU's growing problems such as its utility companies increasingly being rated as speculative are not related to the ACA.

2) are there other economic problems unrelated to the ACA whose effects will be attributed to the ACA as 2 of the above 3 already have?

And the cons get more and more desperate as the enrollment increases and as people like the product. And then they copy and paste like crazy, and the mainstream economists begin to run like crazy from the tea baggers. Who simply want to destroy the ACA, and who are swimming upstream as the current gets stronger and stronger. As even the mainstream repubs now know, the battle is lost. And the tea baggers have lost. And they get more and more desperate.

 

[Pepe]

I have a thread in the clean debate zone whose thesis is that the ACA has become a tarbaby. That I agree with, at this point blaming a meteor strike on the ACA would probably gain some measurable level of traction among voters. But not all economic bad news even about healthcare is necessarily connected to ACA. Reforming, replacing or repealing ACA will not address problems that have little or nothing to do with the ACA. So here are some of the problems that can be properly attributed to ACA:

Gaining the bad effects of a European labor market by ACA running up labor expenses at the margin:

Slow hiring and fast firing is becoming more profitable.

Fewer people will buy insurance because of reduced wages.

Adverse selection:

The current sticker shock problem will get worse on or about May 15 the normative date for applying for premium increases from state insurance commissioners. (States can and probably do vary on such dating but that is the date I got from Antares an insurance broker who posts on this board.)

Incentives for only the sickest and poorest to use exchange insurance:

Only exchange policies can offer medicaid subsidies.

The exchange approved formularies do not necessarily offer reimbursement for the maintenance drugs required by those with pre-existing conditions.

Federal Medicaid subsidies are a lien against the estate of the insured. State medicaid payments can be and sometimes are treated as a non-recourse loan.

Many areas of the country have one or no exchange insurance options making non-exchange carriers highly attractive.

1) Did I miss any legit problems with ACA?

The old insurance system is gone and it will not magically reappear.

When the China driven real estate bubble pops it will have effects in the US. This is not being caused by the ACA.

The collapse of emerging market currencies is not being caused by the ACA.

The EU's growing problems such as its utility companies increasingly being rated as speculative are not related to the ACA.

2) are there other economic problems unrelated to the ACA whose effects will be attributed to the ACA as 2 of the above 3 already have?

And the cons get more and more desperate as the enrollment increases and as people like the product. And then they copy and paste like crazy, and the mainstream economists begin to run like crazy from the tea baggers. Who simply want to destroy the ACA, and who are swimming upstream as the current gets stronger and stronger. As even the mainstream repubs now know, the battle is lost. And the tea baggers have lost. And they get more and more desperate.

I disagree.

I believe WTW and others have the correct analysis of the ACA, AKA ObamaCare.

This Law is clearly unsustainable over both the short term, 1-5 years and the long term. 6-10 years.

Whether the Law is good or bad is immaterial.

There is simply no possible way to sustain payment.

ObamaCare has already begun to effect the Dems in the runup to 2014 and will most certainly effect 2016 .

Your "Tea Baggers" support fiduciary responsibility.

I fail to see an argument against that point.

 

[william the wie]

What will encourage the left is that both the states and the house in congress are extremely poor target environments so 9+ net pickup in the Senate is about the only attainable goal in 2014.

 

[Rshermr]

I have a thread in the clean debate zone whose thesis is that the ACA has become a tarbaby. That I agree with, at this point blaming a meteor strike on the ACA would probably gain some measurable level of traction among voters. But not all economic bad news even about healthcare is necessarily connected to ACA. Reforming, replacing or repealing ACA will not address problems that have little or nothing to do with the ACA. So here are some of the problems that can be properly attributed to ACA:

Gaining the bad effects of a European labor market by ACA running up labor expenses at the margin:

Slow hiring and fast firing is becoming more profitable.

Fewer people will buy insurance because of reduced wages.

Adverse selection:

The current sticker shock problem will get worse on or about May 15 the normative date for applying for premium increases from state insurance commissioners. (States can and probably do vary on such dating but that is the date I got from Antares an insurance broker who posts on this board.)

Incentives for only the sickest and poorest to use exchange insurance:

Only exchange policies can offer medicaid subsidies.

The exchange approved formularies do not necessarily offer reimbursement for the maintenance drugs required by those with pre-existing conditions.

Federal Medicaid subsidies are a lien against the estate of the insured. State medicaid payments can be and sometimes are treated as a non-recourse loan.

Many areas of the country have one or no exchange insurance options making non-exchange carriers highly attractive.

1) Did I miss any legit problems with ACA?

The old insurance system is gone and it will not magically reappear.

When the China driven real estate bubble pops it will have effects in the US. This is not being caused by the ACA.

The collapse of emerging market currencies is not being caused by the ACA.

The EU's growing problems such as its utility companies increasingly being rated as speculative are not related to the ACA.

2) are there other economic problems unrelated to the ACA whose effects will be attributed to the ACA as 2 of the above 3 already have?

And the cons get more and more desperate as the enrollment increases and as people like the product. And then they copy and paste like crazy, and the mainstream economists begin to run like crazy from the tea baggers. Who simply want to destroy the ACA, and who are swimming upstream as the current gets stronger and stronger. As even the mainstream repubs now know, the battle is lost. And the tea baggers have lost. And they get more and more desperate.

