ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[jj3044]

Hey, I didn't say it was the bees knees... but it is a move in the right direction, which is important. Today many insurers are spending way LESS than 85% on paying member claims.

As I said in my first post, I don't think the legislation is perfect, but it starts to move in the right direction. The alternative is do nothing and let the insurers continue to make 20%, 25% on the premium revenues?

[Woodruff]

GreecePWNS made a valuable and salient point regarding the French healthcare system which is a beautiful model.

I also like that of the Dutch which, IIRC, even has an opt-out so people like NS could claim a philosophical disagreement (if they were inclined) and simply be removed from coverage and obligation to pay that portion of their taxes.

Either of these systems are 20 million times better than simply giving a $47 billion corporation police power to compel you to buy the shittiest possible product off which they can maximize their profits. (Or, for that matter, the filthy assembly-line Factory Hospitals of the UK and Canada and Australia.)

Why does this remind me of the rifles sold to the Army during the revolution, and then they discovered the rifles did not possess the flints required to fire them....and the flints needed to be purchased separately.

I must admit, I've never heard that particular claim before. A brief websearch didn't pull anything up regarding this - got a link for it?

What saxi points out is the oldest trick in the book. When the government is paying, it's maximum profits for the shittiest possible product all around. $1,200 toilet seats and $800 coffee makers.....one for each office....

Are you actually trying to claim that everything the government has purchased equates to "the shittiest possible product all around"? Surely, you're not that simple and you simply mis-spoke, right?

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, this is completely false. Under the new legislation, insurance companies must use at least 85% of premium revenues on paying member claims. That means only up to 15% of premiums can pay for overhead. If an insurance company spends less than 85% on claims, they must give a rebate to the consumer.

Which is hilarious and shows just how much of the law (100% of it) was written by Obama's campaign donors at Aetna. To wit:

... in 1993, insurance companies typically spent 95% of customers' premiums on medical benefits (this is called the "Medical Loss Ratio"). By 2009, many insurance companies were routinely denying policy claims in order to ensure that no more than about 85% of premiums were put back into medical benefits, while plowing the excess profits into executive salaries.

http://healthcareprovider.info/forprofit/

What a bill of sale the the Dupes of America were sold. Obama: "Here's a pile of shit I painted gold!" Sheeple: "Thank You M'Lord!"

Judging from your discussions with PLAYER, JB, and jj, it seems to confirm that some people "need" government, thereby making government inevitable. As long as enough people find excuses to support further state intervention, then the government becomes more "necessary" in that respect.

[saxitoxin]

Hey, I didn't say it was the bees knees... but it is a move in the right direction, which is important. Today many insurers are spending way LESS than 85% on paying member claims.

As I said in my first post, I don't think the legislation is perfect, but it starts to move in the right direction. The alternative is do nothing and let the insurers continue to make 20%, 25% on the premium revenues?

Where did these numbers come from? Once again, we're left with a moving taret - the moment a salient point is made about this grand corporate boondoggle/scandal, new unsourced facts and figures start dropping out of the air faster than anyone could possibly fact-check.

It's really easy to just make stuff up. Hell, why not say they make 90% off premiums? Why not? It's not as easy to debunk things. Ergo, conspiracy theorists, corporate PR schills and right-wing nutters like Player usually get the last word because people give up in the face of the maniacal din of their screaming and shrieking whatever thoughts blow in off the wind and land in their brains.

Player has been shown incorrect on more basic, basic, basic, current events facts in her history here than are countable. I knew Lederle developed the polio cure not because I'm brilliant or I'm interested in the history of vaccine development but because there was a major class action lawsuit a few years ago involving them. Anyone with the slightest awareness of their surroundings, who has the basic human ability to cogitate and retain information for more than 9 seconds, should know that. Player and her ilk in this thread are the bellwethers of the intellectual decline of the west.

[AndyDufresne]

Hey, I didn't say it was the bees knees... but it is a move in the right direction, which is important. Today many insurers are spending way LESS than 85% on paying member claims.

As I said in my first post, I don't think the legislation is perfect, but it starts to move in the right direction. The alternative is do nothing and let the insurers continue to make 20%, 25% on the premium revenues?

Where did these numbers come from? Once again, we're left with a moving taret - the moment a salient point is made about this grand corporate boondoggle/scandal, new unsourced facts and figures start dropping out of the air faster than anyone could possibly fact-check.

It's really easy to just make stuff up. Hell, why not say they make 90% off premiums? Why not? It's not as easy to debunk things. Ergo, conspiracy theorists, corporate PR schills and right-wing nutters like Player usually get the last word because people give up in the face of the maniacal din of their screaming and shrieking whatever thoughts blow in off the wind and land in their brains.

