If a baseball player singles once in 4 tries he is average, twice in 4 times he is a millionaire. 80% of 20% of the population is a great number to start with for the first 2 months.
Nice try!!
|
If a baseball player singles once in 4 tries he is average, twice in 4 times he is a millionaire. 80% of 20% of the population is a great number to start with for the first 2 months.
Nice try!!
It's just a restatement of the Praeto Priniciple but used out of context
Right now the part that lets you pay is one of the parts that don't work . The ACA is impractical, doesn't cut costs, forces Americans to buy something they don't want, and currently can't be used. Delaying the launch won't fix the fundamental flaws. This aint baseball.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
CS Lewis
As opposed to you deciding what to do with my resources? I'm not the guy trying to redistribute other people's money, rationing their care and limiting their choices.Quote:
So this is about you deciding who gets dwindling resources? Now I get it
The website has alternatives if you go directly to your own state. And costs ARE going down, to the government any way, but cost shifting is but a part of it.
Daily Kos: ACA holding down costs by cutting back on coverage
Blaming government for business practice is a distractions to the nature of for profit business policies, and practices. They are going to get theirs no matter what.Quote:
“Doing so enables health plans to offer lower premiums,” the study said. “But the use of narrow networks may also lead to higher out-of-pocket expenses, especially if a patient has a complex medical problem that's being treated at a hospital that has been excluded from their health plan.”
. . . .
Outsiders might expect insurance companies to expand their networks to treat additional patients next year. But many insurers see advantages in narrow networks, saying they can steer patients to less expensive doctors and hospitals that provide high-quality care.
Even though insurers will be forbidden to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, they could subtly discourage the enrollment of sicker patients by limiting the size of their provider networks.
“If a health plan has a narrow network that excludes many doctors, that may shoo away patients with expensive pre-existing conditions who have established relationships with doctors,” said Mark E. Rust, the chairman of the national health care practice at Barnes & Thornburg, a law firm. “Some insurers do not want those patients who, for medical reasons, require a broad network of providers.”
How about WE decide? That my friend is done at the ballot box.Quote:
As opposed to you deciding what to do with my resources? I'm not the guy trying to redistribute other people's money, rationing their care and limiting their choices.
'we' don't decide to confiscate other people's property . Property rights is one of the reasons the revolution was fought in the 1st place. When a person's body and property are controlled by the whim of the masses ,at the consent of the state ,then they are living in a tyranny .
ironic isn't it, you have fought tyranny all over the world, and yet you have found it right in your own nation. which is the greater tyranny, that the needs of the poor should be ignored in the interests of individual, or that the state should set a minimum standard because the individual will do nothing without coersionQuote:
When a person's body and property are controlled by the whim of the masses ,at the consent of the state ,then they are living in a tyranny .
Tell that to the farmers and ranchers who don't want to sell their property for the keystone pipeline.Quote:
'we' don't decide to confiscate other people's property . Property rights is one of the reasons the revolution was fought in the 1st place. When a person's body and property are controlled by the whim of the masses ,at the consent of the state ,then they are living in a tyranny .
the taking clause reads "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ”
Where is the just compensation in taking someone's wealth and giving it to someone else ? That's just plain plunder . And yes ,the courts have distorted the intent of the taking clause beyond all reasonable recognition .
I'll deny your phony charge every time you make it . We do not oppose a safety net. That is not the same as redistribute other people's money, rationing their care and limiting their choices.Quote:
or that the state should set a minimum standard because the individual will do nothing without coersion
You appoint a government to levy taxes and determine how they might be expended for the greater good, part of that greater good is dealing with disadvantage and poverty. The redistribution of wealth is a function of government by reason of their power to levy taxation, it is implicit in the very concept of taxation. Your choices are limited by the concentration of wealth and sometimes the choice of the wealthy to accumulate wealth must be limited
If there is taxation for the purpose of redistribution ,then the government is abusing it's power. The power to levy taxes is limited and defined and the general welfare clause in no way suggests that Congress has the power to redistribute wealth. Had something like that been suggested ,the Constitution would never 've been ratified .Quote:
The redistribution of wealth is a function of government by reason of their power to levy taxation
Meanwhile?? Do you mean mean while lets focus on how limited health resources can be redistributed? Or ,as you are suggesting, not redistributed so as to keep the status quo. After all with a limited resource we wouldn't want to reshuffle the winners and losers.
