Jump to content
AndyB AndyB (New Member) New Member

The failure of Obamacare

Politics   (6,912 Views 125 Comments)
5,872 Visitors; 960 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 3 of The failure of Obamacare. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Me, I think Obama was naïve; it didn't help that the bill cobbled together to keep the private insurers in the game was complex and confusing. Was Bush naïve, too? It's hard to compare changing the whole healthcare system to give access to as many people as possible to starting a war of aggression. I personally think W was never anything more than a front-man for the neocon zealots actually running the show, and he was not the sharpest tool in the shed; it was easy to pull the wool over his eyes. The trouble is, the President is the one to decide when and where our men and women in uniform get sent to fight and die; I would like to think the President would be more careful and ask some hard questions before swallowing whatever was tossed his way hook, line, and sinker.

Which is why I'll be voting for the stiff, bland, "scandal"-ridden woman who can't give a prepared speech to save her life instead of the walking noise machine with a room-temperature IQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds like you are putting Obama in with the "naive" crowd that the other poster spoke of.

I'm curious, was Bush lying or mistaken when it came to getting us into the Iraq War?

The difference is that Shrub and the neocon chickenhawks in his administration chose to ignore readily available information because it conflicted with what they wanted to do. Obama was speculating about unknown future circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is that Shrub and the neocon chickenhawks in his administration chose to ignore readily available information because it conflicted with what they wanted to do. Obama was speculating about unknown future circumstances.

I suspect that Obama also gave insurance companies more credit than they deserved.

He was perhaps a bit naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:roflmao:

The difference is that Shrub and the neocon chickenhawks in his administration chose to ignore readily available information because it conflicted with what they wanted to do. Obama was speculating about unknown future circumstances.

Oh my god, you called him Shrub! I thought I was the only one who did that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:roflmao:

Oh my god, you called him Shrub! I thought I was the only one who did that!

I first heard him called Shrub by the late, great Molly Ivins. She co-wrote a book by that title. An interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I first heard him called Shrub by the late, great Molly Ivins. She co-wrote a book by that title. An interesting read.

Yes, she's where I got it from. "Shrub" as in "little bush."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, I merely saying he was mistaken and somehow couldn't predict insurance companies immediately dropping clients. He has no crystal ball and he was wrong. Some predicted it but he went ahead with it anyway.

.

The insurance companies had to drop policies that didn't meet the requirements of the new law. With all the changes, nearly all plans were out of compliance. It wasn't hard to predict. However, I do think President Obama thought he was telling the truth when he said if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

What was hard to predict is the cost of the new plans. Profit limits in the law means the premium increases we see now are to cover healthcare, not CEO wages generous as they are. Several companies have withdrawn from the exchanges due to hundreds of millions in losses. I don't think they lost that money on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The insurance companies had to drop policies that didn't meet the requirements of the new law. With all the changes, nearly all plans were out of compliance. It wasn't hard to predict. However, I do think President Obama thought he was telling the truth when he said if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

What was hard to predict is the cost of the new plans. Profit limits in the law means the premium increases we see now are to cover healthcare, not CEO wages generous as they are. Several companies have withdrawn from the exchanges due to hundreds of millions in losses. I don't think they lost that money on purpose.

Fair enough. Apparently only about 1/3 of policies are profitable to them and being driven by profit it makes sense they would get out. Aetna that got out of it because of loss still retains an A rating for investors and a huge salary for it's CEO...maybe because they got out, but clearly they were in good shape to start with.

People that got into Obamacare, many of them boomers, had pre-existing conditions, were sick, needed procedures and sucked up profits. I get that. It goes to show that perhaps when dealing with the sick and uninsured perhaps compassionate care rather than profit should be the motivators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. Apparently only about 1/3 of policies are profitable to them and being driven by profit it makes sense they would get out. Aetna that got out of it because of loss still retains an A rating for investors and a huge salary for it's CEO...maybe because they got out, but clearly they were in good shape to start with.

People that got into Obamacare, many of them boomers, had pre-existing conditions, were sick, needed procedures and sucked up profits. I get that. It goes to show that perhaps when dealing with the sick and uninsured perhaps compassionate care rather than profit should be the motivators.

In fact, it is not rocket science to understand that when insurers are required to cover policies for care for the very expensive subset of American citizens who were originally excluded by the insurers precisely because they were expensive that the costs for the insurers would go up. The insurers would prefer that the American tax payer cover that cost alone and the insurers also do not actually care if any or none of those expensive costs are covered or if the people get care, or if they die. They simply care if they are making profit and able to cover the 10s of millions of dollars of annual compensation that they pay out to CEOs and shareholders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All too often when a working person is injured or becomes sick and cannot work he or she loses employee health insurance too. COBRA is only available for a limited time. COBRA is often quite expensive too.

A CVA, cancer, or serious accident can bankrupt a person or entire family. At least with a subsidy the cost to the person should decrease the year after they were no longer working.

I'm glad they can't be denied insurance, but it doesn't help the insurance company make a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be heart warming to see insurers dropping out of the exchanges because they are losing money. I don't think people who have to re-shop for coverage are as pleased.

Supporters talk about fixing the ACA. What specific changes would they make and what would that cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It must be heart warming to see insurers dropping out of the exchanges because they are losing money. I don't think people who have to re-shop for coverage are as pleased.

Supporters talk about fixing the ACA. What specific changes would they make and what would that cost?

I'm not certain who finds it "heart warming". Clearly insurers could pay their CEOs less in annual compensation and that would go quite a ways in reducing their losses.

I don't think that our current Congress is likely to fix anything. I would prefer that we change direction and move to Medicare for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×