Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?
Display Avatars Sort By:
Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/29/2013 19:12:55 MDT Print View

Anyone? Checked out the exchanges yet? Excited?

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/29/2013 21:01:37 MDT Print View

I'll take the fine most likely. Super stoked.

If you don't like Memes skip this thread.

Edited by kthompson on 10/31/2013 21:16:01 MDT.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/29/2013 21:27:33 MDT Print View

My wife's employer recently sent out an "informal" directive to all managers to no longer schedule anyone for 30 or more hours per week and/or make sure nobody overstays a shift and breaks 30 hours so as to avoid having to provide health care under the new legislation. They will be making sure they don't exceed the 50 full-time employee threshold.

My wife won't be affected as she already works under 30, but many of her co-workers are getting hours cut and are facing the prospect of finding a second shift somewhere else. They're stoked.

Edited by xnomanx on 09/29/2013 21:30:15 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/29/2013 21:44:59 MDT Print View

My brother-in-law and his co-workers are experiencing what Craig described.

I truly hope that something will come from all this which will make health care affordable for all but I'm doubtful.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/29/2013 21:48:41 MDT Print View

I can see a reduction in hours in my future.

I'm 46 and have been uninsured for the vast majority of my life. Sucks. But this is not the answer.

Edited by kthompson on 09/29/2013 21:55:59 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/29/2013 22:18:55 MDT Print View

I'm signing up

Because of Oregon regulations, when I was layed off I was put in a pool that will be replaced by Obama-care

I suspect there will be little difference. Same insurance company. About the same cost.

I'm sure there will be lots of problems initially because health care is so complicated, but eventually it will be like Medicare - people gripe about it but they really holler if you threaten to take it away.

Health care has become so expensive that it is taking a significant share of the economy and dragging everything else down. Obama Care is far from perfect but it's what was possible given politics.

I can see why the Republicans are so desperate - if it gets implemented and the world doesn't quit spinning on it's axis like the Republicans claim, they'll be screwed.

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 05:30:59 MDT Print View

The 30 hour rule is the stupidest part of ACA.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 06:09:32 MDT Print View

The 30 hour rule?

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 06:37:29 MDT Print View

I'm signing up...and frankly, many of us here in the backpacking community should be stoked as well. I HATE that my insurance has to come from my job - and it's not like you aren't paying for it there, either. I paid $215 every 2 weeks for my crappy PPO coverage at my last job...but with my health and my age there is not an insurance company on the planet who would give me an individual policy. So guess what? I ALWAYS had to have a full time job in order to have health insurance. Always.

So now I can sign up for an affordable individual plan, the insurance company can't charge me more because of any perceived medical conditions, and I don't have to work full time if I don't want to. If I want to work a little here, then go and say, hike the PCT next year, I can...WITH insurance, so that if I break my ankle or something, YOUR tax dollars won't pay for my not buying a plan.

Seriously people...what's NOT to like?

If it's the mandate...well, if you don't have health insurance then you are relying on my tax dollars to take care of you if you are seriously injured (and yes, it happens ALL the time to people who least expect it).

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 07:12:48 MDT Print View

I think people will gripe even with a perfect solution. It will always rub some the wrong way.

It's going to be a change for sure. Businesses and individuals will have to adapt to new new ways of doing things and, like even social security, changes will be made to minimize the cracks.

My family will be moving to the USA within the next year or so. My wife has panic attacks (nearly always denied coverage) and I'm a stay at home dad. The ACA means we will have more reasonable options for insurance.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
30 hour rule on 09/30/2013 07:32:57 MDT Print View

the 30 hour rule will be interesting to see how it pans out. If, as a business, I limit the number of hours my employees work to 30 when I'm used to getting 35 out of them then I'll have to hire more employees to cover those lost hours. At what point is it more profitable to just ensure them?

It has been argued that reducing the work week to 30 hours would be profitable for the economy precisely because it would employ more people.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 07:46:44 MDT Print View

"Seriously people...what's NOT to like? "

Again-
The ACA says that employers must provide health insurance for employees if they have 50 or more "full time" employees. They define "full time" as only 30 hours/week. So many businesses are trimming the hours of their employees so as to not have to deal with the financial and procedural complexities of providing health care.

So many people that were working, say, a 38 hour work week will see their hours cut back to 29.5....which would be the equivalent of losing a full day of work and pay per week. It has already happened to people I know.

Losing a shift and having to get a second job....If this is happening to you due to this legislation, that's what's NOT to like.

_____________________________________

"If it's the mandate...well, if you don't have health insurance then you are relying on my tax dollars to take care of you if you are seriously injured (and yes, it happens ALL the time to people who least expect it)."

I love how the dynamic is to always pit citizens against each other.
With the myriad of screwed up ways the government completely wastes billions of taxpayer dollars...Corporate welfare? Foreign military and nation building escapades? Nope, get mad at the guy without insurance for wasting your money. Meh.

If ONLY my money cold be spent on people that need health care.

Edited by xnomanx on 09/30/2013 07:49:48 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 09:18:51 MDT Print View

"If it's the mandate..."

The mandate and the pre-existing conditions provision are to get everyone to be insured so my health care spending doesn't go to pay for other people that don't pay

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: 30 hour rule on 09/30/2013 09:25:04 MDT Print View

Health insurance is a relatively small part of the cost of hiring people.

If an employer just considers employees a line on a spreadsheet they won't get the most productivity out of them.

If an employer wants to entice good employees with good compensation, they'll get the best people who will be more productive. They will already be providing health insurance so Obama-care won't make any difference.

I think some people are saying they're employers and they're going to cut employee hours to less than 30 hours just as an emotional reaction to change.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 09:47:25 MDT Print View

"I think some people are saying they're employers and they're going to cut employee hours to less than 30 hours just as an emotional reaction to change"

I think that making health care affordable for all people should be one of the highest priorities for our country. I also don't object to a hybrid system solution which involves both the public and private sector.

As far as the 30 hour rule goes, it's not a myth and it's not hyperbole. There are people, like my brother-in-law, who have already had their hours cut in anticipation of the ACA mandate.

That's $5000 a year for someone who was previously working a 40 hour week making $10 an hour. That's $5000 less (before taxes) to put food on the table, to buy school clothes for kids, and to pay health insurance premiums.

I think Jennifer touched on something that I agree with. A large problem with our health care systems is that it is mostly associated with our jobs.

It's a very complicated topic and as I said before, I'm doubtful ACA is the solution but I also hope I'm wrong.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 09:52:41 MDT Print View

"I think Jennifer touched on something that I agree with. A large problem with our health care systems is that it is mostly associated with our jobs. "


+1.

Edited by Kat_P on 09/30/2013 10:10:22 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 10:19:35 MDT Print View

Well, first, OP = troll, bringing up an issue like this in a BP forum. :)

Second, this is a false argument:

"With the myriad of screwed up ways the government completely wastes billions of taxpayer dollars...Corporate welfare? Foreign military and nation building escapades? Nope, get mad at the guy without insurance for wasting your money."

Just because we end up paying for other questionable stuff does not mean that we don't pay significant costs to cover the uninsured. Because we do- COBRA and all that- and it will be nice to do something about it. We ALREADY have universal healthcare in the US- it's just a damned inefficient and somewhat callous form. Ultimately, this is more money out of everyone's pockets, thus reducing our true wages. So why not be up front about it? Put it out in the open where we can count dollars?

So, since I am unwilling to support turning life-threateningly sick people out of ERs and onto the streets to die then I sort of have to support mandatory healthcare insurance, because it is fiscally responsible. (And I'm a conservative at heart.) Costs will actually probably go down as people get more preventative care. Well, assuming that the insurance companies don't just suck that up as extra profit- which we need to take steps to prevent.

In the long run, it will all level out. I will pay less for other people's healthcare, and this will become just another cost of doing business. Ultimately, insurance is just part of pay, so avoiding the ACA is merely a scam to pay your employees a substandard wage. "MY GOD if we have mandatory healthcare coverage the ECONOMY will COLLAPSE!" Get real. Most of the first world has some sort of mandatory healthcare coverage and they somehow manage. So, I agree that cutting employee hours is scare-mongering. If someone wants to purposefully limit his company's growth no higher than 50 employees who all work less than 30-hours, let them. They are a fool. Decent employees will flee, and he will start having to hire seasonal or lower-skilled and unmotivated high-school students or something, then incur costs with high employee turnover, etc. I laugh at him.

Could the ACA have been written better? Absolutely. But this was the political reality. The holes can be patched as we gain experience with it.

I'm a right-of-center moderate, but I have to admit that the ridiculous Republican scare-mongering and generally petulant attitude (shutdown?!?) over this has put me off. And I will vote accordingly. IMO the Republicans have been systematically alienating the moderates in the country for the past decade. All that they have left are the radical wingnuts. There is no longer any such thing as a "moderate Republican" in the House, and only one or MAYBE two in the Senate.

EDIT--- Hey, what's the temp in hell, today? Because I am finding myself agreeing with Jerry and the other uber-pinkos on something! Who woulda thunk it? :)

Edited by acrosome on 09/30/2013 10:50:15 MDT.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 10:41:49 MDT Print View

I have a hard time sympathizing with employers who use ethically questionable employment tactics just to bump their bottom line. I have great sympathy for those employees who, for their own reasons, have to put up with these practices.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 10:50:45 MDT Print View

"I'm a right-of-center moderate, but I have to admit that the ridiculous Republican scare-mongering and generally petulant attitude (shutdown?!?) over this has put me off. And I will vote accordingly."

I'm in the same boat. Fiscally conservative/independent but casting more of my votes to the DNC and third parties every year.

Unfortunately in this case, a broken clock is right twice every day and there is some truthiness to a few of the GOP arguments. My observations of my brother-in-law’s predicament are anecdotal but I'm inclined to believe that he's not alone.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 10:55:24 MDT Print View

"Truthiness" is a good word- hopefully you understand what you just said, because that would be quite droll. :)

Wikipedia-
"Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]"

That final phrase is the relevant one, here, and the scare quotes around "truth" are important. The only reason that any of the Republicans' predictions are coming true is because they are MAKING them come true- e.g. the employers cutting hours and total employees, etc. Not to mention, it's a pretty bald attempt to coerce employee voting by doing this and then sending emails saying "this is all because of Obamacare!" There were many news stories during the initial debate over the ACA of unscrupulous employers telling employees that they would be fired or their hours cut if it passed, and this is more of the same. And as an American I find it repugnant.

And if there is any justice in the world, the labor market will punish them.

I just wish the Republicans could actually be conservatives again, instead of... whatever the hell they are now. "The Big Corporation Party?" What?

Edited by acrosome on 09/30/2013 11:01:25 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 11:01:16 MDT Print View

"I just wish the Republicans could actually be conservatives again, instead of... whatever the hell they are now. "The Big Corporation Party?" What?"

Democrats are also the Big Corporation party

we're screwed until we get rid of legalized bribes to politicians, and it'll be hard to do this because any politician that pushes this won't get re-elected

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 11:05:54 MDT Print View

"As far as the 30 hour rule goes, it's not a myth and it's not hyperbole. There are people, like my brother-in-law, who have already had their hours cut in anticipation of the ACA mandate."

Since Obama-care hasn't taken effect yet, anyone that says they've cut people to less than 30 hours is just mything and hyperbolizing : )

Wait a year and then do a statistical analysis, not anecdotes

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Twice in one day? on 09/30/2013 11:07:49 MDT Print View

What the hell, Jerry? Twice in one day? Didn't I once post a huge rant in chaff about the initiative to amend the Constitution to declare that money is not free speech?

Citizens United v FEC was the worst Supreme Court decision since... hell, Plessy v Fergusun? Maybe I can bump it up to 1944: Korematsu v U.S.

Maybe that's my problem- I'm a conservative but not a corporatist, so I don't fit in anywhere. When forced to, I've occasionally described myself as a "Schwartzenegger Republican"- meaning very green, with somewhat of a libertarian streak on social issues, but fiscally conservative. It's that last- coupled with a sense of compassion that prevents me from just letting people suffer and die en mass- that bring me to support some form of universal healthcare coverage. But I admit, I have my issues with ACA. Current plan = far from perfect.

Edited by acrosome on 09/30/2013 11:16:16 MDT.

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 11:21:46 MDT Print View

There was a news story about Trader Joe's regarding part time employees.

And now for an anecdotal story. I have heard no one in GOP controlled congressional districts is going to sign up for ACA.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Twice in one day? on 09/30/2013 11:29:01 MDT Print View

> But I admit, I have my issues with ACA. Current plan = far from perfect.

It think it's the beauty of a democracy that the plan does not need to be perfect. It will be worked on, degraded and improved by future generations responding to whatever their needs are then. For now this is what we've got. It's a whole lot better than what was. If nothing else, it's an honest attempt to address a serious problem... that's more than has ever been done before.

Considering how difficult it is to address such far-reaching and important issues (think education) I say that we've got to give this idea a chance to play itself out.

> And now for an anecdotal story. I have heard no one in GOP controlled
> congressional districts is going to sign up for ACA.

Maybe with the monies levied from penalties there should be a Fed Owned Insurance Company to provide insurance for those who refused to buy it. That would REALLy piss them off. :D

Edited by richardmay on 09/30/2013 11:33:02 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Twice in one day? on 09/30/2013 11:38:08 MDT Print View

ha, ha, ha. Yes, I know Citizen's United is one of your issues. I agree with conservatives all the time, like talking about gun control is a waste of time and counter-productive.

I'm for liberal things that work and conservative things that work

The Obama-care mandates was proposed by conservatives like the Heritage Foundation when Clinton was pushing a health care solution

Now that Obama has proposed it, conservatives are against it

I think these people in power that call themselves "conservative" are just political - want to push through things that will enrich themselves. Sort of like a "Sopranos" crime family that take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself and don't care about the collateral damage.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 11:40:12 MDT Print View

" I have heard no one in GOP controlled congressional districts is going to sign up for ACA."

No one?

If I can find one person in a GOP controlled district will you apologize for mything and hyberbolizing?

Wait a second - you're a plant throwing me softballs : )

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Twice in one day? on 09/30/2013 11:48:22 MDT Print View

RE: "Maybe with the monies levied from penalties there should be a Fed Owned Insurance Company to provide insurance for those who refused to buy it. That would REALLy piss them off. :D"

But the "public option" was removed at Republican insistence. Which in principle I have no issue with, but yet again the Republicans annoyed the living hell out of me with the contradictory arguments they used. First they argued that government is inherently inefficient and that thus any public healthcare plan would be expensive while providing poor service, thus wasting taxpayer money, etc. But at the same time they argued that a public option would compete with private insurance companies too much and drive them out of business.

So which is it? Would a public option be competitive or not? You can't argue BOTH.

Petulant jackasses. :)

Edited by acrosome on 09/30/2013 11:51:33 MDT.

Sharon J.
(squark) - F

Locale: SF Bay area
keep it chaffy on 09/30/2013 11:51:06 MDT Print View

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Twice in one day? on 09/30/2013 11:56:19 MDT Print View

Re: "It think it's the beauty of a democracy that the plan does not need to be perfect. It will be worked on, degraded and improved by future generations responding to whatever their needs are then."

Uh. What I said... :)

HK Newman
(hknewman) - MLife

Locale: Western US
Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 12:11:48 MDT Print View

Each US state is different (some not even allowing their employees to assist their citizens), so it may help to use an online ACA calculator from a major insurer and health.gov to get a "warm fuzzy" about your particular situation. Then you need to talk to an insurer in your own state.

Long term, more will be on an exchange regardless now major employers are going to an ACA or ACA-like exchange in the next few years , probably in an effort to control their employee health costs,...

Page 2 of .... http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-health-exchanges-wont-tell-you-2013-09-27?pagenumber=2 Some other good info from a major financial website.

Edit: br.

Edited by hknewman on 09/30/2013 16:12:14 MDT.

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 12:20:36 MDT Print View

>>
If I can find one person in a GOP controlled district will you apologize for mything and hyberbolizing?


Well, less than the number of voters it will take to unseat them.

But I can only assume the majority of voters in those districts all have health-care and don't want ACA.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 12:25:28 MDT Print View

""Truthiness" is a good word- hopefully you understand what you just said, because that would be quite droll. :)"

Wow! Yes, even out here in bum-f*&%ed Eastern Washington, we get the Colbert Report.

"Since Obama-care hasn't taken effect yet, anyone that says they've cut people to less than 30 hours is just mything and hyperbolizing : )

Wait a year and then do a statistical analysis, not anecdotes"

Jerry,

If I have personal knowledge of one case where a person's hours have been reduced in anticipation of ACA, yes it's anecdotal but it's not a myth. I think you're being a little ambitious that anyone will be able to say ACA was a hit or a dud in a year. Decade maybe but not in a year.

Secondly, It's well within my rights to question and scrutinize a piece of legislation as important as this. Just because I'm criticizing certain aspects of it and expressing my doubts does not make me a Kool-Aid drinking Republican; it makes me a responsible citizen.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: keep it chaffy on 09/30/2013 12:27:47 MDT Print View

Viva La Onion Sharon! Love it.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 13:09:59 MDT Print View

you're right, decade rather than year

and you make good points, I should probably put in a few more happy faces or [/sarcasm]s

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 13:39:21 MDT Print View

"and you make good points, I should probably put in a few more happy faces or [/sarcasm]s"

Nah. I'm a bit crabby this morning. Sorry if that came across edgy.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 15:17:34 MDT Print View

This is no good

Can't we call each other names or something? USE ALL CAPS MAYBE?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Twice in one day? on 09/30/2013 17:49:59 MDT Print View

"But I admit, I have my issues with ACA. Current plan = far from perfect."

+1

So, why not just enroll everyone in Medicare?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Twice in one day? on 09/30/2013 17:54:51 MDT Print View

Medicare for all would have been much better.

But there weren't enough politicians willing to vote for that.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
ObamaCare on 09/30/2013 22:52:11 MDT Print View

*"But the "public option" was removed at Republican insistence. Which in principle I have no issue with, but yet again the Republicans annoyed the living hell out of me with the contradictory arguments they used. First they argued that government is inherently inefficient and that thus any public healthcare plan would be expensive while providing poor service, thus wasting taxpayer money, etc. But at the same time they argued that a public option would compete with private insurance companies too much and drive them out of business.

So which is it? Would a public option be competitive or not? You can't argue BOTH.

Petulant jackasses. :)"


Actually these arguments dovetail quite well. It's very possible, likely even, for a government entity to be inefficient, expensive, of poor quality and wasteful. A government entity can also run deficits covered by taxpayer subsidy indefinitely, making it very hard for the private sector to compete.

What am I missing?


*The "Public Option' was not removed from the ACA negotiations at the insistence of the Republicans. The "Public Option" was removed to secure the votes of Democrat senators. They didn't need anything from the Republicans and didn't seek any input from the Republicans. Also recall that ObamaCare was never voted on by the House. Unprecedented. Imagine the howls in the media if a Republican majority ever tried that trick!


*Also, for the record, we have health care tied to employment (which is a lousy system) thanks to wage controls instituted by a previous Democratic administration. So, thanks for that.


*Jennifer - Not sure if I'm reading your post correctly but is it your opinion that a person should ensure he/she has earned enough to avoid receiving an ObamaCare subsidy prior to embarking on the PCT or would you be willing for that person to accept a taxpayer subsidy?


*BTW - What we're taking about is not insurance. It's income redistribution to pay medical expenses. I suppose "income redistribution" is a loaded phrase that makes the Left very defensive but I can't think of a better term.


*Speaking of income redistribution ObamaCare smacks young well people to pay for sick elderly people. It will be interesting to see if the youngsters figure that out.


*I know of a company that paid for ALL the healthcare needs of their employees and their families without any deductions or copays. Obama derisively refers to this type of healthcare coverage as a "Cadillac" plan. A punitive tax on this type of plan was included in ObamaCare. Therefore the company was forced to reduce benefits enough to fall under the "Cadillac" threshold which resulted in copays and payroll withholdings for the employees. Probably doesn't hurt management much but I imagine it was quite a hit for line workers. Not a myth and not anecdotal.


*I don't understand the line of thinking whereby we take 20% of the economy that affects every single person living here and decide to play around with it to see what happens. That's dumb. Wouldn't it have been better to work around the edges and slowly improve the old system?


*It's easy to imagine that Dem leadership doesn't care if ObamaCare tanks because the next stop on the line is Single-Payer. They've said as much.


*The problem with Medicare-for-all is Medicare is heavily subsidized by private care. If everyone had Medicare who would subsidize that?

Edited by BreakingAway on 09/30/2013 22:57:32 MDT.

Daniel Pittman
(pitsy) - M

Locale: Central Texas
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 09/30/2013 23:36:29 MDT Print View

My girlfriend continues to work at a job she hates (Starbucks) because it provides good insurance for us and our child. I work my ass off and make enough to pay our rent, utilities, car note, medical bills, and phone bills. She pays for health coverage, car insurance, and groceries. There is nothing left over and we have no time off to spend together.

If we can get a better deal on health care because of ACA, it might allow her to find a more fulfilling job. She had to pass on a better paying job earlier this year because it didn't offer insurance.

I have family in the UK and Europe. Their health care system seems much simpler and more humane. You get sick, you go to the doctor. Taxes pay for it all. Sure you have to get on a waiting list for some procedures, but routine care and emergency care is much more streamlined.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: ObamaCare on 10/01/2013 06:23:29 MDT Print View

Ooh! I qualify for Enhanced Silver 70

Monthly payments of $367-411 for myself.

Not gonna happen if I want to eat and have a roof over my head.

What about a vision and dental coverage?

HK Newman
(hknewman) - MLife

Locale: Western US
ACA and saving on 10/01/2013 07:38:56 MDT Print View

*Jennifer - Not sure if I'm reading your post correctly but is it your opinion that a person should ensure he/she has earned enough to avoid receiving an ObamaCare subsidy prior to embarking on the PCT or would you be willing for that person to accept a taxpayer subsidy?

Conventionally, most need to save about $5500 minimum to embark on the PCT (quoted from those who did it) but the vast majority will need employment to pay other bills while working to save; assume their own place (rent/deposit), groceries, utilities (w/deposits), other insurance, nights out. etc...and, assume an auto/gas, that's $2,000 per month living expenses, ... all while saving the previous sum (places with excellent public transport are more expensive, so call it even). Plus the cheapest bronze plan requires higher deductibles and copays, so that should be in the budget too and added to the $5500 (~$6500 - $7000?). With monthly expenses, direct subsidies fade away as the needed taxable income is added up.

We calculated $1.5K/mo minimum was needed to survive in one of the cheapest US zip codes -El Paso TX/Ft. Bliss - about a decade ago (Source: Three of my officer assignments were in admin, helping troops and families with financial planning with civilian social workers). Now, no-to-low income types have Medicaid take over but if I am reading right, it's very rare for to be covered out of state (if that's important). Some might hike with current savings (already taxed) but in America? That's about as rare as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul riding into the Senate together on a rainbow colored unicorn. My experience is younger couples buy more house and more car than their budget can support, and if still married by middle age, keeping the wife (current + exes) and kids "in style".



Ed: it/br.

Edited by hknewman on 10/01/2013 09:22:11 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Unintended consequences on 10/01/2013 15:43:24 MDT Print View

For those thinking this deal is all good and will take some time to level out, I have to ask, "at what cost"? Small companies that I am familiar with, were planning for the worst when this legislation was first being discussed. Instead of expanding, they waited to see what would happen, and are still sitting on their hands. How many unintended consequences will go overlooked? How bout your car insurance going up?

Health care will become efficient when the patient pays the doctor. Adding another layer of bureaucrats in between and expecting things to improve is pure insanity. DC is so out of control it's funny, in a sick perverted kind of way. For those in favor of it, enjoy.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
I will compare prices on 10/01/2013 18:11:29 MDT Print View

Being self employed, Obamaney care gives me more insurance company choices and I won't be denied coverage because of any injury or illness. My wife's job comes with insurance for her, but if we add me and my son to her policy, it takes more than half her paycheck.

The fact the phones and web sites are swamped today shows the interest and need for the program.

It is time to disconnect health insurance from employment. We will be more competitive with the rest of the world.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Who pays on 10/02/2013 10:38:46 MDT Print View

@david

"Being self employed, Obamaney care gives me more insurance company choices and I won't be denied coverage because of any injury or illness. "

Who pays for this shortfall?

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
What shortfall? on 10/02/2013 14:35:15 MDT Print View

What shortfall? You mean the one I have been paying for? Now, under Obamneycare, I can choose to buy insurance along with many others and we are all paying for the same degree of coverage, playing by the same rules. Not like the insurance has been where the buying power of large corporations shifts the costs to the people who have to pay cash for care or buy in the individual market at inflated costs. Being denied coverage by some decision of an insurance manager is just a product of the past. As it was, I have been making up for the shortfall of the past insurance policies.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
What shortfall? on 10/02/2013 14:38:50 MDT Print View

The shortfall created by the uninsurable getting insurance.

This program is not creating market efficiency, but is going the other way. It's likely to end up more expensive, provide less, and have more uninsured. Brilliant no less

Edited by BFThorp on 10/02/2013 14:43:45 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
There is no shortfall on 10/02/2013 15:00:52 MDT Print View

You are missing the point. I already pay for those without insurance. When my son broke his arm, the hospital charged me 1/3 more to make up for the 1 in 3 who they care for that do not have insurance. With the private insurance companies now enrolling more people, my costs should go down. In fact the private FOR profit hospital took money from me through property taxes on my home, yet I get no more benefit for that than an indigent traveler who uses their services. (As it should be, in my opinion.)

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: I will compare prices on 10/02/2013 15:48:15 MDT Print View

"It is time to disconnect health insurance from employment. We will be more competitive with the rest of the world."

Single payer, like most of the developed world. Get the insurance companies and for profit medical providers out of the equation, then go after fraud with a vengeance.
Of course that would probably mean we'd have to cut the "defense" budget, but I think we could manage it without being invaded by Iran, Yemen, or some other dire threat to our national security.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Scratches head on 10/02/2013 16:17:58 MDT Print View

@ dave
"You are missing the point."

Not likely. The shortfall doesn't magically go away. While this may benefit some, like yourself, it's a complete turd for most. Again a bunch of youngsters will likely find penalties more affordable and the few remaining options will decline. Those that want a single payer system with the profit removed, should be happy now. If someone can explain to me how fewer options and another layer of government will make things better, I'd really like to hear it.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Assumptions on 10/02/2013 16:32:31 MDT Print View

Could someone walk me through what happens when an uninsured individual is taken to a hospital for emergency treatment. Just because it will be more entertaining, let's make it something complex like a spinal injury resulting from getting hit by a car that will likely require physical therapy just so the person can become a productive member of society again.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
more options on 10/02/2013 20:36:01 MDT Print View

"If someone can explain to me how fewer options and another layer of government will make things better, I'd really like to hear it."

There are more options, from where I stand. Before I could choose from just two companies in WA state. Now there are 6 in my area competing under ACA. That competition should drive down prices, right? There was already a thick layer of government on the previous insurance market and much of it prevented competition from entering the state.

https://www.wahealthplanfinder.org/HBEWeb/Annon_DisplayHomePage.action

Things have been working well in Mass. since they instituted the same sort of plan.


(Just looked, 2 more companies just jumped in to offer insurance.)

Edited by oware on 10/02/2013 20:49:16 MDT.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Scratches head on 10/02/2013 21:43:21 MDT Print View

Fred, I'm not sure what "shortfall" you are talking about. I also have no idea what you mean by another layer of government. You do know this is private insurance we are buying, right? And you keep talking about young people getting screwed...how is that exactly?

I assume you mean that young, healthy people are paying into a system they may not use. Except for the fact that they DO use it. Guess what the number one demographic for spinal cord injuries is???? Young men between 18-26. Yep, those very same people who you say are paying for something they'll never use are EXACTLY the people who will run up medical bills in the millions (after rehab, of course) that they will never be able to repay. So do they need to suck it up, take responsibility for themselves and actually buy a health insurance policy? Yep. Absolutely. Otherwise those young'ins are screwing the rest of us by having the taxpayer pay their medical bills.

No one says they need to buy a platinum plan...they can go ahead and buy a huge deductible catastrophic plan...that's fine.

Young people get cancer, have car accidents, bike accidents, climbing accidents. They fall off cliffs, get diseases, need transplants...and barely any of them thought they would be the ones who needed it.

That's the whole point of insurance...to protect against the unexpected. I've never needed my homeowners insurance, but you don't see me complaining about people who live on the coasts and get blasted by hurricanes all the time...

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Re: Scratches head on 10/03/2013 05:42:26 MDT Print View

> That's the whole point of insurance...to protect against the unexpected.
> I've never needed my homeowners insurance, but you don't see me complaining
> about people who live on the coasts and get blasted by hurricanes all the time...

That's exactly right Jennifer. The whole purpose of insurance is that my good fortune today helps with your bad luck and I am willing to do this because in a few years you may be helping me.

When insurance companies started making pools of clients divided up by risk-factors they undermined this system of solidarity. ACA stops this. There are no caps and nobody can be denied coverage for a preexisting condition nor can coverage be degraded.

The difficult part is how do you create a for-profit solidarity system. One that doesn't pit clients against each other and doesn't gouge them either for something that is necessary. How do you balance profit with humanitarian compassion? How do you get share-holders to understand that, with insurance, the bottom line is health of the clients not their pocket books?


Fred (sorry for the name mixup),
> The shortfall created by the uninsurable getting insurance.

To not understanding what the 'shortfall' is I don't understand who the 'un-insurable' are? Did you know that 100% of all men will eventually get prostate cancer if they live long enough? Does that make men un-insurable?

Edited by richardmay on 10/03/2013 08:23:52 MDT.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 07:48:28 MDT Print View

To give a real world example from my time in a large university hospital inpatient rehab department:

A 35 year old man changed jobs and his new health insurance had a 30 day window before it kicked in. He had been having a lot of headaches, but was waiting until his insurance was active before going to get it checked out. With about a week to go, he collapsed at work, massive aneurysm rupture.

He was taken to the ER where he promptly had numerous emergency brain surgeries to relieve pressure and to evacuate blood. He was in intensive care for well over a month. Then he was transferred to a step down unit for a while longer while they tried to manage his blood pressure. Then, unable to sit up independently, to talk, or even to hold his head up, he was transferred to our rehab unit where he stayed for nearly 2 months while he tried to learn to talk, to sit up, and to teach his family members how to care for him to keep him out of a nursing home.

During our interdisciplinary meeting, when we were discussing his rehab potential and plan of care, we all agreed he needed to stay. Then the nursing supervisor made an off-hand comment about this being exactly the reason none of us could get raises from the state university.

