.

[Spendulus]

http://youtu.be/UuA2_P-m4Sk

That's pretty powerful.  I got it worse than they did, by the way. 

So these people bought into the pack of lies and now they are going to have to pay for it.

They voted for free stuff, what they got was themselves paying for other peoples' free stuff.

And it's just starting.

Yes. Pretty sad to be an obamabot.

they'll be promised more free stuff, and they'll vote for it.

[Explodicle]

Among all Americans, the sentiment was also negative, with 50 percent holding unfavorable views of the law and 34 percent supporting it. Views on the law have not been even since the end of 2012. Despite this, just 38 percent of the public wants the law to be repealed.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/01/health-law-is-a-tough-sell-to-uninsured

I feel like the 38% to repeal vs 50% unfavorable is an interesting statistic. It implies that 12% of Americans know Obamacare isn't working correctly, but think it will be fixed in the future.

Maybe the "left" knew it would never work, but also knew that Single Payer would be politically feasible once we already had an equally socialist (but less sane) system.

I'm getting waaaay too out of touch. It's starting to shock me how OK Americans are with socialism so long as we don't call it that, and so long as it doesn't actually help poor people. We're willing to pay a high price for our pride.

[Wilikon]

Among all Americans, the sentiment was also negative, with 50 percent holding unfavorable views of the law and 34 percent supporting it. Views on the law have not been even since the end of 2012. Despite this, just 38 percent of the public wants the law to be repealed.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/01/health-law-is-a-tough-sell-to-uninsured

I feel like the 38% to repeal vs 50% unfavorable is an interesting statistic. It implies that 12% of Americans know Obamacare isn't working correctly, but think it will be fixed in the future.

Maybe the "left" knew it would never work, but also knew that Single Payer would be politically feasible once we already had an equally socialist (but less sane) system.

I'm getting waaaay too out of touch. It's starting to shock me how OK Americans are with socialism so long as we don't call it that, and so long as it doesn't actually help poor people. We're willing to pay a high price for our pride.

How would they know if the MSM is not doing its job? Their job is to protect their president, no matter what.

[MoonShadow]

they'll be promised more free stuff, and they'll vote for it.

Yes, so long as that promise appear credible.  Presumedly, that leaves open the possibility that the electorate could conclude that such promises are not credible.

History isn't kind in this aspect, however.

[Hawker]

Among all Americans, the sentiment was also negative, with 50 percent holding unfavorable views of the law and 34 percent supporting it. Views on the law have not been even since the end of 2012. Despite this, just 38 percent of the public wants the law to be repealed.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/01/health-law-is-a-tough-sell-to-uninsured

I feel like the 38% to repeal vs 50% unfavorable is an interesting statistic. It implies that 12% of Americans know Obamacare isn't working correctly, but think it will be fixed in the future.

Maybe the "left" knew it would never work, but also knew that Single Payer would be politically feasible once we already had an equally socialist (but less sane) system.

I'm getting waaaay too out of touch. It's starting to shock me how OK Americans are with socialism so long as we don't call it that, and so long as it doesn't actually help poor people. We're willing to pay a high price for our pride.

Actually the people with unfavorable views are divided between those who want single payer and the Tea Party set.  There doesn't seem to be any constituency for returning to the odd system Americans had before Obamacare.

[Spendulus]

they'll be promised more free stuff, and they'll vote for it.

Yes, so long as that promise appear credible.  Presumedly, that leaves open the possibility that the electorate could conclude that such promises are not credible.

History isn't kind in this aspect, however.

Generally speaking, you have a point.  

But Obama looks and acts very, very differently than he did in 2007-8.  

Not exactly inspiring and not exactly credible.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

"If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan"

"The average family will save $2500"

I don't know how you lie your way out of massive increases in health care costs borne by the middle class.    Probably can't, easier to just reduce them to lower class poor and be done with it.

[Wilikon]

In Washington state, some sick kids have been denied specialty care due to Obamacare, a local news outlet reports:

“Administrators at Seattle Children’s today said they predicted this would happen, and it’s even worse than they expected,” says the local news anchor. “Patients being denied specialty treatment at the hospital by insurance providers on the Washington health benefits exchange. Children’s filed request on behalf of 125 of their patients. Of those, they say they got only 20 responses, eight of which were denials. Dr. Sandy Melzer says all this comes after reassurances of certain unique specialty cases would still be covered.”

