Duke wrote:
wbjones wrote:
Flight Service wrote:
Duke wrote:
Flight Service wrote:
In reply to Duke:
Yes you have to be covered. That is accurate. But you have to have insurance to have a car on the road. I am confused to the difference.
When driving a car, I am required to have insurance that covers **MY LIABILITY TO OTHERS** in case I cause **them** damage or injury. I am not in any way required to have insurance that covers **my** car for damage at all. That is entirely optional and at my own discretion.
The ACA, however, **requires ME to have insurance that covers ME**, even if I don't want it at all, or want less than what they consider minimum.
Other than being about insurance, they are not the same thing at all. But I suspect you knew that.
actually you do if you've borrowed money from a lending institution to purchase said car … and that's way and gone beyond the liability coverage
Comprehensive and collision insurance is required by **the bank** (not the government) to protect **the bank's** equity in the car. Which is *even less* relevant to the topic at hand than the previous car insurance example.
semantics … it's still required …required so you can't say berkeley you when it comes to paying off your financial obligations to the lender
health ins is required so you can't say berkeley you when it comes to paying off your financial obligations to the hospital/dr. office … so the rest of us don't have to pay for it (except, of course, that we are)
seems to me that by refusing to "understand" this you're really just being obtuse and argumentative
we get that you don't want to have to pay for ins. but if something catastrophic happens to you, that you can't blame on someone else and get their ins. to pay for, then the rest of us are left holding the bag … and you walk away scott free … same as you would if the car were totaled
Any arguement that the ACA is a net positive is a losing argument. Nobody understands that better than those that wrote it. It was designed to fail. What happens when a government program fails? More money and legislation is thrown at it to "fix" it. If it isn't working, then that means the government isn't doing ENOUGH. The whole goal of the ACA is a step towards single payer. They knew that single payer wouldn't fly. How about a half ass approach that everyone will hate, and then say, "See, we told you we needed single payer. That's the only way out of this mess." Brilliant. Or scary. Or both.
Take a look here if you want to see what those wrote the law really think...
Jonathan Grubar
You cannot argue that this is not redistribution of wealth. Increasing cost and or reducing service to one group to give it to another is the definition of redistribution. You can be for or against it, but you can't say that it's not redistribution.
On the auto insurance comparison, in most states (maybe all?) you do not have to have auto insurance. You may self insure. Many companies, wealthy people, and others who are smart with their money do this. They put money aside that acts as the insurance policy if needed. As you can imagine, it's much cheaper than buying insurance, and they control the risk pool. Also, you are not required to drive on public roads. If you CHOOSE to do so, you are required to take steps to pay if you cause damage or harm. There is no choice with the ACA- you live in the country, you must buy insurance. That is a giant leap.
Duke
UltimaDork
1/15/15 7:19 a.m.
^^^^^ Everything Boost_Crazy says in both posts above is true. I'm not being obtuse, and it's not semantics. His first post cannot be emphasized enough, and I've been saying it too ever since the ACA was announced. This system is designed to fail, so that everybody is begging for socialized medicine by the time the ashes of this fiasco are cold. It's a long-game plan. Unfortunately, it's going to work.
There's a fundamental paradigm difference between the ACA and car insurance requirements. Driving is a privilege that you can choose not to accept - in which case, you do not need any car insurance at all. You can buy a car for cash, without borrowing for it, in which case you only need the minimum required liability to protect others from you. Neither type of insurance is required if you take the bus instead. But you are legally required to buy health insurance in some form or another. That is because the system absolutely does not work unless enough people overpay that those who are covered for "free" can be insured. Again, car insurance is totally optional, based on your decision to own and drive a car. Health insurance is not.
As he says, we can argue / discuss the merits and drawbacks of the ACA system. But NOT if you guys continue to claim that the system is not something that it clearly is.
…coming at this from a different direction, if the ACA isn’t a covert redistribution scheme, why didn’t we just expand Medicaid.
We could have accomplished the same outcome in a fraction of the time and cost while achieved the high predictability that comes from utilizing an existing system.
