80/20 RULE

[3rdnlng]

I posted a road map for you to use to begin to educate yourself on some basic questions you seem to have (what is the fine? etc)...and you think I'm trying to fool you. I'm not trying to trick or fool you. I was actually trying to help you. Yes 3rdnlng I'm sorry but if you want to discuss this sort thing intelligently you will have to do some reading. It's ok though I'm sure you would survive it.

 

As for the specific assertion I made regarding the enrollment periods I literally posted the section for you to read. If you don't understand what you are reading then read it again. If you don't understand what agencies do then wiki it. I can't sit here and just preach to you on every little thing...

 

EDIT: Just realized btw I gave you the exact citation you need to find the info on the penalty as well. I've actually gone out of my way to HELP you answer these questions you have. To say I'm trying to dodge or confuse issues is retarded. I get it...it's too long and complicated for you. Same for me honestly. So here I am, helping you...sharing resources I have access to that help filter the content of the Act and make is usable... and what do you do? Nothing...you B word at me for helping you....call me a liar and fool...

 

 

Listen troll, the act is unconstitutional and will be struck down. Furthermore, it wouldn't work. As much as I dislike it, it would never work because of the very simple reason that the mandates have no teeth. So, health insurance is going to cost me $10,000-$15,000 a year, but I can pick it up whenever I want and only have to pay an amount in fines that would amount to 10% of the insurance? This plan goes against the "Law of Large Numbers" and is doomed. Put your partisanship aside and realize that improvements can be made but they should be incremental and well thought out. Aren't you just a little embarrassed that one of your leaders said that we had "to pass the bill to see what was in it"? Guess what tool, she was one of the authers.

 

Your bs about teaching me is humorous. This isn't my first rodeo and you wouldn't be the first little calf I roped and tied up.

Edited May 16, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[IDBillzFan]

...very politically-charged, overblown dramatic take on the situation....that's my take anyway.

Of course it's your take. You, like all progressives, believe we're just too stupid to think for ourselves. You'd gladly sacrifice your own freedoms because you have somehow been convinced that we need the intellectuals to lead, with their deep thoughts and multiple diplomas and unchecked mandates because only a bloated government with lots of agencies can make things right for a people simply not intellectual enough to lead the way.

 

Think for yourself, Julia. It's not that hard.

[dayman]

Listen troll, the act is unconstitutional and will be struck down. Furthermore, it wouldn't work. As much as I dislike it, it would never work because of the very simple reason that the mandates have no teeth. So, health insurance is going to cost me $10,000-$15,000 a year, but I can pick it up whenever I want and only have to pay an amount in fines that would amount to 10% of the insurance? This plan goes against the "Law of Large Numbers" and is doomed. Put your partisanship aside and realize that improvements can be made but they should be incremental and well thought out. Aren't you just a little embarrassed that one of your leaders said that we had "to pass the bill to see what was in it"? Guess what tool, she was one of the authers.

 

Your bs about teaching me is humorous. This isn't my first rodeo and you wouldn't be the first little calf I roped and tied up.

 

I get it. "The mandate won't work." That's your take. Congratulations on that. The bottom line is all projections show the law would flush the market with over 30 Million newly insured people. Of course there will still be some people uninsured, no ****. The point is you help the market out so it can comply with the guarantee issue. The projections show that is the case. I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around this.

 

 

Of course it's your take. You, like all progressives, believe we're just too stupid to think for ourselves. You'd gladly sacrifice your own freedoms because you have somehow been convinced that we need the intellectuals to lead, with their deep thoughts and multiple diplomas and unchecked mandates because only a bloated government with lots of agencies can make things right for a people simply not intellectual enough to lead the way.

 

Think for yourself, Julia. It's not that hard.

 

Whoo....don't you belong at a town hall meeting screaming your lungs off while dressed like a revolutionary soldier? IT'S ABOUT MAAAHHHH FREEEDDDOOOOOMMM!!! AND I HATE WHAT I SEE AS "INTELLECTUAL!"

[3rdnlng]

I get it. "The mandate won't work." That's your take. Congratulations on that. The bottom line is all projections show the law would flush the market with over 30 Million newly insured people. Of course there will still be some people uninsured, no ****. The point is you help the market out so it can comply with the guarantee issue. The projections show that is the case. I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around this.

