Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

ACA vs ObamacareFollow

#1 Oct 02 2013 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,544 posts
Jimmy Kimmel asked peeps which they'd prefer.

To me Obamacare sounds comforting but i suppose the whole 'affordable' think appeals to many.

As you might have guessed many didn't realize that the two were one in the same.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2 Oct 02 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
I don't understand this bit. Funny maybe twice. People think my shoe is the new iPhone! People think Africa is a country! We get it. People are uninformed and play along to try and seem informed. Particularly people in LA having a camera pointed at them.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Oct 02 2013 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,544 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I don't understand this bit.
No one can understand everything.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#4 Oct 02 2013 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
******
43,196 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Particularly people in LA having a camera pointed at them.
New York, too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Oct 02 2013 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
*
66 posts
Obamacare sounds pretty sinister to me. Care has been a byword for murder since forever, and to make it worse, Obama's murdered an imperial sh*t-ton of people.
#6 Oct 02 2013 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,091 posts
Re-congrats on scholar.

I agree, Obamacare sounds like an evil and horrible thing, which is why the opponents stuck that label on it as soon as they could.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2013 3:07pm by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#7 Oct 02 2013 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,254 posts
Obamacare sounds like a dictator's creed. Which is hilarious given it's a social program.
#8 Oct 02 2013 at 1:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
I like Obamacare better. There are too many ubiquitous 3-letter abbreviations in government stuff already.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#9 Oct 02 2013 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jimmy Kimmel asked peeps which they'd prefer.

To me Obamacare sounds comforting but i suppose the whole 'affordable' think appeals to many.

As you might have guessed many didn't realize that the two were one in the same.


To be fair, as Smash pointed out, while most people have heard various terms, they aren't super informed about them. And in this case, the act of asking which one people prefer effectively tells them that they are two different things. So even though I suspect most people think they are the same thing, when asked the question that way, they think "I guess they're different things, or he wouldn't be asking this question". So they answer the question. Only those who are absolutely positive that they're correct that the two are the same thing are going to buck the assumption inherent in the question when they've got a camera pointed at them.

It's a derivation of the complex question fallacy. When you ask a question which itself assumes a given condition, people will tend to answer based on that assumption, even if they normally wouldn't assume it to be true. There's a whole host of reasons why this works.

Also: Editing. It's a comedy skit, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Oct 02 2013 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,522 posts
Quote:
To be fair, as Smash pointed out, while most people have heard various terms, they aren't super informed about them.


Which is why the vast majority of people who hate Obamacare can't be taken seriously. Nearly everyone enraged about it is such because they've been told they should be enraged, not because they have any clue what the system is/does.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#11 Oct 02 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
To be fair, as Smash pointed out, while most people have heard various terms, they aren't super informed about them.


Which is why the vast majority of people who hate Obamacare can't be taken seriously.


They may not, but the issue itself should be. Don't confuse the fact that some percentage of the people don't know all the facts about something with the assumption that this thing isn't important, or even that they're wrong.

Quote:
Nearly everyone enraged about it is such because they've been told they should be enraged, not because they have any clue what the system is/does.


I'd argue that the percentage of people who support Obamacare yet have little clue about what the system is/does is roughly equivalent to the percentage of people who oppose it sans-clue. That tells us nothing at all about whether the system is a good one, or a bad one though. Just a commentary on how social issues work. I'm pretty sure that 90% of the American colonists didn't understand anything at all about these things called "rights" that the folks in the constitutional conventions were going on about. But they supported them because it sounded good, or "taxation without representation" and "give me liberty or give me death", and a host of other slogans and rallying cries. Fact is that the masses are rarely inspired to large scale action based on informed decision (I'd suggest that it has never happened in the history of mankind actually), but rather by a good slogan and emotional appeal.


That fact doesn't mean that what their fighting for is good or bad though. The folks who cheered at Nazi rallies in the 30s were just as sure that what they were doing was "right" as the folks cheering Washington.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Oct 02 2013 at 5:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,879 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Obamacare sounds pretty sinister to me. Care has been a byword for murder since forever, and to make it worse, Obama's murdered an imperial sh*t-ton of people.


