patrick.net

marcus says

TMAC54 says

Do you have first hand experience with this type of policy ?

Don't respond to any of my reasoning.

I would be defensive too. Utopia is a lovely fantasy, but is fraught with misunderstanding. Like we are discovering in our cosmos, there are unlimited new elements and all types of people to deal with. Our present welfare system is burdened with fraud & corruption.
Will Obamacare be any different ?

TMAC54 says

bob2356 says

You father must have been one hell of an engineer to make enough money to be in the 75% income tax bracket in 1952. Where in Europe was this by the way?

Glasgow.

Wow, he must have been a some type of super engineer. I looked up the UK tax rates for 1950, the 75% rate started at 120,000 pounds. Only 2.1% of the UK population paid over the basic 36% rate in 1950. How much over 120,000 pounds was he making that the 75% rate forced him to move to America? Was he able to make that kind of money as an engineer after moving to America in 1952?

bob2356 says

Only 2.1% of the UK population paid over the basic 36% rate in 1950. How much over 120,000 pounds was he making that the 75% rate forced him to move to America? Was he able to make that kind of money as an engineer after moving to America in 1952?

This is the same kind of "thinking" that gets working folks irate over the estate tax (cleverly renamed death tax). Very few of the people opposed to the estate tax actually know that there is a huge exemption, I think it currently 5 million valuation to an estate before any taxes are paid. Unless they hit the mega millions lottery most can rest assured that when they die their 3/2 house in the burbs is safe from Uncle Sam.

rdm says

bob2356 says

Only 2.1% of the UK population paid over the basic 36% rate in 1950. How much over 120,000 pounds was he making that the 75% rate forced him to move to America? Was he able to make that kind of money as an engineer after moving to America in 1952?

This is the same kind of "thinking" that gets working folks irate over the estate tax (cleverly renamed death tax). Very few of the people opposed to the estate tax actually know that there is a huge exemption, I think it currently 5 million valuation to an estate before any taxes are paid. Unless they hit the mega millions lottery most can rest assured that when they die their 3/2 house in the burbs is safe from Uncle Sam.

So true, there is projected to be a whopping 3,300 people out of 330 million paying estate tax this year. If the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled and estate tax goes back to 1 million exemption in 2013 there would be a projected 52,000 people paying estate tax out of 330 million. That certainly represents a huge percentage of the population affected by the death tax. Amazing the non issues that can be drummed up to scare the 99% into insisting on protecting the wealth of the 1%.

bob2356 says

The reason private employer health care plans proliferated was because in 1954 they became exempt from taxes. Public plans followed later as a way to avoid direct increases in public salaries. Follow the money.

You're a decade late.

As world war 2 began the need for more labor to build war machines combined with fewer men available since they were off fighting caused significant inflation as wages increased and the price of goods followed- 15% from January 1, 1941 to May 1, 1942.

To put a stop to that the government froze wages in 1942.

Benefits weren't considered wages, so companies attracted more workers through things like health insurance in lieu of more cash.

In 1943 the IRS ruled that these benefits were not taxable.

TMAC54 says

Will Obamacare be any different ?

Actually the rationing part will not be any different. Rationing is done all the time now, right out in the open, and it's understandable. Medicare is already involved with care for the elderly, the age where these issues or risks exist, and there is a degree of transparency in the rationing.

If someone is 84 and weak after dealing with a series of debilitating problems, for years, do you do a $700K procedure (and follow up care) that they have a 37% chance of living through, and even if they do make it through only about a 20% chance of living more than one additional year (in discomfort and disabled), because of all of the other problems the person has ?

You do know those decisions are made all the time now right ? The doctor doesn't even try to proceed with this. In many cases, these decisions don't even reach the desk of an insurance person who will say no, because the decision isn't only about money.

marcus says

Actually the rationing part will not be any different. Rationing is done all the time now, right out in the open, and it's understandable.

Medicare is already involved to a degree with care for the elderly, the age where these issues or risks exist, and there is a degree of transparency in the rationing.

