All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama: Worst President Ever?
3/18/2014 6:25 PM
Obama definitely isn't the worst. I'd put him as middle of the pack.

Relative modern Presidents, he's not as good as Clinton or as bad as W.
3/18/2014 7:29 PM
I'm not going to go into a deep conversation about the ACA, I'm sure that's been covered everywhere. I'm just thinking long range on what's going to stick and what's not. The initial website issues and people losing their plans that didn't meet the new standards (although he later allowed people to keep those plans) are small potatoes. It's a system that I think will be his shining signature legislation of his Presidency. If you believe it's going to crash, burn, and negatively effect the country, that's fine.
3/19/2014 8:47 AM
I've largely ignored the early hiccups of the ACA.   The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it.   So it's going to become a government program if amendments aren't made.   And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.   It's going to be a financial albatross or the care provided by the ACA will become shoddy.   As we know, people who can afford the best will pay for it.  And that will leave the less than stellar for everyone else.   I don't think the government will force the best to see ACA members when they have plenty of patients without them.  Doctors don't accept all insurance now. 
3/19/2014 10:11 AM
I still wouldn't put him in the LBJ, Pierce, Buchanan group. He belongs in the next group up which is the  AJohnson, Nixon, Hoover one.
3/19/2014 1:36 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 8:47:00 AM (view original):
I've largely ignored the early hiccups of the ACA.   The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it.   So it's going to become a government program if amendments aren't made.   And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.   It's going to be a financial albatross or the care provided by the ACA will become shoddy.   As we know, people who can afford the best will pay for it.  And that will leave the less than stellar for everyone else.   I don't think the government will force the best to see ACA members when they have plenty of patients without them.  Doctors don't accept all insurance now. 
The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it

What do you mean by "it" in the above sentence? Genuine question.


3/19/2014 1:59 PM
Also this:

 And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.

is a medicare problem, not an ACA problem.


3/19/2014 2:23 PM

In February, for the second consecutive month, young adults made up 27 percent of those who had successfully purchased coverage through the online insurance marketplace in Texas, compared to 25 percent of those who enrolled nationally, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

The Obama administration has said that young adults — who are generally healthy and have fewer medical costs — should make up 40 percent of those insured through the marketplace to offset the costs of older, higher-risk patients and keep premiums down.

“The next couple of weeks are going to be instrumental,” said Sara Smith, program director for the pro-ACA Texas Public Interest Research Group, which advocates on consumer issues. “We have two weeks to inform the state’s most uninformed health care consumers.”

John Davidson, senior health care policy analyst for the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, said that will be a futile battle, given that costs for young people under Obamacare aren't minimal.

“The ACA was sold as something that would make health care cheaper. A lot of people are going on the exchange expecting their plans to be free or very inexpensive, and that’s just not the case,” he said. “...Young, healthy people aren’t going to want to pay rates like this, especially if they don’t have to go to the doctor."

Before the implementation of the ACA, insurance companies often charged a five-to-one ratio or higher for monthly premiums based on a consumer's age, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, the national trade association representing the health insurance industry. The new law limits this ratio to three to one. In order to make this system work, the Obama administration has said that young adults need to enroll at high enough rates to yield a surplus in premium revenue — which insurance companies can then allocate to help cover the expected deficit created by lower premiums for older patients.

 

3/19/2014 2:30 PM

Another highlight—or low-light—of Tuesday's report was the disclosure that the rate of sign-ups by young adults, ages 18-34, had remained flat at 27 percent of total enrollment over the past two months.

That's well below the 40 percent level that some health-care experts have said would likely offset benefits paid out to older, sicker enrollees, which in turn would reduce pressure on insurers to significantly hike prices for 2015..

 --CNBC

3/19/2014 2:33 PM

Twenty-four percent of those purchasing coverage are young adults, the coveted age group between 18 and 34 -- the exact group the White House thinks it really, really needs to enroll to make the health-care law work.

This is below the White House's target. The Obama administration has previously said that if 7 million people enrolled in coverage as expected, 2.7 million of them -- or about 40 percent -- would have to be young adults. That's an important target to hit because more young adults in the exchanges would mean a more healthy population, whose premiums could help subsidize the health care of older and sicker enrollees.

Washington Post

3/19/2014 2:35 PM
Not the worst ever, but it's disheartening that we've had 14 straight years of garbage in the west wing.  It's bad enough that they were elected (and I voted for GWB the first time), but to have them both re-elected leaves me little hope for the quality of the people in government.  As well as for the intelligence of the people who elect them.
3/19/2014 3:15 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 8:47:00 AM (view original):
I've largely ignored the early hiccups of the ACA.   The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it.   So it's going to become a government program if amendments aren't made.   And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.   It's going to be a financial albatross or the care provided by the ACA will become shoddy.   As we know, people who can afford the best will pay for it.  And that will leave the less than stellar for everyone else.   I don't think the government will force the best to see ACA members when they have plenty of patients without them.  Doctors don't accept all insurance now. 
The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it

What do you mean by "it" in the above sentence? Genuine question.


No it's not a genuine question.

3/19/2014 3:17 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Also this:

 And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.

is a medicare problem, not an ACA problem.


No, it isn't.   Medical problems can develop early in life.  Well before medicare.   If not tended to, the condition can become virtually untreatable.

Told you it sounded harsh.
3/19/2014 4:09 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Also this:

 And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.

is a medicare problem, not an ACA problem.


No, it isn't.   Medical problems can develop early in life.  Well before medicare.   If not tended to, the condition can become virtually untreatable.

Told you it sounded harsh.
Ok, but early life medical problems aren't the concern when evaluating population aging and lifespan as a whole.
3/19/2014 4:10 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 8:47:00 AM (view original):
I've largely ignored the early hiccups of the ACA.   The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it.   So it's going to become a government program if amendments aren't made.   And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.   It's going to be a financial albatross or the care provided by the ACA will become shoddy.   As we know, people who can afford the best will pay for it.  And that will leave the less than stellar for everyone else.   I don't think the government will force the best to see ACA members when they have plenty of patients without them.  Doctors don't accept all insurance now. 
The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it

What do you mean by "it" in the above sentence? Genuine question.


No it's not a genuine question.

No, really. I'm being serious. What is being funded?
3/19/2014 4:33 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Also this:

 And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.

is a medicare problem, not an ACA problem.


No, it isn't.   Medical problems can develop early in life.  Well before medicare.   If not tended to, the condition can become virtually untreatable.

Told you it sounded harsh.
Ok, but early life medical problems aren't the concern when evaluating population aging and lifespan as a whole.
It is when you're trying to determine how long they'll live and future medical care required.   Why do you think early detection/care is unimportant?
of 298
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama: Worst President Ever?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.