Why is Obamacare Failing?

I'm laughing at you. You voted for this idiot. Obamacare is his "achievement" and it is failing on epic levels.

It is now racist to call the ACA "Obamacare"... that tells me how bad this is.

President Zero sucks.

 

Note to idiot. Obamacare passed without one R vote.

Who is the one who is illegally delaying parts of Obamacare?

Answer: That would be the idiot, Obama.

#ImpeachObama

 

No it isn't failing it has failed.

 

You try, but you fail miserably.

 

Yeah dude. Let's pay $50+ for a case of beer like they do in Canada.

 

We must disagree.

 

Give us some proof it is working Johnny.

 

Maybe for a short time. Until it shows you its ugly facts. Its only a matter of time now. The whole thing is falling apart fast.

 

Obama care has nothing to do with republicans. It is 100% democrats fail.

 

The naysayers are always going to be there.

It seems you are in concert with the same.

 

Obamacare Is Falling Apart Before Our Eyes

Obamacare madness, Christmas edition.

4:31 PM, DEC 20, 2013 • BY JAMES C. CAPRETTA




The wrecking ball swung again toward the crumbling Obamacare edifice yesterday. Ironically, it continues to be the Obama administration that is operating the heavy machinery.



Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced, in the form of a letter to Democratic senators, that Obamacare’s individual mandate tax will be waived in 2014 for persons who had their policies canceled in 2013 due to Obamacare.

At this point, after months of on-the-fly pronouncements, delays, and exemptions (often announced, not coincidentally, in the days just before a major national holiday), perhaps nothing should surprise us anymore about Obamacare’s disastrous rollout. But yesterday’s announcement is still startling because of what it says about the state of the president’s signature domestic legislation. The law is falling apart before our eyes.


No doubt the administration’s defenders will argue that this is simply a tactical retreat, executed with surgical precision, and intended to protect the law from more serious legislative threats in 2014. Better to give a little by executive action now than to invite an impossible-to-control revolt by Democrats in the Senate later, the thinking goes. And by orchestrating the tactical retreat in conjunction with political allies (the Sebelius letter followed by one day a letter requesting the change from six Senate Democrats), the administration is hoping its party will get credit with voters for “smoothing the transition” to Obamacare.

But by conceding that the individual mandate can and should be delayed for one group, the administration has opened a major can of worms. For starters, this exemption is going to strike many Americans as blatantly unfair and arbitrary. It comes at the 11th hour, after millions of people, including those with canceled plans, have already made their choices based on the rules they thought would be in effect. The administration said for months that the mandate would not be waived for anyone, even those with canceled policies, and it vowed a veto of any delay legislation coming out of Congress. Now the rules have been changed, and some families who have committed to pay thousands of dollars in insurance premiums will feel very personally betrayed by an untrustworthy administration.


This exemption also further undermines the Obamacare exchanges, which are already teetering. The administration claims that there are only 500,000 people with canceled policies who haven’t signed up for new coverage yet. But this is an unverified number put out by the administration for damage control. Insurance industry insiders believe that, come January 1, most carriers will be looking at lower net enrollment in their plans compared to the previous year, meaning that cancellations will exceed new Obamacare enrollment in private plans. So the number of people with previous coverage who haven’t signed up with new coverage could easily be twice or three times the administration’s estimate.


In addition, what’s to stop those with canceled policies who fought their way through healthcare.gov from now changing their mind and dropping their plans in light of the administration’s announcement? These families would need only to file a form indicating that the premiums they were facing in the exchanges are unaffordable. As matters stand, the administration would have no basis for denying an exemption to such households.


The upshot is that the administration has voluntarily opened another very big escape route out of Obamacare, and the most likely escapees will be young and healthy Americans who don’t want to pay high premiums for Obamacare’s expensive benefit plans. Even before yesterday it was clear that the risk pools in the exchanges were going to be unbalanced, with too little enrollment by the young and healthy relative to the old and sick. Now, there’s more reason than ever to expect the exchanges to resemble slightly enlarged versions of high-risk pools that have been in existence for years in the states.