The rationing will be plenty different for people too young for Medicare and not poor enough for Medicaid.

Today the insurance companies make more money by reducing their loss ratios, with the best companies spending only 60% of premiums on medical care. One $700K procedure is $700K less profit and they'd rather avoid it

As of 2014 they must spend at least 80% of premiums on medical care and give back any excess. A $700K procedure will allow them to collect or retain $875K in premiums of which they keep $175K for overhead and profits. They'll gladly allow the surgery, especially if it may lead to another $700K procedure with $175K for their cut.

drew_eckhardt says

They'll gladly allow the surgery, especially if it may lead to another $700K procedure with $175K for their cut.

Interesting theory, but you're missing a few things. It won't be viewed this way.

Remember, part of the argument for keeping insurance companies in the process is free markets and competition. Hopefully republican's big idea of allowing competition across state lines will be added. There also will be a public option.

THey have an incentive to keep membership prices to their plans down.
Current plans, such as those at large corporations, which are basically pooling of health care costs shared across a large group, won't change.

Health care is already too expensive, and for any insurance or group plan, they don't need to try to get the total amount they pay to providers to be high. It will be anyway. Their focus will on on efficient administration. That's where their profits have (in the past) and will come from. The health plans that can do this most efficiently will have the best rates and the most members (were talking entire corporations that will choose them!)

I can see that there will be all kinds of complexity, and probably ways that Obama Care gets "gamed"and then necessary tweaks down the road. But the exciting thing is that health care in the US is evolving.

It seems to me that the least the critics can do is try to understand it, before assuming it's bad.

I'll say it again. Anyone benefiting from any govt. program funded by tax dollars is a SOCIALIST. How you like it,Neo-Con Republican
Teabagger Libertarian Freeloaders. I guess the N-CRTLF will have to pay the taxes but I'm sure they won"t participate in any of the services.

marcus says

Interesting theory, but you're missing a few things. It won't be viewed this way.

Remember, part of the argument for keeping insurance companies in the process is free markets and competition.

You're assuming that health care is a free market which it isn't.

In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (who controlled 90% of the fire insurance market in six southern states and set non-competitive rates) c. 1944 SCOTUS ruled that insurance was not interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress.

Following that descision Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson act which exempts insurance carriers from most federal regulation including the anti-trust laws.

Competition doesn't and needn't figure into the rates charged. The last increase on my adult son's insurance was from $85 to $140 which is not consistent with a competitive market. Obamacare does not change this.

Hopefully republican's big idea of allowing competition across state lines will be added. There also will be a public option.

There is no public option because the Republicans opposed it.

The closest we come to that is not-for-profit insurance exchanges which provide one-stop shopping for a variety of tiered insurance products with minimum price variations between different for-profit providers that choose to participate.

If we had a free market for health insurance, health insurance companies should be allowed to drop you as soon as you develop a serious health condition. This is the logical and rational thing for them to do.

Wait a minute you say, I would buy from a good company, one that promises not to do this. The problem is that company would have to charge more and more until you say, my god I'm paying for all these sick people, I am switching to a cheaper company - as I won't get sick. As healthy people leave the good company, it will quickly go under.

This is why private health insurance needs to be regulated. Fire insurance is statistically independent (except for wildfires). Life insurance is a one time only event. The total liability in car insurance is limited. These type of insurance products work and work well in the private sector. Health insurance does not, because of the lack of statistical independence between "health events".

The current system is already heavily regulated to avoid some of the problems mentioned above. If you feel Obamacare is bad, you should be pushing for a more free market, so you to can be dropped when you get sick. As costs rise, more people are being pushed out the current system, which is only leading to faster escalating costs for the people left in the system. You might not want to acknowledge it, but someone is already paying for the uninsured right now. At least Obamacare makes it more transparent who is picking up the tab.

If you are against Obamacare and Medicare, what is your solution? Leave it alone? It really is not going to work. Repeal regulation? I admire your bravado, I just hope no one you love gets sick. We need ideas folks.

marcus says

This is a stupid fear.

man, I remember a dorm-room bull session from *1985* going over universal coverage overwhelming the health system due to new demand.

