tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 27, 2015 20:31:13 GMT -5
Arguable on either end. The point though is that the GOP in general, and these three on the Ways and Means Committee in particular, are looking at your +2 and deciding that it is really a -2 instead. (To be fair, one might be counting it as a zero.) Closed-minded, non-thinking ideologues do not deserve to be in office, and it is an embarrassment (or should be) for their states that they get elected.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:57:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 20:34:08 GMT -5
Arguable on either end. The point though is that the GOP in general, and these three on the Ways and Means Committee in particular, are looking at your +2 and deciding that it is really a -2 instead. (To be fair, one might be counting it as a zero.) Closed-minded, non-thinking ideologues do not deserve to be in office, and it is an embarrassment (or should be) for their states that they get elected. You misunderstand my post. I wasn't commenting on the people that don't see ANY good in Obamacare. I was just commenting on the ones (like myself) that do see it, but realize that it's not worth the trade-off because we end up, as a whole country, in worse shape.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2015 20:36:15 GMT -5
i don't know if anyone mentioned this, but this ruling actually strengthens the ACA considerably, AS A MATTER OF LAW. if you read the majority opinion on this, you will find that the SCOTUS is disinclined to entertain further frivolous appeals. which means that this is largely over. and sure, a GOP president coupled with a GOP congress MIGHT be able to kill the ACA (if they can change the filibuster rule in the Senate)- but that is a lot of if's.
i think the ACA is a done deal. it will be VERY difficult, like it or not, to overturn it at this point.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 27, 2015 21:04:49 GMT -5
Arguable on either end. The point though is that the GOP in general, and these three on the Ways and Means Committee in particular, are looking at your +2 and deciding that it is really a -2 instead. (To be fair, one might be counting it as a zero.) Closed-minded, non-thinking ideologues do not deserve to be in office, and it is an embarrassment (or should be) for their states that they get elected. You misunderstand my post. I wasn't commenting on the people that don't see ANY good in Obamacare. I was just commenting on the ones (like myself) that do see it, but realize that it's not worth the trade-off because we end up, as a whole country, in worse shape. No, I understood it, and I called your position arguable. There is an argument to be made, but not a chance it should just be stipulated as fact. And my conclusion had nothing to do with your argument. As you said, you do see some good in the ACA. Those who refuse to are, as the article noted, pathological. They do not deserve the office they hold.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2015 22:47:17 GMT -5
to summarize, and turn back 70 pages of posts, i really DO think it is a question of IF, at this juncture, not WHEN.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2015 18:51:09 GMT -5
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Jun 30, 2015 5:12:47 GMT -5
i am also SURE that if such polls were taken after Social Security & Medicare were enacted there would have been just as much hand wringing and law suits in assorted courts. I am too young for the Soc Sec debate/actions but I just do NOT remember the Medicare out cries/reactions. i was in college in the m9id 1960's.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 1, 2015 20:05:50 GMT -5
i am also SURE that if such polls were taken after Social Security & Medicare were enacted there would have been just as much hand wringing and law suits in assorted courts. I am too young for the Soc Sec debate/actions but I just do NOT remember the Medicare out cries/reactions. i was in college in the m9id 1960's. And they would have been right. To wring their hands. Social Security and Medicare are massive failures. They're the poster children for new entitlement proposals. We currently borrow, at an effective interest rate of 0%, 42 cents out of every dollar the government spends, and entitlements are at the bulk of our spending. Take a look at Greece. That's where we're headed. These two programs alone are $128 trillion dollar bankruptcy waiting to happen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2015 21:44:33 GMT -5
i am also SURE that if such polls were taken after Social Security & Medicare were enacted there would have been just as much hand wringing and law suits in assorted courts. I am too young for the Soc Sec debate/actions but I just do NOT remember the Medicare out cries/reactions. i was in college in the m9id 1960's. And they would have been right. To wring their hands. Social Security and Medicare are massive failures. They're the poster children for new entitlement proposals. We currently borrow, at an effective interest rate of 0%, 42 cents out of every dollar the government spends you keep quoting data from 2009. the latest number is 13.8%, and falling.www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200, and entitlements are at the bulk of our spending. Take a look at Greece. That's where we're headed. These two programs alone are $128 trillion dollar bankruptcy waiting to happen. social security is not required to spend more money than is coming in. it is a "pay as you go" system. therefore, it is actually impossible for it to produce deficits- unlike every other program out there.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2015 21:54:54 GMT -5
Yeah, good thing we've had Obama and not some Republican president. They would have REALLY tried to borrow then!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2015 21:59:00 GMT -5
Yeah, good thing we've had Obama and not some Republican president. They would have REALLY tried to borrow then! the deficit was about 2x that under Reagan in 1983, but every time i bring it up, Paul blames it on congress. you know...Democrats.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2015 22:05:14 GMT -5
Yes, I know what Paul thinks, and why. That's why I rarely bother reading him.
