OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Ditto for the rest of the states.

So this makes the ACA “successful” because it managed to get so many more people “covered” into “expanded” Medicaid/Medi-Cal :=0[/quote]

Yes, exactly. Not a dirty little secret. That was the goal. Get people access to health care. You really have a problem with that?[/quote]The ACA was “touted” by its supporters as “You can keep your healthplan” and, “you can keep your doctors.” Both of which were outright lies because those in-the-know excluded the fact that many carriers wouldn’t want to have anything to do with it, nor would all the best providers.

The ACA was presented to the masses as “healthplans you purchase,” NOT Medicaid! In CA, the expanded Medicaid program is nothing but a snare for the middle income, asset rich individual over the age of 55 who does NOT want to be on the (overburdened) Medicaid/Medi-Cal system … whether or not they have significant assets to lien. These people have been paying their own bills all of their lives and do NOT want to be on “forced public aid.” Especially a program shoved down their throats as “mandatory” to join but oh, we forgot to tell you that your $630 month “dues” will be deferred until after your death so no worries :=0

Many in this segment don’t need a high income and don’t wish to withdraw large sums from their retirement accounts as early as their late fifties and early sixties if their homes are paid off and they have monthly pension(s) coming in. Yet the Covered CA snare into Medi-Cal seems to be affecting those who have an AGI under about $33K (after writeoffs are taken). Many in this (now dicey) group are finding themselves duking it out with CC up to 4x year, continually “proving their incomes” to keep their coverage … until a few months down the road when they’ll be asked to prove it again.

This is my main beef with the “system” in CA. Add to that the general incompetence of CC staff and it is a recipe for disaster for those who paid their premiums on time and thought they were covered but actually are not and end up needing to access care during the times they were “bumped” from their plan.[/quote]

Because you thought the ACA was one thing, doesn’t mean that’s what it was designed to do. It was designed to get people coverage. It succeeded. If you only remember hearing “you can keep your plan and your doctor if you want to”, I suspect it’s because that’s a really convenient criticism of a black president, and you never actually heard those words until they were proven to be a mistake. If this sounds to you like I’m accusing you of being a racist, no apologies. It is what it is.

As I’ve said at least twice before, nobody is required to get Medicaid coverage. Nobody is required to disclose financial information. That’s all voluntary. And it’s not income after deductions. It’s modified adjusted gross income. That’s before deducting things like home mortgage interest, property taxes and charitable contributions.

Apparently, you and the people you’ve been advising on how to do it, have a horrible advisor who has no idea what they’re doing. If you did, you would never get wrapped up in the Medicaid issue.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Ditto for the rest of the states.

So this makes the ACA “successful” because it managed to get so many more people “covered” into “expanded” Medicaid/Medi-Cal :=0[/quote]

Yes, exactly. Not a dirty little secret. That was the goal. Get people access to health care. You really have a problem with that?[/quote]The ACA was “touted” by its supporters as “You can keep your healthplan” and, “you can keep your doctors.” Both of which were outright lies because those in-the-know excluded the fact that many carriers wouldn’t want to have anything to do with it, nor would all the best providers.

The ACA was presented to the masses as “healthplans you purchase,” NOT Medicaid! In CA, the expanded Medicaid program is nothing but a snare for the middle income, asset rich individual over the age of 55 who does NOT want to be on the (overburdened) Medicaid/Medi-Cal system … whether or not they have significant assets to lien. These people have been paying their own bills all of their lives and do NOT want to be on “forced public aid.” Especially a program shoved down their throats as “mandatory” to join but oh, we forgot to tell you that your $630 month “dues” will be deferred until after your death so no worries :=0

Many in this segment don’t need a high income and don’t wish to withdraw large sums from their retirement accounts as early as their late fifties and early sixties if their homes are paid off and they have monthly pension(s) coming in. Yet the Covered CA snare into Medi-Cal seems to be affecting those who have an AGI under about $33K (after writeoffs are taken). Many in this (now dicey) group are finding themselves duking it out with CC up to 4x year, continually “proving their incomes” to keep their coverage … until a few months down the road when they’ll be asked to prove it again.

