| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2013 11:09:37 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Richard Reeves:
Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, put it this way:
... Boehner may be weak, but he is no fool. He does not want to be the boy on the burning deck as the ship of state is sinking. |
|
...Sadly, some might argue that the deck will only burn to the water line and that they had nothing to do with the eventual sinking of the ship. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 07:42:25 AM · #427 |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 08:42:55 AM · #428 |
Originally posted by Cory:
an unemployed person who is not under time pressure can much more easily afford to take a couple of days to sort something out, I really don't have the time, and there's nothing worse than waiting for hours after you arrived at the scheduled time. This translates out into working persons paying more for their coverage and using it less, while the non-working persons are taking more advantage of the coverage and essentially not paying for it. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Appalling. Shall we offer full-timers an HOV lane at the grocery store and sort DMV lines by income since your time is so much more precious than a furloughed teacher? |
For your information, Cory, most of the people signing up under the Affordable Care Act are working, they just can't afford to buy coverage. Or they have preexisting conditions and can't get coverage even if they can afford it. In my case, because my husband and I are self-employed, $15,000 a year (the price of a new car, year after year after year) was just out of reach. How many of us can afford that kind of expense? And under the old system, you can pay through the nose year after year while you're basically healthy, but if you get sick and hit some arbitrary lifetime limit you might find yourself without coverage even if, through some miracle, you're still able to keep up the payments. Is that the kind of system you want to maintain, because making a change might inconvenience you for a while? |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 10:19:46 AM · #429 |
From the N.Y. Times:
"Speaker John A. Boehner has privately told Republican lawmakers anxious about fallout from the government shutdown that he would not allow a potentially more crippling federal default as the atmosphere on Capitol Hill turned increasingly tense on Thursday.
Mr. Boehnerâs comments, recounted by multiple lawmakers, that he would use a combination of Republican and Democratic votes to increase the federal debt limit if necessary appeared aimed at reassuring his colleagues â and nervous financial markets â that he did not intend to let the economic crisis spiral further out of control.
They came even though he has so far refused to allow a vote on a Senate budget measure to end the shutdown that many believe could pass with bipartisan backing. They also reflect Mr. Boehnerâs view that a default would have widespread and long-term economic consequences while the shutdown, though disruptive, had more limited impact."
***************
Emphasis mine. This is the attitude a single congressman in a position of supposedly limited power has: that it's up to him to decide what happens and what doesn't happen regardless of law or the expressed will (by voting) of the people... |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 12:10:51 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
an unemployed person who is not under time pressure can much more easily afford to take a couple of days to sort something out, I really don't have the time, and there's nothing worse than waiting for hours after you arrived at the scheduled time. This translates out into working persons paying more for their coverage and using it less, while the non-working persons are taking more advantage of the coverage and essentially not paying for it. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Appalling. Shall we offer full-timers an HOV lane at the grocery store and sort DMV lines by income since your time is so much more precious than a furloughed teacher? |
For your information, Cory, most of the people signing up under the Affordable Care Act are working, they just can't afford to buy coverage. Or they have preexisting conditions and can't get coverage even if they can afford it. In my case, because my husband and I are self-employed, $15,000 a year (the price of a new car, year after year after year) was just out of reach. How many of us can afford that kind of expense? And under the old system, you can pay through the nose year after year while you're basically healthy, but if you get sick and hit some arbitrary lifetime limit you might find yourself without coverage even if, through some miracle, you're still able to keep up the payments. Is that the kind of system you want to maintain, because making a change might inconvenience you for a while? |
Do you really believe that legislation will change an inherently dishonest business? They're out for profit, and they will figure out a way to make it. I figure the major change here is that I'm now legally required to purchase their products. (that can't go well IMO and so much for personal liberty)
Aside from that, having recently taken a pay cut that will put me much closer to the 40K line myself, that's a serious problem, given that I qualify for no subsidies, and am expected to pay full price for the coverage, almost certainly making my rates about as painful as they could possibly be.
Aside from all of this, no lifetime limits? That means higher premiums, just because the law changed doesn't mean the math did.
