patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

it's all a wash in the end

If you believe that than you'd have no problem with the old subsidizing the young instead.

In any case, you have not addressed any of the objections I had to the ACA including it's ultimate doom.

Bellingham Bill says

Dan8267 says

But it should be socially just. I see no justice in having a poor generation subsidize the richest generation in American history, especially when that generation is the reason the careers of the younger generation are so dismal.

following generations inherit the richest generation's stuff anyway; it's all a wash in the end

That's some irrational boomer hate right there.

A "medicare for all" single payer type system would be better and more efficient, but it would be the same in the sense that the young pay in for benefits they mostly receive when they are older. And like the ACA, the older people are paying an amount that is less than their commensurate risk.

Dan doesn't seem to realize that what's bothering him is a sort of one time benefit that the older people just starting on the ACA now receive, not having had to be insured when they were younger and healthier, or if they did, it cost less.

This is like people that were say 45 when social security started. They ended up taking out far more from the system than they paid in. Some will try to complain that it's a pay as you go "ponzi scheme" even now (which it isn't - especially if done right).But sure - the people that were older when it started and didn't pay in their whole lives benefited in a way that later generations didn't.

It's a one time phenomenon, and the government picks up the tab, through debt or whatever - spread out over time. Not sure why this is hard to comprehend or deal with - unless as I say, it's just some sort of irrational boomer hate.

Bellingham Bill says

Dan8267 says

especially when that generation is the reason the careers of the younger generation are so dismal.

Maybe some kind of soylent green is the answer ?

How does an entire generation, including many millions whose careers are non existant or reaaly weak, take the wrap for the time interval that bad government policies from Reagan to GWB took place ? What, just becasue they are closer in age to Reagan or GWB ? I don't get it.

elliemae says

Wow, people are insured now? What a failure!

It's a "failure" in the minds of rich white male right-wingers, because they honestly believe that nobody else in the country deserves to have anything that they have.

Call it Quits and Captain Shuddup have invested so much of their personal self-worth and energy into hating ACA, that it doesn't matter WHAT happens. It could be the most wildly successful healthcare program on earth, and they would NEVER admit it to be anything but a failure. Their beliefs were already pre-determined 5 years ago, before the law was even passed.

Very true.

And then we waste a bunch of energy causing this.

http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/

I feel like heritagefoundationcare has been wildly succesful. Look how profitable and easier to soak even more people, to an even higher degree of soaking, ppaca has been for the "health" industry.

Party on, wayne

Precisely.
What kind of non-coverage astronomical deduction/copay plan do they get for 82 bucks/mo? They would be better off with no insurance and living a stone's throw away from the country's emergency rooms, where it all can be had basically for free.

Call it Crazy says

Wait, they're getting screwed paying $82/month...

They need to be FULLY subsidized by the rest of the country and go on Medicaid!!!

This appears to be true as long as you ignore the fact that we own the printing press...

Dan8267 says

Whenever a system pays out generation N of investors with the revenue collected from generation M > N, the system is by definition a Ponzi Scheme. And the thing about Ponzi Schemes is that they are mathematically doomed to fail. They cannot end any other way. It's just math and math doesn't lie.

Wow. We finally agree...

marcus says

Dan doesn't seem to realize

If there is a $6000 deductible for people who can't afford healthcare. How does that make sense? They will use the insurance in a catastrophic situation, but that is it, or more likely they will go to the ER and not pay the bill.

So what has changed?

I guess they now pay $82.00 a month?

Call it Crazy says

NOTHING!!! Except a quicker road to bankruptcy when they find out that $6000 has to be paid by them for their NEW FREE Obamacare...

This is just not going to work. I predict that the ACA will be repealed. Even the libs are not this stupid, er ah I hope?

marcus says

..."if the average person on subsidized rates is paying $82/ month.

I'm sure though that when republicans have their fund raising meetings with groups of rich doners they still diss the ACA plenty. But there they are talking exclusively to people who are indeed worse off because of Obamacare (with taxes that is).

Seems like we switched from a system where the middle class had to pay for the health care of the poor (being inefficiently delivered and often late and from emergency rooms), to a system where more of that cost hits the rich. Either way it's redistribution, but this is clearly better, especially for those who are insured inexpensively. "

I seem to be one of the very few people posting here who has any experience w/the new system. Premium: $126.13 per month for Kaiser Silver. Max yearly deductible: $5,600. I now have higher co-pays and drug costs.

I fully expect that my premiums will rise next year, because I'm not paying 16 percent of my GROSS income to Kaiser for premiums alone. So my taxes should reflect a rise in income and I will pay more. And I know lots of other people who've seen their medical premiums go down because of this new law.

Is it single payer? Of course not. Maybe, instead of the Fed handing out trillions to banksters in free money to speculate with, they should fund a REAL single payer system and take this issue off the table.

marcus says

Dan doesn't seem to realize that what's bothering him is a sort of one time benefit that the older people just starting on the ACA now receive, not having had to be insured when they were younger and healthier, or if they did, it cost less.

I'm fulling aware of what's bothering me about the ACA and why. What you mentioned above is not insignificant by any means, yet it is only one of many objections, ethical and practical, that I have about the ACA.

marcus says

Maybe some kind of soylent green is the answer ?

You may joke about it, but essentially disproportionally shorter lives for later generations is the effect that is inevitable when earlier generations exploit later ones. Again, the math ensures this.

You can trump up false virtues of the ACA all you like, and you may convince people that the ACA is far better than it really is. You might even get the world to ignore all the warnings from rationalists like myself. However, that does not change that the ACA is disastrous. Ultimately, the health care system is a technology and should be treated as such, built to engineering standards, and not determined by politics and popularity contests.

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

SoftShell says

This appears to be true as long as you ignore the fact that we own the printing press...

Dan8267 says

Whenever a system pays out generation N of investors with the revenue collected from generation M > N, the system is by definition a Ponzi Scheme. And the thing about Ponzi Schemes is that they are mathematically doomed to fail. They cannot end any other way. It's just math and math doesn't lie.

The number of monetary units is irrelevant. Printing money does not create wealth.

SoftShell says

Wow. We finally agree...

marcus says

Dan doesn't seem to realize

What further indication is required that you are both wrong?

Call it Crazy says

monkframe says

I seem to be one of the very few people posting here who has any experience w/the new system. Premium: $126.13 per month for Kaiser Silver. Max yearly deductible: $5,600. I now have higher co-pays and drug costs.

Have you had to change your doctor or hospital selection on this plan and what else changed in coverage on your plan?

For all its shortcomings, I have Kaiser Permanente, which means no changes in doctors or hospitals. The increased co-pays and drugs, and the high deductible are the major changes. I'm very fortunate in that regard, and I know it.

The profit motive is really what's wrong with the present system. Once that is removed and we have health care provided as a right, and the administrative costs are brought down to a level of, say the Social Security system, (3 percent) we'll have a chance at universal health care, single-payer, whatever you want to call it. We pay more and get less than any other industrialized country on earth right now.

Doctors are getting into close to mid 6 figure debt in med school because there is payoff at the end. That is the crux of the problem. ACA and previous system maintain the status quo from that standpoint, money just gets shuffled around. Lowest 20% do benefit, for the middle class it is at best a wash over the long term in aggregate. The ones that are truly "screwed" are not the high roller ballers with their investment taxes, it is a single person who makes perhaps around $70K in bay area with no health coverage at work. Those guys will get roasted good.

Call it Crazy says

The beliefs were pre-determined when you watch how the government has handled Medicare, Medicaid and the VA veterans healthcare....

I'll take that as an admission that you have had a vested interest in believing Obamacare will fail, before it even started! LOL - thanks for proving that one.

Call it Crazy says

NOTHING!!! Except a quicker road to bankruptcy when they find out that $6000 has to be paid by them for their NEW FREE Obamacare...

Nobody thinks Obamacare is free (except maybe some ultra right-wing idiots), and everyone is aware that some policies have deductibles. It's VERY clearly spelled out, in a huge font, on the exchange websites.

Homeboy says

and everyone is aware that some policies have deductibles. It's VERY clearly spelled out, in a huge font, on the exchange websites.

Then what in the hell are you worried about then, MickeyD?

BenghaziCare is either free or not free!

If it's free, then ZOMG WELFARE WELFARE WHO WILL PAY FOR THIS COMMUNISM FASCISM WHERE'S MAH GUN?!

If it's not free, then ZOMG GUMMINT TAKE ALL MAH MUNNAH COMMUNISM SOCIALISM FASCISM WHERE'S MAH GUN?!

Get the difference?

indigenous says

This is just not going to work. I predict that the ACA will be repealed. Even the libs are not this stupid, er ah I hope?

Seeing as how the GOP basically stopped doing whatever it is they did before and just spent the past 4 years trying to repeal it and failed Its clearly not going anywhere. When even the tea party and various wing-nut sites stop posting "repeal Obamacare!" stories you know the game is over. The GOP has long moved onto other time-wasting efforts.

If you're happy with your Obamcare plan you can keep it.

Huh? Huh? Yeah?

edvard2 says

When even the tea party and various wing-nut sites stop posting "repeal Obamacare!" stories you know the game is over.

Maybe they can start holding up "Get your government hands off my Medicare" signs again like the ones I saw back in the day.

edvard2 says

he GOP has long moved onto other time-wasting efforts.

IMO opinion the ACA is a country ending event not quickly or soon but slowly and surely, it will end this country. You don't think so, but you ARE economically illiterate.

I'm actually waiting for the "Keep you GOP hands off my Obamacare" signs come next election season. Self employed folks showing up with one of those signs at a Republican rally is the GOPs worst nightmare.

Call it Crazy says

Homeboy says

Nobody thinks Obamacare is free (except maybe some ultra right-wing idiots), and everyone is aware that some policies have deductibles.

I would be careful with the words "nobody" and "everyone".... There are NUMEROUS examples so far where that ain't true...

So, @ call it crazy, you've played twenty questions w/my new health care coverage - let's hear your story. Is it provided through your employer, therefore you don't have to worry about it?
Is it a terrible rate increase due to the ACA if you're self-employed?
Are you firmly planted in the 1 percent and don't care what it costs?

Do tell.

Call it Crazy says

I would be careful with the words "nobody" and "everyone".... There are NUMEROUS examples so far where that ain't true...

Not my problem if you don't know how to read what you're signing up for.

CaptainShuddup says

Then what in the hell are you worried about then, MickeyD?

Did you zone out again, Cap'n? You and Call it Quits are the ones who seem to be worried, not me.

Call it Crazy says

I'm not worried...

Yes you are. You wrote this:

Call it Crazy says

Have you had to change your doctor or hospital selection on this plan and what else changed in coverage on your plan?

worried

and this:

Call it Crazy says

a quicker road to bankruptcy when they find out that $6000 has to be paid by them for their NEW FREE Obamacare...

worried

Call it Crazy says

I would be careful with the words "nobody" and "everyone".... There are NUMEROUS examples so far where that ain't true...

worried

Call it Crazy says

Yep, those multi-thousand dollar deductibles are a bitch!!

worried

Call it Crazy says

And who's going to be paying for the Millennials who don't have insurance now when they get older?

worried

Virtually everything you're written here shows that you're worried. Then you write that you're not worried. WTF?

Call it Crazy says

You're the one doing all the name calling...

Buh?

Yes, you're worried that there will be high deductibles, that people will have to change doctors, that they won't be able to afford to pay for treatment, that they won't understand the policy they're signing up for, etc.

You are aware of the definition of "worried", are you not?

By the way, in English we only use one question mark or one exclamation point at the end of a sentence. Sometimes, people may use multiple ones in order to make a particular sentence stand out, but when you do it in every sentence, it makes no sense.

Call it Crazy says

Wow, you're more twisted in the head then I originally thought!!

Mmm hmm - whatever you say, sweetie.

I hope YOUR Obamacare policy covers mental illness!!

ALL Obamacare policies cover mental illness. That was part of the reform. Not sure if you need it, though - is mental retardation considered an illness? You know, there are other places to get information besides Fox News.

Nah, it's more like this...

Right??????? ? ?? ???? ??????????????? ? X2... ?

O.K., Call it Quits - it's time to move on from grammar to logic.

Call it Crazy says

See, if you would stop your love fest for Obama and take these off once and a while, you would see the true reality...

Wait, so the guy who ADMITTED that he was married to the proposition that Obamacare would fail, before it even became law, and who will always hold that view no matter what the evidence, is claiming that I'm looking through colored glasses?

(And here is where I use multiple punctuation marks to make this one sentence stand out):

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay Classy Homeputz.

CaptainShuddup says

Stay Classy Homeputz.

I'm not the one who has an irrational insane hatred of the president just because he's black.

No, but it pays debts that need to be paid an any given point in a generational cycle. With this in tow, this particular ponzi scheme has the capability to live forever.

Dan8267 says

The number of monetary units is irrelevant. Printing money does not create wealth.

I'd like to put forth a comprehensive coordinated statement of fact, but marcus has me ignored...

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Wow. We finally agree...

marcus says

Dan doesn't seem to realize

What further indication is required that you are both wrong?