You voted for Obamacare..well here it is...now take it.

[TheMACHINE]

http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10611632

Elections have consequences

[George Gervin's Afro]

so what's your point?

[TheMACHINE]

elections have consquences.

[George Gervin's Afro]

elections have consquences.

are you just realizing this now?

[TheMACHINE]

are you just realizing this now?

Did i say i just realized it now?

[CosmicCowboy]

so what's your point?

One pointis that you can throw the CBO cost estimates for Ocare out the window. Businesses and individuals typically act in their own rational self interest. The actual cost will be much much higher than projected.

[boutons_deux]

"CBO cost estimates for Ocare out the window."

.. CC opining is his "rational self interest".

[ChumpDumper]

Hm, working for Wal-Mart still sucks.

Shocking.

[CosmicCowboy]

"CBO cost estimates for Ocare out the window."

.. CC opining is his "rational self interest".




We already know you are planning on sucking on that obamacare tit, so you are acting in your rational self interest as well.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hm, working for Wal-Mart still sucks.

Shocking.

Yeah, but under Ocare they weren't going to be obligated to provide insurance to part timers anyway, but they can cut the insurance guilt free now knowing that big daddy Obama is gonna take care of them.

[TheMACHINE]

Yeah, but under Ocare they weren't going to be obligated to provide insurance to part timers anyway, but they can cut the insurance guilt free now knowing that big daddy Obama is gonna take care of them.

Bingo

[LnGrrrR]

individuals typically act in their own rational self interest.

Actually, there's alot of evidence out there that is starting to prove otherwise. (For instance, poor people in the South voting for Republicans...)

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, but under Ocare they weren't going to be obligated to provide insurance to part timers anyway, but they can cut the insurance guilt free now knowing that big daddy Obama is gonna take care of them.This is all just intermediate bullshit until we actually move to catch up with the rest of the world health care wise. I guess bitching can make one feel better about oneself in the meantime.

[ElNono]

http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10611632

Elections have consequences

This is good news, IMO.

[ElNono]

This is all just intermediate bullshit until we actually move to catch up with the rest of the world health care wise. I guess bitching can make one feel better about oneself in the meantime.

Pretty much. The quicker we splinter healthcare from employment, the quicker pressure will build up for a single payer system.

[boutons_deux]

The sooner the govt and Human-Americans fights back and fucks over the for-profit health-care system, the better.

ACA obviously is nothing but a miraculous (in view of Repug obstructionism) small step forward, however screwed up it was by extortion from the for-profit vultures.

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare Has Saved Seniors $5 Billion On Prescription Drugs (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/03/1272461/obamacare-saved-seniors-5-billion/)Despite the fact that the cost of brand name drugs has skyrocketed (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/30/1265111/chart-brand-name-drug-prices-are-skyrocketing/) over the past few years, one Obamacare provision is helping seniors on Medicare save billions on their prescription drug costs.

Over the summer, data from the Centers for Medicare And Medicaid Services (CMS) showed that the Affordable Care Act had already saved 5.2 million seniors and people with disabilities nearly $4 billion on their prescriptions (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/25/583121/obamacare-seniors-prescriptions-savings/) by closing the “donut hole” coverage gap and ensuring that more prescription drugs are covered under Medicare. And today, the Obama Administration announced that their updated data shows seniors’ savings have now surpassed $5 million (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/270557-hhs-health-law-saved-seniors-5b-on-meds?utm_campaign=hillhealthwatch&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter), as nearly 2.8 million Americans have saved an average of $677 on their prescription medications so far this year.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/03/1272461/obamacare-saved-seniors-5-billion/

Big Item for 2nd term: annul the REPUG REGULATION (one REGULATION that REPGUS LOVE!) that forbids govt from negotiating drug/device prices, and screw the prices down to where other countries pay (like 50% less).

