80/20 RULE

[dayman]

I agree with the first part, but he compromised because he couldn't get this POS passed any other way and they "had to do something." So they did the next best thing and came up with a 2,700 page monstrosity that will bankrupt insurance companies and lead to single payer.

 

As for paying for quality, that's never going to fly.

 

There is nothing about everyone having insurance the insurance companies don't like trust me.

[3rdnlng]

I agree with the first part, but he compromised because he couldn't get this POS passed any other way and they "had to do something." So they did the next best thing and came up with a 2,700 page monstrosity that will bankrupt insurance companies and lead to single payer.

 

As for paying for quality, that's never going to fly.

 

 

I'm a conservative and hate the whole idea of Obamacare. It is wrong and will only lead to single payer universal healthcare. With that said, it would have a better chance of at least some success if the fines for not having coverage were at least as much as the cost of private coverage. What has been designed is the quickest route to eliminating private insurance. It is just a road to socialized medicine.

[DC Tom]

There is nothing about everyone having insurance the insurance companies don't like trust me.

 

They'd probably like it better if everyone was actually required to buy insurance.

[Alaska Darin]

3. Disagree but you acknowledge that the cost is negligible so whatever..but just know tort reform is evil.

No he didn't.

 

And according to Health Affairs, the U.S. paid almost $50 BILLION in 2008 in defensive medicine costs. That's more than CBO estimated we'd take in if Mr. Obama's plan to tax the rich was actually implemented.

[DC Tom]

I agree with the first part, but he compromised because he couldn't get this POS passed any other way and they "had to do something." So they did the next best thing and came up with a 2,700 page monstrosity that will bankrupt insurance companies and lead to single payer.

 

Which is what makes him a coward. A principled man would have stood by what he thought was right - passing a bad compromise just to crow that you did something, no matter how ineffective, is cowardly.

[IDBillzFan]

There is nothing about everyone having insurance the insurance companies don't like trust me.

Yes, there is. It's call "you must cover people with pre-existing conditions." If you don't see the big "zit on the tip of the nose" problem with this, you are, without question, one of the larger dumbasses here.

[dayman]

Yes, there is. It's call "you must cover people with pre-existing conditions." If you don't see the big "zit on the tip of the nose" problem with this, you are, without question, one of the larger dumbasses here.

 

If everyone has a policy they aren't worried about it. Fact. And it's Mr. Dumbass. Pronounced due-moss.

Edited May 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Doc]

There is nothing about everyone having insurance the insurance companies don't like trust me.

You cannot be denied coverage meaning you can buy it after you get sick. At worst, you pay 3 times what the lowest premium is. The "penalty/fine/tax" that you are hit with if you don't have coverage, isn't enforced, i.e. if you don't pay it, nothing is done to you. What you'll see is the young and/or healthy people not getting coverage until they need it, which increases premiums sharply for everyone else. But with premiums being capped at a 10% increase per year, the private insurance companies will start taking massive losses. All the while the costs will continue to climb and eclipse the (at present) $1.76T pricetag. While the underlying problems continue to worsen.

[dayman]

You cannot be denied coverage meaning you can buy it after you get sick. At worst, you pay 3 times what the lowest premium is. The "penalty/fine/tax" that you are hit with if you don't have coverage, isn't enforced, i.e. if you don't pay it, nothing is done to you. What you'll see is the young and/or healthy people not getting coverage until they need it, which increases premiums sharply for everyone else. But with premiums being capped at a 10% increase per year, the private insurance companies will start taking massive losses. All the while the costs will continue to climb and eclipse the (at present) $1.76T pricetag. While the underlying problems continue to worsen.

 

If you choose not to buy, you are penalized by getting locked out for a period of time. You cannot simply choose to stay out despite the mandate and then take advantage of the preexisting injury deal at your leisure. Insurance companies are not worried about what you describe bankrupting them. It's just not one of the issues that is concerning everyone.

[3rdnlng]

If you choose not to buy, you are penalized by getting locked out for a period of time. You cannot simply choose to stay out despite the mandate and then take advantage of the preexisting injury deal at your leisure. Insurance companies are not worried about what you describe bankrupting them. It's just not one of the issues that is concerning everyone.

 

 

Can you link to all these provisions in the bill? Insurance companies aren't worried about rising costs and diminished payments?

[DC Tom]

If you choose not to buy, you are penalized by getting locked out for a period of time. You cannot simply choose to stay out despite the mandate and then take advantage of the preexisting injury deal at your leisure. Insurance companies are not worried about what you describe bankrupting them. It's just not one of the issues that is concerning everyone.

 

Feel free to quote the section of the Act that describes that.

