More Obamacare fuckups

[Atlanteax]

I know cwolff will never answer this because he never answers anything, but how does this make sense in any insurance industry?

cwolff = "irrelevant, ACA is about ensuring people have insurance, no matter what the price is to taxpayers"

[Back]

I pay less for better healthcare than I did last year thanks to the ACA.

[Tgo01]

I pay less for better healthcare than I did last year thanks to the ACA.

It's true. Anytime Back needs to see a gynecologist he's covered.

[Parkbandit]

I still don't understand why people like cwolff can't understand the concept of insurance vs. charity.

Like when you're playing Blackjack -- Dealer deals himself an Ace up. When this happens, you get offered insurance that you can pay for, to where you don't lose your bet if the dealer turns out to have blackjack, since there's about a 1/3 chance that his down card is a 10 value.

If the dealer doesn't have blackjack, you lose your insurance money, but the hand continues as normal.

Long version of the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack#Insurance

In the Obamacare world, if the dealer deals himself an Ace up, and once it's revealed that he has blackjack, then you're given the option to buy insurance and not lose anything.

I know cwolff will never answer this because he never answers anything, but how does this make sense in any insurance industry?

You sound like someone who hates poor people.

The ACA prevents people from just dying in the streets. And it's called the AFFORDABLE Care Act.. which means it's affordable.

What's not to love???

[Parkbandit]

I pay less for better healthcare than I did last year thanks to the ACA.

All people who were too poor or too stupid to have good healthcare prior to this will benefit.

I, on the other hand, have stuck with Blue Cross/Blue Shield because it's less expensive and gives lower deductibles.

[cwolff]

cwolff = "irrelevant, ACA is about ensuring people have insurance, no matter what the price is to taxpayers"

I still don't understand why people like cwolff can't understand the concept of insurance vs. charity.

Like when you're playing Blackjack -- Dealer deals himself an Ace up. When this happens, you get offered insurance that you can pay for, to where you don't lose your bet if the dealer turns out to have blackjack, since there's about a 1/3 chance that his down card is a 10 value.

If the dealer doesn't have blackjack, you lose your insurance money, but the hand continues as normal.

Long version of the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack#Insurance

In the Obamacare world, if the dealer deals himself an Ace up, and once it's revealed that he has blackjack, then you're given the option to buy insurance and not lose anything.

I know cwolff will never answer this because he never answers anything, but how does this make sense in any insurance industry?

Are all government social programs charity? All subsidies? All of the various tax loopholes? They are all charity? If that's the case then you are promoting a strict libertarian view that's not how our country works nor will it be and you don't deserve a response so just be grateful when you do get one. Consider it charity.

The blackjack comparison isn't accurate. In blackjack you are offered the chance to buy insurance immediately. ACA has enrollment periods. The gambling metaphor works though. All the people who refused to get insured are gambling that they will not have major medical issues which require immediate attention this year. If they lose that gamble we all lose. It's not responsible and it's not good citizenship.

[Jeril]

Are all government social programs charity? All subsidies? All of the various tax loopholes? They are all charity?

How are they not charity?

[cwolff]

How are they not charity?

By definition they are not charity. You can say that there are similar components like social programs help needy folks and charity also is designed to help those in need. You can draw some comparisons but they are different.

Another example we can look at is the tax code. You get a mortgage interest credit if you have a mortgage. That's not charity because it's targeted to stimulate growth in housing.

Farmers get subsidies because we want them to not go out of business in a bad year. We say that there is a value to maintaining these farms even if they may not be able to compete in the free market.

[Jeril]

You still haven't explained how they are different, you've just explained the reasoning for the charity.


char·i·ty
[char-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural char·i·ties.
1.
generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2.
something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3.
a charitable act or work.
4.
a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5.
benevolent feeling, especially toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.

[cwolff]

You still haven't explained how they are different, you've just explained the reasoning for the charity.


char·i·ty
[char-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural char·i·ties.
1.
generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2.
something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3.
a charitable act or work.
4.
a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5.
benevolent feeling, especially toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.

Sure I did. Farmers don't get subsidies only if they demonstrate need nor do you get tax breaks because you are needy. Social programs may feel like a generous gift but they are pragmatic and our society has recognized the value in making these part of our priorities.