He didn't murder them; he provided Care-Support.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#13 Oct 02 2013 at 5:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Don't confuse the fact that some percentage of the people don't know all the facts about something with the assumption that this thing isn't important, or even that they're wrong.

I can understand why you'd want to champion the causes of people who don't know all the facts.

Quote:
The folks who cheered at Nazi rallies in the 30s were just as sure that what they were doing was "right" as the folks cheering Washington.

True, the people who cheered Nazi and those shutting down Washington are all about the Right Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Oct 02 2013 at 9:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Smash wrote:
I don't understand this bit. Funny maybe twice. People think my shoe is the new iPhone! People think Africa is a country! We get it. People are uninformed and play along to try and seem informed. Particularly people in LA having a camera pointed at them.


Normally, you would be right, but it's funny in this particular scenario because there's a campaign out there to deceive the people. This is followed by the argument that "most people don't support Obamacare!". This isn't scientific in the least bit, but it's obvious to any sane person that the hatred of Obamacare primarily has to do with Obama/dems and not the law.

Gbaji wrote:
To be fair, as Smash pointed out, while most people have heard various terms, they aren't super informed about them. And in this case, the act of asking which one people prefer effectively tells them that they are two different things. So even though I suspect most people think they are the same thing, when asked the question that way, they think "I guess they're different things, or he wouldn't be asking this question". So they answer the question.


Orrrrrrr, you could not be an idiot and say that "I'm not familiar with x,y or z". That's what I would do, especially if I'm being taped by a late night comedian.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#15 Oct 03 2013 at 5:48 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
The folks who cheered at Nazi rallies in the 30s were just as sure that what they were doing was "right" as the folks cheering Washington.

Henry Ford and Walt Disney?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#16 Oct 03 2013 at 6:04 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,544 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'd argue that the percentage of people who support Obamacare yet have little clue about what the system is/does is roughly equivalent to the percentage of people who oppose it sans-clue.

I'd argue you're probably wrong, but what's new.

I think many that openly support ACA/Obamacares do so because of a specific boon to them. Maybe that have a 'preexisting' condition that has disallowed them from getting insurance previously, or maybe they can keep a kid on their insurance plan longer etc etc.

On the flip side I think the strong opposition is much more political; They were told to oppose it or it's simply been sold as another government hand-out that they'll be paying taxes to support.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#17 Oct 03 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,196 posts
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, as Smash pointed out, while most people have heard various terms, they aren't super informed about them.
Hits home, doesn't it?
gbaji wrote:
It's a comedy skit, right?
No, PBS documentary.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2013 9:30am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Oct 03 2013 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Freepers are so terrified of ACA being a success that they're trying to crash the servers Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Oct 03 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
I'd argue that the percentage of people who support Obamacare yet have little clue about what the system is/does is roughly equivalent to the percentage of people who oppose it sans-clue.

I'd argue that if fully implemented and without actual attempts at making it as difficult as possible to gain benefits, that ACA will be viewed as a jewel of the social safety net and running against it in 2016 would be political suicide.

Actually, everyone on all sides argues this, hence their current actions.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#20 Oct 03 2013 at 12:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,879 posts
I still wish they went single payer as it would probably have met a similar level of obstruction, but you take what you can get.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#21 Oct 03 2013 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I'd argue that the percentage of people who support Obamacare yet have little clue about what the system is/does is roughly equivalent to the percentage of people who oppose it sans-clue.

I'd argue you're probably wrong, but what's new.


How many people who support Obamacare do so because they think they're going to get "free health care"? Like I said: They don't have a clue about how it really works.

Quote:
I think many that openly support ACA/Obamacares do so because of a specific boon to them. Maybe that have a 'preexisting' condition that has disallowed them from getting insurance previously, or maybe they can keep a kid on their insurance plan longer etc etc.


Precisely. No clue how it really works. The percentage of people who would be able to obtain health insurance previously if only there was no preexisting condition issues is incredibly small. By far the largest group of people who had problems with health insurance (and the entire rational argued for needing health reform) was that they couldn't afford it, and their employer didn't provide it as a benefit.