Player has been shown incorrect on more basic, basic, basic, current events facts in her history here than are countable. I knew Lederle developed the polio cure not because I'm brilliant or I'm interested in the history of vaccine development but because there was a major class action lawsuit a few years ago involving them. Anyone with the slightest awareness of their surroundings, who has the basic human ability to cogitate and retain information for more than 9 seconds, should know that. Player and her ilk in this thread are the bellwethers of the intellectual decline of the west.

Sharps words! Oh, the interwebs, you are so [digitally] cruel! Soon, we'll all succumb to saxitoxin.




--Andy

[Symmetry]

Player has been shown incorrect on more basic, basic, basic, current events facts in her history here than are countable. I knew Lederle developed the polio cure not because I'm brilliant or I'm interested in the history of vaccine development but because there was a major class action lawsuit a few years ago involving them. Anyone with the slightest awareness of their surroundings, who has the basic human ability to cogitate and retain information for more than 9 seconds, should know that. Player and her ilk in this thread are the bellwethers of the intellectual decline of the west.

There is no cure for polio. Sorry to burst your bubbling rant.

[Night Strike]

This 2000 page law has not yet been fully enacted yet there are already 13000 pages of regulations that have been written under it (with none of them being approved by Congress). How can all of these new regulations possibly mean that costs will go down. Hospitals and businesses are just going to have to hire new people to do even more governmental paperwork.


Also, roughly 62% of hospitals and 40% of insurance providers are non-profit entities. With so many non-profits, how is it the "evil, rich managers" making all the money off the "little people"? Also, approximately 16% of hospitals are Catholic-run, and they have already said they would rather stop providing that service than have to compromise their morals when it comes to contraceptives and abortion. Where does Obamacare actually increase the number of health care providers when it clearly mandates more (all) people get insurance and visit providers?

[Symmetry]

This 2000 page law has not yet been fully enacted yet there are already 13000 pages of regulations that have been written under it (with none of them being approved by Congress). How can all of these new regulations possibly mean that costs will go down. Hospitals and businesses are just going to have to hire new people to do even more governmental paperwork.


Also, roughly 62% of hospitals and 40% of insurance providers are non-profit entities. With so many non-profits, how is it the "evil, rich managers" making all the money off the "little people"? Also, approximately 16% of hospitals are Catholic-run, and they have already said they would rather stop providing that service than have to compromise their morals when it comes to contraceptives and abortion. Where does Obamacare actually increase the number of health care providers when it clearly mandates more (all) people get insurance and visit providers?

Non-profit doesn't mean that the managers work for free NS. They still pay their managers well.

I would have thought that you'd be generally in support of American run hospitals rather than the shocking stat that almost a fifth of American hospitals are controlled by a foreign power in terms of the treatments they offer. It's especially surprising coming from you (and I mean this as no personal attack) as a fairly evangelical protestant to support Vatican control of key US infrastructure.

[Night Strike]

This 2000 page law has not yet been fully enacted yet there are already 13000 pages of regulations that have been written under it (with none of them being approved by Congress). How can all of these new regulations possibly mean that costs will go down. Hospitals and businesses are just going to have to hire new people to do even more governmental paperwork.


Also, roughly 62% of hospitals and 40% of insurance providers are non-profit entities. With so many non-profits, how is it the "evil, rich managers" making all the money off the "little people"? Also, approximately 16% of hospitals are Catholic-run, and they have already said they would rather stop providing that service than have to compromise their morals when it comes to contraceptives and abortion. Where does Obamacare actually increase the number of health care providers when it clearly mandates more (all) people get insurance and visit providers?

Non-profit doesn't mean that the managers work for free NS. They still pay their managers well.

I would have thought that you'd be generally in support of American run hospitals rather than the shocking stat that almost a fifth of American hospitals are controlled by a foreign power in terms of the treatments they offer. It's especially surprising coming from you (and I mean this as no personal attack) as a fairly evangelical protestant to support Vatican control of key US infrastructure.

Yes, I know management for non-profits are still paid. But the company itself doesn't exist to simply make a profit (which is what is constantly vilified on this topic).

If Catholics feel like they can provide good health care, then of course they should be able to run their own hospitals. I don't care if it's the Vatican giving guidelines on what their hospitals will or will not provide. If they don't provide something that I want or need, then I will go to a different provider. That's how the free market works. It doesn't work by the government telling them that they must provide something, especially when the first amendment prohibits such interference.

