patrick.net

This must be why "Justice" Roberts upheld the mandate as a tax.

I think we all "know" where this is going ...

Since it would be cost effective for companies to stop insuring employees, paying a flat tax to the govt, since avg premiums for family coverage are now greater than the 8% corporate penalty, eventually, the govt will have to directly offer health insurance to the public, much like the whole flood insurance thing.

But for some reason, I have a sense that that was the plan all along.

And if I were a private insurer, why would I want to be in an area where my upside liabilities are virtually unlimited, if all pre-existing conditions & annual out of pockets aren't in place, to protect me from spiraling payouts? I'd only want to be in the business, if the govt were to insure my insurance products.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, why not tax the unemployed more than the rest of us? What could possibly go wrong? If you lose a job or have a job without benefits, you should be taxed more. Perfectly logical.

Did you even READ the article you posted? If you are unemployed and under financial hardship, you don't have to pay the penalty.

I don't see the problem here. If you can't afford health insurance, you actually are going to get help from the government. If you can afford health insurance and you don't want to pay the penalty, then get some health insurance.

It's not rocket science, folks....

Homeboy says

Did you even READ the article you posted? If you are unemployed and under financial hardship, you don't have to pay the penalty.

The article does not say that. It says,

The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage, the financial carrot that balances out the penalty.

This does not in any way mean that a single person with no kids who loses his job won't have to pay the penalty. You can bet your ass there will be plenty of young single childless adults paying the penalty as they switch jobs every 3 to 18 months as is typical for most Millennials and many Gen X.

Dan8267 says

This does not in any way mean that a single person with no kids who loses his job won't have to pay the penalty. You can bet your ass there will be plenty of young single childless adults paying the penalty as they switch jobs every 3 to 18 months as is typical for most Millennials and many Gen X.

"The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage". If you are low-income, you get help. What part of that aren't you understanding? Losing your job is about as low-income as you get, isn't it?

Your point, if you even have one, seems to be that there are somehow going to be people who lose their jobs but are not low-income. How is that possible? And if they have plenty of money, then why should I be concerned that they have to pay the penalty? You aren't making a whole lot of sense.

Either you are low-income, and you get help, or you are NOT low-income, and you don't NEED help. These are the only two possibilities. I have no idea what you think people switching jobs has to do with anything. Again - not rocket science. If you have plenty of money, and you don't want to pay the penalty, then get some insurance. If you can't afford the insurance, you will get assistance from the government. Yeah - if you want to get a free ride and pay nothing until you get seriously ill, then sponge off everyone else, well, tough shit - you won't get to do that. Too bad, you won't be allowed to be a dick.

Here's the million dollar question:

How much will the health care cost? Are the premiums set by the government, or is it up to the Insurance Companies?

A sample of 227,000 individual policies sold by eHealthInsurance found average monthly premiums for single people ranged from $107 to $301 in 2007, the latest data available. The average deductible, the amount paid before coverage begins, was nearly $2,000.

Family coverage ranged from $219 to $494 a month with an average $2,600 deductible.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-19-health-coverage_N.htm

If the gov gives you a $200/month sub, and you are living on $800/month unemployment, a $300 premium is a third of your income right there. $500 is half your income if you got kids to cover.

$2000 deductible. So that's $3600 + $2000 = $5600 before the insurance pays for anything.

And those numbers are from 2007, 5 years ago.

thunderlips11 says

Here's the million dollar question:

How much will the health care cost? Are the premiums set by the government, or is it up to the Insurance Companies?

A sample of 227,000 individual policies sold by eHealthInsurance found average monthly premiums for single people ranged from $107 to $301 in 2007, the latest data available. The average deductible, the amount paid before coverage begins, was nearly $2,000.

Family coverage ranged from $219 to $494 a month with an average $2,600 deductible.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-19-health-coverage_N.htm

If the gov gives you a $200/month sub, and you are living on $800/month unemployment, a $300 premium is a third of your income right there. $500 is half your income if you got kids to cover.

$2000 deductible. So that's $3600 + $2000 = $5600 before the insurance pays for anything.

And those numbers are from 2007, 5 years ago.

You are describing the problem as it already exists. The main provisions of the healthcare law have not taken effect yet, so it's ridiculous to try to blame this on the healthcare law.

Assuming the republicans don't fuck with the law, and assuming all the provisions take effect, if at that point in time rates rise at an even higher rate than they have over the last 10 years, then you can gloat if you want to. Right now, you have no cause to do so.

Homeboy says

"The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage". If you are low-income, you get help. What part of that aren't you understanding? Losing your job is about as low-income as you get, isn't it?