Obamacare does not change that at all. And it arguably makes things worse for the working class folks who were already in that position, since it now forces them to pay a fine for not buying that health insurance that they can't afford. And the mandate regarding preexisting conditions will make it more likely that they can't afford it. And the requirements on small to medium sized businesses will increase the likelihood that they'll have their hours cut (so less money to pay for the insurance that they couldn't afford anyway). And it'll make it more likely that businesses which previously provided at least *some* health benefits (but maybe not stellar) will drop them because the costs are too high.

Many people will lose their existing health insurance because of Obamacare. And when they're faced with having to pay out of their own smaller pocketbooks for insurance on the exchanges, many of them will pay the fine/tax instead. The result is a lot of folks paying the government for the privilege of *not* having health insurance. Yeah. It's a totally screwed up law.

Quote:
On the flip side I think the strong opposition is much more political; They were told to oppose it or it's simply been sold as another government hand-out that they'll be paying taxes to support.


I think both sides were told to support or oppose it. The difference being that one side was convinced to support it by misleading them into thinking it would benefit them (ie: playing on their greed). The other was told to oppose it because it violated their principles *and* would hurt more people than it helped. The second group was at least not lied to.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Oct 03 2013 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The second group was at least not lied to.


So, ACA is worse than slavery? ACA *literally* kills people?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#23 Oct 03 2013 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,879 posts
DEATH PANELS
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#24 Oct 03 2013 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
I don't know of anyone who thinks Obamacare is free. But I'm sure gbaji does, and he'll give us examples.
#25 Oct 03 2013 at 10:24 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,091 posts
Obamacare got me free birth control pills. Smiley: nod

But we still have to pay our full insurance premium each month.... well, what the employee doesn't already pay.

I heard a lot of small businesses who could not offer coverage to their employees before because it would cost too much are offering to kick in the cost of any premiums that people find on the exchanges, post subsidy. So someone making $16K/year who can get coverage for $100 a month with their subsidy may actually get it for free, if their employer chips in.

Those are the rare cases, though.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#26 Oct 03 2013 at 10:56 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,553 posts

I'm on individual insurance right now because I work part time and go to school part time, so I can't get insurance through either. I had been paying $90 / month in my full-time job last year (we had a very young workforce), when I went individual their standard quote was $190, then went up to $210 because of pre-existing conditions. And the coverage was a lot lower, especially on mental health (basically cost 2-3x as much for a therapist visit). So I'm curious to see what they are going to be charging me now that those requirements have kicked in. Haven't been on the ACA website yet to shop the exchange because I've been very busy.

One thing I wish is for mole biopsies/removals to be counted as preventative care, and thus charged less. I mean, a 15-minute procedure to slice off a mole has to cost orders of magnitude less than cancer treatment, so you'd think they'd incentivize that procedure by covering more of it.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#27 Oct 04 2013 at 8:51 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
One thing I wish is for mole biopsies/removals to be counted as preventative care, and thus charged less. I mean, a 15-minute procedure to slice off a mole has to cost orders of magnitude less than cancer treatment, so you'd think they'd incentivize that procedure by covering more of it.

The evidence based approach indicates virtually none of them are worth biopsies. It's a very American fear based approach to cut off everything "just in case". There's not a lot of efficacy there.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Oct 04 2013 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
My sis-in-law is happy about the whole exchange thing. Once her husband lost his old job (well was "bought out" I guess, long story...) they went to having no company insurance at his new job. The $550/mo was a lot for a family that found themselves with a new baby and half the income they had a couple of months prior. Apparently the subsidized rate on the exchange for them is something like $300/mo cheaper, and the coverage is better as well. I don't think they were ever under the delusion that it was free, but they're happy they will have some kind of decent security blanket now.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#29 Oct 04 2013 at 4:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
The second group was at least not lied to.


So, ACA is worse than slavery? ACA *literally* kills people?


That's funny given that those were arguments used *for* ACA. Or do we just not remember the Representative Grayson (D) saying that the GOP opposition to the ACA amounted to wanting people to "die quickly" if they got sick. Or how about a political advertisement showing a member of the GOP pushing granny off a cliff?