[boutons_deux]

Actually, there's alot of evidence out there that is starting to prove otherwise. (For instance, poor people in the South voting for Republicans...)


ignorant red-staters have bought the REPUG lie that ALL GOVT is BAD, GOVT IS THE PROBLEM, then add in the ignorant red-staters who hate gays, blacks, browns, and that's the Repug red state voting block.

ignorant, close-minded, uneducated, low-wage, and social issue over financial self interest.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10611632

Elections have consequences

Walmart never paid much in benefits anyway.


For Walmart, this latest policy represents a step back in time. Almost seven years ago, as Walmart confronted public criticism that its employees couldn't afford its benefits, the company announced with much fanfare that it would expand health coverage for part-time workers.

But last year, the company eliminated coverage for some part-time workers -- those new hires working 24 hours a week or less. Now, Walmart is going further.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&annual

Even so, Walmart does not operate on a large profit margin overall. About 3% on revenues.

[RandomGuy]

One pointis that you can throw the CBO cost estimates for Ocare out the window. Businesses and individuals typically act in their own rational self interest. The actual cost will be much much higher than projected.

Likely.

You better hope they don't raise Medicare eligibility ages either. That will shift insurance costs to the private sector and young people.

[RandomGuy]

This is all just intermediate bullshit until we actually move to catch up with the rest of the world health care wise. I guess bitching can make one feel better about oneself in the meantime.

Eyup. We like to pretend like health care is a good and service like any other. It isn't.

All of our risks are pooled through extremely inefficient cost-shifting now. We would be vastly better off if that cost shifting were out in the open, so we would all have a clearer picture about how that happens, and what it is all costing us.

[boutons_deux]

Walmart never paid much in benefits anyway.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&annual

Even so, Walmart does not operate on a large profit margin overall. About 3% on revenues.

I read a few days ago that Amazon is at about 2%. Amazing.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Actually, there's alot of evidence out there that is starting to prove otherwise. (For instance, poor people in the South voting for Republicans...)


When people don't vote for their own best interests, it's usually due to religious dogma which is why religious countries are generally in much worse shape than secular countries. Fortunately America has gotten secular enough since 2004 that god mongering isn't enough to win elections anymore.

[boutons_deux]

Walmart never paid much in benefits anyway.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&annual

Even so, Walmart does not operate on a large profit margin overall. About 3% on revenues.

Reagan's "Welfare Queen" FOUND! In our search for this “Welfare Queen,” we were looking for actual people when we should have been looking for corporate people. We should have been looking at Wal-Mart.


Wal-Mart is the largest private employer and brought in more revenue (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/05/fortune-500-list-walmart-exxon-profitable_n_857991.html) in 2011 than any other company in the nation. Wal-Mart pocketed a not-too-shabby $16.4 billion in profits that same year and the six Wal-Mart heirs, the Walton family, own roughly $100 billion in wealth, which is more than 40% of Americans combined.

But, despite making all of this money, Wal-Mart’s business model hinges on mooching from the government. It hinges on being the biggest “Welfare Queen” in the United States.

Because of the “everyday low wages” that the retail giant pays its employees, our government has to step in and provide public assistance to Wal-Mart workers just so they can survive…which is why the Wal-Mart workforce represents the largest recipient of federal aid (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/20/1101630/-ATTN-GOP-SENATORS-Walmart-Is-The-Largest-Food-Stamp-Recipient-In-The-Country-Fine-Them) in the nation.

A Wal-Mart worker makes on average 31% less than a worker for any other large retailer, and requires (http://www.ilsr.org/new-study-finds-walmarts-miserly-wages-cost-taxpayers/) 39% more in public assistance.

A recent study by UC Berkeley (http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart.pdf) found that Wal-Mart’s low wages are costing the state of California alone $86 million a year to provide public assistance like food stamps and healthcare to the retailer’s 44,000 low-wage employees in the state. The state spends nearly $2,000 every single year on each Wal-Mart employee who can’t afford basic essentials like housing, food, and healthcare with their Wal-Mart paycheck.

