The Affordable Care Act

[The Heretic]

Their health care provider is NOT "Covered California." That is only the state's website. If they have a health care provider it is Anthem Bluecross, or some other insurance ompany. This is clearly a dumb joke on them, and it is too bad that they cannot see it. I wonder who perpetrated the joke. If it is some Republican entity, they are getting pretty desparate.

hmmm... let's see:

California, which has one of the nation's lowest voter-registration rates, is mailing voter signup cards to nearly 4 million enrollees in its new health insurance program after being threatened with a lawsuit by voting rights groups.

Covered California, the state's health insurance exchange, began the mailings last week and agreed to add voter-registration material to its online, telephone and in-person enrollment procedures by this fall, the American Civil Liberties Union said Monday.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cove ... 345517.php

Seems the 'dumb joke' was perpetrated by the Secretary of State in response to a suit by the ACLU et.al., utilizing Covered California.

Since the SoS, ACLU and CC are not 'Republican entities', I wonder if it still shows 'desparation'...

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Anything portia doesn't like is a "sign of desperation".

[portia]

Nope: i do not believe it. The evidence does not support your very strange conclusion. Since when is a voter registration card marked with a party name? You have jumped to a conclusion that, maybe, satisfies your emotional needs, but is not supported otherwise.

Your assertions need heavy cross-examination to dig down to what may be the truth.

[The Heretic]

Nope: i do not believe it.

I am not sure exactly what it is that you are denying.

The evidence does not support your very strange conclusion.

Which poster are you referring to here, and what is the conclusion that you are claiming is not supported?

Since when is a voter registration card marked with a party name?

What? Voter registration forms tend to allow the choice of political party, in fact, if you change party, you need to re-register (at least in CA).
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm

[portia]

It would save bandwidth if people actually read other people's posts.

The person who is sent the card might want to mark a party, but the sender does not do that. So, what I do not believe is that the card (the voter registration card, to be clear) came "pre-marked."
Of course, we constantly see people misunderstanding what they read and see, so I suppose almost anything could happen if we open the posibilities tothe recipient misreading or misunderstanding.

If it was a piece of literature from a party that was "pre-marked" and sent along because the Secretary of State was required to include it, then what the heck are we arguing about? It was not the Secretary of State's doing, and she had no control pver it? Was it merely misunderstanding or is someone trying to deceive us?

Do you see what I mean about having to drill down through the layers of nonsense to get to the truth?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

It would save bandwidth if people actually read other people's posts.

The person who is sent the card might want to mark a party, but the sender does not do that.

It would save bandwidth if people actually read other people's posts.

In the news article, the sender marked the card.

[portia]

No. It doesn't say that. All it says is that when the party read what the article described as the voter registration card, it was marked. However, we do not have a copy of it, and do not know whether that is true, or even if it was the voter registration card. It could easily have been some other Party literature. Haven't you gotten some Official-=looking mail that turns out not to be official, but only a sales pitch?

The lack of accuracy in the original article make me suspicious about the rest of the article.

The idea that the Secretary of State would send out an officially marked party card is far too unlikely to be accepted as correct without an example of the card, at the very least.

[The Heretic]

It would save bandwidth if people actually read other people's posts.

Indeed.

The person who is sent the card might want to mark a party, but the sender does not do that. So, what I do not believe is that the card (the voter registration card, to be clear) came "pre-marked."

The only responsive part is that you do not believe the material came pre marked.

You still have not said which poster you were referring to and what conclusion was not supported. Be specific.

Of course, we constantly see people misunderstanding what they read and see, so I suppose almost anything could happen if we open the posibilities tothe recipient misreading or misunderstanding.

If it was a piece of literature from a party that was "pre-marked" and sent along because the Secretary of State was required to include it, then what the heck are we arguing about? It was not the Secretary of State's doing, and she had no control pver it? Was it merely misunderstanding or is someone trying to deceive us?

Did you read the articles? The Secretary of State, in response to lawsuits used Covered California to send out voter registration forms. These particular recipients said their form came pre marked.
Nothing about a piece of literature from a party.

Do you see what I mean about having to drill down through the layers of nonsense to get to the truth?

Well, I do see a bunch of nonsense.

However, we do not have a copy of it, and do not know whether that is true, or even if it was the voter registration card

Such as this. If you had followed the link to the NBC news affliate that CG supplied you could see a picture.

