RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:04:38 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Oh, I don't know, maybe this, or was it this one?
Or maybe it's these well informed folks.

I'm sure you've seen the videos of the Teabaggers who have been equally ill-informed.

So what's your point?

That we have a lot of stupid people in this country or that Obama was elected by stupid black people?

You know, I really hesitated to believe this, but the more I see and hear the more I am starting to think a significant percentage of those opposed to Obama are racially motivated.

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 3/24/2010 12:05:25 PM >

(in reply to subrob1967)

Post #: 101

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:06:35 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Welcome to reality.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 102

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:20:45 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Why would premiums rise?

Because they can without restriction. The insurance companies were given a perfect reason; without limits the current actuarial tables upon which premiums are based, are irrelevant.

quote:

Many more people will be in the pool, especially younger and overall healthy people paying in longer over time.

They will be in the pool for benefits but why would they jump in to pay premiums? There are a lot of "younger and overall healthy people" with an extra couple of hundred dollars a month who, although they could have bought health insurance yesterday, waited until this bill was passed to use their extra income to buy insurance? They must not have been represented by the children in the audience at the President's speech who were cheering when he announced they could remain on their mommy and daddy's policy until 26. You think mom and dad will be getting that coverage for 'free'?

quote:

If anything, premiums should fall.

Why? Where is the pressure to reduce premiums included in the bill? It speaks to availability for all, no cap in coverage, no pre-existing exclusion. As stated, those changes justify a rate increase.

quote:

Health care stocks rose this week...

Proving the point about there being upward premium pressure not downward. Stocks sure did go up! I for one was happy to see that prediction come to past. You do realize that stocks go up based upon expectation of increased profits; not due to increase sales. A short term buy; they are the next GM/auto industry by design. Any investor needs to bail by year end but while making all these "healthy" people buy coverage who chose not to before - a bull market for the health care insurance industry. Claims lag by least 6-9 months in the insurance industry.

quote:

It also also people who want insurance but are prevented from doing so to now purchase that insurance.

What exactly "prevented" health young people from buying insurance before this bill was passed? Or are all 31 million of the uninsured in the condition of having a pre-exiting condition or maxed out their benefit. If that's the case - expect those premiums to go more dramatically than predicted. Meanwhile, with the fine less than the cost - I think the healthy, uninsured young people lines at the insurance companies will be just as short as they were prior to this bill.

quote:

eliminates the taxpayer expense of treating uninsured people in the emergency rooms, especially for conditions preventable with regular care.

That's what they thought in Massachusetts.

Reality is dramatically different...
Like the bill that President Obama signed on Sunday, the 2006 Massachusetts plan was sold to voters on the now-familiar promise that it would reduce costs and lower unnecessary emergency room visits. That's not what happened.

Since the bill became law, the state's total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

Even more striking, the 2006 law has done little to ease the burden on emergency rooms, a central goal of all heath care reform plans. A report by the Boston Globe found that in the first two years of the program, the state's ER costs actually rose by 17 percent.

"They said that ER visits would drop by 75 percent, and it hasn't been even close to that," said State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who is currently running for governor as an Independent. "It hasn't changed people's habits. It hasn't been successful at getting people to use less expensive alternatives."

Of course, Massachusetts didn't have the clout of the Federal government behind them. You may not have been targeted or affected (although many complained about it) by the 'Patriot's Act'; but this bill guarantees that your tax return will be available to one of the many new bureaucracies to be set up by this Bill. Your personal information will be distributed and used to enforce your participating into this program.

What do you think affects more US citizens; your passport screened when traveling, international phone calls monitored or 16,000 new IRS 'teeth' coming to take a bite out of you if you didn't pay your 'fair share' of a economic redistribution?

On the topic of "Thanks to the Republicans" - Where's all the gratitude for the 'Father' of this Bill - George Bush? Can anyone deny that without his Presidency there never would have been a plurality Obama enjoyed and he used to push this bill? Bush is blamed, right or wrong, for everything else - he should be blamed, or credited, for this result as much as any other.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 103

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:33:56 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

quote:
Why would premiums rise?

Because they can without restriction. The insurance companies were given a perfect reason; without limits the current actuarial tables upon which premiums are based, are irrelevant.

Have normal laws of competition been suspended?

