Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Facebook)   Obamacare explained like you're a 5 year old or a Republican   (facebook.com ) divider line
    More: PSA, obamacare, Republican, chronic illnesses, tanning booth, health information  
•       •       •

12831 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2012 at 8:16 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



482 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-02 11:06:23 AM  

maweimer9: What is the difference between taking the fine as a company and not offering insurance, thus passing the cost down to the employee vs. buying insurance the current way. To me, unless the company penalty + consumer cost >= the current process, won't most companies just disregard paying for insurance?

The reason I'm asking is because this is a legitimate argument from the right and I want a talking counterpoint when they bring this up.


It is not a "legitimate argument from the right".
What they want you to do is work your ass off to find out the info, then throw something else at you to knock you off balance. Lather Rinse Repeat.

Recently got into stupid FB "discussion" with a friend who said he had not read the bill but "wondered about" some part of it. When I tried to explain to him that what he was "wondering about" was not in the bill, he replied "Did you read the bill?"
When I replied that I did -in fact- read the portion of the bill that he was referring to, he just said "get back to me when you've read the bill".
So- he didn't read the bill and could speculate, but unless I had read the entire bill, my responses were unacceptable.

I guess my point is that the people you are arguing with are just trolls.
They don't want to learn anything, they don't want to understand anything.
If you come up with some rational response, they will reframe the subject in some way to either dismiss what your position is or make you prove a negative.

Is there not something better you can do with your time?
 
2012-07-02 11:08:20 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: vygramul: Debeo Summa Credo: After ACA is in effect, your premium would increase because you'd have to, in effect, subsidize the cost of insuring the very high risk individuals who were previously uninsurable.

That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

Except that's why there's a mandate. All the young 27 year-olds who don't feel like getting insurance because they are young and healthy Will now have to get insurance, and they will therefore lower the rates, more than making up for the high-risk people.

Well, let's hope so. Expanding the pool to everyone and requiring participation is the most efficient way to make care available to everyone.

But the available pool of uninsured 20 somethings who will actually buy insurance (and not just pay the tax) doesn't seem
large enough to offset the increased costs that the bill imposes.

TFA is a view of the act through rose colored glasses, IMO. It's not a free ride. Just like right wing critiques focus on the potential negatives without considering the potential benefits.


The TFA is a point by point list of what is actually in the act. There's no spin to it. That's the point of the TFA. It's a list of all the things in the PPACA without all the Democrats shouting about how great it is and without all the GOP shouting about death panels and how America is ruined forever.

Additionally, it's not a free ride now, as many have pointed out. Part of the reason our health care costs are so high are because the uninsured go to the Emergency Room for treatment (higher costs) and then stiff the hospital on the bill. They make up for it by charging higher costs for those who can pay, which means insurance costs are higher because they're footing the bill.

Insurance companies set their rates so that they will make a profit. They're very good at what they do and pay people (actuaries) who are highly trained in mathematics to figure out what they need to charge to stay profitable. I wouldn't worry about the insurance business at all because THEIR LOBBYISTS WERE SMILING when they left all of the Capitol Hill meetings they attended when PPACA was being enacted.

If you take an honest look at what is happening in Massachusetts, Romneycare is actually WORKING. This whole plan is Romneycare on a federal scale.

And the sad thing behind all of this:

Romney has been so quick to jump up and take credit for stuff he had no hand in (i.e. the auto industry bailout). He should be claiming this as a major victory for his policies because he was the first U.S. governor to install it, but he won't do it because he's afraid of angering all the rabid people over at Free Republic or Wing Nut Daily. This could be a huge feather in the cap for the Romney campaign, and his frothing-at-the-mouth electoral base has completely nullified it for him.
 
2012-07-02 11:26:45 AM  

maweimer9: I guess that's my main confusion at this point. What is the difference between taking the fine as a company and not offering insurance, thus passing the cost down to the employee vs. buying insurance the current way. To me, unless the company penalty + consumer cost >= the current process, won't most companies just disregard paying for insurance?