The part were this applies to the 99% of software developers that make over $100k / yr but go weeks or months between contracts and thus have no health insurance during that time, or who's contracts don't include benefits, which is about half the contracts out there. And then there is the 3-month waiting period that some contracts require before health insurance kicks in, and that could easily be half the length of the contract or more.

The bottom line is that all software contractors are going to get royally butt-fucked by this law because it assumes that everyone is either a jobless bum on the government teat or has a steady job that lasts years and immediately provides benefits. This is not even remotely close to the realities of working in IT.

It's not that I don't understand the law. It's that you don't understand the realities of the "flexible job market" in IT. And that "flexible job market" where gigs are very short-term and you hope from one company to the next every three to six months is becoming the norm for the Millennials in almost every field.

Dan8267 says

The part were this applies to the 99% of software developers that make over $100k / yr but go weeks or months between contracts and thus have no health insurance during that time

So then you're asking me to feel sorry for people who make $100K a year and want to go without health insurance to save money? I'll try to shed a tear..... um, sorry, can't do it.

This law is going to HELP people who fall in the cracks and aren't able to get traditional health coverage from their employer.

Are you aware that $100K is DOUBLE the U.S. median household income? Not just double the median salary, double the median HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

Wow, rich people sure whine a lot. Again - yes, if you wanted to go without health insurance, wait until you get sick, and THEN opt in and sponge off people who make half as much money as you do, you won't be able to do it. I don't see that as a problem. The way things are currently, you could be outright DENIED health insurance, or have to pay thousands of dollars a month if you can even get it. Do you really think this is a better system?

Dan8267 says

And that "flexible job market" where gigs are very short-term and you hope from one company to the next every three to six months is becoming the norm for the Millennials in almost every field.

To a certain extent, the "Millenials" wanted this since they prized flexibility much more than routine.

Homeboy says

So then you're asking me to feel sorry for people who make $100K a year and want to go without health insurance to save money? I'll try to shed a tear..... um, sorry, can't do it.
This law is going to HELP people who fall in the cracks and aren't able to get traditional health coverage from their employer.
Are you aware that $100K is DOUBLE the U.S. median household income? Not just double the median salary, double the median HOUSEHOLD INCOME.
Wow, rich people sure whine a lot. Again - yes, if you wanted to go without health insurance, wait until you get sick, and THEN opt in and sponge off people who make half as much money as you do, you won't be able to do it. I don't see that as a problem. The way things are currently, you could be outright DENIED health insurance, or have to pay thousands of dollars a month if you can even get it. Do you really think this is a better system?

You do realize that a lot of these gigs nowadays involve no expense paid gigs? That is you have a home and then you go to a new state or city and have to find a place, transportation food etc and pay expenses on two places of residences.

very few IT compnaies still pay expenses-IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and a few more. But others are all non expenses.

Damn character limit on posts...

Homeboy says

So then you're asking me to feel sorry for people who make $100K a year and want to go without health insurance to save money? I'll try to shed a tear..... um, sorry, can't do it.

No, I'm not, you ass. I'm saying that I'm not going to support a law that fucks hard-working, responsible people like me up the ass just because it does not take into consideration that many high-tech fields don't offer constant employment with the same company. That's one of the biggest problems with the Romney/Obamacare plan. It does not reflect the realities of working in modern industries. Gen X and the Millennials, particularly those in IT, don't have the same working conditions as the Baby Boomers. We don't get pensions. We don't stay with the same company our entire lives. We do have frequent short periods of down time. That's the way business works today, and we younger people sure as fuck didn't make the business environment work that way.

So, no, I'm not asking for your pity. But don't expect me to feel sorry for you if the only way you can think of improving your lot is by fucking me over and the millions of young professionals like me.

Need I remind you that I and a few tens of thousands of people like me built the Internet, the greatest wonder of the world, and in doing so brought untold economic prosperity, a prosperity mitigated only by the financial parasites who dismantle American industry to create a slave industry in third world nations. Furthermore, people like me have contributed vastly more to society than society has spent on us. We mitigated the depression caused by the housing bubble by being fiscally responsible and not participating in the greed orgy. And all we ask is that we not be unjustly fined for the routine down time we inevitably experience between contracts.

You think people like me go without health insurance to save money? You have your head so far up your ass that you can't even listen to what other people are telling you. I'm for the public option and requiring employers to let the employee choose to channel his benefits into a public options account. That way, when the employee loses his job or comes to the end of a contract, he can continue his health insurance using his savings and not lose his insurance and have to wait to get a new policy often with a different insurance provider when he gets his next job. Without the public option, the Romney/Obamacare plan is an unjust tax on any worker in a high-job-switching industry. If the government thinks health care is so fucking different that everyone must buy it, then the government can accept that health care is so fucking different that a public option open to all regardless of employment must be one of the choices.

