Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Shut it down!

View Poll Results: Will the Govt. get shutdown?
Poll Options:
Yup 9 votes (64.29%)
Nope 5 votes (35.71%)
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll
Shut it down! (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 03:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What would the role of employers be?
Taking out the required amount for the HSA and putting it into the employee's account and also adding in a pre-determined matching amount as well. Employer takes out $200 each month for the employee's HSA, then adds in another $100 (or however much) each month themselves. Of course, there's the stipulation that the employee has to leave the money in for a certain amount of time, and must leave in at least a certain amount to cover medical care needed, but money beyond that can be taken out (at 50% of their cap gains rate) and spent how they want. Those people who leave all of it in until they reach retirement age can take it out when they want, tax free (but must still leave in enough to cover medical expenses). The cap gain taxes paid by those taking money out early would be automatically added to the HSAs of other people, according to their need/income, further bolstering the system. Insurance companies would still offer catastrophic care policies, but they'd be really cheap (and could be paid for out of their HSA account).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 04:01 AM
 
You'd practically have an all-cash system (their doctor visits and medications are paid with their HSA debit card) that earns a nice rate of interest.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 04:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Taking out the required amount for the HSA and putting it into the employee's account and also adding in a pre-determined matching amount as well. Employer takes out $200 each month for the employee's HSA, then adds in another $100 (or however much) each month themselves. Of course, there's the stipulation that the employee has to leave the money in for a certain amount of time, and must leave in at least a certain amount to cover medical care needed, but money beyond that can be taken out (at 50% of their cap gains rate) and spent how they want. Those people who leave all of it in until they reach retirement age can take it out when they want, tax free (but must still leave in enough to cover medical expenses). The cap gain taxes paid by those taking money out early would be automatically added to the HSAs of other people, according to their need/income, further bolstering the system. Insurance companies would still offer catastrophic care policies, but they'd be really cheap (and could be paid for out of their HSA account).

It's not a bad idea, but where would the cost controls come from? This simply minimizes no-pays, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't do much about price gouging, which is arguably the bigger problem today. Some of the gouging is a result of no-pays, but some is basic overhead.

Also, what happens when one's HSA is depleted and the individual needs more health care?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 04:20 AM
 
If they're draining the account at that rate, they'd probably be covered under their insurance policy. The cost controls would essentially take care of themselves, due to not having to deal with insurance companies and all the paperwork. However, if a person feels they're paying too much, they can go to a different doctor. Also a "menu" type pricing system could be implemented, and the maximum a doctor or hospital can charge is determined by a 3rd party (an AMA board), based on what is deemed by them as an acceptable rate.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 04:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
If they're draining the account at that rate, they'd probably be covered under their insurance policy. The cost controls would essentially take care of themselves, due to not having to deal with insurance companies and all the paperwork. However, if a person feels they're paying too much, they can go to a different doctor. Also a "menu" type pricing system could be implemented, and the maximum a doctor or hospital can charge is determined by a 3rd party (an AMA board), based on what is deemed by them as an acceptable rate.
This idea isn't bad, I don't know if the menu system is practical, but I like that idea a lot. One possible weakness with this approach is administrative overhead in overseeing payments from the HSA, that those are self employed are contributing to their HSA (in addition to paying their taxes), and the whole menu system/AMA funding thing. How would we keep the third party from becoming corrupt?

This would require a lot of government regulation to enable.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 05:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Oh, in the same manner that ObamaCare has little to do with the will of the [majority of the] people ?

-t
I get that you and a lot of other people don't like it, but the last time there was a big public vote, vastly more americans voted for candidates that supported the ACA than were against it. That's just fact.

EDIT:

I understand that not everyone voted single issue- but it was a big one, perhaps the biggest in the last election. I also understand that how the vote came out has at best a casual relationship of what the majority of americans are thinking as the majority of americans didn't vote. But it's the system we have. Those opposed to Obamacare seem to want to base our political system on opinion polls- polls which show vastly different results depending on what the question calls the act - ACA vs. Obamacare.

