Did you read your article Tg? It's not really an Obamacare fuck up, in fact it's a success story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The headline should be
Pregnant couple lose job and are able to buy affordable health insurance.
Printable View
Did you read your article Tg? It's not really an Obamacare fuck up, in fact it's a success story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The headline should be
Pregnant couple lose job and are able to buy affordable health insurance.
Not sure if trolling...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Affordable health insurance that covers nothing at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What are you talking about? They were covered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
See? Witness the conservative troll who hates Romney-care, despite voting for Mittens. He's even wearing his white wizard hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It is ironic. It seems that you posted this as an anti-obamacare piece when it's actually quite positive. This is an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. Now that's some irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I guess I have my answer now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You should read it again. Read it two or three times. Don't skip this part:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Your hero was covered. He chose to quit paying his insurance and go to a midwife, but that was his choice.Quote:
"How could this not be working?" he says. "The United States government has set this up. It's this whole big deal; there are commercials everywhere saying we need to use this. And they're just saying, 'No, no, no,' and that just made me so mad."
Louis Adams, a spokesman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, says he went down that same list a month after Rachel had checked. He says most of the 28 obstetricians do take the HMO insurance.
So you're saying the couple are just liars. Great. Could have saved yourself some embarrassment by pointing that our earlier :/
I also like how even the rep from Blue Cross Blue shield admitted that most of the obstetricians listed accepted the insurance. Don't they even know who does and does not take their own insurance plan?
Every time you start a sentence with "So you're saying..." you just lost your argument. It's a big red flag that Tg's about to start making shit up. In this case he's making up that I called the two people "liars".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This article keep getting better the more I read it.
Not only did the guy get health insurance for his prego wife but he was even able to opt out and go with a faith based program. I bet he doesn't even have to pay a penalty.
Quote:
And so they dropped their new plan; they just stopped paying the premium.
They signed on to be in the midwife's care. Nick signed up for a nonprofit, Christian-oriented cost-sharing plan. The Robinsons will pay cash upfront and request reimbursement later.
Are you high, cwolff?
Are you missing the part where the wife said most of the 28 obstetricians on the list said they didn't accept their insurance and of the few that said they did either the hospital wouldn't accept the insurance or that they couldn't guarantee she would see the same doctor more than once?
The only way you can think this is a "pro" Obamacare story is if you're calling the couple liars but since you just gave me grief for even suggesting that's what you're doing I'm at a loss here now.
Except of course my initial assessment of the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/...69ad7111_m.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
It's not even enjoyable to make fun of you anymore.. since you post such retarded things.
Are you missing the part where her insurance company said that they went down the same list and most of the DR's take her insurance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You brought up the "can't get to know my Dr. thing" so I'm going with a midwife instead of ACA. Do you realize that she was 30 weeks along? What was she doing before that? Did she have no Dr., was she going to dump that Dr. for a new one? She quits paying for insurance and makes the choice to have her kid at home in a bathtub, even though her first two kids were C-sections? I don't know if that raises the risks of this pregnancy or not but she seemed to think so.
Your article has a shit load of holes in it.
So you're calling the couple liars? Come on dude, this isn't a "gotcha" moment. You either believe the couple or you believe the insurance company. Man up and say what you think already.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I thought my article proved how awesome Obamacare is? But now the article is shit and has a bunch of "wholes" in it? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I'm not calling them liars Tg. Don't be so fucking thick. Is that the only two options? Either they Lied about coverage or their coverage was shit? Those are TWO (2) options. Binary---again. Is there no other possibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I won't be surprised if they are exposed as liars though. It's interesting that these guys are Pastors in Tx who were incapable of getting "Obamacare" insurance to work for them so they had to go to their faith-based group.
Well let's ask the expert. Latrin, are there more than two options going on in this story? Either A) The couple is lying about their coverage or $) The insurance company is lying about the coverage? Is there a third option?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Gee, sure sounds like you're calling them liars.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
This puts the story into a little different perspective.
Quote:
At 30 weeks she would be lucky to find a doctor that would see her as a new patient. Did she not have any form of regular checkups in the first 75% of her pregnancy? She wants a “personal relationship” with a doctor that couldn’t possibly plan for any sort of eventuality after only seeing her for the final 5-10 weeks of her 40 week pregnancy? That is pushing it anywhere. She didn’t like the rotating doctor staff but neglects to realize after already having two children that the likelihood of actually getting the one doctor you’ve been seeing is 50/50 at best. Perhaps it’s a Texas thing but when people make these sorts of bad decisions in a place where the government does not like the working poor it makes me think the entire thing is made up. News Cut
You forgot C) Tacos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I knew you would say that but for the life of my I don't know why you would. I just said "I won't be surprised if...." That's not declaring these people guilty. Tg, it's ok to argue but don't lie, misrepresent, pull shit out of context and engage in this dishonest gamesmanship. Just be a man and discuss things without getting so twisted that you have to be dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Holy shit. Latrin is still posting? He used to tear up the official forums with crazy shit. That was after the game pretty much died (IMO) and the official forums became a place for folks who left to pass their time. Surely Latrin isn't still playing?
The third option is that the couple and insurance company are using "coverage" to mean different things. This is the logical fallacy of "equivocation". The couple had medical care available to them and are therefore described as "covered" by the insurance company, but the couple "equivocates" on the meaning of "coverage" by wanting an atypical kind of medical care. Is this definition of "coverage" so atypical that it begs the question whether the couple's "equivocation" was an intentional warping, with the purpose of blasting Obamacare for failing to provide their desired "coverage"? I don't know, I'm not a doctor. But I'll tell you one thing that didn't factor into it at all: racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I do not recall that. I haven't played in a long time but for a brief period a year ago which would have been totally pointless but for providing a model for incredible Tisket portraits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elantari
Except the couple said the doctors flat out refused to accept their insurance so, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Wouldn't that fall under calling the couple liars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
At this point it goes without saying that anyone against Obamacare are racists. No need to bring it up in every story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Come on. If you're the Latrin I think you are (and I think you are), you tore up the official forums with political (and I want to say philosophical) posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Textbook trolling ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Doesn't look like your or Tg are using the word trolling correctly. Please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I agree with cwolff.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Him trolling would require him to understand the article posted. He clearly doesn't.
Would you like to reconsider that response? Perhaps after rereading the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I have been known to make political and philosophical posts, but I honestly do not recall doing so on the officials. I remember only mechanical posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elantari
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Trolling = stating something utterly asinine and unsubstantiated, with the implication of degrading a discussion into irrationality, which you habitually accomplish.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Oh Terry. Terry, Terry, Terry. Oh. Oh!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
"Some of the doctors said they wouldn't see her because she was too far along in her pregnancy — about 30 weeks."
Coverage is not a guarantee a given doctor will see you. They can have medical reasons not to.
"A few practices did take the HMO insurance, but they operated as a rotating clinic and couldn't guarantee she would see the same doctor every time."
She had the coverage she needed, just not the coverage she wanted.
It's possible none of that would have been a problem if this didn't happen:Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
"Rachel recalls two days in January when she sat down and called every doctor on the list of 28. According to her, most of the practices told her, in one way or another, that they didn't take the plan."
When you read "Hey 28 doctors in my area accept this insurance? Surely one of them will meet my needs!"
But then at least 15 (most) don't accept the insurance to begin with? Your chances of finding the perfect doctor dwindles.
You have lost, Latrin. I know you will do the honorable thing.
Like I said (I think?), I so happened to have private insurance before Obamacare and the process of going down a list of doctors is familiar to me. I didn't bat 100.0000, and I'm white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Poor Poor Tg. I feel bad for you dude. I really do. All of the things you post get shot down with the barest fact checking (by fact checking I mean reading the article that's your source) and you're reduced to selective editing then declaring victory.