And quite frankly, when assholes like you mock the concerns of hard-working people like me as if our financial interests don't matter, it just makes me support your interests even less.

Homeboy says

This law is going to HELP people who fall in the cracks and aren't able to get traditional health coverage from their employer.

Only at the expense of making others fall through the cracks. If you want to fund the care of people with pre-existing conditions, the only socially just way is to

1. Have a public option.
2. Socialize the costs of the patients within the scope of those of similar age. For example, the money paid into the system by 20-25 year-olds goes only for treatment for 20-25 year-olds. Do the same for every 5-year age bracket. The 25-year-olds should not be subsidizing the medical car costs of 85-year-olds.

Damn time limit on posts...

Homeboy says

Are you aware that $100K is DOUBLE the U.S. median household income? Not just double the median salary, double the median HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

I'm well aware of what the median income is and that my income is more than double it. I'm also aware that I'm a single-income household at a time when double-income households are the norm. I'm also aware that the current housing prices where I rent are way larger than what is justified even with my income.

Also, just because I'm a higher-than-average earner does not make me morally inferior. I do a job that 99% of the population could not do at all even if their life was on the line. And out of the 1% that could do the job, 99% couldn't do it at a level adequate for commercial development. And out of the 1 in 10,000 that can do it well enough for commercial apps, most of them are mediocre compared to me. So don't give me any shit that I haven't paid my dues or earned my income.

Finally, if you want health care to be paid for by the rich, then attack the richest 1%. They are far wealthier than I am.

Homeboy says

Your point, if you even have one, seems to be that there are somehow going to be people who lose their jobs but are not low-income.

No that was not my point. Not even close. Hopefully, you'll read this post more carefully and understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking in code.

Homeboy says

Wow, rich people sure whine a lot. Again - yes, if you wanted to go without health insurance, wait until you get sick, and THEN opt in and sponge off people who make half as much money as you do, you won't be able to do it. I don't see that as a problem. The way things are currently, you could be outright DENIED health insurance, or have to pay thousands of dollars a month if you can even get it. Do you really think this is a better system?

1. I'm not rich. I still rent a middle-class house.
2. Opposing unjust laws isn't whining.
3. I'm not the one supporting freeloading, you are.
4. I think both the previous system and the Romney/Obama one sucks, and that choosing between the two is a false dichotomy.

Homeboy says

And if they have plenty of money, then why should I be concerned that they have to pay the penalty?

Because I live in Palm Beach County, Florida. The same county that decided the year 2000 election. One of the few counties that matters in presidential elections.

And when assholes like you say that people like me don't matter and its okay to fuck us over to help other people instead of fucking over the executives responsible for high insurance costs and unemployment, it's the best argument I've ever heard that I should vote for Romney.

Helping the uninsured does not require fucking over responsible, middle-class IT workers who change jobs frequently because that's what the IT industry requires. Helping senior citizens get health care does not require fucking over young adults.

If you make it into a zero-sum game with you vs. me, I'm voting for the guy who's on my side.

dublin hillz says

To a certain extent, the "Millenials" wanted this since they prized flexibility much more than routine.

It's not the Millennials fault though. Corporate America decided that it wanted short-term, not life-long, employees. Corporations want to hire the people who have the skills they need right now, get them to build things as quickly as possible for the lowest wages they'll accept, and then leave the company's payroll quickly while the work they produced provides the company with a never-ending revenue stream.

The Millennials have no choice. They are already switching jobs in non-IT fields almost at the rate that Gen X and Millennials do in IT jobs. IT lead the way in short-term employment and off-shoring, but other industries are following.

No one born after 2000 who has a career will work for fewer than two dozen companies in their lifetime unless they are an executive or high-level management. Job security comes from the industry, not the particular job or company.

Once enough people realize they are in this position, there will be a call to divorce health insurance from employment. It never made sense combining the two, anyway.

dublin hillz says

To a certain extent, the "Millenials" wanted this since they prized flexibility much more than routine.

Nah. If you grow up and watch your parents give blood, sweat and tears to a company and take pride of ownership and have a sense of pride of their workplace and one fine day a new number cruncher comes in and just fires everybody and hires people in Timbaktu-why would you be loyal to a company??

