Fart_Machine: How exactly is increasing the insurance pool going to drive insurance companies out of business?

It's the same quasi-logic that says reducing revenue stream increases the ability to pay off existing debt.

For the record, the Wall Street Journal just tore Romney a new one over this:

In a stroke, the Romney campaign contradicted Republicans throughout the country who had used the Chief Justice's opinion to declare accurately that Mr. Obama had raised taxes on the middle class. Three-quarters of those who will pay the mandate tax will make less than $120,000 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Romney high command has muddied the tax issue in a way that will help Mr. Obama's claims that he is merely taxing rich folks like Mr. Romney. And it has made it that much harder for Republicans to again turn ObamaCare into the winning issue it was in 2010.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230414120457750665273479 3 044.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Crewmannumber6: Mrtraveler01: trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

They are? I already have insurance. My taxes aren't going up.

Let's wait and see what happens when the law of unintended consequenses takes over, which it always does. Every time they try to help us, they end up farking us.

To be honest, I trust the Democrats with something like this far more than I trust the Republicans.

Crewmannumber6: Mrtraveler01: trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

They are? I already have insurance. My taxes aren't going up.

Let's wait and see what happens when the law of unintended consequenses takes over, which it always does. Every time they try to help us, they end up farking us.

Lol yeah. Look at how terrible Social Security and Medicare worked out. Boy, those programs really screwed us over.

skullkrusher: that is a pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class, numbnuts.

Anyone remember the halcyon days of "he wasn't under oath when he said that" and "We did have intelligence on that, but the intelligence was just bad" and "a lie isn't a lie if you believe it" and "Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen."??

Those were the days.

quizzical: Is the politics mod too hungover to green things today?

It's great. You get people that usually duck out into another thread to keep up their spin stuck in one place. The smell of panic from people reduced to direct insults and XBOXspeak ("lol") is great. I'm loving it, personally.

Fart_Machine: How exactly is increasing the insurance pool going to drive insurance companies out of business?

They is trollin us?

Crewmannumber6: Mrtraveler01: trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

They are? I already have insurance. My taxes aren't going up.

Let's wait and see what happens when the law of unintended consequenses takes over, which it always does. Every time they try to help us, they end up farking us.

I see now the official complaint is "We're going to get screwed in some way that I can't describe, but trust me, we totally are cuz ... ... ... we will! You'll see!"

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Sparky, I hate to break it too you, nbut multiple people are pointing out what a steaming pile of bullshiat this argument of yours is.

yeah, look who they are... People who have been caught lying in this very thread and typical rah-rah types. Stop saying "sparky". You sound stupid enough as it is without adding that.

Philip Francis Queeg: I know you think it's because you are just soo much smarter than everyone else, but maybe you should consider the possibility that you are shoveling a teaming pile of bullshiat.

no, I think it is because you guys are dishonest asshats. You don't "know" much of anything.

Philip Francis Queeg: Your attempts to ignore multiple specific statements directly related to the "pledge" in favor of earlier general statements is just silly.

statements made in the context of solving problems while reducing the deficit. Here's a larger snippet that puts the lie to your continued bullshiat:

BO lists 3 priorities. HC, education and energy.

"There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down."

we need to deal with these problems and handle the deficit we inherited.

"I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.
Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we'r ...

skullkrusher: "In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way. "

In addition to the measures I am taking to reign in spending, I also plan on dealing with the costs of these programs and our inherited deficit by increasing revenues by rolling back the tax cuts on people making more than $250k. If you earn less than that, you will not see your taxes increased by one dime. In fact, I have given a tax cut to 95% of working families via the recovery plan.

that is a pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class, numbnuts.

Every single statement he made regarding not raising taxes on people making less than $250k was in direct relation to statements about his intentions regarding the Bush tax cuts. Those statements were about income tax rates. It is as clear as day.

Infernalist: Crewmannumber6: Mrtraveler01: trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

They are? I already have insurance. My taxes aren't going up.

Let's wait and see what happens when the law of unintended consequenses takes over, which it always does. Every time they try to help us, they end up farking us.