Does everyone realize that we could have just made a few simple revisions to the Medicaid program (raise the eligibility threshold to some multiple of the poverty level, blah, blah, blah, stuff like that) and been done.
It could have all fit on one sheet of legal paper and been signed into law in a matter if days. But no, we chose instead to create a multi thousand page cluster Berkley of confusion that is so disruptive that it must be deployed over the course of many years.
The trouble with expanding Medicaid is that it would have worked…we would have had an orderly, predictable, and quantifiable outcome.
To understand why this is unacceptable, refer to my post on entropy in the middle of page three.
wbjones
MegaDork
1/15/15 12:13 p.m.
In reply to Duke:
lots of places there aren't any buses
and you just refuse to understand that the car liability (to protect others from you) isn't any different from you having to have health coverage to protect us from you …i.e. you getting in over your head with needed coverage/procedures and then us (the royal us) having to pay
whatever … you've made your point and aren't going to be swayed by anyone …. so good luck … tilt at all the windmills you want
oldsaw
UltimaDork
1/15/15 12:27 p.m.
wbjones wrote:
whatever … you've made your point and aren't going to be swayed by anyone …. so good luck … tilt at all the windmills you want
That's somehow worse than defending a termite-infested windmill that sits on the edge of an expanding sinkhole and lays in the path of a lava flow?
Watching this from the outside, and having dealt with private insurance companies here and there, I really don't understand why they seem to be getting off vitriol-free in this discussion.
"Hey, Mr. CEO of the health insurance company, it looks like everybody is pissed at the government about this health care thing."
"Yep. Sure looks like it, Mr. Executive Secretary of the health insurance company. I think we can bump our premiums a bunch, and everybody will blame it on Obama."
"Brilliant!"
Nick_Comstock wrote:
In reply to Xceler8x:
Ok, I'll just ignore what I see with my own eyes and believe what those "news" articles say is happening. They have numbers it must be true 
This is what I'm seeing. Every single person that I know, including my family as well as my extended family and coworkers that had health insurance previously have seen significant increases in cost along with worse coverage. All the people I know who didn't have any insurance prior, still have no insurance and that is a much larger number than those that have insurance. I personally don't know of anyone who has benefited in any way whatsoever from the ACA.
Sorry. I didn't mean to have provable facts and figures to contradict anecdotal and unprovable stories. 
Here's a Forbe's article with more silly numbers and provable data. I realize now that respected entities releasing data backed with science isn't useful to this discussion.
The Real Numbers On 'The Obamacare Effect' Are In-Now Let The Crow Eating Begin
Some points from the article:
-
It turns out that there has, in fact, been no such rush to reduce work hours. Indeed, numbers released last week reveal that precisely the opposite is taking place.
-
Note that the number of people who saw their policy cancelled because it did not meet the Obamacare minimum requirements was 18.6 percent—dangerously close to the 17 percent of individual policyholders who were losing their individual market policies pre-Obamacare.
-
The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index is out this morning and reveals that 15.9 percent of American adults are now uninsured, down from 17.1 percent for the last three months of 2013 and has shown improvements in every major demographic group with the exception of Hispanics who did not advance. According to Gallup, the number of Americans who still do not have health insurance coverage is on track to reach the lowest quarterly number since 2008.
racerdave600 wrote:
It's redistribution in that you pay a tax on your healthcare insurance so others get theirs for free, sort of.
And this is a problem because?
I can't really understand this anti-social attitude. Shouldn't you be proud that you're able to help those more needy?
Duke
UltimaDork
1/15/15 1:20 p.m.
Why should I be proud about it, when I had no choice in the matter, and in fact the program was falsely sold to dupes by career politicians and insurance company lobbyists in a completely cynical package of half-truths and mis-labels?
I feel proud when I donate to United Way, the MS Society, my local volunteer fire company, and animal shelter... because I choose to.