Companies already offer insurance even though there is no requirement to do so. It's not like a company that is currently offering insurance as a benefit in order to attract good employees is suddenly going to drop the insurance and pay a fine instead just because they are mandated to provide what they were already providing. The notion that companies currently offering insurance will cease to do so has no logic to it at all.

Will some companies that did not previously offer insurance opt to pay the fine? Perhaps. For the employee at one of these companies nothing will have changed. The mandate and penalty create an incentive to start offering health insurance, if only some companies that didn't offer insurance before now start to do so it will have accomplished the goal.
 
2012-07-02 11:28:21 AM  
SO when does the 'Destroy America and replace it with a hippie fascist atheist sharia nazi communist secrit muslin theocracy' take place? After 2020?
 
2012-07-02 11:36:23 AM  

Thrag: maweimer9: I guess that's my main confusion at this point. What is the difference between taking the fine as a company and not offering insurance, thus passing the cost down to the employee vs. buying insurance the current way. To me, unless the company penalty + consumer cost >= the current process, won't most companies just disregard paying for insurance?

Companies already offer insurance even though there is no requirement to do so. It's not like a company that is currently offering insurance as a benefit in order to attract good employees is suddenly going to drop the insurance and pay a fine instead just because they are mandated to provide what they were already providing. The notion that companies currently offering insurance will cease to do so has no logic to it at all.

Will some companies that did not previously offer insurance opt to pay the fine? Perhaps. For the employee at one of these companies nothing will have changed. The mandate and penalty create an incentive to start offering health insurance, if only some companies that didn't offer insurance before now start to do so it will have accomplished the goal.


That is an excellent point. I guess my fear is that the first thing that employers will drop during tough times (or perhaps as a cost cutting measure, in general) is health insurance knowing that A) it may cheaper for the shareholders and/or owners of the company and B) there is now a second affordable option for their employees.

So, the Walmart's of the world can effectively say, "We don't offer insurance plans, but you can always buy an affordable package on the open market."

I'm not saying this will be the majority or even common, I'm just saying it will now be an option.

In general, I'm excited that the left actually "won" a controversial decision. Living in WI has not been easy lately!
 
2012-07-02 11:38:00 AM  

Erix: Not sure if this was already addressed, but does anyone know exactly how the fines/taxes/whatever are used? There is no public option, so I'm assuming it goes into a general Medicare fund or something?


I think it goes to Obama's vacation fund.
 
2012-07-02 11:47:45 AM  

maweimer9: I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?


Are you telling us that you own a company with more than 50 employees and you don't already offer them a health insurance plan?
 
2012-07-02 12:08:05 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: vygramul: Debeo Summa Credo: After ACA is in effect, your premium would increase because you'd have to, in effect, subsidize the cost of insuring the very high risk individuals who were previously uninsurable.

That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

Except that's why there's a mandate. All the young 27 year-olds who don't feel like getting insurance because they are young and healthy Will now have to get insurance, and they will therefore lower the rates, more than making up for the high-risk people.

Well, let's hope so. Expanding the pool to everyone and requiring participation is the most efficient way to make care available to everyone.

But the available pool of uninsured 20 somethings who will actually buy insurance (and not just pay the tax) doesn't seem
large enough to offset the increased costs that the bill imposes.

TFA is a view of the act through rose colored glasses, IMO. It's not a free ride. Just like right wing critiques focus on the potential negatives without considering the potential benefits.


A list of what is in the bill should not include a personal prediction of the future. Besides, it wouldn't matter if it did. more than half the country has no clue about economics anyways.

Try telling a modern republican that cap and trade is market based and watch them go off on a tirade about the unimpeachable founding fathers being led by the grace of God and in full unison to develop a country free of a federal government that interfered.

Or just ask them if they know what an externality is, or can five an example of free riders other than the poor.
 
2012-07-02 12:09:59 PM  

poot_rootbeer: maweimer9: I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?

Are you telling us that you own a company with more than 50 employees and you don't already offer them a health insurance plan?