I wonder if people understand that "tax-and-spend" Democrats and "borrow-and-spend" Republicans are clichés for a reason? And that of the two, tax-and-spend is at least more honest, and more honorable. There is at least the thought of paying for some of your spending instead of trying to offload it onto the future.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2015 22:08:27 GMT -5
Yes, I know what Paul thinks, and why. That's why I rarely bother reading him.
I wonder if people understand that "tax-and-spend" Democrats and "borrow-and-spend" Republicans are clichés for a reason? And that of the two, tax-and-spend is at least more honest, and more honorable. There is at least the thought of paying for some of your spending instead of trying to offload it onto the future. the third way is given a lot of lip service by both parties, but they should be judged by their actions, not their words. if the GOP were serious about cutting spending, they could simply vote against every spending bill, and it would all stop. but they aren't.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2015 22:11:16 GMT -5
No, you're right. The unfortunate part of both is the, "-and-spend." There is no real fiscal responsibility in either of them, or at least no real dedication to it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2015 22:15:44 GMT -5
No, you're right. The unfortunate part of both is the, "-and-spend." There is no real fiscal responsibility in either of them, or at least no real dedication to it. i think it again comes down to who government serves. if it were individuals and their families, and the future, then we would have no issues whatsoever. because we all care about what happens 50 years down the road, when our sons and daughters or those of our brothers and sisters have to deal with what we are doing RIGHT NOW. but it is corporations, who only care about what is happening next quarter. and for them, pumping the government for money helps them make their SHORT TERM goals, and who cares about 50 years from now? these corporations will be long gone by then. most will be dead or subsidiaries of other corporations, and they never had souls or the capacity for caring to begin with. we need some serious change in this country. we need a biocentric government. i doubt we will get one. feed the monkey.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 3, 2015 22:43:20 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 3, 2015 23:09:17 GMT -5
See #2069 on the previous page....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2015 11:12:14 GMT -5
Perhaps, perhaps not. My insurance at work saw double digit rate increases for several years prior to the implementation of the ACA. We are a small group, and like many, we are aging as a group.
In the first year of the ACA our rates went down almost 10%! This was a first. We also gained a few new benefits and bells and whistles mandated by the act- no lifetime limits for instance.
This year our rates would have gone up 6%, but we increased our deductables to maintain them at close to what they were before. So in the past two years, our experience from a cost and benefit stand point has been very positive. We are a small company with market rate insurance, no subsidies.
Reading the article I see it is based primarily on insurance company requests. Keep in mind that requests and rate hikes are two different things, and that the companies usually ask for more than what they get. I notice that it is also heavily dependent on Blue Cross- one insurer, albeit a large one. BCBS Stinks though, at least in our experience. I haven't used them for years.
I know, this is anecdotal. However this is also the experience of other business acquaintances of mine. Even more encouraging are the people who are marginally employed who now have coverage, and the people for whom the law has meant they can start their own businesses. This law is doing a lot of good- imperfect as it is in it's first incarnation. our rate increases have been way way lower since the ACA went into effect. i don't know if EVERYONE has experienced this (clearly some have not), but it certainly appears to be true on average. the latest medical inflation stats show that it fell to 5.4% last year which is, i believe, the lowest inflation rate ever recorded.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 4, 2015 12:05:50 GMT -5
Perhaps, perhaps not. My insurance at work saw double digit rate increases for several years prior to the implementation of the ACA. We are a small group, and like many, we are aging as a group.
In the first year of the ACA our rates went down almost 10%! This was a first. We also gained a few new benefits and bells and whistles mandated by the act- no lifetime limits for instance.
This year our rates would have gone up 6%, but we increased our deductables to maintain them at close to what they were before. So in the past two years, our experience from a cost and benefit stand point has been very positive. We are a small company with market rate insurance, no subsidies.
Reading the article I see it is based primarily on insurance company requests. Keep in mind that requests and rate hikes are two different things, and that the companies usually ask for more than what they get. I notice that it is also heavily dependent on Blue Cross- one insurer, albeit a large one. BCBS Stinks though, at least in our experience. I haven't used them for years.
