jerseyhoya wrote:You're the one who's saying it's impossible to quantify because there is no transparent information out there.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You're the one who's saying it's impossible to quantify because there is no transparent information out there.

Am I not also the one clarifying that my position, like yours, isn't readily or reliably quantifiable, while you keep yammering about many & most and plenty as if you were drawing on objective information? /#oppanwerthlesstyle

drsmooth wrote:anyway, I am PLENTY sick & tired of talking about g-dam health insurance

I'd like to know what you make of the VA gov race. Throw in the AG race while you're at it.

I'm a bit baffled by the lib talking heads running their endzone dances on the governor's race, as if there weren't going to be an actual vote on the matter next week.

Virginians, they crazy

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You're the one who's saying it's impossible to quantify because there is no transparent information out there.

Am I not also the one clarifying that my position, like yours, isn't readily or reliably quantifiable, while you keep yammering about many & most and plenty as if you were drawing on objective information? /#oppanwerthlesstyle

I haven't said most, I don't think. If 7-12 million people are made to drop their coverage, and 10% or 20% or 50% of them had good coverage that is going to cost more to replace, then many and plenty are good words to describe the amount of people being adversely impacted by the provision in the law.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:anyway, I am PLENTY sick & tired of talking about g-dam health insurance

I'd like to know what you make of the VA gov race. Throw in the AG race while you're at it.

I'm a bit baffled by the lib talking heads running their endzone dances on the governor's race, as if there weren't going to be an actual vote on the matter next week.

Virginians, they crazy

Cuccinelli hasn't been up in a poll in months. Unless something breaks, McAuliffe ought to win by 8-10%, and Cuccinelli's chances of winning are close to 0. And really with all the oppo out there, any game changer is going to have to be immense, because no one likes either of them.

I haven't followed the AG race at all, but I think it's supposed to be closer. Hard to overcome that kind of up ballot beating in a race where name ID is lower. The GOP LG candidate is a shitshow, so that one might end up the worst of the three.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You're the one who's saying it's impossible to quantify because there is no transparent information out there.

Am I not also the one clarifying that my position, like yours, isn't readily or reliably quantifiable, while you keep yammering about many & most and plenty as if you were drawing on objective information? /#oppanwerthlesstyle

I haven't said most, I don't think. If 7-12 million people are made to drop their coverage, and 10% or 20% or 50% of them had good coverage that is going to cost more to replace, then many and plenty are good words to describe the amount of people being adversely impacted by the provision in the law.

ah, hard numbers. wrong numbers, but numbers. How are you getting 7-12 million "made to drop their coverage" by ACA, vs by insurers doing what they've done since for your lifetime and beyond?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:anyway, I am PLENTY sick & tired of talking about g-dam health insurance

I'd like to know what you make of the VA gov race. Throw in the AG race while you're at it.

I'm a bit baffled by the lib talking heads running their endzone dances on the governor's race, as if there weren't going to be an actual vote on the matter next week.

Virginians, they crazy

Cuccinelli hasn't been up in a poll in months. Unless something breaks, McAuliffe ought to win by 8-10%, and Cuccinelli's chances of winning are close to 0. And really with all the oppo out there, any game changer is going to have to be immense, because no one likes either of them.

I haven't followed the AG race at all, but I think it's supposed to be closer. Hard to overcome that kind of up ballot beating in a race where name ID is lower. The GOP LG candidate is a shitshow, so that one might end up the worst of the three.

wouldn't stuff like turnout, weather, etc be a bigger factor in an off-year election? I believe Quinnipiac, not exactly a champion of the Teaparty, recently had McAuliffe's margin at 4%

jerseyhoya wrote:The article pacino posted said 7-12 million

Experts have estimated that somewhere between half and three-quarters of those who currently buy their own policies will not have the option to renew coverage, which works out to around 7 million to 12 million people.

Werthless wrote:I'm not sure why docsmooth is asking for jerseyhoya to prove what would have happened if ACA didn't pass. Perhaps doc can share his proof that pacino's article is misleading? Doc's posts come down to simple rhetorical decices (ad hominems and argument from authority) because the data on the alternative universe does not exist.

“We were anxious to get the website up and running and functional, which we clearly have failed to do,” Sebelius replied. “Although I would suggest the website has never crashed. It is functional but at a very slow speed and low reliability.”

Werthless wrote: the website has never crashed. It is functional but at a very slow speed and low reliability.”

Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.

This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy.

As for a replacement plan, she says she was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, but that's a lot more than she'll really be paying. Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. I did so while we talked.

Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy.

At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.

Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile.

If she wanted to pay less, Cavallaro could opt for lesser coverage in a "bronze" plan. She could buy one from the California exchange for as little as $194 a month. From Anthem, it's $256, or $444 a year less than she's paying now. That buys her a $5,000 deductible (the same as she's paying today) but the out-of-pocket limit is lower, $6,350. Office visits would be $60 for primary care and $70 for specialties, but again with no limit on the number of visits. Factor in the premium savings, and it's hard to deny that she's still ahead.

...

The sad truth is that Cavallaro has been very poorly served by the health insurance industry and the news media. It seems that Anthem didn't adequately explain her options for 2014 when it disclosed that her current plan is being canceled. If her insurance brokers told her what she says they did, they failed her. And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down. They not only did her a disservice, but failed the rest of us too.

td11 wrote:http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-debunked-20131030,0,6010994.story#axzz2jMAyrD8S

Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.

This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy.

As for a replacement plan, she says she was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, but that's a lot more than she'll really be paying. Cavallaro told me she hasn't checked the website of Covered California, the state's health plan exchange, herself. I did so while we talked.

Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy.

At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two.

Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile.

If she wanted to pay less, Cavallaro could opt for lesser coverage in a "bronze" plan. She could buy one from the California exchange for as little as $194 a month. From Anthem, it's $256, or $444 a year less than she's paying now. That buys her a $5,000 deductible (the same as she's paying today) but the out-of-pocket limit is lower, $6,350. Office visits would be $60 for primary care and $70 for specialties, but again with no limit on the number of visits. Factor in the premium savings, and it's hard to deny that she's still ahead.

...

The sad truth is that Cavallaro has been very poorly served by the health insurance industry and the news media. It seems that Anthem didn't adequately explain her options for 2014 when it disclosed that her current plan is being canceled. If her insurance brokers told her what she says they did, they failed her. And the reporters who interviewed her without getting all the facts produced inexcusably shoddy work -- from Maria Bartiromo on down. They not only did her a disservice, but failed the rest of us too.

drsmooth wrote:if republicans are upset that ACA subsidies will ruin their latest "the Socialist is making the sky fall" scary story, they should quick-like-a-bunny run & come up with actual legislation that will actually make health care financing work rationally in ways that actually work in the real modern 21st century world and not in Paul Ryan's Ayn Randian bonerville