AOL CEO: 'Obamacare Is an Additional $7.1 Million Expense For Us'

It's called sarcasm, but like all sarcasm it brushes against reality. You might not have said 5 or 10 years, but you and TNC seem mighty open ended about a success timeline. Which I recommend you keep doing because throwing out CGI and bringing in Accenture is going to add a least 6 to 18 months to fix the project. They may get a short term work around process implemented but that always adds scope which results in additional cost and/or time to the project. And short term work arounds are notoriously glitchy, so buckle up. This project is in breakdown, and breakdowns provide the opportunity for breakthroughs; but only if you acknowledge and address the root cause of the breakdown. Again, more scope, more time and of course more cost. But this administration is OK with spending money.

A good question to ask yourself is 'what would you define as failure'. I don't expect you to post it, but you might write it down somewhere for later review. We could end up there. If you had done that 3 years ago how would that failure definition compare to today's reality?

As for as 'what the hell do I favor', we covered that. You said a page back "I'm on record all along as saying that the health revamp didn't have to happen all at once. Implement a piece at a time and make sure that works before moving on. I would have started with Medicare reform. The waste and fraud in Medicare is a disgrace. If that had been taken on first, then whatever worked best there could be applied to all of the other reforms. The way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time." And I said I agree with all of that. If you want to argue with yourself go ahead. I need the entertainment.

Then you 'suspected' political spin when I used phrases like "forced the bill through". Of course phrases like 'the party of no' aren't spin when you use them. Those are facts, they said it on MSNBC.

pssst - I'm not a member of 'that' party. I don't watch Fox very often, but I do like Cavuto. Hannity is unwatchable for me. There are cars in my driveway every morning with multiple Obama stickers. Shit, I voted for Obama in the Texas Primary, then for McCain in the general election. I'd like to see tighter gun control around gun shows. Same sex marriage is not an issue for me. So I don't care if you need to group me with the "Right Wing Fox Watching Sheep" if it helps you feel progressive. But you're wrong.

 

Thank you Kluke! Your last two posts put so succinctly what is happening in these threads. Well said!

 

I already posted evidence to the contrary.

No. You didn't. No I haven't. You posted language in ACA that were also in parallel Republican bills. The provisions already existed in the Democrat drafts. You can keep claiming otherwise and keep being wrong.

Not one Republican amendment in the final bill... Fact.

Cherry picking and selective quoting... It also says the amendments adopted in committee were defeated in other committees are were of so little signifigance they didn't require votes. Again, not one Republican amendment was in the final reconciliation bill. See the first link I posted.

 

When you state your perceived answer to a posed question prior to actually posing the question, you are pre-qualifying your question, friend.

The law reached full implementation a full 43 days ago, sign-ups began three months prior to that so hold your horses with your incorrect time frame. Red and I are correct when we state that there is no way to fully judge the law based upon 43 days worth of infant data. You use words like reckless, doomed and train wreck to describe something that is exactly 43 days old. If the passage of a bill is it's conception, then Jan. 1 was the birth of the law and it is now 43 days old. Writing it off as awful or any of the other adjectives you like to use is akin to writing off a child who is 43 days old because, based upon your own belief system, it's conception was conducted by bad parents. I don't know how I can make this any more simple for you.

Your Monday morning quarterbacking of the ACA is amusing but let me go ahead and dispel the most common rumors and fabrications about the ACA since I don't think you or Winston or Pride seem to get it:

1 - Obama lied. You can't keep your plan if you like it. Why is this untrue? Because this is actually a better example of corporate greed than anything Obama said or didn't say. Obamacare actually grandfathered in many, if not all, of these lousy plans. The only reason they got canceled is because the insurers changed them after passage of the law, knowing they would have to cancel them within a few years. Further, those policies sucked to begin with and often left people with high deductibles, no hospital coverage and dropped you if you got sick. Here is a link:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-ed...ns/the-obama-pledge-on-keeping-your-insurance

2 - Millions of Americans are seeing their premiums increase. I still marvel at why this is news. My insurance premiums have been rising for the past twenty years at an exorbitant rate. Have yours stayed the same? If so, please advise the rest of us suckers what insurer you are using so we can sign up too. That said, recent reports have shown that the ACA is having an effect, albeit small at this juncture, on the slow of healthcare spending. The link I have posted is from Forbes and is careful to point out that this is preliminary news as well but so far looks good. Further, those who have lost policies can now shop on the open market place set up by the ACA. What do you have against the free market? Thought you guys loved that stuff.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...r-slowing-the-growth-in-health-care-spending/

3 - The individual mandate is dictatorial or unconstitutional or both. First, the individual mandate was a Republican idea that was incorporated into the ACA that was born at the Heritage Foundation decades ago and has been the cornerstone for Republican solutions to rising health care costs since until Obama used them for the ACA. Second, Repulicans are so adamant about personal responsibility, it is funny that you guys suddenly think that it is okay for people to walk around with insurance. Here you go in case you don't believe me:
http://americablog.com/2013/10/orig...on-created-obamacares-individual-mandate.html