I know I'm going to get flamed for asking a stupid question, but what about hard working HEALTHY young people like me? My job actually pays for top of the line health insurance for me, but next weekend, ill do the same thing I've done the last five times I've gone asking for a raise, and remind my boss that my biggest point of contention with the gig is the amount of money they piss down the rathole in my name, for good health insurance

Why can't we decouple some basic health care services from the health insurance industry, and allow healthy people like me to pay cash for what we use, and then avoid the wretchedly evil health insurance complex altogether? Rather than pointing the gun at my head and demanding I participate?

The health insurance portion of my compensation at this job is about 13%. In the eight years I've been here, they've sent north of 40k in checks to these health insurance companies. I've gone for four physicals, and one lipid profile. If I walk away after this weekend because I don't like the direction we're heading, all that money vanishes.

Who's to say they know what's best for me and what I want, anyways? Id eat a bullet before succumbing to the prison they put you in as you age with the nursing home and extending 'life' care that eats up all our collective health care dollars anyways. I know, I know, I need some perspective and with age, ill wisen up and realize the benefits of all the drugs and silly tests, and torturous practice of extending end of life care. Then you'll tell me so, because ill change my tune and be begging for their 'treatments'.

FUCK YOU AND YOUR SCAM ASS HEALTH INSURANCE

Dennis Kucinich voted against Obamacare, then President Obama flew Air Force One with Kucinich to his district in Ohio for a rally to pressure Kucinich to change his vote. Even MoveOn threatened to primary Kucinich if he refused. Alas Kucinich succumbed to the pressure, switched his vote, then got re-districted out of Congress by the backlash that swept Republicans into office nationwide. The Democrats lost more seats in 2010 than any party in any midterm in more than 70 years, and they will lose another in January: soon to be former Representative Dennis Kucinich. It is a heavy price to pay for mandatory "subsidized" insurance policies that aren't worth nearly what they cost, and that many people don't even want.

But, there is no reason to believe multiple-choice Romnesia's ever-shifting policies would result in repeal of ObamneyCare, which he proudly signed in Massachusetts; he would only make it more lucrative for his patronage network. The candidates who have most consistently opposed ObamneyCare are Jill Stein MD (Green) and Governor Gary Johnson (Libertarian).

Dan8267 says

I'm well aware of what the median income is and that my income is more than double it. I'm also aware that I'm a single-income household at a time when double-income households are the norm. I'm also aware that the current housing prices where I rent are way larger than what is justified even with my income.

Poor baby! Forced to have a six-figure income and live in an expensive neighborhood. Oh, the injustice of it all!

Dan8267 says

Also, just because I'm a higher-than-average earner does not make me morally inferior. I do a job that 99% of the population could not do at all even if their life was on the line. And out of the 1% that could do the job, 99% couldn't do it at a level adequate for commercial development. And out of the 1 in 10,000 that can do it well enough for commercial apps, most of them are mediocre compared to me. So don't give me any shit that I haven't paid my dues or earned my income.

What are you talking about? I said no such thing. Geez, enough with the strawmen already.

YOU started this with your whining about poor unfortunate people like you who lose their jobs, whine, whine. Then it turns out you make A SIX FUCKING FIGURE INCOME. Jesus Christ, the false sense of entitlement is unreal here.

Dan8267 says

Finally, if you want health care to be paid for by the rich, then attack the richest 1%. They are far wealthier than I am.

I don't want it to be paid by the rich; I want people to pay for their OWN god damned health insurance, not opt out until they get sick and then suddenly sponge off the system as soon as they get an expensive disease. What part of that don't you fucking get?

Dan8267 says

1. I'm not rich. I still rent a middle-class house.
2. Opposing unjust laws isn't whining.
3. I'm not the one supporting freeloading, you are.
4. I think both the previous system and the Romney/Obama one sucks, and that choosing between the two is a false dichotomy.

Nobody thinks they're rich. Romney probably doesn't even think he's rich. You make double the median HOUSEHOLD income with just ONE salary. You forfeit your right to whine about not having enough money.

Let's see, I agree with the law that says everyone must pay their own health insurance premium, but you want people to be able to pay nothing until they get sick, then sponge off the system. And that means I support freeloading? Um, I don't think that's correct.

Personally, I'd rather have socialized medicine. You know why we can't have socialized medicine? Because people like YOU would whine and whine and whine about their tax dollars being used for *shudder* the public good. It's a non-starter, because the right wing would kill it before it even got off the ground.