Dr. Sandy Melzer says, "Well, some of the patients who were denied are ones who clearly would fall into that unique category. A two-year-old with new significant neck mass that was being evaluated for infection or malignancy, an older child with a chronic severe medical condition requiring multidisciplinary care here, a baby that had a skull abnormality."

The anchor explains, "Children's went ahead and treated those cases anyway, but Dr. Melzer said they can't afford to keep doing that it way."

http://youtu.be/mhx_Xhh9ca8

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sick-kids-denied-specialty-care-due-obamacare-washington_776030.html

[Spendulus]

In Washington state, some sick kids have been denied specialty care due to Obamacare, a local news outlet reports:

“Administrators at Seattle Children’s today said they predicted this would happen, and it’s even worse than they expected,” says the local news anchor. “Patients being denied specialty treatment at the hospital by insurance providers on the Washington health benefits exchange. Children’s filed request on behalf of 125 of their patients. Of those, they say they got only 20 responses, eight of which were denials. Dr. Sandy Melzer says all this comes after reassurances of certain unique specialty cases would still be covered.”

Dr. Sandy Melzer says, "Well, some of the patients who were denied are ones who clearly would fall into that unique category. A two-year-old with new significant neck mass that was being evaluated for infection or malignancy, an older child with a chronic severe medical condition requiring multidisciplinary care here, a baby that had a skull abnormality."

The anchor explains, "Children's went ahead and treated those cases anyway, but Dr. Melzer said they can't afford to keep doing that it way."

http://youtu.be/mhx_Xhh9ca8

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sick-kids-denied-specialty-care-due-obamacare-washington_776030.html

What's interesting about this is not that some were denied.

Rather it is that out of 125 applications only 20 were even answered.

Trash cans - highly useful for socialized medicine.

[Wilikon]

In Washington state, some sick kids have been denied specialty care due to Obamacare, a local news outlet reports:

“Administrators at Seattle Children’s today said they predicted this would happen, and it’s even worse than they expected,” says the local news anchor. “Patients being denied specialty treatment at the hospital by insurance providers on the Washington health benefits exchange. Children’s filed request on behalf of 125 of their patients. Of those, they say they got only 20 responses, eight of which were denials. Dr. Sandy Melzer says all this comes after reassurances of certain unique specialty cases would still be covered.”

Dr. Sandy Melzer says, "Well, some of the patients who were denied are ones who clearly would fall into that unique category. A two-year-old with new significant neck mass that was being evaluated for infection or malignancy, an older child with a chronic severe medical condition requiring multidisciplinary care here, a baby that had a skull abnormality."

The anchor explains, "Children's went ahead and treated those cases anyway, but Dr. Melzer said they can't afford to keep doing that it way."

http://youtu.be/mhx_Xhh9ca8

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sick-kids-denied-specialty-care-due-obamacare-washington_776030.html

What's interesting about this is not that some were denied.

Rather it is that out of 125 applications only 20 were even answered.

Trash cans - highly useful for socialized medicine.

... A.K.A. Death Panels...

[Wilikon]

Labor leaders who have spent months lobbying unsuccessfully for special protections under the Affordable Care Act warned this week that the White House’s continued refusal to help is dampening union support for Democratic candidates in this year’s midterm elections.

Leaders of two major unions, including the first to endorse Obama in 2008, said they have been betrayed by an administration that wooed their support for the 2009 legislation with promises to later address the peculiar needs of union-negotiated insurance plans that cover millions of workers.

Their complaints reflect a broad sense of disappointment among many labor leaders, who say the Affordable Care Act has subjected union health plans to new taxes and mandates while not allowing them to share in the subsidies that have gone to private insurance companies competing on the newly created exchanges.

After dozens of frustrating meetings with White House officials over the past year, including one with Obama, a number of angry labor officials say their members are far less likely to campaign and turn out for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections.

“We want to hold the president to his word: If you like your health-care coverage, you can keep it, and that just hasn’t been the case,” said Donald “D.” Taylor, president of Unite Here, the union that represents about 400,000 hotel and restaurant workers and provided a crucial boost to Obama by endorsing him just after his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton had won the New Hampshire primary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/labor-union-officials-say-obama-betrayed-them-in-health-care-rollout/2014/01/31/2cda6afc-8789-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html

[farlack]

KHN says, presumably without irony, that the reason for the sudden shift is unclear:

Uninsured Americans — the people that the Affordable Care Act was designed to most aid — are increasingly critical of the law as its key provisions kick in, a poll released Thursday finds.