In total, it’s estimated that Walmart stores loot (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/20/1101630/-ATTN-GOP-SENATORS-Walmart-Is-The-Largest-Food-Stamp-Recipient-In-The-Country-Fine-Them) more than $2.6 billion every single year from the federal government in the form of tax-payer funded public assistance to their employees. That includes more than one billion in healthcare costs associated with Medicaid, and $225 million in free or reduced-price lunches for school children of Wal-Mart employees.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13127-reagans-welfare-queen-found

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

TruthOut...

LOL...

[Jacob1983]

I voted for Gary Johnson and got nothing.

[boutons_deux]

WC :lol

Any comment on taxpayers subsidizing $Bs of Walmart's no-benefit, non-living wages, while WM pockets $Bs in profits? straight-thru redistribution of taxpayer wealth to WM.

[Wild Cobra]

WC :lol

Any comment on taxpayers subsidizing $Bs of Walmart's no-benefit, non-living wages, while WM pockets $Bs in profits? straight-thru redistribution of taxpayer wealth to WM.
Tax payers are subsidizing Walmart employees no more than any other employee making the same wages. Your question is rather idiotic.

[boutons_deux]

Tax payers are subsidizing Walmart employees no more than any other employee making the same wages. Your question is rather idiotic.

Exactly, idiot. When ANY company won't pay living wages, then taxpayers subsidize those companies by helping their employees towards the poverty line.

[Latarian Milton]

OP must regret immigrating to the US imho

[Capt Bringdown]

Pretty much. The quicker we splinter healthcare from employment, the quicker pressure will build up for a single payer system.
The public option was necessary to create the political space/pressure for the development of a single payer system. I'm not sure Obamacare does enough to contain/reduce costs, which means that it will always be vunerable to repeal or replacement.
I doubt Obamacare moved the needle one iota towards a single payer system, but rather smothered the possibility of real reform for another generation. After all, Obamacare is at bottom a piece of Republican legislation - it seems like wishful partisan thinking to believe it's going to do anything other than what it was designed to do: extend and enhance the death grip of the status quo.

[boutons_deux]

The Huge (And Rarely Discussed) Health Insurance Tax Break

the most tax revenue (http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/08/31/eight-tax-breaks-that-cost-uncle-sam-big-money/) the federal government forgoes every year is from not taxing the value of health insurance that employers provide their workers.

"If we treated health insurance the same way we treat wages," says Gruber, "we would raise about $250 billion per year more." That not only makes the health insurance exclusion the federal government's largest tax break, but it's also "the third largest health care program in the U.S., after Medicare and Medicaid."

"If we ended the tax exclusion, we could cover every uninsured American with health insurance twice over,"

One big reason economists from across the ideological spectrum (http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=7) don't much like the insurance tax exclusion is that it's regressive. That means those it helps the most are the richest people with the most generous health plans.
"So if you're uninsured, you get nothing," says Ron Pollack of the consumer group Families USA (http://www.familiesusa.org/). "If you're a low-wage worker, you get a very little tax break. If you get a lousy health care plan you get a very little break out of this."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/12/04/166434247/the-huge-and-rarely-discussed-health-insurance-tax-break

[CosmicCowboy]

So Boutox is for raising taxes on those making less than $250,000. Check.

[boutons_deux]

So Boutox is for raising taxes on those making less than $250,000. Check.

Killing tax-free employer health insurance would force people to demand, insist upon a non-profit hard-core public health insurance option, Medicare for all. As the article shows, the biggest beneficiaries of regressive tax-free health insurance are the top earners, who would be hit a lot harder than the lower earners.

[boutons_deux]

tax-free employer health insurance is actually a scam, skimming people's salaries and hosing their $Bs right to the for-profit health insurers, their highly paid mgmt, and the investors, often p/e owners.

[Th'Pusher]

So Boutox is for raising taxes on those making less than $250,000. Check.

