[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Lord, is that how we're going to be quantifying ACA's success/failure? This'll be a fun ride.

For me, it depends on who I'm speaking with.

Will be able to qualify for different plans? I mean, Obama deserves all the shit he gets for claims that didn't hold up, but if there'll be other plans out there (with more coverage no less) I'm not exactly going to lose any sleep over it.

Yes, we'll likely qualify for and enjoy shopping through an array of equally useless plans that will produce higher co-pays, higher premiums, and higher deductibles. More isn't always better.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Let's not dwell on the fact that's he's right.

Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations

Study: Insurance costs to soar under Obamacare - CBS News

16 million Americans to lose health care coverage under Obamacare

Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are - Forbes

I'll make this short and sweet. I daresay that 100+ years of LEGALIZED APARTHEID in America was considerably worse than Obamacare ... even IF it turns out to be a complete disaster over time. Or WWI. The denial of women's suffrage. The Great Depression. WWII. The internment of Japanese-Americans. The Vietnam War. The Iraq War. Take your pick of any of these things. Because I suggest that anyone with more than two cents worth of intelligence would agree that these are things "since slavery" that fit the bill as well.

And make no mistake about it. Dr. Carson is obviously a very intelligent man. So why would he say something so abjectly foolish and patently false? Because there are those amongst the ranks of white conservatives who love to hear nonsense like that coming out of the mouths of black people. And they will reward him handsomely in right-wing political circles for it.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And make no mistake about it. Dr. Carson is obviously a very intelligent man. So why would he say something so abjectly foolish and patently false? Because there are those amongst the ranks of white conservatives who love to hear nonsense like that coming out of the mouths of black people. And they will reward him handsomely in right-wing political circles for it.

Or perhaps he was trying to get our attention on how much big of a cluster**** this is becoming using his vast experience in this area? Considering that's happening right now, before our very eyes, I'm inclined to put away my tin foil hat and accept the more reasonable explanation as the more plausible.

OAW, how come you take Dr Carson's words so literally but look the other way when Obama straight up lies to your face?

"If you like your plan, you can keep it!" - Obama, 2008,09,10,11,12,13

Obamacare: More than 2 million people getting booted from existing health insurance plans - CBS News

[subego]

They didn't like their plans. Obama told them so.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

They didn't like their plans. Obama told them so.

They had "bad apple" plans anyways. Once we get rid of them: Utopia!

I can't wait our dear leader to put those ass holes out of business for trying to comply with the law!

Obama blames ‘bad apple insurers’ for canceled insurance plans

[besson3c]

Guys, I totally get how misleading it was for Obama to say that you can keep your plans without the caveat that they need to meet the new regulatory guidelines. It was stupid of Obama to not include this caveat and to manipulate with a false simplification.

Leaving aside all of this though, what regulates the delivery of insurance today? I'm assuming there isn't much regulation in place, or else loopholes like the pre-existing insurance business wouldn't have become a thing that we all know about. If this could have all played out differently, would you be in favor of some regulation of these insurance plans, with the intention to try to minimize customers being manipulated/screwed?

I know what ebuddy will say about regulation, that it will lead to corruption/abuse, and the nature of this regulation needs close examination too. If there was a way to address this, would you be in favor of this regulation, or in other words, or there some sort of need to oversee these insurance policies and insurance providers?

This probably sounds like a leading question, but I've always thought how badly it would suck if my insurance company didn't come through for me when I needed it to, after paying them every month for services I haven't needed. If there was a way to ensure that they wouldn't dick around when I needed them to pay for stuff, that would be lovely. I'm not sure that there is a way, so don't assume that I'm suggesting that we should regulate the crap out of them, I'm just looking to see what you think?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Guys, I totally get how misleading it was for Obama to say that you can keep your plans without the caveat that they need to meet the new regulatory guidelines. It was stupid of Obama to not include this caveat and to manipulate with a false simplification.

It's become a common theme that Obama's promises are unfulfillable for every reason except Obama himself. How many promises does he even have left that he's yet to fulfill? The dude has been doing 6 years of campaigning and spending no time leading his namesake health laws. Otherwise, he would have known there were problems a year ago and done something about it. He's the ****ing president and all he does is campaign. ObamaCare is a massive wakeup call to the independants and moderates

Leaving aside all of this though, what regulates the delivery of insurance today? I'm assuming there isn't much regulation in place, or else loopholes like the pre-existing insurance business wouldn't have become a thing that we all know about. If this could have all played out differently, would you be in favor of some regulation of these insurance plans, with the intention to try to minimize customers being manipulated/screwed?

Of course dude, most people want that. The vast majority of Americans want that and many have been pushing for it since the Bush era.