You have faith in all of this, that's fine. I don't. Give it a year, and we'll come back to this discussion. I suspect you'll have changed your tune then, much like you've changed your tune about several issues in the past once the reality of everything settled in. (that's not an insult btw, I would prefer that you are open minded enough to change your opinion when needed.) And if not, perhaps I'll have changed my tune. I certainly don't like my rates now, and I don't like the system now, so improvements are most welcome - I just suspect that this will be a pretty poor sort of 'improvement'. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:10:08 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Do you really believe that legislation will change an inherently dishonest business? They're out for profit, and they will figure out a way to make it. |
How is this different from any other business under unfettered/unregulated capitalism? Noticed the fines paid by the big banks lately? Or defense contractors? Given the opportunity to cheat in business, it seems they will, regardless of the field of endeavor ...
Remember that when lawmakers say they want to go after "waste, fraud and abuse" that the vast majority is committed by the businesses, not their clients (e.g. patients).
Message edited by author 2013-10-04 13:11:34. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:16:38 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is the attitude a single congressman in a position of supposedly limited power has: that it's up to him to decide what happens and what doesn't happen regardless of law or the expressed will (by voting) of the people... |
âThe modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.â â John Kenneth Galbraith |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:26:56 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by Cory:
an unemployed person who is not under time pressure can much more easily afford to take a couple of days to sort something out, I really don't have the time, and there's nothing worse than waiting for hours after you arrived at the scheduled time. This translates out into working persons paying more for their coverage and using it less, while the non-working persons are taking more advantage of the coverage and essentially not paying for it. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Appalling. Shall we offer full-timers an HOV lane at the grocery store and sort DMV lines by income since your time is so much more precious than a furloughed teacher? |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
For your information, Cory, most of the people signing up under the Affordable Care Act are working, they just can't afford to buy coverage. Or they have preexisting conditions and can't get coverage even if they can afford it. In my case, because my husband and I are self-employed, $15,000 a year (the price of a new car, year after year after year) was just out of reach. How many of us can afford that kind of expense? And under the old system, you can pay through the nose year after year while you're basically healthy, but if you get sick and hit some arbitrary lifetime limit you might find yourself without coverage even if, through some miracle, you're still able to keep up the payments. Is that the kind of system you want to maintain, because making a change might inconvenience you for a while? |
Originally posted by Cory:
Do you really believe that legislation will change an inherently dishonest business? They're out for profit, and they will figure out a way to make it. I figure the major change here is that I'm now legally required to purchase their products. (that can't go well IMO and so much for personal liberty)
Aside from that, having recently taken a pay cut that will put me much closer to the 40K line myself, that's a serious problem, given that I qualify for no subsidies, and am expected to pay full price for the coverage, almost certainly making my rates about as painful as they could possibly be.
Aside from all of this, no lifetime limits? That means higher premiums, just because the law changed doesn't mean the math did.
You have faith in all of this, that's fine. I don't. Give it a year, and we'll come back to this discussion. I suspect you'll have changed your tune then, much like you've changed your tune about several issues in the past once the reality of everything settled in. (that's not an insult btw, I would prefer that you are open minded enough to change your opinion when needed.) And if not, perhaps I'll have changed my tune. I certainly don't like my rates now, and I don't like the system now, so improvements are most welcome - I just suspect that this will be a pretty poor sort of 'improvement'. |
I would have preferred a non-profit system, but the Affordable Care Act is still an improvement, in my opinion.
For your information, the amount you pay for a policy is based on your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI), NOT your gross income. For most people there probably isn't a big difference between those two numbers, but for my husband and me it's a difference of tens of thousands of dollars and really is going to help make the premium much more affordable. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:41:30 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I would have preferred a non-profit system, but the Affordable Care Act is still an improvement, in my opinion.
For your information, the amount you pay for a policy is based on your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI), NOT your gross income. For most people there probably isn't a big difference between those two numbers, but for my husband and me it's a difference of tens of thousands of dollars and really is going to help make the premium much more affordable. |
At least we can agree on the preference of a non-profit system.
Judith, remember that you're now required to do this by law, and that law does not limit premiums. This year you are going to save, that much is clear. What about next year? The year after?