I'd be for the elimination of that deduction. As the article points out, it results in inflation in healthcare cost which is the primary driver of our national deficit. Ultimately it would force more people on to Obamacare, the next step to true universal healthcare.

[CosmicCowboy]

Killing tax-free employer health insurance would force people to demand, insist upon a non-profit hard-core public health insurance option, Medicare for all. As the article shows, the biggest beneficiaries of regressive tax-free health insurance are the top earners, who would be hit a lot harder than the lower earners.

The article didn't show shit. It made the unsubstantiated claim that the deduction was regressive. Essentially the proposal turns all health care cost into taxable income and that affect everyone that has insurance.

[Wild Cobra]

Exactly, idiot. When ANY company won't pay living wages, then taxpayers subsidize those companies by helping their employees towards the poverty line.
If it were just that simple. You know, Utopia is a fantasy, right?

[boutons_deux]

If it were just that simple. You know, Utopia is a fantasy, right?

It is that simple. Employers pay shit wages, taxpayers lift the shit-wage earners upward.

[boutons_deux]

The article didn't show shit. It made the unsubstantiated claim that the deduction was regressive. Essentially the proposal turns all health care cost into taxable income and that affect everyone that has insurance.

"unsubstantiated claim that the deduction was regressive"

it's extremely, INARGUABLY regressive.

unemployed, self-employed, employed w/o employer health insurance must pay for their own probably high-deductible/copy with their after-tax income, while insured employees "buy" group insurance with pre-tax wages, with small/no deductive. And the higher the wage earner, the more coverage, the more access to care. HIGHLY regressive.

[Wild Cobra]

It is that simple. Employers pay shit wages, taxpayers lift the shit-wage earners upward.
How do you get employers to pay a living wage? Now a days, it seems to be considered on the order of $16 per hour or more.

[CosmicCowboy]

"unsubstantiated claim that the deduction was regressive"

it's extremely, INARGUABLY regressive.

unemployed, self-employed, employed w/o employer health insurance must pay for their own probably high-deductible/copy with their after-tax income, while insured employees "buy" group insurance with pre-tax wages, with small/no deductive. And the higher the wage earner, the more coverage, the more access to care. HIGHLY regressive.

self employed premiums are deductible, and if you don't have insurance for whatever reason the deductibility of insurance premiums is academic.

[Trainwreck2100]

it's abosolutely obama's fault soulless corporations are taking advantage of AHA.

[boutons_deux]

How do you get employers to pay a living wage? Now a days, it seems to be considered on the order of $16 per hour or more.

You can't force them to pay decent. They've won the War on Employees, and in bad faith, they are continuing the bloodbath relentlessly. The 99% is pretty much fucked and unfuckable.

[boutons_deux]

Brand Name Drug Prices Are Skyrocketing


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rx-price.jpg


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/30/1265111/chart-brand-name-drug-prices-are-skyrocketing/

BigPharma raises prices BECAUSE THEY CAN, are unstoppable robbers.

[CosmicCowboy]

it's abosolutely obama's fault soulless corporations are taking advantage of AHA.

Maybe they should have read the motherfucker before they passed it.

That 3.5% additional tax on cap gains to fund obamacare was slick. Makes you think they are skinnin the rich people. In reality, you work all your life, pay your house off, decide to downsize and move? Suddenly that $200,000 "income" in one year when you sell it makes you rich. Thank you for playing, dumbass.

[Th'Pusher]

Maybe they should have read the motherfucker before they passed it.

That 3.5% additional tax on cap gains to fund obamacare was slick. Makes you think they are skinnin the rich people. In reality, you work all your life, pay your house off, decide to downsize and move? Suddenly that $200,000 "income" in one year when you sell it makes you rich. Thank you for playing, dumbass.

You use this example all the time even though there is a $250k single/ $500k married exemption for profit on the sale of a home. Are you unaware of the exemption even though it's been pointed out to you multiple times, or do you just like to disseminate misinformation because it suits your narrative?