Lol yeah. Look at how terrible Social Security and Medicare worked out. Boy, those programs really screwed us over.

Of course we are, just think of how much better they'd be if there were privitiz....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!....sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.

noneyourbase: For the record, the Wall Street Journal just tore Romney a new one over this:

In a stroke, the Romney campaign contradicted Republicans throughout the country who had used the Chief Justice's opinion to declare accurately that Mr. Obama had raised taxes on the middle class. Three-quarters of those who will pay the mandate tax will make less than $120,000 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Romney high command has muddied the tax issue in a way that will help Mr. Obama's claims that he is merely taxing rich folks like Mr. Romney. And it has made it that much harder for Republicans to again turn ObamaCare into the winning issue it was in 2010.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230414120457750665273479 3 044.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Really, they should call it "RombamaCare," or "ObamneyCare" to be fair and balanced. Romney, after all, is the one who gave us the model for national health care. He deserves at least as much credit as Obama, most especially since Congressional Democrats and President Obama obviously accepted Romney's argument that RomneyCare should be the model for the nation.

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Holy farking shiat, its not like he spoke each paragraph separately on different days. He talked about long term challenges which we would face while reducing the deficit... here's how, rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest.

You have gone beyond self satire

We have those now. Fifteen percent maximum tax for share dividends. Among the lowest top tax bracket rate in decades.

[forbestadvice.com image 589x369]

How's that deficit reducing doing since that started?

[www.cristyli.com image 610x416]

When the talk's about numbers, did you consider using math?

Self satire. Indeed.

was there a point associated with this post?

Yes. If what you said would work, it would have worked.

It didn't work, because it doesn't work.

Trying the same thing again is like drilling a second hole in the bottom of a boat to let the water out from the first hole you drilled.

You're not on your usual form today. I'm sure you can pick it up post-Rush. Hang in there, petal.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Crewmannumber6: Mrtraveler01: trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

They are? I already have insurance. My taxes aren't going up.

Let's wait and see what happens when the law of unintended consequenses takes over, which it always does. Every time they try to help us, they end up farking us.

I see now the official complaint is "We're going to get screwed in some way that I can't describe, but trust me, we totally are cuz ... ... ... we will! You'll see!"

Which lasts all of about 30 seconds before people remember that they said the same thing back when they were passing Medicare and Social Security, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, ending segregation, etc etc etc...

Don't the conservatives EVER get tired of being on the wrong side of history?

skullkrusher: you're arguing that BO didn't promise not to raise income taxes on the middle class? Sounds to me like you're arguing that this isn't a tax increase and lol the tobacco tax is the same thing why aren't you arguing that lol

You've really invested a lot of yourself into this argument, haven't you?

Epoch_Zero: No, the mandate is so that everyone is covered. fark the insurance companies.

Perhaps you should read the arguments the administration made before the SCOTUS where they argued that the whole plan could be jeapordized if the individual mandate was removed, because otherwise insurance companies could not afford to pay for the additional coverage. I am just re-stating the administration's argument.

Epoch_Zero: Just like the postal service has driven all of the public delivery services out of business.

These are actually very different situations. For instance, there is not federal mandate capping FEDEX or DHL profit margins as far as I know.

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Sparky, I hate to break it too you, nbut multiple people are pointing out what a steaming pile of bullshiat this argument of yours is.

yeah, look who they are... People who have been caught lying in this very thread and typical rah-rah types. Stop saying "sparky". You sound stupid enough as it is without adding that.

Philip Francis Queeg: I know you think it's because you are just soo much smarter than everyone else, but maybe you should consider the possibility that you are shoveling a teaming pile of bullshiat.

no, I think it is because you guys are dishonest asshats. You don't "know" much of anything.

Philip Francis Queeg: Your attempts to ignore multiple specific statements directly related to the "pledge" in favor of earlier general statements is just silly.

statements made in the context of solving problems while reducing the deficit. Here's a larger snippet that puts the lie to your continued bullshiat:

BO lists 3 priorities. HC, education and energy.

