U.S. Politics: From Russia, With Love

[Swordfish]

17 hours ago, Mexal said:

Fun. They're going to vote on a bill that will affect 1/6th of the US economy with no understanding of what it will do, how many people it will affect or how much it will cost. This can only go well.

We didn't really know any of this for the ACA either.  

This stuff is painfully hard to predict (possibly impossible).  The CBO estimates were off the mark by millions of people.

 

11 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

/Shocker

Isn't the same exemption present in the ACA?

[denstorebog]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

At this point, there are 18 Nos so they can afford 4 more defections.

3 now.

[Mexal]

Just now, Swordfish said:

We didn't really know any of this for the ACA either.  

This stuff is painfully hard to predict (possibly impossible).  The CBO estimates were off the mark by millions of people.

Yes, but the reasons why the CBO estimates were off is pretty well documented (for example, they overestimated the number of people who would be kicked off their employer plans so there was less people that needed to buy through the markets). The total number of people who had insurance was pretty close.

Regardless, at least there was an estimate. At least the bill had been pushed out months before a vote, there was debates on the floor with experts, road shows to sell the American public on it. This bill was just finalized yesterday and the text released to members at 8pm last night. How many people do you think actually read it or understands what any of it means? This is especially hypocritical given they were bitching in 2009/2010 about not voting on a bill until CBO scores it, giving the public and House members 3 days with the full text prior to any vote, etc. 

At the end of the day, this is about as irresponsible as it gets.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Isn't the same exemption present in the ACA?

 Yes, but a fair percentage of Congress Critters carry it anyway. You think that's going to be true of this PoS?

[The Wedge]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well it DoA once it hits the Senate, so there's that. 

If only that were the point of this pointless exercise.

They just want to be able to say "I promised, but the bully Dems in the Senate wouldn't take it all away!"

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Yes, but a fair percentage of Congress Critters carry it anyway. You think that's going to be true of this PoS?

It doesn't matter if it's in the ACA because the ACA has EHB and protections against pre-existing conditions. If the States waive those protections, the exemption matters. Hell, if States waive those protections, employer health plans could be screwed. It's just a terrible law that's only use is a $800 billion tax cut for the top 2%.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

17 hours ago, Commodore said:

Why restrict how employment contracts can be constructed, if they are voluntarily agreed to by both parties?

Because unless you're a C-Suite exec, top 5% of your field technician, All-star level basketball player, or franchise quarterback, negotiations between you and your employer are not going to be on even close to equal ground.

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yes, but the reasons why the CBO estimates were off is pretty well documented (for example, they overestimated the number of people who would be kicked off their employer plans so there was less people that needed to buy through the markets). The total number of people who had insurance was pretty close.

Regardless, at least there was an estimate.

 

We had estimates, but they were not very accurate.  I understand WHY they were not very accurate, but that's not particularly relevant in a conversation about whether we knew in advance how many people were going to be covered, how much it was going to cost, etc.  

We didn't.

 

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Yes, but a fair percentage of Congress Critters carry it anyway. You think that's going to be true of this PoS?

I have no idea.

[Mexal]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

We had estimates, but they were not very accurate.  I understand WHY they were not very accurate, but that's not particularly relevant in a conversation about whether we knew in advance how many people were going to be covered, how much it was going to cost, etc.  

We didn't.

No. That's not true. We did. What we didn't know was how many people would be covered under each element of the plan (medicaid, individual market, employer insurance). The total number of insured is remarkably accurate, the exact number that was insured under the individual market vs the employer market vs medicaid was off. 

ETA: here's another.

Quote

Fiedler also noted that CBO's "big picture" assessment of the impact of the ACA on insurance coverage was on point. Specifically, the agency estimated a significant decrease in the number of people without health insurance that would leave the uninsured rate at a historic low, which is what occurred, he said. 

In addition, the figure ignores the fact that the 2010 prediction couldn’t account the Supreme Court decision about Medicaid expansion that allowed each state to decide for itself. Nineteen states have refused to expand Medicaid eligibility.