The cost of his care just at our institution? Well over a million dollars. For one uninsured individual who was young and very, very unlucky. Paid for by the taxpayers of Illinois.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 08:34:39 MDT Print View

Real world examples are so much more interesting.

Was the university a state school? Is that why taxpayers footed the bill? Or, is it a governmental mechanism that paid the bill? Does the man need to worry about getting billed later?

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 09:20:35 MDT Print View

Yes...university of Illinois at Chicago medical center. And that guy can get bills all day long...he will never work, never be a "contributing" member of society, so how is he going to pay back a million dollars?

But his daughter can still hug his dad, the guy smiles and can say a few words, he left our hospital being able to hold his head up and to express his wants and dislikes. Those of you who think health care is not a right...what should we have done with this guy? He had a good job, played by all the rules...just struck by dumb luck. Like what could happen to ANY of us. Are we really supposed to just throw him to the curb?

This is why I - a medical practitioner with skin in the game, as they say - strongly believe in single payer health care. This happens WAY too often. And there is not a patient on my schedule who didn't think it would have ever happened to them.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 09:50:54 MDT Print View

"Then the nursing supervisor made an off-hand comment about this being exactly the reason none of us could get raises from the state university.

The cost of his care just at our institution? Well over a million dollars. For one uninsured individual who was young and very, very unlucky. Paid for by the taxpayers of Illinois."


Funny, one million US dollars is about the cost of a single Tomahawk cruise missile.

There are more reasons you can't get a raise than the uninsured getting health care.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 10:01:41 MDT Print View

I think that expanding the size of the risk pool, if administered properly, should reduce expenses for those of us who've been carrying insurance before ACA. As a government employee, health care for my family is far from free but it's something we can afford. It's not perfect but it's fine for us. We've had a couple opportunities to test the catastrophic aspects of our coverage and it was nice to have it as a buffer between “just making it” and bankruptcy.

When my son was born two months early and spent some time in NICU, there was a misunderstanding as to whether we were in the BCBS high or low option. When we received our bill, it was about 20k (a far cry from Jennifer's patient’s million dollar bill). As a rookie LEO, father and the sole income provider for my family at that time, I just laughed. They may as well have wrote "a million-gazillion dollars" on the bill as every month was a struggle for us to figure out how to buy groceries and pay rent with less than $100 left for extras. They realized the error and the bill was later reduced to $2000. The hospital was very understanding with us as we made payments.

From some casual browsing on the website, it seems that those who are already on Medicaid will remain on a modified version of the same thing. Taxpayers are already paying that bill so I don't see how ACA has changed anything in that domain.

I've also heard some quotes from people about what their premiums will be. Sounds like they will be paying about what I do after my employer's (which ultimately are the taxpayers) portion. It wasn't cheap at $350-$450 per month (which is what I pay towards my premiums) but it also wasn't the $900-$1500 bill I was once quoted to be self-insured.

ACA is certainly not a perfect piece of legislation but it's been signed into law and the Supremes have already ruled that it's constitutional. I think the people would be better served for the GOP to look to the future and work with the DNC to make ACA something that is sustainable and meets the needs of the people.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 10:04:06 MDT Print View

I'm just trying to understand the problem. I've lived in Costa Rica since I was in my teens so I haven't been exposed the issue.

So, the government has played the role of a de-facto Public Insurance Company. I should think the ACA mandate is right up the conservatives' alley by putting the burden of insurance squarely on the shoulders of the population and taking it out of government hands. But hey, it's politics not people right?

From personal experience (living in Costa Rica) I can say that having public health care (not insurance) existing concomitant with private health care works. The competition keeps the private rates reasonable, prevention high and doctors wealthy.

My wife and I opted to use the private system when we had a baby. She has panic attacks so there was a psychologist and a psychiatrist on our team throughout the pregnancy. We had expenses like vitamins, and medicines to help with the side effects of having a baby, monthly visits to the OBGYN (with ultrasounds at every visit), the psychiatrist and weekly ones to the psychologist. There were no panic attacks (thanks to the psych team and hormonal changes). Our son was born by c-section (pre-programmed to avoid an attack) with a team of three doctors including the neo-natal, two nurses and an overnight stay.

All our baby related expenses from the first positive test and pregger clothes to walking out of the hospital was close to $8500. We didn't have private insurance so we had to pay for the whole thing out of pocket.

Yeah. I'm a proponent of public options too.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 10:09:41 MDT Print View

"
All our baby related expenses from the first positive test and pregger clothes to walking out of the hospital was close to $8500. We didn't have private insurance so we had to pay for the whole thing out of pocket."


That seems like a great deal.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Re: Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 12:39:18 MDT Print View

It sure is. Especially compared to $45000 it can cost in the States.

In fact, we got a better deal since the hospital was running a 'special' for births and we got a discount on the hospital fees (all the hardware, doctors are separate). They do it every year between January and April to get all the holiday parents. It seems an unusual number of babies are made around the year end holidays for some reason. :P

But this is a bit of hijack. I still think the mandate is a viable option. It certainly beats doing nothing.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
The shortfall on 10/03/2013 13:53:22 MDT Print View

@ Jennifer

Fred, I'm not sure what "shortfall" you are talking about. I also have no idea what you mean by another layer of government. You do know this is private insurance we are buying, right? And you keep talking about young people getting screwed...how is that exactly?

The shortfall is the cost of services/product not covered by insurance or the consumer. Joe walks into the ER, complains of a headache and has no insurance. They x-ray his lungs, scan his grey matter, give him some advil and turn him loose. This is the shortfall I'm referring to, if Joe can't pay his bill. Regardless...
the government has now decided they will force Joe to get insurance or fine him, and no matter what his condition, he will be eligible for insurance. If the insurance co. wants to play, they will have to insure Joe, no matter what the statistical loss. If Joe is young, he will statistically pay more into the system than he will receive in greater proportion than someone older. Look it up. If he elects to opt out, the system will be short 1 more contributor. I don't necessarily think the young will be screwed any more than anyone else. If this all passes your smell test for more efficient and improved health care, I guess I'll just have to scratch my head. If you think the Supreme Court is OK with the government forcing the purchase of contracts, I'll be silent.

Layer might be the wrong word, maybe additional government employees and departments would be more accurate. Do you think all these employees that were hired to implement this program were transferred from the Department of Agriculture? It has to be monitored and the compliance on this deal is a nightmare for businesses that fall under the blanket. You think that businesses with low margins will just soak it up? I really have to sit back and laugh at some of this legislation and wonder if they could really be this stupid.

d k
(dkramalc) - MLife
Re: The shortfall on 10/03/2013 14:03:19 MDT Print View

Okay, Fred, please tell us your preferred solution to the healthcare situation. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly, let me know if I'm wrong) that you probably don't think the existing situation is perfect.

What I'm most interested in is what happens with Joe, who can't afford to pay medical bills, in your ideal scenario? Especially if Joe is like the person who Jennifer described above, with a long hospitalization and rehab needs? Does he get denied medical care, or if not, who pays the bills?

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: The shortfall on 10/03/2013 14:32:47 MDT Print View

@Fred: If Joe is young, he will statistically pay more into the system than he will receive in greater proportion than someone older.

Fred, Ok I see what the shortfall is you are referring to. So it's actually the old people with expensive needs and won't pay their share into the system before they die that cause the inefficiency. The young, even if expensive now will pay their share later in life.

If that's what you are referring to then it's a temporary problem and we'll just have to bit the bullet till the inefficiency solves itself and people are in the system from birth.

You could also think of them as your parents or grandparents.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: The shortfall on 10/03/2013 14:37:52 MDT Print View

And Fred, does that mean you never buy insurance? No car insurance, no homeowners insurance, etc? Any disability insurance? Life insurance? Guess what? By far most of us will never, ever recoup the money we pay into those policies. I have been driving for 30 years and have never been in an accident and never filed a claim. $100/ month x 30 years is a ton of money...

The one thing we know about health care is that every single one of us will need it at some point. ALL of us. Some a lot, some a little...but accidents and diseases and strokes and heart attacks happen. Then what are we supposed to do?

What I really don't understand about your comments, Fred, is why you think people aren't being screwed now and why this is any worse. You are already paying for the uninsured, the guy who walks into the ER with a headache, etc. Why not at least be more pragmatic about how we cover these people...maybe if Joe had a primary care doctor and a halfway decent insurance plan, he'd go see his MD for his headache instead of the WAY more expensive ER, then he wouldn't always get the lung scan and the CT scan of his brain, etc.

I'm not the biggest fan of the ACA, but at least it's a step in the right direction, and we need to start walking. We have the most inefficient and unfair health care system in the developed world and it doesn't need to be that way.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Insurance fairness... on 10/03/2013 14:46:47 MDT Print View

Here's another patient who broke my heart:

60-ish year old guy, janitor or something at Fed Ex. Widower, no kids. Never been sick, never missed a day of work in his life and had been working since he was a teenager, more than 20 some years at fed ex. Soon he started having some funny leg pains...turns out he had a nasty vascular problem that meant he had virtually no blood flow in his legs. So he took some sick time and had a bypass graft of his legs. Well, that started to get infected, then the graft wasn't really working very well...

They did another surgery. Then another. Pretty soon it was apparent that he was going to lose his legs. Fed Ex said thanks for all your years of service, but you are out of sick time and out of FMLA. We're going to have to let you go.

So here was this older man, crying in my clinic. He had no more job, was about to lose his legs; his insurance left with the job, and who was going to insure him now? How was he going to pay his mortgage? His heating bill? How was he going to pay for the amputations, the subsequent rehab, and the prosthetics?

Are we really the kind of people who tell this guy thanks but no thanks? Really??!!!!!

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Assumptions on 10/03/2013 14:54:58 MDT Print View

"I should think the ACA mandate is right up the conservatives' alley by putting the burden of insurance squarely on the shoulders of the population and taking it out of government hands. But hey, it's politics not people right?"

That's, perhaps, one of the grandest ironies in the whole debate. One of the biggest issues in the current legislation, the mandate, originated in conservative circles, was advanced in Republican bills years ago and supported by many of the same Republicans who now, suddenly, think it's unAmerican.

Politics, yeah, which is another word for ignorance in my dictionary.

just Justin Whitson
(ArcturusBear)
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/03/2013 22:03:52 MDT Print View

I think the real issue of health care in this country are the hugely over inflated prices of everything "medical".

Why, because we live in a country where greed and strong materialism is not just common, but fostered and lauded.

Wim Depondt
(wim_depondt) - F - MLife

Locale: The low countries
non issue on 10/04/2013 05:46:47 MDT Print View

"Anyone? Checked out the exchanges yet? Excited?"

Nope, but then, I live in Western Europe. Universal health care coverage - including national systems with US-style 'individual mandates' - is not an issue on this side of the pont (thank god, so debate energy can be used for the real (for the US probably next) challenge regarding health care: the cost control).

But I am excited whether the (outcome of the) current stalemate will have a fundamental & lasting impact on the political landscape in the US.

Ken Thompson
(kthompson) - MLife

Locale: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Re: The shortfall on 10/04/2013 06:17:08 MDT Print View

My country has failed me.


For profit medical anything. That's the root problem.


Money, money, money. Destroyer of souls.

We should be helping one another, all of us.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: non issue on 10/04/2013 06:44:19 MDT Print View

'But I am excited whether the (outcome of the) current stalemate will have a fundamental & lasting impact on the political landscape in the US."

I think the GOP has imploded to a point that I don't see them challenging the DNC too much for the next 5-10 years. I won't be surprised to see them lose the House of representatives.

This is unfortunate not because I'm a fan of the GOP but because I tend to despise my elected officials less when there is a balance of power between the Dems and the Republicans.

As far as ACA goes, it will all depend on our economy. If ACA doesn't kill jobs and the economy returns then this will go down in history as a complete success. If the economy tanks, then the GOP and the Dems will spend the next 100 years arguing (still) about free markets and entitlement programs.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
No insurance. on 10/04/2013 19:58:03 MDT Print View

@jennifer

"And Fred, does that mean you never buy insurance? No car insurance, no homeowners insurance, etc? Any disability insurance? Life insurance? "
I am not mandated to buy car, homeowners, life, or disability insurance.

"By far most of us will never, ever recoup the money we pay into those policies. I have been driving for 30 years and have never been in an accident and never filed a claim. $100/ month x 30 years is a ton of money..."
We will never recover all of the premiums and their earnings (100%). If that were the case, no company could afford to offer the service. Shifting the financial burden of a possible catastrophic event to an entity with deeper pockets, is something I'm willing to do at times.

BTW I agree with most of your comments. That this is a step in the right direction, not so much. Adding more government has never made anything more efficient.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/04/2013 20:24:16 MDT.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: No insurance. on 10/04/2013 20:45:35 MDT Print View

"I am not mandated to buy car, homeowners, life, or disability insurance."

Not sure that's really true. I believe the vast majority of states require you to have auto insurance - not your choice. And no bank I know of will give you a loan for a house unless you insure it, so it's de facto mandatory unless you outright own your house or buy one with cash.

Life and disability, yeah, that's not mandated as far as I know.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: non issue on 10/04/2013 20:50:26 MDT Print View

"I won't be surprised to see them lose the House of representatives. "

I'd be very surprised. The House districts have been so gerrymandered that I believe it's quite unlikely the repubs will lose the house any time soon.

I do think they might lose more Senate seats over the latest silliness, and that the crazy faction, which seems to be calling most of the shots, will ensure (with ideologically driven, short term thinking) that they don't get the White House in the near future.

BUT, if they let the country default on its (our) debts, and nothing terrible happens, all bets are off.

d k
(dkramalc) - MLife
Re: No insurance. on 10/04/2013 22:16:39 MDT Print View

Still waiting for the answers to my questions. I hear you saying that you don't like the ACA, but I would like to know what you think we should have instead, and what you think should happen when someone who can't afford to pay their medical bills needs treatment - should they receive treatment? if so, who pays?

Daniel Pittman
(pitsy) - M

Locale: Central Texas
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/05/2013 00:35:32 MDT Print View

Here's some information to add fuel to the fiery debate. I have not fact-checked anything this dude says, but his statistics are interesting.
Copy and paste; me no HTML

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

Edited by pitsy on 10/05/2013 00:36:42 MDT.

Wim Depondt
(wim_depondt) - F - MLife

Locale: The low countries
RE: health care cost on 10/05/2013 02:37:04 MDT Print View

Although not presented in a an academic style (hence the 4+ million views), he is dead on. And yes, ironically, US households spent way more on health care compared to GDP than any other OECD-country.

Virtually all nations with universal health care coverage will negotiate in some way with and regulate the health care industry. E.g. Belgium (my home country): the price of medication is - after consultation - eventually fixed by the federal government or doctors are generally not allowed to prescribe a specific (expensive) brand of medication (but must prescribe the generic name). I can give hundreds of examples.

But I suppose intervening in free market mechanisms - whether working efficient or not - in the US is easier said than done, especially in the current (ideologic) political stalemate.

So, one is allowed to fuel this debate? Roger that: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/10/a-government-shutdown-a-social-breakdown-201310491015764779.html (p.s. I wonder if the author likes hiking - would generate superb camp shore debates :-))

Wim (BA social work & LLM, specialized in social law)

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Solutions on 10/05/2013 03:12:15 MDT Print View

First. It's not a federal government issue. Second. We have a safety net in place (at least in my state), albeit very inefficient in spots and with obvious holes. Why not tackle that before turning the entire system upside down... at the state level.

Healthcare "costs" are another issue.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Solutions on 10/05/2013 06:48:34 MDT Print View

Fred, would you object to expanding and re-enforcing the existing safety net so it went beyond emergency care and covered preventive care for those who cannot afford or do not believe in buying insurance, people between jobs without insurance, with jobs that do not provide insurance and still can't afford it?

Interestingly, States are allowed to create alternatives to the ACA. Until they do, however, they must use ACA. The states' system can be a mandate or, single payer or, whatever creative system it can devise but it must meet certain minimum standards if it is to leave the ACA.

Don't like the ACA in your state? Just go and create a viable alternative.

Edited by richardmay on 10/05/2013 07:05:21 MDT.

d k
(dkramalc) - MLife
Re: Solutions on 10/05/2013 08:33:09 MDT Print View

Fred, would you please answer my questions? I am trying to get a sense of what you think here, but all I can tell is that you don't want the ACA in place. Thanks.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Solutions on 10/05/2013 10:07:48 MDT Print View

This isn't aimed at Fred rather than the world in general. "Solutions" seem to be lacking from those who are adamantly opposed to ACA. I'm opposed to certain aspects of it for sure and it's difficult to sift through all of the hyperbole and propaganda to determine what the facts are exactly.

My point? My co-worker plays A.M. talk radio all day at work which in my opinion, even as a person who self-identifies as a fiscal conservative, that listening to these talk shows is nothing short of cruel and unusual punishment. I loathe the Hannity's and Beck's of the world but my largest gripe against them is that all they do is complain and never offer a solution or proposed course of action. If anyone has a better idea, then offer it or stop complaining. Again, not aimed at anyone on this thread.

As a fiscal conservative, it's plain to me that we're bleeding money trying to keep an inefficient healthcare system limping along. If a more affordable system is available which happens to be a pseudo-social program, then I'm all for it. If there will be unintended consequences of unemployment or the quality of our current healthcare system regresses, then I'm obviously opposed. I really have no idea (nor do my elected officials) how this will all work out but I'm trying to keep an open mind and learn as I go.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/05/2013 10:59:49 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Unintended consequences? on 10/05/2013 17:38:44 MDT Print View

Ian... I am already seeing some of the unintended consequences. I know people personally who have had their rates and contributions go up or the terms negotiated down, businesses halting expansion, and friends in the medical field prepping for worst case when this law was first mentioned. The uncertainty may be worse than the bill itself. Talked to a gentleman this morning that told me the State's risk pool would no longer have the same administrator. Meanwhile the Doctors that are refusing Medicare is the real deal and private network contracts are becoming the thing to do, if you can get in and afford it.

d k. My first wish would be for the fed to stay out out it, plug the medis, and roll it out to the states. Open up the cross state competition and eliminate the barriers to entry. Ex, I don't think you are able to co-op a health care pool. There has got to be a way to eliminate some of the regulatory pressure and still maintain a solid system. This would have to cut some of the administrative costs eventually. Again let the states figure it out. Some will have more issues than others. I'm not sure how the demographics / tables differ state to state, but you can expect the border states to be burdened more by illegals for example. Beef up the risk pool ( if we still have one) and make coverage available. I'm assuming companies still pay to play in my state. While I accept the fact that this drives my premiums, I think most are ok with it. Concierge agreements and co-ops, I don't know how it all fits together, but things need to get leaner and we're currently headed the other way.


My wife works at a large county hospital, I have friends on the supply side, and I'm in an occupation that requires a life and health license...but I certainly don't claim to have the answer. If states had the freedom to customize their own systems, however, I'm sure it would be more efficient than a one size fits all plan from DC.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/06/2013 08:19:47 MDT Print View

"In response to growing inequality in the European bastion of wealth, a grassroots committee has forced a referendum on whether the state should guarantee $2800 in monthly income, allowing the Swiss to continue their lives of sport and leisure, unencumbered by the horrible, desperate slog of poverty.

The money for their socialist utopia could come from their social insurance system, which already provides them with universal health care (they pay some premiums, depending on if they can afford it)."


http://gawker.com/swiss-to-vote-on-guaranteed-28-000-monthly-income-for-1441514881?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/06/2013 09:49:17 MDT Print View

Never mind.
Misunderstood the point of the post, apparently.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/06/2013 17:09:41 MDT.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/06/2013 16:48:58 MDT Print View

"In response to growing inequality in the European bastion of wealth, a grassroots committee has forced a referendum on whether the state should guarantee $2800 in monthly income, allowing the Swiss to continue their lives of sport and leisure, unencumbered by the horrible, desperate slog of poverty."

Sounds pretty enlightened to me. From your post, I'm guessing you don't think much of the idea. Could you tell us why? If I misread your post, my apologies in advance.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/06/2013 16:54:22 MDT Print View

"Sounds pretty enlightened to me. From your post, I'm guessing you don't think much of the idea. Could you tell us why? If I misread your post, my apologies in advance."

FWIW, David's entire post was simply a quote from the article referenced. None of the words are his.

One of my favorite comments from the referenced article: "Everyone knows Switzerland is a filthy communist hell hole with high literacy and life expectancy. Its unfair for the government to force people to live longer, happier lives."

Edited by idester on 10/06/2013 16:57:38 MDT.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/06/2013 17:06:23 MDT Print View

"FWIW, David's entire post was simply a quote from the article referenced. None of the words are his."

Ah. I missed the trailing quote. Good thing I apologized in advance. :o)

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/06/2013 18:36:31 MDT Print View

My only point- the wide variety of thought in this world.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/06/2013 19:49:33 MDT Print View

"My only point- the wide variety of thought in this world."

Then let us celebrate diversity, beginning with my apology to you for impugning your motives. :)

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/06/2013 20:05:58 MDT Print View

"Everyone knows Switzerland is a filthy communist hell hole with high literacy and life expectancy. Its unfair for the government to force people to live longer, happier lives."

LMAO!

It's sad that I get better news from The Daily Show than I do from the other guys. John Stewart said something a while back that I'll paraphrase horribly but basically it was "People say that the government which governs least governs best but I think that the government which governs _best_ governs best."

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/06/2013 20:50:05 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Swiss to Vote on Guaranteed $2800 Monthly Income for All Adults on 10/07/2013 19:24:20 MDT Print View

""In response to growing inequality in the European bastion of wealth, a grassroots committee has forced a referendum on whether the state should guarantee $2800 in monthly income..."

There was a similar movement in U.S. Maybe 1970?

In the height of the welfare and other liberal programs

The conservatives barely stopped it, and since, the pendulum has way swayed to the conservative side, but in the last 6 years, the pendulum had swung back some

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/07/2013 19:29:19 MDT Print View

I've seen that vlogbrother video - good points. They have other great videos too. Maybe they "drink too much coffee?"

What did he say, it's complicated and no simple solution. Maybe biggest problem is there isn't enough competition so health care is expensive. Obamacare addresses that, so maybe will makes things better. Obamacare also addresses some other issues they mention.

Assuming the conservatives don't kill it, it will be interesting to see how things go in a few months or years when it's actually implemented.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/08/2013 00:03:21 MDT Print View

Oregon Obamacare website is up

It costs me $616 a month currently without Obamacare

It'll cost $499 to $576 with Obamacare - same health insurance company - a little cheaper - I don't know if that's apples to apples

I think I'm in one of those states where Obamacare is cheaper

In a state like Texas where you don't have so many protections, Obamacare will cost more, because Obamacare includes protections like getting insured even if you have pre-existing conditions

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/08/2013 06:04:40 MDT Print View

> What did he say, it's complicated and no simple solution.

That's the thing about health care. Unfortunately ego's cloud judgments and we (yes, all of us) tend to forget that there is more than one way to skin a cat. It's unfortunate when idiotology interferes with finding a solution.

If we set our egos aside, leave idiotology to be the mere concepts they really are, and roll up our sleeves to the goal of providing health care to the largest population possible we would succeed. The starting point could be anything from de-regulation to state owned health systems. It really doesn't matter. Either extreme has great failings.

When our goal is compassion and human-well-being the pitfalls of either approach can be compensated and a balanced system can be created. It's just a matter of being able to put egos and idiotologies aside and serve the greater good instead.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/08/2013 10:28:01 MDT Print View

"idiotology"

Not sure if you did that on purpose, but I like it!

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/08/2013 10:29:40 MDT Print View

new word for my vocabulary

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Protections? on 10/08/2013 12:56:09 MDT Print View

@ Jerry

"In a state like Texas where you don't have so many protections, Obamacare will cost more, because Obamacare includes protections like getting insured even if you have pre-existing conditions"

Protections means exactly what?
If insurance companies are forced to insure people with existing conditions to the point they can't make a profit, health insurance will no longer exist.
If the federal government subsidizes a plan that competes with the existing insurance companies, health insurance will no longer exist. It's not more competition. Private companies cannot compete with the government because the government does not have to operate at a profit to sustain itself.

If it is cheaper to pay the fine, and then get on the ACA plan after one gets sick, why would it suprise anyone when people do exactly that?

Can I ask you guys, seriously, if any one of you thought this (ACA) would make things less expensive or not have a negative effect on services (overall)? Add more insured (at least that was the goal, wink-wink), more compliance, more government employees to implement and monitor, with the number of Dr.s fixed or anticipated to decline, and tell me you seriously thought the cost would go down? We are well on our way to a more defined two tiered health care system.

I'm not a big fan of insurance companies BTW but I do want to keep them around, hundreds of them, every one of them bidding for my contract.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/08/2013 13:26:30 MDT.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Socialized medicine on 10/08/2013 14:09:01 MDT Print View

ACA is just a step for the ultimate goal of socialized medicine, or single payer since progressives have to speak in code. The insurance industry can not survive being forced to cover pre-existing conditions, price controls and being forced to insure everyone.

Once your 27 and not a child in eyes of the government, why buy insurance? Pay the penalty, if you get sick buy a policy and get the care you need.

It's like, don't buy car insurance, wreck your car, call the Gecko and get insured and they'll pay for your repairs.

Here in Colorado, there are doctors and hospitals beginning to advertise premium services to those who can pay. No waiting time, 2 hour consultations, half day physical exams, all at a cost of course.

The rest of us will feel like we're in the Emergency room on a Sunday!!

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Protections? on 10/08/2013 14:51:23 MDT Print View

In Oregon, when I got laid off 8 years ago, the insurance company had to continue to cover me with a policy similar to what I had before.

That is a "protection" that Oregon offers and I'm willing to bet Texas does not : )

Obamacare is even better because you can get a policy even if you haven't been laid off.


"I'm not a big fan of insurance companies BTW but I do want to keep them around, hundreds of them, every one of them bidding for my contract."

Ahhh... sounds like you're a fan of Obamacare!


"If insurance companies are forced to insure people with existing conditions to the point they can't make a profit, health insurance will no longer exist."

If all insurance companies play by the same rules (having to cover pre-existing conditions for example) then none will be at a competitive disadvantage.

Under the old system, if an insurance company couldn't ignore pre-existing conditions, they would lose money and possibly go out of business.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
What? on 10/08/2013 15:27:51 MDT Print View

Jerry dude...

You understand that it doesn't create more competition but kills it, yes? I don't think you do. It's fundamental to this discussion. Companies can't survive if they are forced to provide services or product at a loss, unless they are subsidized. That "S" word means taxes for you and me. Likewise, if a private company is competing against a subsidized or govornment entity, it's not a level field and they can undercut prices until the private company is without a buyer. This may not be what it looks like today, but it's coming.

Obamnacares, is nothing about competition, efficiency, or cost reduction. Never was.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: What? on 10/08/2013 15:47:18 MDT Print View

If all companies had to cover pre-existing conditions, they would theoretically have to charge a little more, but we would get something for that.

You understand the concept of competitive disadvantage, yes? I don't think you do

Obamacare has always been about reducing cost and getting health care for all.

and finding a compromise that would be passed, signed, ratified by supremes,...

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: What? on 10/08/2013 16:14:23 MDT Print View

> Obamnacares, is nothing about competition, efficiency, or cost reduction. Never was.

There probably some truth to that. It's about getting health care to as many people as possible under fair, humane, and compassionate terms. And that will cost money, whether it's through taxes or rates we all end up helping our mis-fortunate or mis-guided brothers and sisters. I think subsidies are a great way to help, via taxes, those at the bottom end of the spectrum. So, in this case both rates and taxes are used to make up for the slack, not just one or the other.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: What? on 10/08/2013 16:24:19 MDT Print View

But cost of health care has been increasing much faster than inflation and is now so large that it's a huge drag on the economy.

There are a multitude of reasons like that vlogbrother video detailed

Part of a solution to health care has to include making health care cost increase less than general inflation to gradually bring it a little more reasonable.

The question is much bigger than just whether you have subsidies to pay for people that can't affor it

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Re: What? on 10/08/2013 17:19:21 MDT Print View

> Part of a solution to health care has to include making health care cost increase
> less than general inflation to gradually bring it a little more reasonable.

I realize this only addresses part of the problem, but Obamacare forces insurers to spend 80-85% of their income on their clients.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Yep on 10/08/2013 22:02:21 MDT Print View

"You understand the concept of competitive disadvantage, yes? I don't think you do"

You have missed the point. Companies are already forced to participate in risk pools, at least in my state. Enter the government (fed) and the word competitive or competition can be scratched from the discussion. But then again, it shouldn't be federal issue.

If you want a single payer socialized model, and think it will be the solution (should warn you, it's been tried before), then have at it... in your state please, not mine.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Yep on 10/08/2013 22:10:51 MDT Print View

You have missed the point : )

If the federal government says all companies have to accept pre-existing conditions, then competition will be maintained.

Federal, state and local governments regulate companies and people all the time and we continue to have competition.

Don't worry Fred, the world is not going to end

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Question on 10/09/2013 06:38:09 MDT Print View

What is the relationship between the ACA and a single payer system? It's been insinuated that one leads to the other. How?

I'm trying to understand the underlying fear that drives this position.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Question on 10/09/2013 08:59:15 MDT Print View

"What is the relationship between the ACA and a single payer system?"

States have some flexibility about how to implement Obamacare. A state could propose a single payer system, and if it works could spread to other states.

That's sort of how it worked in Canada - it worked in some provinces and now all are covered.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Single payer... on 10/09/2013 09:09:43 MDT Print View

Yes Fred, you are right. It has been done before, by literally every industrialized country in the world except ours. They still use at least a part of it...in many cases supplemented by private insurance, but the basic coverage is single payer everywhere else but here. And guess what? People like it. A lot. We are generally ridiculed around the world for not wanting this...and I myself can't see why some of us are sooooo worried about what would happen if we took insurance companies out of the mix.

Frankly, if you think treatment decisions now are between you and your doctor you are sorely mistaken. They are between you, your doctor, and a private, for-profit company that sees nothing but dollar signs and profit margins and CEO pay and stock prices. I cannot tell you how many times I've had to go against my own clinical judgement because of the profit-driven insurance company

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/09/2013 09:16:36 MDT Print View

Nothing like hearing it's probably cancer, but the tests are mixed & inconclusive, and the insurance co won't cover more tests

Our health care system is a for profit joke.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/09/2013 09:22:13 MDT Print View

our government is a for profit joke : )

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re on 10/09/2013 09:22:56 MDT Print View

"Federal, state and local governments regulate companies and people all the time and we continue to have competition."

I work in a heavily regulated industry. Pick an industry that is efficient, competitive, and gives the most bang for the buck, and I'll bet you it's not a regulated field. The finance industry, banks, insurance, etc., are already heavily regulated. Don't confuse regulation with subsidies.