And then there are the other Americans who remain subject to the mandate, including the uninsured. As Ezra Klein notes, what could possibly justify waiving the mandate for those who could afford to pay premiums in 2013 (for policies that were forced to be canceled by Obamacare) while retaining it for the uninsured who couldn’t afford coverage at all in 2013? As it becomes more evident that there will be tens of millions of uninsured in 2014 despite Obamacare, Democrats will come under intense pressure to exempt them from the individual mandate tax too. NBC’s Chuck Todd spoke for many when hewondered aloud whether anyone would pay the uninsured tax in 2014, given what has transpired to date. Who would bet otherwise at this point?


The administration also announced yesterday that those with canceled policies could elect to enroll in the catastrophic insurance options offered on the Obamacare exchanges. These were supposed to be reserved for enrollees age 30 and younger, and were priced accordingly. Now the administration has opened up these policies, at least theoretically, to some people over age 30, which means the products are undoubtedly underpriced (as of now, the exchange websites only allow shoppers 30 and younger to see the catastrophic coverage options, and it’s not clear how fast this feature could be changed). Of course, in the first three years, when the insurers lose money on Obamacare coverage, it’s the taxpayers who pick up the tab in the form of “risk-sharing” provisions. But the insurers should not be complacent. As these “bailout” features of Obamacare become more widely understood, they will not sit well with taxpayers, and therefore are politically vulnerable too.


The Obama administration has decided on its own to delay the individual mandate for one group of Americans. GOP House and Senate members can rightly take partial credit for making this happen because they were the ones who turned up the political heat on Senate Democrats. There’s a lesson there. The Obama administration has been systematically dismantling its own law over the last year because it has feared the political backlash that would ensue if it didn’t conduct a partial retreat. The GOP should therefore keep the pressure on and see what other provisions of Obamacare the administration will throw overboard in a likely futile attempt to protect Democrats in the next election.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...es_771566.html

hardly a democratic win, much less obamacare success. They are the ones dismantling it.............talk to Sebelius. She knows it's failing

 

Liberals lie. It's what they do and who they are.

 

That argument isn't based in any sort of reality and it doesn't make sense either.

You aren't getting one size fits all, but we'd be better off if we did.

The EU is not one country, although there are a lot of things that are universal throughout the EU.

The United States is one country, and it would be both cheaper and far more practical to impose one size fits all comprehensive Federal regulation on the health care industry, than the complex band aid that the ACA is.

 

This post makes no sense at all. The proposal for a Universal Health Care (single-payer) system, which was proposed by the House, was rejected in 2009 and instead the Senate PPACA (i.e. Obamacare) was adopted. Comparing the "Obamacare" to "Universal Health Care" is a comparison of apples and oranged.

Next we have to ask how "Obamacare" could have possibly failed when it doesn't even go into effect until next year. Normally success or failure is determined after the fact and not before the fact. How about addressing whether Obamacare succeeded or failed in a year or two after it actually goes into effect and we can evaluate the results.

 

if it goes into effect:
see post http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=331994&page=4 #39

 

Humans are subject to the same maladies that are amenable to the same remedial modalities predicated upon the same scientific advances. Everywhere.

Economies of Scale pertain. ( "the cost advantages that enterprises obtain due to size, throughput, or scale of operation, with cost per unit of output generally decreasing with increasing scale as fixed costs are spread out over more units of output. Often operational efficiency is also greater with increasing scale, leading to lower variable cost as well.") If "small is best" were applied, we'd have independent "mom 'n pop" health insurance companies serving each and every neighbourhood.

In addition to the inherent advantage of a single, integrated, and uniform, system that avoids the cost of repeated administrative duplications, and the bulk Rx purchasing power a larger buyer can bring to bear, you have the inescapable actuarial principle: the larger the risk pool, the greater the distribution of risk - the basic goal of insurance.

One can pretend that there is some theoretical size limit at which the obvious advantages are offset by some mysterious factors. (Should Germany be concerned that its system can't be as efficient and cost-effective as Belgium's because it has nearly 8 times the population of the latter? Apparently not. Their costs per capita are virtually identical. (... and they both cover everyone at less than half the cost of the US, that has failed to cover nearly 50,000,000 Americans.)