This is my main beef with the “system” in CA. Add to that the general incompetence of CC staff and it is a recipe for disaster for those who paid their premiums on time and thought they were covered but actually are not and end up needing to access care during the times they were “bumped” from their plan.[/quote]

Because you thought the ACA was one thing, doesn’t mean that’s what it was designed to do. It was designed to get people coverage. It succeeded. If you only remember hearing “you can keep your plan and your doctor if you want to”, I suspect it’s because that’s a really convenient criticism of a black president, and you never actually heard those words until they were proven to be a mistake. If this sounds to you like I’m accusing you of being a racist, no apologies. It is what it is.

As I’ve said at least twice before, nobody is required to get Medicaid coverage. Nobody is required to disclose financial information. That’s all voluntary. And it’s not income after deductions. It’s modified adjusted gross income. That’s before deducting things like home mortgage interest, property taxes and charitable contributions.

Apparently, you and the people you’ve been advising on how to do it, have a horrible advisor who has no idea what they’re doing. If you did, you would never get wrapped up in the Medicaid issue.[/quote]

Of course, I/we already know all this. This rest of this is hogwash. And for the record, I voted for a (so-called) “black president” …. twice in the last decade. I was actually registered as a Dem from about 1987 to 2012 and am currently registered as an independent and currently leaning towards Cruz or Sanders, should either of them get the nomination.

It looks like “you people” in AZ overwhelmingly voted for Trump and Clinton in your primary …. sorry if that fact disturbs your delicate sensibilities. Go figure :=0

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]As usual, non-answers, deflection of the issues that “nobody wants to talk about” and more insults from people who do not know anything about me.

carli, I asked you, according to your “expertise,” which, based on your posts, I believe you have, when are the major carriers coming back to the CA individual market to offer plans in all of the metal levels on the open market? Inquiring minds want to know.[/quote]

People do know things about you. You write non-scholarly tomes on subjects which you have no expertise.

If you’d taken any time to do some actual research, you’d find out that your experiences are not representative of the majority of Californians. Most are happy with the ACA. More are happier now than they were in previous years. And for the first time since the law was passed, registered voters of both major political parties have a favorable view of the law.

It’s highly likely, and this is just my opinion, that the reason your experience has been bad is that you think you know what you’re doing, but in fact, don’t have a clue.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]Of course, I/we already know all this. This rest of this is hogwash. And for the record, I voted for a (so-called) “black president” …. twice in the last decade. I was actually registered as a Dem from about 1987 to 2012 and am currently registered as an independent and currently leaning towards Cruz or Sanders, should either of them get the nomination.

It looks like “you people” in AZ overwhelmingly voted for Trump and Clinton in your primary …. sorry if that fact disturbs your delicate sensibilities. Go figure :=0[/quote]

“so called”? Do I need any more evidence?

Of course you can’t actually dispute anything I said with evidence. Calling something “hogwash” isn’t evidence. Calling the president a “(so called) “black president”” is.

[bearishgurl]

Once again, SK, you are still attempting to deflect the actual issues I brought up re: the inner workings of the ACA in CA, which obviously you have no experience with, being that you reside in AZ. You are doing this through your thinly-veiled insult diatribe towards me. It appears that you have been using outrageous insults in an attempt to get me to stop discussing what needs to be discussed about how the ACA actually “works” (or doesn’t work) in CA. I would not have expected that of you, of all Piggs. If I’m reading your posts of this morning correctly, you’re essentially stating that you knew all along that the ACA was expressly designed to place the masses on Medicaid whether they wanted to be there … or not. But your posts yesterday and prior omitted that dirty little secret by glossing over the facts. For example, last night, you posted only the figures you perceived were already enrolled in CC marketplace healthplans (1.7M, an erroneous figure). But you (conveniently) “failed” to come up with current Medi-Cal enrollee statistics, which are a much bigger piece of the ACA pie in CA. Many of the rest of your previous posts appeared to be an attempt to “sugar coat” the ACA in the eyes of the masses and you wouldn’t be the first one to do that.