"If the federal government says all companies have to accept pre-existing conditions, then competition will be maintained."

That already exist Jerry. Do you read the other post? But if the requirements are so much that the industry is not profitable, THERE WILL BE NO ONE LEFT TO COMPETE, except the subsidized/gov't plan. Look at this damn thing ten years down the road, not 180 days. They want a single payer system, no competition. The administration has come out and said exactly that. This is how we get there. I'm not sure you will get it however, until you finally put your hand on the stove.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re on 10/09/2013 09:35:29 MDT Print View

"Pick an industry that is efficient, competitive, and gives the most bang for the buck, and I'll bet you it's not a regulated field."

That only exists in an economics class, there are no competitive, efficient industries in reality.

You can have government regulated industries.

Or you can have monopolistic industries where they spend lots of energy trying to eliminate competitors and then raise prices - like steel, railroads, oil in the early 1900s. Or Microsoft


"They want a single payer system, no competition"

That doesn't really bother me.

But, Medicare has been around more than 10 years and health care companies compete on selling Medicare Advantage policies. My wife gets Medicare and we get bombarded with junk mail asking her to sign up with their policy.


Actually, that's not a bad system, sort of like building highways. The government puts out a proposal. Companies bid on it. One or more are selected and they do the work with government supervision.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Okie dokie on 10/09/2013 10:05:27 MDT Print View

> That only exists in an economics class, there are no competitive, efficient industries in reality.
Really?



"They want a single payer system, no competition"

>That doesn't really bother me.

Why didn't this surprise me? Maybe your lack of logic clued me in. Before you praise single payer systems, you may want to do some research. You might change your mind.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Question on 10/09/2013 10:20:04 MDT Print View

I see a lot of huffing and puffing and no elbow grease. If accusations are going to be made about a persons lack of logic please put your own out there too. Back your statements up, hopefully with sources.

The happiest countries in the world all have single payer systems or mandates. Costa Rica was number one last year, now it's 12. We have one of those dreaded systems too. And we aren't even all that rich.

Actually Fred, you should be proud to be in the United States. It's one of the last countries in the world to succumb to the communist plot of world dominion.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Okie dokie on 10/09/2013 10:21:55 MDT Print View

"Before you praise single payer systems, you may want to do some research. You might change your mind."

All the other Western countries seem to be doing better with various degrees of single payerness

Yet we should learn from other countries

Like in Britain, all the doctors are government employees, but there are problems with this so maybe we shouldn't do that

Some of the Norwegian countries are re-thinking how much socialism they want and are moving back towards capitalism some. Someone from Denmark (?) said that you get free room and board if you're in school, so people just drag out the period they're in school, so maybe you shouldn't get free room and board, just tuition...

We got Obamacare. We should see how it works and fix things that don't work. Difficult with the tea party policy of #1 priority being to defeat Obama, but over 10 years this will probably change.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
? on 10/09/2013 10:40:30 MDT Print View

"We got Obamacare. We should see how it works and fix things that don't work. "

Yeah. Let's take the whole country, almost one quarter of the economy, and try this big experiment.

Try your plan in Washington st., and when it works so well, is affordable, and the services don't suffer, I'll urge my state rep to adopt it.

Glad you brought up the tea party and their goals.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: ? on 10/09/2013 10:55:33 MDT Print View

> Try your plan in Washington st., and when it works so well, is affordable,
> and the services don't suffer, I'll urge my state rep to adopt it.

Fear of failure is a major block to innovation. To innovate you must fail, learn from the mistake an correct it.

If one is to achieve anything risks must be taken.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: ? on 10/09/2013 11:04:25 MDT Print View

"Try your plan in Washington st., and when it works so well, is affordable, and the services don't suffer, I'll urge my state rep to adopt it."

When the Republicans had more power, they doubled social security tax, started two wars, passed tax cuts that went mostly to wealthy, put in supreme court justices that make all sorts of wacky decisions,...

So we tried their plan and it didn't work so well in my opinion, but the super wealthy got super wealthier so from their perspective, it worked just fine

Now the Democrats ended the two wars, got rid of some of the unfair tax cuts, finally after decades out-maneuvered the Republicans and got passed some sort of a solution to health care.

This is the way our government works - you and I don't get to opt out of stuff we disagree with

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
That you on 10/09/2013 12:16:44 MDT Print View

Guys applaud the destruction of part of the private sector, apparently think centralized decision making is best, and entrust these huge decisions with attorneys, for the most part who have no business experience, is just a little unsettling.

BTW the exchange website cost us .63 Billion Dollars. It will eventually defund itself, I'll bet a steak dinner on that. Any takers?

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Romneycare on 10/09/2013 12:24:28 MDT Print View

"Yeah. Let's take the whole country, almost one quarter of the economy, and try this big experiment.

Try your plan in Washington st., and when it works so well, is affordable, and the services don't suffer, I'll urge my state rep to adopt it."


--

Each state gets it own experiment.

Mass. is happy for the most with theirs, no?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/09/2013 19:04:27 MDT Print View

"Now the Democrats ended the two wars, "--jerry adams

TWO wars? Not yet. Sorry, Jerry, I think my son in Afghanistan would disagree with you on that. They might have a date for pull out, but the war is actually still going on quite well. Actually, instead of taking generators down (his MOS is electrician) he is installing more and more of them and is actually training his replacements who just got there. He was told by the Marines his unit would be the last to deploy 6 months ago, but evidently, like everything else this administration says, that was not quite true. He isn't the only one wondering why we are installing state of the art generators that cost millions of dollars if we are pulling out in less than 6 months. Hmmmmmmm.....?

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/09/2013 20:11:55 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
The President Tries To Explain Obamacare on 10/09/2013 19:07:18 MDT Print View

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vlpg0nPaeQI

Matt

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/09/2013 20:38:40 MDT Print View

modernworld

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/09/2013 21:27:22 MDT Print View

thuggies

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Massachusetts on 10/10/2013 06:40:55 MDT Print View

LOL the levity was needed!

Here's an NPR story on the Massachusetts plan.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/01/227887992/lessons-for-the-obamacare-rollout-courtesy-of-massachusetts

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Mass on 10/10/2013 08:29:13 MDT Print View

Richard, I see the coverage numbers from Mass., some costs, but never the services and supplier positions. Just curious. It may be the perfect deal, I dunno. I still wouldn't want it mandated nationwide.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 10:09:37 MDT Print View

Anyone notice the difference in the two cartoons? Sophistication level?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 10:15:59 MDT Print View

At least there's no Hitler mustache : )

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 10:44:32 MDT Print View

I'm going to ask this question with the realization that I probably am not going to get a straightforward answer.

Would someone please explain to me, in actual logical, reasonable arguments based in FACT, what the main problem is with Obamacare? It is not government healthcare (which I will disclosed that I want, both as a patient and as a healthcare provider), since the whole point is that we buy PRIVATE insurance.

Other than legally requiring minimal coverage, which is to protect the rest of us from having to pick up the tab when an uninsured or underinsured person has a heart attack, or stroke, or cancer, or an accident, where is the government takeover? Where is the socialism? Because frankly I think that would be great.......

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 10:50:56 MDT Print View

Prior to ACA my daughter was too old to be covered by our family plan. Now she is covered.

The GOP had eight years to do something and all they did was the unfunded Medicare part D.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
ACA issues on 10/10/2013 10:57:19 MDT Print View

Some will not like that there are tax breaks for lower income people. This does at least two things.

It makes taxpayers, rather than other health care and health insurance users, pay part of the insurance premium costs. (Which I am fine with).
In some states (RED) that didn't accept Fed government help and increase Medicaid, it puts an extra burden on the really poor who don't pay Federal Income tax, but do have to pay a fines if they can't afford coverage. (Not okay in my opinion).

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 11:06:18 MDT Print View

"Would someone please explain to me, in actual logical, reasonable arguments based in FACT, what the main problem is with Obamacare?"

Jennifer...for me, it goes like this:

"Hello...what kind of gum would you like to buy today, sir?"

"None. I'm good, thanks!"

"OK...tax on that will be $4.38, please...."


----Matt

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 11:14:57 MDT Print View

Matthew- But don't you understand that you ARE going to chew that gum anyway? You say you don't want it, you aren't going to pay for it, but you are *going* to chew it. And then ask ME to pay $14.62 for it because you wouldn't buy it from the corner store.......

Edited by Jenmitol on 10/10/2013 11:17:33 MDT.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: ACA issues on 10/10/2013 11:16:26 MDT Print View

Actually David I'm pretty sure if you are in a state that didn't expand Medicaid and are too poor for subsidies, you are not fined for not having coverage. The big problem is that these folks will still use the most expensive treatment option available to them: acute care in an emergency room. That all of us have to pay for anyway.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
"Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 11:17:41 MDT Print View

"Anyone notice the difference in the two cartoons? Sophistication level?"

"At least there's no Hitler mustache : )"

HA! Fooled you BOTH! This one better?:

smokey

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/10/2013 11:18:14 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Loophole for poorest working prevents subsidies for spouses and kids. on 10/10/2013 11:45:20 MDT Print View

"Actually David I'm pretty sure if you are in a state that didn't expand Medicaid and are too poor for subsidies, you are not fined for not having coverage. The big problem is that these folks will still use the most expensive treatment option available to them: acute care in an emergency room. That all of us have to pay for anyway."

Okay, I see where the IRS just said they won't be fined. But--

"About 500 000 children would be left without insurance and the poorest Americans could be fined under President Obama’s new health care law because of a loophole that the administration and Congress failed to fix.

Lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 without taking care of a loophole that would make it impossible for low-income families to purchase health care for their themselves or their children. Under the health care law, anyone who fails to acquire insurance will be forced to pay a heavy tax penalty – including those who can’t afford their employer’s insurance plans."

http://rt.com/usa/americans-care-law-loophole-179/

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 11:59:54 MDT Print View

"Matthew- But don't you understand that you ARE going to chew that gum anyway? You say you don't want it, you aren't going to pay for it, but you are *going* to chew it. And then ask ME to pay $14.62 for it because you wouldn't buy it from the corner store......."

I hear you, Jennifer, but it really sticks in my craw (and lots of other people's, too), when we are being told by the government what to do. Americans don't generally like that. I agree that we are in need of health insurance reform and care should be affordable for everyone, but Obamacare is not the way to do it. It really is a train wreck. It's going to have the opposite effect on the very people it is designed to help. America is the richest, most prosperous nation on earth...we should be able to cover every citizen if they so wish. Notice, I said "if they so wish", because healthcare is not a right. It's really just about control and the average citizen will have less and less of it over their own healthcare (administered by ...the IRS for God's sake....). Someone much more intelligent than myself once said that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have away.

Here's a good video explaining my position (with really bad acting):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwBmJ0LXPAo

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/10/2013 12:25:08 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Why not on 10/10/2013 12:56:26 MDT Print View

@ Jennifer

This isn't a federal issue is the short answer...but it's the law of the land according to SCOTUS because it's a tax, but only for those that the POTUS didn't exempt. You have to start laughing right there, wouldn't you agree? The joke is on the collective us.

Who would be stupid enough to turn the entire healthcare system over to the same entity that runs the VA, the medicre/caids, social security, the department of agriculture, HUD, etc? They have a great track record and a huge printing press. Thats important ( the press) when you can't pay your bills.
What makes me think this will be a single payer government program? I Guess I'm just relying on some common sense and the quotes from THE ADMINISTRATION.
Anyone that didn't expect their prices to go up or the services to decrease, was a complete moron. Anyway all
Is good either way. It can't last.

Now while we're at it, let's cap gas at $1.00/gallon and no more cover charges at the gentlemen's club... for the people.

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Why not on 10/10/2013 13:25:34 MDT Print View

All you ACA haters never proposed or implemented a solution.
I suppose having my health care run by for profit insurance companies where I have no way to control them is much better. Haven't you seen the costs go up every year?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 13:34:47 MDT Print View

Tim...you still won't be able to control your healthcare. The government will decide what you will and will not be getting. Nothing changed, but it will get worse.....


Matt

Peter S (masc. über linear logical club)
(prse) - MLife

Locale: Denmark
Solidarity on 10/10/2013 13:43:00 MDT Print View

Well, from a country that has one of the highest tax levels in the world, i can say that the majority here pay their taxes and smiles, knowing a lot of the tax goes to helping others when they need expensive chemo, surgery... Solidarity...feels good :-)

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 13:58:34 MDT Print View

"Tim, you still won't be able to control your healthcare. The government will decide what you will and will not be getting."

Really? By my purchasing private health insurance, of which I can choose between four different levels of coverage, how does that translate into the government being able to decide what health care I get? I've got news for you, it's still the private, for-profit insurance company that decides what I will or will not get.

And as for the VA, Medicare, etc - I'm sorry, those are fantastic plans and I would LOVE to be a part of them. When was the last time you saw seniors burning their Medicare cards because of that nasty socialized medicine they are stuck with??

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 14:04:20 MDT Print View

"VA, Medicare, etc - I'm sorry, those are fantastic plans and I would LOVE to be a part of them."

Medicare may be great, but the VA, in many, many places, truly sucks.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 14:10:08 MDT Print View

Yeah..... nothing like the overpowering smell of urine and to be treated like complete deadbeat shit by some 22 y/o with an attitude at a VA clinic. It rocks.

Our clinic must just be a bad apple because it's unbelievably uncommon to hear other veterans nationwide complain about the exact same thing. That's sarcasm for those who aren't picking up what I'm throwing down.

Edit: While snarky, the snarkiness is directed at entities other than Jennifer.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/10/2013 15:05:31 MDT.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 14:19:08 MDT Print View

Again, you're not buying insurance.

The health care provider clearinghouse things (whatever you want to call them) are told who their customers will be, what services must be offered, what they can charge and what their margins will be.

Is that your idea of a private business?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Why not on 10/10/2013 14:37:59 MDT Print View

@ Tim

I guess you forgot to exclude me or rather failed to read my posts.

If you are naive enough to think this will give you more control, you deserve exactly what you get. Unbelievable.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 15:39:47 MDT Print View

@jennifer

And as for the VA, Medicare, etc - I'm sorry, those are fantastic plans and I would LOVE to be a part of them. When was the last time you saw seniors burning their Medicare cards because of that nasty socialized medicine they are stuck with??

You understand medicare reimbursement rates often fall below the expenses of the provider, Drs. have been forced to eliminate or cut back on the med. patients they accept, giving patients fewer options, it's arguably insolvent (but hey, what part of the federal government isn't ?), and I don't even remember all the holes in the coverage. I'm not sure what aca will do to Medicare but I'm almost sure that it will funnel the program more money. Medicare gets a D or D-, and that's only because I'm in a really good mood today.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/10/2013 16:01:28 MDT.

Marc Eldridge
(meld) - MLife

Locale: The here and now.
Re: "Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 15:51:11 MDT Print View

We need to hear more from Peter S on why european socialism sucks.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 15:52:36 MDT Print View

"And as for the VA, Medicare, etc - I'm sorry, those are fantastic plans and I would LOVE to be a part of them"

Jennifer--This VA hospital may have infected 1,800 veterans with hepatitis and HIV. Yeah, and then they gave the director of the facility a huge BONUS! I'd love that kind of coverage and treatment, how about you? You'll get your chance to experience this wonderful treatment first hand very soon, don't worry. (Facepalm)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/30/va.hospital.hiv/index.html

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/10/2013 15:56:53 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 16:37:31 MDT Print View

Has it occurred to anyone that a government that can cut off access to national parks could do the same with your healthcare once they take total control of it?

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 17:10:15 MDT Print View

"Tim...you still won't be able to control your healthcare. The government will decide what you will and will not be getting. Nothing changed, but it will get worse....."

Still waiting for a solution from the GOP, but so far nothing.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Absurd. on 10/10/2013 17:10:56 MDT Print View

@Fred:
> I Guess I'm just relying on some common sense and the quotes from THE ADMINISTRATION.

sources please.

> Who would be stupid enough to turn the entire healthcare system over to the same
> entity that runs the VA, the medicre/caids, social security, the department of
> agriculture, HUD, etc?

You give too much credit to one party. There's two of em. They both need to be strong.

> Anyone that didn't expect their prices to go up or the services to decrease,
> was a complete moron.

sources please. not your logic, your sources for these calculations. (ie prove that ACA supporters are morons)

> Now while we're at it, let's cap gas at $1.00/gallon and no more cover charges
> at the gentlemen's club... for the people.

What's the relationship?

@Matthew Perry
> Nothing changed, but it will get worse.....

sources please.

@Peter S
> Well, from a country that has one of the highest tax levels in the world,
> i can say that the majority here pay their taxes and smiles, knowing a lot
> of the tax goes to helping others when they need expensive chemo, surgery...
> Solidarity...feels good :-)

It must. You took our place as the happiest country in the world! How long have you had this system? We've had ours for some 50 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10301496/Denmark-the-worlds-happiest-country.html

@Jennifer
> When was the last time you saw seniors burning their Medicare cards because
> of that nasty socialized medicine they are stuck with??
Good question!

@Doug I
> Medicare may be great, but the VA, in many, many places, truly sucks.
Doug, I like you but same for all. Can I get a source on that?

@Dave
> The health care provider clearinghouse things (whatever you want to call them)
> are told who their customers will be, what services must be offered, what they
> can charge and what their margins will be.
Sources Please.

@Fred
> Drs. have been forced to eliminate or cut back on the med. patients they accept,
> giving
sources please

> I'm not sure what aca will do to Medicare but I'm almost sure that it will
> funnel the program more money.
assumptions don't count.

@Matthew Perry
> You'll get your chance to experience this wonderful treatment first hand
> very soon, don't worry.

Thanks for the source. That sucks. I'm sure private health care never took coverage away from a patient to increase their pocket books either. Nor did they ever make you fight, tooth and nail, for every penny they covered you for. yeah, awesome.

See, there's all kinds of shit throw from both sides. Maybe backing up our statements with sources without throwing shit would be more productive. But hey, this is really about bickering and not about constructing a solution, right? Politics.

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: Re: re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/10/2013 17:11:13 MDT Print View

"I think Jennifer touched on something that I agree with. A large problem with our health care systems is that it is mostly associated with our jobs. "


+2

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 17:17:47 MDT Print View

Has it occurred to anyone that a government that can cut off access to national parks could do the same with your healthcare once they take total control of it?

Luckily I'm not that far from Mexico. I don't know what their illegal immigrant treatment options are, but it might beat none at all.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Will this kill Republicans in next elections? on 10/10/2013 17:35:10 MDT Print View

Will this kill the Republicans in the next election?

Especially Cruz who thought he was so clever out "Rand Paulling" with his "fillibuster"?

Public opinion of Republicans has dropped through the floor, but also Democrats. It will be interesting to see how people think in a month or year.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Sources Please!!!! on 10/10/2013 17:36:16 MDT Print View

Sources please.

All of you.

For everything.

















Are we having fun yet?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 17:41:36 MDT Print View

""Tim...you still won't be able to control your healthcare. The government will decide what you will and will not be getting. Nothing changed, but it will get worse....."

Still waiting for a solution from the GOP, but so far nothing."

I agree 100%. Doesn't mean Obamacare will be better, though.

Matt

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 17:43:53 MDT Print View

"@Matthew Perry
> Nothing changed, but it will get worse.....

sources please."

Really, Richard?
Just look at who will run it and enforce it. Check out the VA for a good idea of what's to come. Wasn't aware we needed to list sources for opinions given. OK---my source is (drum roll, please)..... Matt Perry and his opinion. LOL

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/10/2013 17:54:44 MDT.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 18:41:09 MDT Print View

> Matt Perry and his opinion

Most opinions have some kind of basis to support them. If yours doesn't then it's worthless speculation. What do you achieve with that? Win a shouting match? Whoop-de-do.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Sources Please!!!! on 10/10/2013 18:55:49 MDT Print View

"Are we having fun yet?"

Don't know about fun .....but a "party " for sure. Towing party lines, one side against the other, actually believing that we are split into two.
I like to look at the individual, just like I like to look at the individual issues.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 18:58:04 MDT Print View

"@Doug I
> Medicare may be great, but the VA, in many, many places, truly sucks.
Doug, I like you but same for all. Can I get a source on that?"

Hi Richard, I like you too, but ..... no.

I'm having a discussion, not offering an academic dissertation.

Besides, I mean, c'mon, anyone who's paid attention to the U.S. news in the last decade knows that the VA is not very highly regarded - huge backlogs, substandard care (some contributing to deaths), back in 2011 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco concluded that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ treatment of mentally-ailing vets was so poor it was unconstitutional. Lots of recent stories about servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan getting far-too-long-delayed care and benefits from the VA. Just do a google search, there's plenty to find.

I actually think Jennifer was referring to TRICARE, the program that covers the military/military families and military retirees/families. That program is excellent, IMO. Pretty much unbeatable. But that's not run by the VA.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 19:07:38 MDT Print View

> anyone who's paid attention to the U.S. news in the last decade knows that the
> VA is not very highly regarded

I haven't lived in the US since the 80's. Hence my ignorance on some issues. Mathew's link and Ian's descriptions are enough for me.

If we look up our sources to avoid knee-jerk replies then maybe the discussion could go somewhere beyond tit-for-tat.

I'm open to having my position swayed (I vote, so I count) but it will not happen with unfounded statements that sound more like political spin and drama than supporting a position.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 19:10:37 MDT Print View

Richard, fair to ask for sources. Even more fair to ask them from both sides.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 19:23:00 MDT Print View

Well Fred and Matthew, I am well aware of the decreasing reimbursement rates for Medicare - I am a provider, and my clinics' payments go down every year.

But you also have to realize how much money is spent on trying to negotiate with each and every insurance policy for each and every person, the amount of time and paperwork and phone calls that go into getting paid by insurance companies...it is literally insane. Single payer, socialized medicine means I know what I'm getting paid, I have no financial incentive to cheat patients and sell them snake oil treatments because I get paid a lot of money to do them. There would be no huge staff devoted to trying to unravel the intricacies of each policy, of trying to be honestly paid for honest work, for insurance companies that deny thousands of dollars in claims because a bubble wasn't filled out correctly, or I forgot the OH in front of the insurance number...

Last year my PT clinic billed 12 million dollars. We were reimbursed 3 million. 75% of that was private insurance. Tell me please how that is sustainable?

So to exchange ALL of that headache for nothing but Medicare or VA? Sign me up.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 19:27:51 MDT Print View

Kat, I appreciate your desire for "objectivity" here, but to blame both sides equally is what is known as a false equivalency. It's like giving equal time and equal weight to evolution vs creationists, or climate change vs the deniers.

The right wing makes up stories, repeats them enough and calls them facts. Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover? The debt ceiling REALLY doesn't matter, it will actually stabilize the markets...how does one refute absolute insanity?

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 19:29:23 MDT Print View

"I haven't lived in the US since the 80's."

It doesn't really matter where you live, but if you haven't read U.S. news at all since the 80s then I understand.

"I'm open to having my position swayed (I vote, so I count) but it will not happen with unfounded statements that sound more like political spin and drama than supporting a position."

I agree with you, Richard. And I often call people on what seem to me to be baseless statements - on both sides. But rather than ask someone for sources, I tend to look things up myself - mainly because I don't have a lot of confidence in many of the sources that cheerleaders offer - they're bound to be incomplete or one-sided.

Edit to add: I also gave up trying to change most people's minds awhile ago. I've found that very, very few people have open minds any more, and very, very few people really bother to actually THINK about issues. Someone made up their minds for them some time ago, and they generally only listen to those who reinforce what they want to believe or already think. These forums are certainly a testament to that, as are any comments section on any website that touches on pretty much any issue. We no longer discuss, we only argue and talk past each other.

Yup, I'm an old cynic, sad to say.

Edited by idester on 10/10/2013 19:36:58 MDT.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
re re re re re re re re What was it? on 10/10/2013 19:45:21 MDT Print View

@Kat: "is what is known as a false equivalency"

Yep, I find myself spending more energy asking one side to support its statements and it casts a shadow on their overall position.

@Doug: "mainly because I don't have a lot of confidence in many of the sources that cheerleaders offer"

But that helps discern the spin from research and helps me tune my ear to some voices more than others.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 19:45:22 MDT Print View

Jen I am not blaming the current crises equally.
The way we do politics in this country, the corruption, the fact that parties are for sale- that I am blaming equally. The ignorance of those that get their news from the big media and go no further- that happens on both sides.
The put downs, name calling, hyperboles- that I blame equally.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 19:47:19 MDT Print View

Jennifer,
Off topic, sorry, but you can count me in the climate change disbeliever category (I know, big surprise,right?). How do you explain the fact that the polar ice caps grew 60% last year?

Source:
http://www.hangthebankers.com/global-cooling-not-warming-arctic-ice-cap-grows-60-in-one-year/

Al Gore is full of $h!t!

Matt

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
ice on 10/10/2013 20:11:07 MDT Print View

"Off topic, sorry, but you can count me in the climate change disbeliever category (I know, big surprise,right?). How do you explain the fact that the polar ice caps grew 60% last year?

Source:
http://www.hangthebankers.com/global-cooling-not-warming-arctic-ice-cap-grows-60-in-one-year/"
---

Matt, you are the one wearing the diapers of poo. The ice has thinned so much, for the first time ever, ships are using the northwest passage. Franklin never had it so good. I give little credit to your knowledge of ACA if you do so little research.


" The international shipping industry is these days witness to a historic event, when a vessel for the first time ever is sailing from Vancouver in Canada to Finland through Arctic waters. One of the world’s few modern ice-class bulk carriers - MV NORDIC ORION - will carry a cargo of 73,500 tons of coal via the so called North West Passage through Arctic waters to Finland. A Danish pioneer in operating ice-classed bulk carriers Nordic Bulk Carriers A/S is behind the historic North West Journey."
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Historic-Sea-Route-Opens-Through-Canadian-Arctic-Waters-2013-09-25/


"China May Have New Shipping Shortcut Thanks to Melting Arctic Ice
Each summer we've lost more than half of the ice cover that we typically have," said Ignatius Rigor of Washington University's Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory. "We've also lost a lot of the thickness of sea ice, so taken together the total volume of sea ice is down to less than 40 percent of what it used to be.""
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/08/china-has-a-new-short-cut-thanks-to-melting-arctic-ice.html

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/10/2013 20:18:05 MDT Print View

This summer was characterized by unusually low pressure over much of the Arctic Ocean, which limited heat import from the south and brought more extensive cloud cover, keeping temperatures lower. In addition, the wind patterns associated with the low pressure caused the ice cover to spread out and cover a larger area.

Thick stable multi year ice is being replaced with thin seasonal ice.

--National Snow and Ice Data Center


Not everyone would read the report and walk away concluding global climate change is a hoax.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 20:19:00 MDT Print View

"I agree with you, Richard. And I often call people on what seem to me to be baseless statements - on both sides. But rather than ask someone for sources, I tend to look things up myself - mainly because I don't have a lot of confidence in many of the sources that cheerleaders offer - they're bound to be incomplete or one-sided.

Edit to add: I also gave up trying to change most people's minds awhile ago. I've found that very, very few people have open minds any more, and very, very few people really bother to actually THINK about issues. Someone made up their minds for them some time ago, and they generally only listen to those who reinforce what they want to believe or already think. These forums are certainly a testament to that, as are any comments section on any website that touches on pretty much any issue. We no longer discuss, we only argue and talk past each other."



Great post. Thanks.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absurd. on 10/10/2013 20:22:20 MDT Print View

Richard. My single payer resource was from Forbes and the Senate majority leader.

Jennifer. Good information, I hear the same billing problems from a friend. How much of the regulation, barriers to entry, etc., have contributed to the current problem in your opinion?

I work in a heavily regulated industry and it (regulations) literally cost us and the consumer millions, and destroys competition. Yet corruption still exists, and when false markets are inflated by policy that fails, the taxpayer is left with the bill.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 20:33:53 MDT Print View

"Matt, you are the one wearing the diapers of poo. The ice has thinned so much, for the first time ever, ships are using the northwest passage. Franklin never had it so good. I give little credit to your knowledge of ACA if you do so little research."

David,
Sorry, not true. Natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more. That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference. I think it's you who might need to do some more research, my friend.


Source (Forbes):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

Matt

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 22:02:17 MDT Print View

"The right wing makes up stories, repeats them enough and calls them facts. Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover? The debt ceiling REALLY doesn't matter, it will actually stabilize the markets...how does one refute absolute insanity?"

Don't you think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Just because someone is opposed to ACA doesn't mean that they believe in any of these things. I live in a very conservative part of Washington and we have more physicians and PhDs per capita than Seattle. There are some legitimate concerns that we're creating a health care system that isn't fiscally sustainable. I can tell you for a fact based on my wife's experience as a therapist and MHP that federal funding for certain mental health programs like PACT have been the absolute worst since Obama has been in office. Some of the worst cuts were made when the Democrats had both houses.

We may end up like Germany or we may end up like Greece.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 22:20:18 MDT Print View

"There are some legitimate concerns that we're creating a health care system that isn't fiscally sustainable"

Our current health care system isn't fiscally sustainable. Costs increase much more than inflation until it's now 20% (?) of the economy. In the future it will get worse and will ruin our economy.

Obamacare is an attempt at fixing this. It's not a static thing but will get modified in the future. About all you can say is it's what was politically feasible at the time. In today's political environment we won't be fixing it probably, but this will change.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/10/2013 23:10:07 MDT Print View

"@Dave > The health care provider clearinghouse things (whatever you want to call them)
> are told who their customers will be, what services must be offered, what they
> can charge and what their margins will be.
Sources Please."


It's a little discouraging to be asked to provide sources for very basic elements of ObamaCare but I guess the person asking doesn't live here so it's a little different. Plenty of folks who do live here seem to also have a limited understanding of how it works.

Health care payers will be required to take all comers, it's called Community Rating. That's the customers.

Sidebar - The law put in place by the "Party of Science" is completely ignorant of math. Here's an example: You can show up after having smoked cigarettes for 50 years and have lung cancer and you will be provided health care coverage at the same rate as a healthy person and at no more than 3x the rate of a healthy 20 year old. However, if you show up as a smoker but DON'T have cancer yet, you pay 50% more because you will statistically eventually cost the system money. That's dumb.

The services that must be included in health care coverage are very specific and very broad.

Prices for services are pre-determined. The prices are supposed to be set by the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) but they can't find anyone willing to serve on the Board. So Kathleen Sebelius is doing it.

Margins are specified, if a health care provider doesn't spend the required percentage on care the difference must be rebated to the client base.

Look it up. If I'm wrong please let me know.

I'm not directing this at any particular person but before folks rattle on about ObamaCare they ought to know what community rating means, who Kathleen Sebelius is and what purpose the IPAB serves. And some knowledge of any of the other dozens of elements to the bill. Otherwise they're just blowing smoke.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
What else? on 10/10/2013 23:25:05 MDT Print View

Let's see...


