Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far

Topic:  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
Author
Message
Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 3:58:52 AM 
Dude--That is a brutal misinterp of that article's report of the poll's findings.




So, brutal as to fall into the realm of prevarication.



Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!


DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Back to Top
  
GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,920

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 8:10:07 AM 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSQg1i_q2g

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

Last Edited: 10/4/2013 8:11:42 AM by GoCats105
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,821

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 8:58:45 AM 
Its the law folks - and those throwing out xx% of people don't want it, you know what...doesn't matter.  it is legislation and you can't have a shut down or walk on the debt  because a party doesn't like legislation.  Over 80% of Americans want universal background checks and registration of all gun purchases.  What if the Senate passed a CR with an attachment that said we must also change the legislation on gun registration.  I'm sure the House would love that.  It's the law.  It is going to help a huge number of folks and it is going to hurt some folks and it is not going impact a majority of folks.  So this thread, like the law, needs to move on. Time to put it to bed.
Back to Top
  
JSF
General User



Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,341

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 9:07:49 AM 
ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ABOARD!

"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

Back to Top
  
Ryan Carey
Site Programmer



Member Since: 11/11/2004
Post Count: 948

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 9:09:40 AM 

Ryan M. Carey
BBA 2001

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 11:49:46 AM 
L.C. wrote:
Paul Graham wrote:
Can we just stop this thread before it becomes what we all know it will?

I say this as the creator of MANY such threads!

No, I'm pretty sure it's too late for that. The tracks are already laid, and they lead to Yakutsk.

Ah, the cool air of a Russian morning. Good thing I had my coat ready.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 11:55:03 AM 
RSBobcat wrote:
L.C. wrote:
[QUOTE=perimeterpost] It rose particularly rapidly from 1988-1992, and again from 2000-2003.



I can think of at least one thing those two time frames have in common...............

For those that didn't pick up on the pattern, health care costs go up in good years, and they go up in bad years. It takes a very robust economy for the overall economy to keep up. The economy kept up from 1982-88, 92-99, and 2004-2006, but not from 88-92, 2000-2003, or 2008-2012, so in those years healthcare as a percentage of GDP rose significantly.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,286

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 1:15:23 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
By "forcing healthcare on the population" you're accounting for these costs, providing private insurers with far more patients, and creating a slush fund with individual mandate funds to pay for medical care provided to the uninsured. The additional patients, along with the individual mandate funds will, with time, drive costs down for the rest of us and work to address the untenable cost of healthcare in this country.


This is pure fantasy. There will never be a "slush fund" realized from this Act. You are adding millions of people to the insured roles who are either a) young and relatively healthy, and also not financially capable of paying huge premiums, and (mostly) b) people who don't have any money at all and will amount to huge additional costs, especially when they discover they now have "free" healthcare. Of course, all this is NOT free, and it will fall onto the backs of the middle class, who's premiums will skyrocket and work opportunities will shrink.


The individual mandate is the slush fund. If you choose not to purchase insurance, you pay the mandate. That's the money that comprises the slush fund. So, I ask you this: with all of the additional money being paid into the system (individual mandate money, and people purchasing private plans) what will cause premiums to sky rocket? There is far more money in the system under the ACA than there is now. Why would that result in the premiums skyrocketing?

Edit: Also--nobody is getting free healthcare from the ACA. That's another huge misconception. People are either buying through a private insurer, or they're remaining uninsured and paying the mandate. The mandate money then helps covered the inevitable health costs incurred by the uninsured. There is nobody getting "free" healthcare who is now going to go out and get a bunch of surgeries they can only afford because of their new free healthcare. For all of the talk on the right about this being a government handout, the ACA was designed by the Heritage Foundation specifically to avoid that. It's based on conservative principals like increasing competition in the free market (the exchanges) and personal responsibility (the individual mandate).



There will be some 40 million more people on the rolls, that will more than account for the money generated for premiums. As a result, premiums will increase in order to cover the additional costs. It's already happening. People are seeing higher premiums now. Like me.

What do you mean no one is getting free healthcare. Everyone is covered. That's the whole idea. And, there is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after an injury. Hence, don't pay in over years, but instant payoff. There's no stopping anyone from getting that same coverage either. And when you enroll, no one confirms your income. You can quite easily lie and claim you earn below poverty level.

If this is all so great, why is Congress exempt from participating? What about certain, selected, companies and unions? Why are they permitted to avoid all the wonderful advantages of Obamacare?