[Symmetry]

This 2000 page law has not yet been fully enacted yet there are already 13000 pages of regulations that have been written under it (with none of them being approved by Congress). How can all of these new regulations possibly mean that costs will go down. Hospitals and businesses are just going to have to hire new people to do even more governmental paperwork.


Also, roughly 62% of hospitals and 40% of insurance providers are non-profit entities. With so many non-profits, how is it the "evil, rich managers" making all the money off the "little people"? Also, approximately 16% of hospitals are Catholic-run, and they have already said they would rather stop providing that service than have to compromise their morals when it comes to contraceptives and abortion. Where does Obamacare actually increase the number of health care providers when it clearly mandates more (all) people get insurance and visit providers?

Non-profit doesn't mean that the managers work for free NS. They still pay their managers well.

I would have thought that you'd be generally in support of American run hospitals rather than the shocking stat that almost a fifth of American hospitals are controlled by a foreign power in terms of the treatments they offer. It's especially surprising coming from you (and I mean this as no personal attack) as a fairly evangelical protestant to support Vatican control of key US infrastructure.

Yes, I know management for non-profits are still paid. But the company itself doesn't exist to simply make a profit (which is what is constantly vilified on this topic).

If Catholics feel like they can provide good health care, then of course they should be able to run their own hospitals. I don't care if it's the Vatican giving guidelines on what their hospitals will or will not provide. If they don't provide something that I want or need, then I will go to a different provider. That's how the free market works. It doesn't work by the government telling them that they must provide something, especially when the first amendment prohibits such interference.

As long as you can accept that your original point (that managers don't profit personally) was kind of dumb, I think we're on the level. You were arguing a kind of silly point. It shouldn't take this amount of teeth pulling to make you differentiate between what constitutes non-profit at a business level and what motivates a high level manager in terms of wages.

Of course, with Catholic hospitals, the government is still telling them what they can and can't provide. It's just that it's an unelected foreign government rather than the US federal government.

It's odd that you object on principle to one but not the other.

[Night Strike]

As long as you can accept that your original point (that managers don't profit personally) was kind of dumb, I think we're on the level. You were arguing a kind of silly point. It shouldn't take this amount of teeth pulling to make you differentiate between what constitutes non-profit at a business level and what motivates a high level manager in terms of wages.

Of course, with Catholic hospitals, the government is still telling them what they can and can't provide. It's just that it's an unelected foreign government rather than the US federal government.

It's odd that you object on principle to one but not the other.

That's because I can't control what entity they get their religious doctrines from, nor would I try to. However, I do know that US Constitution does not allow for the US federal government to dictate that a business must provide a certain product. And that's what I'm clearly and plainly against. And I also know that the US government is prohibited from forcing a religious organization to take an action that goes against their beliefs.

[Symmetry]

As long as you can accept that your original point (that managers don't profit personally) was kind of dumb, I think we're on the level. You were arguing a kind of silly point. It shouldn't take this amount of teeth pulling to make you differentiate between what constitutes non-profit at a business level and what motivates a high level manager in terms of wages.

Of course, with Catholic hospitals, the government is still telling them what they can and can't provide. It's just that it's an unelected foreign government rather than the US federal government.

It's odd that you object on principle to one but not the other.

That's because I can't control what entity they get their religious doctrines from, nor would I try to. However, I do know that US Constitution does not allow for the US federal government to dictate that a business must provide a certain product. And that's what I'm clearly and plainly against. And I also know that the US government is prohibited from forcing a religious organization to take an action that goes against their beliefs.

Has there been a uptick in wicth burning that I'm unaware of? Again, hyperbole, NS. Sorry, but law trumps religious belief. I appreciate that you like to make these big sweeping statements about FREEDOM, but accept that people are around who will try to bring your ecstatic enthusiasm down to more earthly realms.

[Woodruff]

As long as you can accept that your original point (that managers don't profit personally) was kind of dumb, I think we're on the level. You were arguing a kind of silly point. It shouldn't take this amount of teeth pulling to make you differentiate between what constitutes non-profit at a business level and what motivates a high level manager in terms of wages.

Of course, with Catholic hospitals, the government is still telling them what they can and can't provide. It's just that it's an unelected foreign government rather than the US federal government.

It's odd that you object on principle to one but not the other.

That's because I can't control what entity they get their religious doctrines from, nor would I try to. However, I do know that US Constitution does not allow for the US federal government to dictate that a business must provide a certain product. And that's what I'm clearly and plainly against. And I also know that the US government is prohibited from forcing a religious organization to take an action that goes against their beliefs.

We've been over this many times already, Night Strike. This law does NOTHING AT ALL to force any religious organization to take any action that goes against their beliefs. None. Zero.