 

 

 

 

Whoo....don't you belong at a town hall meeting screaming your lungs off while dressed like a revolutionary soldier? IT'S ABOUT MAAAHHHH FREEEDDDOOOOOMMM!!! AND I HATE WHAT I SEE AS "INTELLECTUAL!"

 

 

Why don't you link to any specifics? All projections? The projections? What projections? The ones you have made up?

[IDBillzFan]

Whoo....don't you belong at a town hall meeting screaming your lungs off while dressed like a revolutionary soldier? IT'S ABOUT MAAAHHHH FREEEDDDOOOOOMMM!!! AND I HATE WHAT I SEE AS "INTELLECTUAL!"

Aaaaaaand POP! goes the weasel. Nice effort, though. You really had us going for a moment.

 

By the way...making fun of tea party folks is SO 2010. We mock OWS now...at least when they're not raping each other, spreading diseases, crapping on police cars, damaging small businesses and abandoning babies in disease-infested tents.

[Doc]

Most of this bill is about reforming many of the entitlements you speak of, and then yes also regulating the healthcare industry, allocating more funds for fraud detection etc... You act as though it is creating a whole new entitlement...this bill has been framed as more than it is to be honest. As is well documented if you don't want to take responsibility for yourself and you are willing to shift the costs to the rest of us if/when the time comes then you suffer a tax penalty and you are free to continue to risk personal bankruptcy and all the other wonderful things that go with freedom from health insurance...

What entitlements does this reform? It vastly expands Medicaid. Social Security isn't touched. The only thing it does to "reform" is to cut $500B from Medicare, which will have to be replaced. Then you add the cost of this.

 

As for taking responsibility for myself, almost no one takes responsibility for themselves. If they did, we wouldn't be in the mess we are. But if PPACA isn't struck down or repealed, I'll wait to see if there is a lockout period and what the enforcement of the penalty/fine/tax is. If there are none, as I suspect, I'll take my chances and buy it only when I need it. And I'll stop providing health insurance coverage to my employees and take the fine/penalty/tax because it will be cheaper (although I expect to be out of medicine by then).

[dayman]

Why don't you link to any specifics? All projections? The projections? What projections? The ones you have made up?

 

Yes 3rdnlng I make stuff up. I make this all up. The projections from a story I saw on the news so no there is no link. Had over 30M newly insured as a result of the mandate and somewhere right below 20M still uninsured. The actuaries for the insurance companies are fine with that and say they can comply with the guarantee issue under those circumstances. You can look around if you would like and produce evidence that the mandate WON'T WORK! But what you will find is in places like Massachusetts it has compelled over 400,000 people into the market reducing the share of uninsured individuals in the market to 1.9%. You can also see Switzerland and the Netherlands who have also achieved near universal coverage through the mandate. The mandate get's people into the market. There are a million reasons you can be unhappy with the ACA but the fact that everyone is just going to say "!@#$ off Obama" and not buy health insurance for themselves when it is made easier and mandated and penalized is not one of them.

[dayman]

What entitlements does this reform? It vastly expands Medicaid. Social Security isn't touched. The only thing it does to "reform" is to cut $500B from Medicare, which will have to be replaced. Then you add the cost of this.

 

As for taking responsibility for myself, almost no one takes responsibility for themselves. If they did, we wouldn't be in the mess we are. But if PPACA isn't struck down or repealed, I'll wait to see if there is a lockout period and what the enforcement of the penalty/fine/tax is. If there are none, as I suspect, I'll take my chances and buy it only when I need it. And I'll stop providing health insurance coverage to my employees and take the fine/penalty/tax because it will be cheaper (although I expect to be out of medicine by then).

 

The act does some significant reworking of both medicare and medicade (a big part of why it's so large). Of course it doesn't touch SS that has nothing to do with it and that's untouchable politically anyway (by anyone).