"There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down."

we need to deal with these problems and handle the deficit we inherited.

"I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.
Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some ti ...

And skullcrusher just defended things being totally in context if they were said within the same speech.

This should be fun.

Infernalist: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Crewmannumber6: Mrtraveler01: trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

They are? I already have insurance. My taxes aren't going up.

Let's wait and see what happens when the law of unintended consequenses takes over, which it always does. Every time they try to help us, they end up farking us.

I see now the official complaint is "We're going to get screwed in some way that I can't describe, but trust me, we totally are cuz ... ... ... we will! You'll see!"

Which lasts all of about 30 seconds before people remember that they said the same thing back when they were passing Medicare and Social Security, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, ending segregation, etc etc etc...

Don't the conservatives EVER get tired of being on the wrong side of history?

They wait until these things are taken for granted and then say "why are libs forcing us to pay for all these things that we've always had?" Hence, the baggers.

bugontherug: Really, they should call it "RombamaCare," or "ObamneyCare" to be fair and balanced. Romney, after all, is the one who gave us the model for national health care. He deserves at least as much credit as Obama, most especially since Congressional Democrats and President Obama obviously accepted Romney's argument that RomneyCare should be the model for the nation.

This would be a good point, except that we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Infernalist: Don't the conservatives EVER get tired of being on the wrong side of history?

Apparently not. Pride is a cruel thing.

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: He broke a promise. It's ok guys, he'll still win

If you're really going to run with this stupid criterion, you'll be glad to know that this "promise" was already "broken" when cigarette taxes went up.

He is trying to parrot the republican narrative here, geez...

BojanglesPaladin: Epoch_Zero: No, the mandate is so that everyone is covered. fark the insurance companies.

Perhaps you should read the arguments the administration made before the SCOTUS where they argued that the whole plan could be jeapordized if the individual mandate was removed, because otherwise insurance companies could not afford to pay for the additional coverage. I am just re-stating the administration's argument.

Epoch_Zero: Just like the postal service has driven all of the public delivery services out of business.

These are actually very different situations. For instance, there is not federal mandate capping FEDEX or DHL profit margins as far as I know.

Okay, seriously....The White House had a series of meetings with the heads of the Insurance business about the current healthcare system.

They made a deal in those meetings: The government would pass a law requiring that everyone get healthcare and in return, the insurance companies would stop rejecting people because of preexisting conditions.

Which Is Fair.

They 'would' have gone out of business if people could ignore healthcare insurance until they got sick. That's just human nature to ignore a cost that you don't need and aren't required to pay.

But, with a mandate, 'everyone' has to pay into the system, so the insurance companies can make their profits. BUT, they're capped at 20% profit per customer(15% with the big plans), so their profit is limited per customer.

But with an additional 30 million customers, it more than balances out.

Both sides get what they want and what we need. It's not as good as single payer, but it's a good start.

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Every single statement he made regarding not raising taxes on people making less than $250k was in direct relation to statements about his intentions regarding the Bush tax cuts. Those statements were about income tax rates. It is as clear as day.

you're literally arguing that his pledge would have been upheld if he rolled back the Bush tax cuts on those over $250k and then, in a separate action, raised taxes on people earning under $250k.

No he isn't. He's arguing that full context reveals clearly Obama was talking about income taxes. And it does. If Obama rolled back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, and then rolled back the rest of the Bush tax cuts in a separate bill, he would have broken his promise, which was not to raise taxes on various forms of income.

Pincy: So sure, they couldn't deny you coverage but they could set your premium at whatever price they wanted which would effectively price people with pre-existing conditions out of the market.

Probably. But I am not clear on whether there is any such control in ACA either. I know that as of now, they can certainly charge you a higher rate if you come in with a pre-existing condition and they do. They just can't tell you no. I vaguely recall that there was some stipulation that they could only increase a certain percentage year over year, but I don;t know if it made it into the final bill.

It's like SR-22 car insurance. You MUST have car insurance, and you cannot be denied insurance, but BOY can they charge you an arm and a leg to do so.

