Initial attempts to sign up for ObamaCare go about as well as expected

[Winehole23]

classic boutons: strawman, no true scotsman, cookie cutter analysis and content free scoffing.

[Winehole23]

basic economic self-interest underpins Blodget's rhetorical thrust:

These days, if you suggest that great companies should serve all of their cons uencies (customers, employees, and shareholders) and that American companies should share more of their wealth with the people who generate it (employees), you get called a "socialist." You get called a "liberal." You get told that you "don't understand economics." You get accused of promoting "wealth confiscation." You get told that, in America, people get paid what they deserve to get paid: Anyone who wants more money should go out and "start their own company" or "demand a raise" or "get a better job."


In other words, you get told that anyone who suggests that great companies should share the value they create with their employees instead of just lining the pockets of shareholders is an idiot.


Business Insider, St. Louis Fed
Wages as a percent of the economy.




After all, these folks say, one law of capitalism is that employers pay their employees as little as possible. Employees are just "costs." You should try to minimize those "costs" whenever and wherever you can. This view, unfortunately, is not just selfish and demeaning to the people who do the work and create the value. It's also economically stupid. Those "costs" you are minimizing (your employees) are also current and prospective customers for your company and other companies. And the less money they have, the fewer products and services they are going to buy.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/compa...#ixzz2xYxkHWEZ

[TeyshaBlue]

Makes me pine for a round of front loaded QE.

[boutons_deux]

THE GOP'S LAST LINE OF DEFENSE ON OBAMACARE

By Charles P. Pierce on March 31, 2014

Apparently, the last line of defense that the Republicans have on the Affordable Care Act is to argue that the administration is cooking the books, or that numbers don't mean what they mean, or that math has become politically inconvenient for them.

Over the weekend, Rick Santorum ran that rap on Meet The Press, and Senator John Barrasso did the same thing over on Rupert's Playhouse.

Torture porn enthusiast Marc Thiessen chips in fromhis mysteriously durable perch at The Washington Post. Jonathan Cohn has a good wrap-up of the phenomenon in which he makes the point that denying reality always has been a go-to move for these folks.

Even accounting for the fact that some of these people won't actually pay their premiums, these figures would seem to undermine-or at least weaken-the argument that Obamacare is a catastrophic failure. Republicans and many of their allies obviously think otherwise. They are doing what they almost always do when data confounds their previously held beliefs. They are challenging the statistics-primarily, by suggesting that most of the people getting insurance already had coverage. Some, like Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, say the administration is "cooking the books." Others, like Senator Ted Cruz, say that the number of people without insurance is actually rising.

It's hard to know where to go with this. One side of the debate simply has its fingers in its ears, la-la-la'ing its way merrily through its own version of reality. The other side is still trying to wrestle a new law into place. People out in the country believe what they want to believe.

Some lives are made better. That seems to count less and less.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...amacare-033114

[Winehole23]

there are pending court cases that could screw it up. like this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-big-trouble/

[boutons_deux]

actually, there's one more legal attack in progress


a group of conservative plaintiffs flew beneath the radar four blocks away, pushing what may be an even more important challenge:

It was asking a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel to cripple the Obamacare tax subsidies designed to make insurance affordable for lower-income Americans.

That request produced fireworks in a usually staid courtroom. Judge Harry Edwards, a liberal stalwart, got into a shouting match with the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Michael Carvin – a rare scene in a court where lawyers calmly debate arcane points of administrative law and are trained never to talk over a judge. “Your argument makes no sense!” Edwards yelled at one point as Carvin tried to get a word in edgewise.

Reagan appointee A. Raymond Randolph was just as sharp-tongued on the other side, attacking the Affordable Care Act as “poorly written” and “stupid,” and the Obamacare rollout as “an unmitigated disaster.”

When the sound and fury died down, the bottom line was this: Two of the panel’s three judges appeared to agree that Obamacare subsidies are unavailable in 36 states. And that is huge news.