Or are you claiming insurance companies are illegally colluding?

quote:

What exactly "prevented" health young people from buying insurance before this bill was passed?

Cost.

The average value of an insurance plan is over $13,000. Few young people can afford that.

I would have purchased health insurance when I was young--but couldn't afford it. I wouldn't even have been able to afford Cobra, had I had the option.

This meant going uninsured until I participated in employer based plans.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 104

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:42:33 PM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

quote:
Why would premiums rise?

Because they can without restriction. The insurance companies were given a perfect reason; without limits the current actuarial tables upon which premiums are based, are irrelevant.

Have normal laws of competition been suspended?

Or are you claiming insurance companies are illegally colluding?

quote:

What exactly "prevented" health young people from buying insurance before this bill was passed?

Cost.

The average value of an insurance plan is over $13,000. Few young people can afford that.

I would have purchased health insurance when I was young--but couldn't afford it. I wouldn't even have been able to afford Cobra, had I had the option.

This meant going uninsured until I participated in employer based plans.

Actually there is far to little competition in a number of states, therefore they get to set whatever price without worry of being undercut.

If the average cost of an insurance plan is over $13,000 alot more people than I thought are going to be subject to the "cadillac tax".

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 105

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:43:46 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Kind of makes it look like we need a public option, doesn't it....

(in reply to Thadius)

Post #: 106

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:48:56 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Have normal laws of competition been suspended?
Or are you claiming insurance companies are illegally colluding?

Was that sarcasm or a joke?

From inside the insurance companies, their perspective is that very highly educated actuaries working for different companies came to the same logical, and statistically based, result.

From the outside - that could define collusion.

Neither perspective matters to the pragmatic result though, does it?

Again - there was no competition yesterday and there is today for the healthy, young, uninsured? My 23 year old son had 10 to choose from in CA. The spread for the basic coverage was less than $30/month among them. He still had to be convinced by me to buy it. Now his government 'daddy' doesn't give him that choice. (No - I won't regress him by treating him like a child and including him on my policy until he is 26.)

quote:

The average value of an insurance plan is over $13,000. Few young people can afford that.

What in the bill changes that cost? What changes isn't that premium going down. What changes is that under certain economic conditions, verified through monitoring and scrutinizing personal tax returns, you may not pay 100% of that premium; but somebody will in more taxes or more fees passed on to other consumers.

quote:

This meant going uninsured until I participated in employer based plans.

Great to analyze your personal situation, make a personal choice, and live with the personal consequences good or bad. That choice has been eliminated. I'm aware that many seek, and see it as a positive, to have as many of those personal choices removed from the average citizen and see that as a good thing - I'm not one of them.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 3/24/2010 12:50:56 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 107

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:53:30 PM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Kind of makes it look like we need a public option, doesn't it....

There you go again.

Slippery slope, eh?

Let's just skip the theatrics and go straight to single payer and government owned hospitals and clinics. I am tired of the death by a million papercuts method. Know what I mean?

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 108

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:58:36 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

From inside the insurance companies, their perspective is that very highly educated actuaries working for different companies came to the same logical, and statistically based, result.

Yes.

And nothing has changed to raise premiums just

quote:

because they can without restriction.

They could "without restriction" before too---except that businesses don't operate that way, because maximum price doesn't maximize profit (as it would decrease quantity demanded, depending on elasticity).

quote:

the current actuarial tables upon which premiums are based, are irrelevant.

People are still people, with the same health issues and likelihood.

Yes, how that's calculated will change--more people paying in to cover the same risks. Sure, more people using the health care system too--but not for expensive emergency care generally. It's where the funds for covering previously "uninsurable" people are provided.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 3/24/2010 1:00:28 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 109

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:01:33 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Kind of makes it look like we need a public option, doesn't it....

There you go again. Slippery slope, eh?

Let's just skip the theatrics and go straight to single payer and government owned hospitals and clinics. I am tired of the death by a million papercuts method. Know what I mean?

Works for me. There's no question it's a better way to go.

Or regulate them as natural monopolies, as we do utilities.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 3/24/2010 1:02:41 PM >

(in reply to Thadius)

Post #: 110

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:04:05 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

~ Fast "Oh shit now what?" or This may not be "Fucking GREAT!" ~

At least if you were counting on your 26 year old child's pre-existing condition no longer disqualifying them from your coverage. Unless they develop their illness while covered, they have to hang on until 2014 as will any other person.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

What else happens in 2014? Well, that when the maximum fines and penalties for not having coverage come into play, the 'Cadillac tax', off the top of my head.