There is no element of ObamaCare that reduces the cost of health care. Not one.

ObamaCare was not passed in the usual way.

The Supreme Court did not affirm the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

ObamaCare does not offer health care coverage to everyone. Supposedly a best-case scenario has half of the currently uninsured signing up.


"The right wing makes up stories, repeats them enough and calls them facts. Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover? The debt ceiling REALLY doesn't matter, it will actually stabilize the markets...how does one refute absolute insanity?"

Please provide examples of made up stories. The death panel reference is an admittedly provocative term for the IPAB. It's simple really and well-proven. Price fixing leads to shortages which leads to rationing. This has been shown to be true over and over and over. Again, if you don't know what the IPAB is you really ought to look it up. Socialized Medicine/Government Takeover - See my earlier post. If the government determines all the elements of a market that market is effectively taken over. The debt ceiling - Obama likes to say the debt ceiling limit refers to previous debt payments so it's not a surprise to see that notion parroted here but it makes no sense. We're borrowing money to pay off money we borrowed before? I don't think so. We're borrowing more money to spend more money.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: What else? on 10/10/2013 23:56:41 MDT Print View

"There is no element of ObamaCare that reduces the cost of health care. Not one."

You have "exchanges" where various companies compete, that reduces the cost.

If you have a pre-existing condition, now you can get insurance. Before, maybe you can get insurance but it would be expensive.

There are thoses boards (death panels) of doctors that are coming up with the most effective treatment. Sort of like the Mayo Clinic, only now it will be more broadly applied.

HK Newman
(hknewman) - MLife

Locale: Western US
Death panels (rationing) have been around on 10/11/2013 05:19:35 MDT Print View

Rationing (i.e. "death panels") have been around for quite some time with regular employer-sponsored health coverage. My mother had terminal brain cancer about 15 years ago, so when her treatment costs reached $1,000,000, ... the insurance nurse gave us a choice of continuing (but they would start collection on the 20% copay and all deductibles) or sending her to hospice, then would forgive all copays and deductibles. In our case, the doctors said it was hopeless as the cancer invaded the brain stem, but had it been treatable, the combined copay (20%) plus deductible (about $250,000 in 1997 dollars) would have crushed a typical family financially.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
row row row your boat ... on 10/11/2013 06:58:47 MDT Print View

@Doug I: "Edit to add: I also gave up trying to change most people's minds awhile ago. I've found that very, very few people have open minds any more, and very, very few people really bother to actually THINK about issues. Someone made up their minds for them some time ago, and they generally only listen to those who reinforce what they want to believe or already think. These forums are certainly a testament to that, as are any comments section on any website that touches on pretty much any issue. We no longer discuss, we only argue and talk past each other."

Not a cynic. A realist. I find people are afraid of being wrong because they've attached their personas to their ideas. If they are wrong they have personality crisis. It's very sad.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover? on 10/11/2013 07:06:01 MDT Print View

"Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover?"

I've never heard these outside of political spin. Not once have I seen these terms used as part of a serious research piece. The only life these terms have is in the mouths of politicians and their cheerleaders.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover? on 10/11/2013 07:34:03 MDT Print View

""Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover?"

I've never heard these outside of political spin. Not once have I seen these terms used as part of a serious research piece. The only life these terms have is in the mouths of politicians and their cheerleaders.
"



Exactly. And that is why that statement was not a fair answer to my questions but rather a good example of cheerleading.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Curious? on 10/11/2013 08:20:04 MDT Print View

Is there anyone here, in favor of the ACA, that would agree that this shouldn't be a federal issue?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover? on 10/11/2013 08:20:26 MDT Print View

Death Panels are about end of life decisions. A lot of money is spent on health care in the last small period of time. The medical people want to treat and cure people and don't easily give up and just let a person die.

It's not that you want to stop treating someone because it's too expensive, it's because at some point it's ineffective. And being subjected to treatments and tests that have no chance of success is just torture.

"death panels" are about getting panels of doctors to come up with guidelines to help people figure out whether it's hopeless or not.

The same thing applies to healthy people, lots of treatments are done that don't improve your quality of life.

Like tonsils are removed more or less agressively depending on where you are in the country. It's a regional "fashion" decision. People would be healthier and it would be cheaper if we did the same thing nation wide.

You need panels of doctors that analyze data and come up with the best protocols. These aren't what the right wingers call "death panels" but they probably have some other nasty name.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Curious? on 10/11/2013 08:30:59 MDT Print View

"Is there anyone here, in favor of the ACA, that would agree that this shouldn't be a federal issue?"

If one state has good health care and another bad, when people get sick they will tend to move to the state with good health care, so they will subsidize the state with bad health care

Should we tolerate some states abusing their citizens?

Like is it okay for some states to have slavery but if my state doesn't then I'm okay?

It's not totally clear to me, maybe they should have just let the confederate states seperate (but the biggest mistake was after the war not striving more for reconciliation)

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Curious? on 10/11/2013 08:33:47 MDT Print View

@Fred: "Is there anyone here, in favor of the ACA, that would agree that this shouldn't be a federal issue?"

Well, if states were actively trying to do something about health-care then sure, it should stay out. As it is, it's a national issue and only Mass has attempted to seriously tackle it. States can seek waivers if they are pursuing alternatives that will meet coverage minimums.

@Jerry: Thanks for explaining where the 'Death Panels' come from. It was a little bewildering.

Edited by richardmay on 10/11/2013 08:36:31 MDT.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover? on 10/11/2013 08:44:39 MDT Print View

""Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover?"

I've never heard these outside of political spin. Not once have I seen these terms used as part of a serious research piece. The only life these terms have is in the mouths of politicians and their cheerleaders.
"
Exactly. And that is why that statement was not a fair answer to my questions but rather a good example of cheerleading."


But I disagree. Policy decisions are made in the political arena. Look at the how the GOP is spinning the debt ceiling talks now: "the damage will not be done by default, the damage will be done by Obama scaring everyone..."

There is not a reputable economist or company who feels this way, but thanks to the few GOP mouthpieces who are saying it over and over the policy may not change, and thus the country defaults. It was not a decision based in fact, or in expert opinion even. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101098017)

Look at Texas school books: evolution is just a theory (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/education/creationists-on-texas-panel-for-biology-textbooks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0),
Thomas Jefferson is not a founding father (has he was the one who wrote of the separation of church and state), the civil war had nothing to do with slavery (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html)....
In some states doctors are supposed to lie to their patients seeking abortion and tell them there is an increased risk of breast cancer (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-05-15/women-contraception-abortion-reproductive-rights-doctors/54979766/1)

Is any of this based in fact? Of course not. Yet it is the basis of nationwide at the worst, statewide at the least, policy decisions.

Very real and dangerous changes are happening to the environment and the VAST majority of science agrees. Yet because so many people just ignore the facts, despite the serious people who say otherwise, nothing changes and we continue to head into the abyss.

So no, I'm sorry, while there is a place for niceties and politeness in discourse, I think that is exactly what has been wrong with progressives these past few decades. One side has been bullying and stomping their feet and screaming loudly, the other side has been trying to have a nice, polite conversation and intellectual discussion about the world's problems. Look where that has gotten us...

Matthew is the perfect example - "I know it. It is my opinion," and anything from "mainstream" media is tainted and can't be trusted.

Our society does not value reasoned, intellectual arguments anymore. We keep pulling out the nazi card, or comparing Obamacare to the end of days (see Bachmann). "Intellectual elite" has become an insult. And as far as those people are concerned, nothing says it better than former congressman Barney Frank, to someone who referred to Obamacare as a "nazi policy": "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."

Edited by Jenmitol on 10/11/2013 08:50:23 MDT.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Reality vs Idiotology on 10/11/2013 08:45:39 MDT Print View

What keeps surprising me about this discussion is how often any kind of health-care solution is feared to have disastrous effects on peoples lives and happiness.

When I look at the list of happiest countries in the world the overwhelming majority have some kind of health care system that conservatives would claim to cause economic and moral apocalypse, slavery, loss of individuality, and the termination of happiness.

If these systems are so terrible then why are these people so happy?

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Jennifer on 10/11/2013 08:51:43 MDT Print View

"So no, I'm sorry, while there is a place for niceties and politeness in discourse, I think that is exactly what has been wrong with progressives these past few decades. One side has been bullying and stomping their feet and screaming loudly, the other side has been trying to have a nice, polite conversation and intellectual discussion about the world's problems. Look where that has gotten us..."

And I find you to be one of the feet stompers, screamers, and bullies. Plenty share your political ideas , and I share some of them, yet still engage in discussions that lead to better understanding. The way I see it you are one of the people that does not engage in nor value reasonable discussion.

Plenty of feet stompers and bullies on the other side, absolutely. I just object with you and others feeling you have every right to do it yourself and call it something different.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/11/2013 08:56:28 MDT.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Reality vs Idiotology on 10/11/2013 08:57:26 MDT Print View

Richard, my own theory is that the powers-that-be are worried that we will actually LIKE having healthcare, that we do believe it is a right and not a privilege, and then conservatives won't be able to take it away (ala social security and Medicare). Again, where are the mobs of seniors complaining about their government run medical care?????

The right wing has done an excellent job of scaring people into believing that Europeans are awful, that we might actually turn into a place like - gasp!- Sweden! and be happy and healthy and want long vacations and guaranteed maternity leave and all those crazy socialist things.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Jennifer on 10/11/2013 08:57:58 MDT Print View

what's a specific thing that Jennifer said that was foot stomping and screaming?

(I, of course, thought it was brilliant, but then I agree with her : )

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Reality vs Idiotology on 10/11/2013 09:00:34 MDT Print View

yeah, that's why the right is going bat crazy - if people like Obamacare then the right may as well start jumping off buildings

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Re: Jennifer on 10/11/2013 09:07:06 MDT Print View

(I, of course, thought it was brilliant, but then I agree with her : )

+1

I just keep asking for evidence and asking that it match up with reality. I look for diverse sources pointing in the same direction. You know, like 5% of climates science sources say one thing and 95% say another. Or a group points to a single books as a source and another points to various sources.

Things that make you go hmmm. (Ok, that was un-related but it popped into my head.)

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Jennifer on 10/11/2013 09:14:39 MDT Print View

Kat,

I'm new to chaff. I've only posted on a few threads. I've lurked for a while, reading other people's back-n-forths. You've called me out from my very first post, and pretty much every single thing I've said.

I rarely see you do this to the right wing. If ever.

At some point you have to stop being bullied and bully back. Stomp your feet a bit...
You can preach all day long about being civil and having rational discussions, but honestly Kat, how do you do that when someone equates the government shutdown to tyranny? Or Obamacare to the Nazis? Or a fate worse than slavery? Where in the world does that discussion go that is reasoned?

It kind of reminds me of my schizophrenic uncle Jimmy:
Me: jimmy, give me back my violin.
Jimmy, holding the violin: but I don't have it.
Me: yes you do, it's right there in your hands.
Jimmy: no it's not.
Me: I can see it.
Jimmy: but I don't have it.



Think about how many years the right wing had their talk radio. Then Fox News. What did the left wing media have? Nothing. Then a few pundits started making the rounds, but it was too little too late. The right wing has dominated the scream fest, and one of my biggest criticisms of Obama is that he hasn't stomped enough.

So I won't apologize for not just sitting here taking it - in this forum. Elsewhere, where there IS actual reasoned, intellectual discourse? Absolutely! There is nothing I love better, and I learn a great deal from smart, intellectual conservatives (David Frum, George Will, etc). But I have yet to see that here, and frankly I'm a little puzzled as to why you call the liberals out on this all the time, yet rarely if ever the conservatives.

Again....false equivalency.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 09:15:05 MDT Print View

HK describes a very real and heart wrenching dilemma for all health care systems. But I don't see how moving from numerous boards involved in end-of-life decisions to a single board improves the situation. It seems the opposite would be true.

And Jerry, if we can put together boards of experts to recommend treatment programs that reduce costs why don't we just do that?

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Open minded? Nah on 10/11/2013 09:32:38 MDT Print View

If a conservative hick tells me they have no reason to be open minded about, say, gay marriage or a number of other issues.....what can I say....I won't yell at them, I will still try see them as people worth knowing personally and hope that time and life will open their minds.

If a progressive self proclaimed "open minded "person acts in a very close minded way, I will point it out to them. If like me you live in the Bay Area, you are not really progressive just because you believe in what everyone else here believes, from gender equality to reproductive rights etc. You have just been around it long enough that it all makes sense. How will you react if some tells you that they believe in polygamy and that three or more consenting adults ought to be able to marry one another? I don't like the idea of polygamy at all, believe me, but are you going to react the same way they do in hick town when gay marriage comes up? Being open minded does not mean having beliefs that one considers progressive and open minded....it means having one's mind open to what is new, unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Don't have to embrace it, but should be able to entertain the idea.
To have a set of beliefs, mostly espoused by party affiliation, and then act as if that alone makes you a progressive open minded person....that I have a problem with.
One should be able to discuss any issues, even ones that you think are settled by now, with an open mind.

You attack someone that wants to point out how both sides have faults and how the belief that there really are only two sides is itself ludicrous. You have no problem with hyperboles if used by those you align yourself with. And worst of all, in my opinion, you act as if aligning yourself with one or the other party makes you inherently a better, more compassionate person and you are now now justified but that mere fact to demonize others........but yes, you have been reasonable and kind too long and that is part of the problem.

Ok then.

And when I say"you" I am not speaking to anyone in particular.
And yes, I could do much better and make sure I do not insult anyone. I try, that's for sure.


Edited for spelling and I am sure there is more..

Edited by Kat_P on 10/11/2013 10:06:54 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Calling just one side on 10/11/2013 09:38:52 MDT Print View

You are correct in that I call out the left a lot more than the right. I am well aware of that and I am paying the consequences for that, right here on BPL.
I am a liberal as far as most issues, and I it hurts me more to see liberals act as bullies and unfortunately as far as bullying on this forum the left does it more often and mostly with impunity, because it is generally accepted to do so.
So more than a liberal, I am someone that does not like group thinking and at least tries to discern what about a group I like and what I do not like.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Intellectual discussion on 10/11/2013 09:48:02 MDT Print View

Some great voices on both sides no longer contribute to Chaff and that is a loss for all of us. One of the reasons that happened is how nasty the threads get: name calling, put downs and unfounded accusations. The best chance we have for good discussion is to try and keep them civil and give people a chance to express themselves without jumping on them and bunching them with the extremes.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/11/2013 09:49:39 MDT Print View

"It's not that you want to stop treating someone because it's too expensive, it's because at some point it's ineffective. And being subjected to treatments and tests that have no chance of success is just torture."

"HK describes a very real and heart wrenching dilemma for all health care systems."

+1 I'm not trying to sound caloused as it was heart wrenching to deal with this with my grandmother but there came a point for her where treatment was only going to buy her exta days of pain. When people speak of "Death Panels", it's difficult not to read it as political spin or at the very least ignorant.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/11/2013 09:51:43 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Ice on 10/11/2013 09:57:05 MDT Print View

"Matt, you are the one wearing the diapers of poo. The ice has thinned so much, for the first time ever, ships are using the northwest passage. Franklin never had it so good. I give little credit to your knowledge of ACA if you do so little research."
---
David,
Sorry, not true.
---

The link you provided was an opinion piece over a year old and said nothing about ice thinning in the arctic. The fact that at least two shipping companies are using the Northwest Passage as we speak for the first time ever shows your statement about ice and climate change to be wrong.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
VA and government health care pre ACA on 10/11/2013 10:24:07 MDT Print View

I made some comments about the VA in another response where I referred to my local clinic as a pisshole full of buffoons. That is a true statement as it is.

I took a moment to think about the organization I work for and some of the deserved criticism we've received over the years. Sometimes there are organizational failures which happen in spite of the fact that there are many talented and hardworking employees who are handicapped by bureaucracy.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are some talented health care professionals who've made it their life's work to work for the VA and serve our veterans. My previous comments about the VA painted the whole organization in a way which is not accurate as I thought the VA hospital in Syracuse, while not necessarily the best in the region, was a very nice hospital.

Another thought....

I've been a federal employee for over 20 years. While I'm still a whippersnapper compared to people like Doug, I've been around long enough to use CHAMPUS, Tri-Care, and am currently enrolled in BCBS with my current employer. My health care is far from free and I invest 1000s of dollars every year to my premiums. My son spent a day in the ER this year. Even though we're enrolled in BCBS high option, we're still making payments on his medical bills.

As expensive as this all is, I think it's pretty fair and the bills are not something which will force us into bankruptcy or into a position where we'll lose our house.

I think this should be the gold standard for all Americans. The concept of ACA is not something that I object to as a person who's politically right of center. The fact remains that hospitals are not going to turn away someone with a life threatening issue. Speaking from an EMS point of view, we did not collect one red penny from 40% of our calls. For the other 60%, our reimbursement rates, especially from Medicare and Medicaid, were far below our operating expenses. The only reason our non-profit ambulance company could stay afloat was for the fact that we were subsidized by the cities we covered.

We can't eliminate the problem (sick and injured people) so all we can do is try to develop the most affordable and sustainable solution which will hopefully not reduce the quality of our existing healthcare system.

I’ve said it before but the GOP is not in a position to remove ACA from the books. If they were smart, they’d focus on amending the job killing aspects of the ACA instead of trying to defund it altogether.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: polar ice caps on 10/11/2013 10:39:20 MDT Print View

"How do you explain the fact that the polar ice caps grew 60% last year?"

Actually, it was only 29 percent. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it that 60 percent does, which is why folks who want to disbelieve that humans are a significant cause of climate change aren't correcting the record, but instead still using the wrong number that was initially reported.

Lyan Jordan
(redmonk)

Locale: Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
60% more ice ! on 10/11/2013 10:52:54 MDT Print View

"How do you explain the fact that the polar ice caps grew 60% last year?"

The same way I would explain the collapse of the WTC building increased their area 900%.

More area, less depth, less permanence, but the increase in area, while only temporary, was undeniable.

Edited by redmonk on 10/11/2013 10:55:37 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: "Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 10:56:17 MDT Print View

"And Jerry, if we can put together boards of experts to recommend treatment programs that reduce costs why don't we just do that?"

This is happening, slowly

Like the Mayo Clinic has a bunch of protocols. Where are they, Minnesota? I think they have lower health care expenses as a result.

But this is too slow given how badly the economy is being impacted. Some sort of larger organization which probably requires government will speed things up.

If you just let things happen as they will, which is sort of what we've been doing, then decisions are made on the basis of maximizing corporate profit.

Then you get things like in California, health care companies have been found guilty of throwing people off health care for minor technical errors when they get an expensive disease.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 10:56:24 MDT Print View

""How do you explain the fact that the polar ice caps grew 60% last year?"

Actually, it was only 29 percent. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it that 60 percent does, which is why folks who want to disbelieve that humans are a significant cause of climate change aren't correcting the record, but instead still using the wrong number that was initially reported."

Doug...even if i'm wrong and it "only" grew by 29%, that's still 29%...an amazing figure. How do you explain that?

" The fact that at least two shipping companies are using the Northwest Passage as we speak for the first time ever shows your statement about ice and climate change to be wrong."

David...simply not true. Here is proof it's not:

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788

I'm sure you'll come back saying something like Sailworld.com's article is a bunch of right-wing garbage and it can't be trusted. LOL. Not actual science, just hundreds of actual people there seeing it with their own eyes. Blinded by the right, i suppose. LOL

Matt
PS--No amount of articles or documentation I provide will be enough to convince some of the fact that they might be wrong on the issue. You have too much time, money and effort invested in this hoax to ever give it up. I realize that. The sources I provided linked actual scientific studies, that my critics on here either did not check out, or flat out say are false. Not much more I can provide, without taking a snowball to your heads.

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/11/2013 10:58:23 MDT.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: 60% more ice ! on 10/11/2013 10:58:23 MDT Print View

"but the increase in area in undeniable."

Yes, but, as I read it, the 60 percent figure is incorrect - due to a math error by the NSIDC.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

From the linked article:

"Since publication of the original version of this article, the US source of the figures – the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) - was discovered to have made a huge error and then quietly corrected the figure without mentioning it.

On September 4, NSIDC, based at the University of Colorado, stated on its website that in August 2013 the Arctic ice cover recovered by a record 2.38 million sq km – 919,000 sq miles – from its 2012 low.

News of this figure was widely reported – including by Mailonline - on September 8. But on September 10, the NSIDC quietly changed it to 1.38 million sq km (533,000 sq miles) – and replaced the original document so the old figure no longer shows up on a main Google search. It can now only be found on an old ‘cached’ page.

The figures in this article have now been corrected."

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 11:07:04 MDT Print View

Thanks, Doug. Good to know. But 29% is still 29%.

Matt

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: polar ice cap redux" on 10/11/2013 11:11:01 MDT Print View

"Doug...even if i'm wrong and it "only" grew by 29%, that's still 29%...an amazing figure. How do you explain that?"

Like you, I'm not a scientist. But, seemingly, unlike you (and I mean no malice with this statement at all, just my perception), I like to read both sides of the issue and then decide what seems to make the most sense.

So as far as explaining, I'll offer two articles, both by the same author, that gives a different perspective to the Shocking Headlines About 60 Percent or 29 Percent or Whatever!!!.

Of course, I don't care if you completely disregard what this author (and others like him) say, any more than you care if I disregard what 'your' authors say (though I don't, actually, I read what they say, I read what this guy says, and weigh what I think they're both not telling me and I decide from there).

Also, please note that I don't believe I've actually taken a stance here in any of my posts, I've simply corrected what I feel might be misleading or incorrect information in other posts.

Story 1

Story 2

Edited by idester on 10/11/2013 11:13:19 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 11:12:42 MDT Print View

"Matthew is the perfect example - "I know it. It is my opinion," and anything from "mainstream" media is tainted and can't be trusted."

Jennifer,
Sorry, I can't let this one go. Part of that quote was said by me but is being taken out of context and the rest is a lie that I never uttered. Jennifer...again, your partisan attacks are making you look bad and proving Kat's statements true.

Matt

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 11:17:25 MDT Print View

"Also, please note that I don't believe I've actually taken a stance here in any of my posts, I've simply corrected what I feel might be misleading or incorrect information in other posts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html"

Thanks,Doug...I will read them at a later time (bookmarked for after work). I am sorry I brought it up, not because I feel I am wrong, but because it seemed to hijack the thread and get it off topic. For that, everyone, I apologize. Again, Doug, thanks for the sources and civility. :)

Matt

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 11:23:25 MDT Print View

"I am sorry I brought it up, not because I feel I am wrong, but because it seemed to hijack the thread and get it off topic. For that, everyone, I apologize."

I don't know, the way the thread was going, I'm not sure lots of people would be upset at a bit of a hijack.....

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Death panels? Socialized medicine? Government takeover? on 10/11/2013 11:40:10 MDT Print View

"Our society does not value reasoned, intellectual arguments anymore. We keep pulling out the nazi card, or comparing Obamacare to the end of days (see Bachmann). "Intellectual elite" has become an insult. And as far as those people are concerned, nothing says it better than former congressman Barney Frank, to someone who referred to Obamacare as a "nazi policy": "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table.""

I mostly agree with this. But, from some of your posts, it seems you've decided to go ahead and argue, somewhat belligerently, with the dining room table anyway.... :-)

I'm not sure I see the value in that, because the table ain't listening, and ain't gonna listen, regardless of how loud you argue. In my mind, by being reasonable and somewhat 'professional,' I know I still won't reach the truly closed minds (nor am I attempting to), but I might cause others who are listening on the side, who might be willing to think a bit more to a reasonable counter-view, think a bit more and do a bit more research beyond what they normally read.

It is, after all, the moderates who determine who wins national elections, not the fringe of either side. And moderates generally aren't swayed by belligerence, IMO. They're turned off by it.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 11:52:29 MDT Print View

I prefer the Matt that talks about articles rather than Hitler references : )

The 60% less ice in the sail world article was from one year to the next

The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is a decades and centuries and mellinial effect

The problem with global warming is the long time scale. If you read articles, they talk about what's going to happen by the end of the century - that's 87 years from now. We'll all be dead. What do we care?

Any changes that have occurred up to now are very minor and difficult to tell the difference with normal year-to-year changes.

Like, the Vikings inhabited North America because it was warmer. Then it got colder and they had to abandon North America. That change is bigger than anything we've seen due to increased CO2 levels. There's no agreement what caused that warming period. Whatever it is that caused that could be causing any change we've seen up to now.

But 100 or 1000 years from now, the changes may be much greater

Some scientists are uncomfortable with this and exhagerate the science and attack anyone that disagrees with their exhagerations. Maybe this is the correct attitude because otherwise we won't do anything about it?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 12:01:01 MDT Print View

"I prefer the Matt that talks about articles rather than Hitler references : )"

I never would have posted the cartoon had someone else not brought it up. That's like dangling a steak in front of a starving man....sheesh! Just couldn't be helped.


:)

M

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 12:07:46 MDT Print View

good point, I posted the first cartoon : )

okay, let us now unite against political contributions that have created the best government money can buy...

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 13:27:55 MDT Print View

"good point, I posted the first cartoon : )

okay, let us now unite against political contributions that have created the best government money can buy..."

The enemy of my friend's enemies cousin is my BFF? I can dig it, Doug :)

M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/11/2013 13:34:11 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 14:49:26 MDT Print View

"okay, let us now unite against political contributions that have created the best government money can buy..."

Very tea party-ish

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 15:01:09 MDT Print View

Ok...I'll admit to falling in the trap of arguing with kitchen tables. I get so frustrated sometimes at the absolute misinformation out there, floating around, that no one feels should be addressed. And I'll also admit that sometimes I get caught up in the exchange and come off a bit boorish.

Granted this video was from the bill maher show, but it's pretty scary actually:
http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry/bill-maher-proves-that-new-yorkers-know-nothing-about-obamacare,524f7904aa4ed386626ee2c6/2



And Matt, I apologize if I took your quotes out of context, but this was what I was referring to:
"Just look at who will run it and enforce it. Check out the VA for a good idea of what's to come. Wasn't aware we needed to list sources for opinions given. OK---my source is (drum roll, please)..... Matt Perry and his opinion. LOL"

The second part of my comment about sources was derived from your "not trusting" the local NBC station who reported the park rangers were there to let in the Honor Flight veterans. Despite the fact that the reporter witnessed the scene. You said you preferred the article that you cited....which was an interview with a GOP congressman in his office.

So I will eat crow if you generally "trust" revered institutions like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC and CBS, the Washington Post, etc.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 15:01:31 MDT Print View

"okay, let us now unite against political contributions that have created the best government money can buy..."

Very tea party-ish"

Maybe the Tea Party was originally populist

The Republicans are one of the groups behind this most recent Supreme Court case to allow even more money into politics.

Individual citizens that call themselves Tea Party may be opposed to excessive political contributions.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Bill Maher on 10/11/2013 15:09:01 MDT Print View

Wow this dude is creepy. He reminds me of a mortician with that 80's hair style.

Talk about hateful people, the man has no match.

A true liberal elitist who's ego is much larger than his brain.

Edited by Powderpiggy on 10/11/2013 15:15:25 MDT.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 15:09:49 MDT Print View

Jerry if we reduce the fed to its original intent, contributions would dry up essentially.

Let's kill two birds at once.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/11/2013 15:12:15 MDT.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 15:21:36 MDT Print View

> Jerry if we reduce the fed to its original intent, contributions would dry up essentially.

I will admit this might be interesting as it would decimate the military and our standing military around the world. But then so much money is wrapped around the business of killing I don't think it's possible.

I do believe that was one of the great debates at one time... Should we even have a standing army?

The US alone represents 39% of military spending in the world.

And there goes the thread... again. :P

Edited by richardmay on 10/11/2013 15:25:13 MDT.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Ocare on Tuesday? on 10/11/2013 15:36:39 MDT Print View

"Ok...I'll admit to falling in the trap of arguing with kitchen tables. I get so frustrated sometimes at the absolute misinformation out there, floating around, that no one feels should be addressed."

My sentiments exactly.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 15:37:43 MDT Print View

"Jerry if we reduce the fed to its original intent, contributions would dry up essentially."

There was no one original intent. Different founders had different opinions. Many of the same issues as today.

Some problems like national defense or reducing polution require a government - everyone needs to contribute. If some people don't contribute, they will benefit from others.

Since some government is required, you have to control corruption. You can't just eliminate government so it doesn't matter.

We could have a discussion about how much government we should have, like maybe we're spending too much on social security, Medicare, Medicade, and now Obamacare.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
TJ on 10/11/2013 15:59:57 MDT Print View

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Thomas Jefferson

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Ocare on Tuesday? on 10/11/2013 16:28:38 MDT Print View

""Ok...I'll admit to falling in the trap of arguing with kitchen tables. I get so frustrated sometimes at the absolute misinformation out there, floating around, that no one feels should be addressed."

My sentiments exactly."

Me too!!
Look, we all agree on something :)

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: Ocare on Tuesday? on 10/11/2013 16:32:00 MDT Print View

> Look, we all agree on something :)

> gasp <

Can we remedy this aberration?

Tim Zen
(asdzxc57) - F

Locale: MI
Re: TJ on 10/11/2013 17:00:30 MDT Print View

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And TJ didn't waste the labor of any of his slaves while he was taking care of them.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/11/2013 17:11:17 MDT Print View

"“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And TJ didn't waste the labor of any of his slaves while he was taking care of them."

And a Republican president freed them. Doesn't make the statement untrue. What's your point?


Dr. Ben Carson on Obamacare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNTuIxLXAo8

M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/11/2013 17:35:31 MDT.

Anthony Weston
(anthonyweston) - MLife

Locale: Southern CA
obamacare on 10/11/2013 17:54:15 MDT Print View

I used the obamacare calc on the website before it went live and I would have to pay
double almost $6000 a year more for my family of 4. I currently have insurance through my employer so I hope that holds out. My daughter told me that we should pay for those who can't afford insurance so I asked her to pay for mine but she said "No". So I guess she is in favor of it as long as I'm the one paying.

I will probably drop my insurance altogether and hope we stay healthy and try and wait it out until they find a way for prices to come down.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Herd acceptance on 10/11/2013 18:10:30 MDT Print View

Here is my attempt:

Toby Keith's songs scare me. Crowds that cheer and cry listening to his " Courtesy of the Red White and Blue" give me the goose bumps.


There.

Richard May
(richardmay) - M

Locale: Swamplands.
Re: obamacare on 10/11/2013 18:58:08 MDT Print View

Hey Anthony, what calc did you use?