Like it or not, your choices are the PREVIOUS system, where you can have insurance outright denied if you have a serious illness, and premiums are in the stratosphere, or the system that is going to take effect, where you cannot be denied insurance. If that's a false dichotomy, please tell me what our third option is.

errc says

Why can't we decouple some basic health care services from the health insurance industry, and allow healthy people like me to pay cash for what we use, and then avoid the wretchedly evil health insurance complex altogether? Rather than pointing the gun at my head and demanding I participate?

Here is a simple, direct question for you. I hope you can earnestly answer it. What would you do if you got cancer? Do you really think you can afford to pay cash for cancer treatment? What if you, Mr. Healthy, were in an auto accident tomorrow, broke every bone in your body, and had to stay in the hospital, in traction, for a year? Do you honestly think you are going to have enough cash to pay for that?

Please answer the question.

errc says

Who's to say they know what's best for me and what I want, anyways? Id eat a bullet before succumbing to the prison they put you in as you age with the nursing home and extending 'life' care that eats up all our collective health care dollars anyways. I know, I know, I need some perspective and with age, ill wisen up and realize the benefits of all the drugs and silly tests, and torturous practice of extending end of life care. Then you'll tell me so, because ill change my tune and be begging for their 'treatments'.

Oh, yeah - I'm sure you'd just let yourself die if you got sick. I don't believe that shit for one second. Who do you think you're fooling?

I suppose it would be just to require anyone who wants to go without insurance to sign a waiver forfeiting their right to EVER have insurance, and agreeing to allow themselves to die if they can't afford to pay cash for medical treatment, but that would be cruel, and I don't believe in being cruel, even to self-entitled assholes.

lostand confused says

You do realize that a lot of these gigs nowadays involve no expense paid gigs? That is you have a home and then you go to a new state or city and have to find a place, transportation food etc and pay expenses on two places of residences.

very few IT compnaies still pay expenses-IBM, Accenture, Deloitte and a few more. But others are all non expenses.

I run my own business and I have to pay rent and utilities on the business, plus pay for tools, equipment, and all other business expenses out of my own pocket. And I don't make anywhere near what this computer guy makes. So I'm sorry, but your complaining falls on deaf ears. This law is going to HELP people like us. Going without health insurance is not a solution; you're just sticking your head in the sand and refusing to admit the system was broken.

So what is your point? That you don't want to have health insurance? I'll ask you the same question: What would you do if you got cancer?

Homeboy says

I run my own business and I have to pay rent and utilities on the business, plus pay for tools, equipment, and all other business expenses out of my own pocket. And I don't make anywhere near what this computer guy makes. So I'm sorry, but your complaining falls on deaf ears. This law is going to HELP people like us. Going without health insurance is not a solution; you're just sticking your head in the sand and refusing to admit the system was broken.
So what is your point? That you don't want to have health insurance? I'll ask you the same question: What would you do if you got cancer?

You don't pay double. But hey, opinions like yours keep pushing me further and further to the right. This country success seems to be penalized.

What this dumb law did is to make it mandatory to buy health insurance at whatever costs except for folks on the low end-who get a break. If he had addressed the cost issue-fine-but he does not.

Sigh this country-everybody is just entitled. Equality wanting women can just sit at home for a few years and now want to be supported for life in the manner that they were used to. So they live off a man, have boyfriends, eat, love and pray, all the while railing about the great patriarchy. Someone who makes a decent amount of money due to his skills should just shut up and take whatever is given to them.

Healthcare needs to be reformed-not like this. This is just from the frying pan into the fire.

lostand confused says

You don't pay double. But hey, opinions like yours keep pushing me further and further to the right. This country success seems to be penalized.

What this dumb law did is to make it mandatory to buy health insurance at whatever costs except for folks on the low end-who get a break. If he had addressed the cost issue-fine-but he does not.

Sigh this country-everybody is just entitled. Equality wanting women can just sit at home for a few years and now want to be supported for life in the manner that they were used to. So they live off a man, have boyfriends, eat, love and pray, all the while railing about the great patriarchy. Someone who makes a decent amount of money due to his skills should just shut up and take whatever is given to them.

Healthcare needs to be reformed-not like this. This is just from the frying pan into the fire.

Again I ask, what's your point? Besides whining "Oh, poor me. Everyone's out to get me", I'd like to know what exactly you want. You seem to want to be able to go without health insurance. So I ask you again, what would you do if you got cancer and had no health insurance?

I know it's tough to actually think about things when it's so much more fun to just whine about how people want to take your money away, but try to answer the question, o.k.? Because YOU seem to be the one who feels entitled. You don't want to have to pay even one cent towards health insurance, but if you needed medical care and couldn't afford it, I'm sure you'd be the first one asking for a handout.