The subsidies, after all, are a key piece of the Affordable Care Act. They provide tax credits to lower-income Americans who buy insurance through exchanges, reducing the price of coverage – in some cases, dramatically. Without those subsidies, Obamacare’s promise of tens of millions of newly insured Americans likely won’t be possible. As Edwards put it Tuesday, a ruling invalidating the subsidies in most states just might “gut the statute.”

And that is precisely why Carvin – one of the lawyers who asked the Supreme Court to strike the whole law down in 2012 – began attacking the subsidies soon after his initial effort failed.

Carvin’s argument in the case, Halbig v. Sebelius, boils down to just four words in the massive Affordable Care Act. He told the D.C. Circuit panel Tuesday that when Congress drafted the statute’s tax-subsidy section, it wrote that applicants are eligible for subsidies if they enroll in insurance through an exchange “established by the State.” But after the law was enacted, 36 states refused to set up exchanges, so the federal government did it for them.

Carvin argued Tuesday that in those 36 states, there is no exchange “established by the state.” And that, he argued, means residents in those states can’t get subsidies. What’s more, Carvin claimed, Congress wanted it that way: He said Congress intentionally limited subsidies to states with their own exchanges as an incentive to get states to create exchanges in the first place.

That’s when the sparks began to fly. Leaning over the bench, Edwards told Carvin that his argument about what Congress had in mind “seems preposterous.” He told Carvin that his congressional-intent theory was just a cover for the plaintiffs’ overriding goal: to kill Obamacare. “What you’re asking for is to destroy the individual mandate, which guts the statute,” he said. “That’s what this case is about.”

Randolph staked out just as clear a position on the other side. He interrupted Edwards mid-sentence at one point – another rarity – to support Carvin’s argument. And when it came time for the government’s lawyer to argue, Randolph laid into Obamacare in colorful terms. “If the legislation is just stupid, it isn’t our job to save it,” he said.

With one judge on each side, the outcome came down to the third member of the panel: Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee. And while Griffith was less outspoken than Randolph, he eventually indicated that he, too, was buying Carvin’s basic argument: “Established by the State” means “established by the State.” “The key language here is ‘established,’” he said. And he strongly suggested that the government hadn’t met its burden to show that Congress meant to say something other than what it actually wrote.

After those comments, the writing was on the wall. When the court issues its decision – likely this spring or summer – expect it to sound the death knell for Obamacare subsidies in three-quarters of the country.

That won’t necessarily be the last word. The Obama administration can ask the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case. And if that doesn’t work, it can look to the Supreme Court for salvation. But for now, Obamacare is once again on the ropes.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dc-circui...care-subsidies

[Winehole23]

that's what I just posted. (:facepalm)

[boutons_deux]

The OId Confederate Lesbian can't even catch a break on Fox

Frustrated Fox host asks Lindsey Graham 4 times for GOP Obamacare alternative

Fox News on Monday picked the last day of enrollment for plans offered under the Affordable Care Act to ask Republicans who want to repeal the law what their alternative was.

Speaking to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Fox News host Jenna Lee pointed out that both Republican and Democratic analysts now agreed that continued efforts to try and repeal the president’s health care law could backfire.

“Well, I think we need to repeal it, and we need to replace it,” Graham insisted. still? really?

“I think it’s good for the Republican Party to have a plan of its own that could insure Americans without having to lose your doctor and bankrupt the country.”

( what's good for the Repug party is ALWAYS bad for Americans )

When Lee asked Graham for the Republican plan, he replied with general ideas about not denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and allowing children to stay on their parents insurance longer — both of which are already accomplished by the existing law.

Graham also added that he would like to see people be able to purchase insurance across state lines. (so state regulators would be neutered, got it!)

“Your colleague, Sen. Barrasso says that the White House is actually fixing the books [on enrollment numbers],” Lee pointed out. “Do you agree with that?”

“Totally, they are!” Graham replied.

