[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not directed at ebuddy:

I wonder why we even separate these types of illnesses anyway. If someone is sick physically or mentally the end result is the same: a member of society that is running in less than good working order. I wonder how much of this has to do with the stigma having mental illness has. I mean, on one hand we have a bunch of twenty-somethings going out and killing people due to mental illness and on the other we have people arguing we shouldn't have that failsafe in our medical coverage.

I realize you directed this elsewhere, but since there were no responses...

The fact is, no -- we don't have a bunch of twenty-somethings going out and killing people due to mental illness and for the ones who had, a compelling chunk of them had already received medical attention and were prescribed medications that either didn't work, weren't administered properly by the patient or provider, or produced symptoms arguably worse than the condition they sought attention for.

There's nothing to suggest universal insurance coverage for mental illness would even result in greater care or fewer mass-killings by twenty-somethings. The "never let a crisis go to waste" model of legislating too often only exacerbates the very problems it sought to resolve. People are not ashamed that mental illness coverage is required in their plans, they're frustrated at the increasing cost of coverages the overwhelming majority of them do not need.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I know is that folks from the individual market being canceled from plans that do not meet the minimum criteria are going to the exchanges and lodging complaints of higher premiums, copays, and deductibles.

I cited the California couple that found a comparable plan in the exchange that included a 40% increase in their doctor's office co-pay with deductible increasing by $2300. Can I guarantee that they had a catastrophic plan prior? No, but I can tell you that the folks getting canceled from the Individual Market are getting canceled because their plans are bare-bones policies that do not meet the required minimum coverage. That's why people are going to the exchanges. Either they had nothing or they had a plan that didn't meet the minimums. I cited a Christian Science Monitor article on the Individual Market cancellations featuring a North Carolina family with a BCBS plan for $380/month (catastrophic? Not 100%, but such a meager monthly rate for a family plan I can't imagine covered much more than catastrophic care and their shock began with the cancellation from a policy that no longer met the minimum requirements) who found the cheapest bronze plan was $1,124.50/month "still with an $11,000 deductible". That's not competitive. I cited a CNNMoney report about the family that found a bronze-level plan for roughly $357/month after the subsidy which they felt was doable, but returned a $12,600 deductible. For a catastrophic plan, you'll generally expect to pay $2k - 5k in deductibles. The cheapest Bronze plan in Connecticut for example has a minimum $3,250 deductible for single coverage.

Here's the thing: I appreciate that you put a lot of time and effort into this post to demonstrate things, but my problem is, I can't do research myself because I don't have details about the family. Making an estimate for snow-i was easy because it was guesswork for one person. Here? I got nothing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If that were the case, we wouldn't have had a "crisis" in need of such expansive health insurance reform. There's a difference, albeit subtle; between "shared" or "pooled" risk carefully figured from actuarial data creating a win-win situation for all and the healthy subsidizing the sick under government-mandated minimum coverage requirements. Minimum requirements such as all having to cover maternal, newborn, and child coverage, as well as mental illness and drug addiction is indeed taking from one and giving to the other, but it is not a win-win scenario.

Risks are pooled and the incentive for coverage is a win-win. Much of the insurance is subsidized by your employer as part of a benefits/compensation package and becomes part of your job search, leverage, and negotiation which is why the Union sector is now up in arms against the ACA. When the government skews the relationship with more coverage minimums, the plans are less win-win.

So maternity coverage, mental coverage, etc. is acceptable to people because their employer is subsidizing it, but not if the government is? I mean if you consider it part of your compensation, I should be mad as hell that I'm losing $1 per paycheck* because of this gender-neutral insurance pans, right?

*has anyone even demonstrated the real cost impact on the policy rate this coverage provides?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's the thing: I appreciate that you put a lot of time and effort into this post to demonstrate things, but my problem is, I can't do research myself because I don't have details about the family. Making an estimate for snow-i was easy because it was guesswork for one person. Here? I got nothing.



So maternity coverage, mental coverage, etc. is acceptable to people because their employer is subsidizing it, but not if the government is? I mean if you consider it part of your compensation, I should be mad as hell that I'm losing $1 per paycheck* because of this gender-neutral insurance pans, right?

*has anyone even demonstrated the real cost impact on the policy rate this coverage provides?

That's all fine and good, Dakar. Still waiting on how this abomination is supposed to reduce healthcare costs. You know, the whole reason this thing was supposedly necessary? (Subsidies don't count - you're simply moving the costs around).

Even if it's a dollar per paycheck, the law has failed on its promise and done nothing for the problems it was supposed to solve. Who is this supposed to help?.