[kentington]

As long as you can accept that your original point (that managers don't profit personally) was kind of dumb, I think we're on the level. You were arguing a kind of silly point. It shouldn't take this amount of teeth pulling to make you differentiate between what constitutes non-profit at a business level and what motivates a high level manager in terms of wages.

Of course, with Catholic hospitals, the government is still telling them what they can and can't provide. It's just that it's an unelected foreign government rather than the US federal government.

It's odd that you object on principle to one but not the other.

That's because I can't control what entity they get their religious doctrines from, nor would I try to. However, I do know that US Constitution does not allow for the US federal government to dictate that a business must provide a certain product. And that's what I'm clearly and plainly against. And I also know that the US government is prohibited from forcing a religious organization to take an action that goes against their beliefs.

Has there been a uptick in wicth burning that I'm unaware of? Again, hyperbole, NS. Sorry, but law trumps religious belief. I appreciate that you like to make these big sweeping statements about FREEDOM, but accept that people are around who will try to bring your ecstatic enthusiasm down to more earthly realms.

Which part of this last quote is hyperbole?
His last statement doesn't make big claims. He is differentiating between the government prohibiting action and requiring action. The government can prohibit the church from eating marshmallows, but the government cannot require them to eat said marshmallows. I think he is also saying the same thing of business. The government can prohibit a business from selling marshmallows, but the government cannot require them to sell marshmallows.

[kentington]

Woodruff -
I asked you this before and I got an answer, but I am asking again because I want to know a personal answer.

I asked if you thought this health care stuff was constitutional. You said that the courts just made it constitutional.

I want to know if you believe it is constitutional, not just a good idea or whether the judges believe it is constitutional.

[Symmetry]

As long as you can accept that your original point (that managers don't profit personally) was kind of dumb, I think we're on the level. You were arguing a kind of silly point. It shouldn't take this amount of teeth pulling to make you differentiate between what constitutes non-profit at a business level and what motivates a high level manager in terms of wages.

Of course, with Catholic hospitals, the government is still telling them what they can and can't provide. It's just that it's an unelected foreign government rather than the US federal government.

It's odd that you object on principle to one but not the other.

That's because I can't control what entity they get their religious doctrines from, nor would I try to. However, I do know that US Constitution does not allow for the US federal government to dictate that a business must provide a certain product. And that's what I'm clearly and plainly against. And I also know that the US government is prohibited from forcing a religious organization to take an action that goes against their beliefs.

Has there been a uptick in wicth burning that I'm unaware of? Again, hyperbole, NS. Sorry, but law trumps religious belief. I appreciate that you like to make these big sweeping statements about FREEDOM, but accept that people are around who will try to bring your ecstatic enthusiasm down to more earthly realms.

Which part of this last quote is hyperbole?
His last statement doesn't make big claims. He is differentiating between the government prohibiting action and requiring action. The government can prohibit the church from eating marshmallows, but the government cannot require them to eat said marshmallows. I think he is also saying the same thing of business. The government can prohibit a business from selling marshmallows, but the government cannot require them to sell marshmallows.

It's good that you too see that he's admitting a degree of nuance as he backs down from his hyperbole. It's also kind of cute that you're playing the knight in shining armor for NS- he's pretty good at defending himself, but it's sweet nonetheless. I understood his points, and perhaps a quick re-read will help you understand mine.

Hint: Not about the marshmallows

[Woodruff]

Woodruff -
I asked you this before and I got an answer, but I am asking again because I want to know a personal answer.

I asked if you thought this health care stuff was constitutional. You said that the courts just made it constitutional.

I want to know if you believe it is constitutional, not just a good idea or whether the judges believe it is constitutional.

Ok, aside from the fact that the Supreme Court's decision MAKES it Constitutional...personally, I believe it is a Constitutional law (with the following caveat). HOWEVER I do believe that the Supreme Court should not have made the determination that it was a tax rather than a penalty and the bill should have been returned to have that portion rewritten (I don't believe it's the Supreme Court's job to make that determination). So to make sure I'm making myself clear...it should have been initially rejected because having a penalty enforced in such a manner is unConstitutional, but the law could then have been then rewritten as a tax, making it Constitutional.

Granted, I am not Constitutional lawyer, merely a teacher of the Constitution. But I do care very much about the Constitution and that is my view of it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, I didn't say it was the bees knees... but it is a move in the right direction, which is important. Today many insurers are spending way LESS than 85% on paying member claims.

As I said in my first post, I don't think the legislation is perfect, but it starts to move in the right direction. The alternative is do nothing and let the insurers continue to make 20%, 25% on the premium revenues?