The idea this is built on conservative principles is a popular liberal myth. Just because Romney did something similar does not make it a conservative idea. If it were really a conservative idea, liberals would hate it.






It's not a "popular liberal myth", it's fact. The ACA originiated at the Heritage Foundation, was implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and is now, somehow, representative of the onslaught of communism and the end of America as we know. You've been sold a bill of goods, plain and simple. 

Further, you say "There is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after injury", and then call that free healthcare. They paid the mandate. That's the point. They're putting more into the system than they ever did previously; currently, those people are still getting medical care, and private insurance holders are covering the cost. The cost of insurance premiums has risen consistently over the last 15 years to account for the rising cost of treating Americans. This is due, in part, to uninsured patients receiving care at rate card costs that nobody can cover. Rather than write that off as a loss, hospital systems raise the prices they charge insurance companies to offset that. With the ACA, they have to raise those costs less because there is individual mandate money and expanded medicaid coverage covering some of the costs incurred by people in that situation. 

Next, provide me evidence that you can "quite easily lie and claim you earn below poverty level." That is absolutely a myth designed to propogate the conservative fear of "takers" suckling on Uncle Sam's teat. To lie about your income to receive ACA care, you'd also have to lie on your income tax filings. It's not easy, and it'll land you in jail. 

This is the law of the land. It's going to be implemented, and it's not going to cause America to crash in on itself. The economy is going to be fine, and any company that reduces hiring or hours to offset costs of Obamacare is a) inefficiently run, and b) unwilling to out in 45 minutes of research to work around that. Full disclosure: I work for an HR consulting firm and for the last 2 years have been worked with just over a dozen clients ranging from Fortune 500 to sub 50 employee ad agencies to help them navigate ACA implementation. It hasn't had any significant effect on any of them, and even the agency of 45 plans to hire between 10-15 people next year bringing them above the 50 employee threshold. I see the effect this has on companies up close every single day. To work around it, all that's required is a solid 45 minutes of critical thinking. Every single one of our clients has hired us in a panic, and leave our introductory meetings relieved and laughing about how truly misleading the coverage of this law has been. Go read it some time. Study Massachusetts. Read a couple Insurance Company annual reports. Then come back to me and tell me this is the end of the world. 

Finally, to your last point: Liberals don't love this plan. It's not the plan any liberal I know would choose, and the support of it has far more to do with it being a stepping stone towards a true single payer program than with the fact that they actually love it as currently designed. Regardless, however, it's a huge improvement over the current system. 

Last Edited: 10/4/2013 1:17:14 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
Back to Top
  
Jerry86
General User

Member Since: 12/18/2010
Post Count: 645

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 1:40:11 PM 
Speaking of lies Monroe it seems California had some trouble with reporting the truth on day 1 of Obamacare.

www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-health-exchange-glitches-20131001,0,7108713.story

Report 5 million hits when it was 645,000
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 4:33:09 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Further, you say "There is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after injury", and then call that free healthcare. They paid the mandate. That's the point. They're putting more into the system than they ever did previously; currently, those people are still getting medical care, and private insurance holders are covering the cost. 


And that is the real problem. If politicians wanted to actually fix the problem, the would begin with people gaming the system and not work so hard to build a socialistic system that takes from some people and gives to others.

So you work with clients who come to you in a panic over Obamacare. They hire you, apparently someone who is in favor of Obamacare, to help them figure out the law. Is that how it works? Or are you a government provided "navigator" who has the job of convincing people that Obamacare is wonderful? Just clarifying.

And being a stepping stone toward "single payer" is a good thing? You want single payer? I thought you were into the free market, competition, and all that?

Or was that someone else?

You claim this will not make the economy suffer. Amazing that you have that knowledge. Some pretty smart people in this nation completely disagree with you.

Hey, I heard Obamacare will not cause any economic trouble AT ALL?

Really, how do you know?

This guy on the internet "Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame" said so!

 



Last Edited: 10/4/2013 4:45:17 PM by Robert Fox
Back to Top
  
Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 9:21:56 PM 
CA overstating is not good.  But are ya gonna kill the program just for that?

Robert Fox--I like debating with you.  I hope that you don't take any of this personally.  I enjoy a good debate.  My thing is first get the facts right.  And, I think that the people/sources which you follow take the extreme as true/the norm.  Ya gotta throw out the high and low judges scores and take the reasonable middle.

So, first, it's the law of the land and it's not going to be repealed.  Let's give it some time to see what happens.  I very highly doubt that Obamacare is going to destroy the country.  To posit that it will is whack job.