In reply to Xceler8x:
But anecdotal and unprovable stories are my thing man.
wbjones wrote:
In reply to Duke:
you just refuse to understand that the car liability (to protect others from you) isn't any different from you having to have health coverage to protect us from you
Hi wbjones,
I believe I understand the fundamental reason why you and Duke aren’t in agreement.
You’re operating from the assumption that broken people must be fixed and Duke isn’t.
If fixing broken people was a given, then yes, auto insurance and health insurance would be analogous.
But it’s not a given, rather, it’s on a continuum where our society is attempting to strike a balance between showing compassion for its citizens without degrading into a free for all looting of other peoples’ money.
If you bang up my car, I have every right to expect you to fix it, if I get sick, I don’t have a right to expect you to fix me because you didn’t do anything to cause it….helping me in this case is about being compassionate and civilized, not about fulfilling a fundamental obligation.
Streetwiseguy wrote:
Watching this from the outside, and having dealt with private insurance companies here and there, I really don't understand why they seem to be getting off vitriol-free in this discussion.
"Hey, Mr. CEO of the health insurance company, it looks like everybody is pissed at the government about this health care thing."
"Yep. Sure looks like it, Mr. Executive Secretary of the health insurance company. I think we can bump our premiums a bunch, and everybody will blame it on Obama."
"Brilliant!"
I feel like maybe i should actually address this for the 20th or 30th time on this board, because i'm astounded that your post keeps getting voted up, despite being based entirely on a blatant untruth.
As per federal mandate that is PART of ACA, a certain percentage of every dollar taken in by insurance companies must be paid out directly in payment for services rendered.
That percentage is quite high.
If premiums are increasing (and they are), it's because now that they're FORCED to take on millions of more bodies, they are FORCED to accept higher risk, and much of this pool that showed up are those that couldn't afford or were denied insurance previously. The highest risk. The pool has to cover it.
They aren't making more profit percentage. Your rates weren't jacked up simply because it was "convenient" because "everyone will blame Obama." That's... a pretty ridiculous thing to insinuate.
SVreX
MegaDork
1/15/15 2:13 p.m.
In reply to Swank Force One:
Yeah, but insurance companies also lobbied for the changes, and influenced the policy.
Just as Graco (and others) lobbied for child seats, they now have to follow the law, but also participated in forming it.
SVreX wrote:
In reply to Swank Force One:
Yeah, but insurance companies also lobbied for the changes, and influenced the policy.
Just as Graco (and others) lobbied for child seats, they now have to follow the law, but also participated in forming it.
I mean... maybe some companies?
The two largest in the US lobbied against it. Those two have been sometimes referred to as being near to forming a duopoly.
The point is that when you bring on a large pool of high risk, the rates will go up. Profit percentage doesn't, because it can't.
But it's definitely easier to think that the companies are screwing you harder merely because they feel like it, isn't it?
My anecdotal story.
I went to the doctor this morning.
Mr. Toyman, do you have insurance?
Yes, but it doesn't cover anything so I'll be paying cash.
I hear that a lot lately. The cash price will be XX.XX.
Duke
UltimaDork
1/15/15 2:24 p.m.
In reply to Swank Force One:
Not to mention the basic law of supply and demand. What happens to demand when the entire country is legally required to buy a particular product? You bet prices would go up. What would happen if everybody was legally required to buy a ton of wheat every year? Wheat prices would go up.
Duke wrote:
In reply to Swank Force One:
Not to mention the basic law of supply and demand. What happens to demand when the entire country is *legally required* to buy a particular product? You bet prices would go up. What would happen if everybody was *legally required* to buy a ton of wheat every year? Wheat prices would go up.
You're not getting it.
Supply and demand isn't the case here. The government has fixed the price of wheat. Rather, the government has told the wheat farmer that he's only allowed 15 cents on the dollar to run his operation and pay his employees.
This is most definitely not supply and demand.
Nick_Comstock wrote:
In reply to Xceler8x:
But anecdotal and unprovable stories are my thing man.
Right on man.
Swank Force One wrote:
SVreX wrote:
In reply to Swank Force One:
Yeah, but insurance companies also lobbied for the changes, and influenced the policy.
