Skip to main content

View Diary: ACA, Understanding the details: Actuarial values of the plans' tiers & why you can ignore them (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, the NYT DOESN'T have "it" (meaning ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whenwego

    any support whatsoever for your statement that "Obama did in fact bork the original questionnaire and muck up all the code which then had to be redone"). It also isn't supported by your quote from O'Reilly Programming.  

    You don't get to simply make shit up, and then claim it's supported by links that don't in fact support it.  Hence the donut.

    Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

    by leevank on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 08:27:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The Biggest Obama Bork (0+ / 0-)

      Was the decision to go with his rube scheme instead of proven Medicare Single Payer.  Keeping the private rentier insurance industry intact when it should have bit the dust.  With that stated, let's look at how Obama borked his own program by changing the questionnaire well after most of the code was already written.
      Here is an early Description of Obama's Bet.

      The length of the old application was largely driven by the need to ensure that consumers were actually eligible for the government subsidies that Obamacare offers as a way to offset the cost of buying health insurance.

      Stop right there. It's the eligibility determination that's the fundamental architectural flaw. It cannot be fixed. Americans have to be thrown into different buckets in a complex and confusing system of eligibility determination, and inevitable get thrown in the wrong buckets, or there aren't even the right buckets for them. Adding to the mix is that buckets differ by state, both legally and in terms of insurance markets, and so what should be a simple, national system of Medicare for All instead creates second-class citizens all over the place, both within and between states. Obama chose to go that route. Under a single payer system, where health care is a right, the eligibility paperwork is very simple. There is one form, and it's already been filled out: Your birth certificate. That's the real policy discussion that's being hidden under the discussion about the length of the form.

      Back to the complexity:

      Those 61 pages of the old application were mostly filled with questions to make sure that people were eligible to get the subsidies. The government needs to verify their income, and make sure that they aren’t eligible for health insurance at work.

      Under Obamacare, the government also needs to verify that people aren’t eligible for other public health insurance programs like Medicaid or Veteran’s benefits before they receive subsidies to buy coverage on the exchanges.

      Is anyone in your household eligible to get health coverage from Medicare? Tricare? The Peace Corps? Are there any “other state or federal health benefit program” that they may be able to tap for health coverage? Is anyone in your household pregnant, and therefore eligible for other kinds of government

      assistance?
      That's a mighty big Bork sonny!  BTW at 67YOA your HR does not carry much weight.
    •  More. (0+ / 0-)

      Apology.

      We're only a week into the loud thud "soft launch" anyhow, so it's way too soon for a victory lap. In fact, victory means replacing ObamaCare with a truly universal system that treats health care as a right instead of an opportunity for rental extraction, so it's a ways off. I have to go on to write real posts on ObamaCare, so I'm not going to give linky goodness or quotes, or dance on anybody's grave [sigh], but links to back up claims on request.

      That said, if you've been reading Corrente, you've seen the following claims, all of which have turned out to be true (and none, not one of which have been covered by the career "progressive" blogs or mentioned by Obama apologists, let alone Democratic loyalists)*:

      1. The software development process for the Exchanges was borked: It was rushed, and subject to last minute changes from "management" (the White House);

      2. There would be significant systems integration problems on the back end;

      3. Credit reporting agency data is bad data, and that will cause problems for eligibility determination;

      4. Access to health care through the policies on the Exchanges is a crapshoot; it's arbitrary and capricious, instead of being a right guaranteed universally to all.

      If you've been reading Corrente since the single payer battle in 2009-2010, you'll remember Hipparchia's serial brutal takedowns of the Dartmouth study, which demolished the intellectual foundations for ObamaCare's claim to "bend the cost curve." And recently we've been seeing other Correntians joining in the fun, with Teresa showing how hospitals are gaming the in- and out-of-network coverage, and Alexa and others reporting on their own experiences. More like this please!

      We have been following this for some time.  You seem to be a little new to the program.   Help me find O'care exchange provider networks which include specialty cancer treatment in any State!  Please provide the links to what you find.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site