I finally got in and registered but was told that they'd have to get back to me on it... well, considering how bizzarely abnormal our lives are right now I'm not surprised.... I guess it's not one that the normal spreadsheet can process now. I presume I get to talk to a human. Tee-hee!

So, in the mean time I used this one at the Kaiser foundation to get an estimate:
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator

My wife gets insurance so for my son and I the estimate was $5250 gross and $3711 annually after subsidies.

Anthony Weston
(anthonyweston) - MLife

Locale: Southern CA
o on 10/11/2013 19:37:52 MDT Print View

I went in before it offically opened a few weeks ago.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/14/2013 05:37:15 MDT Print View

Just got my first taste of what Obamacare will be like for me. My open enrollment is going on right now at work and I now have less coverage, MUCH higher co-pays, more lifetime caps and the whole thing is more than double what I was paying. Guess i'm one of the lucky ones who gets to keep his insurance plan (but can't afford it). Thanks, Obama. Like we all needed this....


M

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/14/2013 07:54:51 MDT Print View

Health care costs have been trnding upward for many years

Your health care at work has nothing to do with Obamacare

Nice that you can take a cheap shot against Obamacare.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/14/2013 08:14:36 MDT Print View

Jerry -

You're 100% wrong about that.

Obamacare places all kinds of requirements on ALL insurance companies. These requirements cost money.

The misinformation thrown about is so discouraging.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/14/2013 08:25:14 MDT Print View

Okay, maybe you're right, Obamacare does add regulations to all health insurance.

But relatively minor effect on people with health insurance from their employer.

Major problem is that before Obamacare, healthcare costs have been increasing much higher than inflation until the cost is a major drag on economy, Obamacare is an attempt to fix it.

The discouraging misinformation is that Obamacare is the worst thing since Hitler : )

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/15/2013 09:05:44 MDT Print View

Matthew I'm not sure how you can say your higher premiums and less coverage are because of Obamacare...premiums have been going up, coverage has been going down and employers have been paying less and less for the past DECADE. Obamacare is an attempt to slow this stuff down OVER THE LONG RUN.

And I'm not sure you noticed, but Trader Joes said the reason they dropped part timers from their insurance coverage is because the employees could get a better deal from Obamacare than Trader joes could offer. BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAPER.

And no one said the law is perfect...all anyone has ever said is that it is a beginning, a place to start...and that will need to be tweaked and adjusted as problems come up. If we keep throwing everything out and starting over each time, how is the reform going to mature? You've got to start somewhere.

Again, what would your idea be????? Haven't heard a single peep about specific ideas that would be better than what is out there now.

As for letting states come up with it - that is already the case. Massachussetts came up with Obamacare and it was a raging success. Any state at any time can do its own thing - as long as it meets a minimum standard. Which, by the way, is simply designed to keep for-profit companies honest. No more charging people 100s of dollars a month in premiums for 10k deductibles and no real coverage. No more dropping insurance when people get sick, no more isolated risk pools that make coverage completely unaffordable to those who have medical issues, etc.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/15/2013 10:31:38 MDT Print View

Another reason for minimum standards is that if some states have better care, then all the poor people will go there and overwhelm them.

Another reason for minimum standards is that in this great country, some people should not just be thrown out on the sidewalk because they can't afford health care.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/15/2013 11:54:06 MDT Print View

Dave, if ALL insurance companies have the same basic requirements, then how is any one of them at a disadvantage? Seems to level the playing field, eh?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/15/2013 12:03:39 MDT Print View

@ Jerry

>Okay, maybe you're right, Obamacare does add regulations to all health insurance.
But relatively minor effect on people with health insurance from their employer.
-Really? So the employer just takes up the slack? There is a Dave Ramsey video (ACA) floating around on the net about free lunches and 8th grade (?, he probably meant to say 4th grade) math. I encourage you to watch it. Here is a link that I will provide at no charge. https://www.daveramsey.com/show/videos/dave-breaks-down-aca-obamacare

>Major problem is that before Obamacare, healthcare costs have been increasing much higher than inflation until the cost is a major drag on economy, Obamacare is an attempt to fix it.
-And it's pretty much kicked in the afterburner since this deal was first mentioned. 30% since Bama showed up. Thats better than CDs. My rates were bumping and participation was diminished at my company before this law was ever passed... to pad for the shock. I thought the scare tactic justification premature and off-base. I was wrong.

>Another reason for minimum standards is that if some states have better care, then all the poor people will go there and overwhelm them.
-While this makes no sense at all (giggling doubleface palm) can we just waive a wand and "declare" or "proclaim" all mininum standards are now in effect? That way there won't be any lines to see the DR., in Wyoming for example.

>Another reason for minimum standards is that in this great country, some people should not just be thrown out on the sidewalk because they can't afford health care.
-My wife works at a county hospital in a metro area. You should see all the bodies they throw out on the sidewalk. It's crazy. Paying customers can't even get in sometimes for all the bodies out front.


Art Laffer says this thing will be dead in 4 years, because it's such a cluster. That's opinion. He's a smart guy, provided lots of evidence, and I tend to agree with him on this one, but it's still opinion.
Dave Ramsey talks about the math. Math is typically free of opinion. If you got lost in some of Dave's tangents, yeah he kind of strayed a time or two, but the point is there is no free lunch.
We pay for the uninsured anyway, is an argument tossed around. So now are my property taxes going to go down since my premiums went up?

Jerry my friend, keep posting.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/15/2013 12:10:08 MDT Print View

I listen to Dave Ramsey sometimes

I like his financial advice, right in line with my saving 20% per year and investing in mutual funds. His idea of paying off smallest debt first rather than highest interest rate is really interesting - looks at it from a psycological perspective rather than mathematical

I have a hard time listening to him though because his religious and political views infect his otherwise good advice

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/15/2013 12:17:14 MDT Print View

> Dave, if ALL insurance companies have the same basic requirements, then how is any one of them at a disadvantage? Seems to level the playing field, eh?

Previous job of mine allowed me to see some of the regulatory effects on different entities. I can't be specific but one change to regulations/requirements I witnessed created a definite advantage for the larger companies. The compliance hurdles for the smaller entities couldn't be absorbed at those margins.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/15/2013 12:22:57 MDT Print View

>I have a hard time listening to him though because his religious and political views infect his otherwise good advice.

What religion and political affiliation he be? Hope I'm not infected. On the other hand, I hardly ever see either one of those "infecting" solid numbers.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/15/2013 12:36:47 MDT Print View

Okay, I listened to some of Dave Ramsey's video

"Fairly easy to surmise with critical thinking", says not to just parrot Republican or Democratic talking points, sounds reasonable

Then he starts parroting all the Republican talking points

If an insurance company has to cover everyone, the cost will go WAY UP - but doesn't give any numbers or anything, doesn't include the effect that the exchanges are more competitive so will cancel some of that out, doesn't mention the value of being able to get health insurance if you get sick

He said health insurance companies can't charge more for smokers which is incorrect

Then he brought up unrelated right wing talking points like that 46% of people don't pay income tax (which is sad that there are that many people that make so little income) and said they're freeloaders - but they pay social security at a higher rate than wealthy people and they spend their limited income at businesses that then make profit which gets taxed (although the right wing is working on further reducing that)

Or that if you could invest 10% of your social security in mutual fund you'de get more than social security pays out so the other 90% is sent to Washington and stolen - but social security goes to paying current costs, not stolenm so what it would hypothetically return if invested is irrelevant.

And Dave Ramsey assumes a return from mutual funds greater than 7% over inflation which is an indication that he steers people to his "preferred providers" which makes me skeptical he's just trying to con people out of some of their money.

That's why I hate listening to Dave Ramsey...

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Insurance increases on 10/15/2013 12:47:20 MDT Print View

My insurance through the Farm Bureau in Ca for family of 3 with huge deductible went from $147 in 2001 to $1100 in 2008.
I did pass age 50, so that was part of it. But otherwise insurance increases have been steadily rising since the turn of the century.

It appears to me it is rising health care costs, not the ACA.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Insurance increases on 10/15/2013 13:19:20 MDT Print View

>It appears to me it is rising health care costs, not the ACA.

Hummm I guess the spikes were not correlated to the announcements like our HR and providers elaborated about for 2 years. Yes costs have gone up too. I'd venture to say more of it can be attributed to the admin side than the product.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/15/2013 13:50:03 MDT Print View

> the exchanges are more competitive

You have repeated this until I think you actually believe it.

The other point is that you can't add a high risk individual to a low risk pool, without changing the statistical payout. To compensate, the company must increase the premiums. This extra cost can't just be ignored.


I don't think any of us, including yourself would want to sit through a table calculation demonstration.

I think the SS / taxes analogy was to illustrate what is proposed in the healthcare system. It will be a percentage of people putting into a system where a growing percentage don't contribute. Again, I know we already do that but I don't have any hope that one will be substituted for the other.

>but social security goes to paying current costs, not stolenm so what it would hypothetically return if invested is irrelevant
You sir, are a forgiving man. SS was sold to the taxpayer as a "retirement" fund, argued before SCOTUS as a tax, and diverted to the general fund. They didn't actually "steal" it. They already had it. Still actually illegal to do in the private sector.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/15/2013 17:57:29 MDT Print View

Week 1 enrollment #'s (pretty abysmal):

e

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/15/2013 17:58:01 MDT.

Peter S (masc. über linear logical club)
(prse) - MLife

Locale: Denmark
Denmark on 10/17/2013 01:20:37 MDT Print View

Marc Eldridge wrote:

"We need to hear more from Peter S on why european socialism sucks"

Richard May wrote:

"It must. You took our place as the happiest country in the world! How long have you had this system? We've had ours for some 50 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10301496/Denmark-the-worlds-happiest-country.html"

Hi Marc and Richard, sorry for the slow reply.

Richard, i' not sure, but we've had it a long time - being 31, i take it for granted, though the more i hear about the health care debate in USA, i begin to appreciate it more!

I hope that i will end my days having payed more to the health care system than i've used. That would just mean that i'm one of the lucky ones that had better health than the average person. Awesome!! How can that ever be a bad thing??

Of Course you want a public health care system that's effective and good, but to me, that's a total different discussion from the first and most important discussion: Do you want a public health care system or not? Solidarity or not? For a country that's quite religious, you would think the god almighty would appreciate that you help your fellow citizens? And i'm not even religious.

And for the record - we have a big private health care system besides the public one in Denmark, so you always have the option to buy whatever health service you could wish.

Good luck! :-)

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/17/2013 08:25:33 MDT Print View

I noticed that a majority of the Republicans voted to continue the shutdown and not raise the debt ceiling that would have had unknown financial effect.

Someone on MSNBC pointed out that if the Republicans weren't so stupid, we'de all be talking about how rocky the Obamacare roll-out is rather than what idiots the Republicans in congress and Crus are.

Maybe they will remember how this is hurting them more than the Democrats so we won't repeat this Jan 15.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Liberal Forbes persepctive on 10/17/2013 08:32:42 MDT Print View

The liberal magazine, Forbes, has this perspective:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/10/16/insani-tea-reigns-koch-brothers-fail-to-control-the-monster-they-created/

Yeah, this is the token, self acknowledged liberal that wrote it

The Koch brothers created these Frankenstein monsters (financed a bunch of "Tea Party" politicians) but now are unable to control them (get them to not shut down the government and raise debt ceiling).

The comments at the bottom are kind of funny. Except after a few it gets sort of old.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Watch out on 10/17/2013 12:32:59 MDT Print View

Jerry you really should not let your liberal bias overwhelm your thinking.

For the very few who actually watch MSNBC, there is little doubt of their far left leaning. From "I am a socialist Larry O'Donnell" to "Tickle my Elmo Chrissy Matthews" the message is always the same, bash the republicans prop up Obama.

As far as funding political groups, I suppose the money Soros and others spend on democrat causes is just good for the people.

BTW, did you ever figure out what your out of pocket cost were going to be for ACA. I still have my beef stroganoff waiting to be shipped.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/17/2013 12:49:48 MDT Print View

@ jerry
Maybe they will remember how this is hurting them more than the Democrats so we won't repeat this Jan 15.

"Hey, our government got another credit card to run up and we're back in biness. That's how we roll."

Not sure of the source but I think it was hairy reed.

Dean L
(AldoLeopold) - F

Locale: Great Lakes
Credit Card? on 10/17/2013 13:08:12 MDT Print View

Since you listed this with the implied truthfulness of quotes("), can you actually list a source?

I can't seem to find this statement anywhere.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
paraphrase on 10/17/2013 13:22:02 MDT Print View

It is a paraphrase of this I think


"Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility -- two things that set us apart from much of the world."

Ronald Reagan 1986

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: paraphrase on 10/17/2013 13:33:18 MDT Print View

Admittedly a little more leveraged, today, with no plans for changing.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Changes on 10/17/2013 14:08:00 MDT Print View

Changes would be good.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Watch out on 10/17/2013 14:34:37 MDT Print View

MSNBC is liberal for sure, CNN is in the middle, FOX is right wing

Right wingers say CNN is liberal and even thinking about MSNBC risks their heads exploding. One of their tactics to shift the country in their direction is to redefine neutral as liberal, like referring to the mainstream media as liberal.

I like Rachael Maddow. I like phonetically pronouncing her last name.

I watch MSNBC a little. Makes me happy sometimes to hear the liberal perspective.

I listened to liberal radio all the time, but the station converted to sports. Weird that there are enough listeners in Coos Bay to support a liberal station but not enough in Portland. I've been listening to NPR a lot recently and I probably wouldn't listen to liberal radio so much now - too partisan and repetitive.

Bringing up Soros is one of those "false equivalencies". Soros - $1, all the right wing causes - $100. Soros didn't create a (faux) news network, take over political parties, there isn't a stable of politicians loyal to him.

When I sign up for Obamacare I'll post a comparison. Too many glitches right now - no reason for agravation. I'll wait until closer to the Dec 15 deadline

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/17/2013 14:45:20 MDT Print View

"Hey, our government got another credit card to run up and we're back in biness. That's how we roll."

You know that when Bush got into office we had balanced budget

Bush spent "like a drunken sailor (no offense to drunken sailors)"

All those programs continued into Obama - Obama didn't create a bunch of liberal deficit causing programs

Actually, Obama has shut down half of the Bush deficit causing programs - our deficit has been reduced by half and will continue to drop.

Of course giving Obama/Bush all the credit/blame is invalid, they were just the president

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Yikes on 10/22/2013 07:23:28 MDT Print View

"White House" asks Bob Beckel to shut up about healthcare. His words.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Liberals begin to eat their own on 10/22/2013 08:01:48 MDT Print View

Stewart on fire!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2Qtx_ZcHOjw

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Liberals begin to eat their own on 10/22/2013 08:42:47 MDT Print View

That was pretty good. I like the Pacman reference because the technology is so old it was at the time of Pacman not to mention Tron.

What I like about liberals is they don't just fall lockstep into what they're told to do. Except I noticed Republicans are beginning to splinter over this shutdown strategy.

Uh oh, I'm getting back into my chaff president role, I can't help myself...

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 09:36:59 MDT Print View

He sure is doing his best to sell that crappy program, that's for sure.

o

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/22/2013 09:37:50 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 10:32:42 MDT Print View

that one is actually a little funny

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 11:53:31 MDT Print View

Like that, Jerry? How about this one:

o

d k
(dkramalc) - MLife
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 11:59:31 MDT Print View

Of course, this is only my opinion, but...

Caricatures = can be funny
Lies = not funny

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 12:01:08 MDT Print View

Rubio wants to delay Obamacare because of glitches in the software. By the way, like Gibbs siad, that's already part of the law.

That's like if you're down a couple touchdowns in the first quarter, don't get desperate and start throwing hail Marys. Just put your head down and refocus efforts to make that software work

on thru-hiker.com I can order stuff totally on-line

on owfinc.com I have to call them on the phone to order - kind of klunky but it doesn't affect my decision to order or my satisfaction

on cover oregon it gives me prices for different companies. It now gives some specifics like what copays there are. I don't think that worked before. I suspect I could call up a specific company and sign up somehow.

maybe Republicans all screaming how bad Obamacare is because of the user interface is a bad strategy. Next January and especially March, after the sign-up period is past, this will all be history and, once again, the Republican politicians will look like idiots.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 12:05:45 MDT Print View

I think it's funny when you have to look at it a moment and then go "oh! I get it, ha ha ha"

The hip replacement one, no subtlety, just more propoganda, but at least no Hitler mustache

The Smamwow one, Obama is really selling it, it took me a moment to recognize that it was the Shamwow guy

but that's just my opinion...

Dean L
(AldoLeopold) - F

Locale: Great Lakes
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 12:32:55 MDT Print View

I'm so glad that the people who just a few weeks ago were against ACA are now so concerned that citizens can't sign up fast enough. I guess anyone can change. ;)

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 13:41:00 MDT Print View

Jerry...point taken...here's one that's much more accurate:

eat

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 13:49:10 MDT Print View

"I'm so glad that the people who just a few weeks ago were against ACA are now so concerned that citizens can't sign up fast enough. I guess anyone can change. ;)"

I guess that's one way to twist it.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/22/2013 13:55:02 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/22/2013 15:17:19 MDT Print View

okay, changed my mind, both Fred and Matt are beyond redemption : )

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
OMG on 10/23/2013 07:47:48 MDT Print View

aha ha ha. The assclownery continues.

Katherine Syllabus (misspelled intentionally) says government needed 5 years to roll out plan. 3 was too little time. While trying to evade the question, this was the best she could do. Transparent enough for me.

Insurance co-ops that were set up for the exchange are beginning to DEFAULT and will need more TAXPAYER money to stay afloat. Read that one again and tell me you don't get the giggles. We're are already down a billion there and .6 billion for the site. John McAfee says the website is a hackers dream. We've only seen the beginning of the problems. There are a few things the government actually does well (not to be confused with efficiency). This will have to go on the long list of things that they shouldn't touch.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Pick your poison on 10/23/2013 07:58:56 MDT Print View

I see it as a choice between government inefficiency and lack of innovation vs corporate greed-is-good-except-when-it-isn't.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Choice ? on 10/23/2013 08:14:26 MDT Print View

Ian. Here is the problem. You sign up and your exchange co-op entity defaults. What happens? In the real world, you are now SOL. I dunno, just asking.

The black market healthcare option is looking better all the time.

(Borrowed from a popular beer commercial - 2x)

Stay healthy my friend

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 08:14:29 MDT Print View

"aha ha ha. The assclownery continues."

What? You and Matt don't care whether I say you're capable of redemption? My feelings are hurt : ) I think I've worn out that joke so I'll try not to continue it...

I agree, Kathleen Sebelius doesn't come across very well, in John Stewart's show and elsewhere. Maybe she's better at managing a bureaucracy? Based on Obamacare roll-out maybe not?

I feel sorry for her. She can't quit now. I don't think she's having fun : )

Hopefully this will all resolve itself in a few months. Like I said, I make buying decisions mostly on the product, very little on the user interface for buying it.

The anti-black man in the whitehouse people will just latch onto anything they can be critical about : )

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Choice ? on 10/23/2013 08:19:01 MDT Print View

"Stay healthy my friend"

I prefer the Alan Grayson quote about Republican health care plan: "Part one, don't get sick. Part two, if you do get sick...die quickly."

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Choice ? on 10/23/2013 08:42:00 MDT Print View

"Ian. Here is the problem. You sign up and your exchange co-op entity defaults. What happens? In the real world, you are now SOL. I dunno, just asking."

I don't know either. I have opinions and assumptions but this isn’t my area of expertise.

Here's a real world scenario. I know of a young girl (mother is a childhood friend of my wife) who was diagnosed with cancer. Her father is a small business owner and before the diagnosis, was paying an arm/leg for health insurance for his family.

The bill for her first round of chemo, which was supposedly covered by his health insurance, was ~ $80k. The insurance company refused to pay the bill with no explanation. It took many months, many calls to political representatives, and extra undue stress above and beyond the nightmare of having a sick child to resolve the issue.

Will ACA or a future single payer system fix this problem? I can't say but after hearing their story, it's difficult for it to get much worse in my mind using our pre-ACA model.

I've said it before; I wouldn't have signed off on ACA as written but I wish it success. Our system is broken and hopefully this will be a step in the right direction.

Here's her blog if you're interested in following her story:

http://www.thethingaboutcancer.com/

Doesn't talk about the insurance aspect of it but a neat kid and story nonetheless.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 08:44:50 MDT Print View

"The anti-black man in the whitehouse people will just latch onto anything they can be critical about : )"

Jerry,

I have this image of you sitting in a lawn chair next to a bridge, drinking lemonade, wearing an umbrella hat, and asking pedestrians three questions before permitting them to cross.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 08:52:19 MDT Print View

are you calling me a troll?

I believe you-all are not real, just a computer simulation created to torment me

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 08:57:13 MDT Print View

"are you calling me a troll?"


A bit, yes. But hey, you are not the only one .

:) as long as there is a smiley it's ok, right?

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 08:58:50 MDT Print View

"are you calling me a troll?"

Well.... if trolling was an Olympic sport, and the "anti-black man in the Whitehouse people" was what you delivered on game day, I'm saying that you'd be the first person to receive a platinum medal and no other contestants would receive a medal because they would be deemed to be unworthy of sharing the stage with you.

So to answer your question, maybe.

Edit to add: delivering that in a teasing/friendly/non-mean-spirited way so I hope you receive it as such.

Edited by IDBLOOM on 10/23/2013 09:05:25 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re on 10/23/2013 09:15:46 MDT Print View

I say that post was "trolling" and I say it in a friendly, non mean but not teasing way.
You can and mostly do better than that Jerry.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Trolls on 10/23/2013 09:23:45 MDT Print View

@Ian

>Well.... if trolling was an Olympic sport, and the "anti-black man in the Whitehouse people" was what you delivered on game day, I'm saying that you'd be the first person to receive a platinum medal and no other contestants would receive a medal because they would be deemed to be unworthy of sharing the stage with you.

I disagree, the anti black comment wasn't even worthy of an eye roll. His troll skills are amateur at best. Not medal worthy IMO... Participation ribbon at best.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Oh my on 10/23/2013 09:27:25 MDT Print View

I never really had an image of Jerry in my mind's eye;

I do now!! ;)

Except it's not lemonade, it's Kool-Aid

How much does that umbrella hat weight?

Does it come with a chin strap or did you add it?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 09:50:43 MDT Print View

You mean when you nominated me for president of chaff you were just calling me a troll? My pride has been dashed to pieces : ) In a friendly way...

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 09:54:39 MDT Print View

I am calling the one post above a classic troll post. But you can get away with it, seen as you are the president here.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/23/2013 09:55:36 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 10:12:19 MDT Print View

Then what did you mean by nominating me for president of chaff?

(just playing straightman, lobbing softballs for people to hit out of the comedy house)

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
91,000 seek coverage through Washington health exchange on 10/23/2013 10:43:26 MDT Print View

"While President Barack Obama has been lamenting the technical snafus limiting signups for the federal exchanges — and Oregon has yet to launch its health exchange at all — the Washington state numbers look successful by comparison."

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/health-care-inc/2013/10/washington-health-exchange-draws.html

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: 91,000 seek coverage through Washington health exchange on 10/23/2013 12:14:05 MDT Print View

>successful by comparison

"Washington's 35,000 completed enrollments, nearly 31,000 are Medicaid enrollees. Just 4,529 so far are purchasing health coverage."

As stated in the next paragraph, the math doesn't work (paraphrased). It's a shell game. Some democrats are already saying the program can be fixed if we throw more money at it.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/23/2013 12:25:32 MDT Print View

Honestly, I believe they are hoping it fails so they can implement a single payer-full on Socialized medicine system. After all, that's the end goal they've all been striving for.

Matt

r

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 12:37:23 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re on 10/23/2013 12:40:42 MDT Print View

Is it a full on troll fest now?
For a while it seemed like a discussion.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Trollfest?? on 10/23/2013 12:54:59 MDT Print View

Kat...why do you say that? I stated my opinion and gave an example of why I think that way. No trolling intended on my part at all. As Mr. Miaggi said "...walk left sida road, ok. Walk right sida road, ok. Walk middle of road, get squished like GRAPE!". Words of wisdom. :)

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 13:11:21 MDT.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Re: 91,000 seek coverage through Washington health exchange on 10/23/2013 13:41:59 MDT Print View

""Washington's 35,000 completed enrollments, nearly 31,000 are Medicaid enrollees. Just 4,529 so far are purchasing health coverage."

As stated in the next paragraph, the math doesn't work (paraphrased). It's a shell game. Some democrats are already saying the program can be fixed if we throw more money at it."

It is Medicaid. Many adults were on Medicaid prior to 2008 and are likely starting to get coverage again. Since 2008 everyone else has been paying for their bills in higher doctor and hospital bills. I know I have directly in the bills I got from the Hospital. You are right about a shell game, but the ACA just trades one shell game for another if you will.

Washington is one of the states that has provided health care, including dental and vision for kids for years. Now they will be doing so for adults that have little means. The Federal Government will be helping with that under the ACA.

My opinion- reduce spending on War Machinery and Corporate subsidies and cover more people with healthcare. This will make our trade with other countries more competitive.

I say level the p(l)aying field and give everyone a chance to buy insurance at the same rates the large Corps and the Government gets.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: 91,000 seek coverage through Washington health exchange on 10/23/2013 13:48:32 MDT Print View

"I say level the p(l)aying field and give everyone a chance to buy insurance at the same rates the large Corps and the Government gets."

Amen to that.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 14:21:18 MDT Print View

"Then what did you mean by nominating me for president of chaff?

(just playing straightman, lobbing softballs for people to hit out of the comedy house)"



Just because I nominated you President of Chaff, does not mean I will give you a pass, or that you can do no wrong. If anything, I hold you up to even greater standards. Just like we all should do to those we elect....
:)

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 15:01:32 MDT Print View

Well it's safe to say that Katharina is the BPL Marshal. I'm still waiting for my cabinet level nomination. No hurry. It's not like my feelings are hurt or anything.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Diplomat on 10/23/2013 15:23:38 MDT Print View

Ian, you are the diplomat.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Diplomat on 10/23/2013 15:59:35 MDT Print View

I humbly accept.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Diplomat? on 10/23/2013 16:32:28 MDT Print View

Diplomat?? ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh.....Ian, you don't want that job. Well...what difference does it make, I guess?

k

s

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 16:38:51 MDT.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Diplomat? on 10/23/2013 16:53:51 MDT Print View

Actually, I've been told that I look dang sexy in green and hipster glasses.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/23/2013 18:12:12 MDT Print View

Not the dude in green, Ian, the other guy they left for dead at the embassy......

M

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare --No one, that's who. LOL on 10/23/2013 19:41:29 MDT Print View

Looks like the individual mandate has been pushed back AT LEAST 6 more weeks.

http://benswann.com/white-house-delaying-obamacare-individual-mandate/#ixzz2iaxfzaaY

a

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG on 10/23/2013 19:42:29 MDT Print View

"Then what did you mean by nominating me for president of chaff?

(just playing straightman, lobbing softballs for people to hit out of the comedy house)"



Just because I nominated you President of Chaff, does not mean I will give you a pass, or that you can do no wrong. If anything, I hold you up to even greater standards. Just like we all should do to those we elect....
:)


well, that's pretty good Kat, I'll try to exceed your standards : )

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/23/2013 20:53:12 MDT Print View

Interesting story

Edited by idester on 10/23/2013 20:53:59 MDT.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/23/2013 21:15:54 MDT Print View

Doug, you rabble rouser, you.
How dare you inject a piece of investigative journalism instead of another jingoistic internet meme?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/23/2013 21:25:07 MDT Print View

Hannity gives conservatism a bad name. Can't stand him or Bill O'Reilly. Blow-hards. Just my opinion, though. I'm sure Craig W. watches all the time :)

Matt

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/23/2013 21:26:40 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/23/2013 22:15:06 MDT Print View

then who gives conservatives a good name?

David Adair
(DavidAdair) - M

Locale: West Dakota
Re: Re: Who is signing up for Socialism on Tuesday?" on 10/24/2013 00:13:28 MDT Print View

Here is a link to a youtube video of a speech given by Ted Cruz's father. It might provide some insight into the man.

Edited by DavidAdair on 10/24/2013 00:14:22 MDT.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 10/24/2013 00:23:01 MDT Print View

Salon is somehow more credible than Fox? C'mon.

Hit piece rebutted by a hit piece.

Why did the guy refer to a third-party calculator as opposed to an actual exchange relevant to the parties involved? Probably because A) He couldn't get on and B) He would have been required to enter a bunch of personal financial data he doesn't know in order to see any numbers.

Plus I'm pretty sure community rating, guaranteed issue and essential health benefits are required for ALL plans regardless of employee count. So there's that.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/24/2013 07:21:33 MDT Print View

How dare you inject a piece of "investigative journalism" instead of another jingoistic internet meme?
Salon
Investigative journalism? A pony with a plastic horn strapped to its head is not a unicorn.

Gotta go, congressional hearing on, "what the F went wrong with Obama Care web site" is on tv. Who can't guess the outcome and the findings?

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/24/2013 07:34:06 MDT Print View

"Gotta go, congressional hearing on, "what the F went wrong with Obama Care web site" is on tv. Who can't guess the outcome and the findings?"


While I personally think it is early to call it a failure ( or a success) it sounds like the few companies that get Gov't contracts for this kind of endeavor are reluctant to see new, start up companies compete in the bids. So it's big, old companies that got the job; that and the fact that when they get a government contract, they have to lay out the process completely, step by step, leaving little room for changing and improving as they go along.
This according to NPR's "Marketplace".

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/24/2013 08:03:21 MDT Print View

While I personally think it is early to call it a failure ( or a success) it sounds like the few companies that get Gov't contracts for this kind of endeavor are reluctant to see new, start up companies compete in the bids. So it's big, old companies that got the job; that and the fact that when they get a government contract, they have to lay out the process completely, step by step, leaving little room for changing and improving as they go along.
This according to NPR's "Marketplace".

Yeah, especially when you don't bid out the contract. Ha ha ha, hu hu

Govt contracts as explained to me by a friend in the business, are expected to fail. A "success" as viewed by the private sector would be an extremely rare find. When multiple entities, committees, agencies, etc have different requests and timelines, often with conflicting goals or criteria, it is doomed before it starts. It drags out, and the companies that know how to play the game, accommodate as best as possible and continue the billing.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Opposing on 10/24/2013 08:08:15 MDT Print View

And even if one is/was opposed to the Affordable Care Act....why the desire for it to fail? If it is here to stay, we best all hope it works out, in my opinion.

