Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 11-01-2013, 08:05 AM   #1
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,599
Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

As I have stated before, I liked one of the 'stated' goals of Obamacare, to level the playing field, so to speak. Many of us are lucky enough to have been born healthy. But we all know people that suffer with lifelong ailments, which occurred through no fault of their own, and which can be catastrophically expensive.

No one deserves to be so penalized for being born with chronic medical conditions. And while I'm no expert on the economics of healthcare, it seems fair to me that we could all pay an "average" amount into some pool. Those who are healthy might never need that money. Those that are sick through no fault of their own, could have the security of knnowing that they won't lose everything because of something they had no control over.

I don't know if Obamacare was the best way to accomplish this, but I liked the idea of that.

Anyway, the fact is, Obama was unbelievably dishonest when he repeatedly stated that if you liked your plan, you could keep it - "period". There was no ambiguity or qualifying limitations in his statements. Millions and millions of Americans will have an experience that's very different from what he promised.

Many folks who currently pay a small premium for basic, catastrophic coverage...will see huge premium increases as they move to plans that have the mandated bells and whistles. My bet is that people will remember that next November. Many people will pay hundreds of dollars more a month.

You could argue that as a sociaty, we are better off if everyone has more comprehensive coverage, and that as a society, human decency dictates that we all pay a share to help the small number of Americans with chronic health issues. Unfortunately for Obama, he chose not to sell it that way, and he deserves the shellacking that he's getting right now.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 10:55 AM   #2
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I don't know if Obamacare was the best way to accomplish this, but I liked the idea of that.
That is exactly the point of adverse selection and why the HCB has an individual mandate.

Quote:
Anyway, the fact is, Obama was unbelievably dishonest when he repeatedly stated that if you liked your plan, you could keep it - "period". There was no ambiguity or qualifying limitations in his statements. Millions and millions of Americans will have an experience that's very different from what he promised.
Well, the Administration made public the fact that many would see a change back in 2010...it was reported by FOX News.

I don't think it's dishonesty but rather over-simplification, he's speaking to the vast majority versus the minority. The topic is complex enough...

Quote:
Many folks who currently pay a small premium for basic, catastrophic coverage...will see huge premium increases as they move to plans that have the mandated bells and whistles. My bet is that people will remember that next November. Many people will pay hundreds of dollars more a month.
While some of the minimum coverage provisions may go over the line (should a 70 year old woman have to pay for birth control?) a lot of the inexpensive individual plans really didn't provide very much. Even those for catastrophic situations tend to have high deductibles and low limits.

In economic terms I'd be willing to wager that those plans look closer to uninsured than those with real coverage.

If this is a real problem or not ultimately will come down to the individual States to run effective exchanges.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 11:07 AM   #3
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
That is exactly the point of adverse selection and why the HCB has an individual mandate.


Well, the Administration made public the fact that many would see a change back in 2010...it was reported by FOX News.

I don't think it's dishonesty but rather over-simplification, he's speaking to the vast majority versus the minority. The topic is complex enough...


While some of the minimum coverage provisions may go over the line (should a 70 year old woman have to pay for birth control?) a lot of the inexpensive individual plans really didn't provide very much. Even those for catastrophic situations tend to have high deductibles and low limits.

In economic terms I'd be willing to wager that those plans look closer to uninsured than those with real coverage.

If this is a real problem or not ultimately will come down to the individual States to run effective exchanges.

-spence
"Well, the Administration made public the fact that many would see a change back in 2010"

Do you have any further info on that? I'm not being a smart-azz, just wondering. Because I keep seeing video footage of Obama saying with zero ambiguity, that if you like your plan, you can keep it - "peeriod". He aded the word "period" at the end on multiple occasions, and you and I both know what he was trying to convey there. He might as well have said "read my lips".

"I don't think it's dishonesty but rather over-simplification, he's speaking to the vast majority versus the minority. The topic is complex enough..."

I'd say you are being a bit too kind. There is an administration memo, dated in 2010, that said that 40% - 70% of those on individual plans, would lose current coverage. That's not remotely similar to anything I have heard Obama say in public. That memo, seems to suggest that Obama had to know that what he was saying in order to sell the law to the public, was not remotely true.

