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.

(Slate)   Conservatives long awaited Obamacare replacement bill is set to be unveiled, laughed at   (slate.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, obamacare  
•       •       •

2821 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2013 at 11:50 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-18 04:32:07 PM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: If you are saying now that you were wrong and would like to change your argument to "disagreeing with 100% of Republican ideas", then I am more than happy to accept your concession

How is that a variation of "if a Republican is for it then I'm against it"?

It's demonstrably not the same thing.

When you start being intentionally duplicitous with your own words, then there is no way you can expect people to take you seriously.


Please point out the duplicity in my statements. You are the one who made the claim, once again. Will you back it up this time? Probably not. Again, I ask. How is that a variation? I happen to disagree with 100% of Republican ideas, but not simply because Republicans are for them. Can you explain why that would be a variation on "If a Republican is for it, I'm against it"?
 
2013-09-18 04:32:16 PM  

Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: If you are saying now that you were wrong and would like to change your argument to "disagreeing with 100% of Republican ideas", then I am more than happy to accept your concession

How is that a variation of "if a Republican is for it then I'm against it"?

It's demonstrably not the same thing.

When you start being intentionally duplicitous with your own words, then there is no way you can expect people to take you seriously.


And that's why nobody is taking you seriously. It's good you understand that.
 
2013-09-18 04:39:06 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Lucky LaRue: Believe it or not, there are people that have been engaged in this thread all day and, while your attempts to jump on the table in the last hour and drop a steaming pile of shiat on it are amusing

You know, it's funny. You've got  what? Like 50-60posts in this thread, and every single one of them is either "both sides are bad" trolling, or personal insults and flamebait. But I gotta hand it to you - accusing someone else, anyone else of shiatting all over this thread is the corn peanut topping on the giant shiat sundae you've dumped on us here.

Not one single post out of 60 that is actually on topic. but, yeah, it's other people who are shiatting on the thread.


I think the gist of my 50-60 comments have been arguing the point that both extremes are bad, yes.  Taken in whole, though (and with all the responses), that makes up probably near 1/2 of this thread.  Hardly what you can call thread-shiatting, I think, whatever you may think of the argument.
 
2013-09-18 04:40:56 PM  

Thrag: Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: If you are saying now that you were wrong and would like to change your argument to "disagreeing with 100% of Republican ideas", then I am more than happy to accept your concession

How is that a variation of "if a Republican is for it then I'm against it"?

It's demonstrably not the same thing.

When you start being intentionally duplicitous with your own words, then there is no way you can expect people to take you seriously.

And that's why nobody is taking you seriously. It's good you understand that.


Thrag - the next time there's an politics argument, I'll make sure to invite you early enough to participate.  This time, though, you came in too late in the conversation, and I just don't care what your opinion is.
 
2013-09-18 04:43:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MY research? I'm not the one who made the claim. YOU made it. Why is it suddenly MY responsibility to back up YOUR claim?


Study it out, buddy.
 
2013-09-18 04:47:15 PM  

mediablitz: Offer the same thing. Call it something different. Claim victory.


It really comes as no surprise to find that they planned it all along.
 
2013-09-18 04:55:47 PM  

Trivia Jockey: You mean like insurance exchanges?


No, I meant by being allowed to sell across state lines, as I mentioned in the same post, but I was probably unclear.  Sorry.
 
2013-09-18 04:58:09 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Generation_D: Lucky LaRue: mediablitz: Lucky LaRue: mediablitz: Offer the same thing. Call it something different. Claim victory.

The sad thing is that all the liberals would immediately start screaming about how bad the bill was for the country.

Yeah. Okay. Because liberals haven't been saying this bill is crappy, but better than the sh*t sandwich we had before already.

Are you pretending conservatives aren't screaming non-stop about AHA now? All while supporting when not called "Obamacare"? Supporting it when you go issue by issue?

I'll stick with what HAS happened. You can live by what you believe WILL happen.

Thanks for proving my point.

It isn't what's good or bad for the country that people like you (and your counterparts on the far right) care about.  It's about standing in direct opposition to anything the other side proposes.

The bill was passed and is now law. Anyone going against that is probably doing so because they have an obstructionist goal, and would fark the country rather than do what is right.