I did not ready and of the documents myself, rather just articles and opinions about it; probably what the vast, vast majority of Americans and BPL folks did, but I think just about everything I read had a slant one way or the other. I don't have a tv, so no Fox for me; Slate Magazine and Reason online....small gov't slant, so against it; Salon ....left slant so for it; NPR mostly for it. The jury is still out for me on this.
I would like to see health care affordable and subsidized for those that cannot afford it; I was shocked when I first moved here and had no health care for years.


I think it would help to realize that :
1. Most people ( as in voters) on the center and left that favour this and other socialized programs, are not advocating laziness not communism - they really believe that most Americans would be better off in the system they advocate.
Like wise :
2. Most people ( as in voters) on the right and independents that are against big government....are not anti poor, not heartless; they really believe that most Americans would be better off in the system they advocate.

By understanding that, and acknowledging that there are extremes that fall outside of this premise, the discussions should remain more civil . Instead of discussing politicians that stand for special interests, and argue in favor or against the respective special interests, why not discuss ideas? If we knew what our politicians should really stand for, on both sides, we would be better voters. Right now we just gobble up what our guy, or gal, is telling us and that is enough to have us fighting one another.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/24/2013 08:47:20 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/24/2013 09:28:43 MDT Print View

"Govt contracts as explained to me by a friend in the business, are expected to fail. A "success" as viewed by the private sector would be an extremely rare find..."

Interstate highway system

All those dams like Hoover and Coulie

All that military hardware

The Internet

NASA

etc.


Yeah, the solution is to privatize, they always work efficiently, like

Enron

Lehman Brothers

General Motors

Highway 20 between Eugene and the coast, they decided to let a private company design it because that always works better, they screwed up and went bankrupt, the state took it back and did it the old way and they're slowly getting it done

etc.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 09:31:25 MDT Print View

"And even if one is/was opposed to the Affordable Care Act....why the desire for it to fail?"

Because more important than the good of the country, is to win an argument, get more political power so you can financially reward yourself and your supporters so you can get even more power...

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 09:35:20 MDT Print View

"Because more important than the good of the country, is to win an argument, get more political power so you can financially reward yourself and your supporters so you can get even more power..."


And that is what we have to deal with, on both sides. Sad, yet we are ok with it as long as it is our own party doing it.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 09:49:15 MDT Print View

But I think there's a difference between the two parties.

Any politician that speaks too loudly in opposition to money in politics will find the money going to his opponent in the next election so he won't be around long. Therefore, both parties are corrupted by money.

On the right, anyone that isn't crazy right will be primaried in the next election. The Grover Norquist organization will fund a more extreme candidate. There's no equivalent organization on the left. There are a lot more moderates.

etc.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 10:03:39 MDT Print View

"And even if one is/was opposed to the Affordable Care Act....why the desire for it to fail?"

Because more important than the good of the country, is to win an argument, get more political power so you can financially reward yourself and your supporters so you can get even more power...

And Jerry, once again with your pass fail list, you have proven you don't care much for the details or accuracy.
Anyhoo Kat, believe it or not, there are people that want this deal to fail because they believe if it gets any traction, it will further damage the country. I personally don't care who came up with it, it doesn't pass my smell test based on logic and experience. I also don't believe it's constitutional, as presented to the public. I view people as dilusional who think the Federal Government can solve our problems or make our lives better. The facts just don't seem to support it. It seems to be the opposite in my view, in almost all cases. Given the financial health of the country, it probably isn't worth worrying about anyway.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Effectiveness & Efficencies on 10/24/2013 10:13:15 MDT Print View

Jerry's examples of favorable government expenditures or programs are one sided. They may have been effective but very rarely are they efficient.

Take the military, effective as any in the world, God bless'm.

A short story: I attended a Supply Chain conference right after the Desert Storm War. The speakers roster was filled with military personnel talking about the great logistical feats to supply the fast moving troops. Statistics about tonnage, cubic volume, rapid transportation were shared with relish. Cargo containers were littered across the desert, a huge undertaking.

A young buck from Dell computer raised his hand and challenged the Lt Coronel.

"Yeah, but you left all the containers in Kuwait and Iraq deserts. No one in my industry could afford to do that"

Government has no "governor", elections are won by the most effective negative ads. Unlike people here, most voters could care less and know more about the slate on American Idol than the people who supposedly represent them.

All the more reason from a limited, smaller Federal government.

And before someone uses the old Michael Moore Medicare cost per transaction example, Medicare sends out millions of dollars to dead people, fraudulent claims and the like.

When a private sector company screws up, except maybe those favored by politicians, the market punishes them. GM was bailed out the tune of $40B to save the UAW's pensions.

With the current ACA debacle, all will be forgiven and forgotten. They will all get their pensions, some will move to K street as consultants, some put on administrative leave with pay and some promoted to even greater roles. That's the way large organizations work.

Problem with government is they're using my money.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 10:37:11 MDT Print View

so, Fred, you want it to fail because if they let it be implemented it'll be successful which will further damage the country

that makes no sense


"And Jerry, once again with your pass fail list, you have proven you don't care much for the details or accuracy."

You keep saying that but don't give any examples of where I've lied or been incorrect. Sure, no one is correct all the time but I'm pretty objective.

Now I'll twist your words like the above, but that's just my feeble attempt to make a joke

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Effectiveness & Efficencies on 10/24/2013 10:48:58 MDT Print View

"Jerry's examples of favorable government expenditures or programs are one sided. They may have been effective but very rarely are they efficient."

If you have humans envolved, they're going to be inefficient.

If you have a big bureaucracy, it's going to be even more inefficient, but some problems require big bureacracies.

Take the $1000(?) toilet seat that 60 Minutes (?) pointed out. When you have some ship in war, you want everything military spec'd so it doesn't fail in wartime. If they had more sense, they'de select cheaper toilet seats, but the procurement chain isn't set up that way.

We need skeptics reviewing things to improve efficiency, but #1 priority for a war ship is to be effective.


"All the more reason from a limited, smaller Federal government"

Ahhh... you've been listening to the "ask an anarchist" guy : )

That only works if you can shrink the government to nothing.

If you acknowledge that some government is a good thing, then you have to root out corruption and inefficiency.


The most important cause underneath all of our government problems is that we allow unlimited payments to politicians and until we fix that, we're inefficiently solving all those other problems.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Effectiveness & Efficencies on 10/24/2013 11:13:34 MDT Print View

...

Edited by BFThorp on 10/24/2013 11:38:35 MDT.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Again a limited view on 10/24/2013 11:21:42 MDT Print View

The politicians really aren't the root cause, it's the bureaucracy.

I can't remember the exact number, but the quantity of elected, appointed or otherwise "serve at the leisure of" federal government employees is in the hundreds, maybe the thousands. Who knows how many people work for the feds, 2,000,000,000 or 3,000,000,000 maybe more. They know that who ever is elected, "this too will pass"
They also know that between the civil service protections, union rules, or laws there's no way they'll be fired.

The lady at the IRS giving out confidential information and using her authority for political purposes, plead the fifth, administrative leave with pay, retire with pension, on to K street. And yeah, Bush probably did it too!

At one time the involuntary turnover % for federal employees was < 1%. A federal HR person was asked why the ratio was so low compared to private sector companies.

His reply was the federal hiring practices were so robust that they always had high performance people in government jobs.

Sure, that's why so many private sector companies are lined up around the corner to benchmark their hiring practices.

NOT!

BTW, limited, small government doesn't mean none. There are certain thing that the feds need to accomplish including providing a safety net for people. Government that is closer to the people is more effective and efficient. Once inside the Beltway, you've enter a new dimension in space and time.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Effectiveness & Efficencies on 10/24/2013 11:25:17 MDT Print View

Let's say you reduced the government by half.

Then you'de reduce the corruption and inefficiency by half, but that's not good enough to me

You need to eliminate the paying money to politicians so they "can get re-elected"

60 Minutes piece the other day talked about the "leadership PACs". Lobbyists contribute to them. The politician can spend it on golf trips or whatever. Hire their relatives. Of course citizens don't want to contribute to "leadership PACs" so the politicians can take golf trips, just the lobbyists. Do you suppose the lobbyists just give the money to be nice?


If you could reduce the government by 90% or 99% then maybe your logic would work

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Again a limited view on 10/24/2013 11:52:40 MDT Print View

2,000,000,000 or 3,000,000,000 - about one third of the humans on the earth are patronage jobs with U.S. federal government? Ha, ha, ha,...


"BTW, limited, small government doesn't mean none. There are certain thing that the feds need to accomplish including providing a safety net for people. Government that is closer to the people is more effective and efficient. Once inside the Beltway, you've enter a new dimension in space and time."

One of those dilemmas

If you leave things local, then locals will compete with each other. Like if one local has a poor safety net, then all the poor people will leave, so yeah, they don't have to pay so much, but some other local will.

If you do things federal, it can be less efficient. But there is plenty of local corruption too so not clear.

Or if each local defines their own education sequence, then maybe one state will teach geometry freshman year and algebra sophmore year and another state vice versa so if someone moves between years they're screwed. Or another state will decide geometry violates their religious beliefs so they'll teach religion instead.

You should try to use best judgement on each case. Try to stick with what works and fix what doesn't.

Don't be afraid of government spending if it does something useful.

We have to quit allowing unlimited financial political "contributions"

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
I'll bite on 10/24/2013 12:06:02 MDT Print View

Logic is contorted, but I'll play.

If the corruption is reduced by 50%, still not to your standard, it would still have an impact on behaviors. Certainly changes the atmosphere and expectations.

Using your logic, it is the growth of government that has increased corruption. And yes I know Citizen's United is the worst thing since three wheeled ATV's, but the bottom line is that there was plenty of money and corruption before the SCOTUS ruling.

Today, the feds take money from the states and re-allocate it based on their priorities. Well placed politicians get first dip at the trough. Who was that republican senate minority leader that got a couple of billion for ending the dreaded government shut down.

Colorado pays in taxes and gets less back on virtually everything. Our two senators spend most of their time raising money. They both voted against the republican's bill to eliminate the medical device tax even though a large portion on Colorado's manufacturing is medical devices.

I guess they were afraid Harry Reid would take away the offices with a view of the Potomac.

Politicians closer to the people would make better decisions.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: I'll bite on 10/24/2013 13:00:50 MDT Print View

"If the corruption is reduced by 50%, still not to your standard, it would still have an impact on behaviors. Certainly changes the atmosphere and expectations."

Maybe I'n naive, but maybe corruption can be reduced 90%. At least we could eliminate political "contributions" (bribes)


"Using your logic, it is the growth of government that has increased corruption."

The unlimited political "contributions" has just sort of evolved over time. One thing the "contributors" want in return for their "contibutions" is to loosen regulations which makes it worse.

I think other countries aren't nearly as bad and are kind of scratching their heads wondering why we put up with it.


"Who was that republican senate minority leader that got a couple of billion for ending the dreaded government shut down."

I wondered that but heard it was some other Kentucky politician, but doesn't change your point.

I don't particularly like those projects stuck onto other bills, but if that's the only way to get something approved and it's a good project, maybe it's okay. It's not right that more powerful politicians get more spending in their district but that's always the way it's been. There must be some way to minimize that.

I wonder if other countries are any better at that and if there's something we can copy?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Obamacare Operator Fired After Taking Call From Hannity; Hannity To Give Her A Year's Salary on 10/26/2013 00:05:55 MDT Print View

I can't stand Sean Hannity, but what he's doing for this poor woman who was fired just for talking to him on air, is truly amazing.





http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/24/obamacare_operator_fired_after_taking_call_from_hannity_hannity_to_give_her_a_years_salary.html

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Kathy Syllabarius on 10/30/2013 15:09:44 MDT Print View

"Web site has not crashed"

Whatever. (Borrowed from her)

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Kathy Syllabarius on 10/30/2013 15:17:58 MDT Print View

Now you're just being a hater.

I'll admit to not having watched her testimony - I find political theater tedious, unimaginative and exceptionally depressing, but from what I've read, at least she didn't try to move blame to someone else, she didn't try to throw others (especially those junior to her) under the bus, she took responsibility for the mess. More than I can say for any politician doing the questioning (from either side). So if what I read is correct, then I respect her for having more integrity than any of her questioners.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 15:50:46 MDT Print View

I guess I just hate liars.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 17:35:51 MDT Print View

"I guess I just hate liars."

Whatever (borrowed from you).

I guess you hate everybody then, because I don't know a single person who has never lied.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 17:37:49 MDT Print View

"I don't know a single person who has never lied."

George Washington?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 18:16:02 MDT Print View

"I guess I just hate liars."

Whatever (borrowed from you).

I guess you hate everybody then, because I don't know a single person who has never lied.

> raised right hand, promised to tell truth, before the oversight committee, on live television... and says the website hasn't crashed? Does this not bother you? If she was going to lie, she could have picked more important, better questions, to do it.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 19:35:25 MDT Print View

"raised right hand, promised to tell truth, before the oversight committee, on live television... and says the website hasn't crashed? Does this not bother you? If she was going to lie, she could have picked more important, better questions, to do it."

Really, Fred, the whole thing bothers me, which is why I didn't watch the testimony (see previous post - political theater). Yes, it bothers me that our government officials lie to our faces. It also bothers me that the people questioning her don't really give a damn about figuring out what was wrong to help fix it or help folks trying to use it, they simply want to score political points and beat their chests for a bit. It bothers me that many people on 'both' sides (including many on these forums and in this thread) no longer really discuss the problems we face today - instead they keep their minds closed and regurgitate what's fed to them by their (highly partisan) sources of choice. It all bothers me - not just the stuff those 'on the other side' do, but the stuff they're ALL doing. So Sebelius doesn't bother me any more than Obama or Boehner or Pelosi or McConnell or Schumer or Ryan.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." on 10/30/2013 20:27:54 MDT Print View

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/politics/sebelius-hearing-5-things/

"Many might consider limited or no functionality as a "crash," but when asked for clarification, HHS spokeswoman Joanne Peters stuck by the secretary's assertion that the website has never crashed.
"As the secretary says, the site works," Peters said. "But it is slow and has a lot of user errors. But even on the first day, some people could get all the way through the system. So it did not crash. If it crashed, it would have been totally down.""

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kathy syllabus on 10/31/2013 07:39:11 MDT Print View

"Really, Fred, the whole thing bothers me"

Ditto. This govt is so big and out of control, it's actually funny, in a sad sort of way.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 10/31/2013 18:04:14 MDT Print View

Anti-Establishmentarianism. The REAL rebels on college campuses these days are conservatives.

a

Edited by bigfoot2 on 10/31/2013 18:06:09 MDT.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ACA on 11/02/2013 11:51:36 MDT Print View

a

Kathy A Handyside
(earlymusicus) - M

Locale: Southeastern Michigan
Re:ObamaCare on 11/03/2013 15:48:41 MST Print View

It would have been simpler just to extend Medicare to all, or at least give us the kinds of choices are overpaid and overperked so-called public servant politicians in Congress have. They yap on about the evils of "socialized medicine" but they see nothing wrong with having it for themselves. Face it: we taxpayers provide the politicians with that evil socialized medicine they are so happy with and get for life, but we can't have it. I'm sick of it all. Like everything else in this country now, good health is only for the rich.

Kathy A Handyside
(earlymusicus) - M

Locale: Southeastern Michigan
Correction on 11/03/2013 15:49:46 MST Print View

Oops! Meant to write "our overpaid and overperked....", rather than "are".

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Rates going up on 11/05/2013 07:50:17 MST Print View

While I don't expect this thing to last until 2014 or at least have many teeth left, some municipalities are already getting their increase notifications for January 2014. I'm guessing when the employer exemption expires, the fan blades will either be slow, or not turning.

Idiots

Plan is to stabilize the website and then use media to encourage young people to sign up.
CMS Administrator

Edited by BFThorp on 11/05/2013 08:45:06 MST.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 11/05/2013 19:41:58 MST Print View

b

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Thumbs up to SF start up!! on 11/09/2013 08:35:24 MST Print View

They fixed some of the biggest problems with the .gov website in a few days and for free.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57611592/s.f-programmers-build-alternative-to-healthcare.gov/

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
No Health Insurance? Just Drink. Koch, not Coke. on 11/11/2013 18:03:24 MST Print View

"This is the strangest P.R. campaign yet against the Affordable Care Act. Generation Opportunity, the Koch-funded group behind the Creepy Uncle Sam ads, is throwing tailgate parties to “educate” young people about the exchanges. Read: To convince young people to forgo health insurance.---“The group is touring 20 different campuses this fall in a $750,000 effort to convince college students that they’re better off being uninsured than getting health coverage through Obamacare.”"

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/no-health-insurance-just-drink/?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCare Navigators Caught Red-Handed: Lies, Deception & Fraud on 11/12/2013 11:36:20 MST Print View

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/93769-project-veritas-exposes-obamacare-navigator-corruption/

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: ObamaCare Navigators Caught Red-Handed: Lies, Deception & Fraud on 11/12/2013 12:51:18 MST Print View

Another, "no one saw this coming".

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCare Navigators Caught Red-Handed: Lies, Deception & Fraud on 11/12/2013 14:29:04 MST Print View

Awwww, what difference does it make, Fred?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ObamaCare Navigators Caught Red-Handed: Lies, Deception & Fraud on 11/12/2013 14:50:10 MST Print View

ahhh

O'Keefe

he's the guy that brought down Acorn

he edited video to make it look like ACORN was advising prostitutes how to avoid taxes

but actually, the ACORN person went along with it and then reported it to the police

ACORN never advised anyone how to avoid taxes

yet the damage was done. ACORN was demonized and put out of business. Just because Obama had worked for them and it was a way to attack Obama.

yeah - Obamacare would be another good political target

I can't believe you listen to this

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 11/12/2013 17:08:32 MST Print View

Jerry...and I can't believe you fall for that BS, either. Guess we're even.

M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/12/2013 17:09:03 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?" on 11/12/2013 18:04:44 MST Print View

touche?

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Numbers are in on 11/13/2013 17:10:23 MST Print View

Well the numbers are in and pretty disappointing as expected. The whole web site experience has got to be a real negative factor for everybody. Unfortunately those who need insurance are undoubtedly having trouble getting it.

This must also have a major impact on the financials, not that anyone in DC would give a hoot.

The critical need to sign up young people has probably been permanently set back due to the overall experience.

It's interesting that the government counted "abandoned shopping carts" in their totals, makes the data very suspect.

If a publicly held enterprises were to count abandoned shopping carts as recognized revenue, their officers would end up in prison.

We'll now see what happens with Democrats running for re-election in 2014. Kinda makes the government shutdown seem like distant history.

Maybe the President will fly to an elementary school and lecture us all on working harder to get enrolled.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) in Oregon? Nobody, aparently..... on 11/14/2013 13:40:31 MST Print View

Oregon's Governor Kitzhaber dispatches state cop to harass journalist (Oregon site worse than national ACA website--has zero sign-ups):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNzrPTvFRmQ

Also, Obama is now telling insurance companies to fix his Obamacare lie by un-canceling plans when the only reason the plans were canceled in the first place was to comply with his law. No way they will be able to bring those plans back. That is more trouble than it would be worth for just one year. Those plans are gone and not coming back. What a mess. Pretty sure he can't just up and change the law, either...that's Congress' job according to the Constitution.

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/14/2013 19:03:40 MST.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
All you really need to know about ObamaCare. on 11/14/2013 17:25:13 MST Print View

This is the actual dialogue that took place in getting ObamaCare through:



Obama: "We're gonna increase coverage and expand benefits for everyone".

Obama Supporter: "Awesome!".

O: "We're gonna provide coverage for 30 million uninsured".

OS: "Awesome!".

O: "We're gonna have a website like Amazon or Kayak where anyone can go review a variety of plans and choose one that works best for them".

OS: "Awesome!".

O: "If you like your current plan you can keep your current plan".

OS: "Awesome!".

O: "The average family will see their premiums reduced by $2,500.00 per year".

OS: "Awesome!".

O: "We're gonna bend the cost curve down".

OS: "Awesome!".

O: "We're gonna reduce the deficit".

OS: "Awesome!".



This stuff obviously impossible that any sort of sarcastic or snide remark inserted here seems redundant.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCare on 11/14/2013 20:47:16 MST Print View

b

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCare--What A Lie! And--YOU Fell For It! on 11/15/2013 10:22:59 MST Print View

Hmmmm....all of a sudden this thread got REAL quiet. Where did all the Obamacare supporters go? LOL

Matt

c

Apparently, the Executive branch is now the legislative branch as well...blurry lines create arbitrary lawlessness. A dangerous place for a nation to be in. This man's predecessors may not have been much better than this president, but I don't think any, subverted the constitution more overtly and more times than Obama has.

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/15/2013 11:11:29 MST.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Meanie on 11/15/2013 11:09:37 MST Print View

They must think you are a mean person for not supporting the President. After all, we just don't know what is good for us. Thankfully we have a government that does and are willing to tell half, quarter, eighth truths to prove it. Or in Pelosi's case it was all the truth, we just didn't understand it.

Does this make me a kitchen table?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Meanie on 11/15/2013 11:22:03 MST Print View

I was talking to my brother. He and I are in the 5% that have individual policies and are being cancelled.

My new policy is cheaper, but it's difficult to compare.

He is paying 70% more. But he had catostrophic and the new policy has wider coverage. The first year, he is getting a colonoscopy - new policy pays for it which equals the higher payment. And in the future, depending on what expenses he has, the new policy may be more or less expensive.

He made jokes about not needing maternity care and becoming a Libertarian.

This anecdotal example shows how even if a few people are negatively affected, over-all, we'll be better off. If you're one of those maybe 2% it won't make you feel better.

And 95% of the people have employer insurance, Medicare, or Medicaide and aren't affected.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Loyal on 11/15/2013 15:18:03 MST Print View

Jerry, you certainly have retained your loyalty. Although I suspect your feigned objectivity is really just rationalization, accepting that the end justifies the means.

I can only hope for the sake of your health that you do not use artificial sweeteners in your Kool-Aid. Consuming large quantities has got to be bad for you.

BTW, I thought Oregon had zero signups. Congratulations you might get a trip to the WH and get to be a prop for the next lecture.

I can see it now, tech savvy, ultra light backpacker fights thru 404 errors for kinda the safe insurance at kinda lower cost.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/15/2013 16:24:44 MST Print View

Article:

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/11/breaking-news-republican-led-u-s-house-of-representatives-passes-obamacare-fix-for-people-whose-insurance-has-been-cancelled-due-to-obamacare/

"Yesterday, Barack Hussein Obama promised an invalid, non-binding, entirely voluntarily, Unconstitutional Presidential “fix” for people who’ve lost their insurance due to Obamacare.

Today, the GOP-led U.S. House of Representatives passed a legislative solution for people whose insurance has been cancelled due to Obamacare’s overreaching medical regulations, reports Fox News.

According to the Fox report, the House bill allows “insurance companies to sell the old plans to customers who previously had them, as well as new customers for another year.”

Contrarily, Obama’s declared Presidential “fix” only applies to customers who were enrolled in their terminated plans “before the cancellation notices went out.”

Whether the Senate will adopt the House plan or not remains to be seen. An even bigger hurdle to overcome than the Senate will be the President himself.

During yesterday’s press conference, Obama indicated that he’s opposed to the House bill’s contents and vows to veto it if the Senate decides to pass its own version of it.

Yet, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) expressed his doubts of the Constitutionality and efficacy of Team Obama’s proposed executive “fix,” stating that he is, “highly skeptical that they can do this administratively.”

The House measure passed 261-157, which includes the support of 39 Democrats"

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Loyal on 11/15/2013 16:52:05 MST Print View

Oregon has zero sign-ups, but my income is slightly above the level where I qualify for the tax credit, so I can just sign up with the insurance company directly

I asked them to send me the forms but they didn't. I asked again, maybe this time they will. Shows that both government and private companies can be frustrating to deal with.

But, because of Obamacare, my new policiy will be better. Primarily, I don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions. If I'm unhappy with this company, or I want to move to another state, I can just sign up with a different company.

I'm fairly objective because I just stated the facts rather than quoting propoganda from right wing propoganda sources.

I think this most recent House vote is the 48th vote to repeal Obamacare, but it's a bit subtle.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/15/2013 17:23:49 MST Print View

o

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Loyal on 11/15/2013 18:15:51 MST Print View

oops - I lied

todays House vote wasn't the 48th vote to repeal Obamacare

it was only the 47th

you better impeach me : )

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
WA state's 1st report on ACA on 11/15/2013 18:25:48 MST Print View

"Though the first months’ numbers are small, the hard data in Washington’s report will attract attention from those wondering how the new system is being received, and how well it may work in the end:

• 21,671 completed their application to buy a health insurance plan, but have not yet submitted their payment.

• 72,136 are partway though the application process, but have not made final decisions about which plan to buy.

• 1,516 paid for a new insurance plan and either did not qualify for a tax credit to reduce their premium, or did not seek financial help.

• 4,835 paid for a new plan and did qualify for a tax credit. The credits are available up to 400 percent of federal poverty level (annual income of $45,960 for one person, $94,200 for a family of four).

• The paid-up customers divided this way, by age: 18-25, 5 percent; 26-34, 18 percent; 35-44, 19 percent; 45-54, 20 percent; 55-64, 37 percent.

• 64 percent of the completed purchases were for a Silver plan covering 70 percent of average medical needs. Gold plans, covering 80 percent, attracted only 16 percent of buyers. Bronze plans, covering 60 percent, attracted 21 percent.

• 57 percent of the enrollments, for both Medicaid and purchased insurance, were from women.

"

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/15/report-details-health-reforms-reception-in/

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/15/2013 20:56:28 MST Print View

t

C'mon, people...wake up! Our founding fathers fought a war over a 2% tax on their breakfast beverage for cryin' out loud.
Sheep. Sheep everywhere.
M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/15/2013 20:57:12 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ObamaCrap on 11/15/2013 22:19:26 MST Print View

I know you're just into the "clever posters", but

The Tea Act imposed a tax just on tea that businessmen imported from the Dutch, and was designed to rescue the British East India company, who didn't have to pay the tax, at the expense of local tea companies. And it was imposed by the British that we had no vote on.

The Obamacare mandate was passed by congress which we voted in, not the British that we have no vote for.

It's not to rescue the East India Company at the expense of local tea companies. It's to encourage people to buy health insurance - a Republican, Mitt Romney, Heritage Foundation idea - until Obama agreed to it because the Republicans are against anything Obama is for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act has a pretty good description

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: Re: ObamaCrap on 11/15/2013 23:56:38 MST Print View

"encourage" is an interesting way of putting it...

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
RomneyCare on 11/16/2013 10:24:29 MST Print View

It's interesting that the Presidents loyal lemmings now like to backstop ObamaCare with comparisons to the health care law passed in Mass. I guess even the most devout followers find it hard to blame Bush, so why not make ObamaCare out to be a conservative's idea.

Well a few facts that refute such a connection.

The law passed in MA. was totally bi-partisan and was created through normal legislative processes with negotiations on both sides. No party had total control to ram anything thru.

ObamaCare is the result of a bastardized legislative process with no, nada, input from the minority party.

Pelosi had a 2 to 1 majority in the House, the legislation didn't even start in committees. It was a product of Pelosi and a chosen few democrats crafting it behind doors with guidance from the WH. Pelosi used her power to prevent all republican amendments and the legislation passed on strictly partisan lines.

Meanwhile, Reid is generating a Senate version in closed quarters. Since democrats had a filibuster proof 60 seat majority, no republican amendments were accepted. The bill based on a strictly partisan line.

Normally the House and Senate version would go to committee for reconciliation into a final version supported by both houses. This never happened.

In the meantime, Scott Brown wins the vacated seat from Ted Kennedy in MA. Reid now has lost his filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Hence republicans now have a means to influence the final product using filibuster as a tool for debate and amendments.

So, the democrats are screwed, falling public opinion in the polls causes Pelosi to use a little know procedural technique to "deem" the Senate version to have passed the House. She is afraid to have her colleagues be forced to vote for it again with the upcoming 2010 elections.

So tell me again how this POS incorporates conservative ideas.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: RomneyCare on 11/16/2013 11:51:02 MST Print View

yes, Obamacare had no Republicans voting for it

but the Republicans won't vote for anything that the Democrats are for, by definition

so, should the Democrats just sit there and cry? or should they try their best to get something done?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/16/2013 11:54:13 MST Print View

That bitter aftertaste…

k

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/16/2013 11:55:26 MST.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Elevated to Prophet on 11/16/2013 12:03:11 MST Print View

First President of Chaff,

Next Minister of Reason

and now

Carnac The Magnificent

Wouldn't you say it's a little hard for republicans to vote with democrats when they are excluded from the process.

More elitist logic and paternalism, the end justifies the means.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
I'm actually pretty excited on 11/16/2013 12:13:31 MST Print View

I've wanted for a long time to be an independent contractor of sorts...a freelance writer, clinician, teacher, etc. But I've never been able to do it because I have a pre-existing condition and have been turned down by every single insurance company I've ever tried to get a policy from. Not, boy this is expensive!, just no thanks, we have nothing to offer you.

But now, thanks to Obamacare, I can get a 70/30 plan from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, multi-state, PPO...for HALF of what I paid through my employer before. Yes, HALF of my contribution to the employer plan buys me my own, portable insurance company! They can't kick me off if I make a claim, the can't charge me more because I got sick when I was 19 (but I am not sick now...just that I MIGHT be sick again later...)

I make too much money for subsidies...so none of your tax dollars are helping me do a darned thing. My policy is all of $256 a month. That's it. And no one asked any personal questions on the website, I didn't have to give any information other than my age and state. That's it.

So I'm sorry, but I'm one happy camper. Now I never need to rely on someone else to provide me with health insurance...I can get it myself. Which means I can now follow my professional dreams and make money how I want to - and I am no longer beholden to a large corporation. Sounds quite a bit like freedom to me.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Elevated to Prophet on 11/16/2013 12:16:35 MST Print View

It's ironic that the original tea party was formed because a big corporation got special tax breaks.

The current tea party says their #1 priority is to prevent Obama from getting anything done and make ceremonial votes against Obamacare or making abortion illegal or gay marriage illegal, but I think their real #1 priority is to preserve all those tax loopholes for corporations and super wealthy - the exact opposit of the original tea party.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Congratulations on 11/16/2013 12:26:26 MST Print View

Good luck on your new endeavor and much success to carve out your own future. So many are afraid to venture out from underneath the protections of a corporate gig.

It will be interesting to see how you feel about regulations and taxes in few years after being an independent business. Of course, it is better in Texas thanks to Rick Perry.

Jerry, your tea party stuff is borderline crazy. Don't let such a small group of people dominate your thinking and behavior.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Congratulations on 11/16/2013 13:59:36 MST Print View

"Jerry, your tea party stuff is borderline crazy. Don't let such a small group of people dominate your thinking and behavior"

Just responding to Matts "C'mon, people...wake up! Our founding fathers fought a war over a 2% tax on their breakfast beverage for cryin' out loud.
Sheep. Sheep everywhere."