As I've had some serious health problems (cancer survivor as well as early onset arthritis), I can say without question I'm glad I now live in a country with universal health care. The NHS is FAR from perfect (which is why I carry private health care to supplement it), but I know whatever may happen with my employment, income, or even where I chose to live, I will have access to first world healthcare for the rest of my life. Whatever happens with the ACA, I'm glad it's nothing to do with me.
( Last edited by Paco500; Oct 9, 2013 at 11:07 AM. )
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 05:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
If they're draining the account at that rate, they'd probably be covered under their insurance policy. The cost controls would essentially take care of themselves, due to not having to deal with insurance companies and all the paperwork. However, if a person feels they're paying too much, they can go to a different doctor. Also a "menu" type pricing system could be implemented, and the maximum a doctor or hospital can charge is determined by a 3rd party (an AMA board), based on what is deemed by them as an acceptable rate.
Sounds like a nice idea, but think about the regulation and controls that would need to put in place to make this work. It would get as ugly as the ACA.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 05:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Sounds like a nice idea, but think about the regulation and controls that would need to put in place to make this work. It would get as ugly as the ACA.

It's cool that he is at least putting forth ideas though. It's too bad he isn't an elected politician!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 06:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This idea isn't bad, I don't know if the menu system is practical, but I like that idea a lot. One possible weakness with this approach is administrative overhead in overseeing payments from the HSA, that those are self employed are contributing to their HSA (in addition to paying their taxes), and the whole menu system/AMA funding thing. How would we keep the third party from becoming corrupt?

This would require a lot of government regulation to enable.
No, a lot of the corruption is caused by too much government intervention, politicians and officials being bought off to look the other way. Overhead would be less because, since the HSA is an investment account, administration would be covered by the brokerage handling the account (people can shop for the best rates and lowest fees). The third party agency involved would be headed by a Presidentially appointed administrator, but all price sets could have a window of appeal, allowing for citizens and physicians to challenge if they feel that a procedure is mispriced, and all policy would be 100% transparent from the beginning.

Self-employment doesn't give a person an out, they'd still be required to deposit the amount needed, but they'd have to cover the individual requirement and the employer addition. However, since it's still their money, it isn't like they're giving it to a faceless federal entity. In fact, with the savings in capital gains taxes, it would be a very attractive investment.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Sounds like a nice idea, but think about the regulation and controls that would need to put in place to make this work. It would get as ugly as the ACA.
Not necessarily, I believe it could be largely handled by the individual and the brokerage, cutting back on a huge amount of administrative expense on a federal level. The lower cap gains tax encourages people to keep the money flowing through their HSA, which in turn aids in funding other HSAs for those in need, pays for administration, and helps pay for Medicaid.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:13 AM
 
First myth in need of debunking; A significant difference exists in support or opposition contingent upon whether you're polling on "Obamacare" or "ACA". No evidence was provided to substantiate the claim so I figured I'd remove the middleman since most polls that I've seen do not refer to the Legislation as "Obamacare" anyway.

Conclusion: False.

Per CNN Poll as of September of this year; "As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country's health care system became law in 2010. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it?"

March 2012; 43% Favor, 50% Oppose. May of 2012; 43% Favor, 51% Oppose. November of 2012; 42% Favor, 51% Oppose. May of 2013; 43% Favor, 54% Oppose. September 2013; 38% Favor, 57% Oppose.

You might think as more is learned of the Law of the Land® including "how" you refer to it, support would grow, but it clearly isn't. Really -- just call it "A bill that makes major changes to the country's health care system that became law in 2010", people still generally don't like it.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yeah Hyteckit, I think Shaddim is right on that. I guess we won't know for certain until the official website starts working consistently, but I think $16/month for this salary is off.

Even if it were more like $130/month, that's still a substantial savings over what existed prior.
Go to:

https://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/

A 24 year old with an income of $24k/yr pays about $80/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $108/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.

A 24 year old with an income of $20k/yr pays about $33/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $61/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.

It's no where near the over $240/mo Shaddim claims, considering 50% of 24 year olds make under $20k/yr.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Entirely bogus.

$16 /month, huh?
Math and Politics don't mix.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Go to:

https://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/

A 24 year old with an income of $24k/yr pays about $80/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $108/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.
Or $95/year in penalty. If they had opted out of insurance due to cost, the cost-saving measure here is clearly to forego the insurance premium. This is why the government has no desire to give us any numbers on enrollees. I mean, we paid for this so it only seems right that we'd know what a positive impact our tax dollars are having in covering the previously uninsured, but...
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Entirely bogus.