No, not at all. But I work for one and I'm curious to see whether the decision makers up top will explore the option. I guess that's why I'm asking these questions because I want to know if it's financially beneficial for them to not pay insurance knowing that there is now a contingency for the average joe.
 
2012-07-02 12:13:20 PM  

maweimer9: poot_rootbeer: maweimer9: I guess the question I have is will it be more cost beneficial to pay the fine than to buy insurance?

Are you telling us that you own a company with more than 50 employees and you don't already offer them a health insurance plan?

No, not at all. But I work for one and I'm curious to see whether the decision makers up top will explore the option. I guess that's why I'm asking these questions because I want to know if it's financially beneficial for them to not pay insurance knowing that there is now a contingency for the average joe.


My father is worried that the mega corporation he works for (one of the top 5s) will magically stop offering health insurance... *rolls eyes*

I suspect it wouldn't be worth it to large companies to pay the fine, usually fines are higher than what it would cost to just obey the law... but I admit, I'd love to see the numbers too.
 
2012-07-02 12:16:34 PM  
Speaking about explaining things like you are a 5 year-old. Someone explain to me what do insurance companies do that is so vital?

I mean aside from deciding what coverage you get, taking 30% in overhead/profits, and screwing you when you actually need treatment.
 
2012-07-02 12:22:50 PM  

KellyX: I suspect it wouldn't be worth it to large companies to pay the fine, usually fines are higher than what it would cost to just obey the law... but I admit, I'd love to see the numbers too.


It'd be a fine plus taking away more money from from the compensation of their employees than they actually pay for since they get a deal on the group purchase. If they had the wiggle room to pay their employees less (and not suffer a consequence of loss of talent), one would think they'd have already done so - or the free market doesn't work at all if a business can't even adequately figure out what to pay its employees.
 
2012-07-02 12:25:39 PM  

maweimer9: That is an excellent point. I guess my fear is that the first thing that employers will drop during tough times (or perhaps as a cost cutting measure, in general) is health insurance knowing that A) it may cheaper for the shareholders and/or owners of the company and B) there is now a second affordable option for their employees.


Long term I view this as good. Get the real costs of health insurance out there, and get your true compensation on the table. If people start making those payments maybe we can get a majority in this country to stop pissing their pants over how evil europeans are and take a few notes on their health care system.
 
2012-07-02 12:36:39 PM  

Ambivalence: I have actually heard republicans say something along the lines of "I don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare and I don't want anyone else to pay for mine".

Of course when the rubber meets the road and you're looking at the option between bancruptcy and paying for your child's chemotherapy, despite how conscientious you were in life, you may feel differently.

That's the problem with a lot of republican rhetoric. It all sounds so nice in ABSTRACT, but when the shiat hits home they run to the government for help just like everyone else.



See also: wildfires.
 
2012-07-02 12:56:50 PM  
Does anyone really think a 5 year old has the attention to read that whole list?
 
2012-07-02 12:58:09 PM  

andersoncouncil42: Now I know you don't know what this means, but I'll spell it out.
That makes you a F R E E L O A D E R


not really.

I have insurance. You guys totally miss the point.

This is just a bandaid to the broken system of health care.

You know when you go in for help and have no isurnace you are charged LESS than the guy next to you WITH insurance?

And now that all are insured... all prices will rise. Even those with premiums like myself.
 
2012-07-02 01:14:14 PM  

vegasj: andersoncouncil42: Now I know you don't know what this means, but I'll spell it out.
That makes you a F R E E L O A D E R

not really.

I have insurance. You guys totally miss the point.

This is just a bandaid to the broken system of health care.

You know when you go in for help and have no isurnace you are charged LESS than the guy next to you WITH insurance?

And now that all are insured... all prices will rise. Even those with premiums like myself.


Oh, God, tell me you're joking.
 
2012-07-02 01:14:50 PM  
I only 3 years old what do? ;_:
 
2012-07-02 01:19:30 PM  

vegasj: andersoncouncil42: Now I know you don't know what this means, but I'll spell it out.
That makes you a F R E E L O A D E R

not really.

I have insurance. You guys totally miss the point.

