Forum Index » Chaff » Tea Party Haters


Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 20:57:59 MDT Print View

"It's been there for Seniors since the 60's. It's called Medicare. Why not just expand it to everyone and use a well tested system that works?"

What about when a company pays for health care already?

Then the employee will have to start paying more SS-like tax and the company will save a bunch. Will they pay the employee more to make up for it?

Or if a company isn't paying for health care currently?

The transition would be messy but it would be possible.

Only problem is, politically it'll never happen because the people that have bought our government will never agree to it...

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 21:03:43 MDT Print View

@ "Let's assume services don't decline and we have a single insurer."

A heck of an assumption- it's not a single insurer...And I'm still not sure where your worry about declining services originates. But, to continue...
>>>single insurer, multiple, the result is the same-- declining services, higher deductibles, etc. can all decrease the cost. Don't be fooled by lower premiums alone.


;If the insured youngsters are supporting the elderly, so to speak, and we add high risk- pre existing individuals to the pool, it's going to statistically increase the payout, which will cause the premiums to adjust upwards."

One could easily argue that adding in the healthy people balances the cost
>>> again why would they? With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now.

Edited by BFThorp on 10/25/2013 21:20:49 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 21:20:14 MDT Print View

"With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now."

Fred, Fred, Fred,...

I hate agreeing with you but that is the math

I guess we have to see how the sign-ups actually are

If a young person opts out, then breaks a bunch of bones or gets cancer then they'll be screwed until the next sign-up period. Hopefully having coverage in case that happens will be enough of a motivation. If young people only subsidize older people a little it might help.

And it should be transparent.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 21:25:12 MDT Print View

"With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now."

Fred, Fred, Fred,...

I hate agreeing with you



Jerry... welcome to the dark side my friend.

Edited to add: ^ not a racist comment (for the tea party hater crowd)

Edited by BFThorp on 10/26/2013 06:56:40 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/25/2013 21:46:03 MDT Print View

just trying to fool Kat into thinking I'm objective : )

Maybe she'll make me chaff president again

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"Tea Party Haters" on 10/25/2013 23:13:24 MDT Print View

Hey Tom I'll bite! As you might imagine I don't like the idea but don't own a flamethrower.

MediCare doesn't pay doctors enough to stay in business. Other revenue streams from other payers subsidizes Medicare patients. IF it's all Medicare who will subsidize that?

Also - boring broken record here - but why don't we get really serious about going after fraud right now?

Plus I'm not a fan of the central control aspect. We see more choice, better quality and lower costs in many different markets all the time. Cars are better and cheaper with more options available than ever before. We have inexpensive devices in our pockets that the Jetsons could never have even have even imagined. In the health care field Lasik and plastic surgery have become cheaper and better over time. Why don't we encourage this proven line of thinking?

Has the botched exchange rollout given any of the big government folks pause? I don't think the guys in charge are dopes because they couldn't get the website together. I knew they couldn't do that. I think their dopes because they claim they didn't know it wasn't going to work right up until it didn't. Sebelius says she didn't tell Obama they were experiencing problems. Epic mismanagement.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
"Tea Party Haters" on 10/25/2013 23:21:09 MDT Print View

Was it posited back there somewhere among all those 1s and 0s that preventive care was going to save money? The evidence regarding that is mixed at best.

Please note - That doesn't mean it's not a good idea! Just that it's not a given that it saves money.

Here's the math. The number of people experiencing large health bills at any given is a relatively small percentage. If everyone consumes preventive care the cost of the preventive care might very well be larger than the sick care. Or maybe it's break even or we come out ahead. But it's unlikely to be a major contributor to a reduction in costs.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 07:26:56 MDT Print View

and why would I want one party?

Kat, what is your political leanings......seems you dislike both parties. Is that assumption correct? And if so, do you side with Libertarianism?

It seems that some of you values do fall in line with that thinking

Edited by kennyhel77 on 10/26/2013 07:31:04 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: How many times must I tell you that it is subsidized? on 10/26/2013 09:58:25 MDT Print View

@ ">>>single insurer, multiple, the result is the same-- declining services, higher deductibles, etc. can all decrease the cost. Don't be fooled by lower premiums alone."

'OMG EVERTHING IS GOING TO COLLAPSE!' This sounds an awful lot like merely regurgitating the sensationalist party line. Were do you keep getting this declining services claptrap? A Tea Party website? The ACA sets better minimum standards for coverage, so services will be much more comprehensive now. On average people will get more 'services.' How does that reduce my ability to perform a competent colectomy?

@ "One could easily argue that adding in the healthy people balances the cost
>>> again why would they? With insurers forced to take high risk individuals, and spreading that expense among the pool, a young healthy person has even less incentive to play the insurance game now."