From 'my' side I found these two interesting.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/why-republicans-shut-down-the-government.html

 
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-tea-party-want-shutdown-100027944.html.
What's the consensus on when the budget funding gets solved.  From what I read, it gets people (read: big business and finance) very nervous after a week.

And, if the current situation is solved in the next few days, will Republicans try the same 'shut down' tactics over lifting the debt ceiling?  Consensus seems to be that not raising the debt limit is much more serious than failing to pass budget authority timely.

 

Last Edited: 10/4/2013 9:23:01 PM by Monroe Slavin

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!


DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Back to Top
  
Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 9:24:57 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
By "forcing healthcare on the population" you're accounting for these costs, providing private insurers with far more patients, and creating a slush fund with individual mandate funds to pay for medical care provided to the uninsured. The additional patients, along with the individual mandate funds will, with time, drive costs down for the rest of us and work to address the untenable cost of healthcare in this country.


This is pure fantasy. There will never be a "slush fund" realized from this Act. You are adding millions of people to the insured roles who are either a) young and relatively healthy, and also not financially capable of paying huge premiums, and (mostly) b) people who don't have any money at all and will amount to huge additional costs, especially when they discover they now have "free" healthcare. Of course, all this is NOT free, and it will fall onto the backs of the middle class, who's premiums will skyrocket and work opportunities will shrink.


The individual mandate is the slush fund. If you choose not to purchase insurance, you pay the mandate. That's the money that comprises the slush fund. So, I ask you this: with all of the additional money being paid into the system (individual mandate money, and people purchasing private plans) what will cause premiums to sky rocket? There is far more money in the system under the ACA than there is now. Why would that result in the premiums skyrocketing?

Edit: Also--nobody is getting free healthcare from the ACA. That's another huge misconception. People are either buying through a private insurer, or they're remaining uninsured and paying the mandate. The mandate money then helps covered the inevitable health costs incurred by the uninsured. There is nobody getting "free" healthcare who is now going to go out and get a bunch of surgeries they can only afford because of their new free healthcare. For all of the talk on the right about this being a government handout, the ACA was designed by the Heritage Foundation specifically to avoid that. It's based on conservative principals like increasing competition in the free market (the exchanges) and personal responsibility (the individual mandate).



There will be some 40 million more people on the rolls, that will more than account for the money generated for premiums. As a result, premiums will increase in order to cover the additional costs. It's already happening. People are seeing higher premiums now. Like me.

What do you mean no one is getting free healthcare. Everyone is covered. That's the whole idea. And, there is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after an injury. Hence, don't pay in over years, but instant payoff. There's no stopping anyone from getting that same coverage either. And when you enroll, no one confirms your income. You can quite easily lie and claim you earn below poverty level.

If this is all so great, why is Congress exempt from participating? What about certain, selected, companies and unions? Why are they permitted to avoid all the wonderful advantages of Obamacare?

The idea this is built on conservative principles is a popular liberal myth. Just because Romney did something similar does not make it a conservative idea. If it were really a conservative idea, liberals would hate it.






It's not a "popular liberal myth", it's fact. The ACA originiated at the Heritage Foundation, was implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and is now, somehow, representative of the onslaught of communism and the end of America as we know. You've been sold a bill of goods, plain and simple. 

Further, you say "There is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after injury", and then call that free healthcare. They paid the mandate. That's the point. They're putting more into the system than they ever did previously; currently, those people are still getting medical care, and private insurance holders are covering the cost. The cost of insurance premiums has risen consistently over the last 15 years to account for the rising cost of treating Americans. This is due, in part, to uninsured patients receiving care at rate card costs that nobody can cover. Rather than write that off as a loss, hospital systems raise the prices they charge insurance companies to offset that. With the ACA, they have to raise those costs less because there is individual mandate money and expanded medicaid coverage covering some of the costs incurred by people in that situation. 

Next, provide me evidence that you can "quite easily lie and claim you earn below poverty level." That is absolutely a myth designed to propogate the conservative fear of "takers" suckling on Uncle Sam's teat. To lie about your income to receive ACA care, you'd also have to lie on your income tax filings. It's not easy, and it'll land you in jail. 

