Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA

[The Rabbi]

What country has that worked in?

This one. Perhaps you should know a little history.

And while you are at it, pick up a few pointers on economics and the captialist/free market model.

LOL.

This one he says.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh Billy Bob

People laugh at what they don't understand.
You probably laugh a lot.

 

[kaz]

What country has that worked in?

This one. Perhaps you should know a little history.

And while you are at it, pick up a few pointers on economics and the captialist/free market model.

LOL.

This one he says.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh Billy Bob

The more government gets involved, the worse it gets, which motivates you people to propose as a solution ... more government ...

Einstein: Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[dblack]

This one. Perhaps you should know a little history.

And while you are at it, pick up a few pointers on economics and the captialist/free market model.

LOL.

This one he says.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh Billy Bob

People laugh at what they don't understand.
You probably laugh a lot.

That's hilarious!

 

[RDD_1210]

This one. Perhaps you should know a little history.

And while you are at it, pick up a few pointers on economics and the captialist/free market model.

LOL.

This one he says.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh Billy Bob

The more government gets involved, the worse it gets, which motivates you people to propose as a solution ... more government ...

Einstein: Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.

 

[dblack]

LOL.

This one he says.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh Billy Bob

The more government gets involved, the worse it gets, which motivates you people to propose as a solution ... more government ...

Einstein: Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.

facts don't talk

 

[Bombur]

Wow!!

Just wow!

Not sure if that was irony in the post or just plain stupidity.

Obviously you have reading comprehension issues. I have easily blown you out of the water in every single debate we have had between each other. That means I have owned you. You called me stupid. Now if I am so stupid, then what are you? Certainly not as intelligent as say,,,me!
Now there are quite a few conservatives that I have great respect for on these boards. Unlike you, they aren't echo chambers of far right talking points, they think for themselves and demonstrate great usage of their grey matter. You? You are Mr. Talking Points using other people's train of thought
Here's an example of your great intelligence and during the process you make yourself into the joke of the thread. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...progressives-don-t-have-a-sense-of-humor.html

He fears UHC because of Germany's "very high costs." There is really zero point in having a discussion with someone so detached from reality that he doesn't recognize the importance of such vast differences in cost.

 

[RDD_1210]

The more government gets involved, the worse it gets, which motivates you people to propose as a solution ... more government ...

Einstein: Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.

facts don't talk

Is that a fact?

 

[dblack]

Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.

facts don't talk

Is that a fact?

 

[RandomVariable]

Here's a modest proposal:
The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate. Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
What do you think?

If you are referring to H.R. 4015, which was just passed in the House, there is a problem with that. I just missed debate as I thought the House wasn't conducting business until 12:00 so I was watching the Foreign Relations Committee instead.

House advances bill to delay ObamaCare mandate | TheHill

The House on Thursday advanced a bill to delay enforcement of the individual mandate under ObamaCare for five years, amid Democratic complaints that the bill would raise insurance premiums and leave millions uninsured.

...

The legislation, H.R. 4015, started as a bill to repeal scheduled cuts to Medicare physicians — members of both parties support this "doc fix" proposal. However, Republicans have added language to pay for the doc fix by delaying the individual mandate penalties, a change that many Democrats were expected to oppose.

...

"In this case, the Republicans are presumably to embarrassed about their pay-for … that they are slipping it into the rule, in what's called the 'deem-and-pass' language, or what is characterized by some as the 'demon pass' language," said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.).

Republicans downplayed the idea of delaying enforcement of the mandate, and cast the bill as a way out of the endless threat of cuts to doctors under the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. Congress has routinely dodged those cuts, but Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) said the bill should be seen as a permanent way out of this problem.

...

On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a score that said the doc fix portion of the bill would cost $138 billion, and ending enforcement of the individual mandate would save $170 billion over 10 years.

Dropping enforcing of the mandate would mean the government receives no penalties from the uninsured, but it would also mean the government spends less on subsidies to help people buy insurance. The CBO also said the bill would lead to 13 million more uninsured people in 2018, and that insurance premiums would increase.

The original bill on the SGR had 48 Democratic co-sponsors, but there were signs during Thursday's debate that much of that Democratic support would dissipate because of the addition of the individual mandate language. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) is a current co-sponsor of H.R. 4015, and while he didn't say he would vote against the bill, he warned that the mandate language means it won't go anywhere.

...

If these issues really matter to the Republicans they need to stop sabotaging their own bills.

 

[kaz]

LOL.

