patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

So much for that promise

Ah what's one more broken promise.. ;)

What difference does it make as long as Homeboy is covered and receives hefty subsidy?

It'll only get worse. Funny thing is, those of us on the other side of the fence never had to lift a finger to sink this thing.

It certainly goes far enough to give the insurance companies extra money! The medical industrial complex can now become twice as bloated and provide half the service! Isn't socialism great?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Oh, and your evidence that it was a cover up is what exactly?

And your evidence that it wasn't a cover up is what exactly?

If a tie means you think you are winning you are a fool Bigs.

You are the one making the outlandish claim that runs contrary to the evidence about what happened. How would you expect me to go about disproving a claim by you that fairies live in the bottom of your garden? You've got the facts about what happened, as you now have about the Rooke case. You just choose to conjure up an entirely separate tale that doesn't take the real, fact-based evidence under consideration. That isn't a tie as you put it. That is you misrepresenting the known facts in an attempt to bolster your overall narrative.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

You are the one making the outlandish claim that runs contrary to the evidence about what happened.

The truth about 9/11 does not stand or fall with explosives in the vans of the Dancing Israelis. You are nuts.

Eh? Who said it did?

Call it Quits says

If they do show up because the government threatens them with fines the economy collapses as $3,200 a year exceeds the average 27 year old's disposable personal income after mandatory expenses (e.g. food, shelter, etc.)

If they can't afford it they will get a subsidy. And you know that perfectly well; you just deliberately neglected to mention it. You Obamacare haters don't have a leg to stand on fact-wise, so you have to make up lies.

Problem #2: Dingbat Karl Denninger says $266.20/month is the "average" rate a 27 year old will pay. Complete bullshit! That is the average of ALL plans OFFERED in all of the states that are using the federal exchange (basically the red states). That's like averaging a Maserati and a Toyota Corolla and claiming the "average" price a person must pay for a car is $79,000!

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY THE MOST EXPENSIVE INSURANCE PLAN, FOLKS. If you go to his data link and click to sort by price, some of those plans are as cheap as $81/month.

Duh.

Homeboy says

If you go to his data link and click to sort by price, some of those plans are as cheap as $81/month.

Even if that's true, how many 27 year old have a spare $972 to spend each year?

Article clearly states that the pricing is for unsubsidized people. I don't know why you are complaining about that.

I don't like the way the article is written, but if you read further down, they do make a lot of good points about how medical cost structure in the US is way too high, and of course nothing is done about that in Obamacare.

The federal government seems to be doing it's best to make medical treatments more expensive:
http://www.mises.org/daily/6567/The-FDA-A-Pain-From-the-Neck-to-the-Big-Toe

In the summer of 2009, the Food and Drug Administration approved Colcrys as a treatment for gout flare-ups and the Mediterranean fever. The FDA gave pharmaceutical company URL Pharma an exclusive marketing agreement for selling Colcrys in exchange for completing studies on Colcrys and paying the FDA a $45 million application fee.

Once again government has taken something that was both cheap and beneficial and turned it into a monopoly that hurts the general public and drives up the cost of medical care to the benefit of Big Pharma.

CMY says

It'll only get worse. Funny thing is, those of us on the other side of the fence never had to lift a finger to sink this thing.

If Irony was art, that would be the freaking Mona Lisa.

zzyzzx says

Homeboy says

If you go to his data link and click to sort by price, some of those plans are as cheap as $81/month.

Even if that's true, how many 27 year old have a spare $972 to spend each year?

I would add that the 81 buck a month policy is a crappy illusion of a simulacrum of insurance coverage.
It may be "affordable' but it ain't "health care".

This is now Speculation Part 2 after the bust in 2008; just found another vehicle, but the same old "shell game" that they used prior to the 2008 crash....it will not stop until they reinstate the same laws they had put in place with Roosevelt after the 1929 crash.....until then, its just onto the the next 'game' for the wall street players and we pay the bill; either through taxes or another crash, or both...

I've had a plan for four years for a family of four. Two children and two healthy adults in our forties. We received a termination notice because our plan doesn't meet the Obamacare guidelines. With all incentives our premium will more than double. I support the goal of Obamacare, but I was counting on keeping my plan as promised by my president. If I didn't keep my plan I thought I was going to get cheaper insurance. Both didn't happen. As a supporter of the plan I feel betrayed.

It won't screw anyone. But I am sure this sort of nonsense dialog will continue amongst those on the far right, whom got their feelings hurt that the fake grass roots movement they believe in failed to stop Obamacare from getting implemented...

