Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama statement on Affordable Care Act milestone (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  checked out quotes for your home (6+ / 0-)

    state, so you didn't need insurance,  didn't actually apply for any, and don't really know what or why there were differences, and haven't offered enough details to know what kind of plans you were comparing or anything that really shows your attempt to get at truth versus playing out right wing talking points as personal concern for others.

    •  Troubling - see (0+ / 0-)

      I used the state's "estimator" and compared with the KFF's estimator to see the difference there, but thats not my main concern.  

      My main concern is the amount of talk of higher premiums being paid.  Maybe its completely all just republican garbage, and no one is suffering that fate.  But I'm suggesting that perhaps there is at least some truth to the notion of unfair rate hikes being experienced, based on the acknowledgement by many in our own party.  Does that make more sense?

      Look, maybe its difficult for you to believe that I'd actually come here as someone in our own party and express concern rather than just high five, but thats the truth. If its not wanted, or discussion is opposed, I'm happy to refrain.

      •  Reagan . . . (6+ / 0-)

        Best President in History. Or Greatest? I'd love to see the webpage browser history.

        How did you like "Atlas Shrugged"?

      •  "maybe its difficult for you to believe" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheLizardKing, Onomastic, Bonsai66, doroma

        You're right.  I do not believe you.

        Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

        by Arilca Mockingbird on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 01:53:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You think I'm just trolling? (0+ / 0-)

          Trust me, I'd think a troll would do a better (or worse, depending on perspective) job of it.  

          Is it possible to come here and have a conversation about a topic without being thought of as a troll?  Or is it just high fiving thats allowed?  

          Disappointed, some.

          •  There are people with starkly differing perspectiv (3+ / 0-)

            es but . . . they link to and show evidence.

            No one is high fiving in front of you. You are just spouting off non-sense.

            That would be a good job for people who don't get you can't disprove what you don't present.

            •  Okay, well, I'm not necessarily trying to (0+ / 0-)

              put my facts against yours, so whether you think its nonsense, I guess, is your perogative.  I'm just telling you what I've heard from real people that I know (which is why I'm not posting links with evidence).  and I'm suggesting that there are others in our party who have expressed similar concerns.  so, maybe the smoke really is indicative of fire, albeit hopefully a small one that can be put out easily.

              •  I should really stop. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Yahzi

                I know I should but I feel a real strong need to show you for who you are.

                A.  You've put up know facts so it is fair to think that you are spewing nonsense.

                B.  Even if it isn't nonsense and we can end up proving what you say is true then this is one annedote.

                C. Anecdotes are well, anecdotal.  

                D. If there was smoke and if it was indicative of fire, even if its just a fire, even if it was just evidence of a small fire, wouldn't there be some newlink you could provide that would support that?  NYTimes?  Washington Post?  Fox Nation?  Redstate.

                E. ...I'm out of alphabitized points.

                Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

                by Arilca Mockingbird on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:22:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Since you asked. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, Bonsai66, Yahzi

            Yes, I think you're trolling.

            You're not doing too bad as a troll. The non-confrontational ones tend to last longer than the "Hey you Libtards!" trolls.

            And yes, it is possible to come here and have a conversation without being thought of as a troll if you have factual statements, or links to support your statements, or even if you have well-reasoned opinions. Not so much if all you have is fuzzy concerns that would be well-suited in a Koch Brothers ad.

            "Get use to disappointment."

            Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

            by Arilca Mockingbird on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 02:14:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  alright, well, i don't think its terribly fuzzy (0+ / 0-)

              i think its pretty well documented that there are other democrats like me who are expressing concerns about the premium increases.  i can assure you i didn't come here just to rile feathers.  what i really came for was some opinions on the subject - why is this occurring, to which there have been some honest answers, and i'm appreciative of those.  i didn't join just to argue about whether i'm a troll.

          •  we're offering a conversation (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Arilca Mockingbird, Onomastic

            you want it to be about speculation and hearsay, we are asking for facts.

            And if you wanted facts, instead of being concerned about rumors, you could have asked for some background facts or researched any number of existing diaries or the internet in general to see whether your concerns were justified.