You need to forget about safety nets when you are talking health care. Health care is not of the same type as other welfare benefits. The safety net should be a 'floor'. A floor whereby nobody slips through the gaps and requires a safety net.
Geez poor people are already poor, and the rich are getting richer, so somebody has already redistributed the wealth.
That was well said Tutty.
You never complain about your own greedy, wealthy guys. You defend redistributing OUR money to your own preferred industries and I have yet to see you complain about union bosses fattening their own wallets on the backs of workers so spare us the faux outrage.Quote:
Geez poor people are already poor, and the rich are getting richer, so somebody has already redistributed the wealth.
I never said right, or left greedy rich guys. I said greedy rich guys.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/21/news...nia/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4280469.htmlQuote:
Younger Californians age 18 to 34 account for about 22.5% of the sign ups in October, just about the share they represent in the state population. Luring in younger and healthier consumers, who use fewer medical services and would offset older, costlier policyholders, are vital to the health of the state exchange. If young people don't enroll, then rates could soar for 2015
Quote:
In California, the state with the largest uninsured population, most of those who applied were older people with health problems. In Kentucky, nearly 3 of 4 enrollees were over 35. In Washington state, about 23 percent of enrollees were between 18 and 34. And in Ohio, groups helping with enrollment described many of those coming to them as older residents who lost their jobs and health coverage during the recession.
"They have been putting off treatment for a long time, just praying they live until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare," said Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks, which received federal grant money to help people establish coverage.
That people with serious health conditions would be the first to take advantage of the Affordable Care Act was expected. But that direction must shift.
In general, someone in his 60s uses $6 in health care services for every $1 tallied by someone in his 20s, said Nicole Kasabian Evans of the California Association of Health Plans. That makes younger adults a coveted group on industry balance sheets.
pehaps this explains the situation
Attachment 44727
that chart is absolute BS !!! It doesn't take into account what will happen when the employer mandate kicks in (ie all those people in the blue part of the pie graph)... and the other 20 % is at best an unrealistic optimistic projection not based on any facts I know of . According to the CBO ,the law will add insurance coverage by about 26 million people through 2016, or 8% of the population ,not 14% . The 3 % who have compliant plans are already seeing their premiums rise because the uninsured ,especially with pre existing conditions must be underwritten . Finally this chart is based on estimates from Jon Gruber ,professor at MIT and widely recognized as the father of Obamacare individual mandate . He persuaded the emperor that everyone should be required to get health insurance.
He's a nut job . He recently told Chuck Todd of NBC that there are genetic "lottery winners " who have been paying an artificially low premium for health insurance .In this interview he let the cat out of the bag about the real purpose of Obamacare . It's not to provide affordable health care for everyone ...it's about a “discriminatory” old system, and the government “fix”.
Obamacare Architect: Genetic "Lottery Winners" Have Been Paying An "Artificially Low Price" | Video | RealClearPoliticsQuote:
We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you're sick, if you've been sick or [if] you're going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance. The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price.
That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who've been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we'll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance”.
Typical lefty nonsense . It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others.They should pay a price for that inequity .
So I guess we either go back to the old system, where the markets excluded millions, and the rest of us pay, or we have Medicare for all. It's the for profit middle men that have more control over costs than either the government, or the consumers.
If all those employers dump their employees into the exchanges, would employees be compensated for the loss in benefits?