[IDBillzFan]

If you choose not to buy, you are penalized by getting locked out for a period of time. You cannot simply choose to stay out despite the mandate and then take advantage of the preexisting injury deal at your leisure. Insurance companies are not worried about what you describe bankrupting them. It's just not one of the issues that is concerning everyone.

Really? Can you point out the specifics of this from the law? How long of a time are you locked out? When you are locked out, can you still go to the ER for help? Will they still treat you, or are you locked out of the ER, too? Are you telling me that the Democrats just passed a bill that will leave sick people banging on the locked doors of emergency rooms throughout the country because they could not afford whatever Obamacare was supposed to cost them?

 

This is even worse than I thought.

[Chef Jim]

If everyone has a policy they aren't worried about it. Fact. And it's Mr. Dumbass. Pronounced due-moss.

 

How in the hell is forcing a company to do something they would never do were they not forced to ever a good thing??

[Rob's House]

What you've said is an absolute crock, sir. I'm sorry but there's no other response to what you wrote than to just say you don't know what you are talking about. Nothing about "the way the law is written" is going to put health insurance companies out of business I promise you that. You can choose not to believe me, but just know you sound like an idiot.

You don't have enough cred to use the "you're an idiot" argument without backing it up with reasoned analysis. I'm interested to hear the flaws of his "idiotic" logic. Would you be so good as to indulge me?

 

but just know tort reform is evil.

Since you're speaking in absolutes, and without any rationale, can you explain why tort reform is inherrently evil?

 

There is nothing about everyone having insurance the insurance companies don't like trust me.

I don't think you get how this works. You make the assertion then you follow with your reasoning. Throwing out baseless assertions and supporting it with "trust me" or "just know this" isn't interesting or enlightening.

[Chef Jim]

I don't think you get how this works. You make the assertion then you follow with your reasoning. Throwing out baseless assertions and supporting it with "trust me" or "just know this" isn't interesting or enlightening.

 

He's probably going follow that up with something along the lines of "the auto industry would love it if the government forced everyone to buy a car" enlightened logic.

[GG]

 

What you've said is an absolute crock, sir. I'm sorry but there's no other response to what you wrote than to just say you don't know what you are talking about. Nothing about "the way the law is written" is going to put health insurance companies out of business I promise you that. You can choose not to believe me, but just know you sound like an idiot.

 

Of course I'm the idiot because I haven't gone through 2,700 pages of ACA that leaves many of the details in the ethereal TBD category. So I'm veryhappy that you have a blind faith that this law will work as the grand pronouncements, as opposed to allowing future politicians to whittle down every smidgeon of private sector cost controls and risk aversion through premium increases.

 

You are putting your full faith in the individual mandate, and assuming that the Court upholds it, then the insurance companies will be able to charge the appropriate premium for it. Yet as the insurance companies are quickly finding out, that will never fly with the political class who will always blame the insurance companies for the escalating cost. You may think that the insurance exchange will allow the consumers to price out the most appropriate policies, but mandated coverage and not allowing exclusions for pre-existing conditions screws up the actuarial formulas and there's no way the insurers will be able to properly charge for the risk.

 

Said another way, you have faith that ACA will work as advertised, while I knowing the history of Trojan Horses that are government entitlements, know which is the real piece of crock.

[Juror#8]

First: I don't care about your opinion of me. I've stated it at least once already. You can stop with that entire line. You're a freakin' cat toy.

 

And the best part of you was face planted when the John withdrew. And what?

 

I didn't care about being popular when it was supposed to be important and I care less about it now.

 

Popularity? Who the !@#$ is talking about "popularity"? B word, this ain't highschool.

 

I'm referencing your innability to confront a topic and support a position. Instead of confronting a topic, you say "bad" 10 different ways and explain that you don't need to offer any other detail or explanation or even discuss it further because you have "conviction."

 

 

The rest of your post is a giant pile of horseshit. You don't speak "dialectically" about a 2700+ page bill and call it a "floor", a "canvas", or any other comparative word based on the criteria you're using unless you're a !@#$ing drone. ACA doesn't even begin to address the real reasons why health care is expensive in America because if it did the governments at all levels would get the blame it deserves and there is a chance we may be able to make actual headway.

 

If you hadn't noticed, this thread has been less about the ACA and more about what options exist for a functional legislative reform. My point was that there are consituent parts of the legislation that can be implemented into a construct that better accomplishes the overall vision of healthcare reform without the attendant financial and administrative complications.

 

NewEra, I believe Magox, someone else, and I have agreed at one point or another during this thread that reform was appropriate. We've taken to discuss different ideas around that idea of reformation. And that is where a dialectical approach is helpful. But that is obviously not what you're interested in accomplishing. So if your going to simply parrot different synonyms for "bad" in response to everything, shut the !@#$ up, get the !@#$ out, and take your trolling elsewhere. Your crotch stinks and its affecting everyone else's ability to adapt to what would otherwise be a productive environment for discussion.