In my example it'll be probably around 1k more a year for me personally (and another 3-4k from some rich dude somewhere). But what have we gotten for this extra money? Maternity coverage? Great! Can't wait to cash in on that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's the thing: I appreciate that you put a lot of time and effort into this post to demonstrate things, but my problem is, I can't do research myself because I don't have details about the family. Making an estimate for snow-i was easy because it was guesswork for one person. Here? I got nothing.

I'm not sure what more information you want. I mean, the general reaction to the provisions folks are finding on the exchanges has been negative. That's because, as the obstructionist hostage-takers have been reminding us -- the overwhelming majority of people were happy with the cost and quality of their care. You're going to tell Snow-i and others they shouldn't be disappointed with the new provisions and I'm reading and hearing a lot of talking heads try to do the same, but I don't think that's going to work. It may turn out to be one of the most unpopular aspects of the law.

ACA Calculator taking data submitted by each State and returns either a US average or State-by-State figures.
29 years old, $25k/year, by himself figured from the US avg;

• Bronze plan for $1,243 per year or approximately $103/month.
• 60% actuarial value -- meaning 40% Coinsurance.
• No return for deductible, but assuming the same deductible as the lower tier you offered earlier through CareFirst, he's paying more for services he's telling you he doesn't use and more for services he will.

When considering one in four use no health care services in a given year, a slightly lower overall deductible means very little. He's telling you he's not happy. He's trying to tell you that the more immediate costs are more burdensome in his position. You're trying to tell him that he should be happy, saying things like; "it'll cost you more, but provide you with far more coverage". He's telling you he doesn't need the far more coverage he'd be paying for. It's like y'all have turned into the Donald Trump of health care.

At some point, you just have to tell him why he's doing this and hope that his altruism is more meaningful here than his donations to the local Open Door Mission.

So maternity coverage, mental coverage, etc. is acceptable to people because their employer is subsidizing it, but not if the government is? I mean if you consider it part of your compensation, I should be mad as hell that I'm losing $1 per paycheck* because of this gender-neutral insurance pans, right?

The employer is subject to competition, investor oversight, and solvency and their subsidies go directly to the employee. Government subsidies are our collective tax dollars filtered through thousands of bureaucracies, not subject to competition, oversight, or solvency, eventually allowing a trickle of aid to the intended recipient. Now onto the more fundamental error in your argument.

Prior to the ACA, employers could negotiate with insurance companies. For example, an employer could get substantial insurance discounts and write-offs by offering in-house Wellness programs, mental health support through Employee Assistance Programs, and the like. The insurer can use medical records and work-force data to verify the impact of the programs and the overall risk of the employees. All of this helped the Insurer against loss and the employee gets lower rates. Win-win. Under the ACA's community rating requirement, companies could mandate daily calisthenics and it wouldn't matter to the Insurer.

I'm not sure what could make you mad as hell, but I'm certain me telling you that you shouldn't be isn't going to help. The good news is, you could always wait until you're consumed with madness and then pick up the Insurance. They can't decline a pre-existing condition and you can keep that smart phone on in the meantime.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not sure what more information you want. I mean, the general reaction to the provisions folks are finding on the exchanges has been negative. That's because, as the obstructionist hostage-takers have been reminding us -- the overwhelming majority of people were happy with the cost and quality of their care. You're going to tell Snow-i and others they shouldn't be disappointed with the new provisions and I'm reading and hearing a lot of talking heads try to do the same, but I don't think that's going to work. It may turn out to be one of the most unpopular aspects of the law.

ACA Calculator taking data submitted by each State and returns either a US average or State-by-State figures.
29 years old, $25k/year, by himself figured from the US avg;

• Bronze plan for $1,243 per year or approximately $103/month.
• 60% actuarial value -- meaning 40% Coinsurance.
• No return for deductible, but assuming the same deductible as the lower tier you offered earlier through CareFirst, he's paying more for services he's telling you he doesn't use and more for services he will.

When considering one in four use no health care services in a given year, a slightly lower overall deductible means very little. He's telling you he's not happy. He's trying to tell you that the more immediate costs are more burdensome in his position. You're trying to tell him that he should be happy, saying things like; "it'll cost you more, but provide you with far more coverage". He's telling you he doesn't need the far more coverage he'd be paying for. It's like y'all have turned into the Donald Trump of health care.

At some point, you just have to tell him why he's doing this and hope that his altruism is more meaningful here than his donations to the local Open Door Mission.