What is nonsense, Tom, is your inability to see that the problem of people being uninsurable and uninsured had to be solved because the market mechanism had failed. Obviously safety nets hadn't solved the problem of the behaviour of the insurers and the very real problem in hard economic times of what happens when you lose employer based health care. It is in the public interest and the public good to solve this problem. Health care is not a problem only your nation faces, it is a problem all nations face. What makes your case unique is the redicuously high cost base and the unwillingness of the government to deal effectively with the marketQuote:
Typical lefty nonsense . It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others.They should pay a price for that inequity
Oh come on Tom, between companies that want to make money, and insurance companies that want to make money, real people are just a mean to an end. A necessary business expense. If he can cut your hours, cut your wages, or cut your benefits to swell his profit he will, and has done it. And that goes for that pension if you have one.
So think hard before you keep denying other what you yourself have worked and sacrificed for because as surely as they impoverish your fellows and shred the safety net, what the hell makes you think it won't be you next? Or us?
Tal Tom is the perfect ostrich, he has his head in the republican sand box, a place where no one ever gets sick, everyone has a job provided by the job creators and money grows on trees
Thus he believes he needs to make no contribution from his coffers towards the general upkeep of this constitutional republican utopia. In Tom's world the poor live somewhere offshore and can be ignored or exploited
Sometimes better known as, "I'm all right Jack so why aren't you?"
"typical lefty nonsense. It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others. They should be made to pay for the inequality."
Tom, this is pathetic. Of course they should.
You just can't get over this idea that equity of health care is somehow about treating people who are unequal differently. In this respect unequal in terms of the likelihood of suffering a chronic illness.
Yes Tutt Tom doesn't understand the all men are equal clause he thinks they were all created equal in health and opportunity and it is their fault if they are sick or in disadvantaged circumstance
The truth is that with the exception of the very few who are born with serious health conditions,very few people have preexisting conditions prior to age 22-26 that would disqualify them from an individual health policy. What you mean is that poor is a medical condition and being self sufficient and healthy is the result of "luck " instead of hard work . Even the 1st Lady doesn't buy into your pablum .She believes that lifestyle is a much bigger factor ;and she's right .But in Gruber's world ,those who take the steps to stay healthy and takes personal responsibility seriously, as the 1st Lady suggests ,get penalized for their efforts in paying for those who don't .Sorta a reverse social darwinism . What this is ,is the progressives shoving their idea of fairness down everyone's throat .
There is nothing fair in redistribution of "wealth." Dems are just pirates plundering the high seas of hard earned success.
Interesting Tom. And what type of Social Darwinism do you buy into? Obviously not the reverse type.
But its okay to redistribute the wealth to the rich guys and let them plunder the high seas and call it EARNED? I call it corporate welfare.Quote:
There is nothing fair in redistribution of "wealth." Dems are just pirates plundering the high seas of hard earned success.
You say that as if I'm a fan of corporate welfare.
Hint: this is where you channel Emily Litella.
So, about all those healthy, young adults needed to prop up Obamacare...
At least the media is finally getting around to fact checking the regime. So how many do you suppose will opt to pay for both the premiums and their out-of-pockets and deductibles and how many will pay the fine and not worry about it until they need insurance?Quote:
CNN analysis: No Obamacare subsidy for some low-income Americans
Washington (CNN) -- One of the basic tenets of Obamacare is that the government will help lower-income Americans -- anyone making less than about $45,900 a year -- pay for the health insurance everyone is now mandated to have.
But a CNN analysis shows that in the largest city in nearly every state, many low-income younger Americans won't get any subsidy at all. Administration officials said the reason so many Americans won't receive a subsidy is that the cost of insurance is lower than the government initially expected. Subsidies are calculated using a complicated formula based on the cost of insurance premiums, which can vary drastically from state to state, and even county to county.
That doesn't change the fact that in Chicago, a 27-year old will receive no subsidy to help offset premiums of more than $165 a month if he makes more than $27,400 a year.
In Portland, Oregon, subsidies for individuals making just $28,725 a year phase out for those younger than 35 years old.
The subsidies situation is adding another layer of complications and calculations to the already-complex picture of Obamacare.
Those figures are based on filings of people who have no other deductions, primarily short form filers/earners.
For example, a mortgage deduction greatly lowers earnings that are taxable. As does child support, or anything that makes filing a long form possible, no matter the age. Older people tend to have more deductions, but working youngsters may not know what they can deduct.