Again, why wouldn't they? If you are allowed to arbitrarily endorse the absolute worst possibilities at every turn them I'm certainly allowed to propose that it might at least break even. You're being sensationalist again. Say, here's a thought- why don't we actually wait a bit and see if it works out?

@ others.

Yes, it is possible as things are now for a young healthy person to game the system. They could decide to pay the small penalty rather than buy insurance, and only buy the insurance if they get sick (since pre-existing conditions cannot be disqualifying anymore). They might have to wait until the next sign-up period to get the insurance but until then they are still going to get medical care under COBRA, thus forcing you and I to pay for it, again. This is one of those problems with the ACA that needs to be fixed that people have been mentioning. Still, most people are smart enough to figure out that paying for something is better than paying for nothing, even if you bay a bit less for the nothing.

My mind boggles at how Fred et al can possibly think that this is a GOOD thing. It's basically the system that we have now- the insured pay for the medical care of the uninsured, in an extremely inefficient manner, at the highest possible markup, including for all the urgent care that could easily be prevented.

Wow. Yeah. That's clearly a better system, isn't it? *sarcasm*

For the ACA to work well and provide the best for everyone at lowest cost we need to have as many people participate as possible- this isn't any sort of revelation, I've been saying it all along. Also all along I've been saying that it is far from perfect- which it is. But 'imperfect' is a far cry from the unmitigated disaster that the Tea Partiers and other fanatics would have us believe. The stuff they claim is simply farcical. 30 minutes on FackCheck.org should convince any rational person of that. Have you taken your own advice yet, Fred? I'd love to know what you think of what FactCheck and PolitiFact have to say about all the anti-ACA distortions that the radical right is putting out. :)

But no, you will never take your own advice on this issue. It would cause you far too much cognitive dissonace.

@ "Was it posited back there somewhere among all those 1s and 0s that preventive care was going to save money? The evidence regarding that is mixed at best."

It's only 'mixed' because you're looking at 'evidence' being presented from the two radical elements on opposite sides. Look at the stuff put out by the CBO, Rand, KFF and other nonpartisan groups. I have to say that from an admittedly totally empirical point of view, given the stuff I've seen comprehensive preventive care HAS to save money. Frex- occasional visits to a nurse practitioner to tweak a diabetic's insulin dose is one hell of a lot cheaper that treating her for DKA every other month. (Of course, some diabetics are so brittle that they'll still get DKA every other month...)

EDIT-- Is someone named 'Kat' commenting? I'm not seeing any such posts.

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:12:03 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:01:35 MDT Print View

Kat jumps on liberals with the slightest bit of provocation

Like when I was critical of Ratigan blaming just Obama, she said I thought Obama was awesome : )

And she jumped on Jennifer without justification

I haven't seen that with conservatives or libertarians, but I am biased, maybe I just don't remember that

But I don't mean that with any ill feelings towards Kat. We all have biases. And since she nominated me chaff president she will always be dear to me. And she does cool knitting : )

Don't you have a Russian background Kat? I have noticed Russians are libertarian. I used to work with a number of them. Maybe a reaction to the insanity of Communism.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Kat? on 10/26/2013 10:07:34 MDT Print View

But where is 'Kat' posting? I'm not seeing any posts, here. That's what I'm saying. Or is this sort of like when I call Rog out, even when he isn't posting?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:10:55 MDT Print View

I didn't quite say that correctly

Ratigan did not blame just Obama

He said the solution was just Obama and was critical of Obama for not doing that

When actually the solution has to include many people - especially all of us for letting them get away with purchasing the government by wasting all our energy worrying about the Tea Party, abortion, gay people,...

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Kat? on 10/26/2013 10:11:56 MDT Print View

Kat = Katrina

I'm not sure whether you're serious or making humour : )

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Kat? on 10/26/2013 10:13:02 MDT Print View

No humor. I'll try to be explicit: I am not seeing any posts from Kat or Katrina on the past few pages of this thread. Way back at the beginning I see a couple from Katharina, but that's it. Did I somehow accidentally filter them out or something? If so, it'd be neat to know how I did that- I could filter out Matt. :)

Or did I just have my first schizophrenic break at an unusually advanced age?

EDIT-- Ah, I see more from Katharina. I think that's who you must be talking about. I think I got thrown because you're responding to posts from a while ago. From the timestamps it looks like she and I were posting at the same time, too, so I think I never saw them. My bad.

Does she jump on liberals? I actually thought that she WAS a liberal, from some of the other stuff I've seen her post.