4 - The fumbled website rollover is indicative of some larger, systematic failure of the ACA. In short, bull shit. No one has disputed the fact that the government fucked up the website roll out and I am pretty damn sure that the offenders have been summarily crucified for doing so. That said, to imply that this is a sign of things to come is hopeful, at best. If anything I would say that GOP governors who refused the citizens of their states the full benefits of the ACA are more responsible for the stumbles than the web site. It's hard to take you guys seriously when you say that sign ups are lagging when GOP governors are not playing ball, and worse, to the detriment of their own citizens....you know, the ones who elect them....or not. This put the federal government in the position of having to set up a federal web site when these governors refused to set up state wide market places. Again, I thought you guys loved the free market? Further, once the website rollout was bungled, Republicans in congress intentionally made the guy tasked with fixing it sit in a hearing for a weak so they could make a political point to nit-wits like you.

People are going to have better health care now than they did before the ACA because we have the finest medical personnel and technology in the world. Why are you so against allowing more people to have access to that care? I am not, nor have I ever said, that change might be necessary as we see what this law looks like in practice and I stand by that willingness to be open minded. I will not, however, take political pot shots in the absence of hard evidence to support my position, which I feel is all that you have done.

 

To say the mandate is a Republican idea is stretching the truth. It was proposed by the Heritage Foundation true but was never accepted as part of the R platform or any bills. Yes Mitt used a form of it but it was in Massachusetts for Gods sake a D state. Finally if I think it is a bad idea why should I care where it came from? Should I assume you own and should support every bad liberal idea? You can be a lemming but don't expect me to jump off that cliff.

 

No, it's not stretching the truth at all. As recently as the 2012 Republican primary debates Newt Gingrich admitted to Mitt Romney that the idea of an individual mandate was the Republican answer to HillaryCare during the early 90's. Further, that idea was born in 1989 in a paper published by the heritage foundation. It was conceived as a means to keep the health care industry from being nationalized as Hillary wanted and to preserve the free market.

I find it hilarious that you guys are trying so desperately to distance yourself from something you embraced so vehemently only 20 years ago. It reminds me a little of listening to a bitter old guy talk bad about his the ex-wife who left him for another man.

A lemming? Really, Winston? Seriously now.....

 

FAILURE – The major components of the bill will happen eventually. People will get medical cards, pre-existing conditions will be covered, and most of the rest of the stuff. Plus many of the inevitable campaign promise add-ons will be there also. Anything can be accomplished with enough time and money, and Obamacare will be given all it needs of both, although not without some possible delays. So in the literal sense of the word Obamacare will not fail. Hurrah.

Failure to me would be (1) if the act fundamentally changes the medical service delivery in a negative way. Absurd waiting times for doctor appointments or medical services; significant reduction in doctor to patient ratios; or shrinkage of facilities and that kind of thing. (2) if the act does not significantly change the cost of health care. There are indictors that the ACA has “helped reduce” (Obama’s phrase) the increase in costs; but as you’ve pointed out its early in the game. I’m looking for my $2,500; did he lie again? Relax, I wasn’t serious. (3) If the unintended consequences of the act negatively impact the social structure of the country. For instance - a loop hole is discovered that means a couple gets enough extra subsidy money that it makes it worthwhile to some to get a divorce. Or if it turns out that not working has benefits over working (4) – If the health insurance companies get ugly profitable and ex administrative/congress members get ugly rich while we pay for it. (5) If there isn’t more openness and honesty about how this is being administered. Actually I won’t make this a condition of failure because there is no chance it will happen.

What would I replace it with – I didn’t say repeal the law. Maybe it could have been repealed in 2012 but not now. I wish we could and start over, but it’s too late for that. Regardless of TNC’s the absurd suggestion that it’s only been around 45 days the health care industry has been planning and investing for 3 years. We are going to eat those costs one way or another. Starting over now would be more costly and more disruptive to people than fixing it. We should start fixing in small steps like we should have implemented it (1) I would carve out catastrophic coverage from the policies. Make it something like flood insurance policies. (2) Enhance the ability to keep your doctor if you want to. (3) Increase plan choices (4) Make a plan and stay the course. Mandate or don’t mandate but make decision and face the consequences for what you think is right. Indecision and uncertainty in large government programs is a killer. BARRY back away from the pen and phone.

SPIN/Partisanship – Again you assert there are only two sides in this; Republican and Democrat. Since you’ve chosen the Democratic side and disagree with me – why I must play the part of Republican. Well there are a lot of us that are proud to be neither, and we get to actually think for ourselves. And we’re smarter, better looking, cooler, and better dancers than either of you other two assholes.