Can anyone point to specifics from ACA outlining rate increase limits?

BojanglesPaladin: These are actually very different situations. For instance, there is not federal mandate capping FEDEX or DHL profit margins as far as I know.

Well, true, but very few people die if their Vivid DVD's are lost in shipping.

Skleenar: bugontherug: Really, they should call it "RombamaCare," or "ObamneyCare" to be fair and balanced. Romney, after all, is the one who gave us the model for national health care. He deserves at least as much credit as Obama, most especially since Congressional Democrats and President Obama obviously accepted Romney's argument that RomneyCare should be the model for the nation.

This would be a good point, except that we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Unfortunately, I don't have that quizzical dog gif saved anywhere. Because it would be well used here.

What the f*ck am I reading?

For those banging the 'he raised taxes!' drum...

Seriously, most of us don't care.

Most of us realize that taxes 'are' necessary and required for a functioning society.

Further, we realize that the tax in question will only be applied to those who can get health insurance but refuse to buy it because they're cheap and/or stupid.

Skleenar: skullkrusher: you're arguing that BO didn't promise not to raise income taxes on the middle class? Sounds to me like you're arguing that this isn't a tax increase and lol the tobacco tax is the same thing why aren't you arguing that lol

You've really invested a lot of yourself into this argument, haven't you?

When you have nothing else.

Freepers are having a field day. "Obama lied!!11"

Uh he is a Kenyan usurper, he lies all the time. I guess that means Freepers and skullkrusher wont be voting Fartbama, like they didnt in 2008.

/Vote Republican

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Every single statement he made regarding not raising taxes on people making less than $250k was in direct relation to statements about his intentions regarding the Bush tax cuts. Those statements were about income tax rates. It is as clear as day.

you're literally arguing that his pledge would have been upheld if he rolled back the Bush tax cuts on those over $250k and then, in a separate action, raised taxes on people earning under $250k.

No, I'm saying the statements in that speech that you clinging to for dear life to back up your talking point were specifically related to income tax rates. They were, it is quite obvious.

If his 'separate action' was to increase the rates of the tax brackets of people making less than $250K a year, I'd be right next to you holding a placard. Instead, you are equating a tax on people who refuse to purchase healthcare (a tiny portion of people making less than $250k) as breaking a promise not to raise income tax rates on everyone making $250K.

skullkrusher: INCOME related tax increase. If you want to argue that the tobacco tax also breaks the pledge, have at it. This is a far more clear cut example.

What does that even mean? What is an "income related" tax? Did you just mean to say "income tax"?

you're arguing that BO didn't promise not to raise income taxes on the middle class? Sounds to me like you're arguing that this isn't a tax increase and lol the tobacco tax is the same thing why aren't you arguing that lol

I'm arguing (just like everybody else here) that whatever kooky semantics are leading you to conclude that there's a "broken promise" aren't consistent with how most reasonable people understand the words and statements that are being referred to here. I mean sure, nobody can stop you from reasoning in convoluted ways, but you should at least be aware that your conclusions are being derived from your own unique interpretations and as such, may not necessarily be reflective of a more universal understanding of these things.

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: Yes. If what you said would work, it would have worked.

what did I say "would work". This should be good

Jackpot777: It didn't work, because it doesn't work.

Trying the same thing again is like drilling a second hole in the bottom of a boat to let the water out from the first hole you drilled.

again, what didn't work?

Jackpot777: You're not on your usual form today. I'm sure you can pick it up post-Rush. Hang in there, petal.

I am going to predict you either pretend you are onto something or you also don't admit your mistake.

In order: "He talked about long term challenges which we would face while reducing the deficit... here's how, rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest" won't work because it doesn't work, ditto, I smell fear from you and it's like you think nobody's seen bravado to compensate for being embarrassed like you're being in this thread.

What's it like to know how wrong your ideas have been proven, but too scared to break free of the abuse you get from the ones you follow? What's that like, every day of your life? How must that beat you down?

bugontherug: Unfortunately, I don't have that quizzical dog gif saved anywhere. Because it would be well used here.

What the f*ck am I reading?