A Republican, in other words.

This is just the kind of clap-trap I am talking about.  In your world-view, anyone opposed to your agenda is an obstructionist who would rather f*ck the country than do what is right.  In the tea-baggers world-view, anyone opposed to their agenda is an unpatriotic socialist who would rather f*ck the country than stand up for freedom.

Both world views make for great entertainment, but are pretty f*cking ridiculous when it comes to governance.


You're making a complete ass of yourself. You're argueing against no one, and painting everybody in a broad brush. How can you consider yourself rational or reasonable when you can't even make a point? It's people like you who are the problem with this country.

I get it, both sides are bad, so vote republican. I getcha.
 
2013-09-18 05:00:44 PM  
I find it interesting that I could not find a single thread about this new Republican alternative on Freerepublic. I guess they haven't been told how they feel about it yet, so can't post a story about it.
 
2013-09-18 05:03:45 PM  

Dedmon: You're making a complete ass of yourself. You're argueing against no one, and painting everybody in a broad brush. How can you consider yourself rational or reasonable when you can't even make a point? It's people like you who are the problem with this country.

I get it, both sides are bad, so vote republican. I getcha.


My god, you don't know how much I hate this trope.  If we are going to look at the political spectrum through your black-and-white filters, then, Yes. Absolutely.  Both extremes are bad.  They are f*cking horrible.

In the real world, though, there aren't just teahadist and herbal teabaggers flinging shiat back and forth at each other.  In the real world, rational, educated people see the nuances of political theory and work together to get shiat done.

But, go on with your bad self and tell me how you are right and the conservatives are all bad men and women who don't care about the poor, uneducated, and hungry, asshole.
 
2013-09-18 05:03:51 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Trivia Jockey: You mean like insurance exchanges?

No, I meant by being allowed to sell across state lines, as I mentioned in the same post, but I was probably unclear.  Sorry.


I was making a joke.
 
2013-09-18 05:06:00 PM  

Flab: Why would you deny a company from offering health insurance as part of their benefits in order to attract employees?


I wouldn't. Employers can still offer a great plans as an incentive. The "trick" is that an employee can keep that plan at the same price when they leave employment. No COBRA shiat, nio getting gouged on the individual plan market - just the same person paying the same insurance for the same coverage. It is utter nonsense that an Insurance providers "risk" for health coverage changes because the name on their insured's paycheck changes.

If the next job has a better plan, then they can switch to that one, or keep the one they have. This way, Insurance companies lose that "group lock" that ties the actual consumer to a plan and a price point they have no control or say over. And when the INDIVIDUALS can decide which plan they want... market pressure.

Flab: In the medium term, this will cause most insurance companies to stop doing business from the more regulated states and only offer policies that come from the states with the less regulations.


Someone will fill that gap. And the multi-state ones will have to offer plans that meet standard requirements across multiple states. Also note that I don't mean they must be precisely the same, but that they should be comparable, so there is some wiggle room for state variation in regulation.

Flab: How can you prevent to private companies from entering into a business deal that is mutually beneficial to both of them?


They are free to do so. But they must offer the same price to the end user cash payer as they do the insurance companies. This is largely a moot point because few people pay cash for any treatment of any significance. What we want to avoid is the "$42k for heart surgery, except we really mean $14K once insurance negotiates the price, and it's only $12K if it's Medicare/medicaid". It should be the "real price" regardless of who's paying the bill.

Flab: I'm sure there are cases where it's overly complex to discourage Joe Q. Public from reading the fine print, but in general, there are good reasons why they are written that way. The solution you are recommending would also require heavy legislation to make sure that the insurers comply.


Sure. But I think we can do something like we did for the Credit Card industry. It doesn't have to be written so Honey Boo Boo's mom can grasp it, but I read these things, and even my attorney is scratching his head sometimes. This is doable without "heavy legislation". (And of course, States could do it themselves right now anyway. Some do).

Flab: What would that accomplish? You can't really ask the ambulance to turn around because the price list is too high.


