The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Most people won't feel those increases (the article says 85%) and the subsidy limit will increase. The bigger problem from that article is the number of insurers leaving the marketplace. That's a bigger concern right now than premium increases.

No time like the present for a public option (should have been there all along).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No time like the present for a public option (should have been there all along).

Agreed, but that won't happen unless there are 60+ Dem Senators and even then you need to dodge the Leiberman-types who would join a filibuster of the public option.

[Radii]

I'm self employed so I buy my own insurance. I got incredible benefits and premium reductions when Obamacare first hit but I'm also getting all of these rate hikes in recent years.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Agreed, but that won't happen unless there are 60+ Dem Senators and even then you need to dodge the Leiberman-types who would join a filibuster of the public option.

Leiberman was such a dick about the ACA. I remember when he proposed Medicare for all but then backed away when he realized liberals liked the idea.

[Chief Rum]

Yup, I am on ACA now, too, with my switch to a fulltime restaurant job. I have had a sciatica problem the past few weeks which has shown me how terrible my coverage is.

[miked]

I wonder what the benefits are. The article says $290 or something for a plan, but where I work an individual plan is much more than that per month with no subsidies if you are a janitor and getting paid $30k.

[JPhillips]

The exchanges were devised to protect the insurance companies, so if they're unable or unwilling to offer a decent price we really need to allow a Medicare buy-in or some other public option. If insurance companies don't like it they can take a loss on the small percentage of exchange plans so that their employer plans remain unchallenged.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by miked

I wonder what the benefits are. The article says $290 or something for a plan, but where I work an individual plan is much more than that per month with no subsidies if you are a janitor and getting paid $30k.

How would that individual not qualify for subsidies?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How would that individual not qualify for subsidies?

I barely qualified for any subsidies and my income with the switch ended up in the $32K to $35K range. So it wouldn't shock me if there wasn't much of a subsidy even for a $30K janitor.

[larrymcg421]

The subsidy issue is interesting to me, because one of the complaints made against ACA in the beginning was that the subsidies were way too high. I'm all in favor of increasing subsidies. But I'll never be in favor of doing away with the coverage for pre-existing conditions.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I am self employed so I buy my own insurance. I got crappy benefits for a slightly increased price when Obamacare first hit, and my rates increased each year since. Plus, because I am forced to switch insurance carrier each year (to jump to the cheapest option each year), I made a huge mistake and inadvertently went uncovered for a month this year. Guess which month I took my family to get their annual checkups?

If there is a ~20% rate hike this year, we will strongly consider foregoing coverage and taking the penalty.

In ACA, there are winners and losers. People might applaud that the net effect is more winners, but it still stings being one of the few that lose out in the new arrangement.

I'm in a similar boat. All the Illinois insurers are fleeing the state so we have only a couple options. I've had to switch insurers the last 3 years not because of the rates but because the insurer decided they didn't want to be part of the exchange anymore.

So now I'm in a situation where there are only a couple options at best in the state. None of them cover the doctors I've seen over the last decade. They don't even cover the hospitals in my area. So my option now is to pay like $80 more a month for a plan that has severe limitations on doctors that are far away.

There are things I liked about the ACA but the thing has been a disaster for me. Seems like it screws over middle-class people who are self-employed like myself or don't have insurance offered at their full-time job. I'd get better medical coverage by being dirt poor and on Medicaid. At least my current doctors accept that.

[CrescentMoonie]

Feels like this is the right place for this:

Glenn Beck regrets "freaking out about Barack Obama"

[PilotMan]

So after nearly 8 years I finally voted in this poll. I think that when history looks back on the 8 years of the first black president of the US, who took over during one of the biggest economically turbulent times, who was faced with political opponents who would pull out almost all the stops to keep him from being a success, it will say that while he wasn't able to come through with a lot of what he wanted to do, that he will go down as one of the most popular and successful presidents of modern times.

[Warhammer]

Same, but I went the other way. I think history will not look back as favorably as his polling suggests. He allowed ISIS to become a major force in the Middle East. His foreign policy set us back in many more ways than GWB's did. Race relations are worse at the end of his Presidency than at the beginning. The crown jewel of his internal policies, the ACA, has hurt many people in this country.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Same, but I went the other way. I think history will not look back as favorably as his polling suggests. He allowed ISIS to become a major force in the Middle East. His foreign policy set us back in many more ways than GWB's did. Race relations are worse at the end of his Presidency than at the beginning. The crown jewel of his internal policies, the ACA, has hurt many people in this country.