At some point, someone will figure out how to leverage this situation, mark my words on this.
And I still haven't heard you saying that you really think the quality of healthcare will improve - you noted that some 'provisions' were made to alleviate that situation, but you just watch the issues this causes. Even assuming that the 1/6th figure is correct (or high)3.13 million people / 6 = 50 million people who'll be very compelled to take new advantage of the availability of healthcare. It's my prediction that this isn't going to happen over time, in a manageable way - there will be 50 million people who've been without healthcare for years now demanding and requiring a great deal more attention and care than the 'average' person would. Care to guess what this will look like for a while? And after that, who knows...
Again, I damned right hope I'm wrong, and recognize that possibility - I just don't have the same level of faith in humanity and the system that you seem to. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:44:43 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by Cory:
... you're now required to do this by law, and that law does not limit premiums. This year you are going to save, that much is clear. What about next year? The year after? |
Insurance rates are regulated by state agencies, not the Federal government. In California, rate increases must be approved by an elected Insurance Commissioner. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:45:02 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is the attitude a single congressman in a position of supposedly limited power has: that it's up to him to decide what happens and what doesn't happen regardless of law or the expressed will (by voting) of the people... |
âThe modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.â â John Kenneth Galbraith |
The real problem is the majority of the majority "Hastert rule," which by definition undermines cooperation between right and left. It's amazing this practice isn't under more fire.
The votes are there to get the government running again, but this unofficial precedent allows Sunkist to ignore reason and cooperation and block the vote just because more than 50% of the majority care more about looking good in battle than they do about the citizens for whom they are fighting.
Judith, you've probably seen this. Some are hopeful, at least. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:47:52 PM · #437 |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:53:42 PM · #438 |
| Costco, In-N-Out Burger, and many other companies have proven that it is perfectly possible to run a successful and profitable business while treating employees decently and providing living wages and benefits, the only constraint being the level of greed of the owners. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 01:57:26 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by Cory:
that law does not limit premiums. This year you are going to save, that much is clear. What about next year? The year after? |
Were your premiums limited under the old system? The conservative argument used to be in FAVOR of market competition over regulation.
Originally posted by Cory:
Even assuming that the 1/6th figure is correct (or high)3.13 million people / 6 = 50 million people who'll be very compelled to take new advantage of the availability of healthcare...there will be 50 million people who've been without healthcare for years now demanding and requiring a great deal more attention and care than the 'average' person would. |
You assume all 50 million would sign up AND use the services to full potential right away. Official estimates are closer to 20 million (an increase of about 7%). Ironically, the myths and scare tactics employed in opposition to the ACA law will have the reverse effect as vested interests do everything in their power to keep people away and encourage them to pay the fine instead. The burden of so many more more participants is surely the biggest risk to success, yet the actions of opponents tempers that risk and turns it into a jobs story.
Message edited by author 2013-10-04 13:58:59. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:14:46 PM · #440 |
Just to be clear, I don't believe premiums are limited (ie. regulated) any more than anything else. They become cheaper because one can earn tax credits to use towards them. The government (or you and me) is paying part of the premium. (How that saves the government money, I'm not quite positive).
The reason to fear the ACA is mainly the unknown of how it will shake out. Sure, we have guesses and assumptions about how things should go, but it is so complex that the reality could be different. IF the country is saving money on its medical expenditures one of two things has to happen:
1) Someone pays more for what they get.
2) Someone gets less for what they provide.
There is no magical other way. The question is who is REALLY going to wind up holding the bag. The answer is somewhat unknown. It is assumed the people without insurance currently who are healthy will pay more for what they get (required to pay a premium when they didn't before). It is also assumed the government can negotiate with doctors or pharma companies to pay them less (they already do however compared to private insurance). The question is whether the healthy people will just pay the penalty or whether doctors will really take it in the shorts and reject the whole deal. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:17:07 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
that law does not limit premiums. This year you are going to save, that much is clear. What about next year? The year after? |
Were your premiums limited under the old system? The conservative argument used to be in FAVOR of market competition over regulation.