Market pressure. The overwhelming majority of medical costs are not ambulances, (though since you mention it, that is an area rife with problems because people get overcharged after the fact). But if I need my bloodwork done, And Quest wants $175 to run the tests, and Kelsey Seibold want $135, then I'll go to Kelsey. And eventually Quest will meet market price pressures. And since the insured themselves need t be exposed to the actual costs of the care. Believe me, if they see that the Gloriana hospitals are charging $2,000 for an X-ray and blowing the entire year's deductible, but City Central system is charging $750, then City Central will get more business and Gloriana will have to compete.

The point here was to illustrate that it IS possible to have market pressures in a modern healthcare system. After all, we had them up until the 1970s when Nixon passed the HMO bill, and they have been climbing radically ever since.
 
2013-09-18 05:06:25 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Thrag: Lucky LaRue: cameroncrazy1984: Lucky LaRue: If you are saying now that you were wrong and would like to change your argument to "disagreeing with 100% of Republican ideas", then I am more than happy to accept your concession

How is that a variation of "if a Republican is for it then I'm against it"?

It's demonstrably not the same thing.

When you start being intentionally duplicitous with your own words, then there is no way you can expect people to take you seriously.

And that's why nobody is taking you seriously. It's good you understand that.

Thrag - the next time there's an politics argument, I'll make sure to invite you early enough to participate.  This time, though, you came in too late in the conversation, and I just don't care what your opinion is.


Lucky, you aren't having a political argument. You are masturbating in public and people are mocking you for it.
 
2013-09-18 05:08:46 PM  

Lucky LaRue: InmanRoshi: Lucky LaRue: Solid Muldoon: Republican Plan: If we just stop feeding old people and giving them medicine, they'll die off. Social Security and Health Care saved! It's a win/win!

I'm curious.. do you really believe the Republicans want to kill off America's elderly?

It would be hard to conclude otherwise when they literally stand and cheer hypoteheticals about letting  uninsured die at the Republican Presidential debates.

As I said elsewhere, those cheering would be the bat-shiat insane extreme right.  Those are the very people, coincidentally, I am suggesting the extreme left so markedly resemble in behavior and attitude.


And not a single candidate on the stage called them on it.
 
2013-09-18 05:09:22 PM  

Thrag: Do you even know what the fark you are on about?


Dude. No one was even talking to you or about you. This is an AB conversation, etc...Let the bone go, Wilma.
 
2013-09-18 05:12:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Thrag: Do you even know what the fark you are on about?

Dude. No one was even talking to you or about you. This is an AB conversation, etc...Let the bone go, Wilma.


Wait, so when you quoted my posted and addressed me directly, you weren't talking to or about me? Fascinating.

The only bone here is the one in your mouth.
 
2013-09-18 05:14:04 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Trivia Jockey: You mean like insurance exchanges?

No, I meant by being allowed to sell across state lines, as I mentioned in the same post, but I was probably unclear.  Sorry.


How will that lower costs?  Considering it's the same 5 or 6 big names that have subsidiaries in most the states,  For example, United Health of New York will not compete against United Health of Delaware.  United Health Group LLC, will simply close all its subsidiaries and start offering policies out of Delaware or North Dakota, or American Samoa, wherever the law is more lenient.

This cost saving initiative will not be reflected in lower prices to the customer, but in increased earnings per share for the shareholders.
 
2013-09-18 05:16:09 PM  

Lucky LaRue: conservatives are all bad men and women who don't care about the poor, uneducated, and hungry.


Empirical observation holds the above to be true.
 
2013-09-18 05:18:12 PM  

Solid Muldoon: And not a single candidate on the stage called them on it.


Both sides are bad as demonstrated by the empirical evidence of the Democrats not having someone yell something like "Let the uninsured die" and not having any Democratic candidates call them out either.

Study it out.
 
2013-09-18 05:24:27 PM  

phenn: - It played out like a premium grab
- It's going to be difficult on self-employed people
- Added a layer of bureaucracy to the mix
- Doesn't address cost of care issues
- Intrudes on Doctor/Patient relationships
- Going to be a fustercluck to manage


- How?
- In this case, a little oversight is a good thing
- Not sure on that, you might be correct
- How?
- Can't be any worse than the current system
 
2013-09-18 05:27:31 PM  

jgbrowning: Lucky LaRue: conservatives are all bad men and women who don't care about the poor, uneducated, and hungry.

