[talaniman]

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!!

[paraclete]

It's just a restatement of the Praeto Priniciple but used out of context

[tomder55]

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

[speechlesstx]

So this is about you deciding who gets dwindling resources? Now I get it

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.

[talaniman]

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

“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.”

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.

[talaniman]

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.

How about WE decide? That my friend is done at the ballot box.

[tomder55]

'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 .

[paraclete]

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 coersion

[talaniman]

'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 .

Tell that to the farmers and ranchers who don't want to sell their property for the keystone pipeline.

[tomder55]

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 .

[tomder55]

or that the state should set a minimum standard because the individual will do nothing without coersion

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.

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

The redistribution of wealth is a function of government by reason of their power to levy taxation

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 .

[Tuttyd]

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.

[talaniman]

Geez poor people are already poor, and the rich are getting richer, so somebody has already redistributed the wealth.

That was well said Tutty.

[speechlesstx]

Geez poor people are already poor, and the rich are getting richer, so somebody has already redistributed the wealth.

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.

[talaniman]

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

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4280469.html

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.

[paraclete]

pehaps this explains the situation

[tomder55]

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”.

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”.

Obamacare Architect: Genetic "Lottery Winners" Have Been Paying An "Artificially Low Price" | Video | RealClearPolitics
Typical lefty nonsense . It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others.They should pay a price for that inequity .

[talaniman]

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?