You call it a small oversight. It's millions and millions of Americans who will br required to pay a lot more (for more coverage, to be fair). We'll see in the coming months if Americans are as forgiving as you of Obama's "over simplification" of the impact.

Personally, I think this will clobber the Democrats in 2014. But I was 100% wrong on what I thought would happen in 2008.

Also Spence, what about the fact that Obama said the "average" family would save $2500 a year? Whose premiums are decreasing by that much? And for similar coverage?? I'm not heariing about reductions across the board...
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 12:03 PM   #4
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Do you have any further info on that?
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pr...20100614e.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/he...1HhI8W1bg&_r=0

Quote:
I'd say you are being a bit too kind.
Considering how much difficulty Obama has had promoting the HCB it's par for the course.

Quote:
Personally, I think this will clobber the Democrats in 2014. But I was 100% wrong on what I thought would happen in 2008.
Depends, but I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch.

Quote:
Also Spence, what about the fact that Obama said the "average" family would save $2500 a year? Whose premiums are decreasing by that much? And for similar coverage?? I'm not heariing about reductions across the board...
There was a story about the economist who was advising Obama in 2008 who said Obama got the talking point wrong. The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 01:11 PM   #5
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pr...20100614e.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/he...1HhI8W1bg&_r=0


Considering how much difficulty Obama has had promoting the HCB it's par for the course.


Depends, but I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch.


There was a story about the economist who was advising Obama in 2008 who said Obama got the talking point wrong. The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium.

-spence
Spence is this guy , ever , in your mind, responsible for anything that comes out if his mouth??
He is either the most incompetent president ever or a pathalogical lier.
I believe your saying he isn't a lier .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 01:11 PM   #6
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pr...20100614e.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/he...1HhI8W1bg&_r=0


Considering how much difficulty Obama has had promoting the HCB it's par for the course.


Depends, but I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch.


There was a story about the economist who was advising Obama in 2008 who said Obama got the talking point wrong. The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium.

-spence
Here is the first line from your first link...

"The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury today issued a new regulation that makes good on President Obama’s promise that Americans who like their health plan can keep it."

I think people could argue that Obama's promise, that we could keep the plans if we liked them, is a false promise. If Obama says that we can keep our existing plans, but upwards of 70% of those in individual plans cannot keep their plan, then Obama's statement is demonstrably false. All Obama had to do, was say "if your plan meets the new minimum standards, you can keep it. If not, you will move to a new plan that increases your coverage at an increased cost". I don't think his mis-statement was accidental. Because if people knew what the impact was going to be, I don't think the bill would have passed.

The ironic thing, again, is that I respect the goal of spreeading those long-term, chronic costs among people who are lucky enough to be healthy. But the way Obama went about it, may cost him.

"I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch."

You may well be right. But I'm sure that the number of healthy people whose premiums will skyrocket, dwarfs the number of sick people who will be better off.

"The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium. "

Fair enough. How is the average family saving $200 a month on healthcare expenses? That's very, very difficult for me to accept. Healthcare costs move in one direction, up. Maybe Obama assumed that we could all go work for the teachers unions, in which case I'd believe that my out-of-pocket healthcare expenses would go down by $200 a month!

Have a good weekend Spence, hope your kids enjoyed Halloween.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 01:29 PM   #7
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Here is the first line from your first link...

"The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury today issued a new regulation that makes good on President Obama’s promise that Americans who like their health plan can keep it."

I think people could argue that Obama's promise, that we could keep the plans if we liked them, is a false promise. If Obama says that we can keep our existing plans, but upwards of 70% of those in individual plans cannot keep their plan, then Obama's statement is demonstrably false. All Obama had to do, was say "if your plan meets the new minimum standards, you can keep it. If not, you will move to a new plan that increases your coverage at an increased cost". I don't think his mis-statement was accidental. Because if people knew what the impact was going to be, I don't think the bill would have passed.