Empirical observation holds the above to be true.


I feel bad for you if you believe this to be true.  If you need examples of where this kind of good-vs-evil dichotomy lead, just look to the evangelical Christians in this country and what harm they've caused, because you are just the other side of that coin.
 
2013-09-18 05:27:55 PM  

freak7: phenn: - It played out like a premium grab
- It's going to be difficult on self-employed people
- Added a layer of bureaucracy to the mix
- Doesn't address cost of care issues
- Intrudes on Doctor/Patient relationships
- Going to be a fustercluck to manage

- How?
- In this case, a little oversight is a good thing
- Not sure on that, you might be correct
- How?
- Can't be any worse than the current system


I actually answered same up thread a bit. It might have gotten buried with all the cawk waving going on in here.  ;-)
 
2013-09-18 05:28:41 PM  

Thrag: Wait, so when you quoted my posted and addressed me directly, you weren't talking to or about me?


I posted to Lucky LaRue regarding Cameron1984. You saw fit to jump in on a conversation that did not involve or relate to you, which is certainly fine, but at this point you are just being a boor. I acknowledged your comment, as is polite, and that should be the end of it. But I am certain you have more to say. Since you are being a boor.

In 5...4...3...
 
2013-09-18 05:31:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The "trick" is that an employee can keep that plan at the same price when they leave employment. No COBRA shiat, nio getting gouged on the individual plan market


So the former employer is permanently on the hook for the insurance?
 
2013-09-18 05:32:37 PM  

Lucky LaRue: jgbrowning: Lucky LaRue: conservatives are all bad men and women who don't care about the poor, uneducated, and hungry.

Empirical observation holds the above to be true.

I feel bad for you if you believe this to be true.  If you need examples of where this kind of good-vs-evil dichotomy lead, just look to the evangelical Christians in this country and what harm they've caused, because you are just the other side of that coin.


I feel bad for you if you have an inability to judge the differences in outcome between competing governmental philosophies. I'm sorry you believe that equality of outcome and effect is demonstrated via a "two-sides of the same coin" metaphor.

But I understand that you arrived at your belief empirically, so it cannot be argued against. Both sides are equal because of your empirical studies.
 
2013-09-18 05:38:25 PM  
Were a I less-empirical man, I'd be tempted to say that it's almost as if "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" and "the moderate middle is good" is some kind of good-vs-evil dichotomy that leads to damaging the country like the evangelical Christians.

Thankfully, I'm empirical enough to label both sides as equal without judging the outcomes of both sides. Definitional equality is the best equality.
 
2013-09-18 05:38:50 PM  

Witty_Retort: So the former employer is permanently on the hook for the insurance?


uhh. no. See, you just have to read the part right after the part you excerpted:

BojanglesPaladin: The "trick" is that an employee can keep that plan at the same price when they leave employment. No COBRA shiat, nio getting gouged on the individual plan market - just the same person paying the same insurance for the same coverage. It is utter nonsense that an Insurance providers "risk" for health coverage changes because the name on their insured's paycheck changes.

If the next job has a better plan, then they can switch to that one, or keep the one they have. This way, Insurance companies lose that "group lock" that ties the actual consumer to a plan and a price point they have no control or say over. And when the INDIVIDUALS can decide which plan they want... market pressure.

 
2013-09-18 05:41:00 PM  

jgbrowning: Lucky LaRue: jgbrowning: Lucky LaRue: conservatives are all bad men and women who don't care about the poor, uneducated, and hungry.

Empirical observation holds the above to be true.

I feel bad for you if you believe this to be true.  If you need examples of where this kind of good-vs-evil dichotomy lead, just look to the evangelical Christians in this country and what harm they've caused, because you are just the other side of that coin.

I feel bad for you if you have an inability to judge the differences in outcome between competing governmental philosophies. I'm sorry you believe that equality of outcome and effect is demonstrated via a "two-sides of the same coin" metaphor.

But I understand that you arrived at your belief empirically, so it cannot be argued against. Both sides are equal because of your empirical studies.


You are the second person today to treat "empirical" like some sort of magical talisman.  Are you sure you understand its meaning?