The Affordable Care Act, nationalized RomneyCare, may not be the optimal approach to achieving the far lower cost of universal coverage in advanced nations, but it is the law of the land, the status quo with which some were content was unsustainable, and no other viable remedy was presented.

So, if the problems are not overcome, somebody needs to devise an alternative, inclusive plan at a cost comparable to the national paradigms that are doing it.

My proposal has been to gradually lower the Medicare eligibility age. The profit-driven private cartel now excludes the highest-cost demographic (as well as high-risk individuals.) Incrementally adding increasingly lower-cost demographic groups to the risk pool reduces the per capita cost without suddenly eliminating the huge and superfluous workforce of the health insurance industry.

Eventually, the business sector upon whom responsibility for workers' coverage has devolved, and for which the American taxpayer provides a $2.5 billion annual subsidy, would then be free to compete in the global market without that burden being imposed upon it.

The argument that the US is "too big to succeed" to the extent that advanced nations have is blatant defeatism without any rationale.



.

 

Like I said before. Not much has changed.

 

What do you like best about taking money from the workers and giving it to your pet projects that are all big campaign contribution loyalists? The left is full on corrupt and you won't even acknowledge one instance of it. There is no help for the left. There is no point ever compromising with these people. Beat them at the polls, take away their tax money and make them go out an earn a living. Childhood is over.

 

Sounds more like a formula for economic genius if you ask me. And like you said, if there are bumps in the road later on, there will still need to be something very similar to Romneycare for us to succeed in giving everyone affordable care.

We are a country to big to have a program where 40 to 50 million people go without affordable coverage, and others barely hang on with there's, only to be one illness away from financial collapse.

Although your rationale, while quite brilliant, will unfortunately never reach the brains of many. Off the chain intelligence and education does have its disadvantages. It's obvious you must suffer heavily from those talents.

 

What we see is like the last few days before the scheduled "End of the WORLD" for an end of the world cult.
Obviously, the world isn't going to end, and neither is ObamaCare, but the cult members are getting all worked up, ignoring reality and still expecting that next year the world will end, ObamaCare will fail, and then those Liberals will see who's stupid.
It's not going to happen like that, How do I know?
Because there are people who know a whole lot more about how health insurance works than me, called actuaries, and when I talk with them, they say ObamaCare is going to work.
The people who say it will fail are the same people who said Saddam had WMDs, that the Bush Tax cuts would create surpluses, that the wars in afghanistan and Iraq should be thought of in weeks and months, not in years, and that Romney would win, and that Benghazi would bring down Obama. So why would I believe people who have been consistently wrong for over a decade, as opposed to people who actually have a deep understanding of health insurance and how it works?

 

I guess we'll have to fix it, if it's really as bad as that article suggests.

It has been decades since anything significant has been done about healthcare. Politicians have DANCED AROUND this issue since I was a boy. I remember when they blew it off, around the time that Mrs. Clinton was First Lady.

America has a way of WAITING (politically) until things become "critical"; and CERTAINLY our healthcare system went critical LONG BEFORE President Obama decided to promote the ACA.

Personally, I'm GLAD the ACA has been implemented; we had to change things... somehow.

I'm not against better ideas, but I've had enough of 'talking' done by politicians. At least the ACA is doing something. Again, if we can IMPROVE people's overall healthcare, I'm all FOR better ideas.

 

Are Conservatives 'human'? If so, I suggest the description you provide above applies to them as well.

 

Oh, I know that. If Bush had proposed the same plan, they would have been all over it like flies on mierde.

 

You should also love the 'claim denied' or raising rates and lower deductibles too then. Then there's the whole 'low cost' health insurance (that doesn't really pay for anything but will still take your premium scam), and the ones that you can just keep paying the premium on for years and years, then when you actually need them, they drop you. Those are wonderful insurance concepts, as well. Free market, and all that, I know.

- - - Updated - - -

I love how the right didn't even acknowledge healthcare costs weren't even a problem until Obama addressed it.

 

President 'outsourcer' (Romney) was such a brilliant alternative, too. Don't know how we wound up with the current occupant of the WH, at all. The choice was so......wonderful.

- - - Updated - - -

Note to obstructionists. Health care costs, insurance companies and premiums were already an issue prior to Obamacare (the right simply refused to acknowledge there was the problem though).