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:24:02 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:23:00 MDT Print View

@Ken
You asked me this exact question before and then were unhappy with the answer, remember? I told you to ask me where I stand on any issue, as I do not side with any party. I cannot vote here and that actually freed up my thinking.
Then you repeatedly were going yo get back to me and others and never do. You just come back with memes, Matt style, and rants. Then you promise to get back when questions get tough, in the morning......but you never do.

Dave Stoller
(BreakingAway)
OCare on 10/26/2013 10:27:51 MDT Print View

"It's only 'mixed' because you're looking at 'evidence' being presented from the two radical elements on opposite sides. Look at the stuff put out by the CBO.."

You don't know what evidence I'm looking at. You think the CBO is non-partisan? You know how they work, right?

Preventive care may very well save money but I don't think the delta will be as great as you do. I think the concept of preventive care is a good one, I just don't assign it super powers.

Also not a fan of experimenting with a nearly trillion dollar segment of the economy so we can see what happens.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:32:20 MDT Print View

Hi, KAT!!! Nice to meet you!

I'm sort of the same way. I call myself a right-of-center moderate a lot just to save time, but I'm a bit scatterbrained on many issues. I usually do take moderate stances, though.

I've also at times called myself a "Schwatrzenegger Republican", which should make some sense to the Californians in the crowd. It sort of means very green on the environment, tending libertarian on social issues, but tending conservative on most other stuff like defense, national security, and finance and business at least in that I believe that markets tend to be the most efficient option. That's not to say that I don't believe in reasonable regulation (hell, even uber-Objectivist Greenspan has admitted his errors) but I sure as hell am not into command economies. And I have no problems with someone who gets rich honestly because he's a good businessman.

Clearly, the ACA is an exception, there, purely because of practical considerations. Also, when those tendencies are at odds it's hard to predict how I'll come out. For instance, take the issue of corporate contributions to politicians. I think that Citizens United vs FDC is the worst supreme court decision since Plessy vs Ferguson, and that might be considered anti-corporate. And it is, but that's how I feel.

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:34:25 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:33:01 MDT Print View

"Kat jumps on liberals with the slightest bit of provocation

Like when I was critical of Ratigan blaming just Obama, she said I thought Obama was awesome : )

And she jumped on Jennifer without justification

I haven't seen that with conservatives or libertarians, but I am biased, maybe I just don't remember that

But I don't mean that with any ill feelings towards Kat. We all have biases. And since she nominated me chaff president she will always be dear to me. And she does cool knitting : )

Don't you have a Russian background Kat? I have noticed Russians are libertarian. I used to work with a number of them. Maybe a reaction to the insanity of Communism."



Jerry,
I am one of the very few that calls liberals here when they either get offensive, claim to be objective or display narrow minded thinking while claiming otherwise. Most of BPL gives them a pass no matter how they act. When a conservative crosses the line there are dozens ready to rip him apart.
I do share some ideas with Libertarians, but only some. I believe in a safety net for those that need it, I believe in helping one another, and I do it in my own life. I also share many ideas with Liberals: I believe who you sleep with and marry is your own business; I believe in legalization of drugs; I believe a woman should be able to choose wether to have a child or not, although there is more to be discussed as far as I am concerned; no death penalty; stop policing the world; Just ask me on an issue.
No, I am not happy with Obama and the ACA has nothing to do with my sentiment here.
On fiscal issues I am more conservative.
As far as Jennifer I feel I was justified when I pointed how she seemed it was ok to offend people just because they are to the right. But you do too, so of course it seemed unjustified.

Edited by Kat_P on 10/26/2013 10:36:58 MDT.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantastical on 10/26/2013 10:39:06 MDT Print View

"I am one of the very few that calls liberals here when they either get offensive, claim to be objective or display narrow minded thinking while claiming otherwise. Most of BPL gives them a pass no matter how they act. When a conservative crosses the line there are dozens ready to rip him apart. "

Well, part of that is just that there are so many uber liberals on this forum- Californians and folks from the PNW seem to be common. And, of course, one of the more irritating things about liberals is that as a group they seem to think that everyone cares about their opinions and that they are thus justified in voicing them loudly and at every possible opportunity. Contrarily, most decent folks would just come across some liberal rant, dismiss it, and move on. So, yes, I sort of get Matt's point on that one.

But, Christ, haven't you seen some of the gun flamewars here?

Edited by acrosome on 10/26/2013 10:42:05 MDT.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re Kat on 10/26/2013 10:39:49 MDT Print View

"Don't you have a Russian background Kat? I have noticed Russians are libertarian. I used to work with a number of them. Maybe a reaction to the insanity of Communism."

I was raised in Switzerland and then Italy until I was 19 and left. I saw what over regulation and other policies did to that country and it was disastrous. I will write more about it at some point.