This month’s tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 47 percent of the uninsured said they hold unfavorable views of the law while 24 percent said they liked it. These negative views have increased since December, when 43 percent of the uninsured panned the law and 36 percent liked it. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation.)

The poll did not pinpoint clear reasons for this drop, which comes in the first month that people could start using insurance purchased through the online marketplaces that are at the heart of the law. It did point out that more than half of people without insurance said the law hasn’t made a difference to them or their families. In addition, the pollsters noted that almost half of people without coverage were unaware the law includes subsidies to offset premium costs for people of low and moderate incomes.

Among all Americans, the sentiment was also negative, with 50 percent holding unfavorable views of the law and 34 percent supporting it. Views on the law have not been even since the end of 2012. Despite this, just 38 percent of the public wants the law to be repealed.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/01/health-law-is-a-tough-sell-to-uninsured

This tells me 47% didn't even look it up, a household of 7 making a total of $50,000 a year will pay $900 a year total for a silver insurance plan.

[Spendulus]

KHN says, presumably without irony, that the reason for the sudden shift is unclear:

Uninsured Americans — the people that the Affordable Care Act was designed to most aid — are increasingly critical of the law as its key provisions kick in, a poll released Thursday finds.

This month’s tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 47 percent of the uninsured said they hold unfavorable views of the law while 24 percent said they liked it. These negative views have increased since December, when 43 percent of the uninsured panned the law and 36 percent liked it. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation.)

The poll did not pinpoint clear reasons for this drop, which comes in the first month that people could start using insurance purchased through the online marketplaces that are at the heart of the law. It did point out that more than half of people without insurance said the law hasn’t made a difference to them or their families. In addition, the pollsters noted that almost half of people without coverage were unaware the law includes subsidies to offset premium costs for people of low and moderate incomes.

Among all Americans, the sentiment was also negative, with 50 percent holding unfavorable views of the law and 34 percent supporting it. Views on the law have not been even since the end of 2012. Despite this, just 38 percent of the public wants the law to be repealed.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/01/health-law-is-a-tough-sell-to-uninsured

This tells me 47% didn't even look it up, a household of 7 making a total of $50,000 a year will pay $900 a year total for a silver insurance plan.

But if you don't insure, and just pay the penalty, there's no deductible.

[farlack]

KHN says, presumably without irony, that the reason for the sudden shift is unclear:

Uninsured Americans — the people that the Affordable Care Act was designed to most aid — are increasingly critical of the law as its key provisions kick in, a poll released Thursday finds.

This month’s tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 47 percent of the uninsured said they hold unfavorable views of the law while 24 percent said they liked it. These negative views have increased since December, when 43 percent of the uninsured panned the law and 36 percent liked it. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation.)

The poll did not pinpoint clear reasons for this drop, which comes in the first month that people could start using insurance purchased through the online marketplaces that are at the heart of the law. It did point out that more than half of people without insurance said the law hasn’t made a difference to them or their families. In addition, the pollsters noted that almost half of people without coverage were unaware the law includes subsidies to offset premium costs for people of low and moderate incomes.

Among all Americans, the sentiment was also negative, with 50 percent holding unfavorable views of the law and 34 percent supporting it. Views on the law have not been even since the end of 2012. Despite this, just 38 percent of the public wants the law to be repealed.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2014/01/health-law-is-a-tough-sell-to-uninsured

This tells me 47% didn't even look it up, a household of 7 making a total of $50,000 a year will pay $900 a year total for a silver insurance plan.

But if you don't insure, and just pay the penalty, there's no deductible.

Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.

2014 = $95 per person per year or 1% of your Income
2015 = $325 per person per year or 2% of your Income
2016 = $695 per person per year or 2.5% of your Income
2017 = Tax Penalty will increase by the rate of inflation going forward, or 2.5% of your Income

• The penalty is based on modified adjusted gross income.

• The total penalty for the taxable year cannot exceed the national average of the annual premiums of a bronze-level health insurance plan offered through the health insurance marketplaces.

• The maximum penalty per family is capped at no more than 300% of the minimum penalty (e.g. $695 x 300% = $2,085)


Why not just pay the small amount it takes to get insurance? It will be cheaper to have it, than to pay the tax. You pay a small % and the government pays the rest..