There has been lots of rhetoric on both sides of this, but the underlying arguments (setting aside that rhetoric) have been fundamentally truthful on the right and fundamentally untruthful on the left. Obamacare will reduce choices for people looking to buy health insurance. It will (already is) result in people's hours being cut in order to avoid certain mandates. It will (already is) cause employers to drop health insurance from their benefits. It will (already is) cause base health insurance costs to increase.

I'm not sure how people see increasing the cost of something, so that the subsidized cost for a small percentage of the population will be "lower" than that increased rate is a benefit to anyone. Let's recall that the target group for the ACA was working class people who made too much money to qualify for medicaid, but who did not receive health care benefits from their work (or didn't receive sufficient coverage) and could not afford to pay for insurance out of their own pockets. The majority of this group will find things worse for them under Obamacare, not better. Their employers are the most likely to reduce their hours and/or drop health care from the benefits entirely as a means of avoiding the increased costs forced by the mandated coverage rates.

For many in that group the change will be "small amount of coverage from work with the option of paying out of pocket to improve that if needed" to a choice between "no coverage from work, with the mandate to pay for a high coverage plan out of pocket" or "no coverage at all, and pay a fine for not having any coverage". It's lose lose for those people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Oct 04 2013 at 4:13 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure how people see increasing the cost of something, so that the subsidized cost for a small percentage of the population will be "lower" than that increased rate is a benefit to anyone.

Based on the above it sounds to me like it'd be cheaper to just pay the health care for "a small percentage of the population" and be done with it.

But you're not advocating for that, are you?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#31 Oct 04 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure how people see increasing the cost of something, so that the subsidized cost for a small percentage of the population will be "lower" than that increased rate is a benefit to anyone.

Based on the above it sounds to me like it'd be cheaper to just pay the health care for "a small percentage of the population" and be done with it.


It wouldn't be a small percentage of the population though. That's the problem. A small percentage will qualify for subsidies in the exchanges. However, everyone else (a very large percentage) will have to pay more. In some cases, significantly more, to cover those subsidies. As those costs go higher, fewer people will be able to afford the care, which will mean fewer people will pay for the care and more people will just pay the fines to *not* have the care. Aside from the perverse effect of actually reducing the number of people with health insurance, this will also mean that there will be less money to pay for the subsidies.

The system cannot pay for itself as it's currently configured. It will require one of two things:

1. Scrap it entirely. Let the market work, and allow people to at least purchase *some* insurance based on the income.

2. Tap into the general fund to pay the subsidies (and increase the income bar for them).


The Democrats are hoping for result 2. Remember that the point of this is to try to push us into single payer. Getting everyone off privately funded health care, and into the exchanges and then giving them all subsidies is the means to that end. The problem is that this will require an absolutely massive amount of money. And in the meantime, a whole hell of a lot of people will have to suffer with higher health care costs and/or lack of coverage.

Quote:
But you're not advocating for that, are you?


I'm not advocating it because it's not even an option here. I'm also not advocating for lowing the base cost for insurance to $1/year. Also because that's not a possible choice on the table. Similarly, I'm not advocating for magic unicorns to run around healing people with their magical horns either. Because that's also not something that can happen.

When we look at actual choices in front of us, we've basically got "toss a monumentally large amount of money down the toilet just to provide the same amount of health coverage people had before" and "realize this isn't going to work and go back to the way it was before". One of those choices makes sense from a rational point of view. The other is pure ideology at work.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Oct 04 2013 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
Really both of those options kinda stink going forward. It's not like the old system was working all that well to begin with. It's a little like someone asking if you want to get punched in the arm, or punched in the nuts. Sure, you'll say punched in the arm, but that doesn't mean you'll like it any.


Edited, Oct 4th 2013 3:45pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#33 Oct 04 2013 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That's funny given that those were arguments used *for* ACA.


That didn't answer the question. IS ACA worse than slavery that *literally* kills people?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#34 Oct 04 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Really both of those options kinda stink going forward. It's not like the old system was working all that well to begin with.