No worries. I’m way beyond used to these shenanigans at this late date. I’ll be trying to help in any way I can to get SB-33 signed by Gov Brown and then we won’t be having this discussion anymore because the incentive for CC to keep repeatedly harassing CC enrollees about their incomes and the incentive of Medi-Cal workers to change CC enrollees’ (self-reported) income figures in CALHEERS will largely be gone … especially as it applies to the over-55 crowd.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]Once again, SK, you are still attempting to deflect the actual issues I brought up re: the inner workings of the ACA in CA, which obviously you have no experience with, being that you reside in AZ. You are doing this through your thinly-veiled insult diatribe towards me. It appears that you have been using outrageous insults in an attempt to get me to stop discussing what needs to be discussed about how the ACA actually “works” (or doesn’t work) in CA. I would not have expected that of you, of all Piggs. If I’m reading your posts of this morning correctly, you’re essentially stating that you knew all along that the ACA was expressly designed to place the masses on Medicaid whether they wanted to be there … or not. But your posts yesterday and prior omitted that dirty little secret by glossing over the facts. For example, last night, you posted only the figures you perceived were already enrolled in CC marketplace healthplans (1.7M, an erroneous figure). But you (conveniently) “failed” to come up with current Medi-Cal enrollee statistics, which are a much bigger piece of the ACA pie in CA. Many of the rest of your previous posts appeared to be an attempt to “sugar coat” the ACA in the eyes of the masses and you wouldn’t be the first one to do that.

No worries. I’m way beyond used to these shenanigans at this late date. I’ll be trying to help in any way I can to get SB-33 signed by Gov Brown and then we won’t be having this discussion anymore because the incentive for CC to keep repeatedly harassing CC enrollees about their incomes and the incentive of Medi-Cal workers to change CC enrollees’ (self-reported) income figures in CALHEERS will largely be gone … especially as it applies to the over-55 crowd.[/quote]

I don’t really give a shit what you want to discuss. You talk about what you want, and I’ll talk about what I want. If you throw out another lie, I’ll call you on it.

I never claimed that “that the ACA was expressly designed to place the masses on Medicaid whether they wanted to be there … or not”. Only that the goal was to get people covered. If they are eligible for Medicaid, that’s a win. If they get private insurance, that’s a win. I never glossed over anything because there is no reason to. The very reason the law included an expansion of Medicaid was that the goal was to get people access to care. Uninsured people still suffer horribly in states that have not expanded Medicaid, as do non-profit hospitals that continue to risk closure.

The 1.7 million was the goal for private QHPs. I grabbled the wrong number. Actual enrollees is closer to 1.5 million. You had suggested it was 1 million. You were off by 50%.

I don’t need to sugar coat anything. The facts stand for themselves. The ACA has worked. It has increased the number of people covered by insurance. The percentage of people not covered is approaching all time lows. People in California like it. They like it more as each year goes by. Premiums have increased at the slowest rate in decades. Total medical spending has increased at the slowest rate in decades. Slightly more people are covered through employer plans and there is no evidence whatsoever of significant job losses as a result of the law. Not a single one of the dire predictions about the law have come true. The fact that you cant figure out how it works is a reflection on you, not on the law. The fact that your experience with rates is different than most is not a reflection on the law as a whole.

If I didn’t respond to something you wanted me to respond to, tough. I responded to those things I wanted to.

[bearishgurl]

Okay, SK. Can we agree that “Medicaid” is not actually “insurance” and is instead a government-run entitlement program, initially put in place to serve the “poor?”

I’m simply stating here that Medi-Cal expansion has adversely affected thousands of middle-income individuals in CA who signed up in good faith for a marketplace plan on the exchange and it continues to do so.

In addition, Medi-Cal had no business being expanded when it didn’t even have enough providers to serve the ~2.7M CA residents who were on it pre-ACA (2013 and prior). As of this summer, there will apparently be nearly five times that many Medi-Cal enrollees while providers continue to drop like flies from the program AS WELL AS from the marketplace exchange plans which are NOT EPOs.

To the extent that the ACA has been “successful,” it was very likely the millions of Medicaid/Medi-Cal signups who have provided the “numbers” to make it so (the bulk of exchange enrollees in those states which adopted “expanded Medicaid”).