As for the "two-sides of the same coin" metaphor.. well, since your ideology is rooted in the same good-vs-evil philosophy that the evangelicals adhere so tightly too, it really isn't that huge a leap to draw that particular comparison.
 
2013-09-18 05:44:09 PM  

Lucky LaRue: As for the "two-sides of the same coin" metaphor.. well, since your ideology is rooted in the same good-vs-evil philosophy that the evangelicals adhere so tightly too, it really isn't that huge a leap to draw that particular comparison.


Get a clue! it's only a Radical binary poiltico worldview when the OTHER team does it!
 
2013-09-18 05:44:25 PM  

jgbrowning: Were a I less-empirical man, I'd be tempted to say that it's almost as if "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" and "the moderate middle is good" is some kind of good-vs-evil dichotomy that leads to damaging the country like the evangelical Christians.

Thankfully, I'm empirical enough to label both sides as equal without judging the outcomes of both sides. Definitional equality is the best equality.


Oh.  I see, now.  I hurt your feelings by comparing your patterns of belief to those of the evangelicals, didn't I?  Well, I am sure if you study it out, you'll see the correlations.  Don't take it so hard, though.  You have been brought up in a society steeped with that kind of thinking; it's only natural that you adopt some of it to form your own world view.
 
2013-09-18 05:45:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Lucky LaRue: As for the "two-sides of the same coin" metaphor.. well, since your ideology is rooted in the same good-vs-evil philosophy that the evangelicals adhere so tightly too, it really isn't that huge a leap to draw that particular comparison.

Get a clue! it's only a Radical binary poiltico worldview when the OTHER team does it!


Thanks for helping me today!  It was fun (and a little brutal), but I have to go home and be retarded there for a while, now... :)
 
2013-09-18 05:45:51 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: If the next job has a better plan, then they can switch to that one, or keep the one they have. This way, Insurance companies lose that "group lock" that ties the actual consumer to a plan and a price point they have no control or say over. And when the INDIVIDUALS can decide which plan they want... market pressure.


But what if the next job has crappy insurance and the first company I worked for had a great plan that they subsidized heavily?
That was my question: will they have to subsidize for all eternity if they are dumb enough to offer good services for a good price?

What if insurance companies collude like oil companies, phone companies and airlines and just refuse to compete*. If they agree to totally ignore market pressures, it has no effect.

*I know they technically don't, they just happen to charge the same.
 
2013-09-18 05:46:57 PM  

phenn: I actually answered same up thread a bit. It might have gotten buried with all the cawk waving going on in here.  ;-)


The one I'm really curious about is your claim that it's going to hurt self employed people. They'll have access to health care plans at the same price as any other person would pay through an exchange. If they choose not to carry insurance, they'll pay the same penalty as anybody else would. How are they going to suffer?
 
2013-09-18 05:47:01 PM  

Lucky LaRue: You are the second person today to treat "empirical" like some sort of magical talisman.  Are you sure you understand its meaning?

As for the "two-sides of the same coin" metaphor.. well, since your ideology is rooted in the same good-vs-evil philosophy that the evangelicals adhere so tightly too, it really isn't that huge a leap to draw that particular comparison.


I'm glad to see you're addressing my language choice now, we're getting to the heart of the matter. I do understand its meaning. Precisely understand it.

I'm also glad to see you understand that things rooted in the same good-vs-evil philosophy as evangelicals adhere too results in exactly the same outcomes when implemented. I feel that you really do understand that "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" and "the moderate middle is good" is the same good-vs-evil philosophy since you're willing to make that comparison.

I feel like we're accomplishing a lot with this discussion.
 
2013-09-18 05:48:57 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Oh.  I see, now.  I hurt your feelings by comparing your patterns of belief to those of the evangelicals, didn't I?  Well, I am sure if you study it out, you'll see the correlations.  Don't take it so hard, though.  You have been brought up in a society steeped with that kind of thinking; it's only natural that you adopt some of it to form your own world view.


Oh no, no, no, please don't get the wrong impression. You didn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm just gladdened that you understand how the two "two-sides-of-the-same-coin" metaphors work as precisely equal to each other because they're definitional defined to work that way.

Like I said earlier, I'm glad we're talking about this and that you're seeing new things.
 
