quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

0bama had nary policy goal that I could agree with. Not one! If you have one in which you adore…share it! I disliked him as POTUS because I despised ALL of his policy and he opened the door of National as never seen before.

I like Obamacare. "Adore" is too strong a word because the legislation was flawed from the beginning. I'd hoped to see the program expanded, but instead the Republicans have gutted it.

I largely agreed with Obama's environmental policies.

As for your graph, Bush drove the car of the economy into the ditch with his double wars and bad policies (like tax cuts mainly for those of us who didn't need them). Then he handed the keys to Obama. The Great Recession hit in 2007 (Bush's last year), and Obama was left to clean up the mess his first year in office. The bill for the wars and tax cuts came due about the same time. Increased spending for government stimulus was called for by most economists. In fact, Obama did clean up the mess and the economy recovered, sooner than it might have otherwise.

Obama acted like an adult in international affairs. He didn't start any wars. He didn't suck up to our enemies.

I could find other examples.

As for racial issues, I didn't agree with Obama's words much of the time. But I recognize his perspective as a black man is very different from mine (or yours).

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

0bama had nary policy goal that I could agree with. Not one! If you have one in which you adore…share it! I disliked him as POTUS because I despised ALL of his policy and he opened the door of National as never seen before.

I like Obamacare. "Adore" is too strong a word because the legislation was flawed from the beginning. I'd hoped to see the program expanded, but instead the Republicans have gutted it.

Can you name one thing that 0bamacare made better for patients, businesses, or HC providers?

I largely agreed with Obama's environmental policies.

I for sure did not and the stance against pipelines is especially ludicrous.

As for your graph, Bush drove the car of the economy into the ditch with his double wars and bad policies (like tax cuts mainly for those of us who didn't need them). Then he handed the keys to Obama. The Great Recession hit in 2007 (Bush's last year), and Obama was left to clean up the mess his first year in office. The bill for the wars and tax cuts came due about the same time. Increased spending for government stimulus was called for by most economists. In fact, Obama did clean up the mess and the economy recovered, sooner than it might have otherwise.

Shows how much you understood about the economy and the Great Recession. The primary cause of the GR was the subprime loan policy in place at the time. That policy was a Clinton piece of work. All you could criticize GWB for is not working to deactivate it sooner. No one saw it coming however. Right up until the banking crisis began in mid 2008…the economy was the strongest I have ever seen it in my business career—great times for business.

Obama acted like an adult in international affairs. He didn't start any wars. He didn't suck up to our enemies.

I could find other examples.

As for racial issues, I didn't agree with Obama's words much of the time. But I recognize his perspective as a black man is very different from mine (or yours).

He added coal and coal-oil to an almost extinguished fire.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

0bama had nary policy goal that I could agree with. Not one! If you have one in which you adore…share it! I disliked him as POTUS because I despised ALL of his policy and he opened the door of National as never seen before.

I like Obamacare. "Adore" is too strong a word because the legislation was flawed from the beginning. I'd hoped to see the program expanded, but instead the Republicans have gutted it.
I’m not real impressed with it. Mandating a number of cosmetic conditions be covered and not allowing high deductible plans being high on the list.

I would note he did start playing the intercessor role for broadening coverage which raised a lot of costs… while liked by organized medicine, he did add a bunch of mandates for things that were not especially well supported scientifically.

One thing he did do with Obamacare was mandate that the government get involved in selling health insurance… which is probably one of the least efficient methods; and it’s mostly now via crony capitalism.

I largely agreed with Obama's environmental policies.
I think his environmental policies were not that great… but better than either of the guys who succeeded him.

As for your graph, Bush drove the car of the economy into the ditch with his double wars and bad policies (like tax cuts mainly for those of us who didn't need them). Then he handed the keys to Obama. The Great Recession hit in 2007 (Bush's last year), and Obama was left to clean up the mess his first year in office. The bill for the wars and tax cuts came due about the same time. Increased spending for government stimulus was called for by most economists. In fact, Obama did clean up the mess and the economy recovered, sooner than it might have otherwise.
Bush was in charge, and deserves the blame… but it was the crony capitalism regarding subprime loans and banking regulation that caused the mess. That was a bipartisan mess. Not really Bush, not really any one politician.

Obama’s policies didn’t do that well. They slowed recovery and only were successful in changing who benefited most.

But again, better than either of his successors.

IMO.

Obama acted like an adult in international affairs. He didn't start any wars. He didn't suck up to our enemies.

Horse hockey.

Obama set the stage for the Ukraine conflict. Don’t forget his comment accidentally caught on camera of wait until after the election, I will have more freedom… to Putin.