Dan8267 says

Need I remind you that I and a few tens of thousands of people like me built the Internet, the greatest wonder of the world, and in doing so brought untold economic prosperity, a prosperity mitigated only by the financial parasites who dismantle American industry to create a slave industry in third world nations. Furthermore, people like me have contributed vastly more to society than society has spent on us. We mitigated the depression caused by the housing bubble by being fiscally responsible and not participating in the greed orgy. And all we ask is that we not be unjustly fined for the routine down time we inevitably experience between contracts.

Snore...

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you're such a fucking computer god that we should all donate so you don't have to pay for insurance on your "down time". Gee, maybe we should get you your own lane on the freeway; it could be the Self Important IT Asshole lane. And we could get someone to throw rose petals on the ground in front of you whenever you go anywhere. Would you like that? Maybe you'd like a giant statue of yourself, and we can all genuflect in front of it.

Dan8267 says

You think people like me go without health insurance to save money? You have your head so far up your ass that you can't even listen to what other people are telling you. I'm for the public option and requiring employers to let the employee choose to channel his benefits into a public options account. That way, when the employee loses his job or comes to the end of a contract, he can continue his health insurance using his savings and not lose his insurance and have to wait to get a new policy often with a different insurance provider when he gets his next job. Without the public option, the Romney/Obamacare plan is an unjust tax on any worker in a high-job-switching industry.

I don't think you understand this law at all. You will be able to buy insurance at any time, because pre-existing condition moratoriums will no longer be legal. The law provides for exchanges where you can purchase insurance.

Again, if you don't want to pay the fine, BUY SOME INSURANCE. If you already have insurance, you don't have to pay the fine. If you don't have insurance, BUY SOME INSURANCE.

You keep saying you don't want to have to buy insurance, but then you say you don't want to go without insurance. Well which is it? Would it be too much trouble to ask you to start making sense?

You are between jobs? Get health insurance. You get a job that provides health insurance? Sign up for that and drop the health insurance you had. Is that too difficult for you to handle?

What is so god damned hard to understand here?

One point I didn't understand at first is that there is a government subsidy for premiums, which limits out-of-pocket premium expenses to 9.8% of income, at least up to 400% of the poverty line.

So even though insurance premiums are unlimited and there is really no market at all for health insurance, only a price-fixing cartel, it does seem like everyone will be able to afford insurance.

So even though insurance premiums are unlimited and there is really no market at all for health insurance, only a price-fixing cartel, it does seem like everyone will be able to afford insurance.

The subsidies depend on the federal government continuing to borrow $1T/year to fund its other operations; if the budget needs to be cut, then the subsidies will be reduced but the mandate will remain. Another issue is, the insurance coverage is driven by lobbyists and includes primarily things that no rational person would buy (e.g. the most toxic pills advertised on TV). Hospitals in most states can continue to overcharge and "balance bill," so people who get hit by a truck and wake up in an out-of-network hospital can still be bankrupted by the balance billing. Vaccine coverage continues to be limited, while the tax on vaccines will be increased to subsidize pills. The whole statute is about maximizing spending, not health.

Homeboy says

Again I ask, what's your point? Besides whining "Oh, poor me. Everyone's out to get me", I'd like to know what exactly you want. You seem to want to be able to go without health insurance. So I ask you again, what would you do if you got cancer and had no health insurance?
I know it's tough to actually think about things when it's so much more fun to just whine about how people want to take your money away, but try to answer the question, o.k.? Because YOU seem to be the one who feels entitled. You don't want to have to pay even one cent towards health insurance, but if you needed medical care and couldn't afford it, I'm sure you'd be the first one asking for a handout.

What a surly person. Do you have a point except to be the opposite of a tea party member and scream cliches? I don't like a mandate which makes me pay to enrich corporations. There is nothing in this law that mandates them to cut costs or to do anything about offering an alternative . For poor folks-there is already Medicaid.

Where in the world do you get the idea I don't have health insurance? My choice. But hey keep on rambling. Sigh this country just has a vast amount of cliche repeating folks on either side that will support their party no matter what and each side will call the other sheeple or whateverville.

Now, having said that, I do realize the republicans did everything in their power to stymie this-despite it being their plan. It basically is the same as Romneycare and Bob Dole's plan and the repubs plan offered as an alternative to Hillarycare.

So Obama just implemented the repubs plan and took the hit for it. Many tea party members supported the mandate before Obama made it his own. I just don't like the plan-yes the pre-existing condition is great- especially for some of my relatives and the fact that you can include kids upto 26 i think.