            •  I'm trying to do what you suggest (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sharman

              I'm hoping for some help here, that maybe you guys could lead me to these "diaries" (I don't know what those even are, so help me out).  

              I really hope my concerns aren't justified.  I just don't seem to be the only one who feels this way, but if I am, hey, thats great.

              And thank you for conversing.  Yes, perhaps its just about what I'm hearing, but its no less a conversation.  

              •  you are in a diary (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bryduck, Onomastic, NCJan, hbk

                the mini-blogs are called diaries.

                There is a search feature,  you can use that, it is at the top of the page.  You can also use a google advanced search feature that may offer more flexible search terms, but can be limited to this site by using the web address.

                The biggest issues on pricing seem to be with policies that were non-compliant and people didn't want to get 'more insurance' with the new requirements of the law.  In particular, lots of claims about doubling premiums were from people who are no longer eligible for catastrophic plans, who had to get full plans.   Some states had pretty good plans already because they have more restrictive laws to protect consumers, and some people fit niches where they did have really good policies with lower cost.  Some of those people are seeing significant increases as actuarial data was adjusted for the new rules.

                Many states with significant urban/rural divides have seen much higher rates in the rural areas that are under served.  Some of that differential always existed, some of the new actuarial rules that allowed rate differences by zip code saw the rural rates go up more, in part because the subsidies that were being done internally under a one state rule of the urban dwellers to rural dwellers disappeared.  States had the option to retain a single zone but only about five states exercised that option.

                Again, some of these problems could be ironed out if we had a functioning congress, but the republican obsession with making Obama fail and repealing health care reform means that no reasonable policy adjustments will be forthcoming.   Placing blame on the intransigence of the Republicans would make more sense than coming here complaining about the pain the ACA is inflicting on middle class families without evidence other than I talked to a couple of people.

              •  Down thread you said that you have been (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bryduck, hbk

                reading DKos "daily."

                How can you not know what diaries are?

                There is something in us that refuses to be regarded as less than human. We are created for freedom - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

                by Onomastic on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:25:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Hum. So your main concern is the "amount of talk" (7+ / 0-)

        about this, so you come here and join DKos, just today -- completely by coincidence I'm sure -- and add to the talk about it? Interesting.

        Oh, by the way, did you know that in that past, back before the ACA, insurance premiums were increasing all the time, at an incredibly fast pace? And people actually got dropped from their plans that they were paying for, all the time, if they ever got sick and actually needed to use it? And were denied from even getting insurance on the flimsiest of reasons?

        •  Its not coincidence I joined today (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sharman

          I joined specifically to talk about this with some fellow democrats.  Does that make sense?  

          Newsflash, yes, I'm new to the gang.  But I'm not trying to anger people by posing a different viewpoint.  Perhaps I should have first joined and spent a few months agreeing with everyone to prove that I'm legit.  I guess, I didn't see any point in that.  I wanted to talk to see what you guys all thought about the topic.

          •  Nope. It really doesn't make sense (6+ / 0-)

            and you are not coming across as believable.

            Care to answer any of my questions though? You know, since you're here to talk about this with some "fellow democrats" why don't you? Did you know any of those facts about life before the ACA? Do you think it was better then?

            •  No, I don't think it was better. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sharman

              I firmly still believe that the ACA is far better than what we had.

              And I'm sorry I'm not coming across as believable.  I don't know what else I can do to convince you all.  

              •  You can do what has been asked (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Onomastic, hbk

                of you. Figure out how to post screenshots--it's not that hard--and show us your research, instead of your claims of having done it, which simply forces us to prove you're lying. You have the remarkable claim; around here that means you should have to do the work to document it. Instead of even trying to do that, you play the victim card over and over, which only makes your assertion of not being a troll weaker and weaker, because, yes, that is how trolls react.

                "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                by bryduck on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:45:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Only time I defended (0+ / 0-)

                  was when I was attacked.  I'll post some shots.

                    •  Odd (0+ / 0-)

                      Elsewhere you describe these friends of yours as being a couple, mid-fifties, income of around $150,000 a year.