I know what ebuddy will say about regulation, that it will lead to corruption/abuse, and the nature of this regulation needs close examination too. If there was a way to address this, would you be in favor of this regulation, or in other words, or there some sort of need to oversee these insurance policies and insurance providers?

There is a need to oversee them. We aren't just overseeing them with this, the government is interfering with them. Set the rules and let the market play itself out without complex state by state rules that left the buyer with as little as 5-6 options in their state vs the 1300 or so nationwide. If the government could create the playground American startups could effect positive change by offering consumer markets a better product. Right now overregulation and failed attempts at controlling the market have resulted in the buyer becoming disconnected from the buying process, removing the incentive for doctors to compete because buyers don't care about what it costs their insurance companies. If you let the market play out you'll start to see new startups pop up that serve their niche markets or provide economies of scale which means prices will naturally drop. Introduce tort reform for medical malpractice that limits payouts except in cases of criminal conduct and makes it harder to receive malpractice payouts in cases where doctors were clearly treating the patient according to medical standards.. This will drive down the cost of currently exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance for Doctors which will ultimately end up feeding the cycle of making health care cheaper.

This probably sounds like a leading question, but I've always thought how badly it would suck if my insurance company didn't come through for me when I needed it to, after paying them every month for services I haven't needed. If there was a way to ensure that they wouldn't dick around when I needed them to pay for stuff, that would be lovely. I'm not sure that there is a way, so don't assume that I'm suggesting that we should regulate the crap out of them, I'm just looking to see what you think?

Yes, there is a way to do that. Competition. Insurance companies that dick over their customers will quickly fall by the wayside as newer companies that can streamline their services without having to look at 50 different regulatory bodies, one for each state. The administrative overhead of having 50+ large, independent offices drive up administrative costs which also cuts into the amount that can be used for payouts. Health regulations such as HIPAA compliancy and a myriad of state regulations (literally thousands across the US) are anything but cheap to maintain and currently the system unfathomably complex across all 50 states. Insurance companies wouldn't have to dick over their customers to stay solvent so you would immediately see providers offering increasing levels of customer support trying to win over customers. As for setting the rules, Streamline basic medical regulations such as when the money has to be paid out, providing for emergency care while a claim is in question, disallow dropping for pre existing conditions and allow health insurance to be sold across state lines. Common sense rules that provide a fair market and a solid connection between buyers, the price and their doctors.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yes, there is a way to do that. Competition. Insurance companies that dick over their customers will quickly fall by the wayside as newer companies that can streamline their services without having to look at 50 different regulatory bodies, one for each state. The administrative overhead of having 50+ large, independent offices drive up administrative costs which also cuts into the amount that can be used for payouts. Health regulations such as HIPAA compliancy and a myriad of state regulations (literally thousands across the US) are anything but cheap to maintain and currently the system unfathomably complex across all 50 states. Insurance companies wouldn't have to dick over their customers to stay solvent so you would immediately see providers offering increasing levels of customer support trying to win over customers. As for setting the rules, Streamline basic medical regulations such as when the money has to be paid out, providing for emergency care while a claim is in question, disallow dropping for pre existing conditions and allow health insurance to be sold across state lines. Common sense rules that provide a fair market and a solid connection between buyers, the price and their doctors.

I agree in this theory, but competition can only really exist when there aren't state by state monopolies or just one or two providers.

Does anybody know if the ACA's federal guidelines make the cross-state competition that ebuddy has been advocating for easier, without having to deal with complex individual state-by-state regulations?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree in this theory, but competition can only really exist when there aren't state by state monopolies or just one or two providers.

Does anybody know if the ACA's federal guidelines make the cross-state competition that ebuddy has been advocating for easier, without having to deal with complex individual state-by-state regulations?

The Provision that deals with this is in Section 1333 of the law; two or more states may enter into compacts under which one or more insurance plans may be offered in the such states, subject to the laws and regulations of the state in which it was written. 11 States are involved in some form of compact at present, but from the multiple studies I've seen, it's for naught. The problem with the State-by-State monopolies was that they produced minimum coverage requirements leading to lack of choice and in alienating other insurers from its market. Yes, "compacts" are a step closer, but a very meager one and with the Federal minimum coverage requirements coming out of the woodwork of the ACA, there is no wiggle-room for a competitive marketplace and any appreciable benefits from such interstate commerce has been all, but entirely eliminated. Instead of multiple "charter states" as I had suggested and a work-around or repeal of the McCarran Ferguson Act, we have very few of these compacts forming after 3 years and even fewer insurers wishing to join such a distorted, uncompetitive marketplace.

Originally Posted by besson3c

So your argument is that this hyperbole is okay because the other guys used hyperbole too?