This is the law of the land. It's going to be implemented, and it's not going to cause America to crash in on itself. The economy is going to be fine, and any company that reduces hiring or hours to offset costs of Obamacare is a) inefficiently run, and b) unwilling to out in 45 minutes of research to work around that. Full disclosure: I work for an HR consulting firm and for the last 2 years have been worked with just over a dozen clients ranging from Fortune 500 to sub 50 employee ad agencies to help them navigate ACA implementation. It hasn't had any significant effect on any of them, and even the agency of 45 plans to hire between 10-15 people next year bringing them above the 50 employee threshold. I see the effect this has on companies up close every single day. To work around it, all that's required is a solid 45 minutes of critical thinking. Every single one of our clients has hired us in a panic, and leave our introductory meetings relieved and laughing about how truly misleading the coverage of this law has been. Go read it some time. Study Massachusetts. Read a couple Insurance Company annual reports. Then come back to me and tell me this is the end of the world. 

Finally, to your last point: Liberals don't love this plan. It's not the plan any liberal I know would choose, and the support of it has far more to do with it being a stepping stone towards a true single payer program than with the fact that they actually love it as currently designed. Regardless, however, it's a huge improvement over the current system. 



Good call.



Is there open enrollment at all times under Your Affordable Care Act.  That is, can you refuse to buy coverage, have an injury, and pick up coverage only after you need it due to the injury?








 

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!


DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/4/2013 9:31:05 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
....And being a stepping stone toward "single payer" is a good thing? You want single payer? I thought you were into the free market, competition, and all that?...

Single payer would probably be better than this nightmare, honestly. It might also be better than the nightmare we have now, which contrary to what people think, is not a free market, either.

My first preference would be a free market solution, which would of course have to include the option for providers to decline service. Since that won't happen, the next best choice may be a single payer system.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/5/2013 9:37:28 AM 
L.C. wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
....And being a stepping stone toward "single payer" is a good thing? You want single payer? I thought you were into the free market, competition, and all that?...

Single payer would probably be better than this nightmare, honestly. It might also be better than the nightmare we have now, which contrary to what people think, is not a free market, either.

My first preference would be a free market solution, which would of course have to include the option for providers to decline service. Since that won't happen, the next best choice may be a single payer system.


That single-payer system, in theory, will have no competition and prices will be established by bureaucrats, who will also have a major role in determining what care is necessary and will be covered by their plan. Your primary physician will lose control over treatment.

A one-size-fits-all solution fits no one.

Monroe,
I appreciate your comments. You and I clearly disagree politically (we already knew that), but I'd be glad to share a beer sometime with you to debate in person.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/5/2013 2:49:30 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
That single-payer system, in theory, will have no competition and prices will be established by bureaucrats, who will also have a major role in determining what care is necessary and will be covered by their plan. Your primary physician will lose control over treatment.

Right now what care is necessary is determined by attorneys and judges. Is having it determined by bureaucrats really any worse?

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/5/2013 5:15:03 PM 
miami sucks.

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!


DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,286

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/7/2013 2:25:23 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Further, you say "There is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after injury", and then call that free healthcare. They paid the mandate. That's the point. They're putting more into the system than they ever did previously; currently, those people are still getting medical care, and private insurance holders are covering the cost. 


And that is the real problem. If politicians wanted to actually fix the problem, the would begin with people gaming the system and not work so hard to build a socialistic system that takes from some people and gives to others.

So you work with clients who come to you in a panic over Obamacare. They hire you, apparently someone who is in favor of Obamacare, to help them figure out the law. Is that how it works? Or are you a government provided "navigator" who has the job of convincing people that Obamacare is wonderful? Just clarifying.

And being a stepping stone toward "single payer" is a good thing? You want single payer? I thought you were into the free market, competition, and all that?

Or was that someone else?

You claim this will not make the economy suffer. Amazing that you have that knowledge. Some pretty smart people in this nation completely disagree with you.

Hey, I heard Obamacare will not cause any economic trouble AT ALL?

Really, how do you know?

This guy on the internet "Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame" said so!



I'm gonna go ahead and bow out of this conversation, but I want to be clear about something: 

I work for a private human resources consulting firm. My personal opinions on the ACA are irrelevant, because  the ACA is the law. Companies aren't out there going "let's find us an ACA supporter so he can talk us in to this dag gone thing!" They're reacting to the law of the land, and analysing how it's going to effect their business. And they hire my company because we have a 30 year track record of helping our clients navigate regulatory environments as they relate to hiring decisions. It's not that complicated.