[CosmicCowboy]

You use this example all the time even though there is a $250k single/ $500k married exemption for profit on the sale of a home. Are you unaware of the exemption even though it's been pointed out to you multiple times, or do you just like to disseminate misinformation because it suits your narrative?

It's all on the table now. Or haven't you noticed?

[Th'Pusher]

It's all on the table now. Or haven't you noticed?

And which side is pushing to eliminate deductions as opposed to increasing rates on the top 2%.

[Goliadnative]

This is all just intermediate bullshit until we actually move to catch up with the rest of the world health care wise. I guess bitching can make one feel better about oneself in the meantime.

Now sick babies go on death pathway (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73Dhen)

491 babies born alive after failed abortions, left to die: Statistics Canada confirms (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/491-babies-born-alive-after-failed-abortions-left-to-die-in-canada-statscan#)

[ElNono]

Now sick babies go on death pathway (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73Dhen)

491 babies born alive after failed abortions, left to die: Statistics Canada confirms (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/491-babies-born-alive-after-failed-abortions-left-to-die-in-canada-statscan#)

You're conflating two different points: abortion and who pays for healthcare. Having a single-payor system like Canada doesn't mean Roe vs Wade has to go away. They're actually not connected at all.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Walmart never paid much in benefits anyway.



http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT+Income+Statement&annual

Even so, Walmart does not operate on a large profit margin overall. About 3% on revenues.


I read a few days ago that Amazon is at about 2%. Amazing.


Most fast food and retail businesses operate at 1.5 to 3% profit from revenue, its been that way since the 80´s, maybe sooner. They are able to do that and maintain wealth because of quantity.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Maybe they should have read the motherfucker before they passed it.

That 3.5% additional tax on cap gains to fund obamacare was slick. Makes you think they are skinnin the rich people. In reality, you work all your life, pay your house off, decide to downsize and move? Suddenly that $200,000 "income" in one year when you sell it makes you rich. Thank you for playing, dumbass.


They read it, it was passed with intent. Obama administration has sold out to big financial entities just the same as any Republican. You have to corrupt yourself in this manner to get elected.

large financial entities have screwed over this county and are hardly suffering for it. The mere fact you guys are arguing about it is a clear sign who go the short end of the stick. Thats exactly what the two parties want, you guys argue while they rob the country blind.

That´s why the vast majority of time in the media and from politicians is spend discussing personnel individual income tax. That way, they can slip nice benefits where people aren´t looking.

[Nbadan]

if obama 'sold out to soulless corporations', then why are these same 'soulless corporations' trying everything they can to circumvent Obama care?



And now, insurers have turned once again to the Chamber, this time to wage a behind-the-scenes campaign aimed at state insurance commissioners. If they succeed, insurers will be able to sell a highly profitable insurance product to a highly targeted group of small employers—those with mostly young and healthy workers. By buying this product—stop-loss insurance—those small employers would be able to avoid using the planned state insurance exchanges to obtain coverage for their workers.

Here’s why that’s important. Because of the way the Affordable Care Act is written, by avoiding the exchanges those small businesses would be exempt from having to comply with many of the most important consumer protections in the health law.

It’s complicated—so complicated that unless you are a reader of obscure insurance industry newsletters, you’ve probably never heard about this, even though it has the potential to cause the collapse of the exchanges and completely circumvent to intent of Congress. The intent of Congress was to make coverage more affordable and available to all of us, not just the young and healthy.

The key to this fight are those state insurance commissioners. Their organization, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, just wrapped up its fall meeting in Washington, where consumer advocates were pitted against lobbyists for big insurers and their old friend, the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has taken the lead in pressuring the NAIC to make it easy for insurers to sell stop-loss coverage to small businesses wanting to avoid many of the ACA’s consumer protections. Those protections aren’t a small matter; they would, among other things, prohibit insurers from charging people higher premiums because of their gender, age and health status. Buying stop-loss coverage would also allow employers to largely side-step any regulation at the state level.