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

[MoonShadow]

Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.
<snip>

Why not just pay the small amount it takes to get insurance? It will be cheaper to have it, than to pay the tax. You pay a small % and the government pays the rest..

You answered your own question right out of the gate.  The vast majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they don't have reliable employment to produce such a taxable income.  That is not to say that most of these people don't actually have an income, just not a taxable one.  It's actually not very difficult for a young, single person to make a good living if they don't have a problem with the kind of work that doesn't tend to produce a W2 form with your own name on it.  That kind of work also makes it easier to qualify for government aid at the same time, but to a 20 something hustler with no known medical issues, paying any kind of premium has always been a non-starter.  That's why they didn't bother before.

[Wilikon]

Tens of thousands of people who discovered that HealthCare.gov made mistakes as they were signing up for a health plan are confronting a new roadblock: The government cannot yet fix the errors.

Roughly 22,000 Americans have filed appeals with the government to try to get mistakes corrected, according to internal government data obtained by The Washington Post. They contend that the computer system for the new federal online marketplace charged them too much for health insurance, steered them into the wrong insurance program or denied them coverage entirely.

For now, the appeals are sitting, untouched, inside a government computer. And an unknown number of consumers who are trying to get help through less formal means — by calling the health-care marketplace directly — are told that HealthCare.gov’s computer system is not yet allowing federal workers to go into enrollment records and change them, according to individuals inside and outside the government who are familiar with the situation.

“It is definitely frustrating and not fair,” said Addie Wilson, 27, who lives in Fairmont, W.Va., and earns $22,000 a year working with at-risk families. She said that she is paying $100 a month more than she should for her insurance and that her deductible is $4,000 too high.

When Wilson logged on to HealthCare.gov in late December, she needed coverage right away. Her old insurance was ending, and she was to have gallbladder surgery in January. But the Web site would not calculate the federal subsidy to which she knew she was entitled. Terrified to go without coverage, Wilson phoned a federal call center and took the advice she was given: Pay the full price now and appeal later.

Now she is stuck.

“I hope,” she said, “they really work on getting this fixed.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthcaregov-cant-handle-appeals-of-enrollment-errors/2014/02/02/bbf5280c-89e2-11e3-916e-e01534b1e132_story.html

[farlack]

Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.
<snip>

Why not just pay the small amount it takes to get insurance? It will be cheaper to have it, than to pay the tax. You pay a small % and the government pays the rest..

You answered your own question right out of the gate.  The vast majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they don't have reliable employment to produce such a taxable income.  That is not to say that most of these people don't actually have an income, just not a taxable one.  It's actually not very difficult for a young, single person to make a good living if they don't have a problem with the kind of work that doesn't tend to produce a W2 form with your own name on it.  That kind of work also makes it easier to qualify for government aid at the same time, but to a 20 something hustler with no known medical issues, paying any kind of premium has always been a non-starter.  That's why they didn't bother before.

You're just making shit up, the vast majority?? I don't have insurance and way above the FPL level.. No one was talking about the FPL level.. What you quoted was talking about the fee that comes along when you don't get insurance.. not being to poor to get it and not getting a fine.

[Spendulus]

Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.
<snip>

Why not just pay the small amount it takes to get insurance? It will be cheaper to have it, than to pay the tax. You pay a small % and the government pays the rest..

You answered your own question right out of the gate.  The vast majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they don't have reliable employment to produce such a taxable income.  That is not to say that most of these people don't actually have an income, just not a taxable one.  It's actually not very difficult for a young, single person to make a good living if they don't have a problem with the kind of work that doesn't tend to produce a W2 form with your own name on it.  That kind of work also makes it easier to qualify for government aid at the same time, but to a 20 something hustler with no known medical issues, paying any kind of premium has always been a non-starter.  That's why they didn't bother before.

You're just making shit up, the vast majority?? I don't have insurance and way above the FPL level.. No one was talking about the FPL level.. What you quoted was talking about the fee that comes along when you don't get insurance.. not being to poor to get it and not getting a fine.

For sure, the only rational discussion would be based on the individual self-optimizing for his own economic welfare and that of his family.

But my earlier comment pretty much stands:  Who would buy insurance with a ridiculous deductible, when alternately they could pay the penalty (let's not call it a "fee" or a "shared responsibility fee", PLEASE no sugar coating shit here) ...

and have no deductible?

