Obamacare? what are your thoughts

Most of you will automatically discredit this because it is from the heritage foundation but these are some of the very real issues with Obamacare (AKA the Affordable Care Act). There are more at the website but the third one I've posted should be of interest to us. What happens when hospitals and SNF operate at a loss? Who's the first to get cut? It already happened in Indianapolis, 1000+ RNs cut.

The Charts Obama Doesn't Want You to See

Not to be picky but the correct way to call it is "Affordable Care Act" AKA " Obamacare" , not the other way around. I see that the data points to premium increases... But what are the underlaying reasons behind it, and what plans have seen the increase?

Not to be picky but the correct way to call it is "Affordable Care Act" AKA " Obamacare" , not the other way around.

Since AKA stands for "also know as" I'd say either way is correct. Not to be picky.

Since AKA stands for "also know as" I'd say either way is correct. Not to be picky.

Ill give you that without fighting back... LoL is a matter of semantics so as you say it is correct both ways.

Have you been personally affected by the ACA and the changes it brought?

Not as much as some, fortunately I am in the reserves and have tricare reserve select insurance. My premiums are dirt cheap compared to the marketplace but they still increased about 25% when the ACA went into effect.

SycamoreGuy, do you have any comment on the facts presented about the ACA relative to the newest CBO report?

There is no surprise that The Heritage Foundation will manipulate data to represent the conservative stance on this issue. It is no surprise that numbers can be manipulated to represent both sides of an argument. Most of us find their opinion of the ACA amusing since the basis for the law came directly from the Foundation.

The CBO, however, is generally accepted as unbiased. What are your thoughts on the newest study?

It's easy to reduce costs when you arbitrarily and unilaterally decide to administratively delay parts of the law.

It's easy to reduce costs when you arbitrarily and unilaterally decide to administratively delay parts of the law.

So, you didn't read the report?

That net downward revision is attributable to many factors, including changes in law, revisions to CBO's economic projections, judicial decisions, administrative actions, new data, numerous improvements in CBO and JCT's modeling, and lower projected health care costs for both the federal government and the private sector.

Did you?

Did you?

Yes I did.

Is there some problem with taking administrative action to decrease costs? Isn't that the job of administrations in most public and private sector venues?

Are you extrapolating that phrase 'administrative actions' to mean something nefarious?

What administrative action do you think (specifically) has caused the error in the CBO projections relative to "lower porjected health care costs for both the federal government and the private sector"?

Yes I did.

Is there some problem with taking administrative action to decrease costs?

If you are only doing it to make your hallmark legislation look more fiscally responsible there is.

It's easy to reduce costs when you arbitrarily and unilaterally decide to administratively delay parts of the law.

That's the basic role of the executive branch. Managing the implementation of laws is what the executive branch does, and has always done.

I think the frustration from the right is that they don't want anything to mess with their pre-determined script, which is that everything having to do with Obamacare will be as bad as possible. When the Obama administration does exactly what it's legally required to do, which is to mitigate the problems that occur in the implementation of a law, conservatives cry foul not because it's truly illegal (anyone with a basic understanding of our government knows it's not), but because their desire to see our country fail under opposing leadership isn't coming true.