I agree. The problem is that Obamacare does not actually fix any of the existing problems. What it does it take those problems and make them worse, then attempt to wash over those problems by changing the method by which people pay for the care. It's a bait and switch. At the end of the day the "exchanges" are no different than the insurance market that already exists. They just put a name on them, and created state agencies (ie: more overhead) to help people connect to them. There were already free sources out there that did this (like say "find a doctor" type sites).

All that's really going on is that the new law puts lower limits on the coverage options themselves. A simple analogy would be if the government passed a law mandating that the minimum quality TV that could be sold in the US had to be a 50" flat screen, under the argument that it was unfair for people to have to put up with lower quality TVs (insert rhetoric about rich people being able to afford big TVs and poor people not). But how does that actually help someone who previously could not afford a 50" flat screen TV? Prior to the law, that person could buy a cheap 24" TV if that's all he could afford. Which, while not great, at least provide him with something. Now, he can't afford to buy any TV at all.

To carry the analogy further, imagine if previously your employer would provide you with a TV as part of your benefits. Of course, it was usually a cheap TV, but it was something, and you were free to pay more money to upgrade the quality of the TV you got if you wanted to. Now, the government mandate means that if the employer provides you with a TV, it must be at least a 50" one. Well, if that wasn't worth it before to the employer, it's probably still not worth it. So he may just drop the benefit. But it gets worse. The law also mandates that if the employer has over 50 full time employees, he must provide that high quality TV as a benefit. Hmmm... If the employer can reduce that number below the limit, he's off the hook, right? So now, you not only don't get the mediocre TV you were getting before but *also* have possibly gotten your hours (and pay) cut.

But wait! It gets worse. Even for those employers that have over 50 full time workers, they can choose to pay a fine instead of providing that expensive TV for their employees. Problem is that the fine is approximately half the cost of the minimum mandated TV. So.... Many will just do that instead.

And it gets even worse than that because the employee who's likely lost his health care because of this is *also* mandated to purchase a minimum quality TV (which is that 50" jobber that he couldn't afford at the beginning of all of this, right?). Now, if he's sufficiently poor (which is possible at this point given how badly he's been screwed over), the government might provide a subsidy to help him pay for this expensive TV, which may still be more than he can really afford. But if he's not quite poor enough yet, he has to pay full price. He doesn't even have a choice to buy a cheaper TV like he used to. It's been taken away from him.

And the final kicker. That employee can choose to not buy a TV at all. But if he does so, he has to pay a yearly fine. So basically he's paying for the privilege of *not* buying a TV. Great deal, right? Of course, if he ever needs a TV in the future, he can still buy one, but has to pay full price (for the expensive TV) at that point in time. The fine doesn't help him in any way. It's just paying money for nothing. So before he was paying a small amount for a small TV, and now he's paying a small amount for no TV.


And this is a good deal how, exactly?

Edited, Oct 4th 2013 4:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Oct 04 2013 at 4:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That's funny given that those were arguments used *for* ACA.


That didn't answer the question. IS ACA worse than slavery that *literally* kills people?


It also doesn't cause people to be used as a food supply. What's your point?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Oct 04 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It seems like his point should be that you're actually incapable of saying slavery was worse than the ACA. That's pretty hilarious.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Oct 04 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
That's funny given that those were arguments used *for* ACA.


That didn't answer the question. IS ACA worse than slavery that *literally* kills people?


It also doesn't cause people to be used as a food supply. What's your point?


That you have yet answered the question. IS ACA worse than slavery that *literally* kills people?

Take this as a small step to recover from your Zimmerman's embarrassment.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#38 Oct 04 2013 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
gbaji wrote:
I agree. The problem is that Obamacare does not actually fix any of the existing problems.
Yup, that's my take on it at least. You're in a sense forcing people to buy into a broken system. The same problems still dominate in the background. There's a large amount of fear, ignorance and greed in healthcare these days, add in a retiring baby boomer generation driving up costs and you have a nice storm brewing.

Slapping a band-aid on the problem and solving problems with stuff like "no one is turned away" and "everyone has to sign up or else..." doesn't really change much. You certainly have a list of winners and losers at this point (I think we could probably agree on any number of people who are either benefiting, getting the short end of the stick, or falling through the cracks). Not turning away someone who has a chronic condition maybe a humanitarian win, but it doesn't fix American health care.