No, I'm not keen on any hyperbole. That you would come up with this defense makes you sound like a partisan warrior. If you are and you want your party to win elections, distancing yourself from this rhetoric would probably be a good idea. I mean, maybe at least wait until the ACA is fully in effect before conjuring up the emotions of 9/11?

Hyperbole is useful contingent upon who you're speaking with and what your intention is with that individual. I was very clear in providing the context for my statement; "using their logic of rolling grandma over a cliff". Yes, this tactic is sure to draw the ire and defensiveness of partisan warriors, but that is what it is.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, we'll likely qualify for and enjoy shopping through an array of equally useless plans that will produce higher co-pays, higher premiums, and higher deductibles. More isn't always better.

You'll have to explain to me how bronze plans are more useless than catastrophic insurance.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, reposting in case it got lost on the other page

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Single, white, employed, mid 20s.

The only asset to my name is a car that I paid for myself (and is nearing 150k miles).

I have a few investment savings accounts I have contributed to since I started working at age 16, that I haven't touched. I will be one of the ones who loses their coverage through the ACA, since my catastrophic only insurance doesn't qualify under the new rules. I'm looking at an increase from $60 month for that to about $150 for a bare minimum, high-deductible, useless-for-anything-except-catastrohpic coverage plan with copays that are 80% of the non-insurance price for regular visits at the clinics I go to now.

I'll open this response by saying I mean no disrespect and if you don't wish to answer any of the questions I 100% understand as I'm the same way.

Does your employer not offer insurance? If not, do you make enough that you won't qualify for subsidies?

I did some quick googling. I didn't visit healthcare.gov because, why bother, but this site implies it rips its info from the MD exchanges, so take it for what its worth. I'm not sure of your age, but I'm under the impression you're in your late 20s, so I put in 29. I also don't know where you live, so I just went with what I imagine is the more populous area, Baltimore County. For salary I entered $25,000 which would definitely put you in a position where bills would be difficult to pay, old-ass car be damned.

This the cheapest Silver plan

Obviously much more expensive, but it shows in the small deductible. With subsidies, it's slightly cheaper than your "useless-for-anything-except-catastrohpic coverage" plan and provides far, far better coverage.

On the lower tier side, this is the second cheapest Bronze plan I could find

With subsidies your monthly cost would increase $15 a month over your $60 now. If you got no subsidies, it would be $134, more than double, but it'd also provide you with far more coverage than catastrophic and still be $16 cheaper than what you quoted.

The site didn't list any Catastrophic plans. Information gleaned form here.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

My monthly will go up 250% for absolutely jack squat benefit to me.

This may be true. But a lot of your fellow citizens now have an opportunity for affordable insurance that will allow them access to preventative care, improving the quality of their lives, improving their attendance for their employer (and by extension their own job security), putting less burden on our emergency rooms and lessening the chance of outright bankruptcy.


---

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The constitution provides me equal protection under the law so if Unions, Congress, The prez and his business friends get a free pass, then under the 14th amendment so do I.

I have no idea what the 14th has anything to do this. The president and congress get health insurance from their employer, the government. It's a job benefit, just like for anyone else, right? That said, if I had my way, they would be on VA system.

As for unions and business friends, I've already condemned this multiple times.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I, like many others my age, am barely keeping up with my bills as it is. The last thing I need is to be paying for other's healthcare when I can barely cover mine as it is now.

It sounds like you should qualify for subsidies, then. I can't speak for your cost of living, but I live comfortably in PA on less than the median US salary, and I bought myself a new car just two years ago.

[BadKosh]

Health care was NEVER A RIGHT. The current liberals, hand wringing and re-defining what a right is is the problem. Nobody has answered as to WHY we have to pay for other peoples insurance. They made their own bed, they can sleep in it. Screwing off in school, being an addict, and being a lazy slack gets you a life with little money, no skills that will get you a good job, and no health insurance. Why is this suddenly everyone's problem? Personal responsibility? It would have been easier to allow the insurance companies to sell in all 50 states and make it that they can't punish you for a pre-existing condition. It would have been easier to change the minor details of getting insurance than screwing with so much of our lives and producing an unrealistic, high priced product with high deductibles. When you sell your house you pay another tax associated with the ACA. 3%! Face it. The Democrats are DICKS who forced this on everyone.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Health care was NEVER A RIGHT. The current liberals, hand wringing and re-defining what a right is is the problem. Nobody has answered as to WHY we have to pay for other peoples insurance. They made their own bed, they can sleep in it. Screwing off in school, being an addict, and being a lazy slack gets you a life with little money, no skills that will get you a good job, and no health insurance. Why is this suddenly everyone's problem? Personal responsibility? It would have been easier to allow the insurance companies to sell in all 50 states and make it that they can't punish you for a pre-existing condition. It would have been easier to change the minor details of getting insurance than screwing with so much of our lives and producing an unrealistic, high priced product with high deductibles. When you sell your house you pay another tax associated with the ACA. 3%! Face it. The Democrats are DICKS who forced this on everyone.