This one he says.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh Billy Bob

The more government gets involved, the worse it gets, which motivates you people to propose as a solution ... more government ...

Einstein: Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.

Interesting, so maybe you can clarify this for me then. So as government has been regulating more and more extensively over the last few decades, if things are not getting worse, then why did we need Obamacare?

 

[RDD_1210]

The more government gets involved, the worse it gets, which motivates you people to propose as a solution ... more government ...

Einstein: Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.

Interesting, so maybe you can clarify this for me then. So as government has been regulating more and more extensively over the last few decades, if things are not getting worse, then why did we need Obamacare?

And you think government involvement is the reason people were denied due to preexisting conditions?

 

[kaz]

Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.

Interesting, so maybe you can clarify this for me then. So as government has been regulating more and more extensively over the last few decades, if things are not getting worse, then why did we need Obamacare?

And you think government involvement is the reason people were denied due to preexisting conditions?

1) Obamacare is about a lot more than pre-existing conditions.

2) Young and healthy people are not signing up and overpaying for their own coverage to offset the pre-existing condition mandate, so are you not seeing a government created disaster on the horizon? Of course, all the liberals will demand the fix of "more government" for that...

I also don't see any Constitutional authority for the Federal government in the name of pre-existing conditions to take over the medical care industry...

 

[Bombur]

If we want an efficient model we have to go with some sort of UHC model. There is really no evidence to suggest things will get better in our broken hybrid model.

Obamacare shifts costs around which has opened people's eyes to the debacle that our system is.

There is nothing in the constitution stopping us from extending Medicaid or Medicare to everyone.

 

[dblack]

If we want an efficient model we have to go with some sort of UHC model. There is really no evidence to suggest things will get better in our broken hybrid model.

If running society as an efficient system was the goal, I suspect we'd be doing a lot of things differently.

 

[Bombur]

If we want an efficient model we have to go with some sort of UHC model. There is really no evidence to suggest things will get better in our broken hybrid model.

If running society as an efficient system was the goal, I suspect we'd be doing a lot of things differently.

Do you have a point?

 

[dblack]

If we want an efficient model we have to go with some sort of UHC model. There is really no evidence to suggest things will get better in our broken hybrid model.

If running society as an efficient system was the goal, I suspect we'd be doing a lot of things differently.

Do you have a point?

That running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.

Interesting, so maybe you can clarify this for me then. So as government has been regulating more and more extensively over the last few decades, if things are not getting worse, then why did we need Obamacare?

And you think government involvement is the reason people were denied due to preexisting conditions?

That isn't a thought, that's a fact.

I realize someone who spends his time cyber stalking people isnt into thinking beyond Stage One, but bear with me.
You would agree that insurance companies, those greedy heartless bastards, are in it to make money, yes?
Now, do they make money by denying policies or by writing policies? Clearly by writing policies. Yes, if they dont price the policy correctly they can lose money on it, but they have good data to where that doesnt happen or they mitigate the loss.
Now, even people with pre-existing conditions have predictable rates of claims. The data are out there. Since it can be predicted the likelihood of their claims can be figured into an appropriate premium that accounts for that likelihood.
Naturally that premium will be substantially higher than for someone who doesnt have pre-existing conditions. Just like a 20 year old kid with a Mustang and 2 DUIs and 3 speeding tickets pays more for car insurance than a 50 year old woman in a sedan with a clean record.

So why didnt insurers write these high risk policies? Could it be that the state insurance commissioners, which regulate and oversee every insurance policy sold, would not allow them to price for the extra risk, and therefore they simply declined to write the policies?
Or is it because insurance companies are meanies?


My prediction is you cannot pay attention past the second sentence, will misread half the post, or will respond with a witty throwaway line.

 

[Bombur]

If running society as an efficient system was the goal, I suspect we'd be doing a lot of things differently.

Do you have a point?

That running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government.

Good luck with that opinion. It is going to take you places.

 

[dblack]

Do you have a point?

That running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government.

Good luck with that opinion. It is going to take you places.

Have you thought about where its alternative is likely to take us? The idea that it the purpose of government IS to "run" society efficiently? Because you should. You should give it real consideration and try to put it in historical context.

 

[Bombur]

That running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government.

Good luck with that opinion. It is going to take you places.

Have you thought about where its alternative is likely to take us? The idea that it the purpose of government IS to "run" society efficiently? Because you should. You should give it real consideration and try to put it in historical context.

Like with roads and public education.

OHH THE HORROR!!!