 

I really appreciate the "I know you are but what am I" part of the post.

 

You better fu(ckin appreciate it. I have more where that came from.

 

Pretty obvious there's absolutely no original thought going on. Keep reading the polls and pretending that the 3 pages that "some people really like" somehow absolve the 2697+ other pages that none of the politicians nor their apologists has ever read and the cost estimates that have doubled in the last year (and will likely double again withing 24 months).

 

Zeeeee 2700 hundred pages. Zeeee 2700 hundred pages. It's sooooo ugly and grotesque. It's sooo scary....This is frightening....it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. It's smoke, and it's in flames now; and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast. Oh, the humanity! And all the passengers screaming around here. I told you; it—I can't even talk to people, their friends are out there! Ah! It's... it... it's a... ah! I... I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest: it's just laying there, mass of smoking wreckage. Ah! And everybody can hardly breathe and talk and the screaming. I... I... I'm sorry. Honest: I... I can hardly breathe. I... I'm going to step inside, where I cannot see it. Charlie, that's terrible. Ah, ah... I can't. Listen, folks; I... I'm gonna have to stop for a minute because [indecipherable] I've lost my voice. This is the worst thing I've ever witnessed.

 

 

If you don't like it grow a set and get to discussing ways to effectuate some change. Rather than that, you want to bemoan the length of the legislation. Here is a novel idea... write to your Congressman, start a campaign, heck run for office. Do something instead of crying about it and acting as if the length of the legislation is some kind of impediment to action and resourcefulness.

 

 

I speak in absolutes because I have principles and convictions and I'm not solely shaped by the information I'm bombarded with on a daily basis. It's called leadership. I'm not surprised you don't recognize it. Few people can anymore.

 

There ya go. You're "principles" and "convictions," prevent you from discussing an open question with an open mind. The original question and point of this thread was, in essence, "what do you think about the 80/20 Rule?" To that, you saw fit to reitterate the length of the legislation as if that were dispositive or even casually addressed my question.

 

Does "principle" and "conviction" prevent you from understanding a basic fu(king question or employing even a remedial level of reading comprehension?

 

Me: What's 2+2?

Alaska Darin: Red.

 

Me: What has leaves, roots, and in general requires sunlight to grow?

Alaska Darin: Vaseline.

 

Give me a break. I'm done with you for this afternoon.

[Juror#8]

You cannot be denied coverage meaning you can buy it after you get sick. At worst, you pay 3 times what the lowest premium is. The "penalty/fine/tax" that you are hit with if you don't have coverage, isn't enforced, i.e. if you don't pay it, nothing is done to you. What you'll see is the young and/or healthy people not getting coverage until they need it, which increases premiums sharply for everyone else. But with premiums being capped at a 10% increase per year, the private insurance companies will start taking massive losses. All the while the costs will continue to climb and eclipse the (at present) $1.76T pricetag. While the underlying problems continue to worsen.

 

Isn't this happening now?

 

And, in addition, the people who go to the emergency room for Advil, broken ankles, HBP, and other relatively routine matters because they're young, generally healthy, and haven't contemplated any manner of infirmity or health complication, end up raising the premiums for everyone else.

 

In large measure, they don't pay those exorbitant hospital bills. Those costs just get spread to the taxpayer.

[Juror#8]

can you explain why tort reform is inherrently evil?

 

Don't want to take this thread too much off topic but if you'd allow me to address this question quickly....

 

Yes, some degree of tort reform would be helpful. However, I hope that tort reform never gets beyond capping non-economic damages.

 

Going to the English Rule, I believe, would only accomplish resticting access to the courts for those who are not financially advantaged. As it is, there are Rule 11s for issues of frivolity.

 

Eliminating juries as finder's of fact in certain civil actions is VERY strong medicine.

 

That's it.

[DC Tom]

Don't want to take this thread too much off topic but if you'd allow me to address this question quickly....

 

Yes, some degree of tort reform would be helpful. However, I hope that tort reform never gets beyond capping non-economic damages.

 

Going to the English Rule, I believe, would only accomplish resticting access to the courts for those who are not financially advantaged. As it is, there are Rule 11s for issues of frivolity.

 

Eliminating juries as finder's of fact in certain civil actions is VERY strong medicine.

 

That's it.

 

Agree with capping non-economic damages. Let's face it...if a doctor's having a $100M punitive damage levied against him, it's probably the wrong punitive action.

 

Disagree with eliminating juries. I get your point...but there's a definite problem with non-expert citizen panels rendering judgement on technical matters that require a significant level of expertise to understand. Rather, I'd see something more akin to arbitration, where a doctor's conduct is judged by a board of professionals actually capable of judging his conduct. I'll compromise by suggesting civil juries for a penalty phase...deal?