The counters to those points:

ISIS grew quickly. Most of them started as Sadaam's Republican Guard which was eliminated and sent home. They were minorities who were involved in the sectarian violence in Iraq and lent a lot of the organization and firepower to ISIS. We'd be in a completely different bog if we'd gone against the wishes of the Iraq government and set up large military bases there to keep the peace. We'd have had our soldiers as the target, and there would be a never ending anger of get our troops out and the failure would still be his. This result has been a better result than that.

I would argue that the US has much greater standing in the world right now then it did at the end of the Bush II administration.

Race relations are more at the forefront of the news. Now you hear about it. Nothing changed, except that you didn't hear about the problems in the communities. Now you hear about it. The perception is that it's worse, but I'd argue that by lifting the rug, you're seeing the dirt that's always been there and now you have an opportunity to do something about it.

Simply saying ACA has hurt a lot of people is a generic blanket statement. I could say that before ACA a lot of people were hurt because they didn't have health care and insurance companies were free to discriminate on who and what they covered and that, THAT, hurt a lot of people.

[Edward64]

I think overall he will be viewed favorably. I think he did great domestically (all things considered) but do think his foreign policies/actions (or lack of) is a negative.

ACA wise, I supported a single payer option but that went down in flames because of the GOP. It'll be interesting to see specifics on what Hillary will do to enhance ACA.

If Trump loses (probably) but stays around in the political arena, Hillary will have 4 years of "distractions". If Paul Ryan somehow reclaims the GOP, it'll be more busy as usual. It'll be a mix of the two extremes and unfortunately more of the former than latter.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Simply saying ACA has hurt a lot of people is a generic blanket statement. I could say that before ACA a lot of people were hurt because they didn't have health care and insurance companies were free to discriminate on who and what they covered and that, THAT, hurt a lot of people.

I agree with this. No doubt people with pre-existing conditions were discriminated against and alot of people were helped.

I really believe ACA or like is needed for some basic healthcare for the subset of people (and their children) that are not employed or at companies that don't provide health benefits. Sure, some don't deserve it but overall its for the greater good.

What I struggle with is ... are the benefits worth the cost? If they are, do we believe the costs (and bureaucracy/government) will grow to a point where benefits are not worth the cost?

For me its yes to the first but definitely concerned about the second.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Race relations are worse at the end of his Presidency than at the beginning.

I wonder if that is actually true. I think they are 100x better because issues which were shoved between the cushions for years are finally on full display.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

He allowed ISIS to become a major force in the Middle East. His foreign policy set us back in many more ways than GWB's did.

I can see the argument for this in 2016 (even if I don't agree with it), but historians are going to juxtapose his administration with Bush's, and it'll look favorable, from a foreign policy standpoint. I don't think people really understand exactly how badly the Bush Administration not only hurt U.S. standing in the world, but also seriously weakened both the armed forces and the State Department.

The crown jewel of his internal policies, the ACA, has hurt many people in this country.

It's helped way more people than it has "hurt". When historians look back on this, they'll not focus on the anecdotes, but the data, and the data paints a pretty clear picture, especially when compared to the decade that preceded it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Subby

I wonder if that is actually true. I think they are 100x better because issues which were shoved between the cushions for years are finally on full display.

I don't think that's quite accurate either. Better put:

"I think they may be better in the future, because issues which were shoved between the cushions for years are finally on full display."

Yeah, that's it.

We're in the middle of a painful process right now. Stuff that was always there but that wasn't talked about is now out in the open. When everyone in a dysfunctional family simply obeys the rules and customs, things are for the most part pleasant and comfortable...but dysfunctional. Now that stuff is being talked about, it feels much more difficult to those who were blissfully unaware that there ever were issues bubbling beneath the surface. Long-term, it's likely to be better, but the process isn't easy.