$16 /month, huh?
I don't know about the rates in other states, buy I can tell you what the are in CA according to:

https://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/


A 24 year old with an income of $24k/yr pays about $80/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $108/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.

A 24 year old with an income of $20k/yr pays about $33/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $61/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.

A 24 year old with an income of $18k/yr pays about $14/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $51/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Oct 9, 2013 at 07:36 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Sure, gerrymandering has historically benefitted both parties, however the republicans have been much more successful at it of late as they control more state legislatures. This is how they managed to go down in popularity, get far less congressional votes nationally, and still control the house by a healthy margin. I'm not saying anything radical here, do five minuets of research if you were generally not aware that this is true.
Five minuets indeed. Lots of dancing going on here.

No... what you're saying is that this must be how Republicans managed to pick up seats in 2010 and you're going about looking for information to substantiate your presupposition on Republican seats gained. (never mind the governors who perform the actual districting, but I'm sure you've breezed over that as well because this means you'd have to get Democratic gubernatorial candidates elected)

So now you're offering the qualifier; "of late". Maybe 10 minutes of research is in order. Instead of -- "of late", why not go back "a little earlier" when the Dems had a great deal of success in picking up seats or why not consider any other possible reasons why the 2010 returns were what they were? Multiple studies have concluded that this phenomena is essentially a wash and has as much to do with Democrats being more concentrated in urban areas and “wasting” votes on huge margins there, while not putting many of those votes to better use in marginal seats.

You'll want to keep this information on standby for the 2014 elections and related, local strategizing for your party.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I don't know about the rates in other states, buy I can tell you what the are in CA according to:

https://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/


A 24 year old with an income of $24k/yr pays about $80/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $108/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.

A 24 year old with an income of $20k/yr pays about $33/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $61/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.

A 24 year old with an income of $18k/yr pays about $14/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $51/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.
Welcome to the Covered California Shop and Compare Tool

Ummm... this has nothing to do with the ACA/Obamacare or related exchange premium pricing. What you're saying is that a broke-assed 24 yr old in California qualifies for MediCal assistance... today.

I mean, to make your point work -- you had to drop $6k/yr in income and move to a State Medicaid program. Good show mate. Why not run the numbers on a 75 yr old Vietnam Vet with disability and Social Security. LOOK -- THEY'RE PAYING NOTHING NOW!!! OBAMACARE WORKS! YYYEEEEAAAWWWWWW!
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
No point in responding seriously to your nonsense if the best you can do is try to change what I said by putting words in my mouth for no reason other than to cheerlead dear leader and the great plans he has for your health. Have fun with the ACA. Here's a cartoon for you. Drink up. ObamaCare Videos

If ACA supporters can't see an obvious conflict of interest in having an organization rather than yourself, whether private insurance or government, determine the testing and treatment guidelines for your health when their profit is directly related to it, then there's nothing I can say to educate you.

"Here take this pill it will fix everything in your life." "How bout you take it first senator?" "Oh no.. I wouldn't touch that with a 20ft poll, I've got my own pill". "Wow sounds great!"
I was never a big supporter of ACA. It's mostly a Republican idea, including the individual mandate.

I'm a supporter of a single payer system though.

Universal healthcare for everyone.

Your link shows videos from Henry J. Kaiser foundation. You know who Henry J. Kaiser is? I thought you hate HMOs.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Not necessarily, I believe it could be largely handled by the individual and the brokerage, cutting back on a huge amount of administrative expense on a federal level. The lower cap gains tax encourages people to keep the money flowing through their HSA, which in turn aids in funding other HSAs for those in need, pays for administration, and helps pay for Medicaid.
But you're going to need an awful lot of regulation!

HSA and compatible plans are not encompassed by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 that grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. Neither are larger employers who self-insure. These plans fall under a Federal ERISA guideline already established. You wouldn't need "additional" regulation and you wouldn't have had to uproot the entire health care system to make our ideas work. "Our ideas" meaning, you and I are essentially aligned in our desired health care scheme.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I was never a big supporter of ACA. It's mostly a Republican idea, including the individual mandate.
Nope. Already debunked that.