Second, one of the reasons I--somebody who typically supports the free market--think that the healthcare industry is ripe for socialization, is that the healthcare market isn't and hasn't been free for a very, very long time. Read the Time magazine article "Bitter Pill" from about a year ago (it's behind a paywall or else I'd link to it) and then come back here and make a valid argument that the free market is operating in the healthcare system. It's a broken system with runaway costs that presents major defecit issues for our country going forward. Additionally, from a purely moral standpoint, I think it's an abomination that the richest country on earth doesn't provide its citizens with access to affordable healthcare.

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,480

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/7/2013 3:58:27 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Further, you say "There is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after injury", and then call that free healthcare. They paid the mandate. That's the point. They're putting more into the system than they ever did previously; currently, those people are still getting medical care, and private insurance holders are covering the cost.


And that is the real problem. If politicians wanted to actually fix the problem, the would begin with people gaming the system and not work so hard to build a socialistic system that takes from some people and gives to others.

So you work with clients who come to you in a panic over Obamacare. They hire you, apparently someone who is in favor of Obamacare, to help them figure out the law. Is that how it works? Or are you a government provided "navigator" who has the job of convincing people that Obamacare is wonderful? Just clarifying.

And being a stepping stone toward "single payer" is a good thing? You want single payer? I thought you were into the free market, competition, and all that?

Or was that someone else?

You claim this will not make the economy suffer. Amazing that you have that knowledge. Some pretty smart people in this nation completely disagree with you.


Hey, I heard Obamacare will not cause any economic trouble AT ALL?
Really, how do you know?

This guy on the internet "Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame" said so!


I'm gonna go ahead and bow out of this conversation, but I want to be clear about something:

I work for a private human resources consulting firm. My personal opinions on the ACA are irrelevant, because the ACA is the law. Companies aren't out there going "let's find us an ACA supporter so he can talk us in to this dag gone thing!" They're reacting to the law of the land, and analysing how it's going to effect their business. And they hire my company because we have a 30 year track record of helping our clients navigate regulatory environments as they relate to hiring decisions. It's not that complicated.

Second, one of the reasons I--somebody who typically supports the free market--think that the healthcare industry is ripe for socialization, is that the healthcare market isn't and hasn't been free for a very, very long time. Read the Time magazine article "Bitter Pill" from about a year ago (it's behind a paywall or else I'd link to it) and then come back here and make a valid argument that the free market is operating in the healthcare system. It's a broken system with runaway costs that presents major defecit issues for our country going forward. Additionally, from a purely moral standpoint, I think it's an abomination that the richest country on earth doesn't provide its citizens with access to affordable healthcare.



Excellent comment and insight!
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 3,821

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/7/2013 6:29:37 PM 
Shame - Thanks for the insight and professional perspective.  This discussion is all too often dominated by the yelling, accusation and attacks.  It is good to have the perspective of someone who truly is involved in the equation.  Like any law or policy this large, there is room for improvement.  Given your depth of knowledge and experience (one of which, the ad agency, I know all too well), I'd appreciate your thoughts on what you, would suggest to those in Washington as improvements going forward.  Feel free to either post or pm me.  Thanks.

Last Edited: 10/7/2013 6:30:07 PM by cc-cat
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/8/2013 12:13:25 AM 
Just one quick point:  "laws of the land" are changed, amended and rescinded all of the time.  Two extreme examples make the point: Slavery in part of our nation was "'the law of the land" upheld by the Supreme Court at one time (See Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law).  Prohibition was at one time the law of the land and was later overturned with a Constitutional Amendment to revoke a previous amendment.  Etc.  While there may be some good arguments for keeping Obamacare citing its current status as the "law of the land' upheld by the Supreme Court is not one them.   

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,286

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/8/2013 10:04:00 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Just one quick point:  "laws of the land" are changed, amended and rescinded all of the time.  Two extreme examples make the point: Slavery in part of our nation was "'the law of the land" upheld by the Supreme Court at one time (See Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law).  Prohibition was at one time the law of the land and was later overturned with a Constitutional Amendment to revoke a previous amendment.  Etc.  While there may be some good arguments for keeping Obamacare citing its current status as the "law of the land' upheld by the Supreme Court is not one them.   