The ironic thing, again, is that I respect the goal of spreeading those long-term, chronic costs among people who are lucky enough to be healthy. But the way Obama went about it, may cost him.

"I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch."

You may well be right. But I'm sure that the number of healthy people whose premiums will skyrocket, dwarfs the number of sick people who will be better off.

"The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium. "

Fair enough. How is the average family saving $200 a month on healthcare expenses? That's very, very difficult for me to accept. Healthcare costs move in one direction, up. Maybe Obama assumed that we could all go work for the teachers unions, in which case I'd believe that my out-of-pocket healthcare expenses would go down by $200 a month!

Have a good weekend Spence, hope your kids enjoyed Halloween.
Jim, it sounds to me like you're just quibbling. You don't seem to have much against Obamacare, you just don't like the lies, and in the end it will cost the Dems politically. If Obmacare is a good thing, then the Dems are to be admired for their courage and willingness to lose votes.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 02:04 PM   #8
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Fair enough. How is the average family saving $200 a month on healthcare expenses? That's very, very difficult for me to accept. Healthcare costs move in one direction, up. Maybe Obama assumed that we could all go work for the teachers unions, in which case I'd believe that my out-of-pocket healthcare expenses would go down by $200 a month!
The interesting thing is that premiums through the exchanges are actually LOWER than anticipated...We'll see come spring when the CBO updates their projections what long-term impact this really would have, but it's a positive sign.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 08:39 AM   #9
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,869
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury today issued a new regulation that makes good on President Obama’s promise that Americans who like their health plan can keep it."
I still have my health plan. No cancellation letter, so yes, they did make good on that promise.

Its not their fault that people with sketchy cheap plans are getting told they're getting cancelled by their health insurance company. It was the health insurance company that made that decision. Not the government.

Happy to see some of these #^&#^&#^&#^&ty PPO's that have been floating around finally going down the tube.

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 04:19 PM   #10
Jackbass
Land OF Forgotten Toys
iTrader: (0)
 
Jackbass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Central MA
Posts: 2,309
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...der-obamacare/

So these 93 million that were projected to lose their coverage, by the administration, in 2010 should be able to keep their doctors? Sounds like he is either not in touch with how the real world operates or he lied?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jackbass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 06:40 PM   #11
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,590
[QUOTE=Jackbass;1019986

So these 93 million that were projected to lose their coverage, by the administration, in 2010 should be able to keep their doctors?[/QUOTE]

How will others keep Doctor when insurance companies like United Health Care are dropping 10-15% 0f their Doctors nationwide? In addition, just like with Medicare, Doctors will drop out and not take the insurance. The good ones have enough patients that they don't need to take insurance they don't want.

A friend of mine an, internist/infectious disease specialist, gave me a peek into the future. He no longer takes any insurance, period. He has 22 patients that pay him $20,000/yr and he is available to them 24/7. He's happy making $400,000/yr without all the paper work and it's costs. Just sayin, there will be all kinds of things like this that will limit the # of doctors available and increase appointment times.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 11:07 AM   #12
striperman36
Old Guy
iTrader: (0)
 
striperman36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 8,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
How will others keep Doctor when insurance companies like United Health Care are dropping 10-15% 0f their Doctors nationwide? In addition, just like with Medicare, Doctors will drop out and not take the insurance. The good ones have enough patients that they don't need to take insurance they don't want.

A friend of mine an, internist/infectious disease specialist, gave me a peek into the future. He no longer takes any insurance, period. He has 22 patients that pay him $20,000/yr and he is available to them 24/7. He's happy making $400,000/yr without all the paper work and it's costs. Just sayin, there will be all kinds of things like this that will limit the # of doctors available and increase appointment times.

been seeing much more of this..middle class screwery again
striperman36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2013, 12:22 PM   #13
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
How will others keep Doctor when insurance companies like United Health Care are dropping 10-15% 0f their Doctors nationwide?
I believe that statistic only applies to Medicare Advantage, which isn't expected to last. If those same doctors took Medicare they'd still be covered...

The funny thing about Medicare Advantage is that they basically bribe insurance companies to provide supplementary insurance. It costs the taxpayer more than regular Medicare.