ThreeBays says

zzyzzx says

To be un-subsidized a single person would have to have an income of $45k+.

On average why can't someone single with $45k income, spare $972? Any evidence of that?

$972/year is my budget for visiting war memorials.

I have no idea where I will find another $972 for health insurance, and I make far more than $45,000.

These made-up facts and horror stories about Benghazicare are so scary that I believe it will drive all Americans offshore, where talent is taxed less heavily.

d503 says

I've had a plan for four years for a family of four. Two children and two
healthy adults in our forties. We received a termination notice because our plan
doesn't meet the Obamacare guidelines. With all incentives our premium will more
than double. I support the goal of Obamacare, but I was counting on keeping my
plan as promised by my president. If I didn't keep my plan I thought I was going
to get cheaper insurance. Both didn't happen. As a supporter of the plan I feel
betrayed.

Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of this story...

d503 says

I've had a plan for four years for a family of four. Two children and two healthy adults in our forties. We received a termination notice because our plan doesn't meet the Obamacare guidelines. With all incentives our premium will more than double. I support the goal of Obamacare, but I was counting on keeping my plan as promised by my president. If I didn't keep my plan I thought I was going to get cheaper insurance. Both didn't happen. As a supporter of the plan I feel betrayed.

A friend of mine...same thing. Serious health issues caused him to lose his job in 2007. With the help of family, he used Cobra while he recovered then got on individual insurance for a reasonable amount(around $2500/year) with same co pays group plans have with this HMO. He became gainfully employed again but still has lingering issues and years of followup and no insurance through the new employer. Still he wAs fine on his individual plan.

He just got dropped and the similar plans on the exchange are around double what he was paying. No he's not qualified for subsidy, and he makes an income in CA that many posters here scoff at for being insufficient.

edvard2 says

It won't screw anyone.

What an absurd blanket statement. Cause you say so, huh?

edvard2 says

But I am sure this sort of nonsense dialog will continue amongst those on the far right

I am a long, long ways from the far right, but I know 2000 pages of lobbyist written, insurance industry pandering, bullshit when it clumsily staggers out of Washington and into my life, unasked for, and solving none of my "health care" access issues.

tatupu70 says

d503 says

I've had a plan for four years for a family of four. Two children and two

healthy adults in our forties. We received a termination notice because our plan

doesn't meet the Obamacare guidelines. With all incentives our premium will more

than double. I support the goal of Obamacare, but I was counting on keeping my

plan as promised by my president. If I didn't keep my plan I thought I was going

to get cheaper insurance. Both didn't happen. As a supporter of the plan I feel

betrayed.

Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of this story...

Oh yeah?
Well I am skeptical of all the uncritical, unthinking Obama groupies who respond to criticism of this boondoggle legislation with;
Uh-Uh or No Way or I Doubt It.

Robert Sproul says

Oh yeah?
Well I am skeptical of all the uncritical, unthinking Obama
groupies who respond to criticism of this boondoggle legislation with;
Uh-Uh
or No Way or I Doubt It.

Hey--I'm skeptical of it too. I think Bob's analysis on another thread is right on. This is a very small step in the right direction. The overall goal HAS to be lowering healthcare costs.

Personally, I don't think we can do it with a for-profit model. But, I'm open to other ideas.

d503 says

I was counting on keeping my plan as promised by my president.

He was referring to employer-provided plans, not individual plans.

tatupu70 says

The overall goal HAS to be lowering healthcare costs.

This.
All we are arguing about currently is who is going to pay for the ridiculously overpriced, corrupted system that is foisted on us in the name of "health care".

Robert Sproul says

tatupu70 says

The overall goal HAS to be lowering healthcare costs.

This.

All we are arguing about now is who is going to pay for the ridiculously overpriced, corrupted system that is foisted on us in the name of "health care".

Yep. I expect traffic to increase to places like this substantially:

http://www.healthcitycaymanislands.com/

Robert Sproul says

What an absurd blanket statement. Cause you say so, huh?

Let me re-phrase my statement. The amount of people, if any, who might get "screwed" by this will be many magnitudes less than those who were actually getting screwed before. We are all very familiar with the stories common leading up to this legislation, where people with pre-existing conditions were turned down, or simply went bankrupt because they had no insurance. period. Robert Sproul says

I am a long, long ways from the far right, but I know 2000 pages of lobbyist written, insurance industry pandering, bullshit when it clumsily staggers out of Washington and into my life, unasked for, and solving none of my "health care" access issues.