I'm a supporter of a single payer system though.
It figures you would be. Folks who don't have a clue how all this works and how politically untenable the "Starve the poor to feed the rich" tax rates must be to support such a scheme generally are in support of a single-payer system.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 08:28 AM
 


-t
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 09:58 AM
 
I'd really love to take the time to respond here, but I'm getting destroyed at work.

I will comment that it seems to me that a new narrative is forming that the default wouldn't be that bad to do. I feel like I'm now living in a universe where the ACA is worse than a Govt. default. It's.... troubling.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 10:57 AM
 
I almost never agree with your politics, but I generally think your opinions are well thought out and not terribly knee-jerk, so a lot of what you say below is surprising.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No... what you're saying is that this must be how Republicans managed to pick up seats in 2010 and you're going about looking for information to substantiate your presupposition on Republican seats gained.
No... what I'm saying is that less people voted for republican candidates for congress in 2012 than they did for democratic candidates. This is a fact.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
(never mind the governors who perform the actual districting, but I'm sure you've breezed over that as well because this means you'd have to get Democratic gubernatorial candidates elected)
You are wrong here. There are 50 sets of laws for how districts are formed. Most are either drawn up by or approved by the state legislature. Some must be approved by Governors. Get your facts straight if you are going to be high and mighty.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So now you're offering the qualifier; "of late". Maybe 10 minutes of research is in order. Instead of -- "of late", why not go back "a little earlier" when the Dems had a great deal of success in picking up seats or why not consider any other possible reasons why the 2010 returns were what they were? Multiple studies have concluded that this phenomena is essentially a wash and has as much to do with Democrats being more concentrated in urban areas and “wasting” votes on huge margins there, while not putting many of those votes to better use in marginal seats.
Yes I did add a qualifier. I do not think the republicans have been more successful at redistricting because they are morally inferior to the dems, I just think they had a plan, they executed it, and they did it well. I still think they did it. I'm not out on a limb here. It's pretty well acknowledged. As for what happened in the 2010 elections, the republicans did really well. But it's you going on about 2010. My position is that they were able to retain most of their seats in 2012 after being battered in the actual numbers was primarily down the the lack of truly competitive seats.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You'll want to keep this information on standby for the 2014 elections and related, local strategizing for your party.
Ok, thanks?
( Last edited by Paco500; Oct 9, 2013 at 11:17 AM. )
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
First myth in need of debunking; A significant difference exists in support or opposition contingent upon whether you're polling on "Obamacare" or "ACA". No evidence was provided to substantiate the claim so I figured I'd remove the middleman since most polls that I've seen do not refer to the Legislation as "Obamacare" anyway.
Here is your evidence. There might be more polls than this that show a similar result. It took me about 30 seconds on google to find this. I'm surprised it eluded you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Conclusion: False.
Conclusion: You need a fact checker.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, a lot of the corruption is caused by too much government intervention, politicians and officials being bought off to look the other way. Overhead would be less because, since the HSA is an investment account, administration would be covered by the brokerage handling the account (people can shop for the best rates and lowest fees). The third party agency involved would be headed by a Presidentially appointed administrator, but all price sets could have a window of appeal, allowing for citizens and physicians to challenge if they feel that a procedure is mispriced, and all policy would be 100% transparent from the beginning.
Then you've created yourself an impossible situation here. If you feel that too much regulation leads to corruption, surely there is a potential for corruption in both your third party HSA and third party medical board that would implement cost controls. How would you prevent these entities being bought out, or partaking in shady business practices?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Go to:

https://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/

A 24 year old with an income of $24k/yr pays about $80/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $108/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.

A 24 year old with an income of $20k/yr pays about $33/mo for the cheapest Bronze Plan and $61/mo for the cheapest Silver Plan.

It's no where near the over $240/mo Shaddim claims, considering 50% of 24 year olds make under $20k/yr.