From the same source:

quote:

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

"This is a patient's bill of rights on steroids," the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. "Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

And Saturday, addressing House Democrats as they approached a make-or-break vote on the bill, Obama said, "This year ... parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage -- this year."

Since this was the one of the things listed under the immediate impact speech; will there be an uproar of chanting on the streets: 'Obama lied - children with pre-existing conditions STILL die!'? Nah that reality doesn't roll off the tongue.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 111

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:11:10 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

From inside the insurance companies, their perspective is that very highly educated actuaries working for different companies came to the same logical, and statistically based, result.
Yes.

And nothing has changed to raise premiums just
quote:

because they can without restriction.
They could "without restriction" before too---except that businesses don't operate that way, because maximum price doesn't maximize profit (as it would decrease quantity demanded, depending on elasticity).

quote:

the current actuarial tables upon which premiums are based, are irrelevant.

People are still people, with the same health issues and likelihood.

Yes, how that's calculated will change--more people paying in to cover the same risks. Sure, more people using the health care system too--but not for expensive emergency care generally. It's where the funds for covering previously "uninsurable" people are provided.

MM -
The difference is that COVERAGE is changing. No policy maximum payout is a huge change to existing insurance coverage. When coverage changes and it points to increase benefit payouts, such as no policy maximum, the actuary changes the price accordingly upward; applying all the statistical percentages of the covered insured. The pool may increase, but the percentage of claims among the age group will not.

I'd point you to that actual results from a similar program implemented in Massachusetts that I previously documented as a verified result counter to your emergency care argument as well as the premium increases the Massachusetts citizens have incurred.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 112

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:12:30 PM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

From inside the insurance companies, their perspective is that very highly educated actuaries working for different companies came to the same logical, and statistically based, result.

Yes.

And nothing has changed to raise premiums just
quote:

because they can without restriction.
They could "without restriction" before too---except that businesses don't operate that way, because maximum price doesn't maximize profit (as it would decrease quantity demanded, depending on elasticity).

quote:

the current actuarial tables upon which premiums are based, are irrelevant.

People are still people, with the same health issues and likelihood.

Yes, how that's calculated will change--more people paying in to cover the same risks. Sure, more people using the health care system too--but not for expensive emergency care generally. It's where the funds for covering previously "uninsurable" people are provided.

Actually quite a bit will be changing in the calculations, remember one of the main reasons for this bill is to allow those that were "uninsurable" to get coverage, which equates to much more risk being added to the pool.

I would normally agree with you about the "maximum price doesn't maximize profits", that still remains true when choice is involved. However, with it being a mandatory commodity, the choice (except as I have already noted and you refute) will be taken out of the hands of a consumer; you know the whole concept of voting with your wallet. The only folks that I honestly can see rushing in to get coverage are those that know they require it and haven't been able to do so because of medical history, these folks would be willing to pay just about any premium to avoid the huge hospital bills. Thus the evil greedy insurance companies are going to charge whatever they wish, as people will be required by law to purchase it.

I could be mistaken, but it doesn't make any logical sense the other way round.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 113

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:14:49 PM

PenOnBeadedChain

Posts: 58
Joined: 8/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
It is clearly worded as a penalty for not meeting a requirement (purchasing an acceptable insurance policy) that congress does not constitutionally have to set, at least in my opinion and apparantly at least 13 AGs from various states share that same position.

From what I read all 13 of those state AGs are Republicans, and many of them were already known to have their sights set on higher office. It's a slam dunk that you need to cozy up to the tea baggers if you're looking ahead to a GOP primary run. I suspect most of them realize they are wasting their state's money (and during a time of massively cut budgets) tilting at this windmill, just so they can pad their resumes for their own political careers. Par for the course though.

(in reply to Thadius)

Post #: 114

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:16:12 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Not to split hairs, but it points to emergency room coverage, versus emergency health care per se.

I'd be interested to know the reason for these visits--is it just that their doctor was unavailable, or that they don't have a primary care physician?

I'm also assuming that these are now insured visits, vs. uninsured emergencies, since we're talking Massachusetts. I'm not familiar with the details of their health care system (as it's irrelevant to my situation).