...and while we're at it, why do we feed people, or give them heat? If you're going to starve or freeze to death, why is this everyone's problem?

[subego]

BK, I'm wondering...

Do you personally know a bunch of dirt poor people?

I'm wondering where you get your insight on poverty and how people get there.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

BK, I'm wondering...

Do you personally know a bunch of dirt poor people?

I'm wondering where you get your insight on poverty and how people get there.

Why would he want to know a bunch of loosers?
yes that was on purpose

[subego]

I can only assume knowing such people is what's making him so ANGRY.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can only assume knowing such people is what's making him so ANGRY.

No, it's finding out that 99.6% of the "poor" have refrigerators.

[BadKosh]

So people aren't responsible for their condition? Screwing off in school is OK, give them a high paying career anyway?

So , quit changing the subject. Why must we pay for your health insurance? Tell me again why you think its a right.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by subego 

BK, I'm wondering...

Do you personally know a bunch of dirt poor people?

I'm wondering where you get your insight on poverty and how people get there.

I work in DC. I see the low class inarticulate kids screwing off, repeating BS their friends told them, and not getting even that right. Screaming for higher wages and unable to make it to free training that might help them. They are their own worst enemy.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...and while we're at it, why do we feed people, or give them heat? If you're going to starve or freeze to death, why is this everyone's problem?

No comments on the bulk of my post? Of what value are the people who won't help themselves?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There is a need to oversee them. We aren't just overseeing them with this, the government is interfering with them. Set the rules and let the market play itself out without complex state by state rules that left the buyer with as little as 5-6 options in their state vs the 1300 or so nationwide.

You do realize that what you are describing is a single national exchange right? The very thing vehemently opposed by the right which is precisely why we continue with this insane approach of state-by-state insurance regulation.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You do realize that what you are describing is a single national exchange right? The very thing vehemently opposed by the right which is precisely why we continue with this insane approach of state-by-state insurance regulation.

OAW

I think he means deregulating insurance companies so they can sell across state lines.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

No comments on the bulk of my post? Of what value are the people who won't help themselves?

I realize answering a question with a question is a dick move, but I'm serious: Why do we feed people and give them heat?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think he means deregulating insurance companies so they can sell across state lines.

Exactly. But therein lies the rub. Insurance companies must be regulated. All but the most unrealistic libertarians recognize that the "free market" alone is not enough to keep insurance companies from screwing over their customers. The question is do you do it at the state level or at the national level? And my contention is that many on the right have an almost irrational aversion to regulation at the federal level ... so they cling to this ideological notion even in the face of an abundance of evidence that state-by-state regulation of health insurance is an impediment to competition and a contributor to skyrocketing costs.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly. But therein lies the rub. Insurance companies must be regulated. All but the most unrealistic libertarians recognize that the "free market" alone is not enough to keep insurance companies from screwing over their customers. The question is do you do it at the state level or at the national level? And my contention is that many on the right have an almost irrational aversion to regulation at the federal level ... so they cling to this ideological notion even in the face of an abundance of evidence that state-by-state regulation of health insurance is an impediment to competition and a contributor to skyrocketing costs.

OAW

Let me ask this: If we kept the ACAs federally mandated minimums, would the "race-to-the-bottom" everyone expects be averted? Or would there be loopholes that Federal regulation doesn't cover?

[subego]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I work in DC. I see the low class inarticulate kids screwing off, repeating BS their friends told them, and not getting even that right. Screaming for higher wages and unable to make it to free training that might help them. They are their own worst enemy.

You see these people where? On the street? At the pub?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Hyperbole is useful contingent upon who you're speaking with and what your intention is with that individual. I was very clear in providing the context for my statement; "using their logic of rolling grandma over a cliff". Yes, this tactic is sure to draw the ire and defensiveness of partisan warriors, but that is what it is.

It can be useful, if by that you mean manipulative, but there is also the Boy that Cried Wolf...

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Let me ask this: If we kept the ACAs federally mandated minimums, would the "race-to-the-bottom" everyone expects be averted? Or would there be loopholes that Federal regulation doesn't cover?

Hard to say. I'd say that the degree to which regulations have loopholes is commensurate with the degree to which lobbyists were allowed to influence the legislative process that produced them. It's my understanding that the ACA has 4 levels of plans. With the "federally mandated minimum" being the Bronze plans. Along with Silver, Gold, and Platinum plans. Personally, I think that's a great idea. There should be a way for average consumers to be able to comparison shop to see what they are purchasing. Most people are not attorneys who can decipher a booklet of legalese describing the details of a health plan. That being said, I think the number of plans offered at the various levels will be determined by consumer demand. If more people want Bronze level coverage then that's what the market will provide. I don't know if I would characterize that as a "race to the bottom" though since many of the individual market plans today clearly qualify as "junk insurance".