I calculated the national average among all states to be $130/month for whatever salary we were discussing before and its Bronze plan. If Shaddim pointed out $240/month he was wrong, I pointed out the same earlier in this thread, but whatever the number there are unfortunately going to be some states where the rates won't be as low as they are in California.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 01:56 PM
 
It's humorous to me that so many on the right complain about not knowing what is in the ACA, yet use poll results as an argument in their favor.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Then you've created yourself an impossible situation here. If you feel that too much regulation leads to corruption, surely there is a potential for corruption in both your third party HSA and third party medical board that would implement cost controls. How would you prevent these entities being bought out, or partaking in shady business practices?
You create layers of oversight, ultimately leaving it all 100% transparent, someone is going to spot if something hinky is going on. Whether it be a member of the AMA, a politician, a journalist, of simply a common citizen.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I calculated the national average among all states to be $130/month for whatever salary we were discussing before and its Bronze plan. If Shaddim pointed out $240/month he was wrong, I pointed out the same earlier in this thread, but whatever the number there are unfortunately going to be some states where the rates won't be as low as they are in California.
Hey, I said 30k salary, not 24k. And it was 210, not 240. What is it with liberal types and math, stop just fudging numbers to suit you!

Oh, and MediCal isn't Obamacare, for those moving the goalposts around and trying to obfuscate the issue, let's stick with the current subject, if you're able.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 04:40 PM
 
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You create layers of oversight, ultimately leaving it all 100% transparent, someone is going to spot if something hinky is going on. Whether it be a member of the AMA, a politician, a journalist, of simply a common citizen.

The difference between a third party and our elected officials doing unscrupulous activity is at least we can build in legal protections and elections around what our elected officials do. Granted, they'll no doubt screw around anyway, but it is a virtual guarantee that an unregulated or minimally regulated for-profit entity will try to maximize their earnings, cause that's what they do.

I would be far more comfortable with a third-party entity being pretty heavily regulated. Yes, this will invite funny business, but I think we are completely screwed so long as this funny business exists between government and corporations anyway, what more harm could a little more funny business do?

I'm speaking tongue in cheek here because I'm obviously not comfortable either way, but I'm slightly less comfortable with a for-profit entity being expected to do right. That is just not in their DNA - if there is money to be had it will be had.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Hey, I said 30k salary, not 24k. And it was 210, not 240. What is it with liberal types and math, stop just fudging numbers to suit you!
Your real complaint here should be my laziness, my case was not built around the specifics of any number, just the concepts surrounding it. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that subsidies will lower costs, it's just a question of "at what cost".
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 04:58 PM
 
subsidies don't lower costs. they just change who's paying.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
subsidies don't lower costs. they just change who's paying.

Of course, I was speaking in lazy shorthand. Subsidies for the masses, so that there is a greater volume of people paying. Higher volumes almost always lower costs.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Hey, I said 30k salary, not 24k. And it was 210, not 240. What is it with liberal types and math, stop just fudging numbers to suit you!

Oh, and MediCal isn't Obamacare, for those moving the goalposts around and trying to obfuscate the issue, let's stick with the current subject, if you're able.

Just pointing out your basic analysis is wrong and your numbers are wrong.

Your argument that a 24 year old would make an average of $30k/yr would be paying $210/mo for Obamacare is false because your analysis and approach is flawed. You are obfuscate the reality with your flawed approach.

The average 24 year old wouldn't be paying $210/mo for Obamacare. In fact, 60% of them would be paying $80/mo or less for Obamacare.

60% of 24 year olds make less than $24k/yr. That isn't a goalpost that we are moving. That's just that facts. So 50% of 24 year olds would be paying around $33/mo or less for the cheapest Obamacare plan. 60% of 24 year olds would be paying around $80/mo or less for the cheapest Obamacare plan. If we are going by the rates in CA that is.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Just pointing out your basic analysis is wrong and your numbers are wrong.

Your argument that a 24 year old would make an average of $30k/yr would be paying $210/mo for Obamacare is false because your analysis and approach is flawed. You are obfuscate the reality with your flawed approach.
That's entirely contrary to the evidence I posted earlier from the ACA site. You aren't making any sense.



The average 24 year old wouldn't be paying $210/mo for Obamacare. In fact, 60% of them would be paying $80/mo or less for Obamacare.
Well, that's more than the $16 you were claiming earlier, but it's still wrong.



If we are going by the rates in CA that is.
We aren't, we've been talking about the average for the entire USA, since Cali isn't the whole USA in and of itself.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 09:57 PM
 
Allow me to mediate...

You guys should meet in the middle. We were talking about the US average, and in some states, of particular relevance very large states like California, the prices will be pretty darn good, surprisingly so.