While Trump was modestly successful it was by seeming crazy and not being predictable. That was good in stopping willingness to risk our intervention, but bad in dealing with our friends. He was very much interested in stopping and avoiding wars; but his ability to plan and make agreements was pathetic.

Biden has not done much of anything. His signature success is a response to an aggression that he should have been able to prevent if he was viewed as capable- and how much of the international response has been driven by the US, as opposed to other coalition powers (Poland) is debatable.

I agree that Biden is more amenable to blank check support of Ukraine than Trump would have (with his anti war views, who knows what he would have went along with- but it would be less…)

So Obama looks like the adult compared to Trump or Biden, and internationally not as good as GW Bush (who got a coalition to support a war that most were not wild about) who was apt, but maybe chose his objectives badly.
I could find other examples.

As for racial issues, I didn't agree with Obama's words much of the time. But I recognize his perspective as a black man is very different from mine (or yours).

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
More Americans have health insurance because of Obama. That's a good thing.

quote:

From what I understand, it’s way less than 0.01 percent increase in the insured…

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

From what I understand, it’s way less than 0.01 percent increase in the insured…

You pulled hat out of your ass. The number is currently 31 million.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
More Americans have health insurance because of Obama. That's a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
More Americans have health insurance because of Obama. That's a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The .01 percent was related to people purchasing new insurance on their own.

Increase the availability of medicaid (low income free/reduced cost) has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with increased eligibility for reduced cost insurance (which became even more necessary given the price increases).

As to LHeym’s comment on GOP behavior, yes. That’s what they did.

But taking away any freebie is a 3Rd fail in politics.


My biggest gripe with Obamacare was the government increasing coverage mandates- single men getting nailed for increasing OB coverage isn’t insurance, it’s social welfare as an example)- and the ending of high deductible plans.

Face it, for about a third of the population, severe catastrophic coverage is all that they ever use.

Organized medicine pushed for the increased coverage of conditions as essentially crony capitalism.

The whole issue of prexisting conditions should have been handled with guaranteed renewal/insurability, not the current crap. We should be encouraging responsibility, not encouraging irresponsibility.

Work in a hospital and see folks admitted with no insurance leave with full coverage… it’s absurd.

Also a large number of new insurance cases through AHA were the birth of all of these Medicare supplemental plans.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The .01 percent was related to people purchasing new insurance on their own.

Increase the availability of medicaid (low income free/reduced cost) has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with increased eligibility for reduced cost insurance (which became even more necessary given the price increases).

As to LHeym’s comment on GOP behavior, yes. That’s what they did.

But taking away any freebie is a 3Rd fail in politics.


My biggest gripe with Obamacare was the government increasing coverage mandates- single men getting nailed for increasing OB coverage isn’t insurance, it’s social welfare as an example)- and the ending of high deductible plans.

Face it, for about a third of the population, severe catastrophic coverage is all that they ever use.

Organized medicine pushed for the increased coverage of conditions as essentially crony capitalism.

The whole issue of prexisting conditions should have been handled with guaranteed renewal/insurability, not the current crap. We should be encouraging responsibility, not encouraging irresponsibility.

Work in a hospital and see folks admitted with no insurance leave with full coverage… it’s absurd.

Also a large number of new insurance cases through AHA were the birth of all of these Medicare supplemental plans.

Does .01 correlate to 35 million more covered folks?

We employed 100 employees. I will have to ask my FIL the details of the mandate as those conversations are old in my memory, and we adjusted. Obamacare did not affect profitability.

Let us not forget ACA was Gov Romney’s plan developed by the Heritage Foundation.

All insurance covers cheap folks balanced against higher cost folks. So, I do not find CrButler’s objection is single man vs OB coverage very credible critique. Reasonable minds can differ.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I do find it odd that so many Trumpeteers simply ignore his lack of fiscal conservatism. Obama was never expected to be anything but a fool, economically; that is the Democrat way. The economy did much better under Trump, not because of anything he did, but because the perception was that the economic climate was better. Therefor, businessmen and investors got out of their own way. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Wrong.

Insurance is spreading the risk over the population, not cost shifting.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The .01 percent was related to people purchasing new insurance on their own.

Increase the availability of medicaid (low income free/reduced cost) has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with increased eligibility for reduced cost insurance (which became even more necessary given the price increases).

As to LHeym’s comment on GOP behavior, yes. That’s what they did.

But taking away any freebie is a 3Rd fail in politics.


My biggest gripe with Obamacare was the government increasing coverage mandates- single men getting nailed for increasing OB coverage isn’t insurance, it’s social welfare as an example)- and the ending of high deductible plans.

Face it, for about a third of the population, severe catastrophic coverage is all that they ever use.

Organized medicine pushed for the increased coverage of conditions as essentially crony capitalism.

The whole issue of prexisting conditions should have been handled with guaranteed renewal/insurability, not the current crap. We should be encouraging responsibility, not encouraging irresponsibility.