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think he means deregulating insurance companies so they can sell across state lines.

Bingo. There is no reason why they can't now other then an industry lobby who stands to gain from the massive overhead of 50 different sets of rules, associated HIPAA compliant hardware, etc.

We are, whether we like it or not, in the tech age. There's no reason to artificially inflate healthcare costs by requiring "local" offices and decision makers and multiplying the effort necessary to operate by all 50 states worth of bureaucracy.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

BK, I'm wondering...

Do you personally know a bunch of dirt poor people?

I'm wondering where you get your insight on poverty and how people get there.

Setting aside PCness, and speaking frankly, most poor are where they are because they don't know any better. They make ridiculous choices based on ignorance and let immediate wants control their lives. A great deal of it is lack of education and poor impulse control. Very often they place themselves in their predicaments and you don't need to go very far to see where the blame should lie. I know enough people who have dug their way out of childhood poverty to confidently say that anyone who isn't mentally handicapped can do it. Sure, it takes a lot of hard work and discipline, but nothing substantial is easy.

However, that doesn't mean I don't care, or believe in cutting people loose, we work hard to help them find rungs on the ladder, but they still have to climb it. Subsidizing a person for a lifetime does them no favors, but I'm all for giving them as many opportunities as they need, as long as I know they're still working to help themselves.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'll have to explain to me how bronze plans are more useless than catastrophic insurance.

For starters; do you need addiction treatment and care for newborns and children? It's frustrating enough to know that you have to fork up money for things beyond your control, let alone things that you know are. Unfortunately, you'll have to have them as a bare minimum of all plans including bronze. And for the provisions you do not need, you will likely be paying higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher co-pays. In this sense, going beyond useless.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It can be useful, if by that you mean manipulative, but there is also the Boy that Cried Wolf...

I mean effective, for those who view things in terms of noble or sinister. The type of folks that might be more focused on the hasty or misspelled signs of individuals at a rally over what their preferred brain trust is doing in leadership... in a way only slightly less sloppy, but infinitely more harmful. You can call that a wolf if you want, but I can't imagine the Boy that Cried Wolf would have any impact on their pups.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I mean effective, for those who view things in terms of noble or sinister. The type of folks that might be more focused on the hasty or misspelled signs of individuals at a rally over what their preferred brain trust is doing in leadership... in a way only slightly less sloppy, but infinitely more harmful. You can call that a wolf if you want, but I can't imagine the Boy that Cried Wolf would have any impact on their pups.

Yeah, but if the roles were reversed would you feel the same way? Things that suck suck, they don't just suck when your ideology is being challenged. Besides, you should be seeing now that sometimes you have to choose which battles to wage, and that the relentless partisan warrior willing to pander to radical elements approach hasn't been working well the last couple of elections. Maybe it's time to try some reasonable? McCain and Romney would have been it if they didn't pander to the weird part of the party.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, but if the roles were reversed would you feel the same way? Things that suck suck, they don't just suck when your ideology is being challenged. Besides, you should be seeing now that sometimes you have to choose which battles to wage, and that the relentless partisan warrior willing to pander to radical elements approach hasn't been working well the last couple of elections. Maybe it's time to try some reasonable? McCain and Romney would have been it if they didn't pander to the weird part of the party.

I'm not running for President. Romney could hardly have been said to have pandered to the weird part of the party (which I have a sneaking suspicion refers to the wing that professes the very principles Obama and just about every politician has stumped from time immemorial). If anything, neither (R) defended their positions as aggressively as they should have or assumed offense frequently enough and while it was clear what they opposed, they did not articulate what they were for.

You have to not only choose which battles to wage, but how to wage them contingent upon the opponent. There's no reason buzzwords have to be taken off the table entirely. Particularly among pinko-prog, commie libs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not running for President. Romney could hardly have been said to have pandered to the weird part of the party (which I have a sneaking suspicion refers to the wing that professes the very principles Obama and just about every politician has stumped from time immemorial). If anything, neither (R) defended their positions as aggressively as they should have or assumed offense frequently enough and while it was clear what they opposed, they did not articulate what they were for.

You have to not only choose which battles to wage, but how to wage them contingent upon the opponent. There's no reason buzzwords have to be taken off the table entirely. Particularly among pinko-prog, commie libs.

If you want to believe that the ideas the party has been associated just haven't been articulated well, fine, but I don't think this is going to work or benefit anybody.

I want the Republican party to thrive, it is in everybody's best interest for it to do so. I just think there is plenty of evidence now to support the idea that its best course of action is something more reasonable than the stuff we've been exposed to in recent years.