Unbelievable that we're only now moving towards some progress here, but still have the same BS arguments to go through.

Health Care and Health Insurance are two different items, that's the first thing everyone needs to get straight. Health Care, or the actual services rendered for seeing to the health of an individual, vs. a payment method of paying for those services rendered in Health Insurance. As Oliverks1 above pointed out, Health Insurance is a different animal in "almost" every aspect of an insurance payment vehicle when compared to other insurance products, and it seems that it is also one where individuals paying for it seem to be the most removed from seeing the money put in % vs. insurance claims paid, and any other negotiatory services (or monopolistic practices, whatever the case may be) rendered for the claimant.

This Gigantic text of a law is so immense, one could say intentionally so as to inter-twine these two separate services in an attempt to completely confuse and cause a lay person uneducated in legalese to give up whatever feeble attempt they may undertake to understand it before they even get past the first few pages. Then, if they do get so far as the first 100 pages, they have got to the point where that line between health care, and method of payment for that care has been blurred into oblivion.

It's absolute hogwash, congress, senate, do your duties now! (repeal this pig!)

You all would do well to watch this synopsis by Peter Schiff http://www.youtube.com/embed/NNCyEC9r_mk&list=UUIjuLiLHdFxYtFmWlbTGQRQ&index=0&feature=plcp

Schiff: Mental masterbation, about the SCOTUS decsion.

He never says anything about the true intent of the ACA, and very little about the expected impact. I don't recall ever hearing someone say so little in 20 minutes of talking.

ForcedTQ says

This Gigantic text of a law is so immense

This is talking-point bullshit from the right.

PPACA is a law that regulates the largest sector of our economy -- healthcare, ~20% of GDP -- so it needs to be a long law to cover what it does.

Unlike the Republican's Medicare Part D, it needed to be paid for, and that added a lot of words too.

It's absolute hogwash, congress, senate, do your duties now!

You're the hogwash.

PPACA's fundamental effect is just getting everyone into the existing systems of private insurance. It's not HillaryCare, which wanted to replace the existing system with managed insurance programs.

It also allows states to put people making under $15,000/yr on the their state medicaid programs, with the Feds covering 90% of the cost to them.

The amount of outright lying the conservative right is doing about this is really stunning to me. It's (mostly) their damn idea!

The real thing they don't like about PPACA, and the reason they're trying to stir up so resistance to it, is the 3.8% capital gains tax it added to people making bank.

They don't like that, no siree. That's the true point of objection, most everything else is just bullshit.

Reasonable people also understand that the premium subsidies, being more generous than the MA plan, are also going to have to be paid by the 1% in the end, too. That alone will cost about what the Bush tax cut is giving them, $80B/yr or more.

Once again I think the whole thing is ridiculous. I'm sure you all have your little health stories. You could get sick right now and get treated for free at almost any hospital. They usually don't turn sick people away. Everyone in here for the most part is healthy. The earth keeps you really healthy. However you people want to live like hypochondriacs be my guest. When you work for someone they work you like pack mules to begin with. Just the fatigue from the way many of you are worked, debt, expressway time etc. is enough to make someone sick and die at an early age. That don't matter to you keep plowing. Forced slavery they don't live long. Debt servitude I see the same. The only difference one they hold a gun on you and make you labor. The other one you go into debt and have to labor. Both use your labor in any way they like. You better do it. Do it on time. Do it the way they want it. Till they say your done. Buddy don't fall asleep cause the boss mans a coming. Servitude means you don't know what its like to be free. Of course Jesus said "Serve one another". So were here to serve each other, horseshit. "Healthcare" another scheme isn't going to solve that. It isn't going to make you free either.

Don't put yourself in the "hole".

http://www.youtube.com/embed/oudNoKfNUfs

marcus says

Schiff: Mental masterbation, about the SCOTUS decsion.

He never says anything about the true intent of the ACA, and very little about the expected impact. I don't recall ever hearing someone say so little in 20 minutes of talking.

