End of Obamacare?

http://nypost.com/2014/02/05/congressional-budget-office-sends-death-blow-to-obamacare/

 

Reasonable minded people already knew this, but it's handy to have the CBO backing up their arguments.

 

Wow, from the CBO too. Supposedly, that's about as unbiased a study as one is going to get.

 

Agree or not....that article was written with a slant.

 

Article, yes. Study, no.

 

Did you read the study cover to cover? If not then you don't know what actually was in that study as the story was reported with a slant.

 

Ok .
The article slants towards truth.

Better?

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf

 

OK, so why aren't such studies done BEFORE the law goes into effect? I get it, they write a bill, they "have to pass it to see what's in it", then it becomes law. Why can't they fast track studies like this before the damn thing takes effect, and the whole world gets turned upside down?

Employers that have cut off healthcare now and started cutting hours on people aren't going to go back to the old way of doing things because of this. At least not immediately. And you can bet that insurance premiums aren't going back down to pre-Obamascare levels. So we get the worst of both worlds. Premiums went up, employers tightened their purse strings AND the "benefits" of the law might not even take effect. Ever.

nice work.

 

That piece of shit is here to stay. You guys are delusional or naive to think that just because we can't pay that it means it will be repealed. As for the negative consequences, who gives a shit? It was never about reforming healthcare. The intent was to create conditions wherein the Federal government can take over the industry.

 

CBO Reports on the Affordable Care Act from 2009 to present

 

"reasonable-minded" as in "agree with you?"

Is it possible for you to believe that a person who disagrees with you, who draws different conclusions from the evidence and testimony might ALSO be a "reasonable-minded person?"

It's not hard. The evidence proffered is doctored to support a pre-determined position, and any possible evidence that may contradict that position is carefully massaged and marginalized. The testimony can be interpreted differently, depending pieces of information are presented credibly, and which stink of manipulation.

We had the option to keep our old plan. Then we shopped and found a much better deal, as the wife is going onto Medicare next month. Our out-of pocket premium costs have dropped from $1466/month to around $855/mo. Coverage is a lot better, lower deductible and great Rx plan.

The projections of how many will be uninsured, and how many jobs will be lost are pipe-dreams. Job creation is not driven by insurance regulations, it is driven by demand for products and services, in a healthy economy. There are far too many factors for the CBO to get that crystal-ball-gazing thing focused enough to be of any use whatsoever. Just go back to prior year reports, do the homework and see how ludicrously-far-out their projections and predictions have been. The entire CBO exists to blow sunshine up the asses of the American people, and to influence the general election.

I guess I could get a prestigious-sounding title writing flack sories liek this, but i'd spew on my shoes every time.

 

Nice glasses.

Let's take these paragraphs.

Was Obama's statement including or excluding "non-elderly"? What is the percentage of non-elderly today versus the percentage in 2024 that don't have health insurance?


Once you start to leave out the apples to apples comparisons and the reader has to make assumptions to have the article go the way they want it to...it has a slant and know whatever it says can not be trusted.

So the towards the truth? If that is what you want to see...sure. I like to see the real truth...the article is flawed and not worth making an opinion from.

 

The article fails to post the footnote about the 31 million people who are not insured on page #114 of the CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf)

"C. The number of uninsured people includes unauthorized immigrants as well as people who are eligible for, but not enrolled in, Medicaid. "

 

Unauthorized immigrants..... Can we just shoot the people who write this pap?

 

Who knew the CBO was racist?

 

Haha. It's an even more retarded phrase than "undocumented immigrant". It's like they wanted to highlight that they aren't here legal but couldn't muster the sack just to say "illegal aliens". Every time I hear "undocumented", I think "did they forget their paperwork at home?"


Let's shoot them all, no one will miss a bunch of propaganda generating government employee accountants that work in a basement.

 

1.) No, not as in agree with me. As in anyone with any sense in finance.
2.) Of course they could be, but not when they're incorrect.
3.) So which one are you claiming the CBO is: a. biased toward republicans or b. too stupid to figure out how to get accurate data or c. can't read the law?
4.) I'm glad you found better rates, you are the 1%.
5.) You don't think that if a company's expenses go up that they aren't going to adjust the volume of employees and tighten the belt? That's considered a pipe dream? I'd argue that's basic financial sense.

 

Actually no. The CBO HAS to use the parameters provided. Thus garbage in garbage out, if allowed they do good work but don't take their output at face value. The original balancing of Obamacare is a nice example. They evaluated the years specified as they had to despite the obvious gaming of the calculation by front loading some taxes (not even mentioned in their report)

 

Well you can not call people who break the immigration laws of the country illegal aliens any more. That would be hurtful!

We should start using that terminology more. Instead of DWI we can call it unauthorized driving...

Everyone has to stop and remember that Obamacare is not the end game. I believe that Obamacare was designed to fuck things up so bad that single payer would look more appealing. Single payer is what they eventually want.