The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[John Adams]

I'm looking forward to mid-November when I can see if I can get a better rate on plans. It was a great year on premiums with negligible increase for identical benefits (including no change in deductible) expected for 2015. I've not been able to say that in, well, ever.

 

I'll keep giving my data points in this discussion but the ACA exchange has been great for my family.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

You can't answer a simple question without resorting to name calling. So why should I engage? You and Gatorman can hash it out (though, I don't necessarily agree with him on all things, like some assume).

I called you an intellectual coward because you're behaving like one.

 

You presume that your vision of what a national healthcare system is internally logically consistent, and has no opposed competing interests. You also assume that European healthcare is the best model, and are using that system as your baseline off of which to introduce metrics.

 

The reason you should engage me, is because I didn't call you anything at all until after you dismissed my challenge to your base premise out of hand, and insisted that you take a few steps back, and begin the discussion at the beginning, by first determining what the prioritized objectives of a national healthcare system should entail.

 

My point is that your metrics don't matter if systemic priorities are different, because you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

So, again, give me a prioritized list of the things you believe should be involved in a national healthcare system.

[Dorkington]

I'm looking forward to mid-November when I can see if I can get a better rate on plans. It was a great year on premiums with negligible increase for identical benefits (including no change in deductible) expected for 2015. I've not been able to say that in, well, ever.

 

I'll keep giving my data points in this discussion but the ACA exchange has been great for my family.

 

Yeah, the exchange is what helped me. I switched providers because my old provider increased their rates significantly.

[OCinBuffalo]

Never said that. I have Tasker on ignore, so I generally don't view his posts. I did ask for metrics, and he ignored it, so conversation over.

Me and my axe are ready to go any time you want. Tasker was trying to walk you through something. If you don't want that approach, I can give more health care, Federal, state, and local, EDIT:(and, hint....international comparisons)metrics than you can handle.

 

But, remember: my axe is literally a metrics axe.

 

When I am done hitting you with my metrics axe, you are probably going to wish you had stayed with Tasker's approach.

 

The choice is yours.

Edited November 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Me and my axe are ready to go any time you want. Tasker was trying to walk you through something. If you don't want that approach, I can give more health care, Federal, state, and local, metrics than you can handle.

 

But, remember: my axe is literally a metrics axe.

 

When I am done hitting you with my metrics axe, you are probably going to wish you had stayed with Tasker's approach.

 

The choice is yours.

He puts you on ignore when you challenge his premises, and fail to cup his balls while doing so.

 

I hope he responds, but I doubt he will.

[DC Tom]

Me and my axe are ready to go any time you want. Tasker was trying to walk you through something. If you don't want that approach, I can give more health care, Federal, state, and local, EDIT:(and, hint....international comparisons)metrics than you can handle.

 

But, remember: my axe is literally a metrics axe.

 

When I am done hitting you with my metrics axe, you are probably going to wish you had stayed with Tasker's approach.

 

The choice is yours.

 

Sometimes, I'm amazed you can tear yourself away from the mirror long enough to post.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sometimes, I'm amazed you can tear yourself away from the mirror long enough to post.

Sometimes, I'm amazed that for all these years, you still only understand about 30% of my posts, and the ones you do get, you instantly go out of your way to F up for me. Well, not this time. This particular thing is DC_Tom-proof. It's guaranteed to not be spoiled by the kid who hasn't grown out of raising his and and yelling "oh me, oh me" for every question the teacher asks.

 

Don't you have some thread to Godwin or something? I was counting on you for a specific, expected purpose here. Now I have to re-think the whole thing. When it comes down to it: patience...that's all I'm asking you for.

[DC Tom]

Sometimes, I'm amazed that for all these years, you still only understand about 30% of my posts, and the ones you do get, you instantly go out of your way to F up for me. Well, not this time. This particular thing is DC_Tom-proof. It's guaranteed to not be spoiled by the kid who hasn't grown out of raising his and and yelling "oh me, oh me" for every question the teacher asks.

 

Don't you have some thread to Godwin or something? I was counting on you for a specific, expected purpose here. Now I have to re-think the whole thing. When it comes down to it: patience...that's all I'm asking you for.

 

I'd planned on staying out of this one. You're better equipped to whack this mole than I am.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'd planned on staying out of this one. You're better equipped to whack this mole than I am.

No. You will perform as required. Just wait, you'll see. But, like I said, I'm going to harass the Chiefs fans. We'll have to pick this up later.

[Dorkington]

Sure, give me metrics. Convert me to free market. It might take a while to get through to my liberal progressive socialist brain, though.

[4merper4mer]

Sure, give me metrics. Convert me to free market. It might take a while to get through to my liberal progressive socialist brain, though.

 

It's weird because metrics are mostly used by commies.

[Dorkington]

Fair enough. I'm welcoming the education though. Like I've said before, I care more about results. I have opinions on how to get to those results, but if my opinions are wrong, so be it. If someone else's opinions are correct in how to get to those results, then I'm all for it. I'm not the sort of guy who sticks to my guns when proven wrong.