The employer is subject to competition, investor oversight, and solvency and their subsidies go directly to the employee. Government subsidies are our collective tax dollars filtered through thousands of bureaucracies, not subject to competition, oversight, or solvency, eventually allowing a trickle of aid to the intended recipient. Now onto the more fundamental error in your argument.

Prior to the ACA, employers could negotiate with insurance companies. For example, an employer could get substantial insurance discounts and write-offs by offering in-house Wellness programs, mental health support through Employee Assistance Programs, and the like. The insurer can use medical records and work-force data to verify the impact of the programs and the overall risk of the employees. All of this helped the Insurer against loss and the employee gets lower rates. Win-win. Under the ACA's community rating requirement, companies could mandate daily calisthenics and it wouldn't matter to the Insurer.

I'm not sure what could make you mad as hell, but I'm certain me telling you that you shouldn't be isn't going to help. The good news is, you could always wait until you're consumed with madness and then pick up the Insurance. They can't decline a pre-existing condition and you can keep that smart phone on in the meantime.

And if you manage to pop out a kid, great! You're covered.

Thomas Beatie, The 'Pregnant Man,' Wants A Fourth Child

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not sure what more information you want.

For example, I wanted to check this:

a North Carolina family with a BCBS plan for $380/month (catastrophic? Not 100%, but such a meager monthly rate for a family plan I can't imagine covered much more than catastrophic care and their shock began with the cancellation from a policy that no longer met the minimum requirements) who found the cheapest bronze plan was $1,124.50/month "still with an $11,000 deductible".

Myself, but I realized I didn't know the size of the family, their ages, or their income (I don't know their county, either, but strikes me as the least important detail).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

For example, I wanted to check this:

Myself, but I realized I didn't know the size of the family, their ages, or their income (I don't know their county, either, but strikes me as the least important detail).

I guess I don't understand how any of those factors make the North Carolina family happy with the policy offered through the exchange.

[The Final Dakar]

This guy is crazy pants. LIke somewhere between Santorum and Bachmann level.

Ben Carson: 2016 election may not happen

“I hope that that is not going to be the case. But certainly there is the potential,” said Dr. Ben Carson, who was director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital and became famous for his groundbreaking work in separating conjoined twins. He is now firmly established as a superstar among conservatives across America.

He was responding to a question from Fox News interviewer Chris Wallace, who quoted Carson’s own statement that “there might not actually be elections in 2016…”

“Do you really believe that?” Wallace asked.

It is possible, said Carson, “because you have to recognize we have a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all of these things gong on, like the ISIS crisis, that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation. And unless we begin to deal with these things in a comprehensive way and a logical way, there’s no telling what could happen in just a matter of a couple of years, and particularly in a situation where we have a Senate and a Senate leader who has over 300 bills sitting on his desk, [who] will not bring them to the floor for a vote.”

Ben Carson: AP History Would Make Kids Want To 'Sign Up For ISIS' (VIDEO)

Carson then lamented a few negative aspects of history included in the course framework like "a whole section on slavery and how evil we are," Japanese internment camps, and "how we wiped out American Indians with no mercy."

"I think most people when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for ISIS. I mean, this is what we’re doing to the young people in our nation," he said. "We have got to stop crucifying ourselves. Have we made mistakes as a nation? Of course we have. Why? Because we’re people. And all people make mistakes."

…and the best way to learn from those mistakes is to not teach kids for fear that it will sour them on us.

[OAW]

A lot of black conservatives (please note I did not say black Republicans) come off like they are just getting their hustle on. Simply exploiting their novelty by telling white conservatives what they want to hear and providing cover for the rank hostility that the GOP exhibits towards people of color en masse. All for financial gain. But every now and again you come across a black conservative who seems like he actually believes his own BS. This guy seems to be one of them.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Many Dems were saying the same thing before the 2008 election.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Many Dems were saying the same thing before the 2008 election.

Democratic potentials for the presidential nomination or crazy people on the street?

Not that it matters, equivalence doesn't make him less crazy.

[Shaddim]

I don't believe he's actually a Repub potential, just someone looking for attention.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't believe he's actually a Repub potential, just someone looking for attention.

He courts them, let's them believe, the moniker applies.

But that didn't answer my original question, anyway.

[Shaddim]

I'm not able to differentiate the crazies from the "regular" party people anymore, from either camp.

[The Final Dakar]

[BadKosh]

GOOD LORD!!! The fictional stereotypes being spouted about by the left here is really sad. It is because they are poor judges of others character? I guess that explains how easily they get fooled over and over.