See? New reality.

You can try to go back and read the thread to see what the context was, but it won't make any sense. Just like your attempt to use historical precedent to show a tie to Romneycare. That ship has sailed. The mandate is bad. Therefore, there is no tie to anything Romney did in your "history" book. Learn to live in the modern world, Socrates.

theknuckler_33: as breaking a promise not to raise income tax rates on everyone making less than $250K.

FTFM

bugontherug: Skleenar: bugontherug: Really, they should call it "RombamaCare," or "ObamneyCare" to be fair and balanced. Romney, after all, is the one who gave us the model for national health care. He deserves at least as much credit as Obama, most especially since Congressional Democrats and President Obama obviously accepted Romney's argument that RomneyCare should be the model for the nation.

This would be a good point, except that we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Unfortunately, I don't have that quizzical dog gif saved anywhere. Because it would be well used here.

What the f*ck am I reading?

It's a direct quote from a Bush aide in 2004.


Link

Infernalist: BUT, they're capped at 20% profit per customer(15% with the big plans), so their profit is limited per customer.

Technically, that's not what the legislation says. It says that 85% of their revenue must go to paying benefits, which is slightly different. As I understand it, that means they must cover administration and operating costs out of that 15%, and whatever is left over is their profit.

This means helath care insurance is far less lucrative a market (compared to say property insurance) and already many insurance companies are diversifying and focusing on other areas. In time, expect to see fewer and fewer insurance companies offering health insurance with more consoilidation as only the very large, very high-volume companies will be able to keep operating costs low enough to maintain a worthwhile profit margin.

Biological Ali: I'm arguing (just like everybody else here) that whatever kooky semantics are leading you to conclude that there's a "broken promise" aren't consistent with how most reasonable people understand the words and statements that are being referred to here. I mean sure, nobody can stop you from reasoning in convoluted ways, but you should at least be aware that your conclusions are being derived from your own unique interpretations and as such, may not necessarily be reflective of a more universal understanding of these things.

Look, he's an empire now, and....

whatever.

BojanglesPaladin: Pincy: So sure, they couldn't deny you coverage but they could set your premium at whatever price they wanted which would effectively price people with pre-existing conditions out of the market.

Probably. But I am not clear on whether there is any such control in ACA either. I know that as of now, they can certainly charge you a higher rate if you come in with a pre-existing condition and they do. They just can't tell you no. I vaguely recall that there was some stipulation that they could only increase a certain percentage year over year, but I don;t know if it made it into the final bill.

It's like SR-22 car insurance. You MUST have car insurance, and you cannot be denied insurance, but BOY can they charge you an arm and a leg to do so.

Can anyone point to specifics from ACA outlining rate increase limits?

The ACA requires that any rate increases have to tied to the increased prices within the medical system itself. Rate increases can happen, but they have to go before a government board to explain why they're being raised, and justify that rate increase.

So, let's say that the cost of a delicate sort of testing device goes up. The insurance companies raise their rates a small bit to compensate, then go before the board to explain that the company that makes the testing device had a plant fall into a sink hole or whatever and supplies of the device are limited. The board finds this rational and acceptable and the rate increase is allowed.

Now, let's say that they raise rates just...because. Whatever. Then the board would ask for a reason, if no good reason is supplied, then the rate increase is denied and the price remains the same.

Skleenar: bugontherug: Unfortunately, I don't have that quizzical dog gif saved anywhere. Because it would be well used here.

What the f*ck am I reading?

See? New reality.

You can try to go back and read the thread to see what the context was, but it won't make any sense. Just like your attempt to use historical precedent to show a tie to Romneycare. That ship has sailed. The mandate is bad. Therefore, there is no tie to anything Romney did in your "history" book. Learn to live in the modern world, Socrates.

I actually recognized that quote from an Atlantic Monthly article in the early/mid 2000s. I just didn't understand its relevance to my remark. I think you've explained now.

Skleenar: Well, true, but very few people die if their Vivid DVD's are lost in shipping.

Yep. Like I said, kind of an apples and platypus comparison.