I disagree.

I believe WTW and others have the correct analysis of the ACA, AKA ObamaCare.

This Law is clearly unsustainable over both the short term, 1-5 years and the long term. 6-10 years.

Whether the Law is good or bad is immaterial.

There is simply no possible way to sustain payment.

ObamaCare has already begun to effect the Dems in the runup to 2014 and will most certainly effect 2016 .

Your "Tea Baggers" support fiduciary responsibility.

I fail to see an argument against that point.

Good for you. You support tea baggers. Problem is we have elections. And the tea baggers are looked at more and more as congenital idiots. Or, more correctly, as in the pockets of the rich.
So, I know you want to go back to the highest per capita cost for health care of any nation in the world, with average results. Because, well, you love the fact that the insurance companies are free to raise their rates as they want. Good for you. Most of us, happily, feel that there has to be a better way. And the aca, with all it's warts provides a platform to get to where the rest of the world is. Lower cost for healthcare.

Your analysis is simply a list of drivel from the attacks on the aca by bat shit crazy con sites. Waste of time. We will see over time. But for the most part, the experts disagree with you.

 

[Pepe]

And the cons get more and more desperate as the enrollment increases and as people like the product. And then they copy and paste like crazy, and the mainstream economists begin to run like crazy from the tea baggers. Who simply want to destroy the ACA, and who are swimming upstream as the current gets stronger and stronger. As even the mainstream repubs now know, the battle is lost. And the tea baggers have lost. And they get more and more desperate.

I disagree.

I believe WTW and others have the correct analysis of the ACA, AKA ObamaCare.

This Law is clearly unsustainable over both the short term, 1-5 years and the long term. 6-10 years.

Whether the Law is good or bad is immaterial.

There is simply no possible way to sustain payment.

ObamaCare has already begun to effect the Dems in the runup to 2014 and will most certainly effect 2016 .

Your "Tea Baggers" support fiduciary responsibility.

I fail to see an argument against that point.

Good for you. You support tea baggers. Problem is we have elections. And the tea baggers are looked at more and more as congenital idiots. Or, more correctly, as in the pockets of the rich.
So, I know you want to go back to the highest per capita cost for health care of any nation in the world, with average results. Because, well, you love the fact that the insurance companies are free to raise their rates as they want. Good for you. Most of us, happily, feel that there has to be a better way. And the aca, with all it's warts provides a platform to get to where the rest of the world is. Lower cost for healthcare.

Your analysis is simply a list of drivel from the attacks on the aca by bat shit crazy con sites. Waste of time. We will see over time. But for the most part, the experts disagree with you.

I did not know that you had all my political positions well known before I ever posted.

You are undoubtedly a clone of Mr Spock.

I do support Fiscal Sanity.

I do NOT support Empire and that includes Wars of Choice, Nation Building and supporting the Military Industrial Complex.

I do NOT support the Welfare State. It has failed at every attempt. Venezuela is currently the last of many that have tried.

I do NOT support the Patriot Act, originally authored by Joe Biden.

Your public denigration of your philosophical enemies will win you no friends.

 

[Rshermr]

I disagree.

I believe WTW and others have the correct analysis of the ACA, AKA ObamaCare.

This Law is clearly unsustainable over both the short term, 1-5 years and the long term. 6-10 years.

Whether the Law is good or bad is immaterial.

There is simply no possible way to sustain payment.

ObamaCare has already begun to effect the Dems in the runup to 2014 and will most certainly effect 2016 .

Your "Tea Baggers" support fiduciary responsibility.

I fail to see an argument against that point.

Good for you. You support tea baggers. Problem is we have elections. And the tea baggers are looked at more and more as congenital idiots. Or, more correctly, as in the pockets of the rich.
So, I know you want to go back to the highest per capita cost for health care of any nation in the world, with average results. Because, well, you love the fact that the insurance companies are free to raise their rates as they want. Good for you. Most of us, happily, feel that there has to be a better way. And the aca, with all it's warts provides a platform to get to where the rest of the world is. Lower cost for healthcare.

Your analysis is simply a list of drivel from the attacks on the aca by bat shit crazy con sites. Waste of time. We will see over time. But for the most part, the experts disagree with you.

I did not know that you had all my political positions well known before I ever posted.

You are undoubtedly a clone of Mr Spock.

I do support Fiscal Sanity.

I do NOT support Empire and that includes Wars of Choice, Nation Building and supporting the Military Industrial Complex.

I do NOT support the Welfare State. It has failed at every attempt. Venezuela is currently the last of many that have tried.

I do NOT support the Patriot Act, originally authored by Joe Biden.

Your public denigration of your philosophical enemies will win you no friends.

I commented on your statement of the ACA. Hardly mental magic, me boy.
It is great to see what you suppport and do not. Maybe I should make a list of what I support and do not. Nah, no one cares. Do you think we care what you support or do not?? If so, you are delusional.

But you tend to show your colors when you make statements that the Patriot Act was originally authored by biden. You are, of course, talking about the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 . Which he did not author, but was a co-sponsor of. Along with 7 other congressmen. I mean, really, it makes it difficult to determine if you are lying or ignorant.

Try google. You will find easily from numerous sources that Jim Sensenbrenner is given credit for having authored the bill. By lots and lots of well known and generally respected sources. And by Sensenbrenner himself.