                      Your screencap shows that you're looking at quotes for a couple, 21 years-old, making $250,000 a year.

                      It would be great if you could stick to one story.

                      While its true that the quote above is more expensive than $450 a month (not that there's any proof that $450 quote is true) it is not double the cost which is what you claimed.

                      By the way, $8500/year for a couple making $250,000 is 3.4% of their income. This in my humble opinion is very reasonable. I pay 5% of my income on my employer provided insurance and I'm making much much...much less than $250,000.

                      Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

                      by Arilca Mockingbird on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 09:01:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The variables you mentioned don't make (0+ / 0-)

                        A bit of difference in the estimate.  And if $900 isn't twice $450, I'm not sure what is.  I used 250k as a high number to make sure no subsidies were applied.  It's not their actual income.  

                        You know, at this point you're just sour grapes.  I spent the time to learn how to post these, and showed you one example because you kept begging for evidence.  So here it is.  Now at the very least give me some credit for at least not being the imposter you thought, and publicly stated I was.

                        •  age makes a difference (0+ / 0-)

                          21 vs. 50 plus,  insurance companies know older people present more health issues.   So if you don't put in the right age range, the quotes are meaningless.

                          •  My mistake (0+ / 0-)

                            I redid the calculation, and you're correct.  The numbers did change dramatically.  The estimate provided by the KFF using age 55 for both was increased to essentially the same number the exchange provided.  Granted, it came to 10% of their income which still seems crazy high, but I can see that their age has everything to do with it in this case.  

                            Thanks for the helpful analysis.

                            Sure hope you don't still think I'm trolling (eyes rolling).

                          •  you know (0+ / 0-)

                            you might prefer for me to think you were trolling.   The alternative is for me to think you never thought about any of this enough to learn anything before you started having opinions.   ;P

                          •  It was an honest mistake (0+ / 0-)

                            I'd rather you think I am what I am (is that a Princess Bride line?).  In this case, a bit of a goof for making that easy error.  I guess what I'm questioning now is what was the $450/mo policy my friend had to begin with?

                          •  Given what you did hear, that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jfromga

                            should have been your first question, not the latest . . .

                            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                            by bryduck on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:17:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  $450 a month didn't sound unreasonably low (0+ / 0-)

                            And he claims that he had a 10 million lifetime cap (irrelevant) and didn't have maternity coverage, but otherwise he's not getting anything new, and actually has a higher deductible.  So my choice is to not believe him, or wonder if there's a shred of truth in there somewhere.

                          •  For unsubsidized insurance for an adult, (0+ / 0-)

                            let alone a family? Yeah, that's really low, and was undoubtedly junk. That he had an exorbitant lifetime cap also clues me in to the junkiness of it.

                            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                            by bryduck on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:38:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And in fact, the ACA (0+ / 0-)

                            prevents insurance companies from charging over 9.5% of income, so those estimates are too high under the law. If their income is lower, the cap on the % allowed is lower, too.

                            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                            by bryduck on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:16:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Only if you're talking for the one person. (0+ / 0-)

                            Including a spouse means the premiums can breach the 9.5% cap.

                          •  But if it breaches (0+ / 0-)

                            9.5%, the spouse/dependent would then be allowed to get insurance on his/her own . . .

                            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                            by bryduck on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:35:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why wouldn't the spouse be allowed (0+ / 0-)

                            to do that anyway?  And why would that save them money?

                          •  They can, but (0+ / 0-)

                            if an employer policy allows partners to be included, and the rate is less than the max, the partner is disallowed from going to the marketplace to receive any kind of subsidy. Consider the case of the single worker family whose insurer wants to charge more than the max. The worker gets his/her insurance from the employer, while the partner can go to the marketplace and get fully subsidized insurance (because his/her income is $0.) At that point, the family is empowered to decide if the benefits of having the two policies outweigh their costs.

                            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                            by bryduck on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 09:23:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In this case, i believe the couple brings in (0+ / 0-)

                            80k per year.  There are bronze policies available for under the 9.5%.  Silver policies are more than the 9.5%.  So if they want a silver policy, they have to pay more than the cap?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site