Did you watch the entire video? Or did you turn it off after the first 30 seconds, or, watch it at all? His points in the video about the actual premium payment pyramid where by individuals can move from insurance company to insurance company unencumbered by previous conditions make a valid point of why even the current private health insurance system is extremely flawed.

No reason to talk about the SCOTUS decision? Why, because it is said and done, and there is nothing we can do about it? I ask that you not be a member of the "Do as you're told" club.

By the way, do you know what the actual true intent of the ACA is, and if by way of this "law" it is even going to be achievable? Being honest for myself, I haven't been able to figure the entire thing out yet.

Don't get me wrong, they way things are set up now are FAWKED up! The way that the ACA will have them, what we are all changing to now, don't seem to be any better. It just seems that the wolves will now be receiving a somewhat higher stream of funding. If they bet well with it, do you really think we will see lower or even steady premiums as a result of the profits they make?

Jews continually score 39 point higher in any kind of IQ test. Quick. Semites I watched Lewis Black the other night. He's funny.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/LGrlWOhtj3g

ForcedTQ says

Did you watch the entire video?

Yes. I may have skipped throuh a minute here and there when he repeated himself.

ForcedTQ says

By the way, do you know what the actual true intent of the ACA is

OF course. Above all it's about covering preexisitng conditions and taking away lifetime caps, and expanding access. Not even considering what happens to premiums, everyone must be covered if you want to address preexisting conditions, hence the mandate. But since the mandate also forces relatively young and or healthy to have health insurance, it at least partially pays for the benefits I just mentioned.

In other threads, I mentioned that I have a chronic health issue, and that I don't go to the doctor all that frequently. And in the past, I addressed my issues (its an intestinal/digestive thing) with diet and alternative medicine.

Want to guess one of the big reasons why ? Because I knew that if I stayed away from doctors about my health issues (which started when I was a child) long enough, it would not be a preexisting condition, and I would be able to get insurance, at my next job or later, and i wouldn't have to worry about being discriminated against for my health issues.

(it was also because I knew that doctors didn't really understand my condition that well and were likely to prescribe toxic medicines or use surgery (again) - but that's another story)

My situation isn't and wasn't all that bad (except for a couple periods of time) but can you imagine having a REALLY serious health issue and being dropped from insurance, and not being able to get new insurance ? What if you're relatively low income and your child has a health problem or illness that's going to extremely expensive to treat ?

Just out of luck ? AS it stands now, this means bankruptcy, and maybe worse.

ForcedTQ says

The way that the ACA will have them, what we are all changing to now, don't seem to be any better.

???

Better Yahoo article on Obamacare tax increases:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/taxes-going-pay-pay-obamacare-145413745.html

Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

Note that these taxes are both "progressive" (aimed at rich people) and "regressive" (aimed at the middle class and poor people). The big ones--the 3.8% investment income hike and the Medicare tax increase--only hit you if you're making more than $200,000 a year. The rest hit you no matter how much you're making.

Anyone else think that these alone won't pay for the extra deadbeats we will be supporting with Obamacare?

zzyzzx says

Anyone else think that these alone won't pay for the extra deadbeats we will be supporting with Obamacare?

Yep, this is all about continuing the support of deadbeats. This is what we should do to all the freeloaders...

Unions are probably the most upset group over this. Every single one of them have "cadillac" plans. They get to pay taxes into the system.

Of course they are going to try to stick taxpayers with it, but that's a whole other story.

zzyzzx says

Anyone else think that these alone won't pay for the extra deadbeats we will be supporting with Obamacare?

The big cost the PPACA covers isn't the deadbeats (in fact dead beats will pay a fine unless their income is below a threshold).

The biggest new costs that will be covered (and paid for by the ACA) are preexisting conditions, removing lifetime caps (so if someone has a relapse of their cancer the insurance company doesn't say - sorry you already hit your lifetime cap), and generally people can't be kicked off of a policy for being sick.

This is a huge win for the people. Real coverage, rather than just something that healthy people pay for and sometimes only sometimes receive benefits.

bob2356 says

FortWayne says

It because this way because the unions which run this country felt that for generations employer must provide health insurance, and that's how the system adjusted.