The lack of accuracy in the original article make me suspicious about the rest of the article

You should detail the lack of accuracy you are claiming.

[Minardil]

So the shocking scandal here is that one person, who appears to already be registered to vote, received a voter registration card in the mail, with one party (not his) already pre-selected in what appears to be a hand-drawn mark? As this person making the claim is already registered, it does not actually affect them in any way? Have here been many other reported cases of this?

[portia]

Since there have been so many attempts at attaching scandal to this Act, which have not panned out, it is hard to believe that even this one instance is for real.
And, who cares if it is?

[Jnyusa]

Sounds hokey to me.

In Pennsylvania we have to register with a particular party, for purposes of voting in the primary. (Min, you're in PA too, I think.) But since this is literally access to a primary election, the party indication is not a hand-drawn checkmark in a box with multiple options. It's pre-printed from a data base, along with voter name, address, polling location, etc. If you want to change your registration you have to complete a new voter registration form and a new card then comes in the mail.

Party registration is not required in all States, and I don't know about California. But if it isn't required, then party designation would be meaningless on a voter registration card. Conceivably a voter could be provided with boxes to hand-check what party they belonged to, but it would have no significance.

I wish I had a nickel for every piece of mail that I receive claiming that I joined something which I didn't join and providing a membership card embossed with my name. <cough AARP cough> These are advertising gimmicks. Apparently there are people stupid enough to think that they must have really joined and just forgot about it, and send in the check as requested, since that is the only way a broadcast mailing of embossed cards would be cost-effective. Anyway ... caveat emptor, as usual.

[Minardil]

Meanwhile, this woman's story of "higher premiums" turns out to be not entirely true. . .

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/misleading-anti-obamacare-ad-in-michigan/

Americans for Prosperity’s latest anecdotal TV ad attacking the Affordable Care Act features a Michigan mom who says her family’s “new plan is not affordable at all” and that the law is “destroying the middle class.” In fact, her case is an example of how middle-class families can benefit from the law — if they choose to do so.

The ad, which features Shannon Wendt of Michigan, leaves the false impression that the family obtained its costly new insurance plan through the federal exchange set up by the new law. But that’s not the case. The family’s “new plan” is a temporary plan that does not meet the ACA requirements. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan offered the plan to customers who had their old policies canceled but did not want to purchase insurance on the exchange. It turns out that Wendt found a cheaper, subsidized plan on the exchange, but declined to accept it because she did not want her children on the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

That’s her right, of course, but the ad is misleading because it fails to disclose that the Wendt family opted to pay more for insurance rather than accept the conditions that came with obtaining a cheaper, subsidized health plan on the exchange.

[portia]

After looking at the article again, I am more than ever convinced it is a fake. No. 1 suspect, the people who called it in. No. 2 suspect, someone who was playing around in the Secretary of State's office.

No reliable information is available on this whole subject.

[Minardil]

Tea Party Darling Sen Ted Cruz holds poll on Facebook and gets more than he bargained for:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/ted-cruz-obamacare-facebook-poll-105306.html?hp=l2

[portia]

Tea Party Darling Sen Ted Cruz holds poll on Facebook and gets more than he bargained for:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/ted-cruz-obamacare-facebook-poll-105306.html?hp=l2

I guess Ted Cruz doesn't like it when people react to his poll, against what he was advocating. Getting just a little of the Republican disinformation back at him, hurts. Too bad for him.

[Minardil]

I think it may be more of a case of ACTUAL information trumping disinformation, but yeah, I think that perhaps Sen. Cruz did not realize the extent to which there are people out there that do NOT share his views on certain subjects. Such is the danger of the "news bubble" in which Conservatives like Cruz have sequestered themselves. They live in a world where they only hear viewpoints that align with their own. Indeed, they view discourse with anyone outside the bubble as something akin to treason and heresy. So they begin to believe that their view is the ONLY view that exists, so when they make even the smallest move outside the bubble, and are suddenly confronted with reality, they get a big shocked.

[portia]

It is possible that the current members of Congress (and quite a few others) have no personal experience with a major piece of legislation passing (such as the Medicare Act, the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act) and therefore do not understand that a major piece of legislation always carries with it doubters, second guessers and others who are less than dazzled by the brilliance of the legislation. So, maybe, they take the quibbbles seriously, instead of merely as side issues and statements made for the purpose of getting their names in the newspapers.