You are honestly more reasonable than the majority of the top 10 active Republican representatives people think of first when they think of the party. Reasonable is not "the ACA is the worst disaster since slavery", at least not yet. Sorry, this is just not reasonable, and I think you realize this too, you just don't want to give me/us any slack in acknowledging this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you want to believe that the ideas the party has been associated just haven't been articulated well, fine, but I don't think this is going to work or benefit anybody.

I want the Republican party to thrive, it is in everybody's best interest for it to do so. I just think there is plenty of evidence now to support the idea that its best course of action is something more reasonable than the stuff we've been exposed to in recent years.

While unfortunate, I think the stuff we've been exposed to in recent years is the result of Newton's third law. The Republican party has not moved further to the right, the Democratic party is moving further to the left. Republicans need a way, a vehicle to express themselves in a positive light, and they need more representatives that will not be mired in minutia. Perfect example; when the folks in Obama's camp were calling for Romney's tax returns, instead of getting beat up by the media in several of the critical months leading up to the election, in the interest of transparency he should've offered his tax returns in exchange for lifting Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious or provide the subpoenaed documents around Benghazi. Taking the petty, partisan nonsense that doesn't matter, but enjoyed the attention of the media and casting it under the light of something that ultimately does matter and something the media decidedly didn't want to give any attention to. This would've eliminated the entire conversation in one fell swoop and brought attention back to what matters. In short, leveraging Obama's mouthpiece against him. Not unlike exploiting a fast defense with misdirection. There was none of this.

You are honestly more reasonable than the majority of the top 10 active Republican representatives people think of first when they think of the party. Reasonable is not "the ACA is the worst disaster since slavery", at least not yet. Sorry, this is just not reasonable, and I think you realize this too, you just don't want to give me/us any slack in acknowledging this.

How do you know this doesn't resonate and/or get attention? That's all statements like this are intended to do after all and they have their moments in time. He's not saying it's more disastrous than slavery or even that it's as disastrous as slavery. He's saying it trumps government folly to that point. The ACA for better or worse; people will remember who were most vocally opposed to it and who did everything they could to support it. If worse, this will hurt those who supported it. If better, it will help those who supported it. Most of the frustration with rhetoric falls along the lines of support or opposition as of course the people who keep getting elected have been saying the most ridiculous things imaginable over the past several years.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While unfortunate, I think the stuff we've been exposed to in recent years is the result of Newton's third law. The Republican party has not moved further to the right, the Democratic party is moving further to the left.

If the Democratic party is moving further to the left, where are Democrats and others calling Obama Bush Jr.? This is incoherent to me... One one hand people say "where is all of this change and hope stuff, nothing has changed", and on the other "Obama is the most liberal president ever". It can't be both.

If the Republican party has not moved further to the right, why are so many representatives garnering significant national attention with platforms pretty far to the right? Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum aren't that dumb, they wouldn't have run for president if they didn't think they could gain traction. Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin aren't that dumb either.

McCain and Romney aren't dumb either, why did they pander to the far right part of their base if they weren't a significant part of it?

The way I see it, the American *people* may not be moving further to the right, but the party is having self-identity issues right now, a part of it is at war with itself. The war is between the Tea Party and the rest of the party. If you think "war" is too strong of a word, fine, I don't really know what word to use, but the shutdown was not a sign of a healthy party where its members are largely on the same page, agreed?

How do you know this doesn't resonate and/or get attention? That's all statements like this are intended to do after all and they have their moments in time. He's not saying it's more disastrous than slavery or even that it's as disastrous as slavery. He's saying it trumps government folly to that point. The ACA for better or worse; people will remember who were most vocally opposed to it and who did everything they could to support it. If worse, this will hurt those who supported it. If better, it will help those who supported it. Most of the frustration with rhetoric falls along the lines of support or opposition as of course the people who keep getting elected have been saying the most ridiculous things imaginable over the past several years.

It gets attention, but really bad, corrosive attention, at least from people with memories that can remember all the way back to 9/11. Sarah Palin got a lot of attention too, was it good attention? The shutdown, good attention?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The races tend to be very tight. I think the republicans would win most the time if it wasn't for these issues:
They're against gay marriage, which is interpreted as a declaration of war on gays and all their friends. While I personally think the issue is petty, by the same logic I say just give them what they want and be done wasting time with this debate.
They declare war on abortion, which is an attack on most young people's beliefs.
They get snagged into the evolution vs creationism debate. Between that, stem cell research, and abortion they end up appearing to declare war on science by proxy.

All these things are distractions from important issues. They need to follow the advise of the bible and stop trying to push these religious based issues on people unless asked to.

I think evolution vs. creationism is probably pretty small compared to health care, and maybe even immigration.