Seeing as how there was a HUGE amount of financial backing going in behind the scenes for various right-leaning, fake astroturf organizations setup to elect politicians whom would protect their interests in the name of repealing the healthcare law, I seriously doubt your claims above. In addition, I assume that EVERY single law that currently exists are naturally ALL laws that you personally asked for. I say this due to your clear exception to this one law.

So back in 2007, home "owners" found they could stop paying their mortgages, and, in many cases, squat for years before being foreclosed on. Renters were jealous.

Now, in 2013, it may be our turn. With rentals tied into securities, who really has the authority to evict a tenant? Perhaps us scum renters can just decide we don't want to pay, as well. Can we squat for years without paying rent?

Eliminate Obamacare.
I want Free Enterprise health insurance where I don't have any control over premiums or any medical service prices & a 100% guarantee that no one will bankrupt over medical bills.

According to NAR and this guy..

http://loganmohtashami.com/2013/10/24/mortgage-purchase-applications-falling-slope/

33% of RE market is cash buyers.

edvard2 says

I seriously doubt your claims above

Who do you think authored this cumbersome compromise?
Congressmen? Staffers? Consumer advocacy groups?
Shit, they didn't even read it. It was crafted by the existing cartels and their lobby groups.
Do right wing kamikaze demagogues want more?
They want it all.

Everyone has enough money to pay cash for a house (except me), so mortgages are last century.

Mortgages should be eliminated.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

The truth about 9/11 does not stand or fall with explosives in the vans of the Dancing Israelis. You are nuts.

Eh? Who said it did?

Then why make such a big deal about it Bigsby? Having trouble seeing the forest because the trees are getting in the way? Don't post about this again or I will delete you.

Er, I wasn't. You were the one who brought up the 'dancing Israelis' in the first place. Why were YOU making such a big deal out of it? And don't threaten me. You delete because you want to mislead others, so do as you like. I will simply point out what you are doing, the incoherent arguments you are making, and the blatant falsehoods you are attempting to pass off as facts.

The government won't care if rents aren't being paid because the property taxes are being paid by the owners, which are, wait, who really owns the house if it's carved into a bunch of securities?

finehoe says

He was referring to employer-provided plans, not individual plans.

Possibly so, but that is not how it was interpreted.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

You were the one who brought up the 'dancing Israelis' in the first place. Why were YOU making such a big deal out of it? And don't threaten me.

It is the dancing that was the problem Einstein.

Rather than the non-existent explosives?

The 'dancing' is what you claim and what the actual people involved deny. You of course believe the report they were 'dancing'. What about the one that claimed they were dressed as 'sheiks?' Or the one that they had explosives in their van that the police reported was not the case? Hey, just pick and choose whatever takes your fancy. Don't pay any mind to the more obvious conclusion to draw. No, instead do what you always do and find the most outlandish conspiracy theory that is being peddled on the internet and run with that. Rather like your claim of remote controlled planes being used. You really are so far out there I wonder if even 'The Professor' is beginning to question what you are saying.

Since almost 70% of the population receives their insurance through their employer, and thus are unaffected by this, what is this obession by opponents of the ACA on individual policies? The actual number of people affected is really quite small.

finehoe says

The actual number of people affected is really quite small.

On one side are the low paid, uninsured and able bodied people who only use hospitals if they break a leg, etc.

They will be paying more money into the pool which would seem to have the effect of lowering premiums for all.

On the other are the pre-existing conditions types. They will drain money from the insurance, but they also have raised prices in the past when hospitals serviced them at their cost.

Does it balance out? I am not one to see people suffer.

John Bailo says

Does it balance out? I am not one to see people suffer.

I think the proper question is, "are more people better off than they were pre-ACA?"

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Friday, October 25, 2013 __ Level is 99.3

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes indeed, go here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

finehoe says

Since almost 70% of the population receives their insurance through their employer, and thus are unaffected by this, what is this obession by opponents of the ACA on individual policies? The actual number of people affected is really quite small.

How do you know the number is quite small? What percentage of employer health plans don't come up to ACA standards and will have to be replaced with a more expensive plan? Many of those increases in rates will be passed on to employees.

finehoe says

John Bailo says

Does it balance out? I am not one to see people suffer.

I think the proper question is, "are more people better off than they were pre-ACA?"

I think the proper question is does aca lower the overall spending on health care. The answer is NO according to medicare and the CBO.