I suggest we not panic, but let the kinks works themselves out. It may take a couple of years, but I think that people will decide they are much better off with the ACA than without it.

And, by the way, if the rates do go up in later years, remember how much they were going up, year by year, before.

[The Heretic]

And, by the way, if the rates do go up in later years, remember how much they were going up, year by year, before.

As rates go up, remember Obama, who lied repeatedly, promised that everyone would pay less and get more, an average of $2500 less per family, along with promising everyone could keep their plans and doctors.

O-Care premiums to skyrocket
Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.

The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... -skyrocket

Reuters) - As the first Obamacare enrollment period comes to a close, U.S. insurers are already anticipating the need to raise prices for 2015 and fear that it will put them at the center of the political blame game over President Barack Obama's healthcare law.
[...]
But insurers have already said that the first group of new enrollees under Obamacare, as the law is widely known, represent a higher rate of older and costlier members than hoped. To keep their health plans from losing money in the coming years, many expect monthly premium rates to rise by double-digit percentages in some parts of the country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/ ... UR20140401

Health Plan Premiums Are Skyrocketing According To New Survey Of 148 Insurance Brokers, With Delaware Up 100%, California 53%, Florida 37%, Pennsylvania 28%

Health insurance premiums are showing the sharpest increases perhaps ever according to a survey of brokers who sell coverage in the individual and small group market. Morgan Stanley’s healthcare analysts conducted the proprietary survey of 148 brokers. The April survey shows the largest acceleration in small and individual group rates in any of the 12 prior quarterly periods when it has been conducted.

The average increases are in excess of 11% in the small group market and 12% in the individual market. Some state show increases 10 to 50 times that amount. The analysts conclude that the “increases are largely due to changes under the ACA.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottli ... obamacare/

I wonder why the liar in chief Obama keeps delaying parts of his own signature 'achievement'.

[portia]

I mentioned the need to remember the way rates were going up before the legislation, and Heretic's post illustrates why. Don't believe projections until they actually are in effect--those are merely attempts to grab headlines. When the projections are in effect, remember how the rates were going uo before. Who cares what was pronmised, if the rates are not going up as much as they were before? Do not be distracted by quibbles and projections. They have no effect on your checkbook.

[The Heretic]

I mentioned the need to remember the way rates were going up before the legislation, and Heretic's post illustrates why.

"Health Plan Premiums Are Skyrocketing According To New Survey Of 148 Insurance Brokers, With Delaware Up 100%, California 53%, Florida 37%, Pennsylvania 28%"
hmm... are skyrocketing...

Don't believe projections until they actually are in effect--those are merely attempts to grab headlines. When the projections are in effect, remember how the rates were going uo before.

Yet Portia relies on projections. What Portia, thus, actually means is don't pay attention to projections that Portia does not like.

Who cares what was pronmised, if the rates are not going up as much as they were before? Do not be distracted by quibbles and projections. They have no effect on your checkbook.

People who value honesty from public officials probably care about promises made.
Portia of course, does not care about honesty from public officials, at least as long as those public officials expand the power of the state over the individual.

[portia]

I learned a long time ago that promises from public officials, lawyers, doctors, real estate agents, all salespeople are, at best, wishful thinking. Sometimes experience can be helpful in predicting what to expect (good or bad).
For example: predictions of disaster, as the result of a policy with which the speaker does not a agree, are--based on experience--not reliable.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I learned a long time ago that promises from public officials, lawyers, doctors, real estate agents, all salespeople are, at best, wishful thinking.

And never to even think about the possibility of holding them accountable for breaking those promises. Never ever do that. No matter how egregious the broken promise.

[portia]

"Holding them accountable" is a pipe dream.

There are always ways to get them out of the so-called promise: "Conditions have changed"; [someone}didn't do what he/she promised, so my obligation changed:" Some other issue came up, so that my primary obligation is different." Sometimes, not always, those reasons are "good enough."

We should not be like five year olds and whine "But you promised" when there were fairly good reasons for the change. A politician, lawyer, real estate saleperson who cannot adapt to changed circumstances is not just useless, but a liability.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

"Holding them accountable" is a pipe dream.

As long as we have people who will excuse each and every instance of a promise being broken, then holding politicians accountable IS a pipe dream.