Originally posted by Cory:
Even assuming that the 1/6th figure is correct (or high)3.13 million people / 6 = 50 million people who'll be very compelled to take new advantage of the availability of healthcare...there will be 50 million people who've been without healthcare for years now demanding and requiring a great deal more attention and care than the 'average' person would. |
You assume all 50 million would sign up AND use the services to full potential right away. Official estimates are closer to 20 million (an increase of about 7%). Ironically, the myths and scare tactics employed in opposition to the ACA law will have the reverse effect as vested interests do everything in their power to keep people away and encourage them to pay the fine instead. The burden of so many more more participants is surely the biggest risk to success, yet the actions of opponents tempers that risk and turns it into a jobs story. |
I'm not a conservative, nor am I a liberal. nor a teapartier, nor ..
I'm a man who has his own set of ideals which do not follow pre-existing lines.
.. Again, I do hope I am wrong, and you should realize that 7% is still a pretty big increase when things are already stressed. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:17:32 PM · #442 |
| Fear of the Unknown... a registered trademark of the Party of Faith. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:18:48 PM · #443 |
| Jason, isn't there a third category? Hypothetically, tremendous gains can be made in administrative costs. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:22:40 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The question is whether the healthy people will just pay the penalty or whether doctors will really take it in the shorts and reject the whole deal. |
I agree with everything you've said.
(and rofl about the party of faith - hardly my suit, but in this case, can we call it party of lack of faith? Cause it's my belief that the majority of humans are generally greedy, corrupt, and incompetent, or at best, too unintelligent to be any of the proceeding, in which case they're simply the suckers which the greedy, corrupt and incompetent rely upon)
In any case, my question relates to the above quoted post - how do you see the "reject the whole deal" bit working? What would that look like? |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:23:50 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jason, isn't there a third category? Hypothetically, tremendous gains can be made in administrative costs. |
Umm. Bear, this is the US government we're talking about here... They're not exactly renowned for their ability to excel in this area.
Message edited by author 2013-10-04 14:25:01. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:30:35 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jason, isn't there a third category? Hypothetically, tremendous gains can be made in administrative costs. |
Umm. Bear, this is the US government we're talking about here... They're not exactly renowned for their ability to excel in this area. |
Actually, if you look at Medicare's administrative costs, they do excel in that area. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:31:33 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jason, isn't there a third category? Hypothetically, tremendous gains can be made in administrative costs. |
Possibly, but tell me how that works? The government adds millions of people who are otherwise costing the government zero (or nearly zero) in administrative costs (ie. they have no insurance). How is that providing efficiency? We have also already had Medicare up and running for, what, more than half a century. Are we suddenly going to discover large efficiencies that we had not discovered before?
If there is an effect in this category I would assume it would never amount to anything like the gains in what I mentioned. (ie. paying more, getting less) |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:34:26 PM · #448 |
| BTW, I always need to state these disclaimers because people always make assumptions about what I believe. I'm not starkly against the ACA. I think we need to do something and if this is the best we can come up with, then we need to try. HOWEVER, if people are against it because they fear the train will go off the rails, I'm not one to say they are completely irrational for holding that position. I do not have the faith of the party loyal (to throw the term back to Shannon). |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:36:07 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Jason, isn't there a third category? Hypothetically, tremendous gains can be made in administrative costs. |
Umm. Bear, this is the US government we're talking about here... They're not exactly renowned for their ability to excel in this area. |
Actually, if you look at Medicare's administrative costs, they do excel in that area. |
That depends upon which report you look at.
And so goes everything with the government - they can obfuscate so darn well due to size and interconnectedness that we really aren't able to fully map out the true cost of anything anymore. |
|
|
|
10/04/2013 02:38:01 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, I always need to state these disclaimers because people always make assumptions about what I believe. I'm not starkly against the ACA. I think we need to do something and if this is the best we can come up with, then we need to try. HOWEVER, if people are against it because they fear the train will go off the rails, I'm not one to say they are completely irrational for holding that position. I do not have the faith of the party loyal (to throw the term back to Shannon). |
Weird. I'm on Sneezy's side about a 'faith' issue and against Shannon's position on it.. NEVER saw this day coming. ;) |
|