Where did these numbers come from? Once again, we're left with a moving taret - the moment a salient point is made about this grand corporate boondoggle/scandal, new unsourced facts and figures start dropping out of the air faster than anyone could possibly fact-check.

It's really easy to just make stuff up. Hell, why not say they make 90% off premiums? Why not? It's not as easy to debunk things. Ergo, conspiracy theorists, corporate PR schills and right-wing nutters like Player usually get the last word because people give up in the face of the maniacal din of their screaming and shrieking whatever thoughts blow in off the wind and land in their brains.

Player has been shown incorrect on more basic, basic, basic, current events facts in her history here than are countable. I knew Lederle developed the polio cure not because I'm brilliant or I'm interested in the history of vaccine development but because there was a major class action lawsuit a few years ago involving them. Anyone with the slightest awareness of their surroundings, who has the basic human ability to cogitate and retain information for more than 9 seconds, should know that. Player and her ilk in this thread are the bellwethers of the intellectual decline of the west.

I guess you didn't take the news and about 75% of the general populations' reactions to the ruling very well, did you, sax? I'm willing to settle on 38% of the general population, if you wish to agree.

[john9blue]

It's a tax on stupidity.

as much as i would LOVE to see this implemented, this bill is not even close to being a "tax on stupidity". that's really a cop-out.

[Phatscotty]

The Efficiency of the Court System combined with the Compassion of the IRS

[Night Strike]

We've been over this many times already, Night Strike. This law does NOTHING AT ALL to force any religious organization to take any action that goes against their beliefs. None. Zero.

The law itself may not explicitly do such a thing, but the regulations that go along with the law clearly do. That means that without the law, those regulations would not exist.

Has there been a uptick in wicth burning that I'm unaware of? Again, hyperbole, NS. Sorry, but law trumps religious belief. I appreciate that you like to make these big sweeping statements about FREEDOM, but accept that people are around who will try to bring your ecstatic enthusiasm down to more earthly realms.

I believe your statement about "witch burning" was the only hyperbole present in that exchange. The government cannot force a company to provide a product. It's quite a simple belief where no hyperbole is needed.

[Woodruff]

We've been over this many times already, Night Strike. This law does NOTHING AT ALL to force any religious organization to take any action that goes against their beliefs. None. Zero.

The law itself may not explicitly do such a thing, but the regulations that go along with the law clearly do. That means that without the law, those regulations would not exist.

No, they do not. Not at all. The church absolutely has a CHOICE in running a hospital. You see, you want it both ways, Night Strike. You want to be able to say "Car insurance isn't a requirement, because you have a choice of whether to drive or not", but you don't want to hold the church to the same standard regarding this law. They are precisely the same argument and concept. Stop being a hypocrite about it, Night Strike...take a stand, one way or the other. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence just to satisfy your conservatism and religiousity.

[Night Strike]

We've been over this many times already, Night Strike. This law does NOTHING AT ALL to force any religious organization to take any action that goes against their beliefs. None. Zero.

The law itself may not explicitly do such a thing, but the regulations that go along with the law clearly do. That means that without the law, those regulations would not exist.

No, they do not. Not at all. The church absolutely has a CHOICE in running a hospital. You see, you want it both ways, Night Strike. You want to be able to say "Car insurance isn't a requirement, because you have a choice of whether to drive or not", but you don't want to hold the church to the same standard regarding this law. They are precisely the same argument and concept. Stop being a hypocrite about it, Night Strike...take a stand, one way or the other. Stop trying to play both sides of the fence just to satisfy your conservatism and religiousity.

The government cannot mandate what product a business provides, no matter what the business is. Furthermore, they cannot force a religious institution to provide something that goes against their religious beliefs. If a hospital does not believe in providing elective abortions or a doctor doesn't believe in prescribing non-medicinal contraceptives, then they cannot be forced to provide it. It's quite simple. And your car insurance "analogy" doesn't even hold water because you're confusing a personal choice of purchase with a company's choice of what to provide. It doesn't even make sense.

[GreecePwns]

How is providing contraceptives going against religious beliefs? You can provide them without using them yourself. So much for the whole "your rights end where mine begin" argument.

[Night Strike]

How is providing contraceptives going against religious beliefs? You can provide them without using them yourself. So much for the whole "your rights end where mine begin" argument.

The part about not enabling someone else to sin. The Catholic church may also teach that providing the means to sin is just as sinful as the act (although I don't know their exact teaching). And your rights aren't being infringed upon simply because a company doesn't sell a particular product, especially when that product itself isn't even a right to have.