Unfortunately those problems are probably beyond our current ability to fix, at least in my cynical eyes. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#39 Oct 04 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It seems like his point should be that you're actually incapable of saying slavery was worse than the ACA. That's pretty hilarious.


Huh? I'm not incapable of saying it. I think it's an irrelevant question, is all.

Almalieque wrote:
That you have yet answered the question. IS ACA worse than slavery that *literally* kills people?


Of course it's not worse than those. WTF? Now... show me where more than an incredibly tiny fringe group of people think this, much less oppose the ACA because of this? Can't do it, right?

Hence: Irrelevant.

Does opposing the ACA mean you want to kill grandmothers? Or you want people who get sick to die quickly? Because those were actually used by actual elected members of congress to attack people who opposed Obamacare. I mean, heaven forbid we actually use the same standards to measure the degree of rhetoric going on here.

And let's also not forget that I never claimed that people supported Obamacare because failing to do so would result in Granny getting killed, or people dying quickly (or slowly, or whatever). I said that people supported Obamacare because they were told that it would somehow make health care "more affordable" for them. Hell. It's even in the name Affordable Care Act.

Since the ACA will almost certainly make health care less affordable for most of the people it was targeted to help, that kinda means that they were lied to, right? I know that basic logic and reason isn't your strong suit, but countering that with some fringe rhetoric is weak at best.

Quote:
Take this as a small step to recover from your Zimmerman's embarrassment.


What embarrassment? I was right. I was right for a year before the jury came to the same conclusion that I made more or less on day one of the event. It was self defense. Following Martin didn't make it not self defense. End of story.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Oct 04 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I agree. The problem is that Obamacare does not actually fix any of the existing problems.
Yup, that's my take on it at least. You're in a sense forcing people to buy into a broken system.


This is actually the key component of Obamacare. They believe that if they can force everyone to pay into it, it'll make the costs come down and it wont be broken. Problem is that this can only possibly work (and that's even debatable) if you can completely remove the free market elements from the system. Something that Americans do not want at all. So any attempt do so something halfway to socialized medicine, only results in creating market forces that increase costs to consumers. There's just no way for what they were trying to do to work.

Quote:
Slapping a band-aid on the problem and solving problems with stuff like "no one is turned away" and "everyone has to sign up or else..." doesn't really change much. You certainly have a list of winners and losers at this point (I think we could probably agree on any number of people who are either benefiting, getting the short end of the stick, or falling through the cracks). Not turning away someone who has a chronic condition maybe a humanitarian win, but it doesn't fix American health care.


And it also losses sight of the issue. Is it costs? Or coverage? Pick one. The Obama administration sold this as a way to bring down costs (hence why they called it the "Affordable Care Act". But the law primarily forces higher levels of coverage. It's great for the person with a preexisting condition to not be turned away. But the problem wasn't that you couldn't get health insurance that covered preexisting conditions. It was that it was too expensive and most people either couldn't afford it, or didn't choose to pay for it (or employers didn't provide it).

Obamacare doesn't change that fact one bit. Except that now no one can choose to buy a cheaper health care plan if they want to. They're forced into buying a government mandated minimum coverage level. Guess who this hurts the most? Healthy folks in their 20s and 30s. Ironically, the group most vocal in support of the law.


Quote:
Unfortunately those problems are probably beyond our current ability to fix, at least in my cynical eyes. Smiley: rolleyes


/shrug

There's no magic bullet here, but IMO lower health care costs can best by achieved by having less government manipulation in the market, not more. When government acts as a player in an otherwise private market, costs tend to go up and quality tends to go down. There are some pretty obvious reasons why this is what happens. The biggest being that competition within the industry ceases to be the primary determinant of profits, replaced with compliance with government regulations and programs. Now, if governments were actually good at determining what consumer markets actually wanted and needed that might work. But they aren't. Not even close.

Edited, Oct 4th 2013 6:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Oct 04 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
The problem is that this will require an absolutely massive amount of money.


http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

Quote:
When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.


This is the part you've been force fed. The part your argument hinges on. The part you've been brainwashed to believe is the end to which the ACA should be judged.

Quote:
Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade.