2013-09-18 05:52:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Lucky LaRue: As for the "two-sides of the same coin" metaphor.. well, since your ideology is rooted in the same good-vs-evil philosophy that the evangelicals adhere so tightly too, it really isn't that huge a leap to draw that particular comparison.

Get a clue! it's only a Radical binary poiltico worldview when the OTHER team does it!


Don't be so harsh on him. Like he said to me, he's been brought up in a society steeped with that kind of thinking; it's only natural that he adopts some of it to form his own world view.

He can't help that "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" and "the moderate middle is good" is the same good-vs-evil philosophy he's trying to fight against.

I think if just keep talking he'll see that and he'll come around to judging governmental philosophies by their outcomes instead of via pecuniary metaphors.
 
2013-09-18 06:01:09 PM  

freak7: phenn: I actually answered same up thread a bit. It might have gotten buried with all the cawk waving going on in here.  ;-)

The one I'm really curious about is your claim that it's going to hurt self employed people. They'll have access to health care plans at the same price as any other person would pay through an exchange. If they choose not to carry insurance, they'll pay the same penalty as anybody else would. How are they going to suffer?


Suffer is a strong word. My thought is that it would be difficult on them.

So, we checked out the premium calculator online and it would be quite dear for my husband and myself. Both of us are self-employed. I also mentioned that, because of the mandate, we would be fined if we didn't participate and chose to do something else - such as self-insuring or concierge care.

When I talked about that in a previous thread, a lot of responses were that the premiums didn't seem that high. Ours would have been close to 20% of our total income and I just don't see that as being affordable.

Hubs and I have some small advantages in that we aren't in hock up to our eyeballs, no car payments, credit card debt, etc. But, the average family has those expenses to deal with and 20% of total income could be rather hefty to swing.

The calculator was published by the Kaiser Foundation and you can check it out here.
 
2013-09-18 06:10:22 PM  

Trivia Jockey: I was making a joke.


I tend to work and Fark and sometimes that's not a good combination for getting the humor.    mea culpa.

Flab: How will that lower costs?


It doesn't, but Steve Scalise is proposing that it would.
 
2013-09-18 06:10:38 PM  

Witty_Retort: But what if the next job has crappy insurance and the first company I worked for had a great plan that they subsidized heavily?


Your question suggests that you may not have a deep understanding of that 'subsidy', It's just splitting who pays the bill. I don't know how well you understand the system, or if you have been through a couple of these but now, You get what they gives ya.

Today:
Let's say AwesomeInc has a great plan and they subsidize 100% of the $485/month they pay for your awesome insurance. You pay not a penny. But you leave and take a job at MehCo where they subsidize 50% of the $385/month they pay for your mediocre insurance. Now you pay $192.50 more a month, and the insurance is not as good (higher deductible, higher copays, smaller network, etc).

You have no choice. Your awesome insurance is only available to AwesomeInc employees and you ain't one anymore. You get what your employer offers. Or you go get individual insurance and get ass-raped for lousy coverage. God help you if you are a woman and want maternity or anything.

After the Magic Wand:

(Allowing for a minimum time like 6 months or a year of employment before the plan is portable)


If you want you can keep the awesome insurance, and you pay exactly what AwesomeInc was paying for it. ($485/month). The insurance gets paid exactly the same for providing exactly the same insurance to exactly the same person at exactly the same risk.

Now you might say $485 a month? No way! Maybe you can get MehCo to pay you that $192 on your salary instead of subsidizing your insurance, so now it's only $293 a month )and only $100 a month more than MehCo's plan. Maybe not. Maybe you just decide to take Gimme MehCo's cheaper but crappier insurance, since you never get sick and you want the money more. Your call. But once you let go of the awesome plan, it's gone. But you can keep the mediocre plan, even if you go somewhere else.

Three years later you take a job with AmazeBros. and their plan is super awesome. It covers everything from Lasik to liposuction with full visual and dental and a $10 copay with a $500 deductible. And the company pays 100% of the $200/month. That's a p-lan that you would keep, and the insurance companies will want to be offering THAT plan, because that plan will get the keepers, and the crappier plans will get left in the dust.

Market pressures! The Aristocrats!
 