You're missing the point. My clients and I aren't having a discussion about whether or not to keep Obamacare, my firm is advising them on how to deal with a current law. So many people approach the ACA as if it's still up for debate, but the fact is that come January 1st it's irrelevant whether or not a business owner agrees or disagrees with the ACA, they'll still have to be in compliance with it. That was my point regarding the "law of the land" bit.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,286

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/8/2013 10:20:36 AM 
Monroe Slavin wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
By "forcing healthcare on the population" you're accounting for these costs, providing private insurers with far more patients, and creating a slush fund with individual mandate funds to pay for medical care provided to the uninsured. The additional patients, along with the individual mandate funds will, with time, drive costs down for the rest of us and work to address the untenable cost of healthcare in this country.


This is pure fantasy. There will never be a "slush fund" realized from this Act. You are adding millions of people to the insured roles who are either a) young and relatively healthy, and also not financially capable of paying huge premiums, and (mostly) b) people who don't have any money at all and will amount to huge additional costs, especially when they discover they now have "free" healthcare. Of course, all this is NOT free, and it will fall onto the backs of the middle class, who's premiums will skyrocket and work opportunities will shrink.


The individual mandate is the slush fund. If you choose not to purchase insurance, you pay the mandate. That's the money that comprises the slush fund. So, I ask you this: with all of the additional money being paid into the system (individual mandate money, and people purchasing private plans) what will cause premiums to sky rocket? There is far more money in the system under the ACA than there is now. Why would that result in the premiums skyrocketing?

Edit: Also--nobody is getting free healthcare from the ACA. That's another huge misconception. People are either buying through a private insurer, or they're remaining uninsured and paying the mandate. The mandate money then helps covered the inevitable health costs incurred by the uninsured. There is nobody getting "free" healthcare who is now going to go out and get a bunch of surgeries they can only afford because of their new free healthcare. For all of the talk on the right about this being a government handout, the ACA was designed by the Heritage Foundation specifically to avoid that. It's based on conservative principals like increasing competition in the free market (the exchanges) and personal responsibility (the individual mandate).



There will be some 40 million more people on the rolls, that will more than account for the money generated for premiums. As a result, premiums will increase in order to cover the additional costs. It's already happening. People are seeing higher premiums now. Like me.

What do you mean no one is getting free healthcare. Everyone is covered. That's the whole idea. And, there is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after an injury. Hence, don't pay in over years, but instant payoff. There's no stopping anyone from getting that same coverage either. And when you enroll, no one confirms your income. You can quite easily lie and claim you earn below poverty level.

If this is all so great, why is Congress exempt from participating? What about certain, selected, companies and unions? Why are they permitted to avoid all the wonderful advantages of Obamacare?

The idea this is built on conservative principles is a popular liberal myth. Just because Romney did something similar does not make it a conservative idea. If it were really a conservative idea, liberals would hate it.






It's not a "popular liberal myth", it's fact. The ACA originiated at the Heritage Foundation, was implemented by Romney in Massachusetts, and is now, somehow, representative of the onslaught of communism and the end of America as we know. You've been sold a bill of goods, plain and simple. 

Further, you say "There is no stopping people from paying the minimal fine for not participating, then running out and getting on a plan after injury", and then call that free healthcare. They paid the mandate. That's the point. They're putting more into the system than they ever did previously; currently, those people are still getting medical care, and private insurance holders are covering the cost. The cost of insurance premiums has risen consistently over the last 15 years to account for the rising cost of treating Americans. This is due, in part, to uninsured patients receiving care at rate card costs that nobody can cover. Rather than write that off as a loss, hospital systems raise the prices they charge insurance companies to offset that. With the ACA, they have to raise those costs less because there is individual mandate money and expanded medicaid coverage covering some of the costs incurred by people in that situation. 

Next, provide me evidence that you can "quite easily lie and claim you earn below poverty level." That is absolutely a myth designed to propogate the conservative fear of "takers" suckling on Uncle Sam's teat. To lie about your income to receive ACA care, you'd also have to lie on your income tax filings. It's not easy, and it'll land you in jail. 

This is the law of the land. It's going to be implemented, and it's not going to cause America to crash in on itself. The economy is going to be fine, and any company that reduces hiring or hours to offset costs of Obamacare is a) inefficiently run, and b) unwilling to out in 45 minutes of research to work around that. Full disclosure: I work for an HR consulting firm and for the last 2 years have been worked with just over a dozen clients ranging from Fortune 500 to sub 50 employee ad agencies to help them navigate ACA implementation. It hasn't had any significant effect on any of them, and even the agency of 45 plans to hire between 10-15 people next year bringing them above the 50 employee threshold. I see the effect this has on companies up close every single day. To work around it, all that's required is a solid 45 minutes of critical thinking. Every single one of our clients has hired us in a panic, and leave our introductory meetings relieved and laughing about how truly misleading the coverage of this law has been. Go read it some time. Study Massachusetts. Read a couple Insurance Company annual reports. Then come back to me and tell me this is the end of the world. 