I have never implied anywhere that I feared Americans would lose jobs because of the ACA. If anything, the ACA has created thousands of just-over-minimum wage jobs in the (underserved) Lodi/Sac/Chico areas of CA in the form of CC telephone “representatives” and back office positions. That fact in and of itself doesn’t make these workers competent or even remotely aware of the nuances of how their “system” works or how to fix any of the multitude of real-life problems their “system” causes enrollees every single day. It only makes them “employed” … for now.

Oh, and btw, I have never blamed “Obama” for the failings of the ACA machinery on the ground. I lay the blame solely in the lap of the Dems in Congress who hurriedly pushed it through without understanding the ramifications of what exactly was in the (volumimous) law. The President simply rubber-stamped on March 23, 2010, what Congress had already passed, as you previously stated.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]Okay, SK. Can we agree that “Medicaid” is not actually “insurance” and is instead a government-run entitlement program, initially put in place to serve the “poor?”

[/quote]

No, we can’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m simply stating here that Medi-Cal expansion has adversely affected thousands of middle-income individuals in CA who signed up in good faith for a marketplace plan on the exchange and it continues to do so.

[/quote]
It’s adversely affected you, and the people you advise, or at least you claim it is, because you think you know what you’re doing, and you actually have no clue. Other than you, and those you claim you advise, I’ve seen no evidence of what you’re claiming.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Oh, and btw, I have never blamed “Obama” for the failings of the ACA machinery on the ground. I lay the blame solely in the lap of the Dems in Congress who hurriedly pushed it through without understanding the ramifications of what exactly was in the (volumimous) law. The President simply rubber-stamped on March 23, 2010, what Congress had already passed, as you previously stated.[/quote]

The law was not “pushed through”. It was negotiated for more than six months. I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t lie about things I’ve said. I never said anything about the President rubberstamping what congress passed.

[flyer]

Although our insurance is not through the ACA, reading through the last few pages of this thread prompted me to check out some info, and, although it sounds like it has been helpful in many cases, the original statements concerning keeping your health plan and doctors should probably never have been made. Perhaps people were misled on that point, and that might account for the frustration many have–per PolitiFact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

That said, although we all know health insurance in one form or another is essential, if our politicians can’t solve the wealth gap/inequality issue for millions of people in this country going forward (which I don’t believe they can) the issues of the ACA, and just about every other issue being discussed in these campaigns will pale in comparison–per Scientific American:

“The average American believes that the richest fifth of the population own 59% of the wealth and that the bottom 40% own 9%. The reality is strikingly different. The top 20% of US households own more than 84% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% combine for a paltry 0.3%. The Walton family, for example, has more wealth than 42% of American families combined.”

As I said in another post, taking a look at the status of the wealth gap in America four or five years from now will clearly reveal if campaign promises being made now have really changed the lives of the majority of the population in any meaningful way. It should be interesting to see what happens.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=carli]
…most everything bearishgurl is stating is completely inaccurate, false and made up in her own mind with no apparent basis in fact whatsoever.
[/quote]

I don’t know about you guys, but I’m thinking we have a contender for a new website slogan.

[svelte]

[quote=carli]
…most everything bearishgurl is stating is completely inaccurate, false and made up in her own mind with no apparent basis in fact whatsoever.
[/quote]

I decided this long ago, which is why I rarely if ever engage her anymore.

See March 1 2012, 6:13 PM:

http://piggington.com/mira_mesa_7510_bannister_ln_10_lost_in_less_than_one_year

[svelte]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a conversation between the top two Republican candidates for President today:

Trump: Lyin’ Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin’ Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!

Cruz: Pic of your wife not from us. Donald, if you try to attack Heidi, you’re more of a coward than I thought.

One threatens to reveal secrets about the other’s wife.

The other calls the first a coward.

[zk]

[quote=SK in CV] I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t lie about things I’ve said. [/quote]

That’s like saying, “Mr. Trump, I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t encourage violence on the part of your supporters.” If a person is so batshit crazy that they don’t even know they’re doing what you’re accusing them of, a reasonable plea won’t help.

You can’t fight crazy, so don’t even try.

[Author]

Posts