2013-09-18 06:13:32 PM  

Witty_Retort: BojanglesPaladin: If the next job has a better plan, then they can switch to that one, or keep the one they have. This way, Insurance companies lose that "group lock" that ties the actual consumer to a plan and a price point they have no control or say over. And when the INDIVIDUALS can decide which plan they want... market pressure.

But what if the next job has crappy insurance and the first company I worked for had a great plan that they subsidized heavily?
That was my question: will they have to subsidize for all eternity if they are dumb enough to offer good services for a good price?

What if insurance companies collude like oil companies, phone companies and airlines and just refuse to compete*. If they agree to totally ignore market pressures, it has no effect.

*I know they technically don't, they just happen to charge the same.


The other problem is that the rate the former employer is paying for the insurance they originally got from that employer is based on the underwriting for that group of employees. Once he leaves the group, his rate has to be based on some other group of people... a group of people that almost certainly will not have the same plan. To keep the plan they had under their former employers group plan, they will need to forever be tied to that former employer. I can't see that kind of arrangement flying for employers OR insurance companies.
 
2013-09-18 06:14:19 PM  

jgbrowning: Don't be so harsh on him.


You may not have noticed the tongue firmly in cheek there.
 
2013-09-18 06:17:05 PM  

theknuckler_33: Once he leaves the group, his rate has to be based on some other group of people


Why?

The person STAYS in that same group. That person is the exact same person, with the exact same risk as they were 24 hours before. The ONLY thing that changes is who is making the payment to the Insurance company. They STAY in the SAME PLAN and the SAME RISK POOL.

Employment is an arbitrary and absurd differentiator for health insurance and a change in employment should have no bearing at all.
 
2013-09-18 06:18:04 PM  

jgbrowning: BojanglesPaladin: Lucky LaRue: As for the "two-sides of the same coin" metaphor.. well, since your ideology is rooted in the same good-vs-evil philosophy that the evangelicals adhere so tightly too, it really isn't that huge a leap to draw that particular comparison.

Get a clue! it's only a Radical binary poiltico worldview when the OTHER team does it!

Don't be so harsh on him. Like he said to me, he's been brought up in a society steeped with that kind of thinking; it's only natural that he adopts some of it to form his own world view.

He can't help that "both-sides-of-extremism-are-bad" and "the moderate middle is good" is the same good-vs-evil philosophy he's trying to fight against.

I think if just keep talking he'll see that and he'll come around to judging governmental philosophies by their outcomes instead of via pecuniary metaphors.


Now I am almost positive you don't have a clue what you are talking about, man. Keep nursing your wounded ego, though, and you'll get through the confusion.
 
2013-09-18 06:22:59 PM  
It looks like they released an actual bill this time, not just some vague circles and arrows.

The bill
 
2013-09-18 06:23:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: theknuckler_33: Once he leaves the group, his rate has to be based on some other group of people

Why?

The person STAYS in that same group. That person is the exact same person, with the exact same risk as they were 24 hours before. The ONLY thing that changes is who is making the payment to the Insurance company. They STAY in the SAME PLAN and the SAME RISK POOL.

Employment is an arbitrary and absurd differentiator for health insurance and a change in employment should have no bearing at all.


Well, you do realize that employers plans/rates are only good for one year. They have to renegotiate them every single year because, you know, the employers change over time. They might get older or younger overall, healthier or sicker. For this reason alone, it will be impossible for the former employee to keep his 'old' plan because the employer might drop that at the next annual open enrollment when they renegotiate their rates/plan with the insurance company. The insurance company will certainly not allow a former employer keep a plan that is no longer in existence and I highly doubt employers want their group demographics to effected by people that no longer work for them anymore.
 
2013-09-18 06:25:18 PM  

theknuckler_33: BojanglesPaladin: theknuckler_33: Once he leaves the group, his rate has to be based on some other group of people

Why?

The person STAYS in that same group. That person is the exact same person, with the exact same risk as they were 24 hours before. The ONLY thing that changes is who is making the payment to the Insurance company. They STAY in the SAME PLAN and the SAME RISK POOL.

Employment is an arbitrary and absurd differentiator for health insurance and a change in employment should have no bearing at all.