[MoonShadow]

Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.
<snip>

Why not just pay the small amount it takes to get insurance? It will be cheaper to have it, than to pay the tax. You pay a small % and the government pays the rest..

You answered your own question right out of the gate.  The vast majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they don't have reliable employment to produce such a taxable income.  That is not to say that most of these people don't actually have an income, just not a taxable one.  It's actually not very difficult for a young, single person to make a good living if they don't have a problem with the kind of work that doesn't tend to produce a W2 form with your own name on it.  That kind of work also makes it easier to qualify for government aid at the same time, but to a 20 something hustler with no known medical issues, paying any kind of premium has always been a non-starter.  That's why they didn't bother before.

You're just making shit up, the vast majority?? I don't have insurance and way above the FPL level.. No one was talking about the FPL level.. What you quoted was talking about the fee that comes along when you don't get insurance.. not being to poor to get it and not getting a fine.

For sure, the only rational discussion would be based on the individual self-optimizing for his own economic welfare and that of his family.

But my earlier comment pretty much stands:  Who would buy insurance with a ridiculous deductible, when alternately they could pay the penalty (let's not call it a "fee" or a "shared responsibility fee", PLEASE no sugar coating shit here) ...

and have no deductible?

My point was that the fee was meaningless to those for whom the law was targeted to attract; namely the young, healty and uninsured that are needed to pay premiums to subsidize the older and less helathy with pre-existing conditions.  The young and healty are the majority of the uninsured Americans that this bill was aimed at, that much is fact.  But if you were young, healthy and officially unemployed (but had an unofficial form of income) what value would you see in paying any premium at all, if you didn't see such value before this, and the law specificly exempts you from the penalty because you don't pay taxes?  You could argue that such officially unemployed young with non-taxable incomes is the minority, but the statisics on System D economies says otherwise.

[farlack]

Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.
<snip>

Why not just pay the small amount it takes to get insurance? It will be cheaper to have it, than to pay the tax. You pay a small % and the government pays the rest..

You answered your own question right out of the gate.  The vast majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they don't have reliable employment to produce such a taxable income.  That is not to say that most of these people don't actually have an income, just not a taxable one.  It's actually not very difficult for a young, single person to make a good living if they don't have a problem with the kind of work that doesn't tend to produce a W2 form with your own name on it.  That kind of work also makes it easier to qualify for government aid at the same time, but to a 20 something hustler with no known medical issues, paying any kind of premium has always been a non-starter.  That's why they didn't bother before.

You're just making shit up, the vast majority?? I don't have insurance and way above the FPL level.. No one was talking about the FPL level.. What you quoted was talking about the fee that comes along when you don't get insurance.. not being to poor to get it and not getting a fine.

For sure, the only rational discussion would be based on the individual self-optimizing for his own economic welfare and that of his family.

But my earlier comment pretty much stands:  Who would buy insurance with a ridiculous deductible, when alternately they could pay the penalty (let's not call it a "fee" or a "shared responsibility fee", PLEASE no sugar coating shit here) ...

and have no deductible?

When you use insurance you use oped in services, IE when you get a CT scan it can cost you out of pocket $3000-$3500 depending where you live with your insurance card it can be $600-$800. After your deductible is met that's (depending on your plan..) $60-$120.

The point of buying insurance is so you can have your medical bills taken care of... Paying the penalty doesn't pay for your $20,000 baby, or your new found cancer.. A friend of mine broke his hand pretty bad, excellent treatment for it.. $40,000.. Out of pocket... Almost nothing. Obamacare at its finest, oh and they signed up after it was broken, insurance still had to pay for it.

[Spendulus]

.....if you were young, healthy and officially unemployed (but had an unofficial form of income) what value would you see in paying any premium at all, if you didn't see such value before this, and the law specificly exempts you from the penalty because you don't pay taxes?  You could argue that such officially unemployed young with non-taxable incomes is the minority, but the statisics on System D economies says otherwise.

Well, the large numbers of illegal Mexicans around where I live are not going to change their behavior.  they are going to continue to go in for free health care.  They are not converting from cash basis under the radar life to above board paychecks with FICA and income tax with held, and they are not going to sign up through a website which pulls them into "the system".  The system would of course like to have more people funding it. 

It is a very, very hungry system.