It's an ugly character flaw.
It's cute how cwolff is using Latrin'a trolling to back up his own trolling.
Again you don't understand what trolling is. Both Latrin and I have disagreed with you and offered alternative conclusions. That is not trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'm not surprised that you're trying to stick us with the "troll" label. It's just another sign that you can't make your case based on the facts you presented. That's why you've been reduced to attacking those who disagree and not the substance.
You think Latrin's past experiences has anything to do with this story?
And you wonder why I think you're trolling.
One entity obtained private insurance and experienced numerous rejections before finding a doctor that would treat them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The other entity obtained private insurance and experienced numerous rejections before finding a doctor that would treat them.
They seem pretty close to me.
You said you didn't bat 100, what did you bat then?
You would think so too if you read the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The couple didn't even say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Neither did Blue CrossQuote:
Rachel recalls two days in January when she sat down and called every doctor on the list of 28. According to her, most of the practices told her, in one way or another, that they didn't take the plan.
...
She says there were other issues, too. Some of the doctors said they wouldn't see her because she was too far along in her pregnancy — about 30 weeks. A few practices did take the HMO insurance, but they operated as a rotating clinic and couldn't guarantee she would see the same doctor every time. Rachel wanted to establish a relationship with her obstetrician.
The entire premise of your argument is false. They had insurance and found practices that would accept them with her insurance coverage. She chose to quit paying her insurance and have her child at home. This was a personal choice. Get it? They exercised their free-will here, they weren't forced into anything.Quote:
Louis Adams, a spokesman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, says he went down that same list a month after Rachel had checked. He says most of the 28 obstetricians do take the HMO insurance.
Autobiograpical much?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Diversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Can't you finally admit that you're wrong instead of leading us off into some tangential irrelevant discussion about how many doctors Latrin had to call?
I'm with Parkbandit, I almost feel like I'm picking on someone with a mental disability now :/
You're doing it again. Diversion, distraction and fallacy. Without fallacy you have NOTHING to say. It's sad but it's true. I know, or at least believe, that IRL you're not this stupid. Why do you have to be this stupid here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Obviously I stopped after I found one doctor who would treat me, so I have no way of knowing what the % would be for the full list. This is a common error you see in video game forums: "I have 25% to fail save and it only took three attacks to kill me, fix the bug devs suck omg!!!" You have to be careful when you start and stop measuring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
As it happens, I only had to call three doctors, but you also have to remember that I live in civilization as opposed to Texas. It wouldn't surprise me that their percentage would be lower than whatever my true percentage was.
What tri-mester were you in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Latrin is trying to make the case that over 50% failure rate is normal in this type of thing and is basing this off of his own personal experiences and you don't think his failure rate has any importance in this discussion?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I accept your apology :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Latrin isn't talking about 50%. I'm not sure why you are. I do know that he's asking you to re-read your own article because you fail to comprehend it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Edit: I know why you're talking 50% actually. You're trying to change the subject by starting an argument over something unrelated to your original post because you're unable to defend your idea with the source material.
This is such a little cunt thing to say. What's wrong with you? Are you a 13 year old girl?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Disagreeing while explaining why I disagree or even just to disagree does not = trolling. You're taking things too personally and it's hurting your objectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I thought I was trying to make the case that the couple had coverage (thus the insurance company was correct), just not the coverage they wanted (thus the couple was correct).
Didn't we just go over this a few posts back? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
The couple said most companies flat out refused to accept their insurance; that isn't a case of the couple not having the insurance they wanted, that is them not having any coverage at all...at least with those specific doctors. You then went on to say that other doctors on the list accepted their insurance but it wasn't exactly what they wanted, I said maybe if most of the doctors didn't flat out refuse the insurance they would have had a better chance of getting exactly what they wanted, you then countered with a story from your past that expecting 100% of doctors given to you by your insurance company to accept their insurance is impossible. At that point yes, you are trying to say that their experiences are typical; otherwise I have no idea what the point of your anecdote is.
The couple said three or four different things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
- Rachel recalls two days in January when she sat down and called every doctor on the list of 28. According to her, most of the practices told her, in one way or another, that they didn't take the plan
- She says there were other issues, too. Some of the doctors said they wouldn't see her because she was too far along in her pregnancy — about 30 weeks
- A few practices did take the HMO insurance, but they operated as a rotating clinic and couldn't guarantee she would see the same doctor every time
Her husband says this: "We want to have our birth in a hospital."
Blue Cross Blue Shield says "... says most of the 28 obstetricians do take the HMO insurance."
The issue is not whether she was able to have her baby in a hospital. The issue is that your protagonists are saying different things and you are seizing on the only explanation that confirms your bias against ACA.
This ain't no riddle Tg. They bought insurance, got insurance, then quit paying for insurance. The remarkable thing is that they got insurance 30 weeks into a pregnancy. They were afforded the luxury of quitting insurance that prior to the PPACA would have been an impossibility.
NOTE: I bolded portions to make it a bit easier for you.
You bolded the part where I said "most" then specifically bolded the word "most" when directly quoting from the story and you think I'm having trouble rea...
No...wait! Almost got sucked in by the troll again. At least Latrin's trolling is entertaining. Can you juggle, cwolff? Or do backflips? Liven this shit up.
She got insurance while 7 months pregnant, found a practice that would take her as a new client and admit her to the hospital for her birth. What's the fucking problem? Sounds like an Obamacare success story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I think Tg is ticked off that this couple couldn't just walk into a hospital, have their kid two doors down from where the king was born and not pay a thing, like in Denmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Oddly enough, prior to Obamacare.. if she would have shown up at a hospital while having contractions.. she would have had her kids in the hospital. Insurance or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
And technically, they could have gotten away without paying a thing. Still can actually.
Oh ya, Olaf-Care kicks ass! Wish we had that here but you know...obummer wouldn't allow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
The standards for Obamacare sure are falling fast.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!"
"Obamacare will lower healthcare costs!"
"The Affordable Care Act will ensure everyone has access to quality health care!"
Now it's...
"Meh, pay 400 dollars a month and accept whatever fucking insurance they shove down your throat! AND LIKE IT, DAMMIT!"
Atlanteax, this is how you troll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
And it's only just begun...... I can't wait for the 4 month waitlists like the VA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Really? A decentralized Healthcare system where decisions are handled locally is something that appeals to you? Hell, me too. Just surprised to hear you say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
About 27% of Denmark citizens have private health insurance...the rest are covered by either Group 1 or Group 2.
Group 1, which is what most citizens have that aren't covered privately, has very tight restrictions on what care you can receive. You have to pick 1 family doctor and can't see anyone else, and can't see a specialist about anything unless referred by that doctor. Care is subsidized, but not free...besides the much higher general tax rate, you still have quite a bit of out-of-pocket expenses, depending on what services you receive.
Group 2 has a higher rate of contribution, but you can pick any doctor you want, and see any specialist without a referral. However, you generally have more out-of-pocket expenses than group 1.
It's a much more streamlined system than Obamacare, with a lot less overhead and needless complications. I find it interesting that they can pull this off using only 9.8% of their GDP, while the US uses over 17%. I'm sure they save quite a lot of money with the decentralized nature of their system, but they're also one of the top countries in the world for using technology to simplify the process...almost all doctors use electronic medical records and electronic prescribing. Another interesting tidbit is that the average doctor in Denmark makes about $108,000/year, compared to about $160,000/year for American doctors...broken down even further, the average "specialist" in Denmark makes only 91k/year, compared to over 230k/year in the US. Expressed in a ratio to per capita GDP, we spend almost twice as much on specialist here as they do in Denmark.
Before we go screaming about evil capitalist hospitals charging exorbitant amounts just because they can...I found it interesting that only 18% of American hospitals are for-profit organizations. While this might add a bit to the overall average, I really don't think it's bringing it up that much.
You know a lot more about Danish healthcare than I do and it was an interesting read. I thought they were just a totally socialized system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I had a question about this: "It's a much more streamlined system than Obamacare, with a lot less overhead and needless complications."
Obamacare isn't a system at all. It's just private health insurance.
The Danes got a good thing going.
That's like saying none of your limbs are injured except for your broken arm. That's like complaining you can't get gas anywhere in the United States except for gas stations. That's like saying the ACA won't kill you except for Obama's death panels. School in the summertime, Terrence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Not having insurance universally accepted is typical, yes. That's why insurance companies tell you to call first and doctors' offices check your insurance before you receive treatment rather than after. I don't know the exact figure, and my experience is probably not even indicative of my own exact figure because of the sampling bias I described to you. We also don't know the exact figure for the couple in question for various reasons. Chief among them?Quote:
You then went on to say that other doctors on the list accepted their insurance but it wasn't exactly what they wanted, I said maybe if most of the doctors didn't flat out refuse the insurance they would have had a better chance of getting exactly what they wanted, you then countered with a story from your past that expecting 100% of doctors given to you by your insurance company to accept their insurance is impossible. At that point yes, you are trying to say that their experiences are typical; otherwise I have no idea what the point of your anecdote is.
Racism.
This is why Latrin's trolling is fun. Take note wannabe trolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Isn't it great when AAA is accepted in more places than Obamacare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
We should start a list of things that are easier to get accepted than Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Well good. We can throw out the thousand-plus page bill then. We already have private health insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
1100+ pages to simply say everyone must buy health insurance, or an employer must provide it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
And people wonder why our country is going to shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Thanks for proving to everyone (but apparently yourself) that you do not understand what trolling is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Maybe the Dems will run on Obamacare. Might as well since the GOP doesn't know how to deal with it.
Quote:
It was supposed to be so easy this election year for Republican congressional candidates. All they would have to do was shout “repeal Obamacare!” and make a crack about government doctors and broken websites, and they could coast into office on a wave of public fury. The failure of the Affordable Care Act was simply assumed.
But it has not quite worked out that way. The government website was fixed, and 8.1 million people managed to sign up for insurance through the exchanges. An additional 4.8 million people received coverage through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Three million people under the age of 26 were covered by their parents’ plans. Though the law itself has never been widely popular, most people say they like its component parts, and a large majority now says it wants the law improved rather than repealed.
...
The good news is that some Democratic candidates, sensing the same change in the weather, are beginning to campaign on the law’s benefits. Improving access to health care was the right thing for the country, and supporting it may turn out to be good politics, too.NYT Editorial
Hopefully the Dems do!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I agree. I'd love to see them hammer on ACA, gov't shutdown, repeal votes etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Is that the same shutown caused by Harry Reid because he would not even negotiate with Republicans? And is that the same Harry Reid that later decided to bring to a vote the bill that ended the shutdown, which was the exact same bill the Republicans in the House had presented him weeks earlier trying to have a reconciliation? Why yes, yes it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
If you believe that I've got a book that you're going to love. It's called, How the South Won the War.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
I think the reason doctors are switching parties is because Republicans haven't tried hard enough to repeal Obamacare. If they really wanted to repeal it, they could.Quote:
Researchers analyzing doctors' federal campaign contributions between the 1991-92 and 2011-12 election cycles found that doctors — who once contributed to Republican campaigns at consistently higher rates than the entire donor population — have become less enthusiastic donors to the GOP.
More...
As hard as you try to dig with that shovel Ted Cruz set out to create a shutdown and he got his wish. The tactic won't be used again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Yes it will. Nothing in politics dies, ever, it is as though it is a rabid world eating zombie that just won't stay down trying to eat Carl even though he stays in the back. And worse yet, like in history, it will be used by both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Not true, as much as you would like to rationalize your opinion, that is simply not true. There are people in government who have been practically begging for cooperation. Yet there are people like yourself who are complete obstructionists.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
If you believed the other party was mentally inept, you'd be an obstructionist too. One should never compromise with stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Of course one should. If they're stupid, you can give them a totally meaningless concession and trick them into thinking it was really important, thereby getting something nearly as important in return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
HuffPost is funny.
Basically the story is saying it's actually a good thing that Obamacare is forcing some companies to cut back on their healthcare plans because now people are "free" to find better jobs.Quote:
Trader Joe's Proves That Obamacare Can Free Us From The Wrong Jobs
Late last year, Melissa O'Rourke found out that her employer, Trader Joe's, would no longer be offering health care coverage to part-time workers like herself. As of 2014, O'Rourke would have to find her own insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
The company's widely discussed policy change, first reported by The Huffington Post, prompted a bit of soul-searching on O'Rourke's part. She had spent about nine years working for the grocer -- several years longer than she'd anticipated when she first came on. A change seemed long overdue.
By the end of January, O'Rourke had enrolled in Obamacare and left the Trader Joe's crew.
"Honestly, the health insurance was one of the the few things keeping me there," O'Rourke, 37, said.
For decades, health coverage in the U.S. has been closely linked to employment. The vast majority of Americans have received health coverage through their jobs and will continue to do so in the Obamacare era. But they no longer have to.
The idea was central to the president's sweeping health care reform law: By "decoupling" insurance coverage from employment, you give people more control over their careers and their lives. That could mean switching jobs, working fewer hours or perhaps not working at all. (The latter two choices, laid out in projections by the Congressional Budget Office last year, were widely mischaracterized by Republicans as job losses expected under Obamacare.)
"We've talked for years about 'job lock' -- staying in jobs just to keep the benefits," said Paul Fronstin, a researcher at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit that examines the role of workplace benefits in the economy. "The Affordable Care Act completely changes the playing field. You don't need your employer anymore for health benefits. You can go to an exchange and get coverage without worrying about a pre-existing condition."
In O'Rourke's case, the new coverage has given her the chance to become a full-time labor organizer. She's wrapping up her undergraduate degree in labor studies and plans to help launch a worker center in Indianapolis. She said she probably would have left Trader Joe's earlier, but persistent health issues made the idea of forgoing coverage unimaginable.
Thanks to a subsidy, the monthly premium for O'Rourke's new plan under Obamacare comes to less than $27. Under her group plan at Trader Joe's, she said, she paid around $70 a month for comparable coverage.
"It's quite a bit less, and the coverage as far as I can tell is pretty similar," said O'Rourke. The one clear distinction is that her new plan doesn't include vision and dental.
HuffPost readers: Has Obamacare made it possible for you to pursue a new job or career? Tell us about it.
It's rare for a retail company to offer part-time workers decent and affordable health coverage. Outside of exceptions like Trader Joe's, most such employees would have qualified only for limited plans that capped their available benefits -- the so-called "mini-med" plans common in lower-wage food and retail jobs. If they opted in, workers would pay relatively high prices for generally poor coverage. (The Affordable Care Act banned many such plans.) With a median salary of $21,400 in the industry, most part-time retail workers get by on meager earnings to begin with.
Bryce Williams, managing director at the human resources consultancy Towers Watson, said many part-time retail employees are seeing coverage for the first time in years. His firm has consulted for companies to help part-timers navigate the exchanges and find "the best bang for the buck" under Obamacare, he said.
"In most cases, whatever an employer did or didn't do, these exchange-based plans will be a better deal than what these employees had available to them," Williams said. "Many of these part-time workers have never qualified for group coverage before."
Trader Joe's' coverage of any worker who averaged at least 18 hours a week was unusually generous for the grocer's field. After HuffPost reported that the company would steer workers toward the Obamacare exchanges if they averaged fewer than 30 hours, about two dozen employees emailed HuffPost about the change. They were almost uniformly infuriated. Many said they had remained at the company in large part because of the insurance.
For some, that anger has started to fade.
One worker, who requested anonymity because she still works for Trader Joe's, emailed HuffPost in September to say she was filled with "fear and confusion and HEARTBREAK" after getting the company's memo explaining the change. Initially unable to secure a plan under Obamacare, she ended up taking out a loan to purchase a semester's worth of health coverage at the art school where she's enrolled part-time.
But come March, she was approved for Medicaid under the program's expansion to low-income adults in New York state. Although she spent several thousand dollars for insurance for the first half of this year, she's now receiving free coverage. She continues to work three days a week at Trader Joe's. In a more recent interview, she called the company's move "a very poor decision" but said she believes it's still a good job.
"It shook my trust in them a little bit," she said. "The only reason I stayed is it's such a flexible job and the pay is still really good for retail. I can't knock that at all. That's why I stuck around. But there are others who had no reason to stay."
Like O'Rourke, this worker says she knew colleagues who bolted from Trader Joe's once company coverage was dropped for part-timers, saying "the health care was what was keeping them there."
Most of the Trader Joe's workforce is employed full-time, so it's hard to say how significant the turnover may have been due to the policy change, or what kind of training costs it came with. The company -- known for its reticence, and perhaps wary of wading into any story involving Obamacare -- declined to answer questions for this article.
In his original memo to workers last August, Trader Joe's CEO Dan Bane said the company believed most part-timers would be better off financially on the exchanges than on company-sponsored coverage. To soften the landing, the company offered qualifying workers a flat payment of $500 to help buy new insurance. (Many workers complained to HuffPost that those payments were taxed at the rate of a bonus, making them less ample than they seemed.)
"Depending on income you may earn outside of Trader Joe's, we believe that with the $500 from Trader Joe's and the tax credits available under the ACA, many of you should be able to obtain health care coverage at very little if any net cost to you," Bane wrote in the memo.
Gary Claxton, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit that focuses on health policy research, said the exchanges should offer most of those part-time workers a better deal, unless they happen to have high income and don't qualify for a nice subsidy. The new tax incentive to be taken advantage of would make it a "win-win" in many situations for both the employer and the worker, he said.
"I don't think they would have done it if they didn't think it would help them with their workforce," Claxton said of Trader Joe's. "They didn't do it to save just a little money. They did it because they thought it would give them a better place in the labor market."
Of course, not everyone wins. O'Rourke said she knew colleagues whose quotes on the exchange weren't nearly as attractive as their Trader Joe's company plans, owing to other family income.
Seeing as it came on the heels of a cut in contributions to workers' retirement accounts, O'Rourke said she feels the company dropped coverage for part-timers to help itself more than its employees. She noted that many workers had to scramble to meet Trader Joe's 30-hour-a-week threshold for full-time work, thereby guaranteeing they could keep their company health plans. Some who'd hoped to clear that bar at the end of last year didn't make it.
"I definitely think they did use it as an excuse, and it's benefiting their bottom line much more than workers'," she said.
Some workers may be paying more for their insurance under Obamacare but enjoying new opportunities at the same time. Edan Lichtenstein, 36, decided to leave his Trader Joe's store in Washington, D.C., shortly after the company dropped part-timers from its plans. The plan he got on the exchange runs about $260 a month, and he didn't qualify for much of a subsidy due to his freelance income last year.
Even though he's now paying more for coverage, Lichtenstein said his career is headed in a more appropriate direction. With a bachelor's degree, he'd never intended to work on the floor at Trader Joe's for the four years that he did. He "would have taken more risks, but there was the health insurance issue," he said.
After he left Trader Joe's, he took a three-month course in writing code and building apps. He's now working part-time at a startup and looking for a full-time job where he can use more of his education. Obamacare provided him with an opening to leave retail, and he's grateful for it.
"I felt I was lucky," Lichtenstein said of quitting Trader Joe's. "It wasn't the end of the world for me. I didn't have kids and stuff. There were people there without the leverage or who weren't as lucky as I am, and they needed that job a lot more than I did."
I have a few questions I would like Latrin to answer in cwolff's absence:
1) Weren't people already free to find better jobs?
2) Assuming there isn't a full time, great paying job for each and every single American aren't some people going to have to take these shit jobs that now offer less benefits because of Obamacare?
3) Assuming the answer to number 2 is "yes" (because it is) how are these people now better off with jobs with less benefits?
Huffington Post is flying their Republican flag high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Say what?? It is a liberal 'mag'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I was simply stating that they are expressing Republican ideals here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
It makes sense though. Arianna Huffington started out Democratic, went Republican, then went Democratic again. Her husband was a Republican.
First off, if his name was Edan Taliban he'd have had the political power to leave years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Your summary of the article is off. Pre-ACA Mr. Luxembourg was free to take his new job so long as he didn't mind having no healthcare. Post-ACA he can have both. The answer to (3) is that the people who Trader Joseph now hires didn't have any job before. Here it is diagrammatically:
BEFORE
Mr. Andorra's talents are not capitalized at TJ and he has health insurance provided by the same.
Mr. Other Guy X's talents are not capitalized on the unemployment line and he does not have health insurance.
AFTER
Mr. Monaco's talents are capitalized and he has health insurance provided by LORD Obama.
Mr. Other Guy X's talents are not capitalized at TJ and he may or may not have health insurance.
Mr. Moneybags has one less welfare queen leech socialism no skin in the game Marxist to support and therefore hires another worker instead.
Mr. Third Guy Y gets hired and finally has enough money to sue Third Eye Blind for ripping off his name.
One job + ACA = three jobs. And that's why unemployment peaked in March/April 2010 (ACA was signed into law March 23rd) and has declined ever since.
Is this actually a thing? People stayed at their jobs and never wanted a better job because of their health insurance? It almost seems like something the Obama political machine made up to sell Obamacare to the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I've worked at a few different places during my lifetime and I can never recall anyone saying "Oh man, I'm stuck at this job forever because if I found a better job I would lose my health insurance!" In fact, the exact opposite seemed to always be true; people were always complaining that they wanted to find a better job, even at places where the pay and benefits were pretty gosh darn good.
Yes, I have heard of people losing their jobs and thus losing their health insurance and thus being screwed, but the idea that people were stuck in their dead end jobs forever and could never get a better job because of their health insurance? Is that real? Oh, wait, "was" that real? Because apparently Obamacare fixed it.
Have any stats, Latrin? How often did this type of scenario pop up?
It's the same old story, baby: opt-in vs. opt-out. You always get more participants if you make the program opt-out. That's just how people are. How does that apply here? If you'd shut up long enough for me to put two sentences together you'd already know. A person is more likely to look for a job when they don't have one (opt-in) rather than leave their current job on the chance of another (opt-out). This is true even on the level of clicking boxes, imagine how much more dramatic the effect is when the cost is employment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Imagine all the people living life today with federally guaranteed access to insurance. If that wasn't John Lennon's dream, I don't know what is.
(Nobody is talking here, this is typing and reading.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I may be wrong, but I think everyone already had guaranteed access to insurance. Most if not all states had an "insurer of last resort" that was not allowed to refuse anyone insurance. Now.. being able to PAY for it is something different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I challenge Latrin to find some numbers and Latrin fails to provide said numbers?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Calm down everyone, I don't want to alarm you, but I do think the end of times are near.
He is busy searching for his hidden stash of oregano.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
What?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You better hurry up and read that study before Hightower comes in here and tells everyone how wrong I am about what that study says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
In the words of Barry O.. intercepted!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Two months ago Obamacare was credited with "saving" the economy.
Now they're saying Obamacare might have actually fucked over the economy.
I especially love the original narrative.Quote:
Obamacare is going to have to return its hero's cape, and we're all going to have to learn to think twice before we over-react to shaky economic data.
Two months ago, President Barack Obama's signature health-care reform law was widely credited with saving the U.S. economy from shrinking in the first quarter by giving a huge jolt to health-care spending. On Wednesday, we found out that had all been a mirage.
Using more-solid data than it had two months ago, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis found that health spending actually shrank in the first quarter, weakening overall consumer spending and contributing to a terrible quarter for the broader economy. Gross domestic product shrank at a 2.9 percent annualized rate in the quarter, the worst since the depths of the Great Recession, with health spending alone shaving 0.16 percentage points from growth.
What a difference from two months ago, when the BEA first guesstimated that health spending soared at a 9.9 percent rate in the quarter, helping to keep the economy out of the dumpster. Many news outlets, including yours truly, ran headlines like this:
Other outlets, with differing ideologies, zeroed in on the alleged spending surge as a bad thing, pointing out that one of the goals of Obamacare was to reduce such spending.
We were all wrong. It turns out that health-care spending actually fell, as apparently millions of new Obamacare and Medicaid enrollees boosted their total health-care spending much, much less than the BEA had guessed they would.
We should have listened to our own health-care reporter Jeffrey Young, who wrote when the first data came out:
Because everything with the words "health care" in it have been intensely politicized since 2009 when Congress started writing what eventually became the Affordable Care Act, every number that comes out has a tendency to be overanalyzed, and people on the left and the right have a tendency to draw grand conclusions from what can be pretty meager, preliminary information.
Young also pointed out that the long-term trajectory of health-care spending should be higher, anyway, given an improving economy, an aging population and other factors. On Wednesday, the White House suggested that health spending should pick up, but health prices should stay low, both of which the White House naturally attributed to Obamacare.
And we might not really have seen the full impact of Obamacare sign-ups on the economy yet, particularly as large numbers of them happened at the tail end of the first quarter, for insurance that actually couldn't be used until April -- the second quarter -- at the earliest.
Anyway, this episode highlights the risk we run every month of giving too much weight to any one economic number -- especially big, politically charged numbers like the unemployment rate and health-care spending. These numbers are often just best guesses that are revised completely beyond recognition in short order, and yet they can cause wild mood swings in consumers, politicians and financial markets. Better to be patient and stay focused on the big picture.
"Obamacare saved the economy because it increased healthcare spending!"
Wait...what? Wasn't Obamacare supposed to lower healthcare spending?
It's not called the Lower Healthcare Spending Care Act.. it's called the AFFORDABLE Care Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's Affordable, no one said it would be lowering the cost.
Suck it Trebek.
SOMEONE FROM THE TEA PARTY MUST HAVE HACKED HUFFINGTON POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared Tuesday that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal.
The 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia—not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. The ruling relied on a close reading of the Affordable Care Act.
"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith.
"We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."
In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority "portends disastrous consequences."
Indeed, the 72-page decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare's goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it.
However, the ruling does, and will not ultimately affect the taxpayer-fund subsidies the federal government issued to 2 million or so people through the 15 exchanges run by individual states and the District of Columbia,
The Obama administration said it will ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel's decision, which for now does not have the rule of law.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the ruling—for now—"does not have any practical impact" on premium subsidies issued to HealthCare.gov enrollees now."
"We are confident" that the ruling will be overturned, Earnest said. "We are confident in the legal position we have . . . the Department of Justice will litigate these claims through the federal court system."
Earnest said "it was obvious" that Congress intended subsidies, or tax credits, to be issued to Obamacare enrollees regardless of what kind of exchange they used to buy insurance.
Michael Cannon, one of the intellectual godfather of the court challenge and a director at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the ruling "was validating" to him.
"This is the first opinion that looked at all of the evidence," said Cannon.
Tuesday's ruling endorsed his controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, whichargues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges.
HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace, and had enrolled 5.4 million of the 8 million people who signed up for Obamacare plans by the end of open enrollment in mid-April.
About 4.7 million people, or 86 percent of all HealthCare.gov enrollees, qualified for a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.
If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law's mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.
If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the HealthCare.gov plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for nonsubsidized people who would remain in those plans.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065
PB be all like...Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://media3.giphy.com/media/GA2dwDU7owOS4/giphy.gifhttp://www.thatjoshguy.com/3droom2/dance1.gifhttp://static.comicvine.com/uploads/...0545-Celer.gif
PB wouldn't be caught dead wearing that tie.
No.. it's just another court decision (though I believe it's the right decision). I believe this law to be a terribly crafted law.. so any court decision that could help bring about it's end is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Why did you ruin my fun? Cause that's exactly what I was doing when I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://media.giphy.com/media/MIkRMwNPuJ3eU/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
The were actually two rulings on that very subject today, but the one that went against Obama was obviously the correct one so you were right not to refer to the other decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
(Reuters) - Two U.S. judicial panels on Tuesday injected new uncertainty into the future of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with conflicting rulings over whether the federal government can subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans.
The appeals court rulings, handed down by three-judge panels in Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, augured a possible rematch before the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2012 narrowly upheld the Democratic president's 2010 healthcare overhaul.
More...
It won't survive en banc review, PB (assuming the DC appeals court grants en banc review). Since the 4th circuit voted to uphold the provision, if the DC appeals court overturns on en banc review, then there's no conflict between appeals courts, which makes it unlikely for the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Since there's no constitutional issue at stake, the Supreme Court is hesitant to jump in when appeals courts are in agreement. The challengers will need a victory in another appeals court to make that happen if the DC appeals court overturns. (From what I read, there are cases at the district court level in the 7th and 10th circuits.)
What makes you think this? I didn't think the dissent was very convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Judicial philosophy/politics I imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey
Investigators obtain ObamaCare coverage, subsidies using fake identities
http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncsta....jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Undercover government investigators were able to obtain thousands of dollars in taxpayer subsidies under ObamaCare using fake identities, according to findings being presented to Congress on Wednesday.
The probe by the Government Accountability Office has raised fresh concerns about the ability of the sprawling health care program to prevent or intercept costly fraud schemes. In the case of the GAO investigation, 11 out of 12 applications submitted using "fictitious identities" were accepted, resulting in subsidized health coverage.
"For each of our 11 approved applications, we paid the required premiums to put policies into force, and are continuing to pay the premiums. For the 11 applications that were approved for coverage, we obtained the advance premium tax credit in all cases," the report said.
According to the GAO, the total amount for these credits was $2,500 monthly, adding up to $30,000 a year.
GAO officials were to testify about the findings before a House Ways and Means subcommittee Wednesday.
"We are seeing a trend with ObamaCare information systems: under every rock, there is incompetence, waste, and the potential for fraud," Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the committee, said in a statement. "This law is already hitting Americans where it hurts the most - their pocketbooks. Now, this administration is forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill for ObamaCare's waste and fraud."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, added: "Ironically, the GAO has found ObamaCare is working really well -- for those who don't exist."
The inquiries were carried out in several different states.
The administration pointed out that six of the GAO's fake online applications were blocked by eligibility checks built into computer systems at HealthCare.gov. Still, the GAO says its undercover agents found a way around that by phoning the call centers and were able to enroll anyway.
In six other applications, GAO investigators also tried to sign up fake applicants with in-person representatives. But in five of those cases, GAO was "unable to obtain in-person assistance" for various reasons, including one representative saying they could not help because HealthCare.gov was down.
"We are examining this report carefully and will work with GAO to identify additional strategies to strengthen our verification processes," administration spokesman Aaron Albright said. At least on paper, fraudsters risk prosecution and heavy fines.
The GAO said its investigators concocted fake identities using invalid Social Security numbers and falsely claiming citizenship or legal residence. In other cases, they made up income figures that would disqualify them from getting subsidies.
Among the findings:
--Contractors processing applications for the government told the GAO their role was not to ferret out potential fraud.
--Five of six bogus phone applications went through successfully. The one exception involved an applicant who refused to provide a Social Security number.
--Six online applications were snagged by an identity checking system. But investigators just dialed a call center and all six were approved. That seemed to be an open pathway to coverage.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...stigators-say/
omg faux news!!!!11
Because the fact that there are bad people in the world should totally stop us from doing anything to help people. Also, a program actually getting help to do better at fighting fraud is clearly worthy of immediately being shut down instead of actually implementing the suggestions of that help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Yes, that's the answer.
Because the fact that there are obvious holes in this system should totally not stop us from giving away money and not worrying about any of the fraud. Also, another program that allows for rampant fraud is clearly not worthy of further scrutiny and tightening up of security because the only important part is to get this system implemented and embedded into the fabric of our society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Yes, that's the answer
I can't speak of the worthiness of this decision.. I can only add it to the growing mountain of evidence that this is a very poorly constructed law and should be allowed to fail so we can start the dialog of implementing a program that will actually make healthcare affordable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
AKA nothing at all happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
And anything is better than nothing! We have to do it for the children!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
But it's called the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT what more could you possibly ask for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Correct. Way more Dems than Republicans on the full bench for the DC circuit. (7-4, I think. Used to be 4-4, which is why the Republicans attempted to eliminate the last three seats before Obama could appoint people to them.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I would recommend reading the Fourth Circuit decision for pretty strong reasoning as to why the provision should be upheld.
I think we've discussed this before, but what do you think would create an affordable healthcare system that doesn't require a universal mandate? The evidence on high risk pools is in, and that was found to not do much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I thought the Supreme Court found the appointments during Senate "recess" were unconstitutional? Weren't these 3 put there during that gray area.. and if so, couldn't their placement be questioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
The ACA did nothing to control the costs of healthcare. It's fucking crazy that I can call up my insurance carrier (Humana) and basically negotiate what they will pay and what they won't pay... and I have done the same with the hospital. It was as simple as saying "I can't afford the price of this surgery" for them to immediately take off 20%. That's shady as fuck IMO and leads me to believe the amount of padding in those costs is retardedly high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
I think it's also shady as fuck that I have 4-5 insurance carriers to choose from instead of the thousands in this country... that there are restrictions put in place to severely limit the amount of competition for my business.
Are you saying that insurance should no longer be state-centric, and that national insurance providers would reduce costs and be more efficient?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Trust the corporations. They're people too my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
No, I am saying that if there are hundreds of health insurance companies to choose from, let the market bear the pressure of all these consumer choices instead of only 4-5 insurance companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlin
Open competition would keep them in check. Something our Healthcare system has never had. Check out Singapore's system to see something that works. Yes, there is government oversight and some amount of price controls, but for the most part it's just open competition. They spend 3-4% of their GDP on healthcare, and yet have the best infant mortality rate and among the highest life expectancies from birth in the world. As a comparison, the US spends 17.2% of it's GDP on healthcare (by far the highest in the world), and ranks 50th in life expectancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's typical of US domestic policy since the 70's or so...just throw more money at it!
So you think it is prudent to spend $1 billion for every $100k in actual assistance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I would like to hear you explain how a system with outright price controls is more of a free market than our system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I already explained it. Open competition is not only allowed, but encouraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I'd also suggest you read a little more into their system than the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article before you attempt to comment on it.
Singapore is far more willing to slap down monopolistic companies than we are. The comparison doesn't really work. I know you think that companies can do no wrong. I'm quite sure that it'd just be another excuse for prices to rise and consolidation to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
If this were actually true it might be something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
It seems like a pretty simple question to answer. One system has price controls, one doesn't, how is the one with price controls more of a free market? You can continue to parrot that open competition is encouraged, but if you refuse to address specific criticisms the words are hollow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I recall you were perfectly happy to deride price controls when it came to wages, and I'm sure you would be perfectly happy to deride price ceilings if Obama set them for any reason. For whatever reason you're convinced that Singapore's health care counts as the free market at work, so those price controls don't really count. I assume you won't bother to address any of this, so I will move on to speculating as to what that reason is: out of the various "best health care in the world" lists Singapore is the only that even comes close to a free market, as the others are outright socialist. That makes sense, at least.
He very badly wants to avoid giving any of them credit. He'd just explode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
How would more competition not cause prices to drop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
All the self gratifying Republican notions don't mean that companies don't see when they hold the whip hand. Sure, it might look like things were better off at first but the power of a company that holds the majority of national insurance policies would be intense. This "competion means reduced prices" notion doesn't always play out in the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Competition by definition means one party wins, and the economy does not reset to 0 at the beginning of each fiscal year (because nobody can figure out when the heck it is). The inevitable outcome of a free market of many equals is an oligopoly of a few. Car manufacturers, operating systems, unofficial Gemstone forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Consider also that the top 5 insurance companies in Singapore comprise 40% of the market share, indistinguishable from the United States' figure.
I hope this gives you pause the next time you consider believing what someone tells you just because it's what you want to hear.
More competition almost always means reduced prices. Admittedly not always, and especially if you have a product with only 2 or 3 sources prices will sometimes stabilize on a longterm basis. But add more competition, and things tend to change - either the price will go down or the service standard will go up (or both).Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
This is far from textbook. There's lobbying poised to make this happen because people think they can make it a situation with minimal competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
You're right. We should just let the government run everything, both because they're so competent and can just print money instead of worrying about being efficient.
It's a good thing WB and Latrin are here to keep people like me informed.
Sometimes, just sometimes, maybe they're slightly more trustworthy than business. Just because you think companies are naturally benevolent doesn't mean they are. You have a FEW chances to sway government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
I've never once said Companies can do no wrong. Quite the contrary, they do wrong quite often. My position on that would be that governments have done FAR more wrong, historically. If it's just another excuse for prices to rise and consolidation to happen, why isn't it happening in Singapore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
We would never do price controls. They actually use their antitrust laws. If you go this route, why can't we do all of Scandinavia's options?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
"Libertarian ideas or NOTHING."
How about neither government or business, and we just rely on local practices?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So we have a post apocalyptic zombie scenario with legions of the untreated? I'm not so sure that's the Detroit cleanup that you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Even in schools, where I can see your point slightly more, only Nebraska functions without federal money. I can't imagine how they'd do without state level funds.
Seriously? Ok, fine. I'll direct you to your own word, system..."a group or combination of interrelated, interdependent, or interacting elements forming a collective entity"...price controls certainly go against what would be normally accepted as a "free market" economy, but this is only one small part of the full system. This is why I suggested you look further into it before commenting...it's actually a very small part of the system, and only used in certain situations. I firmly believe that the health care situation in Singapore succeeds despite these controls, not because of them...they aren't a big enough part of the whole picture to matter that much. I can't say it surprises me that you would fixate on this one small part while ignoring the rest of the system though, that's pretty much your MO...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Oh, well, there you go.Quote:
...out of the various "best health care in the world" lists Singapore is the only that even comes close to a free market, as the others are outright socialist.
fixed.Quote:
I recall you were perfectly happy to deride price controls when it came to wages, and I'm sure you would be perfectly happy to deride price ceilings if anybody set them for any reason.
So, like with most liberal positions, it seems to me the problem is we're just not using the laws already in place. I'm sure more laws will fix that, though, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I go against what is normally accepted as the Libertarian platform quite a bit...most notably in foreign policy.Quote:
Libertarian ideas or NOTHING.
More companies and more lobbyists certainly won't fix that. They're part of what created it to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
It actually does, until the government gets involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Before you bring up robber barons and other bullshit that happened 100 years ago, give me an example in the modern world. We're not uneducated hillbillies with one telegraph for the town. As a society we're more intelligent, and a LOT more connected. This would be the perfect environment for a truly free market to show what it could do for us, but it's now so bogged down with decades of government meddling it would be nearly impossible for us to find out.
I think your anger is misguided...it's not the big corporations you should be railing against, but the banks. They caused the depression, and the latest recession...of course, the argument could be made that we, ourselves caused it by being too dependent on credit...but pfft. Why should we take responsibilities for our own actions, it's much easier to blame a nameless "evildoer".
There are countless examples of corporate malfeasance in the modern world. Enron, Worldcom, Tyco (who I worked for) the list goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
When we privatized AT&T the prices didn't go down at all. There was a perception of it at the start but it ended up being a tremendous cost increase over time.
Here's a more recent example of liquor prices going up after privatization in Washington.
http://www.kgw.com/news/After-privat...261440621.html
It's cool how you're doing the blame the victim bit with banks. I'm sure you want them deregulated too, given your ridiculous intro sentence. Because that would make them better! Really!
lolwut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Government is more trustworthy than business?
Too funny.
It's the basic proposition. I understand that you would miraculously trust everything more if it was privatized. I'm not so sure it'd be the idyllic utopia you envision. I think that you think it would be a utopia reveals the basic philosophy to be as naive as the people who believed in Communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I'll blame the victim here, too, to a degree. As I've said countless times, there is no perfect system. We have to go with the most perfect. We could argue about what happened with Enron, and Worldcom, and Tyco, and others for a while, but it would be pointless. As I've stated before, people will be people. Some people are selfish and greedy...the system won't change that. The only difference between a Capitalist society and a Communist society is that in a Capitalist society, the rich people are the business owners, and in a Communist society the rich people are the Ruling Elite. In a Capitalist society, the rich business owners make everyone else more wealthy because it contributes to their own wealth...in a Communist society, the Ruling Elite just rape the common people for everything they have and keep it for themselves. I know which side of that fence I'm on. If the employees and shareholders of these companies did their due diligence, we probably could have avoided these scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
History has proven, time and again, that personal responsibility is the only way to make things work. Any time you give over that responsibility, whether it's to a corporation or a government, you're setting yourself up for failure.
Well, yeah. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility...there is ample evidence that the great depression was caused by everyone blowing up their credit, and then the bank scare of 1930 taking all the backing out of that credit...the history is there for the reading. Here's a good study about it by that bastion of Conservative Thought that is UC-Berkeley:Quote:
It's cool how you're doing the blame the victim bit with banks.
http://www.bis.org/publ/work137.pdf
Well, yes. If we hadn't bailed out the banks, what would have happened? Probably another depression, since the same factors were in place that caused the first one. I'm all for destructive creationism. By softening the blow of failure, we almost certainly insure future failure. The lessons learned from the first depression were lost on the common man three generations later...that's not surprising. We do a terrible job of educating our young.Quote:
I'm sure you want them deregulated too, given your ridiculous intro sentence. Because that would make them better! Really!
Or maybe he just doesn't worship at the altar of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I simply don't believe, as you do, that the government must provide everything for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Where to start? To begin with, nobody's arguing for a "Communist system" except nutjobs. We're just arguing for more of the mixed economy that we've had for quite a long time (which did better than what came before, but you'll never admit that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
"Personal responsibility" certainly can't be trusted. If too much credit is available, people will exploit it.
After a period of DEREGULATION (that goal of yours) (The 1920s) too much credit was available. When it is available people take advantage of it. It broke the economy. Banks and companies always want this because they don't care about society's best interests.
A racist ass from a town right near mine (Carter Glass) was naturally skeptical about banks. He was right and made the Glass-Steagall Act to stop them doing some of their fuckery.
Companies, lobbyists, conservatives, and some Democrats decided to destroy this law. Too much credit became available again.
This is your dream. DEREGULATION. It destroyed the economy again.
I'm going to end with your quote because you're an excellent example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
They weren't recess appointed. Republicans just lost the ability to filibuster them, so they were confirmed by the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
So basically your position is that people can't take care of themselves so the government has to? Unfortunately I agree with this...but only because we have things in place that allow people to fuck up and not face the consequences. People are no longer responsible for their own actions, and you act surprised when they make poor decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Oooh. Burn.Quote:
I'm going to end with your quote because you're an excellent example.
We had your system for a while. People starved to death and elected FDR. You don't really want that, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
To sum up: If we dangle unlimited credit, corporations, banks, and all of us will destroy the country. We need government to prevent that.
No, we need to educate ourselves to prevent that. If we let Government prevent it we only trade one master for another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
People just don't resist the lure of credit they don't deserve. Witness nearly every one of our economic downturns, credit cards, and the payday lending industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Considering the major part of ACA has only been implemented for 6 months, I think it's a little early to determine whether it will control costs or not. I'd give it a year or two before deeming the policy a failure on cost control. (and that's me saying that without looking at studies as to whether cost control has started to occur or not yet.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorpos
These would be really cool comments if they were true. I sometimes think that government is a helpful thing. I'm clearly a Communist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
The government running everything in the economy also turns out to be a sub-optimal solution. Don't you think it's interesting that you believe the criticism of one extreme but not of the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Singapore is almost exactly as consolidated as we are. Why hasn't this resulted in dramatic price increases? Because the government made that illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
The way you can believe this and simultaneously believe that minimum wage laws cause inflation would make my head spin. I certainly agree that other than the blatantly socialist elements, Singapore very much has a free market for healthcare... but I think that caveat is a significant one.Quote:
Seriously? Ok, fine. I'll direct you to your own word, system..."a group or combination of interrelated, interdependent, or interacting elements forming a collective entity"...price controls certainly go against what would be normally accepted as a "free market" economy, but this is only one small part of the full system. This is why I suggested you look further into it before commenting...it's actually a very small part of the system, and only used in certain situations. I firmly believe that the health care situation in Singapore succeeds despite these controls, not because of them...they aren't a big enough part of the whole picture to matter that much. I can't say it surprises me that you would fixate on this one small part while ignoring the rest of the system though, that's pretty much your MO...
Empirically, it looks like your reaction to price controls is a function of how much you support the system doing the controlling. You don't like minimum wages, so those controls are a big deal. You like Singapore's health care system, so those controls are a very small part. Am I wrong? If I said that America had a free market for wages, you would immediately point out minimum wage laws. No?Quote:
fixed.
I think it's time for another Ayn Rand rant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
As usual, I totally agree with you on the causes and the details. Where we disagree is what should be done about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Because when people are making you look bad it's time for ad hominem. It's all right. Maybe you can win Congress and the next election and generate FDR 2 by bubbling and depressing the country again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorpos
I wish I trusted people to do the right thing as much as you do. It must be a nice and uplifting worldview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Why would banks give people credit that they don't "deserve"? You are missing a key element... let's see if you can get it on your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
He's currently on a "business is evil".. he rotates them around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorpos
I give him another couple of weeks to return to Ayn.