I got that from the website. Anecdotes don't give the whole individual story. Factual data in individual cases is more important than just the emotional reaction. Most 27 year old I know have dependents and student payments, but some don't.
I see. Alrighty then.
Sounds like young folks need to get into some serious debt so they can afford to buy health insurance. Believe it or not, I want healthcare for every citizen to work, but this ACA is so full of holes mainly because no one reviewed it adequately before it was passed. Fail to plan, plan to fail.
Is the real reason the computer programmers are having so much difficulty the fact that there are too many 2+2 =5 flaws in the logic of the law? Maybe more than even Michelle's college friend can handle.
No it's because they decided to built it from scratch, the database needed is enormous, they have to link to other data and transfer data to insurers, the government and so forth, as well as process payments, bill participants. Complexity creates problems in softwareQuote:
Is the real reason the computer programmers are having so much difficulty the fact that there are too many 2+2 =5 flaws in the logic of the law? Maybe more than even Michelle's college friend can handle.
But it creates multimillion dollar no-bid contracts for your friends.Quote:
Complexity creates problems in software
P.S. Complexity in bills no one read also creates far more losers than they want you to believe. Another slam from Zero's hometown paper...
Quote:
If President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders think the outcry against Obamacare is fierce now, watch if millions more Americans get blindsided with the news that they'll be forced into these dysfunctional government online marketplaces. Some will face higher premiums or higher deductibles, and they'll be required to share private medical and financial information on a website with a questionable security firewall, opening them to fraudsters, hackers and cyberchaos.
The full brunt of Obamacare's impact on Americans is still gathering. Every law creates winners and losers, but with this law so far, the losers are piling up:
• Millions of Americans have seen their individual coverage canceled and are scrambling to find new policies. Many are learning that their new coverage will probably cost more via higher premiums and deductibles … if they can break through the error messages to the HealthCare.gov website. The president's tepid "fix" last week would allow (but not require) insurers to renew old individual policies for a year, if state regulators are on board with that. On Friday, Illinois officials announced they would allow this temporary remedy. Now we'll see how Illinois insurers respond. Whatever happens, this move is only a delay. A complete overhaul of the federal law is still urgently needed.
• People who gain coverage through smaller employers are at risk of getting cancellation notices next year. Here's why: Many businesses with fewer than 50 employees buy coverage in the small-group market. These plans can temporarily keep offering coverage that didn't meet expensive Obamacare requirements. When that ends next year, though, many employers may cancel policies because Obamacare coverage will likely boost costs.
• Hospitals are bracing for financial turbulence as out-of-pocket deductibles climb and people find themselves liable for more of their medical bills before insurance kicks in, The Tribune's Peter Frost reports.
In the past, hospitals could count on insurers to pay 80 to 90 percent of the cost of services, leaving the rest to patients. For patients with high-deductible plans, however, the insurer's share drops to as low as 60 percent, with consumers on the hook for the balance. And if patients can't pay? Hospitals can write it off as bad debt or, in some cases, charity care. But many hospitals are already operating on thin margins. Add them to the list of potential Obamacare losers in waiting.
Tens of millions of people who have coverage through large American companies aren't losers … yet. The administration granted those businesses a one-year reprieve from the Obamacare mandate to provide coverage or pay penalties. That ends for 2015, and employers are already calculating what to do. Some may cut jobs, or employees' hours, to avoid offering costly insurance coverage. Other companies may dump everyone into the federal exchanges and pay penalties that are almost certain to be less than what coverage would cost.
"For example, a mortgage deduction greatly lowers earnings that are taxable. As does child support, or anything that makes filing a long form possible, no matter the age. Older people tend to have more deductions, but working youngsters may not know what they can deduct."
Tal. You are wrong. Child support IS NOT deductable. Those paying it stand to suffer the most under obamacare. They will have their income at the highest levels while in fact thier income may be at the lowest levels even below poverty. No help in site. Please get the facts straight.
The day is coming that to fix the mess the government will need to assume the central role
If your talking about head of household. That is exactly what they are trying to accomplish.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:54 AM. |