Is that fair?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 11:22 PM
 
That has nothing to do with the ACA, so, no.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2013, 12:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
. Higher volumes almost always lower costs.
Also wrong. More shorthand?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2013, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Also wrong. More shorthand?

Are you just being legalistic and picking apart my language, or do you really think this is wrong?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2013, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
No... what I'm saying is that less people voted for republican candidates for congress in 2012 than they did for democratic candidates. This is a fact.

You are wrong here. There are 50 sets of laws for how districts are formed. Most are either drawn up by or approved by the state legislature. Some must be approved by Governors. Get your facts straight if you are going to be high and mighty.
Nice... but wrong. Yes, there are 50 sets of Laws as each State is governed by their respective State Constitution. Governor is an Executive-level post in all 50 State governments. There are essentially 3 different means of redistricting among the States; 28 States employ a Legislative model, 9 States employ a Commission model, and 13 are a Hybrid of Legislative and Commission-based models.
  • The Legislative Process means that the State Legislature draws up the boundaries and the governor can veto their submission. This is so in all 28 States employing this model. All are subject to the approval by the governor, that's how it works.
  • The Commission-based process utilizes a third-party commission whose appointees are selected by either the Governor, the State Legislature, and/or cabinet posts and their State Supreme Court. Still subject to the governor for potential veto.
  • The Hybrid model employs both a Commission and Legislative process, still generally subject to the approval of the governor.
  • Why is the Governor endowed with veto-powers in at least 34 of the 50 States? Because Governor is an executive-level post and all plans regardless of the model employed, must be signed by the Governor of that State.
I wasn't trying to suggest the governor was sitting at his/her desk with a map and abacus. The lines are drawn up by other parties and approved or denied by the Governor. Generally. Now, if you'd like -- we can pick through each of the States where you believe Republican gerrymandering was of particular interest in the 2012 elections, but I don't think this will support your argument either. At the end of the day (like the President always likes to say), this is the product of elections. You want change? Get your Democratic gubernatorial candidates elected as I said from the beginning.

Yes I did add a qualifier. I do not think the republicans have been more successful at redistricting because they are morally inferior to the dems, I just think they had a plan, they executed it, and they did it well. I still think they did it. I'm not out on a limb here. It's pretty well acknowledged. As for what happened in the 2010 elections, the republicans did really well. But it's you going on about 2010. My position is that they were able to retain most of their seats in 2012 after being battered in the actual numbers was primarily down the the lack of truly competitive seats.
I go back to 2010 as a mental exercise for you. There is either a causal relationship or a correlative relationship, but you've attributed this phenomena to a concerted effort that, as I said before, multiple studies have concluded is a wash and has as much to do with Democrats being more concentrated in urban areas and “wasting” votes on huge margins there, while not putting many of those votes to better use in marginal seats.

Either way, redistricting has long been used by both parties to secure their incumbencies. This is why I urge you to go a little farther back in time. In this practice -- incumbents have the advantage: In 2008, 87% of incumbents were returned to the House; in 2006, it was 89%; in 2004, 91% were reelected. This is only a problem when Republicans maintain seats regardless of the actual breakout in votes. California had such a bad reputation for this phenomena that over the past 10+ years from 2010, only one incumbent had ever been defeated leading the governor to suggest; “There’s more turnover in the Kremlin than there’s turnover here in California." It's a wash.

In other words, you'll have to find another means of attempting to marginalize one party within the system. Because make no mistake Paco500, that's exactly what you're trying to do with your argument.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2013, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
subsidies don't lower costs. they just change who's paying.
Can we get an Amen on this?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2013, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Here is your evidence. There might be more polls than this that show a similar result. It took me about 30 seconds on google to find this. I'm surprised it eluded you.
It didn't elude me, Paco500 -- it's entirely inconsequential. The argument is, support for the legislation increases contingent upon what you call it. Wrong. Per your citation above, even more wrong. Why do I say? Read what you've posted here;


What do you see here? No more people appreciate the legislation when you call it by it's name, either they know what the legislation is and appreciate it or they don't know and they reserve their opinion. In fact, even within your cited polling results is a sign that approval declines by calling it by its actual name -- the ACA. So your argument was the clearer you are in citing it, the less popular it becomes? I'm guessing you'd want another go at this. Notwithstanding the fact that I've already cited the results when you cut out the confusion over the name of the legislation and those results align perfectly with the results from calling it "Obamacare" straight out.