Edited May 16, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Yes 3rdnlng I make stuff up. I make this all up. The projections from a story I saw on the news so no there is no link. Had over 30M newly insured as a result of the mandate and somewhere right below 20M still uninsured. The actuaries for the insurance companies are fine with that and say they can comply with the guarantee issue under those circumstances. You can look around if you would like and produce evidence that the mandate WON'T WORK! But what you will find is in places like Massachusetts it has compelled over 400,000 people into the market reducing the share of uninsured individuals in the market to 1.9%. You can also see Switzerland and the Netherlands who have also achieved near universal coverage through the mandate. The mandate get's people into the market. There are a million reasons you can be unhappy with the ACA but the fact that everyone is just going to say "!@#$ off Obama" and not buy health insurance for themselves when it is made easier and mandated and penalized is not one of them.

 

 

You still can't come up with any links, can you?

[DC Tom]

Most of this bill is about reforming many of the entitlements you speak of, and then yes also regulating the healthcare insurance industry, allocating more funds for fraud detection etc... You act as though it is creating a whole new entitlement...this bill has been framed as more than it is to be honest. As is well documented if you don't want to take responsibility for yourself and you are willing to shift the costs to the rest of us if/when the time comes then you suffer a tax penalty and you are free to continue to risk personal bankruptcy and all the other wonderful things that go with freedom from health insurance...

 

 

 

...very politically-charged, overblown dramatic take on the situation....that's my take anyway.

 

The underlined: correct. Maybe two-thirds of this act is reforming Medicare.

 

The bolded: fixed that for you.

 

And the italicized simply isn't true, through virtue of the fact that an insurer is forced to cover preexisting conditions. That's one of the major issues with the ACA...no matter how irresponsible you are, you can always pass the financial risk of your own bad behavior on to the insurers.

[B-Man]

I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around this.

 

 

 

 

Whoo....don't you belong at a town hall meeting screaming your lungs off while dressed like a revolutionary soldier? IT'S ABOUT MAAAHHHH FREEEDDDOOOOOMMM!!! AND I HATE WHAT I SEE AS "INTELLECTUAL!"

 

 

 

And when confronted with a difficult problem, you have exposed yourself.

 

 

"Oh, if only those neanderthal TEA people could understand what I understand".

 

 

.

[dayman]

The underlined: correct. Maybe two-thirds of this act is reforming Medicare.

 

The bolded: fixed that for you.

 

And the italicized simply isn't true, through virtue of the fact that an insurer is forced to cover preexisting conditions. That's one of the major issues with the ACA...no matter how irresponsible you are, you can always pass the financial risk of your own bad behavior on to the insurers.

 

Since you are correcting me I've noticed that a number of posters (not just you) don't understand the word is "emboldened." Just a small point to make sure I'm being a sufficient jackass in this response.

 

As for your last point...there's some validity in that but you have to understand the enrollment periods are still subject to company control. If you choose to remain uninsured despite everything and you develop diabetes...yes at a later point you will most likely be able to receive a policy that includes helping manage your diabetes. But it's not going repay you for costs you incurred while you were not insured.

 

As for B-Man and the tea party...lol

 

As for 3rdnlng...do some looking around and educate yourself there's stuff everywhere. I'm not doing homework for you. I already know that mandate being toothless is not a big concern. If you insist it is, then you provide all these links you fixate on. Or just go ahead and refute the facts I have given whatever...point is I'm not making stuff up and never have been. Also I even went back and saw you edit some post accusing me of quoting you but changing the text in the quote! LOL...sorry dude...I don't know what your weird little mind does but that never happened.

[3rdnlng]

Since you are correcting me I've noticed that a number of posters (not just you) don't understand the word is "emboldened." Just a small point to make sure I'm being a sufficient jackass in this response.

 

As for your last point...there's some validity in that but you have to understand the enrollment periods are still subject to company control. If you choose to remain uninsured despite everything and you develop diabetes...yes at a later point you will most likely be able to receive a policy that includes helping manage your diabetes. But it's not going repay you for costs you incurred while you were not insured.

 

As for B-Man and the tea party...lol

 

As for 3rdnlng...do some looking around and educate yourself there's stuff everywhere. I'm not doing homework for you. I already know that mandate being toothless is not a big concern. If you insist it is, then you provide all these links you fixate on. Or just go ahead and refute the facts I have given whatever...point is I'm not making stuff up and never have been. Also I even went back and saw you edit some post accusing me of quoting you but changing the text in the quote! LOL...sorry dude...I don't know what your weird little mind does but that never happened.