Private employer union membership is something like 7%. Public is 30%. I can certainly see how they run the country. How is it that so many countries with much stronger unions never developed employer health care? The reason private employer health care plans proliferated was because in 1954 they became exempt from taxes. Public plans followed later as a way to avoid direct increases in public salaries. Follow the money.

Try a 78 percent unionized public workforce, not 30. I would like to see the private sector as heavily unionized as the public sector, but the past 30+ years have seen the dismantling of private-sector unions.

zzyzzx - Great poster - "Governmental Irony". Where can I get a copy?

BTW, it clearly demonstrates the schizophrenic mindset of liberal lawmakers, doesn't it?

Honest Abe says

Where can I get a copy?

Somebody needs to teach Abe how to use a computer.

Abe, do a google search on "how to copy and paste an image" If you are on a pc look into "save image as."

I think it's ironic that you're intellectually about as sophisticated as you are in how to use a computer.

Marcus, OK - I can do the "save image as" - but how do I go from that to a 24" by 36" poster on glossy paper?

Thanks for your help. Abe.

P.S. The message on the poster is clearly a mixed message, isn't it?

The welfare question is a little more complicated than the question of feeding bears at Yosemite.

It's not as brilliant an insight as you think.

Nobody ever thought it would be a good idea to give people a free standard of living that is as good as what they can get from working.

Is there a really big problem when our economy can not provide opportunities for some that will pay them better than welfare ? OR when the pay is so low, that they qualify for food stamps and health care even when they have a minimum wage job ?

Yes, that's a problem. What's your solution ? Give them nothing, until they resort to crime, and then pay even more to some private prison companies to house them?

Marcus, good point, you said: Nobody ever thought it would be a good idea to give people a free standard of living that is as good as what they can get from working.

Except that is what we have in many cases. Its financially better, after paying taxes and withholding, to freeload than it is to work. How about this: cut the size and expense of government, cut taxes, cut withholding. Let the worker keep more of the fruits of their own labor rather than stealing it and sending it off to Washington to be wasted and squandered.

That way it might be possible to shift millions of people from welfare to work - because now they can AFFORD to work.

I can't have an intelligent conversation with you Abe. You not only speak in right wing sound bites, you think in them too.

THe truth that you would never understand is that I'm a conservative. But I'm a conservative in the real world, which doesn't lend itself to such silliness.

Welfare reform already incentivizes work. But since noboy can live on $134/week there's food stamps and other aid.

marcus says

Yes, that's a problem. What's your solution ? Give them nothing, until they resort to crime, and then pay even more to some private prison companies to house them?

Hahaha, you're a conservative, on what planet? If welfare reform incentivizes work, why are so many on welfare? Could it be because of liberal government policies (which you support) keep indentured voters indentured?

In other words, so you can understand, if the government continues to shackle people with dependency, the dependents MUST support those policies, or else.

We're doomed as a species because of our ability to believe what we want to believe, rather than do real objective analysis.

If you have ever wondered why so many of history's worst dictators were able to get a big enough following to get off the ground, this is the reason.

Check this out. From A Texas GOP platform. See page 12

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority

Honest Abe says

In other words, so you can understand, if the government continues to shackle people with dependency, the dependents MUST support those policies, or else.

Was there a tiny little moment where you comprehended what I was saying and when you considered the painful truth that you're full of shit, before not answering the question and going back to spouting silly mindless drivel ?

monkframe says

Try a 78 percent unionized public workforce, not 30.

Department of labor says 36%, where are you getting your numbers from?

marcus says

Was there a tiny little moment where you comprehended what I was saying and when you considered the painful truth that you're full of shit, before not answering the question and going back to spouting silly mindless drivel ?

The Ignore feature is a wonderful thing.

marcus says

Yes, that's a problem. What's your solution ? Give them nothing, until they resort to crime,

The solution is to give them less, a lot less, so that they have incentive to take a job normally done by Mexicans.