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/12/the-behind-the-scenes-battle-that-could-subvert-obamacare/

The Chamber of Commerce has officially become a wing-nut tax-payer subsidized entity...

[Nbadan]

proof is in the puddin...


http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/50b9712169beddf452000013-960/healthcare-chart.png


and...


http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/04/us%20health%20care%20costs-thumb-600x326-47611.png


Private health care is the driving force behind inflation and the national debt....as a matter of national health and security, why do we evaluate teachers yearly, but not our insurance providers?

Why does private business get a pass?

[Wild Cobra]

You can't force them to pay decent. They've won the War on Employees, and in bad faith, they are continuing the bloodbath relentlessly. The 99% is pretty much fucked and unfuckable.
War on employees...

LOL... Bullshit.

Supply and demand.

We have been on this negative value of work ever since families insisted on two breadwinners, and now it takes both parents working to provide as well as when it was traditional that only the father worked. It is even worse yet with the number of illegal aliens we have working, keeping no skill, jobs at artificially low wages.

[Wild Cobra]

You use this example all the time even though there is a $250k single/ $500k married exemption for profit on the sale of a home. Are you unaware of the exemption even though it's been pointed out to you multiple times, or do you just like to disseminate misinformation because it suits your narrative?
There should be no tax on a home's profit unless it is indexed to inflation, and accounts for improvements.

If I buy a new home for $200k, have to buy topsoil, plant grass, trees, etc. Let them grow 15 years, have a fence, and other improvements like central heating/AC, etc. Sell the home for $300k, they expect me to pay taxes on the $100k gain. However, what is the increased value of mature trees, fence, yard, and other improvements also?

If I'm wrong, please, someone correct me.

[boutons_deux]

War on employees...

LOL... Bullshit.

Supply and demand.

We have been on this negative value of work ever since families insisted on two breadwinners, and now it takes both parents working to provide as well as when it was traditional that only the father worked. It is even worse yet with the number of illegal aliens we have working, keeping no skill, jobs at artificially low wages.

women went to work in the 1980s to maintain a standard of living due stagnation of real household income (as executive/financial sector income exploded), esp hit hard by the inflation of the early 80s, NOT because families "insisted".

undocumented aliens do work that US citizens won't do, just like Turks, Greeks, Italians, Maghreb do in Europe, and don't take work away from citizens.

[Th'Pusher]

There should be no tax on a home's profit unless it is indexed to inflation, and accounts for improvements.

If I buy a new home for $200k, have to buy topsoil, plant grass, trees, etc. Let them grow 15 years, have a fence, and other improvements like central heating/AC, etc. Sell the home for $300k, they expect me to pay taxes on the $100k gain. However, what is the increased value of mature trees, fence, yard, and other improvements also?

If I'm wrong, please, someone correct me.

If you're single, you would not be taxed on the profit on the sale of the home unless the profit exeeded $250k.

[Drachen]

There should be no tax on a home's profit unless it is indexed to inflation, and accounts for improvements.

If I buy a new home for $200k, have to buy topsoil, plant grass, trees, etc. Let them grow 15 years, have a fence, and other improvements like central heating/AC, etc. Sell the home for $300k, they expect me to pay taxes on the $100k gain. However, what is the increased value of mature trees, fence, yard, and other improvements also?

If I'm wrong, please, someone correct me.

You are wrong as evidenced by the post that YOU quoted.

[scott]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/04/us%20health%20care%20costs-thumb-600x326-47611.png



This is a fantastic graph that plainly illustrates the diminishing marginal returns on additional health care expenditure. Spending more money on health care won't make us healthier. There are some cultural dynamics at play that need to be address in the long run... but god forbid we make students receiving subsidized lunches eat something healthy!!!

[boutons_deux]

"Spending more money on health care won't make us healthier"

That was never the priority for decades. The priority is FOR-PROFIT.