According to a 2015 report from the Commonwealth Fund, the CBO overestimated enrollee total, but still offered projections closer to reality than four other forecasters (the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the RAND Corporation, the Urban Institute; and the Lewin Group).

Importantly, the CBO reduced its projection of how many people would get health insurance this year through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, from 21 million to 13 million. Initially, CBO analysts believed exchange enrollment would be higher in part because employers would drop insurance plans in favor of the marketplaces. That has not occurred.

 

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

No. That's not true. We did. What we didn't know was how many people would be covered under each element of the plan (medicaid, individual market, employer insurance). The total number of insured is remarkably accurate, the exact number that was insured under the individual market vs the employer market vs medicaid was off. 

You're cherry picking the only thing they got even close on, and ignoring all the stuff they were way off on.

 

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

You're cherry picking the only thing they got even close on, and ignoring all the stuff they were way off on.

 

Because that stuff does not matter. The overall impact of the law (how many people would get insurance, premium effects, etc) matters significantly more than whether they were spot on in the number of people getting it through the individual exchange, employer health or medicaid. There were factors that happened post scoring that they could not predict (supreme court decision allowing states not to expand medicaid or open exchanges, employers not gutting their employer health like every republican said was going to happen). If those were available data points at the time they scored the ACA, their estimates might have been different. But they weren't. The ultimate impact of the law, which is what is important, was pretty close. So saying that "we did not know how people would be affected" is flat out false and there are any number of articles that proves this point. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

18 hours ago, Commodore said:

Bernie only cares about class warfare, and will otherwise take any position on social issues that alienates the fewest people.

And he's right to do so politically. But the Tom Perezes of the world would rather make it about identity politics, and that is a nonstarter for WWC voters. 

The Omaha mayoral race is a microcosm of this. 

I think you have a point about this. There is a split between the Economic Justice and Social Justice Wings of the Democratic base. Most of the democratic base will support both, but will only really be driven to vote by one.

17 hours ago, Commodore said:

folks in this thread have no concept of labor attrition, as if employees have no agency or leverage

President of my company gave an employee townhall today and he was hammered about attrition rate, and talked about ways they were going to address it. 

 

I'm not sure this proves as much as you imply. In certain instances, where industries are doing well, and possibly facing a labor shortage, where employees have mobility and options, a company can eventually treat employees so badly that it starts to cause a problem for them.

But do you deny that on the margin, it's much worse for an employee to be fired than for a company to have a single employee leave for greener pastures?

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Because that stuff does not matter. The overall impact of the law (how many people would get insurance, premium effects, etc) matters significantly more than whether they were spot on in the number of people getting it through the individual exchange, employer health or medicaid. There were factors that happened post scoring that they could not predict (supreme court decision allowing states not to expand medicaid or open exchanges, employers not gutting their employer health like every republican said was going to happen). If those were available data points at the time they scored the ACA, their estimates might have been different. But they weren't. The ultimate impact of the law, which is what is important, was pretty close. So saying that "we did not know how people would be affected" is flat out false and there are any number of articles that proves this point. 

Now you're moving the goal post.  This is what you said:

Quote

Fun. They're going to vote on a bill that will affect 1/6th of the US economy with no understanding of what it will do, how many people it will affect or how much it will cost. 

So do those things matter, or don't they?  Because you sure seemed to think they did a couple pages ago.

Didn't the CBO score the plan with numbers of people it would impact already?  I seem to recall seeing something about this a couple weeks ago.

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I have no idea.

Puzzle it out. 

[Kalbear]

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well it DoA once it hits the Senate, so there's that. 

That's what we thought about this last month, too. I think you underestimate the cruelty of representatives who are in safe seats.

[Cas Stark]

This is a good roundup of many of the things the CBO got terribly wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/01/02/learning-from-cbos-history-of-incorrect-obamacare-projections/#530866a446a7