Preventative care, also, pays off in the long run, not in a few months or a few years. We'll have to wait on data for that.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 3/24/2010 1:17:19 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 115

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:30:43 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Not to split hairs, but it points to emergency room coverage, versus emergency health care per se.

I'd be interested to know the reason for these visits--is it just that their doctor was unavailable, or that they don't have a primary care physician?

I'm also assuming that these are now insured visits, vs. uninsured emergencies, since we're talking Massachusetts. I'm not familiar with the details of their health care system (as it's irrelevant to my situation).

Preventative care, also, pays off in the long run, not in a few months or a few years. We'll have to wait on data for that.

More in agreement than 'dis'. I hope you appreciate that I enjoin all those who throughout this process fought against the Bill not the concept that "something had to be done". To me, and I've had the luxury or curse to be able to read a lot of this bills consequences, this doesn't solve any of the original intent, or even point to the original intent being served in the foreseeable future.

You're right, the Massachusetts situation doesn't consider "preventative care". However, what example of human nature do you rely upon that personal accountability for exercising, eating good foods, and the other steps necessary to acquire and maintain 'good health' will now take place? If anything, knowing you have coverage means you can have two deserts and still take comfort knoing a health care provider is required to cover you and provide your diabetic medication sometime down the line.

Do you think this Bill the first step to required exercising in front of an interactive TV screen?

It is a desperate bill, passed and signed in desperation. The President's mistaken knowledge on its most basic premise, pre-existing conditions for children, point to accuracy of that assessment. Another example of "good intent" reasoning generating a bad result.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 116

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:37:39 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

However, what example of human nature do you rely upon that personal accountability for exercising, eating good foods, and the other steps necessary to acquire and maintain 'good health' will now take place? If anything, knowing you have coverage means you can have two deserts and still take comfort knoing a health care provider is required to cover you and provide your diabetic medication sometime down the line.

Do you think this Bill the first step to required exercising in front of an interactive TV screen?

I think these are apples and oranges, with both set of motivating factors in place independent of the other.

I doubt people enjoying the benefits of a healthy lifestyle will now say "fuck it, I want to feel fat and sluggish, damn disease."

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 117

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:42:25 PM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Damm it ,you mean its not free?
What makes you think any of us were under the illusions you illustrated?

Oh, I don't know, maybe this, or was it this one?
Or maybe it's these well informed folks.

MMM MMM MMM

I can't help but wonder how much time you spent finding videos of these poor deluded fools.....in addition it is curious why you would ascribe such missinformed silliness to the denizens of politics and religion...most of us close to ,if in fact actualyy,political junkies.Do you not give the majority here just a little bit more credit ?...Certainly you would admit that the majority of those here,no matter which side of the aisle we are on,are much better informed .

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to subrob1967)

Post #: 118

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 1:52:23 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

I doubt people enjoying the benefits of a healthy lifestyle will now say "fuck it, I want to feel fat and sluggish, damn disease."

I agree 100%, and add; no people enjoying a sedentary non-healthy lifestyle will now say "fuck it - lets go jogging!" just because this bill was passed.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 119

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 2:46:52 PM

Sanity

Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Once the government pays for the cost of our health care there will be a defacto mandate for the government to enact more and more laws aimed at controlling our various behavior in order to trim costs.

In other words, once your health care isn't your own, neither will your body be your own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

More in agreement than 'dis'. I hope you appreciate that I enjoin all those who throughout this process fought against the Bill not the concept that "something had to be done". To me, and I've had the luxury or curse to be able to read a lot of this bills consequences, this doesn't solve any of the original intent, or even point to the original intent being served in the foreseeable future.

You're right, the Massachusetts situation doesn't consider "preventative care". However, what example of human nature do you rely upon that personal accountability for exercising, eating good foods, and the other steps necessary to acquire and maintain 'good health' will now take place? If anything, knowing you have coverage means you can have two deserts and still take comfort knoing a health care provider is required to cover you and provide your diabetic medication sometime down the line.

Do you think this Bill the first step to required exercising in front of an interactive TV screen?

It is a desperate bill, passed and signed in desperation. The President's mistaken knowledge on its most basic premise, pre-existing conditions for children, point to accuracy of that assessment. Another example of "good intent" reasoning generating a bad result.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109