“Do you have any facts to back that up?” Lee asked.

Instead of backing up the assertion with facts, Graham asked some questions of his own questions: “Tell me how many people who signed up for Obamacare have paid?”

“Why do you think Republicans can put together a better plan to get the trust back in government?” the Fox News host wondered. “What are Republicans putting out there that says to the American people,

‘No, you can trust us.’”

“I think the first thing we’ve got to explain to the American people is the Democrats who want to fix Obamacare have a political problem,” Graham opined. “You can’t fix Obamacare, you got to start over. You can take some elements I just described and build a new health care plan.”

“Why hasn’t a full proposal of a completely different plan from the GOP been developed, put out to the press for the press to look at and really dig into?” Lee pressed.

“I hope that comes,” Graham said slowly. “But at the end of the day, we’re trying to implement a law that’s just failing America on multiple fronts. So, I’m in the camp of explaining to the American people that when a Democrat tells you that he wants to mend it, not end it. It can’t be mended.”

“Getting back to the question,” Lee said, trying one last time. “What is preventing the Republicans from putting forward a real plan that everybody can look at, even before November? Is it simply the election and political pressure that’s not allowing that to happen? Are you waiting for the change in the Senate?”

“I think we should have an outline of a health care plan, and that would be better for America,” Graham droned. “I think that would help the Republican Party. But between now and then, our Democratic friends are trying to sell the American people, ‘You can fix this Obamacare.’ It can’t be fixed. It’s got to be torn down, and start over.”

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted at least 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act without putting forward an alternative. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said in February that Republicans would finally offer a replacement bill in the near future.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/3...e+Raw+Story%29

[boutons_deux]

[TSA]

The White House now claims an Obamacare enrollment figure of six million people. However, according to The New York Times, at least 20% of those never paid their premiums to activate coverage, leaving them uninsured. That drops the number down to 4.8 million.
Next, as Washington Post columnist Ed Rogers notes, "the official HHS numbers still include duplicate enrollments." No one knows how many duplicate enrollments are in the stack; the White House refuses to say. However, given the disastrous Obamacare website failures, it is reasonable to imagine that the pile is riddled with numerous "false start" applications.
That leaves the most important question: How many people are gaining insurance who were previously uninsured? After all, that was the stated reason for Obamacare in the first place. McKinsey & Co. says that only 27% of those who have picked a plan through Obamacare were previously uninsured.
Moreover, McKinsey says these individuals have an unusually high rate of failing to pay their first month's premium. "Only 53 percent of them had paid their first premium, compared with 86 percent of the previously insured," reports CNBC.
Even conceding the White House its alleged six million enrollment figure (which, again, includes duplicates and incomplete applications), that would mean that just 810,000 of paying Obamacare customers were previously uninsured, a figure that represents 1.7% of America's 48.6 million uninsured people.
Indeed, most of those the White House counts as Obamacare enrollees are among the five million who had their health insurance plans canceled due to Obamacare.
Obamacare has taken a severe toll on President Obama's approval rating. The latest Associated Press poll reveals that his disapproval rating has now hit an all-time high of 59%. As one Democratic member of Congress told The New York Times, Obama is "poisonous" to Democrats running in the November 4th midterm elections.
Americans head to the polls in 218 days.

[TSA]

Let me get this straight...We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't,,, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single doctor,,, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it,,, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,,, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupt Social Security and Medicare,,, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke

[Th'Pusher]

Why no source linksTSA? Embarrassed?

[boutons_deux]

"16,000 new IRS agents"

link

TSA just loves Repug/Fox lies and propaganda

How many of your dirt-poor, red-state, gun-fellatin buddies and their kids will die for lack of Medicaid expansion?

[Winehole23]

Makes me pine for a round of front loaded QE.

unsure if serious...what do you mean by front-loaded?

[TSA]

Why no source linksTSA? Embarrassed?

Since when does anyone link a comment they read?