This is the part that opponents of ACA conveniently ignore and don't allow to filter down to the nitwits at the bottom of the totem pole (see: yourself).

Implementation can change things, and revisions can be legislated, but as it stands (and indeed, as it has stood since the legislation was first introduced), the net impact of the ACA will be a deficit reduction.

The argument that increased subsidy is a transparent nudge toward a single payer system is valid, and remains to be played out, but basing your argument on the cost alone is a fallacy, a delusion.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#42 Oct 04 2013 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,446 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately those problems are probably beyond our current ability to fix, at least in my cynical eyes. Smiley: rolleyes


/shrug

There's no magic bullet here, but IMO health care costs can best by achieved by having less government manipulation in the market, not more. When government acts as a player in an otherwise private market, costs tend to go up and quality tends to go down. There are some pretty obvious reasons why this is what happens. The biggest being that competition within the industry ceases to be the primary determinant of profits, replaced with compliance with government regulations and programs. Now, if governments were actually good at determining what consumer markets actually wanted and needed that might work. But they aren't. Not even close.
I've always had problems reconciling this argument as many people in countries with government-run health care have lower overall costs (like everyone?). Granted I wouldn't want to subject myself to some of those healthcare systems (I can only imagine health care in Sudan is stellar), but there are a lot of countries on that list where people do quite well for themselves, and aren't throwing away money like we are. Not to say there isn't a benefit in a market, but it just makes it doubtful that's the biggest factor.

I think we had this discussion before and it ended in a list of reason and debate about why people don't make rational health care decisions? Can't remember honestly, we've gone over this a lot the last few years. Smiley: frown


Edited, Oct 4th 2013 6:11pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#43 Oct 04 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Quote:
Or how about a political advertisement showing a member of the GOP pushing granny off a cliff?
Seriously? That's hilarious. Too bad the GOP/Tea Party couldn't think of something like that with death panels.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#44 Oct 04 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
gbaji wrote:
The system cannot pay for itself as it's currently configured. It will require one of two things:

1. Scrap it entirely. Let the market work, and allow people to at least purchase *some* insurance based on the income.

2. Tap into the general fund to pay the subsidies (and increase the income bar for them).


The Democrats are hoping for result 2. Remember that the point of this is to try to push us into single payer. Getting everyone off privately funded health care, and into the exchanges and then giving them all subsidies is the means to that end. The problem is that this will require an absolutely massive amount of money. And in the meantime, a whole hell of a lot of people will have to suffer with higher health care costs and/or lack of coverage.


BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The problem is that this will require an absolutely massive amount of money.


Look above for the context of my statement. I was not talking about the ACA as it is currently budgeted and projected.

Quote:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

Quote:
When estimates are compared on a year-by-year basis, CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net budgetary impact of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions has changed little since February 2013 and, indeed, has changed little since the legislation was being considered in March 2010. In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period.


So this is entirely meaningless.

Quote:
This is the part you've been force fed. The part your argument hinges on. The part you've been brainwashed to believe is the end to which the ACA should be judged.


You completely failed to understand what I was talking about. I'm not talking about how much the existing ACA will cost. I'm saying that the ACA, as it currently is configured, will not be able to provide the coverage benefits people think it's going to provide. A whole hell of a lot of people, right now, are assuming that the cost for insurance to them on the exchanges will be lower than it was prior to starting this whole process back in 2009. And a whole hell of a lot of people are, right now, discovering that the same coverage that they couldn't afford prior to Obamcare, they still can't afford with Obamacare. The difference is that now, they no longer have an option to buy lesser coverage and are subject to a fine if they don't pay for the coverage that they can't afford now and couldn't afford then.

I'm not talking about the ACA budget as it exist right now (although it's already higher than expected and will be higher in the next 10 year period of time). I'm talking about how much more money it would cost to change the ACA to actually meet the expectations people were promised. Hence, why I said there were two approaches to fix the problems with Obamacare: scrap it entirely, or spend a massive amount more money.

I was talking about the difference between the expectations of those who supported Obamacare and the reality of Obamacare, and how much it would cost to make up that difference.


