Hmmm I told him that he was wrong about that. You went overboard exaggerating the other way.
Well that's a high bar you're setting there. The rollout of the exchanges have fallen short of all expectations set by the administration. The numbers are low and the ages of the people are older. This is a significant problem.
Yup, and what's my position on Obamacare versus the status quo fly? I've asked to look this up (it's in this thread and addressed by you). Obamacare is better than the status quo before it. Obamacare is also deeply flawed and needs improvement. In an ideal world we have a government that works to make it better. Instead we have people on one side that simply wants to tear it down and another that wants to simply cover up any shortcomings.

Neither group is particularly appealing.

Meanwhile you thrash like a fish on a boat at me instead of actually reading anything I write. It's sad.

ikes, who do you think would believe the claim that there is a side that wants to cover up any shortcomings? Yeah, man, we all know those fiercely ideological Democrats. Probably afraid of getting primaried by Act Blue. Obama himself certainly wouldn't DREAM of taking executive action in an attempt to shore up the law and overcome GOP obstruction, because of how he's personally committed to covering up the shortcomings.

In the world the rest of us live in, Democratic operatives plan to run on "fix and improve" in 2014:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-on-obamacare/



Remember, ikes, my side is full of people like me, your side is full of people like you.

Yup
No. They're afraid of losing in the general by admitting obamacare has been off to a rough start.
While simultaneously arguing that things are going well I'm sure. Running on we didn't do well the first time we'll do better seems like a poor electoral strategy.

I don't think your side is full of people like you. That's too mean. Meanwhile, you have no idea what I even think. You simplistically denote people as on a side and then assign whatever position from that side to them. It's childish.

For example:

ikes can you guess what party the quoted individual belongs to? I'll give you 2 guesses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...target-number/

The age mix is a good example too.

That's just a start.

ikes I have another one:

That guy is ****ed once he learns about how Democrats are supposed to cover up the shortcomings and not admit that it's off to a rough start.

The same one you do. And you're not even a little bit interested.

OK and to briefly bring it back to substance, the improvements to Obamacare that Democrats and also internet posters are afraid to agree with you about even though they are obviously good ideas are:

1) increasing Medicaid reimbursements for doctors, because of how you like money.
...
(thinking)
...
2) Having Obama tell Riverman be nice to you on the internet? Seriously I'm stumped.

Top priorities:

Change medicare/medicaid payments structures so that it doesn't suck to be a PCP or non-specialist and maintain the ones we have. Increase residency slots to allow more physicians in the USA. Lean on AMA/AAMC to accredit more medical schools.

All easily doable and completely non-controversial. You, otoh, deny that a doc, and more acutely, pcp shortage even exists.

None of those things are fixes related to Obamacare, which is regulation of the health insurance industry. As recently as earlier this page, your problem was that Democrats weren't willing to admit that the enrollment numbers were too small and too old because admitting that would be admitting that there's a problem that needs attention.

So that coverup about the enrollment numbers is... because they don't want to rework Medicare reimbursement? Or accredit more medical schools? The **** do either of those have to do with the makeup of people buying on the exchanges?

How did that even make sense in your head?

I'm paying $25 a month to have dental insurance on my daughter. She's a baby. She doesn't even have teeth yet.

That's one of many problems imo.

This was a great article which maybe some of you haven't seen:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-death-spiral/


Whole thing is worth a read if you haven't already.

Maybe if you knew what you think, or better at articulating what you think, or more honest about it, it would be possible for others to have an idea what you think.

As it stands now, it just seems like beetle juice:

The $95 penalty in year one is far too low. Especially since it simply comes out f tax returns and does not require people to to write checks.

Well, 95$ is the minimum. It could be much higher for folks and I have the feeling people will find that out too late.

This guy has made this post twice. He's PROUD of this point.

Dude, you know they grow teeth, right?

I thought was straight $95 for everyone.

Layemdown listed # of employees at 25 or so. Small Group.

laymedown is a perfect example of how the corporate world uses propaganda masterfully to get people to misdirect their anger. Your company decides to give you a pay cut because they know you'll blame the govt. Brilliant.

No, $95 or 1% of your income(sort of, it's your income minus some constant), whichever is greater. So it'll be >$95 for almost everyone.

Can you wait until she has teeth, or is the new dental insurance like life insurance? Are you sure this isn't gum insurance?

lol

This place can be as good as it gets until Comedy Central at 11.

-------------

RE: penalty

But I agree it is less effective if they won't have to write a check until 2015 tax time and only if they don't have a refund coming.

==========

Layemdown, if you're still reading, let me know if you looked at the plans available to you thru ObamaCare and just tell me if you would sign up if you find a more affordable plan.

Seriously, he should consider finding a job with a less evil HR department. I just can't imagine letting someone walk all over you like that.