It is those who excuse everything who make politics as corrupt as it is. They look at all the excuses and say "good enough" because, well, it is a politician so that makes it ok.

If you cannot trust anything a politician says, in reality that makes that person not just useless, but a liability. And you that liability's "useful idiot."

[portia]

If it makes you happy to view politics as a simple matter, with no nuances and changes of circumstance from one time to another, go for it.
Many of the rest of us are a little more sophisticated and realize that times and circumstances do change and that very few human endeavors are conducted at the First Grade level.
As I said before, Children can get away with whining "But you promised" adults cannot.

Whether a politician can "get away" with not keeping promises depends on the specific circumstances. G.W. Bush made a lot of noise and promises about not getting involved in anti-terrorism and "nation building" but then 9/11 happened. Do you accuse him of breaking promises? Obama promised a closure of Guantanamo, but Congress voted to deny permission to spend any money on such a project. Do you accuse Obama of breaking a promise?

[The Heretic]

"Holding them accountable" is a pipe dream.

As long as we have people who will excuse each and every instance of a promise being broken, then holding politicians accountable IS a pipe dream.

It is those who excuse everything who make politics as corrupt as it is. They look at all the excuses and say "good enough" because, well, it is a politician so that makes it ok.

If you cannot trust anything a politician says, in reality that makes that person not just useless, but a liability. And you that liability's "useful idiot."

This seems particularly true with Portia who equates being forced by actions into breaking a promise, with making a promise that there was no intention or ability to keep and continuing to repeat a promise that one knows is false (and then lying about what the promise was).

CG, does Portia excuse the lies of politicians across party lines, or is just Democrats, or just those related to expanding the power of the state over the individual?

[Minardil]

Do you accuse him of breaking promises?

It's particularly easy to accuse a politician of lying when you misstate, misrepresent, and otherwise lie about whatever "promises" or statements he has actually made. If you just make up stuff up about what you claim he has said, it's easy to say he lied when he doesn't do what he didn't ever really say he would do. We saw some of that from Mr. Bush's opponents during the last administration, and a great deal of it these days from Mr. Obama's opponents.

[portia]

If you can tell the difference between what a politician, salesperson, etc., really intends to do or believes he/she will do, and something that is not sincere, you are definately in the wrong business, and need to go on the stage. Reading minds at that level will definately make you rich (unless someone decides you are too dangerous and attacks you).

It is possible to get a general idea of what the politician wants from his promises, but only a general idea (Mitt Romney is a case in point). Deciding on a candidate because of his/her promises is foolish and will leave you disappointed.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

CG, does Portia excuse the lies of politicians across party lines, or is just Democrats, or just those related to expanding the power of the state over the individual?

As far as I've seen, it is bi-partisan. And you're right, she seems to be unwilling to differentiate between promises that were broken by circumstance and promises that the politician never intended to keep and only make to sound good. That's why I've asked if there were any instances in which she'd hold a politician to task for breaking a promise, because surely at least some promises weren't broken due to changing circumstances. The answer was always negative because sometimes circumstances change.

As far as I can tell (and I do not have proof of this) this is portia's thought process with regards to who to support:

That politician says he opposes X.
That means the politician supports X.
I support X.
Therefore I will support that politician.

It makes me wonder about the shock and dismay portia might feel if the politician was actually telling the truth.

I'd say it is crazy, but on this board where we have an economist who thinks the sentence "That proposal you made is wrong, all proposals you make are wrong, you never make any proposals at all" is not a self-contradictory statement. We have a fascist who claims to support laws against discrimination - perhaps he is one of the non-racist fascists? We have a poster who has earned four, maybe five permanent bans.

[portia]

Since your "summary" of my position is seriously flawed, I present the following.

I am willing to consider the possibility that the politician actually opposes "X." Which will give me some insight (maybe) to his/her thought processes. But I hope I am never foolish enough to base my support or opposition on what I think of the promises. A lot of promises, from one person, that I think would be good ideas might end up being a tie breaker between two candidates. But, if they do not carry out the promises, I am unlikely to hold it against them, unless I feel that the reason they did not keep the promises was due to general incompetence.

I do not attach much importance to whether they were "prevented" from carrying out a promise in which they really believed, or were just "making a noise." First, since I am not a mind reader, I cannot know which is which and, second, things change and who can tell, after the fact, which was which.