[jjamie12]

Fair enough. I'm welcoming the education though. Like I've said before, I care more about results. I have opinions on how to get to those results, but if my opinions are wrong, so be it. If someone else's opinions are correct in how to get to those results, then I'm all for it. I'm not the sort of guy who sticks to my guns when proven wrong.

What 'results' are you looking for? Specifically?

[TakeYouToTasker]

What 'results' are you looking for? Specifically?

I already asked him that. I just wanted a simple, prioritized list of desirable features of a national healthcare system.

 

So he put me on ignore.

[LeviF]

My employer (small group) had to hand our deductables over to us for the next year, since our premium went up and they want to keep paying that for us. Also our deductables went up. Woohoo.

[Dorkington]

What 'results' are you looking for? Specifically?

 

- Expanded coverage, there should be a base level of coverage that includes preventative care, that everyone in the US has access to, regardless of economic capability.

 

- Overall lower prices.

 

For the most part, I'm ok with the quality of healthcare in the US, it's the coverage and access parts that I think need solutions.

 

So my opinion/theory, is that a single payer system would help with this. It'd mean increasing taxes in our progressive tax model, but the effect on most citizens would be negligible, since they would no longer be paying out of their paychecks/pockets for privatized insurance. I imagine the rich would have to pay more tax, and they would also want "fancy" options, so they'd buy a "fancy" private insurance option.

 

Yes, this comes down to a limited "wealth redistribution", which, I'm personally ok with to an extent. My taxes would likely go up in such a situation. That being said, if there's a way to achieve the above via other methods, I'm on board. And if my "theory" is wrong, I'm fine with that as well. As long as there's a way to get the results I'd like to see.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Dorkington

[boyst]

- Expanded coverage, there should be a base level of coverage that includes preventative care, that everyone in the US has access to, regardless of economic capability.

 

- Overall lower prices.

 

For the most part, I'm ok with the quality of healthcare in the US, it's the coverage and access parts that I think need solutions.

 

So my opinion/theory, is that a single payer system would help with this. It'd mean increasing taxes in our progressive tax model, but the effect on most citizens would be negligible, since they would no longer be paying out of their paychecks/pockets for privatized insurance. I imagine the rich would have to pay more tax, and they would also want "fancy" options, so they'd buy a "fancy" private insurance option.

 

Yes, this comes down to a limited "wealth redistribution", which, I'm personally ok with to an extent. My taxes would likely go up in such a situation. That being said, if there's a way to achieve the above via other methods, I'm on board. And if my "theory" is wrong, I'm fine with that as well. As long as there's a way to get the results I'd like to see.

...and why aren't you looking for this yourself? Because, dare someone link www.GOPRepublicans.org/Obamasucks/yada/yada/yada you're going to disagree.

[TakeYouToTasker]

- Expanded coverage, there should be a base level of coverage that includes preventative care, that everyone in the US has access to, regardless of economic capability.

 

- Overall lower prices.

 

- quality of healthcare in the US

These are all competing interests.

[Chef Jim]

 

 

- Expanded coverage, there should be a base level of coverage that includes preventative care, that everyone in the US has access to, regardless of economic capability.

 

- Overall lower prices.

 

For the most part, I'm ok with the quality of healthcare in the US, it's the coverage and access parts that I think need solutions.

 

So my opinion/theory, is that a single payer system would help with this. It'd mean increasing taxes in our progressive tax model, but the effect on most citizens would be negligible, since they would no longer be paying out of their paychecks/pockets for privatized insurance. I imagine the rich would have to pay more tax, and they would also want "fancy" options, so they'd buy a "fancy" private insurance option.

 

Yes, this comes down to a limited "wealth redistribution", which, I'm personally ok with to an extent. My taxes would likely go up in such a situation. That being said, if there's a way to achieve the above via other methods, I'm on board. And if my "theory" is wrong, I'm fine with that as well. As long as there's a way to get the results I'd like to see.

 

And I want a pony.

 

I paid $1800 in premiums and paid very little out of pocket this year. And it's been a ****ty year for me. Seemed I lived at the doctors this year. And thaf includes back surgery and all the tests and visits leading up to it. If I can get all thaf for free and the same service (two week wait for surgery but that was because of my schedule) and my taxes only go up $1800 a year ( which BTW doesn't make it free) I'm in. But we know neither service not taxes will be comparable.

[IDBillzFan]

Interesting turn of events today, for any still paying attention.

 

The Supreme Court, moving back into the abiding controversy over the Affordable Care Act, agreed early Friday afternoon to decide how far the federal government can extend its program of subsidies to buyers of health insurance. At issue is whether the program of tax credits applies only in the consumer marketplaces set up by sixteen states, and not at federally operated sites in thirty-four states.

 

Rather than waiting until Monday to announce its action, which would be the usual mode at this time in the Court year, the Justices released the order granting review of King v. Burwellnot long after finishing their closed-door private Conference.

 

By adding the case to its decision docket at this point, without waiting for further action in lower federal courts, as the Obama administration had asked, the Court ensured that it would rule on the case during the current Term.

 

If it decides to limit the subsidies to the state-run “exchanges,” it is widely understood that that outcome would crash the ACA’s carefully balanced economic arrangements.