Conclusion: You need a fact checker.
Hmm... you need a "fact" decoder pin. Your analysis sucks on this one, bad.
ebuddy
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2013, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you just being legalistic and picking apart my language, or do you really think this is wrong?
Check out how much money the fed pays out in wheat, corn, oil, gun subsidies. (If you confused about guns they call it foreign aid.) Then compare that number to the budget deficite. Then compare the wheat and corn subsidies to the Feds standard of living and inflation. Then also compare them to obesity rates.

I know correlation isn't causation but something stinks.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2013, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Nice... but wrong. Yes, there are 50 sets of Laws as each State is governed by their respective State Constitution. Governor is an Executive-level post in all 50 State governments. There are essentially 3 different means of redistricting among the... blah blah blah
lots of words defending your statement:
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
never mind the governors who perform the actual districting
And then you go on to discuss in detail how in the vast majority of states redistricting is handled by some body/bodies other than the governor. Yes the governor may have a veto, but by your own exhaustive evidence, your statement:
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
never mind the governors who perform the actual districting
was categorically incorrect. So there.

As for the rest of your post- if you can't accept that gerrymandering is real, that in recent history the republicans have been more effective at it, and that it had an impact on the 2012 congressional elections, then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Or at least I will. You are welcome to continue arguing with yourself and conventional wisdom. But I'm not sure how else to explain the FACT that majority of voters chose a non-republican candidate for congress yet more republicans were elected. Maybe it's those pesky hanging chads again.

It's also worth noting why I brought it up in the first place. You (and others) have asserted the results of the 2012 congressional elections are a proof point that the majority of Americans don't want Obamacare. The 2012 elections were in no way proof of that. They were proof that the way our republic works is that sometimes, the majority doesn't get it's way.
( Last edited by Paco500; Oct 10, 2013 at 09:15 AM. )
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2013, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It didn't elude me, Paco500 -- it's entirely inconsequential. The argument is, support for the legislation increases contingent upon what you call it. Wrong.
I think you have attached your biases to what I actually wrote (and intended) and are arguing against a phantom.

What I wrote:

Originally Posted by Paco500
I understand that not everyone voted single issue- but it was a big one, perhaps the biggest in the last election. I also understand that how the vote came out has at best a casual relationship of what the majority of americans are thinking as the majority of americans didn't vote. But it's the system we have. Those opposed to Obamacare seem to want to base our political system on opinion polls- polls which show vastly different results depending on what the question calls the act - ACA vs. Obamacare.
Exactly where in there did I assert that support was higher for the bill depending on what it was called? I give you a hint - nowhere. My point was, and remains, that basing government programs based on opinion polls is not a great idea as polling is highly subjective- this is borne out in the poll I referenced. How you ask the question makes a huge difference- even when the substance is identical.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Hmm... you need a "fact" decoder pin. Your analysis sucks on this one, bad.
Hmm... you need a "bias" decoder pin. Your reading comprehension sucks on this one, worse.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2013, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
lots of words defending your statement:
And then you go on to discuss in detail how in the vast majority of states redistricting is handled by some body/bodies other than the governor. Yes the governor may have a veto, but by your own exhaustive evidence, your statement:
was categorically incorrect. So there.
I'm not interested in playing "gotcha" games, Paco500. I wanted to make very clear that your statement -- "Some must be approved by Governors." was incorrect. Try; nearly all must be approved by Governors. With all this chest-pounding on "getting facts straight while being high and mighty", I thought it important to offer you an opportunity at introspect. You won't take it, that's not my fault.

The reason I brought this up in the first place is that I've long-maintained the complaint of gerrymandering is sour grapes over Republican success at picking up a wealth of gubernatorial races in 2010. Yes, this does lend to the possibility of manipulating districts, but this is the way it works for both sides. If there is a "gain" in the success of this strategy in 2012, look back to those gubernatorial races and subsequent wins from 2010. You want to cherry-pick aspects of my statement that were, perhaps not as artful as they could've been, by going off half-cocked that I was suggesting the governors were standing over maps with an abacus.