Work in a hospital and see folks admitted with no insurance leave with full coverage… it’s absurd.

Also a large number of new insurance cases through AHA were the birth of all of these Medicare supplemental plans.

Does .01 correlate to 35 million more covered folks?

We employed 100 employees. I will have to ask my FIL the details of the mandate as those conversations are old in my memory, and we adjusted. Obamacare did not affect profitability.

Let us not forget ACA was Gov Romney’s plan developed by the Heritage Foundation.

All insurance covers cheap folks balanced against higher cost folks. So, I do not find CrButler’s objection is single man vs OB coverage very credible critique. Reasonable minds can differ.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Wrong.

Insurance is spreading the risk over the population, not cost shifting.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The .01 percent was related to people purchasing new insurance on their own.

Increase the availability of medicaid (low income free/reduced cost) has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with increased eligibility for reduced cost insurance (which became even more necessary given the price increases).

As to LHeym’s comment on GOP behavior, yes. That’s what they did.

But taking away any freebie is a 3Rd fail in politics.


My biggest gripe with Obamacare was the government increasing coverage mandates- single men getting nailed for increasing OB coverage isn’t insurance, it’s social welfare as an example)- and the ending of high deductible plans.

Face it, for about a third of the population, severe catastrophic coverage is all that they ever use.

Organized medicine pushed for the increased coverage of conditions as essentially crony capitalism.

The whole issue of prexisting conditions should have been handled with guaranteed renewal/insurability, not the current crap. We should be encouraging responsibility, not encouraging irresponsibility.

Work in a hospital and see folks admitted with no insurance leave with full coverage… it’s absurd.

Also a large number of new insurance cases through AHA were the birth of all of these Medicare supplemental plans.

Does .01 correlate to 35 million more covered folks?

We employed 100 employees. I will have to ask my FIL the details of the mandate as those conversations are old in my memory, and we adjusted. Obamacare did not affect profitability.

Let us not forget ACA was Gov Romney’s plan developed by the Heritage Foundation.

All insurance covers cheap folks balanced against higher cost folks. So, I do not find CrButler’s objection is single man vs OB coverage very credible critique. Reasonable minds can differ.

Not wrong. Insurance (private) balances high risk against low risk purchasers.

One cannot run an insurance form with all high risk customers.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Insurance is based on the mostly that more low risk people will pay in then high risk people will require pay outs.

Sorry, there is nothing anti insurance about your stated example of what is wrong with ACA.

My objection to the ACA was it was unprecedented expansion of Fed legislative power. That was sold as not a tax. However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times when accessing a law, we do not care what Congress says about it. We dare what they actually passed. That was Justice Scilla’s pistols on legislative intent.

Thus, when Congress creates a tax in the text, regardless of what they say, they have exercised the power to tax as the Constitution permits.

Repeal the tax, or shut up about it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, insurance is risk shifting/management.
Correct, from the company’s perspective.

Take in more premiums on low risk then one will have to pay out on high risk.
You don’t get it, do you?

They don’t care really what risk you are overall. They expect that their population is representative, make reserves based on that, and charge rates based on that. It’s a regulated industry. They can’t do otherwise.

Some low risk folks get various maladies… they are still low risk. Your risk as an attorney of falling from heights is low. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, just statistically it’s low. They still have to pay that claim. The population has a few individuals who are “high risk” but they are not culled as long as it’s a representative population as a whole.

The company is basing its rates and finances based on actuarial probability for the covered pool. If you are covered by a group policy (work) you don’t get excluded because you are personally high risk. The population as a whole has the risk. Think of it as your chance of being murdered. If they are selling to the whole state, they use the population rate for the state to base their rates and reserve funds. If they are selling just to Lexington KY, they use the murder rate for Lexington. If you go to Chicago every week to work, but live in Lexington, you are at higher risk, but you are not excluded or charged a higher rate as long as you are buying the insurance as a group from KY.

In essence, the insurance company cannot exclude you as you are part of the group. You go to high risk insurance (a separate group - different population) if you are buying as part of a different group so you are in a high risk group. You got cancer, had to quit working, and now you are buying private individual insurance. You are getting a different policy because you are a different population from the point of view of the insurance company. They do this because they raise everyone’s rates to cover you, they become economically unattractive to the normal groups and lose the normal distribution of risk.

If what you claim was the case, insurance agents would tell you, sorry but we already have our quota of high risk people, go find another company to cover you. They don’t have that kind of control.

Now, if a certain business has higher utilization over time, they get told that you have a rate increase because of your employees are out of the norm in utilization.

I don’t disagree that the companies play games to maximize profits, but fundamentally it’s regulated based on populations and government generated actuarial tables.