I know, this is anecdotal. However this is also the experience of other business acquaintances of mine. Even more encouraging are the people who are marginally employed who now have coverage, and the people for whom the law has meant they can start their own businesses. This law is doing a lot of good- imperfect as it is in it's first incarnation. our rate increases have been way way lower since the ACA went into effect. i don't know if EVERYONE has experienced this (clearly some have not), but it certainly appears to be true on average. the latest medical inflation stats show that it fell to 5.4% last year which is, i believe, the lowest inflation rate ever recorded. Just for curiosity's sake (and no, I don't want to do the research on it) I wonder what the average rate increase is in those states that expanded Medicaid as compared to those that did not. Anecdotally at least, there appears to be a correlation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:57:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 12:08:55 GMT -5
And as we have covered before, the only reason the high rate increase requests are published now is because they require extra review... This isn't all of the projected increase data... It is specifically the higher requests.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,267
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 4, 2015 12:16:46 GMT -5
And also have not yet been even reviewed, much less approved.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2015 12:27:03 GMT -5
And also have not yet been even reviewed, much less approved. why is the Times even reporting on this blather?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 6, 2015 8:35:13 GMT -5
And they would have been right. To wring their hands. Social Security and Medicare are massive failures. They're the poster children for new entitlement proposals. We currently borrow, at an effective interest rate of 0%, 42 cents out of every dollar the government spends you keep quoting data from 2009. the latest number is 13.8%, and falling.www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200, and entitlements are at the bulk of our spending. Take a look at Greece. That's where we're headed. These two programs alone are $128 trillion dollar bankruptcy waiting to happen. social security is not required to spend more money than is coming in. it is a "pay as you go" system. therefore, it is actually impossible for it to produce deficits- unlike every other program out there. Could a financial planner and registered investment advisor operate a plan that mirrors Social Security? Please answer yes, or no and explain your answer. If one did, and his books looked exactly like Social Security does now, would that person be in any trouble?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 6, 2015 10:29:12 GMT -5
social security is not required to spend more money than is coming in. it is a "pay as you go" system. therefore, it is actually impossible for it to produce deficits- unlike every other program out there. Could a financial planner and registered investment advisor operate a plan that mirrors Social Security? Please answer yes, or no and explain your answer. If one did, and his books looked exactly like Social Security does now, would that person be in any trouble? no, but SS is not an investment, as many here have pointed out, so a CFP would have no BUSINESS doing what SS does.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 14, 2015 10:35:50 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2015 10:43:59 GMT -5
we are not enrolled in an exchange plan because we already had a plan, like most of the over 400% community.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 14, 2015 10:46:41 GMT -5
we are not enrolled in an exchange plan because we already had a plan, like most of the over 400% community. Note: the eligible up to 400% of the federal poverty level includes only those eligible for Obamacare's insurance subsidies and does not include those in or eligible for employer-based plans.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2015 10:50:48 GMT -5
we are not enrolled in an exchange plan because we already had a plan, like most of the over 400% community. Note: the eligible up to 400% of the federal poverty level includes only those eligible for Obamacare's insurance subsidies and does not include those in or eligible for employer-based plans.thanks, but i am not sure that changes my point. if only 2% of the plans are to that group, it doesn't mean the 98% are uninsured. it just means that they are very small in number, right? in other words, if i say that only 2% of my basketball squad is left handed, it doesn't mean that there is some basketball squad out there that is all left handed, and my team is an anomaly. edit: to be clear, "eligible" and "enrolled in plan" are obviously two different things. if you already have a plan, you might be eligible, but not enrolled.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 14, 2015 11:19:21 GMT -5
Note: the eligible up to 400% of the federal poverty level includes only those eligible for Obamacare's insurance subsidies and does not include those in or eligible for employer-based plans. thanks, but i am not sure that changes my point. if only 2% of the plans are to that group, it doesn't mean the 98% are uninsured. it just means that they are very small in number, right? in other words, if i say that only 2% of my basketball squad is left handed, it doesn't mean that there is some basketball squad out there that is all left handed, and my team is an anomaly. edit: to be clear, "eligible" and "enrolled in plan" are obviously two different things. if you already have a plan, you might be eligible, but not enrolled. This is true, I don't know the full details of the report, but it is the group of people without employer provided health care and are eligible for a subsidy, so for some reason they have decided not to sign up for a plan under the ACA, maybe they have alternative insurance but it seems unlikely a majority of them would.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 9, 2015 10:20:02 GMT -5
|
|