The problem with the right is that they've focused on a very, very, very small wheelhouse.

If you care about health care and you aren't ideologically bound you'll probably gravitate towards the left, because the right hasn't really championed this issue the same way, outside of hating the ACA

If your immigration stance isn't a hard-lined "deport, NOW", you probably gravitate towards the left.

You probably gravitate towards the left if a number of your social viewpoints aren't bound to a conservative religious framework.

If you care about the poor/middle class, this has always been an issue the left has championed.


I know calling the conservative party a party of God, guns, freedom/small government is an unfair caricature, but I do think that their platform is ideologically narrow, it's just that there are a *ton* of people served by this belief structure.

I also think that setting up the whole "freedom/small government" issue the way they have done stimulates emotions more than anything else, because the opposition to this isn't no freedom and a government with no limits on how large it should be. The opposition is simply about drawing lines differently, so in a way this whole framing of this issue is a strawman. If nothing more "freedom" is a hugely ambiguous word that the Joe Sixpacks of this world will never agree upon anyway.

[subego]

In a general sense, I disagree with your caring about the poor statement.

Both sides care about the poor, they just have different theories on the best way to approach it.

Framing it as one side cares more is hugely self-serving.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure there isn't some mass conspiracy to distort the issue. The left actually believes they care more.

It points to one of the biggest underlying problems with the left. They think they're right, and show little interest in trying to understand where the right is actually coming from. Much easier just to leave them as the boogeyman.

The right thinks they're right too, the difference is they have a much better understanding of where the left is coming from. It's a big reason they're better at hardball.

Let's call a spade a spade here. Leftist policy is intuitive. You don't need to be an economist to understand where the policy is coming from. You do for right leaning policies. In other words, unlike the leftist policy, it takes effort to understand the underlying principles. You don't need college level courses to understand "be swell to one another".

I'll let whether you should have fiscal policy written by people who have put effort into it as an exercise for the reader.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

You don't need college level courses to understand "be swell to one another".

That's a very good thing for the left considering no one's going to be able to afford college anymore anyway except the elite.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Also, reposting in case it got lost on the other page



I'll open this response by saying I mean no disrespect and if you don't wish to answer any of the questions I 100% understand as I'm the same way.

Does your employer not offer insurance? If not, do you make enough that you won't qualify for subsidies?

I did some quick googling. I didn't visit healthcare.gov because, why bother, but this site implies it rips its info from the MD exchanges, so take it for what its worth. I'm not sure of your age, but I'm under the impression you're in your late 20s, so I put in 29. I also don't know where you live, so I just went with what I imagine is the more populous area, Baltimore County. For salary I entered $25,000 which would definitely put you in a position where bills would be difficult to pay, old-ass car be damned.

This the cheapest Silver plan

Obviously much more expensive, but it shows in the small deductible. With subsidies, it's slightly cheaper than your "useless-for-anything-except-catastrohpic coverage" plan and provides far, far better coverage.

On the lower tier side, this is the second cheapest Bronze plan I could find

With subsidies your monthly cost would increase $15 a month over your $60 now. If you got no subsidies, it would be $134, more than double, but it'd also provide you with far more coverage than catastrophic and still be $16 cheaper than what you quoted.

The site didn't list any Catastrophic plans. Information gleaned form here.



This may be true. But a lot of your fellow citizens now have an opportunity for affordable insurance that will allow them access to preventative care, improving the quality of their lives, improving their attendance for their employer (and by extension their own job security), putting less burden on our emergency rooms and lessening the chance of outright bankruptcy.


---


I have no idea what the 14th has anything to do this. The president and congress get health insurance from their employer, the government. It's a job benefit, just like for anyone else, right? That said, if I had my way, they would be on VA system.

As for unions and business friends, I've already condemned this multiple times.




It sounds like you should qualify for subsidies, then. I can't speak for your cost of living, but I live comfortably in PA on less than the median US salary, and I bought myself a new car just two years ago.

Dakar, I'm still bearing 30% of the cost of my care. So not only is my monthly higher. Lets take my current expenditures on health care. I'll be generous and say I plan to spend $2000 a year on health care.

So, my current costs:
$60 * 12 = 720 + 2000 out of pocket
I need to plan for $2720 in health expenditures with coverage in case i need really need it (10k deductible).

Lets look at your two options
Option 1
$142 * 12 = $1704 plus 400 out of pocket for coinsurance, and 1300 on the deductible .
Yearly out of pocket: $3404

Option 2
$72 * 12 = 864 + 600 for coinsurance and $1700 on the deductible.
Yearly out of pocket: $3164.


No matter how you slice it, Obamacare is going to be more expensive for me personally. I am in the lowest federal income bracket and there's significant expense to the taxpayer via my subsidy. at least I'll have maternity coverage. Who is this supposed to help exactly if not low income earners like me?