 

 

That's not the accepted definition of "emboldened". As far as me editing something to change its meaning you are just plain full of schit and a liar. Can you point to it, or is this another one of you made up things that you can't prove or link to? Typically speaking, the only editing I do is to correct spelling or a missing word.

 

Refute facts? What facts? Your made up stuff that you proclaim and pull out of thin air?

[DC Tom]

As for your last point...there's some validity in that but you have to understand the enrollment periods are still subject to company control. If you choose to remain uninsured despite everything and you develop diabetes...yes at a later point you will most likely be able to receive a policy that includes helping manage your diabetes. But it's not going repay you for costs you incurred while you were not insured.

 

And how is that ANY DIFFERENT from "not covering preexisting conditions?" Every policy I've ever seen hasn't said "preexisting conditions aren't covered"...they've said "preexisting conditions aren't covered for X number of months from the establishment of this policy." You're basically saying that the ACA has not changed the preexisting conditions riders at all - under the ACA, if you don't have insurance and get sick, you still have to wait for coverage of the condition.

 

Except, no, you're actually saying that you can't buy insurance AT ALL, except for a brief window of time when it's offered to you. Which is also nonsense...there's nothing stopping me right now from going to BC&BS myself and buying an individual policy that goes into effect immediately. You're actually arguing that the ACA permits (or mandates) individual coverage only be purchased during open enrollment periods defined by the insurers? And you're arguing that's progress?

 

Methinks you're confusing the individual coverage mandate with the group coverage regulations. That's why I equivocated on the excerpt you posted before...it made sense from the perspective of group policies, and even from the perspective of the whole "exchange" idea. From an individual point of view, it's a considerable step backwards from the "old" system. Which, again, would get back to the point of: reform isn't all it's cracked up to be when the reform sucks.

[Juror#8]

Really? A federal mandate to purchase something that may be against your will or religious beliefs simply because you live in the US? Nothing radical? Nothing that nips at your individual freedoms?

 

So would you rather have the status quo...where insureds are forced to subsidize the un-insured because they went to the emergency room and racked up exorbitant costs that would have been less costly and more manageable had they been able to go for a routine physician visit?

 

Cause that's where we're at. Hospitals provide care. Liability, Hippocratic oath, and humanity forestall doctors from not treating patients in need. When uninsured patients go to the emergency room for routine things, it's costly. Emergency rooms are costly. The cost of any service at an ER is exponentially more than the cost of a routine health visit.

 

That cost point is compounded by the fact that the uninsured or impoverished go to the ER with ailments, the origins of which may have been profoundly less severe, but in their current state is an exacerbation due to innattention.

 

So not only does compulsory health insurance implicate a cost savings with respect to direct servicing cost, it also, at least theoretically, implicates a cost savings peripherally - because health issues that would otherwise be exacerbated - and consequently more expensive - can be addressed while they're less severe and more fiscally manageable.

 

The status quo is NOT sustainable. You, me, 3rdnlng, Doc, BigfatBillsfan, TheNewBills, ChefJim, LA, Tom, B-Large and B-Man, etc. are all forced to pay the cost of the uninsured. Every week. Every premium payment. It's compulsory. Most states have funds set up to subsidize hospital budget short falls due to ER visits. They are funded by tax revenues. You're gonna pay. It's unavoidable:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/magazines/fortune/colvin_aetna_csuite.fortune/index.htm

 

"Today we all pay for the uninsured. If an individual sticks up a bank and walks off with $25,000, there are consequences. If someone who really could have had an insurance policy consumes $25,000 worth of health care, everyone else pays for that. The average employer is paying 12% more in premiums today to cover the uninsured than they would pay if we brought those 47 million into the system. So for every group we bring in, health care becomes more affordable."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/25/us-insurance-health-idUSN2540397020080825

 

So we can continue paying $1200 - $1500 a year through residual costs and hidden taxes, or we can pay, what will likely be, a reduced amount because the lion share of those who precipitated those residual costs will have a level of care and coverage such that they can see a physician in a way that isn't imposition on the remainder of the tax base.