[Drachen]

This is a fantastic graph that plainly illustrates the diminishing marginal returns on additional health care expenditure. Spending more money on health care won't make us healthier. There are some cultural dynamics at play that need to be address in the long run... but god forbid we make students receiving subsidized lunches eat something healthy!!!

I think that the choices should all be healthy. Your sides? Broccoli. Don't like broccoli? Steamed veggies. 2nd side? potatoes (mashed, cubed (baked)), usw.

[boutons_deux]

"some cultural dynamics"

There's almost no chance that the pathogenic US/corporate food culture can be changed.

[Th'Pusher]

I think that the choices should all be healthy. Your sides? Broccoli. Don't like broccoli? Steamed veggies. 2nd side? potatoes (mashed, cubed (baked)), usw.
And take away my fuckin' liberty? Over my dead body.

[Drachen]

And take away my fuckin' liberty? Over my dead body.

No one is going to stop your mom from sending you with a case of ding dongs and a vat of crisco for lunch.

[boutons_deux]

the best way to get Americans to change their diet/lifestyle is with money, which is their priority.

Rather than penalize greasebags with higher insurance premiums, insurers, including a govt insurer, should measure people's health and give serious reductions in premiums for "good numbers", including further reductions for maintaining good numbers for years (just like auto insurance coming down for no-claim drivers).

The costs of the testing would probably be cheaper than paying many $100Bs/year for self-inflicted lifestyle diseases.

[CosmicCowboy]

Being fat is a pre-existing condition. You want to charge people with pre-existing conditions more?

[boutons_deux]

Being fat is a pre-existing condition. You want to charge people with pre-existing conditions more?

RIF

I said no malus, only bonus for meeting/beating the numbers. greasebags would pay 100%, no discount. they don't pay "more", they pay 100%. If the greasebags get their numbers down, they also pay less than 100%.

[Drachen]

RIF

I said no malus, only bonus for meeting/beating the numbers. greasebags would pay 100%, no discount. they don't pay "more", they pay 100%. If the greasebags get their numbers down, they also pay less than 100%.

Damn, even you can't be blind enough to realize that this is just a semantic argument.

[boutons_deux]

Damn, even you can't be blind enough to realize that this is just a semantic argument.

no, it's not semantic. Everybody pays 100%, no discrimination. If you make your numbers, you pay less than 100%.

Nobody's forcing anybody to pay a malus or do anything (except pay what you owe).

[Drachen]

You know that this is exactly how the insurance industry has worked for ages, just in the opposite. Right?

It is semantic.

[CosmicCowboy]

You know that this is exactly how the insurance industry has worked for ages, just in the opposite. Right?

It is semantic.

I LOL'd at Boo endorsing a plan identical to the current insurance pricing he screams about. Thats why I tweaked him on the pre-existing condition and he didn't even get it. Younger, healthier people pay less.

[boutons_deux]

I LOL'd at Boo endorsing a plan identical to the current insurance pricing he screams about. Thats why I tweaked him on the pre-existing condition and he didn't even get it. Younger, healthier people pay less.

with the explosive obesity epidemic, sub-30 people now have middle age diseases of stroke, diabetes, heart disease.

[Drachen]

with the explosive obesity epidemic, sub-30 people now have middle age diseases of stroke, diabetes, heart disease.

So then you want to roll back the pre-existing condition clause of the ACA to fight this, no?

[boutons_deux]

"Younger, healthier people pay less."

under my proposal, they could get a discount for good numbers. Many young greasebags would be stuck with 100% premiums.

[Drachen]

So everyone pays 100%, but then if you don't have a certain disease (say HIV or diabetes) then you get a slight discount. Then if your cholesterol isn't high, then you get a slight discount. If you don't have cancer, then you get a slight discount. Oh! I know we could even say that if you are 25 or below, you get a discount, if you are between 25 and 35 you get a slightly smaller discount . . .