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2013, 09:41 AM   #14
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,599
Scott and detbuch, you keep stating that I'm advocating for equality of outcome. Not even close.

A made-up, hypothetical scenario. Lat's say it costs $500,000 to open a McDonalds. Let's say my friends were able to save that much. But all of a sudden, that $500k is wiped out to pay for catastrophic medical expenses. In that case, because of the specific event which they had no control over, let's assume there was a federal program that picked up that tab.

Now he has the $500k to open a McDonalds. I am not suggesting, in any way, that his success should be guaranteed. If the business fails because he is incompetent, or lazy, or because he blows the money betting on college football, or because a better businessman opens up a Burger King across the street, I would never say that society has a responsibility to provide him the wealth he could not acquire.

Say there are 2 identical famillies who want to open a McDonalds. Each family has squirreled away the $500k to pay the fees. Family A has an unforseen medical situation that wipes out their savings. I don't think that Family B 'deserves' the opportunity to open a McDonalds any more than family A does. I'd like to see them both have the same chance to succeed.

Opportunity. Not outcome.

Last edited by Jim in CT; 11-05-2013 at 10:07 AM..
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2013, 10:32 AM   #15
Raven
........
iTrader: (0)
 
Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 22,761
Blog Entries: 1
Talking OBAMA?

the WHOLE political system is in SHAMBLES because of his presidency....

I doubt it'll ever recover....

he's about as QUALIFIED as Michael Jackson playing for the NFL.

well, that's just my less than Humble Opinion....

ok rant over CARRY on
Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2013, 11:49 AM   #16
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Scott and detbuch, you keep stating that I'm advocating for equality of outcome. Not even close.

A made-up, hypothetical scenario. Lat's say it costs $500,000 to open a McDonalds. Let's say my friends were able to save that much. But all of a sudden, that $500k is wiped out to pay for catastrophic medical expenses. In that case, because of the specific event which they had no control over, let's assume there was a federal program that picked up that tab.

Now he has the $500k to open a McDonalds. I am not suggesting, in any way, that his success should be guaranteed. If the business fails because he is incompetent, or lazy, or because he blows the money betting on college football, or because a better businessman opens up a Burger King across the street, I would never say that society has a responsibility to provide him the wealth he could not acquire.

Say there are 2 identical famillies who want to open a McDonalds. Each family has squirreled away the $500k to pay the fees. Family A has an unforseen medical situation that wipes out their savings. I don't think that Family B 'deserves' the opportunity to open a McDonalds any more than family A does. I'd like to see them both have the same chance to succeed.

Opportunity. Not outcome.
See, your overlooking the pre-existing condition that people have, as you say, "zero control" over. The most obvious one in the case of your hypothetical scenario is that there are no two "identical" families. Unless by some rare twist identical twin brothers married identical twin sisters. But even in that event differences would occur through nature and nurture. So if it takes equal identity to create equal opportunity ... well, you get the picture.

But, if in your scenario what makes the families identical is that they both saved up $500k so that they both had the same financial opportunity to open a McDonalds, but one lost the money due to uncontrollable circumstances, it would only be "fair" for the rest of society to make the losing family whole by giving them a $500K gift from the rest of us . . . umm, that is problematic. Are you assuming that the rest of us have the "opportunity" to save $500K? What about the many somebodies that are born into families that lack such attitudes of thrift or potential to even earn that amount? What about the individual that didn't have the "opportunity" to earn the $500K due to family background, negative inherited capabilities, and so on that he had no control over? If he/she wanted to open a McDonalds should the rest of us give him/her the $500K gift? Are you saying that if we all put in a few extra bucks into some anti-catastrophic fund it would cover the massive potential of payouts to "deserving" recipients to do what they wish but are not capable because of things they had no control over.