Just as Graco (and others) lobbied for child seats, they now have to follow the law, but also participated in forming it.
I mean... maybe some companies?
The two largest in the US lobbied against it. Those two have been sometimes referred to as being near to forming a duopoly.
The point is that when you bring on a large pool of high risk, the rates will go up. Profit percentage doesn't, because it can't.
But it's definitely easier to think that the companies are screwing you harder merely because they feel like it, isn't it?
Let us also consider where the money acquired is going. The medical insurance companies are very, very profitable now. Their stocks are at all time highs.
Aetna - 10y stock graph Aetna reported net income of $548.8 million.
Cigna - 10y stock graph Cigna executives income from operations in the range of $1.93 billion and $2 billion or between $7.05 and $7.35 a share for 2014
Let us also consider the compensation packages for the leadership of these corporations.
Skyrocketing salaries for health insurance CEOs
Hospitals get in on the racket too.
Medicine’s Top Earners Are Not the M.D.s
All of this profit taking most definitely affects how much you pay. Let us consider that only a fool goes without health insurance when the costs of care can bankrupt just about anyone. US citizens in this case are the very definition of a captive market.
Duke
UltimaDork
1/15/15 3:01 p.m.
Swank Force One wrote:
Duke wrote:
In reply to Swank Force One:
Not to mention the basic law of supply and demand. What happens to demand when the entire country is *legally required* to buy a particular product? You bet prices would go up. What would happen if everybody was *legally required* to buy a ton of wheat every year? Wheat prices would go up.
You're not getting it.
Supply and demand isn't the case here. The government has fixed the price of wheat. Rather, the government has told the wheat farmer that he's only allowed 15 cents on the dollar to run his operation and pay his employees.
This is most definitely not supply and demand.
Point taken. I withdraw the comment.
Xceler8x wrote:
Nick_Comstock wrote:
In reply to Xceler8x:
But anecdotal and unprovable stories are my thing man.
Right on man.
Swank Force One wrote:
SVreX wrote:
In reply to Swank Force One:
Yeah, but insurance companies also lobbied for the changes, and influenced the policy.
Just as Graco (and others) lobbied for child seats, they now have to follow the law, but also participated in forming it.
I mean... maybe some companies?
The two largest in the US lobbied against it. Those two have been sometimes referred to as being near to forming a duopoly.
The point is that when you bring on a large pool of high risk, the rates will go up. Profit percentage doesn't, because it can't.
But it's definitely easier to think that the companies are screwing you harder merely because they feel like it, isn't it?
Let us also consider where the money acquired is going. The medical insurance companies are very, very profitable now. Their stocks are at all time highs.
Aetna - 10y stock graph Aetna reported net income of $548.8 million.
Cigna - 10y stock graph Cigna executives income from operations in the range of $1.93 billion and $2 billion or between $7.05 and $7.35 a share for 2014
Let us also consider the compensation packages for the leadership of these corporations.
Skyrocketing salaries for health insurance CEOs
Hospitals get in on the racket too.
Medicine’s Top Earners Are Not the M.D.s
All of this profit taking most definitely affects how much you pay. Let us consider that only a fool goes without health insurance when the costs of care can bankrupt just about anyone. US citizens in this case are the very definition of a captive market.
These are all truths... but correlation =! causation.
Look, the whole system sucks, i agree.
Just don't expect someone like me who has a few years deep within the field to roll over when i see comments like "It's all a conspiracy from the insurance companies!"
SVreX
MegaDork
1/15/15 3:47 p.m.
In reply to Swank Force One:
Deal. You are smart and knowledgable on the subject, and I always appreciate your input. I won't expect you to roll over when you hear that stuff.
But don't get too defensive, either. Don't assume that every time someone says, "This sucks" that they are saying you, your boss, or your industry are entirely to blame.
I am a contractor. Contractors often have a pretty bad reputation. Part of being a good contractor is accepting the responsibility for the weaknesses and failures of my industry, even when it wasn't my fault.