When my wife and I started dating, it wreaked havoc on the relationship my wife had with her parents. The underlying issue is that she'd always been docile and done exactly what they wanted her to do. As long as she did, everything was "fine." She started dating me, and all hell broke loose. Both my wife and my in-laws would have said that during that time, their relationship was "the worst that it had ever been." Now, they'd say that the relationship is better than ever, and that is in part *because* of the long process of unlearning old patterns and ripping off the masks.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Edward64

ACA wise, I supported a single payer option but that went down in flames because of the GOP.

To be fair, he couldn't get it passed the dems. The GOP didn't need to kill it.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by bob

To be fair, he couldn't get it passed the dems. The GOP didn't need to kill it.

Lieberman killed the public option and he was an independent. The Dems were all on board.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I don't think that's quite accurate either. Better put:

"I think they may be better in the future, because issues which were shoved between the cushions for years are finally on full display."

Yeah, that's it.

We're in the middle of a painful process right now. Stuff that was always there but that wasn't talked about is now out in the open. When everyone in a dysfunctional family simply obeys the rules and customs, things are for the most part pleasant and comfortable...but dysfunctional. Now that stuff is being talked about, it feels much more difficult to those who were blissfully unaware that there ever were issues bubbling beneath the surface. Long-term, it's likely to be better, but the process isn't easy.

When my wife and I started dating, it wreaked havoc on the relationship my wife had with her parents. The underlying issue is that she'd always been docile and done exactly what they wanted her to do. As long as she did, everything was "fine." She started dating me, and all hell broke loose. Both my wife and my in-laws would have said that during that time, their relationship was "the worst that it had ever been." Now, they'd say that the relationship is better than ever, and that is in part *because* of the long process of unlearning old patterns and ripping off the masks.

Well stated. We are finally dealing with stuff we should have dealt with a long time ago. For instance, cell phone video is finally capturing stuff that has been going on for generations, but now it can't be a he said, he said (in favor of law enforcement always) - now we have to deal with some hard truths and re-evaluate what we trust and don't.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's helped way more people than it has "hurt". When historians look back on this, they'll not focus on the anecdotes, but the data, and the data paints a pretty clear picture, especially when compared to the decade that preceded it.

Has it? It may have looked that way initially, but right now most people I know are seeing rates rise by nearly 50% (some more) while insurance companies are bailing out on being part of the exchange. NPR says the average increase is 22-25% next year, but is mostly offset by subsidies. Time shows 8 states with a 30% or more increase next year. Forbes argues against the CNBC/Ginsburg and Adler view and says ACA caused premiums to rise.

Add in the horrible job situation, participation rates are below the average for the time they've been tracked and are 3-4% lower than they were in 2008, and I think this presidency ends up looking worse than it's currently being viewed but still viewed slightly favorably.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

NPR says the average increase is 22-25% next year, but is mostly offset by subsidies.

So more people have insurance, and the cost to most hasn't gone up. Sounds good to me.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So more people have insurance, and the cost to most hasn't gone up. Sounds good to me.

So, you only read one of the three links and only partially read that one (if you even got past my comment on it). Kudos to not even pretending to take an honest look at an opposing view.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't see where he's done wrong. From NPR's link:

While the average premiums on the benchmark health plans are increasing, the government says more than 70 percent of people buying insurance on the marketplaces created by the law could get a health plan for less than $75 a month for 2017. To get the best deal, people would have to pick a low-cost plan with limited benefits and take advantage of all the subsidies available.

That seems quite definitely to help more than hurt overall, esp when 90% of the population are covered by insurance today.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't see where he's done wrong. From NPR's link:



That seems quite definitely to help more than hurt overall, esp when 90% of the population are covered by insurance today.

$75 a month? That is total bullshit. I am on ACA. There were no options less than $200 per month, and I am as simple as you can get, single, no dependents. It's a little lower if you're younger, but "70%" of people aren't younger than me.

[RainMaker]

LOL at $75 a month.

These are also the people that told us we wouldn't have to change doctors.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Same, but I went the other way. I think history will not look back as favorably as his polling suggests. He allowed ISIS to become a major force in the Middle East. His foreign policy set us back in many more ways than GWB's did.