[TSA]

"16,000 new IRS agents"

link

TSA just loves Repug/Fox lies and propaganda

How many of your dirt-poor, red-state, gun-fellatin buddies and their kids will die for lack of Medicaid expansion?

I don't have any dirt-poor, red-state, gun-fellatin buddies.

[Th'Pusher]

Since when does anyone link a comment they read?

How about a link to the original article? Let me guess. Fox News? Or was it something more egregious like brietbart or the blaze?

[TSA]

Just some yahoo article I read this morning.

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare support edges opposition for first time in ABC-Washington Post poll

According to their newest survey, conducted nationally from March 26-30 among American adults with a margin of error of ±3.5 points, 49 percent of the country supports Obamacare and 48 percent opposes it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/31/1288667/-Obamacare-support-edges-opposition-for-first-time-in-ABC-Washington-Post-poll?detail=email

and we know in the 48% opposing it there are the right-wing assholes who could benefit from it but hate Dems and n!gg@s, plus those who really want ACA to do much more (eg, public option).

As word gets around to the sheeple in red states how their Repug politicians screwed them and that ACA actually helps them, ACA will poll much favorably.

Given the continuing scorched-earth Repug sabotage, the too-widespread ignorance of what ACA is and does, and the screwups by FOR-PROFIT software contractors developing the fed/state exchanges, ACA is off to a fantastic start that pretty much mirrors the signup curve (and problems) of MA's universal health insurance startup.

ACA will get fixed, tweaked, improved like any complex system with Ms of complex moving parts, aka, human beings.

[Th'Pusher]

Just some yahoo article I read this morning.

The comment should have been attributed to Donald Trump since that's who said it...

[TSA]

The comment should have been attributed to Donald Trump since that's who said it...

, that I did not know. I just found the comment funny.

[TSA]

Obamacare support edges opposition for first time in ABC-Washington Post poll

According to their newest survey, conducted nationally from March 26-30 among American adults with a margin of error of ±3.5 points, 49 percent of the country supports Obamacare and 48 percent opposes it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/31/1288667/-Obamacare-support-edges-opposition-for-first-time-in-ABC-Washington-Post-poll?detail=email

and we know in the 48% opposing it there are the right-wing assholes who could benefit from it but hate Dems and n!gg@s, plus those who really want ACA to do much more (eg, public option).

As word gets around to the sheeple in red states how their Repug politicians screwed them and that ACA actually helps them, ACA will poll much favorably.

Given the continuing scorched-earth Repug sabotage, the too-widespread ignorance of what ACA is and does, and the screwups by FOR-PROFIT software contractors developing the fed/state exchanges, ACA is off to a fantastic start that pretty much mirrors the signup curve (and problems) of MA's universal health insurance startup.

ACA will get fixed, tweaked, improved like any complex system with Ms of complex moving parts, aka, human beings.

Even conceding the White House its alleged six million enrollment figure (which, again, includes duplicates and incomplete applications), that would mean that just 810,000 of paying Obamacare customers were previously uninsured, a figure that represents 1.7% of America's 48.6 million uninsured people)


1.7%!

[Winehole23]

The comment should have been attributed to Donald Trump since that's who said it...

...over two years ago.

[Th'Pusher]

Just some yahoo article I read this morning.

And the article from a "report" from Wynton Hall at Breitbart.

You're such a ing moron. Just admit you read rightwing news to get the confirmation bias you need. Don't be ashamed...

[Winehole23]

Even conceding the White House its alleged six million enrollment figure (which, again, includes duplicates and incomplete applications), that would mean that just 810,000 of paying Obamacare customers were previously uninsured, a figure that represents 1.7% of America's 48.6 million uninsured people)


1.7%!

cherrypicking. according to a nationwide Rand survey, that figure goes up by a factor of 10 when including Medicaid expansion, state exchanges, previously uninsured adults under 26 now covered on a parent's insurance, etc..

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#ixzz2xYAxVoo3