And if the federal gvt. owns this insurance fund, will it even restrict itself to whatever minimal enumerations you limit it to which you think would make this fund fair and operable? The evidence is, as you might say, "irrefutable" that it wouldn't. This sort of "fairness," of so-called "equal opportunity" is what gives the federal leviathan the legitimacy to totally control our lives.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2013, 12:12 PM   #17
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,599
Detbuch, you guys are very, very skilled (and fair, by the way) at playing devil's advocate. As you say, no 2 situations are identical, and my lefty pie-in-the-sky collecticivist notion here would entail a lot of difficulties. All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect. This feels like one of those things to me, but reasonable people can certainly disagree...
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2013, 07:16 PM   #18
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Detbuch, you guys are very, very skilled (and fair, by the way) at playing devil's advocate. As you say, no 2 situations are identical, and my lefty pie-in-the-sky collecticivist notion here would entail a lot of difficulties. All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect. This feels like one of those things to me, but reasonable people can certainly disagree...
So, being hard, overcoming obstacles, losses, tragedies must be beautiful. Are they less beautiful if government makes it easier? Is the beauty lost if the difficulty is lost?

We don't disagree a whole lot. Mostly on one small item--the fundamental damage done to founding principles when the federal government goes beyond its enumerated powers to "solve" societal or individual problems. It has never been a secret what happens to moral or governing principles when they are violated and then accepted. That it not only changes the rule for a temporary "good," it sets a precedent for constant changes so that the principle is eventually lost.

Your Catholicism, I think, would agree with your political conservatism on that point. Maybe not.

How about the greatest poet/writer in the English language, Shakespeare? In his play, The Merchant of Venice when Portia in disguise is acting as a judge is asked "To do a great right, do a little wrong," she replies,

"'Twill be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
Will rush into the State. It cannot be."

The great right you wish to be accomplished by establishing a way to help individuals in time of catastrophic need is noble. Many have done such great things. I think even your Catholicism, which has charity as a prime action, would agree that its fundamental faiths and structures must not be subverted for charity. That no charity should take from an individual his responsibility toward church and God and shift it to the State. We have fundamental founding principles that not only place the burden of responsibility for their own lives on individuals, but prevent the State from usurping those responsibilities to grow its own power. The Federal Government was founded to have no business in charity. That was left to individuals and their local and state governments. That was an extremely important restriction. Without it, individual sovereignty is lost. That cannot be overstated.

Individuals and local governments have always been involved with charity. They are less so now that the central government has taken on so much of what individuals and their States had done. You have argued against what has become of this country because of it. Go ahead and be charitable. Campaign in your city, county, State, to help when individuals can't.

Just don't insist that the federal government do it. That is the little difference between us.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2013, 06:50 PM   #19
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
But, if in your scenario what makes the families identical is that they both saved up $500k so that they both had the same financial opportunity to open a McDonalds, but one lost the money due to uncontrollable circumstances, it would only be "fair" for the rest of society to make the losing family whole by giving them a $500K gift from the rest of us . . . umm, that is problematic.
ya think?....

btw Jim, this has not at all been "playing devil's advocate"...it's pointing out the obvious problems with your logic, it "feels" right to you in your scenario, the government simply writing a check to your friends in this case...but applied broadly, given what we know about the propensities of those that you'd like to see administering this and the Pandora's box you'd be opening...it makes no sense...but nothing else makes sense....come up with a catchy name for it and I'm sure it will pass......" The Elimination of Life's Hardships And Equal Opportunity(but not Outcomes) Through Government Benevolence Act of 2013"...need a jingle that sort of rhymes too...that always works..."when things get bad...we'll pick up the tab"

Originally Posted by Jim in CT
All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect.


looking to the government to write a check..is not "hard"...it's actually the "easy" solution...which is why it's so popular....holding fund raisers, rallying a community and media, swallowing your pride and "asking for help", calling charities and corporations and others who have interests in these types of situations ...is "hard"...but often prove wildly successful

Last edited by scottw; 11-05-2013 at 06:58 PM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 06:25 PM   #20
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
I'm not sure her being dumped a year ago means all that much. What's more important is that UHC is leaving the individual market in California because they don't make any money.

Employer provided insurance shifts all the time, I have to change every few years and with it doctors and coverage change. Should I be outraged also?