I think this is a very short-sighted and narrow way to look at it. His main foreign policy point is that the Middle East isn't all that important and our relationship with Asia will define the rest of the century. Chavez had broad support and led an anti-American bloc of Latin countries, and that's completely been marginalized by Obama pretty much ignoring him until everyone else did too. Even in the context of our long war vs radical Islam, you can't ignore the tens of thousands in ISIS (and I'd say after taking a while to warm up they're being as defeated as a force like them can be), but you also need to pay attention to the tens of millions in a place like Indonesia where the entire education system is now being funded by Saudi money and pushing the entire country to a harsher interpretation of Islam.

I'd also argue that it's whack a mole to an extent, and ISIS's prominence is due in part to his killing of bin Laden and overall weakening of Al-Qaeda. As ISIS continues to be marginalized AQ will probably be talked about more again. Maybe Lashkar e-Taiba pulls another attack and the narrative focuses on Kashmir & the sub-continent for a bit. Maybe we finally get serious about Iran's Quds Force. Maybe we focus even more on the threat of homegrown sympathizers.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

$75 a month? That is total bullshit. I am on ACA. There were no options less than $200 per month, and I am as simple as you can get, single, no dependents. It's a little lower if you're younger, but "70%" of people aren't younger than me.

Do you qualify for subsidies? Because if you don't, then you really aren't actually responding to what it's talking about.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do you qualify for subsidies? Because if you don't, then you really aren't actually responding to what it's talking about.

I do.

[AENeuman]

I guess what I am wondering is, how has Obama destroyed America? So many say he turned this country into an awful place, what are they referring to? Particularly, how has the destruction of America personally impacted said people?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I do.

I'd imagine you are on the higher end then. Most people on the exchanges are actually your lower income earners. People who work retail or food service, where they aren't offered insurance. People who work for themselves are a low percentage of those folks on the exchanges.

I mean just put in someone in my area of my age (36) that makes $20,000 a month and the site spat out a bronze level (HMO) plan for $51.50 a month ($6,800 deductible, though). Though a bit lower down I saw one for $73.82 a month with a $2,000 deductible.

[larrymcg421]

The point of the subsidies argument (whether it's 75/mo or 200/mo you're paying now) is that the subsidies aren't a flat amount. They're set as a % of your income that you are expected to spend on healthcare, so if the premiums go up, then your subsidies go up as well to offset that cost.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Subby

I wonder if that is actually true. I think they are 100x better because issues which were shoved between the cushions for years are finally on full display.

Oh sure, Subby says something and everyone is like "right on brother!"

PilotMan says pretty much the same thing a few posts earlier and nobody cares. Boooohooo.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'd argue that by lifting the rug, you're seeing the dirt that's always been there and now you have an opportunity to do something about it.

[Edward64]

I'm not sure what this means for the Obama legacy. It certainly did not help but it could be argued it was more a repudiation of Hillary and business as usual than Obama himself.

Obama and Michelle must feel like crap. It seems that they did everything they could to help Hillary and yet failed.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd imagine you are on the higher end then. Most people on the exchanges are actually your lower income earners. People who work retail or food service, where they aren't offered insurance. People who work for themselves are a low percentage of those folks on the exchanges.

I mean just put in someone in my area of my age (36) that makes $20,000 a month and the site spat out a bronze level (HMO) plan for $51.50 a month ($6,800 deductible, though). Though a bit lower down I saw one for $73.82 a month with a $2,000 deductible.

While working on my PhD, I taught a couple of classes and took student loans to cover the rest of my expenses last year. My taxable income was $9164. Living in Virginia, my lowest option is $207.71 with a $7150 deductible. The next lowest option is $247.17.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

While working on my PhD, I taught a couple of classes and took student loans to cover the rest of my expenses last year. My taxable income was $9164. Living in Virginia, my lowest option is $207.71 with a $7150 deductible. The next lowest option is $247.17.

IIRC this is the biggest hole in Obamacare. There is a weird gap in many states where some people make too much for medicaid and not enough for obamacare subsidies. I'm pretty sure you fell in that gap. If you made like $13,000 I believe your experience would be drastically different.

What is The Minimum Income For ObamaCare? - Obamacare Facts

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

PilotMan says pretty much the same thing a few posts earlier and nobody cares. Boooohooo.

Welcome to my fucking world.

You probably ain't interested in sitting on the couch beside me, but I'm willing to share custody of it. You can sit while I grab drink,I'll steal it back when you to the bathroom.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Radii

IIRC this is the biggest hole in Obamacare. There is a weird gap in many states where some people make too much for medicaid and not enough for obamacare subsidies. I'm pretty sure you fell in that gap. If you made like $13,000 I believe your experience would be drastically different.