Finally, to your last point: Liberals don't love this plan. It's not the plan any liberal I know would choose, and the support of it has far more to do with it being a stepping stone towards a true single payer program than with the fact that they actually love it as currently designed. Regardless, however, it's a huge improvement over the current system. 



Good call.



Is there open enrollment at all times under Your Affordable Care Act.  That is, can you refuse to buy coverage, have an injury, and pick up coverage only after you need it due to the injury?

 


There are enrollment periods. This first is open now, and runs through March 1, but I suspect will be extended due to the website issues. Beyond that, there will be special enrollment periods in the same manner that private insurers currently offer, which allow enrollment due to a change of circumstance (marriage or birth of a chile, etc.). I also believe that you can switch plans at any time, but to do so you have to be willing to cover the additional premium costs retroactive to the last date of open enrollment.

As far as the ability to refuse coverage, have an injury, and then pick up coverage my understanding is that that is not possible. I admit though that my "expertise" about the ACA is much more focused on the employer side the the equation than on the individual purchaser side.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/8/2013 10:47:58 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Just one quick point:  "laws of the land" are changed, amended and rescinded all of the time.  Two extreme examples make the point: Slavery in part of our nation was "'the law of the land" upheld by the Supreme Court at one time (See Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law).  Prohibition was at one time the law of the land and was later overturned with a Constitutional Amendment to revoke a previous amendment.  Etc.  While there may be some good arguments for keeping Obamacare citing its current status as the "law of the land' upheld by the Supreme Court is not one them.   


You're missing the point. My clients and I aren't having a discussion about whether or not to keep Obamacare, my firm is advising them on how to deal with a current law. So many people approach the ACA as if it's still up for debate, but the fact is that come January 1st it's irrelevant whether or not a business owner agrees or disagrees with the ACA, they'll still have to be in compliance with it. That was my point regarding the "law of the land" bit.

I'm sorry this wasn't direct specifically at you.  A number of folks have used these lines in this debate.  I was directing my remarks to the line of argument not to any one individual poster.  I see your point, which is independent of the issue that the "law of the land" often changes over time -- sometimes drastically.  

 

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 3,286

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/8/2013 10:50:13 AM 
cc cat wrote:
Shame - Thanks for the insight and professional perspective.  This discussion is all too often dominated by the yelling, accusation and attacks.  It is good to have the perspective of someone who truly is involved in the equation.  Like any law or policy this large, there is room for improvement.  Given your depth of knowledge and experience (one of which, the ad agency, I know all too well), I'd appreciate your thoughts on what you, would suggest to those in Washington as improvements going forward.  Feel free to either post or pm me.  Thanks.


It's really tough to say at this juncture. The success of the ACA is going to rely very, very heavily on this first open enrollment period and how many people sign up. The traffic numbers are obviously very good so far, but how that translates into actual customers remains to be seen. If the CBO's estimates turn out to be right, the ACA should function reasonably well from a revenue/cost perspective. If the actual numbers fall short of that, it's going to be a rocky road fiscally until year 3 or so when the larger mandate fees kick in.

As for advice to Washington, I personally feel that one of the larger mistakes the Democrats have made is one of message. For most, the the term "Obamacare" is synonymous with health insurance and health insurance alone, when in actuality the law is more far reaching than that and several stipulations of the law have already gone into place that I think are going to have positive effects and are being overlooked. For instance: 
  • The FDA can now legally approve more generic pharmaceuticals, which will increase competition and drive prices down. 
  • It places a huge emphasis on preventative care. If you're going for a mammogram or colonoscopy, you no longer will be paying a copay for that visit.
  • It taxes things like tanning booths, which lead to very high rates of skin cancer.
  • It removes lifetime limits on insurance payouts.
  • Insurers can't drop patients for getting sick or pregnant or otherwise incurring medical costs, which happened far too regularly before.
As far as more pie in the sky suggestions that aren't directly linked to ACA but I personally would prefer, like I said, a single payer system akin to the system in Canada or England is, I think, the inevitable conclusion of the healthcare debate in the US. The GOP actually finds itself in a really odd place right now, because they are simultaneously the party of small government and the party of big business, but can't be both in any debate over a single payer system. The decoupling of health insurance and employers would result in huge cost savings for American businesses, but would also result in a substantial growth in the size of the federal government. They're going to have to reconcile one of those positions, because I just don't see how "15% of our population shouldn't have access to healthcare" is a winning strategy for them. Going forward, any repeal of the ACA is going to have to be accompanied by a solution and as of yet, the GOP haven't presented anything outside of Darrell Issa's plan, which is actually just the ACA all over again.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: OT: Government Shutdown -- This Has Gone Too Far
   Posted: 10/8/2013 12:02:47 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
cc cat wrote:
Shame - Thanks for the insight and professional perspective.  This discussion is all too often dominated by the yelling, accusation and attacks.  It is good to have the perspective of someone who truly is involved in the equation.  Like any law or policy this large, there is room for improvement.  Given your depth of knowledge and experience (one of which, the ad agency, I know all too well), I'd appreciate your thoughts on what you, would suggest to those in Washington as improvements going forward.  Feel free to either post or pm me.  Thanks.