They want to make money. It makes it look like they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's all right. You stay willfully obtuse forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I find it telling that you're willing to discount any effect on inflation that minimum wage may have, simply because you can't directly correlate only minimum wage increases to only inflation increases. The economy is way more complex than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
It is indeed a significant one; notice I was the first one to bring it up. This goes back to the system...if you can find some sort of empirical evidence that proves that the price fixes they use is the main cog in that machine, I'm all ears.Quote:
I certainly agree that other than the blatantly socialist elements, Singapore very much has a free market for healthcare... but I think that caveat is a significant one.
My overarching opinion is that they are wrong in any situation...I've stated that I believe Singapore's healthcare system succeeds in spite of them, not because of them.Quote:
Empirically, it looks like your reaction to price controls is a function of how much you support the system doing the controlling. You don't like minimum wages, so those controls are a big deal. You like Singapore's health care system, so those controls are a very small part. Am I wrong? If I said that America had a free market for wages, you would immediately point out minimum wage laws. No?
This is where we have so much of a disconnect. I don't trust people to do the right thing. I trust that people only learn from their mistakes, and if that learning opportunity is taken away, they will continue to make mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So you couldn't get there on your own. Let's take baby steps...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Why would a bank give a loan to someone they knew they couldn't pay back?
I know you have it in you to figure this out.. I have faith!
Says the guy who blames companies for almost everything bad.Quote:
It's all right. You stay willfully obtuse forever.
Since you apparently haven't lived in America during the dowturn the fact that they had a lot of loans on the books enabled them to sell certain financial instruments with those loans and made them look good to stockholders because of the removal of Glass-Steagall. Banks love to do this whenever possible. Companies like it because of spiraling stock market gains. Glass's genius was in getting investment banks out of the lending game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It'd be really nice if I blamed companies for everything bad. You know I don't. You don't like to think though.
Let's slow down a little...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
What loans are you talking about first.. I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing here.
You blame companies like Packlash blames banks.Quote:
It'd be really nice if I blamed companies for everything bad. You know I don't. You don't like to think though.
I can't recall another time you've blamed banks until just now, but there are ample posts blaming corporations. Correct me if I'm wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
This ignores all the times I've blamed dead politicial philosophers, politicians in general, the Tea Party, the Supreme Court, Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Congress, Bush, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and the Office of Special Plans for things being bad very neatly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I'm sorry...which one of those is a bank?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Since you're apparently unawareQuote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
It's curious how you suggest I blame companies for everything bad. It's like you blanked out about five years of Bush Presidency and the whole Republican Congress already. Not to mention my dissatisfaction with Obama being so naive and the performance of the Democratic Congressional leadership. You even forgot poor Ayn Rand. Ride that train though.
I was disputing that I only blamed companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Oh. Well, don't you think the banks deserve some blame for taking advantage of poor, ignorant Americans just to stuff more money in their pockets? Certainly that's more deplorable than a company wanting to pay people $9.00 and hour instead of $10.00 an hour to meet their bottom line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's also way more responsible for our economic woes than any corporation. So why leave them out in favor of corporate angst?
I think they're just as rapacious as the average American. It's in their nature. I blame the politicians more there for deregulating them. You're right though. I should probably be less kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I consider them a subset of companies in general. It is corporate behavior. They know how it works but people get greedy. It has happened in nearly every single one of our financial turmoils.
They need careful regulation.
But banks existed first...wouldn't the proper position be that companies are just following bank behavior?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Corporations came first. Roman Empire versus the Renaissance. Moneychangers were also Roman Empire, though. You could argue earlier for lenders but they weren't what we think of as a modern bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Neither is what you've listed as a corporation what we would think of as a modern corporation. The emergence of banking allowed merchants to build empires that rivaled politicians for the first time in human history...the rise of the "middle class".Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I just wanted to make sure we were both on the same page.. that way you couldn't use the old "But I was talking about [insert different loan here]" routine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So.. we've established that the banks were approving people for loans that the bank knew they couldn't afford and certainly couldn't pay back later on down the road...
Is there some sort of government regulation that was put into place to, oh, I don't know.. maybe purchase these loans and guarantee them?
I never said "everything" bad. Just an incredible amount.Quote:
It's curious how you suggest I blame companies for everything bad. It's like you blanked out about five years of Bush Presidency and the whole Republican Congress already. Not to mention my dissatisfaction with Obama being so naive and the performance of the Democratic Congressional leadership. You even forgot poor Ayn Rand. Ride that train though.
I was disputing that I only blamed companies.
Publicani were very close. Rome had a middle class. So did ancient India. Banking certainly enabled expansion though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
So your next step is when you declare that the banks and deregulating politicians did nothing wrong and it was just the private citizens and the government. Get back to me when you're done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Societates Publicanorum...yeah, still not the same thing. In the context of the day I guess it would be remotely similar...I'm sure you realize I'm talking more about the European economies at the time from whence we sprung, not ancient times. It's well documented that certain ancient cultures were more "advanced" in certain ways than their medieval counterparts, but that has little affect on modern times, since we sort of fell backwards before coming forwards again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I can't speak for PB, but I would say everyone involved was wrong all the way around, on this. To place blame on any one part of the whole is to ignore reality and push an agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You'd be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
And your next step is to blame the banks, deregulation and that the private citizen and government did nothing wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Oh, and blaming the companies.
I have no problem with that.. the banks clearly gave the loans to people who couldn't afford them.. and the people knew they would be fucked (or should have known) when the balloon hit..Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
But if the government didn't buy / guarantee these loans.. the banks wouldn't have given them and the people wouldn't have been so eager to get credit that they knew they didn't earn.
The banks aren't in the business to give loans to people that can't afford them. We should let them give loans that they believe can repay them and when they make a bad loan.. let them learn the lesson instead of bailing them out.
Because rather than bail them out we should let our entire financial system collapse. Eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
If this were your alternate universe I wouldn't have talked about how we needed Glass-Stegall back for years and that the Republican and Democratic Parties both messed up. But yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Well, yes. We're only setting ourselves up for a greater failure in the long run by artificially propping the system up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Along with the "let civilization collapse" Depression theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Meh maybe one of the future generations will grow a pair and bite the bullet, the current generations sure the hell don't have the nads.
Call me conservative but I like our economy continuing to function. I know you all may want to go all Book of Eli, but some of us do quite well with this economy.
I'm sure that both of us could show some lovely images of the opposing party in various tomfoolery, but that doesn't much advance anybody's point. Unless that's some strange sort of "Liberals are bad!" protest you did?
No, no. lol. It's a reference to America becoming one giant vagina. The photo gives me hope, I at least can tell the great grand kids when they ask why the hell we sunk them in so much debt, I can blame the giant vaginas.
Like all these weak willed non resilient people who grew up to get us through World War 2. Weaklings. We should despise them for being saved. They should have starved nobly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/lange/
Are seriously thinking I'm including the great generation in this. Those old timers would have rather turned jap than wear fucking vagina uniform. I'm laughing so hard. God I love PC
No, I'm making fun of your theory that it's weak to want our economy to continue as evidenced by a protest about women's rights. Those very same people that you laud as your version of manliness are here because of what FDR did rather than the "everybody starves" theory. That's the laughable bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
And there's nothing new under the sun.
Greatest generation WW2 crossdressing
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EE_8WZK1ok...ag+0307152.jpg
Maybe they weren't as prudish as you?
Wow dude, get off your political high horse, it was fucking joke, just like the political pontificating on PC, one giant joke.
I wasn't even making fun of women, it was poking fun retarded dude that actually wore the vagina uniform. Your killing me dude, my fucking ribs hurt from laughing so hard, oh shit.