Is this how you envision this entirely new idea working?

[boutons_deux]

"if you don't have a certain disease (say HIV or diabetes) then you get a slight discount."

why slight? why not aggressive discounts to get people to chase/maintain their numbers?

Type II is almost 100% self-inflicted and curable.

cholesterol is a BigPharma scam.

cancer people can still make their numbers and get a discount, while getting full coverage for their disease.

plenty of sub-30 people are diseased and engage in risky behaviors more than older people. (sports, motorcycles, etc).

[CosmicCowboy]

So everyone pays 100%, but then if you don't have a certain disease (say HIV or diabetes) then you get a slight discount. Then if your cholesterol isn't high, then you get a slight discount. If you don't have cancer, then you get a slight discount. Oh! I know we could even say that if you are 25 or below, you get a discount, if you are between 25 and 35 you get a slightly smaller discount . . .

Is this how you envision this entirely new idea working?

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCnUPWeKW9y5TK6S5uomrfK5XsdIJAo Ne4CbrQyUyCyFhesY41Jg

[Drachen]

"if you don't have a certain disease (say HIV or diabetes) then you get a slight discount."

why slight? why not aggressive discounts to get people to chase/maintain their numbers?

Type II is almost 100% self-inflicted and curable.

cholesterol is a BigPharma scam.

cancer people can still make their numbers and get a discount, while getting full coverage for their disease.

plenty of sub-30 people are diseased and engage in risky behaviors more than older people. (sports, motorcycles, etc).






Oh I just meant small relative to the total premium. I feel like in this new system that these discounts would be cumulative. No Beetus + 24 years old + normal cholesterol = Large discount!

This completely original system could really work. I really wish that something similar was around when I sold health insurance. I'm excited.

[boutons_deux]

"No Beetus + 24 years old + normal cholesterol = Large discount"

take the age out of it.

it would obviously be quite complex to come define and capture the measurements, but it's worth a try.

the basic msg: show us your healthy numbers (we know you're doing your best to avoid health care for yourself), and we reduce your contribution to health care costs (insurance premiums).

[scott]

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/412/cheerscliff.jpg

[Nbadan]

Study: Health Reform Saved Consumers $1.5 Billion in 2011


President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) saved American consumers $1.5 billion on out-of-pocket health insurance premium costs in 2011, a study published Wednesday (PDF) claimed. Despite this, benefits of the law were not applied equally across all health insurance markets, leading the study’s authors to propose that stronger rules are needed.

Most of the savings cited by the report comes from the ACA’s requirement that medical loss ratios (MLR) stay at 80 percent, meaning 80 percent of all premium payments must be spent on actual health care. The goal of the requirement was to get premium costs down, but many of the law’s critics warned that it may not have that effect.

As 2011 was the first full year with the MLR rule in effect, health care advocacy group Commonwealth Fund looked at the annual financial reports of more than 2,000 insurance companies across the country, including a large proportion of organizations selling to policies to individual consumers. The study discovered that the MLR regulation forced insurers to pay $1.1 billion in rebates to their customers in 2011, while reducing their administrative costs by about $350 million to get profits within the approved range.

The biggest consumer benefits were seen in the individual market, where companies cut their overhead costs by about $66 per member, for a total of about $560 million in savings. An additional $394 million was sent back to customers who the law says overpaid on their premiums. Only one state, Rhode Island, saw an increase in administrative costs, while 39 states saw insurance companies slimming down and becoming more efficient in order to retain as much of their profits as possible.


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/05/study-health-reform-saved-consumers-1-5-billion-in-2011

[baseline bum]

boutons' argument is fucked and unfuckable

[boutons_deux]

"39 states saw insurance companies slimming down and becoming more efficient in order to retain as much of their profits as possible."

Profits first, patients whenever.

imagine how many $Ts the USA could save if a govt/public insurance company existed to provide as much coverage as possible BUT NO PROFITS paid for by citizens.