It's really tough to say at this juncture. The success of the ACA is going to rely very, very heavily on this first open enrollment period and how many people sign up. The traffic numbers are obviously very good so far, but how that translates into actual customers remains to be seen. If the CBO's estimates turn out to be right, the ACA should function reasonably well from a revenue/cost perspective. If the actual numbers fall short of that, it's going to be a rocky road fiscally until year 3 or so when the larger mandate fees kick in.

As for advice to Washington, I personally feel that one of the larger mistakes the Democrats have made is one of message. For most, the the term "Obamacare" is synonymous with health insurance and health insurance alone, when in actuality the law is more far reaching than that and several stipulations of the law have already gone into place that I think are going to have positive effects and are being overlooked. For instance: 
  • The FDA can now legally approve more generic pharmaceuticals, which will increase competition and drive prices down. The FDA has always approved generic pharmaceuticals. What specifically has changed?
  • It places a huge emphasis on preventative care. If you're going for a mammogram or colonoscopy, you no longer will be paying a copay for that visit. Who will be paying then? Is it "free"?
  • It taxes things like tanning booths, which lead to very high rates of skin cancer. I thought you were an insurance guy, not a doctor. I guess raising taxes should be good for small businesses.
  • It removes lifetime limits on insurance payouts. These limits were negotiated buy the insurance provider and the customer. Now, that is no longer in the hands of the insurance company. So who pays for this?
  • Insurers can't drop patients for getting sick or pregnant or otherwise incurring medical costs, which happened far too regularly before. Perhaps it did, but I'm not familiar with many stories to that effect. I question just how "common" it was. I certainly have a personal example where coverage WAS NOT dropped even though insurance companies changed hands several times throughout a pre-existing condition.
As far as more pie in the sky suggestions that aren't directly linked to ACA but I personally would prefer, like I said, a single payer system akin to the system in Canada or England is, I think, the inevitable conclusion of the healthcare debate in the US. The GOP actually finds itself in a really odd place right now, because they are simultaneously the party of small government (true) and the party of big business (not exclusively true--many of the darlings on Wall Street are quite cozy with the Democrats), but can't be both in any debate over a single payer system. The decoupling of health insurance and employers would result in huge cost savings for American businesses, but would also result in a substantial growth in the size of the federal government (It wouldn't have to unless the federal government continues to increase their control of the market, which the "single-payer" model does.)  They're going to have to reconcile one of those positions, because I just don't see how "15% of our population shouldn't have access to healthcare" (Define "access to healthcare") is a winning strategy for them. Going forward, any repeal of the ACA is going to have to be accompanied by a solution and as of yet, the GOP haven't presented anything outside of Darrell Issa's plan, which is actually just the ACA all over again.


I'm not interested in comparing Obamacare as it is now configured with a "single-payer" model and completely excluding any discussion of deregulation, which is the biggest problem of all.

It's akin to people who are anti capital punishment because the system "doesn't work," therefore we must eliminate capital punishment. Those same people have no interest in actually fixing the problem with capital punishment. It's just an excuse. If you're anti captial punishment then say so. Don't hide behind some system malfunction.

Same thing here. If you're against the free market, then just say so. Don't say health care is broken without acknowledging that the system is not now (pre Obamacare) free market, and hasn't been a free market for decades. Instead Obamacare fans want to claim "we tried the free market and that failed. So we have to try something else: Obamacare!

That's BS.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  76 - 100  of 104 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 145 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
144 Guests
1 Registered User:
 bobcatsquared
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties