I love all the quotes from dead people. Keep using other people's arguments there folks.
...
I like chocolate milk!
I like chocolate milk!
You is teh devle!
I love all the quotes from dead people. Keep using other people's arguments there folks.
Dead people talk purdy.
+1 on getting the hell out of the Middle East. I'd even go further, though not to the level of full protectionism. I think a lot of taxpayer money is wasted overseas. I'm tired of the US being the world's welfare source. Let private organizations handle it.
Note, I did not always feel this way. It is due to being grumpy, and tired of governmental waste and corruption.
|
Bush got C's. Obama probably failed lunch.I'm with you on the savant part, not so much the idiot part.
Like him or hate him, one thing Obama isn't is stupid.
That was hilarious :D
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
::casts stabilize on the thread::
I heard on PRI today that several states were banding together to challenge the health care bill on 10th Amendment grounds. Interestingly, the speaker, Rob McKenna, the Washington state attorney general, generally considered a centrist in a liberal state, is one of the ones bringing the challenge.
I think the states' sticking up for their constitutional rights is a silver lining of all this. Hopefully they will begin to do more of the same.
Good, so we can agree that government is force, correct?A state is an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a geographical area. (Max Weber) This is not a bad thing, of course. When you lack the state, you get a situation like Somalia.
Is this how taxes are enforced in other EU countries too, or is this strictly a UK thing?
The ugly side of booming bailiff industry
Side note: If you agree that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, do you believe that self defense is a human right?
I'd have to disagree with you there, Uzzy. The people have the inalienable right to use force against their oppressors.
Another quote by the same dead person (my favorite dead person actually)...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
And, of course, that's a quote that tries to explain the intent of the 2nd amendment which everyone should know the text of by this time.
Don't get me wrong, though. I don't think the Health Care Reform is a good reason to take up arms. This hysteria stems from two things:
1) The far right wanting nothing more than to make the opposition (especially Obama) FAIL in the eyes of the independents and win back some seats. I'm not saying its BAD of them to do so, I'm just pointing out the obvious.
2) Right wing opinion industry (Glenn "Dbag" Beck, etc.) wants ratings. They've been very successful at tapping into people's legitimate concerns and, after adding a few ingredients, turning it into irrational fear and panic. A little amusing when you think about it, but these terrorists are actually quite scary to me.
Now that the healthcare bill has passed, I wonder what's going to happen to the insurance industry in 2014.
An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price tag of a basic health plan... A person would also be penalized only if he or she went more than three months of the year without insurance.
Starting in 2014, the new health care reform legislation makes it illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on the coverage an individual or dependent can receive.
It's probably going to make financial sense for a lot of people to drop their health care insurance at the beginning of 2014 and only pick it up again that year if they have a major medical expense.
With the penalty going up in 2015 and 2016, it will be more difficult to take advantage of this loophole, but an individual could choose to be uninsured for the first three months then pick up insurance, avoiding the penalties and potentially cutting their insurance costs by 25%.
The health insurance industry has pretty slim margins. Will they be able to survive if people make these choices?
Now that the healthcare bill has passed, I wonder what's going to happen to the insurance industry in 2014.
An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price tag of a basic health plan... A person would also be penalized only if he or she went more than three months of the year without insurance.Starting in 2014, the new health care reform legislation makes it illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on the coverage an individual or dependent can receive.It's probably going to make financial sense for a lot of people to drop their health care insurance at the beginning of 2014 and only pick it up again that year if they have a major medical expense.
With the penalty going up in 2015 and 2016, it will be more difficult to take advantage of this loophole, but an individual could choose to be uninsured for the first three months then pick up insurance, avoiding the penalties and potentially cutting their insurance costs by 25%.
The health insurance industry has pretty slim margins. Will they be able to survive if people make these choices?
They get something to the tune of half a trillion dollars in direct subsidies for the first ten years or so, and people will be forced by law to buy their product.
They seem to think that they can game the system to make a ton of money or they wouldn't have supported the bills.
I think their assumption that they will be able to game the system like they have in the past may blow up in their face, but I guess time will tell.
EDIT: I also think the big providers will try to use this as an opportunity to consume the smaller providers like many of the banks did with their TARP money.
The health insurance industry has pretty slim margins. Will they be able to survive if people make these choices?
Sorry, but I heard from my trusted news sources that insurance execs have entire buildings that are safes of gold bullion coins that these execs go and swim through periodicly (whenever they kill someone's grandma, which is to say, like 10 times a day) like Scrooge McDuck. My news sources wouldn't lie to me, so I know that the insurance folks don't have slim margins they have great big margins. In fact their insurance forms are all margins, there isn't any room left for text at all. That's how they trick people, someone asks for their insurance plan, and they get a sheet of all margins. Suckers.
Sorry, but I heard from my trusted news sources that insurance execs have entire buildings that are safes of gold bullion coins that these execs go and swim through periodicly (whenever they kill someone's grandma, which is to say, like 10 times a day) like Scrooge McDuck. My news sources wouldn't lie to me, so I know that the insurance folks don't have slim margins they have great big margins. In fact their insurance forms are all margins, there isn't any room left for text at all. That's how they trick people, someone asks for their insurance plan, and they get a sheet of all margins. Suckers.
Are we really going to do this again?
I was going to respond in kind (that is, with a caricature of the right-wing take on all this), but I literally couldn't come up with anything so outlandish that I couldn't see some "tea party member" thinking I was being serious and agreeing. How does one mock an person who is an oblivious self-parody?
I feel like someone stole my candy. :(
|
|
Given that i don't have time to read 615 posts, im just going to add this:
How can people think that adding more people to insurance plans is going to raise rates? Rates are made by analyzing the pool of money that the company has coming in (by way of premiums) and guestimating how much will be spent on claims to determine whether the rates need to go up or down. Having more people means a bigger pool (and yes, more claims), but overall, rates will go down.
Next, we will be unable to keep illegal aliens from getting coverage. There is SCOTUS precedent by way of public schooling (we can't keep them out) that indicates they are going to be able to get coverage. This is not a bad thing!! I don't have the link, but research was done that shows that most illegals are younger and in better shape than their legal counterparts and they typically leave before they reach an age that would cause them to have more problems. This means that their premiums are going to be "free money" AND couple that with the fact that they will no longer have to use ERs as their PCPs (the bills rarely get paid) and that means that you are going to see your premiums go down even lower.
BLUF: conservative driven hysteria is preventing what would be a fiscally sound policy (requiring insurance and allowing illegals to get coverage) from occuring just so they can try and scare their way into office.
Given that i don't have time to read 615 posts, im just going to add this:
How can people think that adding more people to insurance plans is going to raise rates? Rates are made by analyzing the pool of money that the company has coming in (by way of premiums) and guestimating how much will be spent on claims to determine whether the rates need to go up or down. Having more people means a bigger pool (and yes, more claims), but overall, rates will go down.
Next, we will be unable to keep illegal aliens from getting coverage. There is SCOTUS precedent by way of public schooling (we can't keep them out) that indicates they are going to be able to get coverage. This is not a bad thing!! I don't have the link, but research was done that shows that most illegals are younger and in better shape than their legal counterparts and they typically leave before they reach an age that would cause them to have more problems. This means that their premiums are going to be "free money" AND couple that with the fact that they will no longer have to use ERs as their PCPs (the bills rarely get paid) and that means that you are going to see your premiums go down even lower.
BLUF: conservative driven hysteria is preventing what would be a fiscally sound policy (requiring insurance and allowing illegals to get coverage) from occuring just so they can try and scare their way into office.
We were told when auto insurance became compulsory that the rates would go down in Colorado. They just continued to rise sharply, but you became a criminal if you couldn't afford it.
|
|
We were told when auto insurance became compulsory that the rates would go down in Colorado. They just continued to rise sharply, but you became a criminal if you couldn't afford it.
When was insurance NOT compulsory? And I believe that probably has something to do with inflation and the rising cost of automobiles. Just like with health insurance, the rates may go up as healthcare costs rise, but with more people in the pool, you're still going to pay less than you would have were they not in there to help bring your rates down.
How can people think that adding more people to insurance plans is going to raise rates? Rates are made by analyzing the pool of money that the company has coming in (by way of premiums) and guestimating how much will be spent on claims to determine whether the rates need to go up or down. Having more people means a bigger pool (and yes, more claims), but overall, rates will go down.
While what you say is true if the added people are randomly distributed from the population at large, which is what the legislation tries to do with forcing everyone to get health care coverage. But if that "force" is not strict enough, then your healthy but young and lower income people will not get, and pay for, insurance. In that case, by forcing companies to take on higher cost customers, but limiting their ability to accurately charge these people based on their "risk", and not getting enough lower risk customers, this can in fact drive up premiums. Let us hope that the penalty for not getting insurance is enough to force those that might be tempted not to get it, to get it.
|
|
How can people think that adding more people to insurance plans is going to raise rates? Rates are made by analyzing the pool of money that the company has coming in (by way of premiums) and guestimating how much will be spent on claims to determine whether the rates need to go up or down. Having more people means a bigger pool (and yes, more claims), but overall, rates will go down.While what you say is true if the added people are randomly distributed from the population at large, which is what the legislation tries to do with forcing everyone to get health care coverage. But if that "force" is not strict enough, then your healthy but young and lower income people will not get, and pay for, insurance. In that case, by forcing companies to take on higher cost customers, but limiting their ability to accurately charge these people based on their "risk", and not getting enough lower risk customers, this can in fact drive up premiums. Let us hope that the penalty for not getting insurance is enough to force those that might be tempted not to get it, to get it.
Yes, the "superman complex" issue hurts costs because, not only are they not contributing to the pool, but when they DO get hurt they go to ER, get a massive bill and either go bankrupt paying it or, more likely, don't pay it at all.
Yes, the "superman complex" issue hurts costs because, not only are they not contributing to the pool, but when they DO get hurt they go to ER, get a massive bill and either go bankrupt paying it or, more likely, don't pay it at all.How can people think that adding more people to insurance plans is going to raise rates? Rates are made by analyzing the pool of money that the company has coming in (by way of premiums) and guestimating how much will be spent on claims to determine whether the rates need to go up or down. Having more people means a bigger pool (and yes, more claims), but overall, rates will go down.While what you say is true if the added people are randomly distributed from the population at large, which is what the legislation tries to do with forcing everyone to get health care coverage. But if that "force" is not strict enough, then your healthy but young and lower income people will not get, and pay for, insurance. In that case, by forcing companies to take on higher cost customers, but limiting their ability to accurately charge these people based on their "risk", and not getting enough lower risk customers, this can in fact drive up premiums. Let us hope that the penalty for not getting insurance is enough to force those that might be tempted not to get it, to get it.
While that could happen, the bigger issue may be if they start feeling sick, go to a clinic and then find out they have cancer. Now because of the fact that they (1)can't be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and (2)can't be charged enough to truly evaluate their increased risk, these actually acts as a decentive to get health coverage if there isn't a strong enough penalty to not getting it earlier. I mean if you are going to basically pay the same if you got on the boat early or wait till it is just about to leave, what is the motivation for you to pay early?
|
|
While that could happen, the bigger issue may be if they start feeling sick, go to a clinic and then find out they have cancer. Now because of the fact that they (1)can't be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and (2)can't be charged enough to truly evaluate their increased risk, these actually acts as a decentive to get health coverage if there isn't a strong enough penalty to not getting it earlier. I mean if you are going to basically pay the same if you got on the boat early or wait till it is just about to leave, what is the motivation for you to pay early?
Yeah, we're f$#&ed...if the figures posted above are correct ($95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater), then the penalty for someone making $40,000/year is only $400. Now if this was per month, i could see it being punitive enough, but per year? chump change...especially if they'll take it directly out of your return.
While that could happen, the bigger issue may be if they start feeling sick, go to a clinic and then find out they have cancer. Now because of the fact that they (1)can't be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and (2)can't be charged enough to truly evaluate their increased risk, these actually acts as a decentive to get health coverage if there isn't a strong enough penalty to not getting it earlier. I mean if you are going to basically pay the same if you got on the boat early or wait till it is just about to leave, what is the motivation for you to pay early?Yeah, we're f~@%ed...if the figures posted above are correct ($95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater), then the penalty for someone making $40,000/year is only $400. Now if this was per month, i could see it being punitive enough, but per year? chump change...especially if they'll take it directly out of your return.
Also I've heard it reported on CNN that there is some language that the IRS cannot use its normal arsenal of garnishment, property seizure, and prison to enforce the mandate (contrary to one of my earlier posts BTW).
OTOH, it's my understanding that the numerous and powerful regulatory agencies in the bill have broad discretion in changing the process.
If the penalties are not punitive enough the government has created a structural incentive to NOT purchase health insurance until one is diagnosed with a serious condition.
If the penalties are too draconian they could force some people to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on health insurance they can't afford depending on how the new regulatory bureaucracies choose to define "reasonable". Of course these new bureaucracies will be very heavily lobbied by the insurance industry and big pharma.
I'm not optimistic.
While that could happen, the bigger issue may be if they start feeling sick, go to a clinic and then find out they have cancer. Now because of the fact that they (1)can't be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and (2)can't be charged enough to truly evaluate their increased risk, these actually acts as a decentive to get health coverage if there isn't a strong enough penalty to not getting it earlier. I mean if you are going to basically pay the same if you got on the boat early or wait till it is just about to leave, what is the motivation for you to pay early?Yeah, we're f@#%ed...if the figures posted above are correct ($95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater), then the penalty for someone making $40,000/year is only $400. Now if this was per month, i could see it being punitive enough, but per year? chump change...especially if they'll take it directly out of your return.
The $95 figure was a typo on CNN's page - they've corrected it to the correct $695.
|
|
The $95 figure was a typo on CNN's page - they've corrected it to the correct $695.While that could happen, the bigger issue may be if they start feeling sick, go to a clinic and then find out they have cancer. Now because of the fact that they (1)can't be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and (2)can't be charged enough to truly evaluate their increased risk, these actually acts as a decentive to get health coverage if there isn't a strong enough penalty to not getting it earlier. I mean if you are going to basically pay the same if you got on the boat early or wait till it is just about to leave, what is the motivation for you to pay early?Yeah, we're f@#%ed...if the figures posted above are correct ($95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater), then the penalty for someone making $40,000/year is only $400. Now if this was per month, i could see it being punitive enough, but per year? chump change...especially if they'll take it directly out of your return.
per month? per year?
per parsec?
[parsec is a unit of time, right?]
Poor pony, you lose 1 point of geek cred. Back to studying your Star Wars trivia.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Alright. First of all "those dead people" fought for the country you have today. Second: Would it not be funny if they taxed Paizo out of business. Followed by Eric Mona to post that Obama is very intelligent because he was able to pass healthcare reform with a super majority in congress and the public against it.
The bill overall is a joke. There are some positive aspects in it, say about 100 pages. Throw the other 2600 away. I hope you all get your taxes raised, unemployment continues to rise, and you get fined for not purchasing health insurance. That would be amusing as well.
Grrrr. I'm angry too. Grrrr.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Alright. First of all "those dead people" fought for the country you have today.I take exception to that. Half the dead people quoted had nothing to do with America. Also, they fought for the country they had then. We have no idea if they would fight for the country we have now.
Also, I'm confused as to how they were dead and fighting. Did we use zombie troops? Isn't there a treaty against that or something?
The bill overall is a joke. There are some positive aspects in it, say about 100 pages. Throw the other 2600 away. I hope you all get your taxes raised, unemployment continues to rise, and you get fined for not purchasing health insurance. That would be amusing as well.
Well, there's 2309 pages. Assuming you've read it in its entirety, what's the 100 pages worth keeping?
|
Also, I'm confused as to how they were dead and fighting. Did we use zombie troops? Isn't there a treaty against that or something?Alright. First of all "those dead people" fought for the country you have today.I take exception to that. Half the dead people quoted had nothing to do with America. Also, they fought for the country they had then. We have no idea if they would fight for the country we have now.
Sorry, the zombie troop corp is top secret, very hush hush. If I told you more, I'd have to eat your brains and draft you in.
It seems that people are not realizing that the bill that was passed isn't really reforming the system at all, it is simply going to make a broken system fall completely to pieces.
For the record, I work in an ER in a large metropolitan area, and the bill will most likely increase our patient load as over the next few years as primary care physicians will become fewer and fewer. We already have many not taking new patients, and some specialists are not taking any more insurance, cash only. Others have simply closed up shop, or joined together into a larger practice.
Chumps...we are all chumps. I hope we are all properly lubed, as this might get a little painful over the next few years. Just you wait...
That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane -
Lenny Bruce is not afraid. Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn -
world serves its own needs, regardless of your own needs. Feed it up a knock,
speed, grunt no, strength no. Ladder structure clatter with fear of height,
down height. Wire in a fire, represent the seven games in a government for
hire and a combat site. Left her, wasn't coming in a hurry with the furies
breathing down your neck. Team by team reporters baffled, trump, tethered
crop. Look at that low plane! Fine then. Uh oh, overflow, population,
common group, but it'll do. Save yourself, serve yourself. World serves its
own needs, listen to your heart bleed. Tell me with the rapture and the
reverent in the right - right. You vitriolic, patriotic, slam, fight, bright
light, feeling pretty psyched.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
Six o'clock - TV hour. Don't get caught in foreign tower. Slash and burn,
return, listen to yourself churn. Lock him in uniform and book burning,
blood letting. Every motive escalate. Automotive incinerate. Light a candle,
light a motive. Step down, step down. Watch a heel crush, crush. Uh oh,
this means no fear - cavalier. Renegade and steer clear! A tournament,
a tournament, a tournament of lies. Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives
and I decline.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
The other night I tripped a nice continental drift divide. Mount St. Edelite.
Leonard Bernstein. Leonid Breshnev, Lenny Bruce and Lester Bangs.
Birthday party, cheesecake, jelly bean, boom! You symbiotic, patriotic,
slam, but neck, right? Right.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...fine...
(It's time I had some time alone)
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Second: Would it not be funny if they taxed Paizo out of business. Followed by Eric Mona to post that Obama is very intelligent because he was able to pass healthcare reform with a super majority in congress and the public against it.
I don't think that would be very funny.
I didn't call Obama intelligent because he was able to pass health care reform.
I called Obama intelligent period. That would seem self-evident to me. Like, for example, you could say "William F. Buckley, Jr. was intelligent."
That was not a partisan statement.
The bill overall is a joke. There are some positive aspects in it, say about 100 pages. Throw the other 2600 away. I hope you all get your taxes raised, unemployment continues to rise, and you get fined for not purchasing health insurance. That would be amusing as well.Well, there's 2309 pages. Assuming you've read it in its entirety, what's the 100 pages worth keeping?
The ones creating death panels, grandma ovens, and adding the hammer and sickle to the American flag. LOL
Anyways... where was I...
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! AUNTIE EM! TOTO! IT'S A TWISTER! IT'S A TWISTER!
[cranks Voivod's Tornado]
The $95 figure was a typo on CNN's page - they've corrected it to the correct $695.
Really? Where? I still see $95 or 1% of income for 2014 rising to $695 or 2.5% of income in 2016 - both on CNN's website and on other sites.
Of course these new bureaucracies will be very heavily lobbied by the insurance industry and big pharma.
Are the costs for new bureaucracies and extra employees for the IRS and other departments paid for in the health reform bill, or does that come under the normal government appropriations bills? I'm having a hard time finding any information on this.
Smart aleck. I think the Libertarian party can make great strides in future elections, now that the cesspool of the current system has been made so 'noticeable'. ;)Yeah 0 people will go to prison for not having health care. People will go to prison for tax evasion because they were levied with tax penalties for not having health care, but not having health care will never be what they are charged with. :DAre there any CBO estimates for how many people will go to prison for not having health care?
What is the fine under the senate bill for failing to go on welfare or purchase insurance?
As long as they can distance themselves from tea-party folk who watch Glen Beck every day.
The $95 figure was a typo on CNN's page - they've corrected it to the correct $695.Really? Where? I still see $95 or 1% of income for 2014 rising to $695 or 2.5% of income in 2016 - both on CNN's website and on other sites.
Hmm, I can't find now what I read - either they corrected the correction, or I misread it. I see the same thing you see now. It might have said $95 in 2016 earlier, and now that's been fixed? Or I might be crazy... even odds :)
Is there something wrong with Glenn Beck? I do not agree with everything he says but when I occasionally tune in. He backs his findings up with plenty of evidence. Just because you disagree it does not mean he is wrong. And I do hope he is wrong by the way.The $95 figure was a typo on CNN's page - they've corrected it to the correct $695.Really? Where? I still see $95 or 1% of income for 2014 rising to $695 or 2.5% of income in 2016 - both on CNN's website and on other sites.Hmm, I can't find now what I read - either they corrected the correction, or I misread it. I see the same thing you see now. It might have said $95 in 2016 earlier, and now that's been fixed? Or I might be crazy... even odds :)
?????
I had no idea where this came from, until I saw Anburaid's post above... but yes, to give my answer to your question, there is something wrong with Glenn Beck. If you hope he is wrong, please apply your critical thinking skills to the "evidence" he presents to back up his "findings".