Well, you do realize that employers plans/rates are only good for one year. They have to renegotiate them every single year because, you know, the employers employEEs change over time. They might get older or younger overall, healthier or sicker. For this reason alone, it will be impossible for the former employee to keep his 'old' plan because the employer might drop that at the next annual open enrollment when they renegotiate their rates/plan with the insurance company. The insurance company will certainly not allow a former employer keep a plan that is no longer in existence and I highly doubt employers want their group demographics to effected by people that no longer work for them anymore.


FTFM
 
2013-09-18 06:25:41 PM  

jgbrowning: Lucky LaRue: Oh.  I see, now.  I hurt your feelings by comparing your patterns of belief to those of the evangelicals, didn't I?  Well, I am sure if you study it out, you'll see the correlations.  Don't take it so hard, though.  You have been brought up in a society steeped with that kind of thinking; it's only natural that you adopt some of it to form your own world view.

Oh no, no, no, please don't get the wrong impression. You didn't hurt my feelings at all. I'm just gladdened that you understand how the two "two-sides-of-the-same-coin" metaphors work as precisely equal to each other because they're definitional defined to work that way.

Like I said earlier, I'm glad we're talking about this and that you're seeing new things.


I am sorry, you were just about to reach your triumphant conclusion that your empirical observations that all republicans want to kill the poor and the elderly could not possibly be refuted by men of reason when I so rudely interrupted to observe how similar your thinking is to evangelical Christians.

Do go on.
 
2013-09-18 06:25:49 PM  

theknuckler_33: To keep the plan they had under their former employers group plan, they will need to forever be tied to that former employer.


I think the missed some of the preceding conversation about what we are actually discussing. (Or you are fuzzy about how employer subsidies work). Here is the prior steps in the discussion:

BojanglesPaladin: 1) Detach Health insurance from employment and allow insurance plans with the same provider to be carried across state lines.

BojanglesPaladin: Employers can still offer a great plans as an incentive. The "trick" is that an employee can keep that plan at the same price when they leave employment. No COBRA shiat, nio getting gouged on the individual plan market - just the same person paying the same insurance for the same coverage. It is utter nonsense that an Insurance providers "risk" for health coverage changes because the name on their insured's paycheck changes.

If the next job has a better plan, then they can switch to that one, or keep the one they have. This way, Insurance companies lose that "group lock" that ties the actual consumer to a plan and a price point they have no control or say over. And when the INDIVIDUALS can decide which plan they want... market pressure.



So.. Yeah... That is the exact thing that needs to be fixed. Employment and Insurance should not be tied together like they are. And the easiest way to do that is to say that people can take it with them. (After a suitable eligibility period, of course).
 
2013-09-18 06:26:22 PM  

Thrag: It looks like they released an actual bill this time, not just some vague circles and arrows.

The bill


They actually used the word 'ObamaCare' in the titles? *smashes head on desk*

Thanks for the link. I'll take a looky-loo.
 
2013-09-18 06:27:31 PM  

phenn: freak7: phenn: I actually answered same up thread a bit. It might have gotten buried with all the cawk waving going on in here.  ;-)

The one I'm really curious about is your claim that it's going to hurt self employed people. They'll have access to health care plans at the same price as any other person would pay through an exchange. If they choose not to carry insurance, they'll pay the same penalty as anybody else would. How are they going to suffer?

Suffer is a strong word. My thought is that it would be difficult on them.

So, we checked out the premium calculator online and it would be quite dear for my husband and myself. Both of us are self-employed. I also mentioned that, because of the mandate, we would be fined if we didn't participate and chose to do something else - such as self-insuring or concierge care.

When I talked about that in a previous thread, a lot of responses were that the premiums didn't seem that high. Ours would have been close to 20% of our total income and I just don't see that as being affordable.

Hubs and I have some small advantages in that we aren't in hock up to our eyeballs, no car payments, credit card debt, etc. But, the average family has those expenses to deal with and 20% of total income could be rather hefty to swing.

The calculator was published by the Kaiser Foundation and you can check it out here.


Right, but you're not being treated any differently than anybody else. You're at a bit of a disadvantage because there's no employer insurance available, but the rules aren't being applied to you any differently than anybody else.
 
Displayed 50 of 473 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | 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