But it does nothing for costs. My friends who are self employed and in their 50s and some conditions-now pay 1500 a month in insurance. Who can afford that? Forget offering any form of insurance to their employees. Instead of forcing all of us to enrich these corporations-he could have offered us a govt/low cost option-an option-not a mandate. Then a lot more folks will be happier.

errc says

Why can't we decouple some basic health care services from the health insurance industry, and allow healthy people like me to pay cash for what we use, and then avoid the wretchedly evil health insurance complex altogether? Rather than pointing the gun at my head and demanding I participate?

Only with a single payer system. Such a system acts as a central clearinghouse that ensures all people are charged the same price for the same service at the same hospital or clinic. A public option also helps by decoupling employment from insurance, but a single payer system is still necessary for fairness.

The lack of both single payer and a public options are exactly why the Romney/Obamacare plan is a complete give away to big insurance companies who are the cause of the problem.

Think about it, why should health insurance be profitable? It doesn't produce anything, and there is no risk once insurance companies reach a critical size. So why do they deserve any economic profit? It's pure parasitic behavior.

Anyone against a single payer system is either a parasite making money at the cost of other people's lives or a brain-washed dumb ass.

lostand confused says

If you grow up and watch your parents give blood, sweat and tears to a company and take pride of ownership and have a sense of pride of their workplace and one fine day a new number cruncher comes in and just fires everybody and hires people in Timbaktu-why would you be loyal to a company??

Exactly. The Millennials aren't exactly geniuses, but this is one thing they got right. Companies are not loyal to their employees, so it makes no sense to sacrifice your interests for theirs. Paying dues is b.s. You get nothing in return for placing your companies self-interest before your own because there are not long-term relationships between employers and employees.

errc says

The health insurance portion of my compensation at this job is about 13%. In the eight years I've been here, they've sent north of 40k in checks to these health insurance companies. I've gone for four physicals, and one lipid profile. If I walk away after this weekend because I don't like the direction we're heading, all that money vanishes.

If a single payer system and a public option were established, a person could simply have the "employee benefits" part of his compensation paid into a public option contribution account. As long as you pay in at least $x/yr to that account, you are fully covered. Any excess paid into that account carries over every year.

That way, if a person lost his job after paying for several years worth of coverage, that person would still have health insurance for several years even without paying more into the account. If a person dies or reaches medicare age, the excess is refunded on a per diem basis. This would be socially just and still would ensure that there are no "free loaders". Everyone would still get to pay for health insurance on a pre-tax basis without having to maintain constant employment.

Comment length is limited to 4000 characters but you entered 14110 characters.

Please go back and reduce the size of your comment.

Seriously, 4000 characters is too little when you respond point-by-point.

Homeboy says

Poor baby! Forced to have a six-figure income and live in an expensive neighborhood. Oh, the injustice of it all!

Am I suppose to be ashamed that I make a descent living doing a job that very few people on the planet can do? A job that is essential to modern life, vastly improves the quality of life, provides an exponentially increasing benefit to mankind, and is essential for ensuring that our species does not go extinct when our sun dies?

And as for the neighborhood I live in, it's firmly middle class. Sure, you can live in a middle class neighborhood in Shitville, Kansas for $20k/yr, but in real cities it's far more expensive.

Finally, I never asked for your sympathy. A loud-mouth ass like you couldn't possibly sympathize with anyone. However, your utter rudeness and inconsideration certainly does make one despise your political positions. Great way to build alliances and convince others to support your political goals.

Homeboy says

YOU started this with your whining about poor unfortunate people like you who lose their jobs, whine, whine. Then it turns out you make A SIX FUCKING FIGURE INCOME.

If trolls like you would shut the fuck up and actually listen to what people are saying, you'd realize that what I actually was objecting to is punitive fees imposed on people who change jobs frequently, something that is the norm in some industries including IT. Such punitive fees are socially unjust and nothing small-minded trolls like you have ever said contradicts this fact. Grow up and actually listen to others people's arguments before jumping to conclusions or just shut the hell up.

Homeboy says

I don't want it to be paid by the rich; I want people to pay for their OWN god damned health insurance, not opt out until they get sick and then suddenly sponge off the system as soon as they get an expensive disease. What part of that don't you fucking get?

What I don't fucking get is why you fucking think that I'm for people sponging off the system as soon as they get a disease. There is absolutely nothing that I have ever said in this thread or on this site that even remotely implies that position. Of course, if you actually pull your head out of your ass and listened to other people's arguments instead of making Straw Men of them, you'd realize this. Under the alternative systems I've proposed, free-loading is impossible.