This is just a bandaid to the broken system of health care.

You know when you go in for help and have no isurnace you are charged LESS than the guy next to you WITH insurance?

And now that all are insured... all prices will rise. Even those with premiums like myself.


Notsureifserious.jpg

If you are not a troll and are really that clueless, I'd be happy to explain it to you.
 
2012-07-02 01:44:03 PM  

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: vygramul: Debeo Summa Credo: After ACA is in effect, your premium would increase because you'd have to, in effect, subsidize the cost of insuring the very high risk individuals who were previously uninsurable.

That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

Except that's why there's a mandate. All the young 27 year-olds who don't feel like getting insurance because they are young and healthy Will now have to get insurance, and they will therefore lower the rates, more than making up for the high-risk people.

Well, let's hope so. Expanding the pool to everyone and requiring participation is the most efficient way to make care available to everyone.

But the available pool of uninsured 20 somethings who will actually buy insurance (and not just pay the tax) doesn't seem
large enough to offset the increased costs that the bill imposes.

TFA is a view of the act through rose colored glasses, IMO. It's not a free ride. Just like right wing critiques focus on the potential negatives without considering the potential benefits.

A list of what is in the bill should not include a personal prediction of the future. Besides, it wouldn't matter if it did. more than half the country has no clue about economics anyways.

Try telling a modern republican that cap and trade is market based and watch them go off on a tirade about the unimpeachable founding fathers being led by the grace of God and in full unison to develop a country free of a federal government that interfered.

Or just ask them if they know what an externality is, or can five an example of free riders other than the poor.


So you're saying both sides are bad?
 
2012-07-02 01:58:43 PM  

maweimer9: I want to know if it's financially beneficial for them to not pay insurance knowing that there is now a contingency for the average joe.


If the "contingency for the average joe" market offers plans that are comparable in price and quality to those offered through employer-sponsored insurance programs, I'm not sure there would be a downside.

That might be a pretty big if, though.
 
2012-07-02 02:51:49 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: vygramul: Debeo Summa Credo: After ACA is in effect, your premium would increase because you'd have to, in effect, subsidize the cost of insuring the very high risk individuals who were previously uninsurable.

That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.

Except that's why there's a mandate. All the young 27 year-olds who don't feel like getting insurance because they are young and healthy Will now have to get insurance, and they will therefore lower the rates, more than making up for the high-risk people.

Well, let's hope so. Expanding the pool to everyone and requiring participation is the most efficient way to make care available to everyone.

But the available pool of uninsured 20 somethings who will actually buy insurance (and not just pay the tax) doesn't seem
large enough to offset the increased costs that the bill imposes.

TFA is a view of the act through rose colored glasses, IMO. It's not a free ride. Just like right wing critiques focus on the potential negatives without considering the potential benefits.

A list of what is in the bill should not include a personal prediction of the future. Besides, it wouldn't matter if it did. more than half the country has no clue about economics anyways.

Try telling a modern republican that cap and trade is market based and watch them go off on a tirade about the unimpeachable founding fathers being led by the grace of God and in full unison to develop a country free of a federal government that interfered.

Or just ask them if they know what an externality is, or can five an example of free riders other than the poor.

So you're saying both sides are bad?


wtf are you talking about?
 
2012-07-02 03:40:36 PM  

vegasj: You know when you go in for help and have no isurnace you are charged LESS than the guy next to you WITH insurance?


You know how I know you don't know how health insurance works?
 
2012-07-02 03:59:14 PM  

Pincy: vegasj: You know when you go in for help and have no isurnace you are charged LESS than the guy next to you WITH insurance?

You know how I know you don't know how health insurance works?


That's actually true for many pcps.

My old one charged twenty for an appointment if you had no insurance. my copay was 25. It completely ignores procedures beyond a check up, not to mention prescription meds.
 
2012-07-02 04:04:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: Pincy: vegasj: You know when you go in for help and have no isurnace you are charged LESS than the guy next to you WITH insurance?

You know how I know you don't know how health insurance works?

That's actually true for many pcps.

