http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSQg1i_q2g

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ABOARD!

Ah, the cool air of a Russian morning. Good thing I had my coat ready.

It's not a "popular liberal myth", it's fact. The ACA originiated at the Heritage Foundation, was implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and is now, somehow, representative of the onslaught of communism and the end of America as we know. You've been sold a bill of goods, plain and simple. 

Further, you say "There is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after injury", and then call that free healthcare. They paid the mandate. That's the point. They're putting more into the system than they ever did previously; currently, those people are still getting medical care, and private insurance holders are covering the cost. The cost of insurance premiums has risen consistently over the last 15 years to account for the rising cost of treating Americans. This is due, in part, to uninsured patients receiving care at rate card costs that nobody can cover. Rather than write that off as a loss, hospital systems raise the prices they charge insurance companies to offset that. With the ACA, they have to raise those costs less because there is individual mandate money and expanded medicaid coverage covering some of the costs incurred by people in that situation. 

Next, provide me evidence that you can "quite easily lie and claim you earn below poverty level." That is absolutely a myth designed to propogate the conservative fear of "takers" suckling on Uncle Sam's teat. To lie about your income to receive ACA care, you'd also have to lie on your income tax filings. It's not easy, and it'll land you in jail. 

This is the law of the land. It's going to be implemented, and it's not going to cause America to crash in on itself. The economy is going to be fine, and any company that reduces hiring or hours to offset costs of Obamacare is a) inefficiently run, and b) unwilling to out in 45 minutes of research to work around that. Full disclosure: I work for an HR consulting firm and for the last 2 years have been worked with just over a dozen clients ranging from Fortune 500 to sub 50 employee ad agencies to help them navigate ACA implementation. It hasn't had any significant effect on any of them, and even the agency of 45 plans to hire between 10-15 people next year bringing them above the 50 employee threshold. I see the effect this has on companies up close every single day. To work around it, all that's required is a solid 45 minutes of critical thinking. Every single one of our clients has hired us in a panic, and leave our introductory meetings relieved and laughing about how truly misleading the coverage of this law has been. Go read it some time. Study Massachusetts. Read a couple Insurance Company annual reports. Then come back to me and tell me this is the end of the world. 

Finally, to your last point: Liberals don't love this plan. It's not the plan any liberal I know would choose, and the support of it has far more to do with it being a stepping stone towards a true single payer program than with the fact that they actually love it as currently designed. Regardless, however, it's a huge improvement over the current system. 

And that is the real problem. If politicians wanted to actually fix the problem, the would begin with people gaming the system and not work so hard to build a socialistic system that takes from some people and gives to others.

So you work with clients who come to you in a panic over Obamacare. They hire you, apparently someone who is in favor of Obamacare, to help them figure out the law. Is that how it works? Or are you a government provided "navigator" who has the job of convincing people that Obamacare is wonderful? Just clarifying.

And being a stepping stone toward "single payer" is a good thing? You want single payer? I thought you were into the free market, competition, and all that?

Or was that someone else?

You claim this will not make the economy suffer. Amazing that you have that knowledge. Some pretty smart people in this nation completely disagree with you.

Hey, I heard Obamacare will not cause any economic trouble AT ALL?

Really, how do you know?

This guy on the internet "Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame" said so!

 

That single-payer system, in theory, will have no competition and prices will be established by bureaucrats, who will also have a major role in determining what care is necessary and will be covered by their plan. Your primary physician will lose control over treatment.

A one-size-fits-all solution fits no one.

Monroe,
I appreciate your comments. You and I clearly disagree politically (we already knew that), but I'd be glad to share a beer sometime with you to debate in person.

miami sucks.

Excellent comment and insight!

Just one quick point:  "laws of the land" are changed, amended and rescinded all of the time.  Two extreme examples make the point: Slavery in part of our nation was "'the law of the land" upheld by the Supreme Court at one time (See Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law).  Prohibition was at one time the law of the land and was later overturned with a Constitutional Amendment to revoke a previous amendment.  Etc.  While there may be some good arguments for keeping Obamacare citing its current status as the "law of the land' upheld by the Supreme Court is not one them.   

There are enrollment periods. This first is open now, and runs through March 1, but I suspect will be extended due to the website issues. Beyond that, there will be special enrollment periods in the same manner that private insurers currently offer, which allow enrollment due to a change of circumstance (marriage or birth of a chile, etc.). I also believe that you can switch plans at any time, but to do so you have to be willing to cover the additional premium costs retroactive to the last date of open enrollment.

As far as the ability to refuse coverage, have an injury, and then pick up coverage my understanding is that that is not possible. I admit though that my "expertise" about the ACA is much more focused on the employer side the the equation than on the individual purchaser side.

It's really tough to say at this juncture. The success of the ACA is going to rely very, very heavily on this first open enrollment period and how many people sign up. The traffic numbers are obviously very good so far, but how that translates into actual customers remains to be seen. If the CBO's estimates turn out to be right, the ACA should function reasonably well from a revenue/cost perspective. If the actual numbers fall short of that, it's going to be a rocky road fiscally until year 3 or so when the larger mandate fees kick in.

As for advice to Washington, I personally feel that one of the larger mistakes the Democrats have made is one of message. For most, the the term "Obamacare" is synonymous with health insurance and health insurance alone, when in actuality the law is more far reaching than that and several stipulations of the law have already gone into place that I think are going to have positive effects and are being overlooked. For instance: 

• The FDA can now legally approve more generic pharmaceuticals, which will increase competition and drive prices down. 
• It places a huge emphasis on preventative care. If you're going for a mammogram or colonoscopy, you no longer will be paying a copay for that visit.
• It taxes things like tanning booths, which lead to very high rates of skin cancer.
• It removes lifetime limits on insurance payouts.
• Insurers can't drop patients for getting sick or pregnant or otherwise incurring medical costs, which happened far too regularly before.

As far as more pie in the sky suggestions that aren't directly linked to ACA but I personally would prefer, like I said, a single payer system akin to the system in Canada or England is, I think, the inevitable conclusion of the healthcare debate in the US. The GOP actually finds itself in a really odd place right now, because they are simultaneously the party of small government and the party of big business, but can't be both in any debate over a single payer system. The decoupling of health insurance and employers would result in huge cost savings for American businesses, but would also result in a substantial growth in the size of the federal government. They're going to have to reconcile one of those positions, because I just don't see how "15% of our population shouldn't have access to healthcare" is a winning strategy for them. Going forward, any repeal of the ACA is going to have to be accompanied by a solution and as of yet, the GOP haven't presented anything outside of Darrell Issa's plan, which is actually just the ACA all over again.