 

Doing nothing is acquiescing to the above. That is silly. Maybe you're not advocating "doing nothing." Maybe you want something but not the ACA. Ok, then what? Because heretofore, all those who have said "I want reform, just not _______," have been content with the status quo - year after year after decade after decade after politician after politician....

 

The "I want to see change just not _____" is subterfuge - just a proxy for "leave things the way they are."

 

It that brings me back to my original thesis - the ACA is not perfect, but it is "somebody" doing "something."

Cell phones used to be big as bricks, have black screens,green numbers, and rely on FCN ___ keys to accomplish any one of the three tasks that it was capable of. Cars once had wooden wheels. But I'm not thinking about that when I drive my Shelby and tell it to "call home."

 

The ACA, all 2700 pages of it, is conceptually better than the status quo. If it feels good to call me a "liberal" for saying that, go for it. You'd be wrong, but I'm not gonna sweat some name calling. And please, don't quote this last paragraph and go off on it as if there wasn't a bunch of detail and opinion leading up to it. The entire post deserves consideration - not just the denouement.

[dayman]

And how is that ANY DIFFERENT from "not covering preexisting conditions?" Every policy I've ever seen hasn't said "preexisting conditions aren't covered"...they've said "preexisting conditions aren't covered for X number of months from the establishment of this policy." You're basically saying that the ACA has not changed the preexisting conditions riders at all - under the ACA, if you don't have insurance and get sick, you still have to wait for coverage of the condition.

 

Except, no, you're actually saying that you can't buy insurance AT ALL, except for a brief window of time when it's offered to you. Which is also nonsense...there's nothing stopping me right now from going to BC&BS myself and buying an individual policy that goes into effect immediately. You're actually arguing that the ACA permits (or mandates) individual coverage only be purchased during open enrollment periods defined by the insurers? And you're arguing that's progress?

 

Methinks you're confusing the individual coverage mandate with the group coverage regulations. That's why I equivocated on the excerpt you posted before...it made sense from the perspective of group policies, and even from the perspective of the whole "exchange" idea. From an individual point of view, it's a considerable step backwards from the "old" system. Which, again, would get back to the point of: reform isn't all it's cracked up to be when the reform sucks.

 

Hold on here for a minute now. What I'm saying first and foremost is to refute the argument that people are going to realize they need care, then sign up, then forward the bills onto the insurance company. My point there is that it's not just a free for all in that way, you are still subjecting yourself to huge risk still by not having insurance. You will not be allowed to just sign up w/ no limitations 5 minutes before surgery, and obviously nobody will pay you back after these bills come in. As far as completely eliminating all costs associated with free riders developing preexisting conditions while they are not insured and then becoming insured after the fact...that is impossible unless we go to single payer anybody can see that. Point being people need insurance (sick or not) and the only way to keep it private (which conservatives want) is to compel many more people into the market so the numbers work.

 

As for my claim that there is something that makes you unable to buy it at any point? That's the insurance company. They are subject to guarantee issue yes, but they may restrict enrollment to open/special periods subject to rules that will be promulgated by the secretary of HHS.

 

As for confusing the group regulation with individual purchases just go back and read the section I posted from the ACA addressing it. Group and Individual right there together in the enrollment provision. The reason it isn't a significant step backwards is b/c you can't be refused (guaranteed issue) based on your preexisting conditions! Obviously that is a step forward from the individual view, no? The fact that he can't be insured 5 minutes before a heart transplant is not a step backwards that's just staying the same...and that will never change b/c that would be insanity (as we all agree I'm sure).

Edited May 16, 2012 by TheNewBills

[IDBillzFan]

The ACA, all 2700 pages of it, is conceptually better than the status quo.

No, it's not conceptually better because it is NOT the only option. Forcing Americans to buy a product simply because they are American is the exact opposite of what has made this the country that everyone else wants to live in. I know liberals like to point at the crazy tea party folks who yell about protecting their freedoms, but at what point did protecting our freedoms become a JOKE to the left? This freaking country was FOUNDED on freedom and the expressed need to PROTECT that freedom, and this bill does the absolutely opposite of that. How is it NOT possible for anyone to see that?

