Printable View
Do you even know the definition of the term "confirmation bias"? Because holy shit you should be crowned Confirmation Bias king.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I'm just surprised you didn't try to claim their cable bill would be 950 dollars so at least they are paying less in premiums than their cable bill.
I don't often post, but when I do, I spell fallacy correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I believe a teacher in your past owes you an apology for failing to provide you with both a concrete foundation in spelling, but also critical thinking and mathematics.
These two paragraphs merely prove you do not understand insurance. Point in fact, these plans are not going away under Obamacare, most exchange plans have relatively high deductibles and copays. Why? Well, for the same reason this couple had a plan before with relatively high deductibles and copays. People do not choose such plans because they are poor, they do so because those plans make the most financial sense considering their current health needs.Quote:
The point about not being able to keep their health insurance is a dig at Obama's promise that you can keep your Dr. etc... These guys can't keep their insurance because they are woefully uninsured. Those low payment high risk plans are going away under ACA.
How can you assume they have good accumulated wealth when they're 60 years old and are carrying bare bones insurance? They also make 62k per year between the two of them and are listed as living in San Francisco. If they have accumulated wealth then they can afford to be insured with a plan that provides coverage and it's irresponsible for them not to.
Insurance companies want to attract the young and healthy to their plans, and discourage the old and sick from joining. But they cannot discriminate, or do any medical underwriting of rates anymore, so what do they do? They craft exchange plans to appeal to their ideal demographic. So they have low copays for routine stuff, a regular doctor visit, but high copays for expensive things, like hospitalizations. Normal insurance theory dictates you don't buy insurance for expected expenses, you buy it for unexpected expenses. We don't treat health insurance that way, using it more like a prepaid health plan. This causes perverse incentives in consumption of healthcare resources, and has many side effects, such as insurers sculpting plans that are attractive to the healthy and unattractive to the sick, and for healthy people, like the couple in this example, self selecting into such a plan because they do not for see a future great medical need between now and when they get medicare in a few short years.
You can call them irresponsible for acting in their own self interest, but that wouldn't, I think, fit the classic definition of responsibility.
Do you know we have marginal tax rates? If we have a system in place that taxes people at greater percentages as their income goes up, isn't then removing a government benefit as income grows double dipping? Burning the wick from both ends?Quote:
You know we have marginal tax rates right? How do you propose we set a guideline for who gets a subsidy? Should each person in the USA be assigned a case worker who makes a judgement call about a person's need for a subsidy?
A better system? Give every man women and child the exact same subsidy regardless of income or any other factor. As you say, we have a progressive taxation system, so you're already getting more from the rich. If you honestly feel that giving someone who pays say $500,000 a year in taxes a $15,000 subsidy is going to break the system, raise his tax rate so he pays $515,000 a year in taxes. Doing it that way makes a much more elegant system where you do not end up with notches where someone would work harder, but end up with less take home pay.
The bare minimum would be to use a phaseout system where you lose $1 of subsidy for every $2 in additional income. You cannot go below that. That puts the effective marginal tax rate on that individual's income at at least 50%, plus their normal taxes. If you went beneath that, to a phaseout of $1 for every $1 in additional income, that is a 100% tax rate before income taxes, which is an absolute disincentive to productivity.
My ideal system would be to remove the employer provided benefit exemption from the tax code, treating all healthcare insurance purchases equally. Then give every man woman and child in the country a refundable tax credit that either cancels out (in full or in part) any tax from their employer provided insurance, or allows them to purchase their own insurance on the individual market. This system can replace medicaid and medicare. Using census data, if there are any credits unclaimed, the money is instead given to a healthcare provider in the geographic area that provides free care to the indigent population. No mandate, no fine, no new IRS jobs, required. Truly universal coverage, covering more people than even Obama claims Obamacare will cover. If it really burns the progressive liberals out to give everyone an equal subsidy, raise taxes on the rich in proportion to the subsidy if you must. I'll pay that price to get a well designed system.
Two whole weeks and the system isn't running perfectly? Why, we got to the Moon in half a fortnight! We built Rome in a day! And I don't want to be "that guy", but the people were in charge of both of those endeavors were white. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Don't forget the powerful Big Punctuation lobby.!!!!!???!!!!!!!!!?!?!!!&Quote:
Originally Posted by crb
What they believe is in their self-interest is not necessarily what is.Quote:
You can call them irresponsible for acting in their own self interest, but that wouldn't, I think, fit the classic definition of responsibility.
If you can call calculator use biased I can call a liberal Republican ClydeR. The really stunning bit about that failed discussion of yours was where PB's website recommended the same phone company I have right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Using a calculator isn't biased. What is confirmation bias is every time (yes literally every time) someone has said something negative about the exchanges you reply with something like "Well I'm not having that problem!" and then you imply everyone else must be lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You did the same thing when we had the discussion about which is higher; health care premiums or cable bills. I said the cheapest plan I saw was 200 dollars a month premium and you came along and said the cheapest plan you saw was 168. You're doing the same thing here. Anticor is saying his friends saw the cheapest plan for them was 700 dollars and you say you see a plan for the same family size at only 550 dollars. Why do you think it matters in the slightest bit what you see? The only possible explanation is you think everyone is lying and is out to get Obamacare.
Or I just, y'know, plug numbers into the website? And don't have any of the "errors" that you complain of? Haven't you noticed something about the political affiliation of people with "problems"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Do you also plug in states, and ages? Cause, you know, those all impact the cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Also, I heard the Delaware had it's VERY FIRST signup for the exchanges today!! YAY it works!
You don't think we are all plugging in numbers into the website? Are we all just so stupid that we can't figure out how to operate a website properly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
About the only one of you I'd trust not to lie would be Anticor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Glad to see you admit you think this is all just a huge conspiracy towards Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Also if you trust Anticor not to lie why did you bother to mention you see a plan going for 550? How does that help his friend in the slightest? Do you think his friend just had trouble inputting a bunch of numbers into a website or what?