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2013, 07:04 PM   #21
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Very interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpe...lth-insurance/

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 06:44 AM   #22
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
But at what cost
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ow-to-elderly/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 09:15 AM   #23
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,599
Back to my original question, it appears the Dems will pay a price. Obama's approval ratings now start with a '3', still absurdly high, but moving in the right direction. And in VA, where there was a (1)tea party Republican running for governor, AND (2) an idiot libertarian running as a third party candidate, the Democrat won 48-45 in an election that should have been a rout.

To the Libertarians who like running as a 3rd party candidate - all you are doing is handing victories to the Democrats. In a place like VA especially, that is all you are doing, because no place with that many federal workers is ever going to elect a Libertarian, ever. If you want to change the Republican Party, you do what the Tea Party did, and they didn't even exist 5 years ago.

Last edited by Jim in CT; 11-07-2013 at 09:35 AM..
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 01:49 PM   #24
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,184
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Back to my original question, it appears the Dems will pay a price. Obama's approval ratings now start with a '3', still absurdly high, but moving in the right direction. And in VA, where there was a (1)tea party Republican running for governor, AND (2) an idiot libertarian running as a third party candidate, the Democrat won 48-45 in an election that should have been a rout.

To the Libertarians who like running as a 3rd party candidate - all you are doing is handing victories to the Democrats. In a place like VA especially, that is all you are doing, because no place with that many federal workers is ever going to elect a Libertarian, ever. If you want to change the Republican Party, you do what the Tea Party did, and they didn't even exist 5 years ago.
Totally agree.

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 01:48 PM   #25
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,184
Blog Entries: 1
Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?

Honestly what could happen to him politically now, he has his two terms as president and he is going to be forever done with politics unless his wife runs for office. Screw them both

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 02:35 PM   #26
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist View Post
Screw them both
Totally agree!
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 02:45 PM   #27
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist View Post
Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?
Here's my understanding, based on the tortured jibberish that Obama has been spouting since his approval ratings took a dive.

From what I understood Obama to say...Obamacare set minumum guidelines that plans had to meet. In the individual market, many plans did not meet those guidelines. It looks like existing plans that did not meet the guidelines would be grandfathered in (not required to meet the new requirements), UNLESS those plans changed in any way. For a cheapo plan to get grandfathered, it had no stay identical to what it was last year. If those plans changed at all, then they now had to meet the new minumum standards. And I gather that it's unheard of for those plans to not change at least a bit, so essentially, very few plans would be able to get grandfathered.

This time next year, Obamacare could clobber the Dems worse than it did in 2010. Back then, it was all theory. Next year, many Americans will be keenly aware that they are paying a lot more, and businesses will be keenly aware that Americans suddenly have less disposable income.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 06:38 PM   #28
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 20,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Here's my understanding, based on the tortured jibberish that Obama has been spouting since his approval ratings took a dive.

From what I understood Obama to say...Obamacare set minumum guidelines that plans had to meet. In the individual market, many plans did not meet those guidelines. It looks like existing plans that did not meet the guidelines would be grandfathered in (not required to meet the new requirements), UNLESS those plans changed in any way. For a cheapo plan to get grandfathered, it had no stay identical to what it was last year. If those plans changed at all, then they now had to meet the new minumum standards. And I gather that it's unheard of for those plans to not change at least a bit, so essentially, very few plans would be able to get grandfathered.

This time next year, Obamacare could clobber the Dems worse than it did in 2010. Back then, it was all theory. Next year, many Americans will be keenly aware that they are paying a lot more, and businesses will be keenly aware that Americans suddenly have less disposable income.
Americans suddenly had less disposable income a long time ago.. Specifically when oil prices started climbing and food costs started climbing.. Who was president then???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 07:35 PM   #29
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Americans suddenly had less disposable income a long time ago.. Specifically when oil prices started climbing and food costs started climbing.. Who was president then???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Gas was under 2 bucks a gallon when Bush left office ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 08:13 PM   #30
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Gas was under 2 bucks a gallon when Bush left office ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Only because the economy was imploding. Buck, you know better...

-spence
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com