You disagree that the original tea party was protesting special tax loophole to benefit a big British company?

Or that the tea party people in congress want to preserve special tax loopholes for big corporations?

Or are you just saying that the tea party is a fringe group that will fade away? That's probably correct, especially after they went against they're big corporate masters about shutting down the government. Probably financial "contributions" (bribes) will be reduced.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Original Tea Party on 11/16/2013 15:24:53 MST Print View

Not sure there is such a thing as the "original tea party". The participants in the Boston Tea Party were tired of a tyrannical, over reaching central government trying to dictate their lives. Unfair taxation was certainly an issue that drove the protest and later the revolution.

Everybody in Congress wants loopholes for their donors and voters. That's why the tax code is a billon pages long. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. The federal government rewards those they favor and punish their enemies. Both parties do it and the current administration is no virgin at crony capitalism.

I think the ideals exhibited by the tea party are not going away. I don't mean the way they are portrayed by the democrats or their media slaves. The biggest fear for democrats and progressive is a repeat of 2010 in 2014. Major, major swings in the House and Senate and as importantly state legislators and governors.

The President's arrogance and over reach will come back to bite the party.

Just think if he had worked with republicans to cover pre-existing conditions, open interstate markets, standardize plans, and reform tort litigation. That would have really moved the country forward.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Original Tea Party on 11/16/2013 17:03:44 MST Print View

"Not sure there is such a thing as the "original tea party". "

They dressed up as "Indians" and threw the East India Tea Company tea into the ocean.

Because there was a tax loophole imposed by the British that favored the East India Company.


"Just think if he had worked with republicans to cover pre-existing conditions, open interstate markets, standardize plans, and reform tort litigation. That would have really moved the country forward."

You are dillusional if you think there was any way the Republicans would have worked with Obama.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Change the order of your nouns on 11/16/2013 17:27:01 MST Print View

As I recall shortly after the election in 2008, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid stood on the steps of the Capitol and said "we won" when asked about incorporating republican ideas into any legislation.

In reality, that was their practice. There was no chance for any republican input in the most sweeping legislation since the Civil Rights Act.

In my reality, it's pretty hard to defend a bill that was done in a vacuum without normal process or oversight, was not understood by the people who voted for it, was suggested that it had to passed to know what was in it, and has been proven to be full of lies and untruths. The execution is a joke with more fallout to come.

If republicans had blundered this badly, liberals and progressives would be yelling for impeachment.

Instead they daily stretch their tolerance for incompetence.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Change the order of your nouns on 11/16/2013 18:43:07 MST Print View

You can find examples where both parties could have been more concilliatory

"it's pretty hard to defend a bill that was done in a vacuum without normal process or oversight, was not understood by the people who voted for it, was suggested that it had to passed to know what was in it, and has been proven to be full of lies and untruths"

ha, ha, ha... Republicans come up with ridiculous talking points and then repeat them over and over again, if you repeat it often enough many people will believe it

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Congratulations on 11/16/2013 19:08:06 MST Print View

Thanks the well-wishes!

But actually Ken, there isn't nearly enough regulation in my field. And texas actually is just about the same as Illinois in terms of medical regulation, so I'm not sure why you think this state is any better than any other.

As I mentioned in another thread, those who think we have too much regulation and that the free market will sort it all out tend to not have spent any time in 3rd world countries were there isn't any regulation.

Check out the pollution in china right now...not at all to be bothered by a pesky job killing EPA!

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Congratulations on 11/16/2013 19:12:05 MST Print View

China was mentioned as an example of a regulation free country?

Edited to add a question mark and this:

China is second only to India when it comes to regulation. Switzerland is the 4th least regulated when it comes to doing business.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World

And this a chart worth looking at



atEconomic freedom

Edited by Kat_P on 11/16/2013 20:08:38 MST.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
I agree on 11/16/2013 19:22:45 MST Print View

It is pretty ridiculous to expect elected officials to know what they are voting for or against.

Your talking points argument is pretty juvenile.

You can however keep repeating "you can keep your policy and doctor, period"

Next shoe to drop is ".....keeping your doctor"

Many will remain loyal, mostly because of their disdain for republicans, but many more are now being affected personally.

No amount of charm or rhetoric will make a difference to them.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaBS on 11/17/2013 00:33:28 MST Print View

"ha, ha, ha... Republicans come up with ridiculous talking points and then repeat them over and over again, if you repeat it often enough many people will believe it"

Ha...total BS, Jerry. That's an accurate description of what you and, on a much larger scale, the Obama Administration have been doing for years. Here's a recent example:
"If you like your heath plan, you can keep it".

...here's an idea for you...don't let this healthcare crisis with your messianic president go to waste. Make sure you slander conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans at every opportunity, ok? It makes no difference if what you say is true or not, the ends justifies the means. If you need any refreshers, please refer to the Saul Alinsky playbook.


M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/17/2013 00:37:55 MST.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: ObamaBS on 11/17/2013 06:45:09 MST Print View

Kat, I'm pretty sure I mentioned it as lacking environmental regulations. I made no mention of anything else; simply as an example of allowing a corporation free reign to do whatever its pocketbook suggests they do does not always lead to behavior that is safe nor positive to the rest of us.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: ObamaBS on 11/17/2013 08:08:01 MST Print View

Yes, you mentioned China's environmental regulations, but in a context of regulations in general, and in a thread about the FDA.

"As I mentioned in another thread, those who think we have too much regulation and that the free market will sort it all out tend to not have spent any time in 3rd world countries were there isn't any regulation. "

I have no problem with some regulations, but if you read up in my link you will see thar countries that have the least economic regulations, and where the individual has the ability to make choices not dictated by their government...those countries have the least crime, infant mortality, the highest education and on and on.
I think the philosophical difference between us in this case in not about one of us caring for the poor more than the other, but rather we differ on how we achieve more people benefitting from the wealth in a society.
As far as the ACA, I have not studied it enough to know, but I like the idea of more people being able to afford health care. Like you, my employment choices have been somewhat dictated by needing health insurance and the fact that this allowed you to cut free from a job you did not like is great news.
I have lived in two countries that had health care for all :
Italy had single payer, universal health care and while I can tell you some hair raising stories, I can also say that I was sure head to have the care and not go broke forgetting sick.
Switzerland has mandatory ( by Cantons not by the Feds) health coverage, not tied to employment. The minimum coverage is regulated and affordable and subsidized for the poor. Anything extra is not regulated, more expensive and not subsidized.

Those two countries also differed dramatically in "ease" to do business and that is what I have the most direct experience with. In that realm I can say that over regulation caused massive unemployment as well as dishonest practices and crime in general.
I would be happy to give you the details.

Edited by Kat_P on 11/17/2013 08:40:52 MST.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: ObamaBS on 11/17/2013 08:17:34 MST Print View

""ha, ha, ha... Republicans come up with ridiculous talking points and then repeat them over and over again, if you repeat it often enough many people will believe it"

Ha...total BS, Jerry. That's an accurate description of what you and, on a much larger scale, the Obama Administration have been doing for years. Here's a recent example:
"If you like your heath plan, you can keep it"."


Jerry and Matt, I am going to agree with both of you, because in my opinion plenty of Republicans and plenty of Democrats have been repeating ridiculous talking points over and over and over again. Some notable ones right here on BPL.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: ObamaBS on 11/17/2013 08:25:54 MST Print View

What's a ridiculous talking point I've repeated over and over again?

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Extreme examples on 11/17/2013 08:33:35 MST Print View

I have never figured out why liberals jump to such extremes when challenged on issues.

Limited federal government doesn't equal no federal government

Curtailing excess regulation doesn't equal no regulation

jeeeeeeeeeeze

It was interesting to watch the President speak about how federal IT procurement regulations caused problems for the ObamaCare rollout.

For a minute there I thought Reagan was on stage. Of course he'll do nothing about them, just more talk.

This Administration invested in "green energy" project. Some of which were aimed at solar energy electrical production. The idea being to create "middle class" manufacturing jobs.

Can you even imagine how long, how tedious, how expensive, how frustrating it would be to get a permit from the EPA to build a solar cell foundry in the US? It would not happen in your children's lifetime.

Instead it all goes to China, who does have atrocious environmental practices, but they get the high dollar manufacturing content with a US subsidy, go figure.

When the EPA was created, rivers in the East caught fire. Much work has been done with good results. But like all good bureaucracies, they continue to grow and grow for their our prosperity. Now they want to regulate the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and I bet their strategic plans involve regulating the sun ;)

And before someone suggest imposing the same standards on the rest of the world for equilibrium, forget it, it won't work.

Last year there were something like 140,000 new laws and regulations passed. Our state legislators in Colorado banged their chest with pride on how new laws they got through. No worries on the millions of hours individuals and businesses must spend to understand compliance.

After the financial meltdown, we were told that the country lacked regulations to prevent it. Seriously, you could fill the first floor of the library of Congress with pre-2008 financial laws and regulations.

Most career politicians are lawyers, in the case of this administration, many are academics that have no practical business experience.

We live in a global economy, competing with other nations for the means to create wealth. The government should be an enabler, not a barrier to that success.

Just think, free Obama I-pads.
Jennifer is lucky to be so close to a state government that knows how to do it.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Extreme examples on 11/17/2013 08:50:44 MST Print View

The problem that I see with over regulation is that it is the small companies that end up not being able to comply, where the big ones have enough money and clout to bypass regulation.
Notice how small community banks are struggling because if regulation put in place because of the "too big to fail" banks? Those guilty ones are still able to afford lawyers and bypass a lot of the regulation.
As someone mention a while ago; if your business is "too big to fail" then you should be well regulated.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Extreme examples on 11/17/2013 09:18:17 MST Print View

Yeah, over-regulation benefits big companies. Since they have "bought" our government, there's no reason to remove regulations. Republicans and Democrats are like those "professional" wrestlers that pretend to fight with each other.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/17/2013 09:39:46 MST Print View

" Republicans and Democrats are like those "professional" wrestlers that pretend to fight with each other."

Well said, there, Jerry. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

M

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ObamaCrap on 11/17/2013 09:54:25 MST Print View

Actually, if we quit arguing about ridiculous stuff, we could unite against the people that have bought our government.

And many of the people that are in office hate it as much or more than we. If they don't go along with it, they won't get re-elected.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Sumo on 11/17/2013 10:10:29 MST Print View

I like the wrestler example, just envision Hillary vs Palin, cage match to the death.

We had a local bank fail to meet the new, improved federal requirements. It was forced to close, took out 3 local car dealerships.

Had it been a state or local regulatory agency decision, they likely would have figured out a way to make things work.

Washington DC is a universe unto itself. Once inside the Beltway, throw rational thinking out the window and tune in to political correctness.

I read somewhere that 7 out of 10 of the wealthiest counties surround Washington DC. Politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and influence peddlers comprise the wealth in this country. What happened to innovators, inventors, entrepreneurs, engineers, business men & women and other job creators in California, Texas, North Caroline etc.

Jerry is right about the best government money can buy, but I think the solution is to disperse it's influence and power to more a state and local level.

That way it's easier to round up the bad apples and put them in the public square for punishment.

Today they get a promotion and an office with a view of the Potomac

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Sumo on 11/17/2013 11:13:52 MST Print View

I don't see any obvious solutions

If you disperse, then you can have, for example, states compete against each other on having the smallest safety net. Then poor people will move to states with better safety nets, so they'll be forced to have minimal safety nets too.

If you buy into the idea that it's okay for the government to have a safety net as long as it doesn't encourage people to be lazy, better to be federal, ignoring other factors.

Many other similar problems.

If we all get mad as hell about how are government is bought, that's a start

Maybe some popular "Occupy" or "Tea Party" movement could precipitate change

Same problem in 1930 and some how things changed then

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Safety nets are fine on 11/17/2013 12:07:55 MST Print View

I agree with the idea of a safety net. Unfortunately for some it's a free ride and others it's a spider web that binds them to government control.

My issue with the President is his re-distribution ideas don't include creating wealth. Taking from Peter to pay Paul is short term and best, especially when Peter has a staff of lawyers and accountants.His middle class arguments don't deliver results, the middle class today is worse off than ever before. He's a lawyer surrounded by academics. A lawyer only thinks about we he can take, doesn't understand how to create more value.

Some think that government should not be run like a business. Well that's news to the Chinese, Germans and Indians. The world is a small place with finite resources. The cure for poverty is successful capitalism.

If you have to be born poor, pray that your parents are in the US.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Safety nets are fine on 11/17/2013 14:08:53 MST Print View

I agree, safety net can encourage dependance and laziness.

Personally, my college education was heavily government subsidized. Then I always worked.

I think the best thing the government can do, is heavily subsidize education. Then, people can get a good job, pay taxes,... Unfortunately they passed all those property tax reductions, so state had to pay more for K-12, so less is left to higher education, so it's more and more expensive to get higher education. And companies have a hard time getting highly trained people.

Yeah, middle class is worse off today than before, but Obama hasn't done anything for or against. The fact that higher education is ever more expensive is one reason for middle class stagnation.

So, what Obama ideas are redistributionist?

Warren Buffet said that there's a class war going on, and his class has won, and he's definitely a capitalist.

Businesses are run to make a profit. Government should collect taxes and efficiently and fairly spend it, so the comparison isn't real good.

I heard some state political figure interviewed. He said it was important to contribute to the pension fund each year and not be tempted to raid it in bad years. This is like the only state that has a healthy pension fund. Being careful to not have overly generous pensions and overly optimistic investment assumptions was also key. That should be the model for governments in my opinion.

Actually, I think 401Ks, IRAs, or 403Bs are better than pensions - you don't have to rely on a government or company to pay off in the future, but most liberals are opposed to this.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Buffett on 11/17/2013 15:14:09 MST Print View

He's an interesting guy, well know for his "I pay a lower tax rate than my secretary" comments. That's mostly because he takes the majority of his income as dividends, which are taxed at lower rate. Raising the rate would hurt retired people and others who use investments for income.

I always wanted to tell Buffet he's welcome to pay his "fair share", just write a check to the IRS for whatever he thinks is fair. But like most liberals, he really wants to use everybody else's money, not their own.

Colorado has a very generous pension for it's government and teacher employees. They used a 8% ROI to determine future values. Recently they lowered it to 7.5% which increase the un-funded liability to $29 B. The governing committees are comprised of mostly participants, so they like to sweeten the pie and ignore the future problems.

When you combine unfunded liabilities for SS, Medicare, and State/local public employee pensions, it makes the national debt look like laundry mat money.

Colorado voted against major initiatives supported by the NEA and Teacher's Unions. Amendment 66 would have raised income tax rate and was defeated by a vary large margin. Douglas County retained a conservative, reform minded school board that has made great progress in improving school performance. Jefferson county elected a conservative school board also.

In spite of Bloomberg, Bill Gates foundation and the teacher unions spending millions of dollars on TV ads, people rejected the old guard status quo. Even the Denver Post editorial staff thought the union should change it's strategy from "we need to spend more money on the union, umm I mean children" to doing real reform.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Buffett on 11/17/2013 17:29:17 MST Print View

Buffet gets most of his income from long capital gains, not dividends, but same difference.

Most retired people have their investments in a 401K, 403B, or IRA, so their income is taxed as ordinary income, they don't get preferred tax rate.

The preferred rate for taxes on dividends and long term capital gains goes more to the 0.1% and 0.01% wealthiest people than average people.

There is no economics reason for taxing dividends and long term capital gains at a lower rate.

Personally, I can take some advantage of the preferred tax rate for long term capital gains and dividends, so selfishly I should just ignore this, but I'm patriotic and want the best for this country. This is one of the factors that has caused the middle class to stagnate.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Buffett on 11/17/2013 19:18:24 MST Print View

There is no economics reason for taxing dividends and long term capital gains at a lower rate.

Jerry, you understand that corporations are already taxed... I'm assuming.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Buffett on 11/17/2013 20:18:57 MST Print View

"Jerry, you understand that corporations are already taxed... I'm assuming."

Ha, ha, ha - condescending as usual Fred : )

Let's say a corporation makes a profit and pays a tax on it reducing the profit, and then gives some of the remaining profit as dividends to a stockholder who has to pay tax on it

Equivalent to me making income and paying tax, and then giving some to my gardner and he has to pay tax on it

Money is taxed again and again as it flows through the economy

Not totally apples to apples. For one thing, a corporation can write off all it's expenses but I can only write off a few expenses, like house mortgage interest and state income tax

But the real question is, will an economy be more successful if you tax just individuals or both individuals and corporations. Clearly it should be fair - some people shouldn't be able to make political contributions and get special tax breaks in return.

Average tax rate for corporations over the last 50 years has gone down from 50% to 20%. Super wealthy individuals from 92% to 15% but back up to 20% since the Bush tax cuts expired. Numbers just off the top of my head.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/17/2013 20:40:01 MST Print View

" a corporation can write off all it's expenses "

b

Seriously, Jerry? Since when?

What's Deductible? -- A to Z (THE TRUTH):

Advertising. Your business can deduct all of the cost of advertising as a business expense.

Automobile expenses. The standard mileage rate for business driving in 2010 is 50 cents per mile. Alternatively, you can keep track of the actual cost of operating the vehicle, including fuel, repairs, insurance and depreciation, and deduct that amount. For 2011, the standard mileage rate for business driving is 51 cents a mile.

Bad debts. If your business loaned money to someone and determined in 2010 that it would not be repaid, the loss is deductible against business income on your 2010 return.

Banking fees. Charges imposed by banks for business accounts are tax-deductible expenses.

Bonus depreciation. For new business property acquired during most of 2010, businesses can deduct 50% of the cost of property as bonus depreciation, and depreciate the remaining cost under the regular depreciation rules. For assets to be depreciated over five years, for example, the total first-year depreciation deduction would be 70% of the cost. An even better deal applies for new assets acquired and put into service after September 8, 2010. For such property, 100% bonus depreciation is allowed, meaning you can deduct the full cost on your 2010 tax return. The same 100% bonus depreciation rule applies for assets acquired in 2011.

Business gifts. Up to $25 a year can be deducted for the cost of business gifts to any number of customers or clients.

Business meetings. The cost of business meetings that you or your employees attend is a deductible expense.

Carryback losses. Generally, firms can use net operating losses in the current year to reclaim taxes paid for the previous two years. Thanks to economic recovery legislation, however, in many cases, 2008 and 2009 losses could be carried back for as many as five years and bring a refund of taxes paid for those years. This rule was not extended to cover 2010, so net operating losses incurred in 2010 – including those created as a result of 100% bonus depreciation – can be carried back only two years to generate refunds of taxes paid.

Child care facilities. Employers can claim a tax credit of up to $150,000 a year for 25% of the cost of building and operating child-care facilities for their employees.

Commissions and fees. Commissions paid to salespeople and other workers are deductible.

Contract labor. Amounts paid to independent contractors who provide services to your business are deductible.

Credit card fees. Fees imposed by credit card companies to process charge card sales can be deducted.

Credit for alcohol used as a fuel. This is a credit available to small producers of alcohol and ethanol fuels.

Depletion. Depletion is the using up of natural resources by mining, quarrying, drilling, or felling. The depletion deduction allows an owner or operator to account for the reduction of a product's reserves.

Disabled access credit. If your company had gross receipts of $1 million or less in 2009 or employed no more than 30 workers then, it is eligible to claim a credit for expenses incurred in 2010 to improve access for the disabled, such as constructing entrance ramps or special parking spaces. The maximum credit allowed is $5,000. The first $250 of eligible expenses is ignored, and the next $10,000 of costs qualifies for a 50% tax credit.

Domestic production deduction. Businesses can write off 9% of their 2010 net income from U.S. production activities, including manufacturing, construction, mining, drilling and farming.

Depreciation. Depreciation deductions allow businesses to write off the cost of business assets over their “useful lives” as defined by the IRS – say, 3, 5, 7, 15, 20 or more years. For new assets put in service in most of 2010, a special 50% bonus deprecation rule was in effect. So, firms can deduct 50% of the cost of qualifying assets, plus a certain amount of the remaining cost depending on the asset’s useful life. For new assets acquired and put in service after September 8, however, there’s an even more generous rule: 100% bonus depreciation. That means the full cost of qualifying assets can be deducted on your 2010 return. (The same rule applies for all of 2011.) See also, Expensing.

Employee benefit programs. Businesses can deduct the cost of fringe benefits provided to employees, such as health insurance and retirement plans.

Expensing. Also called the Section 179 deduction, after the part of the tax code that permits it, this break allows businesses to fully deduct the cost of some assets placed in service that would otherwise be depreciated over many years. In general, for 2010 businesses are allowed to "expense" up to $500,000 of such costs. Firms that put into service more than $2 million of assets in 2010 gradually lose the right to use this break. Expensing might sound a lot like the 100% bonus depreciation mentioned above, and it is . . . although expensing was around before 100% bonus deprecation was created, and is likely to be around once that break expires. Also, expensing is generally for smaller firms – not the $2 million limit on acquisition of assets cited above. Also, unlike 100% bonus depreciation, expensing can be used to write off the cost of used business assets.

Goodwill. The cost of goodwill acquired as a result of a corporate merger can be amortized over a 15-year period.

Holiday parties. Your business can deduct the cost of holiday parties for employees.

Home office expenses. You can deduct the costs of a home office that you use exclusively and regularly for business. This includes depreciation, utilities and insurance for the office portion of your home. To qualify for the tax break you must either meet with clients there regularly or the home office must be your principal place of business (unless it is not attached to your house). You can pass the principal-place-of-business test even if you do most of your work elsewhere, as long as you manage the business from the home office and don’t have an office elsewhere.

Indian employment credit. Businesses get a tax credit for part of the wages they pay to members of Indian tribes who live on or near an Indian reservation.

Insurance. In addition to deducting the cost of health insurance provided to employees, businesses can deduct the cost of other types of insurance, including policies covering property and casualty protection, malpractice coverage and vehicle insurance.

Interest expenses. Interest paid on debt taken on by a business are tax deductible.

Investment credit. The investment credit consists of the rehabilitation tax credit, energy credits and the credits for qualifying advanced coal projects and qualifying gasification projects.

Legal and professional services. Amounts paid for legal and accounting services for your business are deductible.

Licenses. The cost of business licenses is deductible.

Low-income housing credit. Investors in projects that provide housing primarily to lower-income taxpayers can claim a credit for part of their investment.

Meals and entertainment. Fifty percent of the cost of meals and entertainment for clients is deductible, if you (or one of your employees) is present, the meal is directly related to or associated with the active conduct of your business and the meal is not lavish or extravagant.

Net operating losses. Net operating losses from your business generally are carried back for two years (triggering a refund of taxes paid) unless you specifically elect to carry them forward to future tax years. A special rule for 2008 and 2009, which allowed For 2009 (as for 2008), such losses can be carried back for as many as five years, was not renewed.

New markets tax credit. This is an incentive for investments in entities that lend money to firms in poorer areas. Investors get a 5% credit in the first three years on the money they put up and a 6% credit for next four years.

Office expenses. Office expenses such as bottled water services, janitorial services and the costs of window washing services are deductible.

Orphan drug credit. This credit is claimed by pharmaceutical companies on the costs of developing drugs to combat rare diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people.

Passive activity credit. Credits from investments in activities you don't materially participate can only be used to offset the tax due on passive income. Credits that are disallowed by this rule in 2010 are carried over to future years.

Pension and profit sharing plans. Amounts paid for employee retirement plans are allowed as a deduction.

Pension plan startup costs. Small companies, generally those with fewer than 100 employees, are allowed a tax credit for the 50% of the cost of starting up new retirement plans. The maximum credit is $500 a year for the first three years of the plan’s existence.

Postage. You can deduct the cost of postage to mail business letters and packages.

Professional associations. The cost of membership in professional associations, board of trade and chambers of commerce is deductible.

Prizes and awards. The cost of prizes and awards given to employees can be deducted.

Reforestation costs. Owners of small timber firms can deduct up to $20,000 of timber reforestation costs. Any excess expenses can be amortized over 84 months.

Renewable energy production credit. A tax credit is allowed for energy produced from or wind, solar, geothermal and "closed-loop" bioenergy facilities, "open-loop" biomass, incremental hydropower, small irrigation systems, landfill gas and municipal solid waste facilities.

Rent. Your business can deduct amounts paid to lease office space. Special rules limit the deduction for rent paid in advance by businesses that use the accrual method of accounting.

Repairs and maintenance. Repairs you make to business equipment, office space, buildings and other property, as well as the costs of maintenance are deductible business expenses.

Research and experimentation credit. If your business increased its expenditures on research and development in 2009, you may be able to claim a tax credit for some of those expenses.

Self-employeds' health insurance. Self-employed individuals can deduct 100% of premiums paid for their health insurance, whether or not they itemize deductions on their tax return. This is a personal adjustment to income, not a business deduction.Note: For 2010 only, qualifying health insurance premiums can also be used to reduce the amount of Social Security tax due on self-employment income. You claim this tax break using line 3 of the Schedule SE; the income tax break is claimed using line 29 of the Form 1040

Special fuels credits. Producers of special fuels, such as alcohol fuels, low-sulfur diesel, fuel from nonconventional sources and from biodiesel, can claim tax credits.

Startup costs. You can deduct up to $5,000 of the cost of starting up a new business in the year the business is launched. Startup costs also can be amortized over a 60-month period.

Supplies. The cost of office supplies, such as paper, pens, notebooks, file folders, paperclips, scissors, rubber bands, appointment books, desk calendars and blank CD-ROMs can be deducted.

Tax paid on employee tips. Restaurants can claim a tax credit equal to the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid on tips that exceed the portion of tips treated as part of the servers' minimum wage.

Taxes and licenses. You can deduct the cost of Social Security tax and Medicare tax on employees' wages, as well as personal property taxes. Self-employed workers can deduct 50% of the Social Security and Medicare taxes they pay on their earnings.

Telephone. The cost of a telephone and long-distance calls for your business can be deducted, unless you operate out of your home and have only one phone line. In that case, you can deduct only the costs of separately billed long-distance calls.

Travel. The cost of travel overnight away from home can be deducted, including the cost of lodging, laundry and dry cleaning, tips to porters, and fees for fax services and Internet connections. You can also deduct 50% of the cost of your meals while on business travel away from home.

Utilities. The cost of utilities for your business is deductible, including electricity, gas, propane, heating oil, water and sewer fees.

Vehicle expenses. For 2010, deductions for vehicles driven for business can be claimed at 50 cents per mile. Add the cost of parking and tolls to the standard mileage amount. Alternatively, the actual cost of operating the vehicle, including fuel, repairs, insurance and depreciation can be claimed. For 2011, the standard mileage rate is 51 cents per mile.

Wages. Wages paid to employees are a deductible business expense.

Work opportunity and Welfare-to-Work credits. Employers are allowed to claim a tax credit for hiring members of disadvantaged groups, such as welfare recipients.

Read more at http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T054-C000-S001-business-expense-tax-deductions.html#As7g4u6qAUZOU566.99

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ObamaCrap on 11/17/2013 21:08:05 MST Print View

I said a business can write off all its expenses

You gave a list of a bunch of expenses that can be written off, that's pretty close to "all" in my book

Seems like we're saying the same thing

What's an expense a business can't write off? I know there are some restrictions on entertaining, like "the three martini lunch". I think that's pretty insignificant and probably reasonable.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/17/2013 23:26:25 MST Print View

No, Jerry, it can't write off all it's expenses. Close enough is not all. LOL.
What you consider “ordinary and necessary” may differ from what an auditor’s definition, or what the tax code has specifically allowed.

Commuting Expense is incurred when you drive from your home to your place of business. This is considered a personal expense and is not allowed. After all, wage earners cannot write off their commute so why should you? When you tally up your business mileage for the year, leave off this number. However, if you have a tax-deductible home office as your primary place of business, your vehicle expenses start there. You have no commute.

Fines and Penalties are not deductible. It may have been ordinary and necessary for you to speed and park illegally in order to arrive on time to an important business meeting, but those tickets aren’t deductible.

In fact, anything illegal is not deductible – this includes bribes and kickbacks. My favorite story is the one of the business owner who paid an arsonist to burn down his store for the insurance money. He sent him a 1099 and wrote off the expense. In a subsequent IRS audit, he fessed up and not only was the deduction disallowed but he also went to jail.

Life and Disability Insurance Premiums paid for yourself are not deductible as a business expense unless your business is incorporated as a C corporation. Partnerships, S Corporations, and sole proprietorships are not allowed the deduction for the owner(s) of the business.

Check with your tax pro about the discrimination rules and to find out how to properly structure employee benefits.

Professional Accreditation Fees such as those incurred to take the bar exam, get your accounting license, medical or dental license are not deductible. However, continuing education fees once initial licensing has occurred are allowed to be deducted.

Business Attire is not a deductible expense. I know you need a nice suit to impress clients, but Uncle Sam won’t allow it. You need jeans if you’re a contractor, but sorry, the IRS says those items are street wear and can be used personally. But if you need steel-toed boots or uniforms or protective gear or perhaps T-shirts for you, your employees, and favorite customers with your company name emblazoned thereon, go for it--you can write off those items.

Country Club Dues are not deductible. The IRS understands that you joined the club in order to better your image and to acquire new business. But you’re on your own with this one. In fact, memberships in health clubs, luncheon clubs, social clubs, golf clubs - any organization whose main purpose is to provide entertainment to its members or provide entertainment facilities for its members - is not deductible.

Tax Penalties incurred for failing to pay your estimated taxes timely or file your tax return timely or for substantially understating business income are not deductible. This includes tax penalties sustained with sales tax, excise tax, and payroll tax returns.

Travel Expenses for your spouse, children or any other individual are not deductible even if the person(s) is accompanying you on a business trip. You may only deduct expenses for a bona fide employee whose presence is required to achieve the business purpose of the trip.

Investment related seminars, even if you are interested in investing company funds, do not qualify as a tax deduction. Travel, meals and cost of the seminar are also not deductible.

Personal, living or family expenses are not deductible as business expenses or anywhere else on your tax return. These expenses should be paid from personal funds and kept separate from your business.

Charitable Contributions of time are not a write off. “I gave up my time and I could have billed it out for $500!” I know, I know. Even if you can assign a number to it, you can’t deduct it on your tax return. Your time means nothing to the IRS and that’s just how it translates onto the tax return.

Jerry, all this info is readily available on the IRS website. Check it out.

M

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Buffett on 11/18/2013 04:18:18 MST Print View

-Let's say a corporation makes a profit and pays a tax on it reducing the profit, and then gives some of the remaining profit as dividends to a stockholder who has to pay tax on it

-Equivalent to me making income and paying tax, and then giving some to my gardner and he has to pay tax on it.