What is The Minimum Income For ObamaCare? - Obamacare Facts

Yep, which means I either have to get one of the jobs I'm interviewing for in the very near future, or December 15 rolls around and I'm screwed with costs that make no sense in relation to my income.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Radii

IIRC this is the biggest hole in Obamacare. There is a weird gap in many states where some people make too much for medicaid and not enough for obamacare subsidies. I'm pretty sure you fell in that gap. If you made like $13,000 I believe your experience would be drastically different.

What is The Minimum Income For ObamaCare? - Obamacare Facts

Isn't that mostly because GOP legislatures have refused to expand medicaid as was planned in the ACA?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think this is a very short-sighted and narrow way to look at it. His main foreign policy point is that the Middle East isn't all that important and our relationship with Asia will define the rest of the century. Chavez had broad support and led an anti-American bloc of Latin countries, and that's completely been marginalized by Obama pretty much ignoring him until everyone else did too. Even in the context of our long war vs radical Islam, you can't ignore the tens of thousands in ISIS (and I'd say after taking a while to warm up they're being as defeated as a force like them can be), but you also need to pay attention to the tens of millions in a place like Indonesia where the entire education system is now being funded by Saudi money and pushing the entire country to a harsher interpretation of Islam.

I'd also argue that it's whack a mole to an extent, and ISIS's prominence is due in part to his killing of bin Laden and overall weakening of Al-Qaeda. As ISIS continues to be marginalized AQ will probably be talked about more again. Maybe Lashkar e-Taiba pulls another attack and the narrative focuses on Kashmir & the sub-continent for a bit. Maybe we finally get serious about Iran's Quds Force. Maybe we focus even more on the threat of homegrown sympathizers.

I'm not sure what dividends the pivot to Asia has reaped yet. I do agree that our big enemy right now, whether we realize it or not is China, so the pivot to Asia makes sense, but we have been strong allies with South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines for a long time. So what has fundamentally changed there?

With regards to the Middle East, I do not believe it had to become whack a mole. Isis was also becoming a threat prior to bin Laden being knocked off, it just wasn't played up by the media yet.

Our relations with Russia are certainly worse than they were 8 years ago. Chavez was always going to be marginalized once his money used dried up. I think that would have happened regardless of who was in the White House.

[Radii]

I'm mainly just posting here b/c its where we've discussed our experiences with Obamacare. I can move anywhere I want and keep the same salary b/c of my remote work. I've been looking at healthcare and other cost of living factors in a lot of places cheaper than Raleigh (aka the midwest). lets just say there are some of you that are distraught over your personal experiences with obamacare that have NO... IDEA...


I can save 20-40% on healthcare for comparable plans if I leave North Carolina for Michigan, Indiana, Alabama, Kentucky (kentucky I would actually save 60% IIRC), Iowa, or Illinois. I have a lot more research to do but so far Minnesota is the only state I've looked at that is more expensive for healthcare than where I currently live. I'm floored at the difference.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Isn't that mostly because GOP legislatures have refused to expand medicaid as was planned in the ACA?

This is at least partially the case in Florida - its been a fantastic vehicle for the Republican party to cripple the benefits of Obamacare without their voters realizing why ....

[NobodyHere]

The Army Corps of Engineers shut down the Dakota Access pipeline construction in order to make an environmental study, probably at Obama's behest.

Trump supports construction so let's see if the current protesters have the energy to get back out there in January.

[NobodyHere]

Army Corps of Engineers Had Actually Recommended Dakota Access Pipeline Route Approval

This probably gives Trump all the ammunition he needs to get the thing built, as if he needed any.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This is at least partially the case in Florida - its been a fantastic vehicle for the Republican party to cripple the benefits of Obamacare without their voters realizing why ....

Well, they didn't realize it until you posted it on the internets. Thanks a lot.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, they didn't realize it until you posted it on the internets. Thanks a lot.

He's British, they don't listen to his tea drinking, crumpet eating, not real sport programming self anyway.

[tarcone]

Wow. Its hard to believe we only have about 6 weeks of Obama left. Where did the time go?