 

There are better ways, and working together we can find them. You do not find them by piecing together a ridiculous piece of legislation, voted on by people who didn't read it, many of whom had guns to their heads, with the implicit explanation of "We won, you lost, suck it up and get on the back of the bus."

 

You genuinely need to stop breaking out the "It's better than nothing" story because it is, quite frankly, embarrassing to anyone who believes we can do better together.

[Doc]

So would you rather have the status quo...where insureds are forced to subsidize the un-insured because they went to the emergency room and racked up exorbitant costs that would have been less costly and more manageable had they been able to go for a routine physician visit?

Why do you think that ER visits will magically decrease? Is EMTALA being repealed?

[dayman]

Why do you think that ER visits will magically decrease? Is EMTALA being repealed?

 

Doc the idea is that uninsured ER visits will magically decrease, b/c the mandate has pushed more people into the market. And part of it is that yes, many ER visits can be avoided by preventative care which is mandatory under the insurance reforms, so the would-be non-insured person in the ER w/ a huge bill he can't pay is now someone who either 1) got the preventative care they needed under their insurance and avoided the costly ER visit or 2) is in the ER w/ insurance.

 

Will there still be some people in the ER who simply have no insurance? Yes. Point is not as much. Everyone constantly attacks this Bill as if it has to be perfect. NO BILL IS PERFECT!

 

Oh the mandate won't work on everyone...ok well it will work on most people according to the damn insurance companies that support it and other places it is in effect. Oh there will will still be some people that end up being diagnosed w/ an ongoing illness while uninsured who then receive help managing the condition while insured at a later date...no **** until we go to single payer that can never COMPLETELY be eliminated. The point is can it work? The answer is clearly yes. Can it start as in and be tweeked? Yes. Is "the government can't do anything right" a valid excuse for not reforming an industry that is bankrupting us? No. blah blah...and so on and so on...

 

No, it's not conceptually better because it is NOT the only option. Forcing Americans to buy a product simply because they are American is the exact opposite of what has made this the country that everyone else wants to live in. I know liberals like to point at the crazy tea party folks who yell about protecting their freedoms, but at what point did protecting our freedoms become a JOKE to the left? This freaking country was FOUNDED on freedom and the expressed need to PROTECT that freedom, and this bill does the absolutely opposite of that. How is it NOT possible for anyone to see that?

 

There are better ways, and working together we can find them. You do not find them by piecing together a ridiculous piece of legislation, voted on by people who didn't read it, many of whom had guns to their heads, with the implicit explanation of "We won, you lost, suck it up and get on the back of the bus."

 

You genuinely need to stop breaking out the "It's better than nothing" story because it is, quite frankly, embarrassing to anyone who believes we can do better together.

 

What freedom are you so concerned about? The freedom to not purchase health insurance? Guess what...it's chalked up right there with the millions of other freedoms that you don't actually have. It's bankrupting the country, so you have to buy it. Don't like it? Then push for a true public option. Don't like the public option? Then deal w/ the mandate. Don't like either? Then propose something different that could work or suck it up. We have to do something. We aren't doing nothing about this anymore. BTW as you point out over and over saying it won't actually compel many more people into the market (which nobody else agrees with)...if you refuse to comply you pay a tax penalty. So don't comply...and pay your damn tax. Wow you are so oppressed b/c you pay a tax penalty for not doing something the government wants you to do. Your rights have changed over night that has never happened in American history before....

Edited May 16, 2012 by TheNewBills

[jjamie12]

 

...

 

Is "the government can't do anything right" a valid excuse for not reforming an industry that is bankrupting us? No. blah blah...and so on and so on...

 

 

 

What freedom are you so concerned about? The freedom to not purchase health insurance? Guess what...it's chalked up right there with the millions of other freedoms that you don't actually have. It's bankrupting the country, so you have to buy it.

 

...

 

 

No. It. Isn't. Health CARE costs are bankrupting this country. NOT health insurance costs. This bill, by your own admission several posts back does not address health care costs in this country. No amount of shifting the money around is going to stop healthCARE costs from rising. They're rising because people have almost no idea what they're paying for or why they're paying for it because of the lack of transparency of costs inherent in 'Health Insurance', which (surprise surprise) wasn't addressed in this bill.