Uhmm, so if an individual owns his corp, you think it's fine to tax his company at something close to the personal rate and then turn around and tax the leftovers he passes himself, AGAIN at the personal rate?

Can you give me a reason why a c-corp needs to be taxed anyway?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
AARP sold out the seniors on 11/18/2013 04:59:32 MST Print View

Ok, so this one took me a while to get the connection. Turds

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ObamaCrap on 11/18/2013 08:06:29 MST Print View

Okay Matt, I see your point, I see I've hit one of your nerves : )

Most business expenses are deductible. There are always going to be rules and subjectively some things are allowed and some not.

Do you really think personal, living, or family expenses should be deductible as your business? Sounds like a scam to create a "business" and then use it to deduct all your living expenses. Or you can "become" a minister of your "church". There are people in jail that tried to do that.

But that's not my point - a business can write off (most) of their expenses which is an advantage an individual doesn't have so I'm not going to feel sorry for it not having to pay tax on the remainder.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap. on 11/18/2013 11:59:12 MST Print View

a

r

r

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/18/2013 12:09:10 MST.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCare--The Truth. on 11/18/2013 12:47:26 MST Print View

t

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
I raise a little Pope Francis then. on 11/18/2013 13:08:25 MST Print View

""While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules." "

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: I raise a little Pope Francis then. on 11/18/2013 13:53:02 MST Print View

I think I'm going to become a Catholic : )

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Pope Francis. on 11/18/2013 17:51:44 MST Print View

I AM a Catholic, and the article was taken out of context and rearranged to fit the author's world views. Another case of the media putting a Socialist spin on his speeches.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/15604-media-put-socialist-spin-on-words-of-pope-francis


:)

M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/18/2013 17:57:23 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Pope Francis. on 11/18/2013 19:35:46 MST Print View

He's also talked about how it's more important to worry about poor people than abortion and gay people

He prefers living in more plain housing than the fancy places previous Catholic leaders prefered

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/18/2013 19:43:06 MST Print View

Not true at all, Jerry.

"Every child that isn't born, but is unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of Jesus Christ, has the face of the Lord," he said.

He denounced abortions as a symptom of today's "throw-away culture" and encouraged Catholic doctors to refuse to perform them. Pope Francis issued a strong anti-abortion message and cited Vatican teaching on the need to defend the unborn during an audience with Catholic gynecologists. Let's not get into this one here. We can start a new thread if you like, but please, get the facts right, will you?

On a side note...I noticed absolutely no one touched on a point I made in an earlier post about Obama having the Constitutional authority or not to change an existing law (ACA) all on his own on a whim. Why is that, hmmm? Could it be he doesn't? That he is violating the very Constitution he is sworn to uphold? Wait...that would make him...(GASP!)...a traitor??
Awwww...what difference does it make, anyway?
M

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/18/2013 19:46:30 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ObamaCrap on 11/18/2013 20:34:11 MST Print View

I didn't mean to say he was in favor of abortion, just that relatively he emphasized careing for poor more, compared to previous popes. But I didn't really listen to it much...

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap And Equality. on 11/18/2013 21:26:22 MST Print View

e

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Whoops on 11/19/2013 07:19:15 MST Print View

Student plans being cancelled and/or increasing dramatically, some as much as 10x.

This is the group the system relied on to have a prayers chance of surviving. I guess Pelosi and the Bamster didn't see this one coming either.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Pope Francis. on 11/19/2013 09:37:51 MST Print View

""While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules." "

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/may/documents/papa-francesco_20130516_nuovi-ambasciatori_en.html

This looks to be from the Pope, not some journalist.

He further says

"Ethics – naturally, not the ethics of ideology – makes it possible, in my view, to create a balanced social order that is more humane. In this sense, I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: "Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs" (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 – PG 48, 992D)."

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Pope Francis. on 11/19/2013 10:45:38 MST Print View

I think I'm going to become a Catholic : )

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/19/2013 11:32:23 MST Print View

David...i'm in agreement here. What's the point, though? I don't think anyone is saying we should not help people without healthcare, we are arguing whether or not Obamacare was the right way to do it. Not sure what you're getting at.

M

Pope Francis embraces disfigured man (covered in boils) in St. Peter’s Square:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/06/photos-pope-francis-embraces-disfigured-man-covered-in-boils/

pope

I know, I know, Jerry...you think you're going to convert to Catholicism......

Edited by bigfoot2 on 11/19/2013 11:36:50 MST.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/19/2013 14:35:34 MST Print View

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBwGZO9Thq4

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: ObamaCrap on 11/19/2013 21:51:17 MST Print View

Instead of so much vitriol and criticism from the tea party and anarchists here, can I please hear a suggestion or two about what you would have rather had for health care reform? Obviously the current system is not sustainable, nor fair. So what would you prefer?

I wanted real socialized medicine - basically Medicare for all - with private insurance covering extras and boutique care and cosmetic stuff...whatever you wanted to pay for.

So instead of just calling Barak Obama names, and posting silly internet memes, how about any idea at all about what you would rather have seen?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap on 11/19/2013 21:54:54 MST Print View

Jennifer,
c

Yup...describes your views perfectly. Carry on.

M

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: ObamaCrap on 11/19/2013 23:08:16 MST Print View

To answer your question seriously, when Republicans are asked, they say, first repeal Obamacare, then negotiate a replacement.

One advantage to that argument, is they don't have to agree on what that replacement is.

If the Republicans, among themselves, talked specifics, they wouldn't agree. It's much easier to agree that they don't like Obamacare.

If the Republicans did propose anything specific, then you could criticize the specifics and people might not like it. People may decide Obamacare is actually better. Or "Medicare for all". Again, much easier to agree that Obamacare is no good.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
ObamaCrap Alternatives--Conservative/Libertarian Perspective. on 11/20/2013 02:10:46 MST Print View

"So instead of just calling Barak Obama names, and posting silly internet memes, how about any idea at all about what you would rather have seen?"

Oh, were you being serious, Jennifer? LOL OK. Here's my 5 step idea of a better solution:

1) Repeal Obamacare:
There is a precedent for repealing highly unpopular and misguided laws: the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. Recently, more than 70 percent of Missouri residents rejected a key provision of Obamacare­ ,the requirement that individuals purchase a health insurance plan designed and approved by government bureaucrats. The House of Representatives even voted recently to repeal one provision of Obamacare that will impose draconian paperwork requirements on millions of small businesses. The easiest way to address all these grievances: repeal Obamacare.

2) Promote Personal Control Through Tax Equity:
Today, workers who purchase coverage through their employer receive an unlimited tax break on the value of their health care benefits. However, those who purchase coverage on their own receive no comparable tax break. Ideally, the current tax exclusion should be replaced (or at the very least capped) with a system of universal tax credits for taxpayers. Medicaid and SCHIP spending should also be redirected to help low-income individuals and families purchase private health insurance

3) Fix Current Government Health Programs:
Medicare should be reformed into a defined-contribution system in which the government provides a contribution for benefits and seniors are able to apply their contribution to the health plan that suits them best.

4) Promote Federal/State Partnerships:
A one-size-fits-all federal solution cannot accommodate the unique and diverse health care challenges facing the states. The federal government should promote interstate commerce in health insurance, extend certain protections for those who maintain continuous coverage, and provide states with technical assistance and relief from federal rules that inhibit innovation.

5) Provide Portability:
Individuals, not the government, should be able to choose the health coverage that best suits their needs. To accomplish this, private health insurance must be portable--that is, owned by Americans so they can take their package from job to job.

There is no better symbol for the overreach of the progressive socialized medicine movement into the daily lives of all Americans than Obamacare.

r

Another good set of conservative, common sense solutions can be seen here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363189/conservative-alternative-obamacare-nina-owcharenko

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Nice try Matt on 11/20/2013 08:02:13 MST Print View

Not only is it your fault (that it's failing and, all the others that were opposed to oh care) that people will be dying today because they can't afford the flu shots or row-tater surgey, but you can't come up with a solution. I think maybe you should use bullet points, and a title... Yes, if you had a title, then that would be a plan.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ObamaCrap Alternatives--Conservative/Libertarian Perspective. on 11/20/2013 08:03:16 MST Print View

If Medicare is defined contribution, then it's like the government throws up it's hands, gives people some money, and it's up to them to get health care.

As costs continue to escalate, the government is fine, they continue to pay that amount, but the people have to pay more and more out of pocket.

You need to address the ever increasing cost of health care.


I agree, having employers pay for health insurance doesn't make a lot of sense, but again, the individuals will then be stuck with ever increasing costs. Now, employers are motivated to fix this problem.

And employers will quit paying for health care, fine, but they probably won't direct that amount towards higher wages so the employee can afford it. That could just turn into a big gift for big employers.


Better to have a tax like social security. An employee portion and an employer portion, or if you're self employed you have to pay both. Medicare for all.

You could still have health insurance companies administer it. Like with Medicare part D for prescriptions, and I think most people have a Medicare Plus insurance policy.

Have copays to encourage people not to over-use.

Take programs that work, like the Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic that have recommendations for which treatments are effective and cost effective. If you say "government bureaucrats" enough people will be fearful, but if you say "doctors based on data to show what really works", maybe it will make more sense. "Death panels" is a another good term if you want people to be fearful.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: ObamaCrap Alternatives--Conservative/Libertarian Perspective. on 11/20/2013 08:15:08 MST Print View

"You need to address the ever increasing cost of health care."

Jerry, I read this part twice.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: ObamaCrap Alternatives--Conservative/Libertarian Perspective. on 11/20/2013 10:00:54 MST Print View

"You need to address the ever increasing cost of health care."

Jerry, I read this part twice."


Do you have a solution?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Solution on 11/20/2013 10:47:51 MST Print View

Yes. Not much different from Matts to start. It will be the most efficient when the patient pays the Dr.

Edited by BFThorp on 11/20/2013 10:50:39 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Solution on 11/20/2013 10:52:50 MST Print View

I don't see how capping federal medicare payment does anything to control increases in health care cost.

It will control the federal portion, but the individual will have to pick up anything the feds save.

Or if you move health care from employer to employee, same thing.

If an individual can deduct from income for taxes, that would save a little, but then cost of health care would continue to rise. And only a few people have individual insurance.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Rising hot air... on 11/20/2013 14:22:12 MST Print View

Jerry,

A friend of mine recently paid, out of pocket, or maybe from his HSA, I don't remember which.... for a scan of some sort, cat, MRI, again fuzzy on this too. He knew he was going to have the procedure done so he did some shopping. The second estimate was $1,000 less than the first at $3k. When he went to pay he asked what the cash discount would be? He got them down to about $1,500.

If the tab would have been picked up by his insurer, I can promise you he would have made only the one call.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Rising hot air... on 11/20/2013 16:03:08 MST Print View

That makes logical sense Fred, I agree with you, good for the patient to have "skin in the game".

I was taking an expensive blood pressure medicine. Copay went up to $60 a month. That motivated me to switch to cheap generic. Now it's $4 a month which is so cheap I get 6 month supply and pay out of pocket.

A lot of times care is urgent and you don't have time to shop.

An insurance company would be in a better position to shop for the cheapest rate.

Some people have a hard time figuring out how to negotiate.

A lot of times the MRI isn't required, just done to be defensive. If there were better defined protocols that say when a MRI is justified it would help doctors say no.

The reasons health care is so expensive are many and there's no one simple solution.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Protocol on 11/20/2013 16:42:19 MST Print View

Jerry, protocols defined by who exactly? This is why you and I don't think alike and will probably never agree on much of this. The dr needs to make the call with the consent of the patient (considering the expense), not the inusurer, or risk management. It ain't rockit surgery

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Protocol on 11/20/2013 18:36:01 MST Print View

For example, the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic have both been leaders in defining protocols.

By doctors. Using data from patients.

It says what treatment is most effective, but the doctor still uses his judgement for specific cases.

And constantly look at your data to update the protocols.

Sort of like how they've improved quality of manufacturing automobiles or airplanes.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
bending the curve on 11/29/2013 16:59:40 MST Print View

Nothing in the article is a suprise. No mention of the net effect either... again no suprise.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Random on 11/29/2013 17:36:39 MST Print View

Pretty hard to see any cause and effect, Krugman is south of 9 o'clock when it comes to being a liberal. If there was even a glimmer of direct correlation, he'd be all over it. He didn't even try that hard in the editorial. He must be pissed that he wasn't invited to the WH for media "pep talk" a couple of weeks ago.

With all the delays, poor enrollment, and other disasters, it's hard to believe ACA has meet any financial goals.

The liberal talking heads are trying to change the discussion from web site disaster, dropped policies, lost doctors, and rising rates to future happy, happy.

Good luck

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Random on 11/29/2013 18:48:37 MST Print View

Ken is for skyrocketing costs if it's bad for Obama and Democrats and supports the position he has staked out : )


Unfortunately, it's too late though:

"Still, the facts are striking. Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita — that is, total spending adjusted for overall inflation and population growth — has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average."


And, like Krugman said, there are other parts of Obamacare that will further cut cost increases:

"And the biggest savings may be yet to come. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel with the power to impose cost-saving measures (subject to Congressional overrides) if Medicare spending grows above target, hasn’t yet been established, in part because of the near-certainty that any appointments to the board would be filibustered by Republicans yelling about “death panels.” Now that the filibuster has been reformed, the board can come into being."

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Obamacare on 11/30/2013 11:46:52 MST Print View

"So you are all for Skyrocketing medical costs then apparently............."

Me? I’m trying to look at some of these positives with a dose of reality. Related - cause / effect, and sustainability, I’m not getting a warm fuzzy. Net effect? If we hypothetically spend $100M to decrease the “cost” of the school lunch program, and the cost is reduced by $50M… would it be fair to say someone got screwed?

Once again, don’t confuse coverage, with cost and be careful what you wish for. Cost alone is probably not something I’d personally be asking for.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Not ready to pull the trigger on 12/02/2013 15:23:13 MST Print View

Thought I had a plan sorted out, but new information came out about which hospitals and doctors are in the network, IE covered. This reduced the number of plans available locally from 38 to about 4 and down to just two insurance providers. Plus the WA state web site is not working right now to compare anything.

It does look to me like there was too many changes too fast, in addition to all the push back from the extreme sides of things.

I suppose I should talk to a broker, since there is no real tax advantage to using the exchange for me.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Not ready to pull the trigger on 12/02/2013 16:26:53 MST Print View

Talk to the two insurance companies. Ask them specifics like if your doctor and hospital are covered.

My problems have been with insurance company. They said on the phone that my plan was cancelled, and that they sent me a letter, but I never received it. First time I'de find out is when the bill didn't arrive Dec 15 for January, and then it would be too late.

And they said they'de send me the application forms for a new plan, twice, but never did. So I just printed on my crappy printer that works barely good enough to read, but that was good enough.

Yeah, a big change like this will be chaotic, but if you delayed it, then it would be chaotic then. Let's just "bite the bullet" and eventually it will be over with.

If you don't qualify for tax subsidy, then just contact insurance company directly. Look at insurance company web site. Talk to them on phone. Print out application, fill it in, mail it to them. You will benefit from Obamacare because they don't have pre-existing conditions anymore so approval is automatic as long as you remember to fill in address, sign it, etc.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
ongoing saga on 12/03/2013 09:46:22 MST Print View

Finally WA web site up. However after 45 minutes of data input to buy insurance, they won't accept my email address as it only has 2 letters before the @ sign. So I called them, went through 9 "press this number" selections then told lines are busy, call back.

In addition, my Doctor works at two clinics owned by the same corp. My insurance would cover seeing him at one clinic but is out of network for the other?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: ongoing saga on 12/03/2013 10:02:43 MST Print View

If you don't qualify for tax credit or subsidy, go directly with company, then you'll avoid WA exchange problems

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Might need coverage on 12/03/2013 11:07:39 MST Print View

Talked with a broker. Need to use the online due to some possible job changes on the horizon. So I made an email alias and tried to sign up again. The server is too slow and times out now. Might need to sign up after midnight to get on.

Silver plan seems to be the best bang for buck. Lower deductible than I have now by $5300 and premium $170 less (without any tax credits).

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Root Cause on 12/03/2013 11:10:22 MST Print View

Unfortunately, it's too late though:

"Still, the facts are striking. Since 2010, when the act was passed, real health spending per capita — that is, total spending adjusted for overall inflation and population growth — has risen less than a third as rapidly as its long-term average."

Jerry I thought you were an engineer. What direct actions in the law caused the reduction? Anything?

I think the passage of ACA caused sunspots and hurricanes to be reduced to record lows.

Or maybe it's why the Seahawks are undefeated at home or maybe...........

Jeepers

Having everybody call the insurance companies is sure driving down the cost curve.

The biggest fix for Healthcare.gov is a "virtual waiting room" to keep it from crashing. Seems prophetic for what's to come if and when the law is ever implemented.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Root Cause on 12/03/2013 15:23:16 MST Print View

Yeah - the Seahawks are amazing. I sort of like Pete Carol's story. I kind of have a problem with watching football though, because the players are subject to head and other injuries and then their life is ruined. Something wrong with entertaining people at the players expense. My neighbor played with L.A. Rams and died of brain cancer which was probably because of football. But I have ignored this internal conflict up to now.

Yes, I am an electrical engineer, which is why I can see things more clearly : )

"What direct actions in the law caused the reduction? Anything?"

In Krugman's article he mentioned a couple.

Medicare penalizes hospitals if too many of their patients are readmitted, and readmition rates have fallen substantially.

Medicare encourages shifting from fee-for-service where compensation is for specific procedures, to "accountable care" where they get rewarded for over-all success in improving care and reducing costs.

Both of these also affect non Medicare.

Another reason for reduction in costs is the expiration of a number of blockbuster drugs like Lipitor, which actually isn't more effective than other statins so all the money Pfizer made was just a rip-off. This has nothing to do with Obamacare. But that is exactly what we should be doing to reduce medical costs - don't get scammed into wasting a bunch of money on some heavily marketed drug or procedure that actually isn't any more effective than cheaper versions or nothing.

"And the biggest savings may be yet to come. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel with the power to impose cost-saving measures (subject to Congressional overrides)...". But that makes you nervous.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
WA Health Finder down for days on 12/06/2013 12:10:33 MST Print View

Been trying for several days. Web site keeps going down.

If was foolish of the gubermint to make everyone go through the web site instead of regular brokers.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
"You can keep your Dr." on 12/09/2013 10:26:41 MST Print View

Apparently the president forgot to include the fine print part of this promise. What he meant to say was, if you want to go out of your "network" and pay for it out of pocket.

I hope the people that voted for this tard and continue to defend his policies, get exactly what they deserve.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: "You can keep your Dr." on 12/09/2013 10:37:26 MST Print View

When I selected my new, Obamacare policy, I made sure my doctor was in network

I hope the people that are constantly whining get exactly what they deserve, good healthcare at reasonable cost, because that's what we all deserve : )

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: WA Health Finder down for days on 12/09/2013 11:50:35 MST Print View

Web site still down. Isn't looking like I will have insurance for the new year,

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: "You can keep your Dr." on 12/09/2013 13:09:55 MST Print View

Jerry, the NYTimes is reporting double premiums and triple deductibles as the norm, not the exception. Care to comment?

Edited by BFThorp on 12/09/2013 13:13:00 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: "You can keep your Dr." on 12/09/2013 13:37:18 MST Print View

Not possible to comment on that non-specific statement

My premium maybe went down 10%, trying to do apples to apples

95% of the people are unaffected

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: "You can keep your Dr." on 12/09/2013 14:18:59 MST Print View

"95% of the people are unaffected"

Where did that number come from?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "You can keep your Dr." on 12/09/2013 15:22:09 MST Print View

our president

Medicare, Medicaid, people that have insurance from their employer

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "You can keep your Dr." on 12/09/2013 19:57:58 MST Print View

"our president

Medicare, Medicaid, people that have insurance from their employer"

Haha...Luckily I didn't have a mouth full of coffee when I read that.

Medicare has already been hit but the employer portion is going to be the real FUBAR. 95% is , well... a guy told me once, "if your going to tell a lie, you might as well tell a whopper".

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: WA Health Finder down for days on 12/09/2013 22:17:20 MST Print View

"Web site still down. Isn't looking like I will have insurance for the new year"

That would be too bad. If a lot of people don't get health insurnace (or health care?) because of Obamacare then it would be a failure.

All this B.S. about signing up is relatively unimportant.

It'll really take a few years to start evaluating whether more people are getting more care, and at what cost. And you have to consider cost against the historical increases in healthcare - if costs increase but less than what has happened recently it could be considered some sort of success. Like if it increased at the same rate as the CPI.

Since you said you don't qualify for subsidy or tax credit, did you try going directly to insurance company?

And if you're not in time for January 1, maybe you'll be able to start January 15 or February 1 or something?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Deductible shock on 12/10/2013 06:02:03 MST Print View

WSJ: bronze plan deductibles over $5k or typically up near 45%
The real sticker shock will come next cycle when your premiums adjust.

Jerry you don't have to wait several years to see you've been hosed. The more I learn about this deal, the more I think it is probably going as planned.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Deductible shock on 12/10/2013 07:37:42 MST Print View

I don't have to wait several years, I get the same plan, except 10% cheaper. Same $30 co-pay, my colonoscopy will actually be $15 cheaper.

Now, maybe a year from now and two years from now rates will readjust. But that will be difficult to interpret because it's been going up much faster than inflation over the years.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Brokers? on 12/10/2013 09:44:18 MST Print View

The list of brokers is on the down web site. The state phone number is not taking calls to ask about brokers. The two broker numbers they gave me last week are not returning calls. This is one big clusterbox.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Brokers? on 12/10/2013 10:05:36 MST Print View

If there is a particular company you like, call them directly

Or call several and compare prices

My logic was to just stay with the company I had before, and my wife and mom have a Medicare Advantage plan with and they seem okay. Providence. Maybe how they handle claims is more important than who has a price that's a bit less.

Kaiser is rated pretty good, but you have to go to Kaiser doctors

Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield is pretty good.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Navigator on 12/10/2013 10:34:16 MST Print View

Jerry,

You should become a Navigator, get a desk, Big Chief tablet, #2 pencil and the Yellow Pages, away we go. Oh yeah, cordless phone with headset. I'm not sure if you need to know Morse Code as a backup.

After 2 months of service, you'll get a copy of Web Sites for Dummies signed by Karen and Barrack.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Navigator on 12/10/2013 11:13:24 MST Print View

What's a Navigator? : )

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Navigator on 12/10/2013 13:52:06 MST Print View

My plan costs 50% less than my employee portion of my blue cross blue shield plan from my previous employer. My deductible is the same. Doctors are different because I'm in a different state now...so I can't argue with that. My very expensive medication is covered with no copay.

Seems like a great deal to me.

Ian B.
(IDBLOOM) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Navigator on 12/10/2013 13:59:26 MST Print View

"What's a Navigator? : )"

Well Jerry, it's a fictional character from the Dune series who consumes large quantities of spice and becomes mutated. Or it's something completely different and then I really don't know.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Navigator on 12/10/2013 14:09:21 MST Print View

(I'm just playing straight man to Ken's joke)

Dune - I want one of those suits that recycles all your perspiration

Jennifer and I are fictional characters planted by Obama, we're actually bots...

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Navigator on 12/10/2013 14:16:53 MST Print View

"My plan costs 50% less than my employee portion of my blue cross blue shield plan from my previous employer. My deductible is the same. Doctors are different because I'm in a different state now...so I can't argue with that. My very expensive medication is covered with no copay.

Seems like a great deal to me."

Please keep me updated over the next 12 months.

I have no doubt, some will benefit from this deal. Collectively, we're screwed. There is no way around it.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Navigator on 12/10/2013 14:23:48 MST Print View

or, collectively we'll be better off, even if some people are a little worse

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Navigator on 12/10/2013 15:30:02 MST Print View

Well Ken and Fred, this is what is going to happen over the next 12 months:

I'm going to be able to work fewer hours, make more money, have good insurance, work on the entrepreneurial project I've always wanted to start but never was able because I have to have insurance and no one would sell it to me, teach, research, treat patients, spend time with my niece, and travel. All thanks to ObamaCare. Because literally none of this would be able to happen without it.



It must be nice to know you're so much smarter than Nobel winning economists and health policy experts that you can predict with stunning accuracy how the world is going to end because most of us will now have affordable health insurance. Ah, the pressures you must have!!

Edited by Jenmitol on 12/10/2013 17:55:43 MST.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Historically on 12/10/2013 16:38:43 MST Print View

Ah yes the "collective", from a historical perspective, everybody suffers more.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Historically on 12/10/2013 18:08:00 MST Print View

That Communist Fred is who used the word "collective" : )

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Navigator on 12/11/2013 15:15:52 MST Print View

"It must be nice to know you're so much smarter than Nobel winning economists and health policy experts that you can predict with stunning accuracy how the world is going to end because most of us will now have affordable health insurance."

As it turns out, I don't expect the world to end. I expect this legislation to benefit me financially more than I could have ever expected. Didn't Al The internet Gore win a Nobel prize for something? Again, you can't add layers of bureaucrats to a process and expect it to become more efficient or cheaper. It's never worked and I'm guessing this won't be any different.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Navigator on 12/11/2013 15:42:10 MST Print View

"Al the internet Gore"

One of those taken out of context comments that the right wingers repeat ad nauseum in an attempt to make Al Gore seem like a delusional exhagerator

He pushed the bill through the congress that created the internet, so he did create the internet. He wasn't a software engineer or anything but he was a technical expert on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology has a pretty fair description

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Al Gore on 12/11/2013 19:07:32 MST Print View

I thought Al Gore invented Global Warming.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Al Gore on 12/11/2013 20:07:16 MST Print View

no, all of us consuming energy are inventing global warming

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Al Gore on 12/12/2013 07:58:01 MST Print View

"I thought Al Gore invented Global Warming."

No, he's just profiting off it mightily while contributing to it greatly.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Navigator on 12/12/2013 08:58:37 MST Print View

"One of those taken out of context comments that the right wingers repeat ad nauseum in an attempt to make Al Gore seem like a delusional exhagerator"

Don't worry, my left wing liberal buddies use it too. We all concluded he's a nozzle. If you, or anyone here is a Gore fan, and are offended by my comments, I dont apologize. He's the lowest form.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Navigator on 12/12/2013 09:22:10 MST Print View

I'm not a huge Al Gore fan, but his heart is in the right place.

I don't think his style or appearance or whatever appeals to many people.

One problem is he grew up wealthy so he'll say things that are ridiculous to the masses, sort of like Barbara Bush saying that those homeless people in New Orleans are better off in that sports stadium because they have a place to stay. Like he says that he has offset all the CO2 his mansion produces.

In his "hockey stick" graph, if you look at it with magnifying glass, you can see it warmed up, then the CO2 went up. That graph shows that if it warms up, then CO2 levels will rise, which is an important concept, but doesn't really show what will happen if you release CO2 into the atmosphere. But it does show that there is a positive feedback mechanism - if you release CO2 and if this increases temperature, then the CO2 will rise even more which will increase temperature even more. But that's too complicated. But he shouldn't go out and say what he says, that this proves that releasing CO2 will increase temperature. Better to find something to say that's scientifically correct even if the details are too complicated to go into. But that's a different chaff thread...

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
I totally agree on 12/12/2013 11:39:02 MST Print View

I think the divorce rate is correlated also, but not violent crime... at least in the sates.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: I totally agree on 12/12/2013 11:44:34 MST Print View

uh oh - dementia is setting in...

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Re: I totally agree on 12/12/2013 18:52:37 MST Print View

Umm... are we still talking about Obamacare??

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: I totally agree on 12/12/2013 19:13:25 MST Print View

no - Ken, Fred, and I are just internet trolls with too much time on our hands : )

Ken and Fred say "Jerry, Speak!" so I dutifully speak.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Politifact on 12/13/2013 07:53:56 MST Print View

Uh oh, Politifact said Obama "you can keep your insurance" statement is the #1 lie of the year:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-readers-poll-results-2013/

But they did acknowledge that only estimated 2% of people got cancellations so maybe statement was 98% correct? And I'm one of those people but I got a plan slightly better so maybe 1% of people couldn't keep their policy if they wanted it?

They also said the Obama response was botched. They said people took statement out of context, etc. rather than 'fessing up.

#2 lie - Cruz - "Congress is exempt from Obamacare" - that's the opposite of what really happened

#3 lie - Bachmann - "IRS will keep a database of healthcare secrets" - crazy talk

#4 lie - Ann Coulter - "No American trained doctor will accept Obamacare" - crazy talk

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: I totally agree on 12/13/2013 11:01:15 MST Print View

Totally crap. Not a troll...can't speak for Ken.

Yea, and Obama wasn't really lying as much as neglecting accuracy and lacking full disclosure.

It doesn't matter anymore.

Edited by BFThorp on 12/13/2013 11:15:12 MST.

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday? on 12/13/2013 11:11:15 MST Print View

d


f

Edited by bigfoot2 on 12/14/2013 09:51:44 MST.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Faked out. on 12/15/2013 10:25:33 MST Print View

It's time to turn selfish and say I hope democrats keep this thing on the front page... just two more years. I'm beginning to dig this obamster guy.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Age discrimination in the ACA on 12/16/2013 09:18:23 MST Print View

For those 55 and older, those getting the mandated insurance through Medicaid will have to pay back the cost after death. For them the insurance isn't free, it is just a loan.

"The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs, Prins said."

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022469957_medicaidrecoveryxml.html

So it isn't free, you independent Tea Total'ers, and it's discriminatory you soft hearted Libs.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022469957_medicaidrecoveryxml.html

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
It's finally here on 01/01/2014 07:10:49 MST Print View

Nobody I work with has insurance now.

Jennifer Mitol
(Jenmitol) - M

Locale: In my dreams....
Re: It's finally here on 01/01/2014 12:32:24 MST Print View

Why not? I have insurance through Blue Cross that's much cheaper than I had before, and I'm not getting any subsidy. And I have dental. And it's not through my work, so I can keep this dream job I have. Seems pretty darned awesome to me.

Did you or your coworkers even bother to look at what was available on the exchanges? My mother, who lost her job just 2 years before her retirement, was able to get a gold plan for $17/month.

Or did you just keep complaining because you can't possibly entertain the idea that maybe you are wrong........

Ryan Smith
(ViolentGreen) - F

Locale: Southeast
Re: Re: It's finally here on 01/01/2014 13:16:42 MST Print View

My mother lost her job 2 yrs ago when the local hospital shut down. So of course she lost her insurance as well. Guess what, no one wants to hire a 61 yr old with only a high school education especially in a county with 19% unemployment. Therefore