[subego]

Think of the children!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

In a general sense, I disagree with your caring about the poor statement.

Both sides care about the poor, they just have different theories on the best way to approach it.

Framing it as one side cares more is hugely self-serving.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure there isn't some mass conspiracy to distort the issue. The left actually believes they care more.

It points to one of the biggest underlying problems with the left. They think they're right, and show little interest in trying to understand where the right is actually coming from. Much easier just to leave them as the boogeyman.

The right thinks they're right too, the difference is they have a much better understanding of where the left is coming from. It's a big reason they're better at hardball.

Let's call a spade a spade here. Leftist policy is intuitive. You don't need to be an economist to understand where the policy is coming from. You do for right leaning policies. In other words, unlike the leftist policy, it takes effort to understand the underlying principles. You don't need college level courses to understand "be swell to one another".

I'll let whether you should have fiscal policy written by people who have put effort into it as an exercise for the reader.

You had me until your final summaries which I'm not sure about, but yes, all I was addressing is my sense of general public *perception*, not necessarily reality. We'll never agree upon reality, but we can see the effects of marketing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That's a very good thing for the left considering no one's going to be able to afford college anymore anyway except the elite.

I really think you are doing yourself a disservice by exposing your massive bias this way. It's sincere, I'm sure, but it just makes it harder for you to claim objectivity, should you ever wish to do so.

It also frankly seems a little silly since the ACA hasn't even really been launched yet. Once it has been and the actual data lines up with your criticism, you can go apeshit saying all this stuff and I'll be right there with you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You had me until your final summaries which I'm not sure about, but yes, all I was addressing is my sense of general public *perception*, not necessarily reality. We'll never agree upon reality, but we can see the effects of marketing.

That specific piece of marketing, even though as I said, isn't some conspiracy, really frosts the right's ass.

As well it should, because it's bullshit.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I really think you are doing yourself a disservice by exposing your massive bias this way.

It's not bias when all the evidence supports my argument, and we only have the President's promise to support the opposite. If you can produce some data, I'd be happy to re evalute my stance. But all you've given me is anecdotes and vague statements on what you'd like to be the reality.

It's sincere, I'm sure, but it just makes it harder for you to claim objectivity, should you ever wish to do so.

Are you not satisfied with the level to which I've cited my arguments? Where do my suppositions fail? Just because you don't like the reality of the evidence doesn't mean my position isn't well supported and objectively obtained.

It also frankly seems a little silly since the ACA hasn't even really been launched yet. Once it has been and the actual data lines up with your criticism, you can go apeshit saying all this stuff and I'll be right there with you.

It does seem silly, Besson. It hasn't even launched yet and it's already failed on the objectives it was supposed to accomplish. If you're about to drive off a cliff, and you can see the end of the road, do you drive off that cliff just to see if it was really there?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

That specific piece of marketing, even though as I said, isn't some conspiracy, really frosts the right's ass.

As well it should, because it's bullshit.

It is bullshit, but it is not unique bullshit. Politics is full of this sort of marketing. So full if it, in fact, that I sincerely believe that many people both ideologically invested and not can't even tell the difference between the marketing/rhetoric and the actual reasonable truth.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It's not bias when all the evidence supports my argument, and we only have the President's promise to support the opposite. If you can produce some data, I'd be happy to re evalute my stance. But all you've given me is anecdotes and vague statements on what you'd like to be the reality.
Are you not satisfied with the level to which I've cited my arguments? Where do my suppositions fail? Just because you don't like the reality of the evidence doesn't mean my position isn't well supported and objectively obtained.


It does seem silly, Besson. It hasn't even launched yet and it's already failed on the objectives it was supposed to accomplish. If you're about to drive off a cliff, and you can see the end of the road, do you drive off that cliff just to see if it was really there?

Like I said in the other thread, you are basing your conclusions on projections rather than actual data. It's like a scientist clinging to conclusions before even conducting his experiment.

The spring isn't that far off, if you can hold off until then many of the conclusions will be clear and undeniable.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is bullshit, but it is not unique bullshit. Politics is full of this sort of marketing. So full if it, in fact, that I sincerely believe that many people both ideologically invested and not can't even tell the difference between the marketing/rhetoric and the actual reasonable truth.

Besson, we've all given you a plethora of evidence to support our claims. Do you refute that costs will be higher?

Do you refute that people are losing coverage?

Do you refute that Obama and his friends are exempt?

Do you refute that we were told we could keep our coverage or that we would see lower costs? Egadz man, it's all staring you in the face and you're going on about objectivity?


Have you provided a single piece of evidence to objectively support your position that this will ultimately be better for the US in the long run?