As for the rest of your post- if you can't accept that gerrymandering is real, that in recent history the republicans have been more effective at it, and that it had an impact on the 2012 congressional elections, then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Or at least I will. You are welcome to continue arguing with yourself and conventional wisdom. But I'm not sure how else to explain the FACT that majority of voters chose a non-republican candidate for congress yet more republicans were elected. Maybe it's those pesky hanging chads again.
I've already explained a phenomena that is prevalent everywhere, that people generally live in pockets and that Democrats are more heavily concentrated in urban areas and “wasting” votes on huge margins there, while not putting many of those votes to better use in marginal seats. I've offered that your argument is highly debatable and that studies have concluded a "wash" with regard to gerrymandering -- that it's not as consequential as you're suggesting. Let's not forget what you took issue with here;
Originally Posted by ebuddy
it seems the American people have produced a House and Senate at odds politically.
That is the fact, Paco500. You want to marginalize this by saying the Republicans stole their seats through gerrymandering, but you've not offered up which states this occurred in or how many seats exactly. You breeze past the notion that this would be so on both sides of the aisle. I'm supposed to just accept your accusation that the current makeup of Republican representation in Congress is the product of cheating or subverting the will of the people. The point is, if you maintain that gerrymandering was the only reason for Republicans holding seats, you're neglecting the gubernatorial wins in 2010 -- the will of the people.

It's also worth noting why I brought it up in the first place. You (and others) have asserted the results of the 2012 congressional elections are a proof point that the majority of Americans don't want Obamacare.
Could you point this out please? The American people, as they often do, have produced a check and balance with both parties represented through the Executive and Legislative branches of govt. I didn't say anything about the election being the product of support or opposition to Obamacare. Look to the proponents of the ACA for that line of argument as Republicans have been told repeatedly that they lost and to get over it. You're right to decry the abject ignorance in such a line of reasoning.

The 2012 elections were in no way proof of that. They were proof that the way our republic works is that sometimes, the majority doesn't get it's way.
Which is what I've been saying all along. Until the system succumbs entirely to a mob-rules model, this is the way of things and Democrats are as obligated to work toward compromise as Republicans.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2013, 07:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I think you have attached your biases to what I actually wrote (and intended) and are arguing against a phantom.

What I wrote:
Originally Posted by Paco500
I understand that not everyone voted single issue- but it was a big one, perhaps the biggest in the last election. I also understand that how the vote came out has at best a casual relationship of what the majority of americans are thinking as the majority of americans didn't vote. But it's the system we have. Those opposed to Obamacare seem to want to base our political system on opinion polls- polls which show vastly different results depending on what the question calls the act - ACA vs. Obamacare.
I can't imagine the importance of reiterating that Obamacare was among the biggest issues of the last election unless you're suggesting some implied mandate or support from the result of that election. If that is what you maintain (as many others have as well), well then you're going to get polling results to debate the notion.

Exactly where in there did I assert that support was higher for the bill depending on what it was called? I give you a hint - nowhere. My point was, and remains, that basing government programs based on opinion polls is not a great idea as polling is highly subjective- this is borne out in the poll I referenced. How you ask the question makes a huge difference- even when the substance is identical.
Where's the huge difference, Paco500? That's what I'm asking you. I've given you polling results when the legislation is referred to using neither the ACA nor Obamacare in the wording and how they align well with metadata on polls around the ACA. I provided the citation from your link showing there really is no difference other than the increasing number of "I don't knows" when the ACA is used. I mean, are you really using polling data to try to marginalize opposition to the legislation?

Hmm... you need a "bias" decoder pin. Your reading comprehension sucks on this one, worse.
silly goose
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2013, 12:32 PM
 
Some poll was released and somehow ACA is more favorable now than it was a month ago. I'm flabbergasted. If anything, I expected it to be much worse between the government shutdown and the website barely working.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2013, 06:54 PM
 
When just closing parks wasn't upsetting the nation enough the administration decided to pay people to put up cones to block turnouts overlooking the scenery. Glad to see people are being furloughed for this "essential" task. They're reeally running out of ideas to demonstrate their own importance aren't they?

In other news the National Panda cam has been [super scary font] SHUT DOWN.[/scaryness]

Mount Rushmore
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,