Quote:
The argument that increased subsidy is a transparent nudge toward a single payer system is valid, and remains to be played out, but basing your argument on the cost alone is a fallacy, a delusion.


No, it's not. The current ACA projections are based on some assumed amount of pay ins to the system, and assumed number of subsidies for lower income folks on the exchanges. That's fine. I happen to think they're off in those calculations, but that's not even the point I'm arguing here. I'm arguing that if we accept that the goal is to use this as a means to single payer, then the only route forward is to increase the number of people who receive subsidies. And that will require an absolutely massive amount of money.

Get it?


Edited, Oct 4th 2013 6:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Oct 04 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,091 posts
For the record, my husband and I don't qualify for subsidies, don't have to change insurance (since it's employer based), and our insurance premium only went up by 1% this year with no changes to copay.

So far the ACA has only lowered the cost of our prescription copays and otherwise hasn't affected us aside from Urgent Care visit copays dropping to the same price as a regular PCP visit.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#46 Oct 04 2013 at 8:54 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,834 posts
Catwho wrote:
For the record, my husband and I don't qualify for subsidies, don't have to change insurance (since it's employer based), and our insurance premium only went up by 1% this year with no changes to copay.

So far the ACA has only lowered the cost of our prescription copays and otherwise hasn't affected us aside from Urgent Care visit copays dropping to the same price as a regular PCP visit.

Oh the horror!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#47 Oct 04 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Of course it's not worse than those. WTF? Now... show me where more than an incredibly tiny fringe group of people think this, much less oppose the ACA because of this? Can't do it, right?

Hence: Irrelevant.


You said that the second group was not lied to, yet you just agreed that they were lied to. Hence: relevant.

Gabji wrote:
What embarrassment? I was right. I was right for a year before the jury came to the same conclusion that I made more or less on day one of the event. It was self defense. Following Martin didn't make it not self defense. End of story.

The embarrassment of contradicting yourself (like above) and instead of just admitting that you were wrong, tap dance around provocative statements (which contradicted your previous statements) in hopes that people would be side tracked.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#48 Oct 05 2013 at 1:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
gbaji wrote:

There has been lots of rhetoric on both sides of this, but the underlying arguments (setting aside that rhetoric) have been fundamentally truthful on the right and fundamentally untruthful on the left. Obamacare will reduce choices for people looking to buy health insurance.

So the ACA is forcing insurance companies to shut down, resulting in less choices.

Quote:
It will (already is) result in people's hours being cut in order to avoid certain mandates.

So the ACA is telling businesses that they need to cut peoples hours?

Quote:
It will (already is) cause employers to drop health insurance from their benefits.

So the ACA is telling employers to drop their benefits?

Quote:
It will (already is) cause base health insurance costs to increase.

So the ACA is telling insurance companies to raise their rates?

Wow, that really sucks. I didn't realize the ACA forced companies to make decisions that in the end will increase their profits. And here I thought it was just an excuse they were using to make their stockholders more money.
#49 Oct 05 2013 at 1:42 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Xantav wrote:

Wow, that really sucks. I didn't realize the ACA forced companies to make decisions that in the end will increase their profits. And here I thought it was just an excuse they were using to make their stockholders more money.


You would think that the conservative business lovers would realize that simple fact. Minimizing hours to prevent full time benefits is not something new. Furthermore, employers not providing health insurance FORCES the employees to SHOP around. As noted by both parties, not everyone innately benefits from Obamacare, so those people will only HELP small businesses.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#50 Oct 05 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,091 posts
Walmart of all companies apparently had to revise its policy of only hiring part timers now, because they can't convince people to keep their sh*tty part time only jobs with no benefits. As soon as someone finds something that has more hours or health insurance, they're leaving. Walmart has always scraped the bottom of the employment barrel, but even the bottom scrapings have a finite supply and know to look for a better job while they're getting shat upon.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#51 Oct 05 2013 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,164 posts
Going through the single payer plans, I think I found a decent one that I can afford. I had looked at single payer plans before, but the only provider in my state for them is BCBS, and their plans were expensive, even after the income-level adjustments.
____________________________
Banh
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 37 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, lolgaxe, Samira, Yodabunny, Anonymous Guests (33)