My old one charged twenty for an appointment if you had no insurance. my copay was 25. It completely ignores procedures beyond a check up, not to mention prescription meds.


Yes, maybe for a very small limited number of things this might be true as you pointed out. But it's disingenuous to make this argument because for most things you are going to pay way more without insurance then you are with.
 
2012-07-02 05:07:33 PM  

KellyX: My father is worried that the mega corporation he works for (one of the top 5s) will magically stop offering health insurance... *rolls eyes*

I suspect it wouldn't be worth it to large companies to pay the fine, usually fines are higher than what it would cost to just obey the law... but I admit, I'd love to see the numbers too.


Your Dad is right.

The fine for an employer to not provide coverage is $2,000 vs. about $10-14,000 for family group coverage.
 
2012-07-02 05:14:22 PM  

Pincy: Smackledorfer: Pincy: vegasj: You know when you go in for help and have no isurnace you are charged LESS than the guy next to you WITH insurance?

You know how I know you don't know how health insurance works?

That's actually true for many pcps.

My old one charged twenty for an appointment if you had no insurance. my copay was 25. It completely ignores procedures beyond a check up, not to mention prescription meds.

Yes, maybe for a very small limited number of things this might be true as you pointed out. But it's disingenuous to make this argument because for most things you are going to pay way more without insurance then you are with.


This is a case of the doctor's office doing FAVORS for people. And it's not like they lost THAT much since they write off the difference as a loss.

But seriously - if people REALLY BELIEVED that it was cheaper without insurance, why would they EVER get insurance? And if the answer is "because the insurance company pays for it," why the hell would INSURANCE companies bother offering insurance if the Dr.'s office is going to pilfer the savings? It makes zero economic sense.

What actually happens is that insurance companies negotiate lower rates for procedures and medical equipment with certain companies, and you pay WAY less than without insurance.

When I worked for a prosthetics company (and this is such a racket), the federal government sets the maximum the industry can charge for certain types of prosthetics. Insurance negotiates a lower price. If you don't have insurance, they charge you the full federal max. If you have insurance, you get charged the lower price, and they write off the difference as a loss on their taxes. But they don't bother doing that with the uninsured because they have to legitimize the higher price for the tax losses for the vast majority of their customers.
 
2012-07-02 08:37:09 PM  

vegasj: andersoncouncil42: Now I know you don't know what this means, but I'll spell it out.
That makes you a F R E E L O A D E R

not really.

I have insurance. You guys totally miss the point.

This is just a bandaid to the broken system of health care.

You know when you go in for help and have no isurnace you are charged LESS than the guy next to you WITH insurance?

And now that all are insured... all prices will rise. Even those with premiums like myself.


You fail at reality.
Doctors, by their plans, are allowed only to charge insurance companies the "fair and reasonable" market value for their services... insurers recently got caught artificially devaluing that... but the long and the short of it is that in pretty much every insurance contract, physicians agree that they will charge the insurer the lowest rate... in other cases, insurers reimburse a percentage of the doctors regular fee, which ends up meaning that those without insurance pay far more than insurance companies ever will, as doctors adjust their base rate based on the highest paying insurer to ensure maximum reimbursement.
 
2012-07-02 09:09:39 PM  
i.imgur.com

Much like Lucy to Desi, Mitt has some 'splainin to do (around here anyways).
 
2012-07-02 09:10:14 PM  
oops, wrong thread
 
2012-07-02 09:45:34 PM  

cchris_39: KellyX: My father is worried that the mega corporation he works for (one of the top 5s) will magically stop offering health insurance... *rolls eyes*

I suspect it wouldn't be worth it to large companies to pay the fine, usually fines are higher than what it would cost to just obey the law... but I admit, I'd love to see the numbers too.

Your Dad is right.

The fine for an employer to not provide coverage is $2,000 vs. about $10-14,000 for family group coverage.


Yea, I'd love to see the PR one for that...
 
2012-07-03 04:06:41 PM  
Fb is blocked at work going to have to check this out at home.
 
Displayed 32 of 482 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report