But like all trolls you refuse to listen to what other people actually say and so you argue without having an actual opposing position. Why are trolls all such fucking dumb asses?

Homeboy says

Nobody thinks they're rich. Romney probably doesn't even think he's rich. You make double the median HOUSEHOLD income with just ONE salary. You forfeit your right to whine about not having enough money.

1. I've never "whined" about not having enough money.
2. Just because your momma poses on the cover of Crack Whore Magazine to pay the bills, doesn't make everyone else who doesn't do that a rich bastard.
3. Most importantly, you continue to miss the entire point of this thread in that the punitive fees are unjust and misdirected, not at the rich, but at those in fields were jobs are short-term.

If you continue to attack people without address the issues in this thread, I'll simply remove your further rantings as trolling. It's one thing to honestly debate the merits and demerits of a policy. It's another to ignore the policy and attack the right of another to voice his opinion.

If you're not willing to have an adult conversation, then go elsewhere.

Homeboy says

Let's see, I agree with the law that says everyone must pay their own health insurance premium, but you want people to be able to pay nothing until they get sick, then sponge off the system. And that means I support freeloading? Um, I don't think that's correct

Your claims of what I want are false. Furthermore, freeloading is still possible under the Romney/Obama plan.

Homeboy says

Personally, I'd rather have socialized medicine. You know why we can't have socialized medicine? Because people like YOU would whine and whine and whine about their tax dollars being used for *shudder* the public good. It's a non-starter, because the right wing would kill it before it even got off the ground.

1. I do not oppose socialize medical care. My counter-plan is more completely a socialized medical care than Romney/Obamacare as I support the public option and a single payer system. So once again you prove you have no clue as to what my actual position is even though I've explicated stated it many times. People like you make me believe the American education system is a failure.
2. I have never opposed tax dollars being used for public good. I do, however, oppose tax dollars going to big insurance companies.
3. I'm not a right-winger. Go ask any of the right-wingers on this site. But I oppose dumb asses on both sides, and as you've demonstrated, there are certainly dumb asses on the left as well.
4. In the past, I have gladly supported using my tax dollars for the public good. For example, I supported public funding for your mom getting an abortion. Unfortunately, she didn't.

Homeboy says

If that's a false dichotomy, please tell me what our third option is.

The third option is to scrap both systems and implement a system that has the following properties.

1. A centralized clearinghouse that ensures the same price for services from the same hospital or clinic, commonly referred to as a single payer system. With such a clearinghouse, the prices of all medical treatments would be known in advance like the prices of different orders in a restaurant. Furthermore, this would enable people to shop around and compare prices among various hospitals and clinics, which in turn would cause competition that lowers the costs of treatment.

2. A streamlining of all accounting and reporting through the centralized clearinghouse that would eliminate the administrative waste of health care. Any system that does not eliminate this administrative waste is ineffectual.

The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.

3. A public option that is ran by the government as a non-profit organization. The public option should use age brackets, and only age brackets, for terminating health insurance premiums. The premiums will be entirely determine by the cost of all health care within that age bracket. As such, the system would be mathematically determined not to run a profit or a deficit. There is no profit motive, and it is indefinitely sustainable.

4. Non-profit health insurance organizations should be allowed to compete against both the public option and private insurance. All restrictions on where insurance non-profit organizations and private for-profit organizations can operate should be removed. All companies and organizations should be allowed to compete in all states and territories.

5. No mergers or buyouts should be allowed in any insurance provider. No employee of an insurance company and no insurance company should be allowed to hold stock or vested interests in any competitors.

6. Providers of health insurance must be independent and separate from other business including other forms of insurance. Health insurance companies must do health insurance and nothing else. Nor shall any health insurance company have or be a subsidiary of another company.

7. Employers are not allowed to pick insurance companies for their employees. Instead, the employer contribution to health insurance, if any, should be in the form of a voucher the employee can use with any insurance provider including the public option and non-profit organizations. Excess contributions carry over year-to-year indefinitely.

8. Any person can make pre-tax contributions to any account in any health insurance provider regardless of employment. Again, excess contributions carry over year-to-year indefinitely.

[to continue in next post because of character limit...]

9. Excess contributions over three years in insurance can be cashed out, subject to taxation since they were not taxed before, by the account holder at his discretion. Excess contributions are automatically cashed out if the account holder dies or reaches Medicare age. There is no overpayment for insurance.

Such a system would be trivial to implement. I could easily write the code for the clearinghouse and the streamline administration myself. It would save at least half a trillion dollars in waste each year and would require no one getting screwed over. The only thing it takes to implement is political will.