Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,149
- 160,362
Health Care Thread
- Thread starter a_skeleton_03
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Synj
Dystopian Dreamer
- 8,108
- 35,789
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
Please explain to me if they didn't do anything out of the ordinary to get the plans cancelled why did ANY SINGLE CATEGORY BEING CHANGED TO ITS LEGAL LIMITS not trigger the "no longer legal under the ACA" issue?
Why did they have to do multiple things to get it to occur?
If I'm sitting here with a gun, it's probably not intentional if I shoot someone.
If I'm sitting here with a gun, and I start loading it - I might not be intending to shoot someone but it gets a bit more plausible.
If I'm sitting here with a gun, I load it while cursing about "Those damn naggers" - it's seeming I probably am intending to shoot someone.
If I'm sitting here with a gun, I load it while cursing about "Those damn naggers", while trailing my gun on a black man walking down the street - any doubt has been removed, I absolutely am intending to shoot someone.
The more actions you take that end up in a result, the more intentional it seems. If they could've gotten plans cancelled with only a single change, I'd be inclined to believe you - but with most having 3+ changes to get them invalidated it's quite implausible. Occam's Razor says that the simplest solution is usually the most accurate, and simplest solution is that they wanted it to happen.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
If its something people were leaving out of their plans and feel forced to have it now, clearly they felt it was minutiae. (It would be minutiae for the wife and I being that we don't want kids as well - although it was already included in our insurance previously by default)
I would call any of the "add-ons" people are complaining about to be minutiae, since some people felt them to not be worthwhile coverages to include previously - valued to some, not to others - perhaps not the best definition of minutiae but it works for me.
Synj
Dystopian Dreamer
- 8,108
- 35,789
I'm curious, what do you think was the motivation of the insurance companies to cancel these plans intentionally?
And if the administration knew that these plans were going to be canceled with the initiation of the ACA, what was their motivation and why are you not holding them accountable in the same way that you're holding the insurance companies accountable?
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
According to WaPo print the other day - at least one insurer stated that they felt the ACA exchanges would be more profitable to them, and wanted to edge people into them for that reason. (And they have no intent even if allowed to reinstate policies that the "ACA cancelled" to reissue them because of that)
As for the administration, I think they dropped the ball big time - I'm not going to dogpile on someone being assaulted to an inappropriate degree over it though, while another facet of the problem is ignored by the majority however.
As for the administration, I think they dropped the ball big time - I'm not going to dogpile on someone being assaulted to an inappropriate degree over it though, while another facet of the problem is ignored by the majority however.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Synj
Dystopian Dreamer
- 8,108
- 35,789
That makes sense on the part of the insurer. It would be like Sprint or AT&T canceling the old unlimited calling plans and forcing you into a data plan despite you not really giving a shit about data. But the main beef here is that this time, consumer mistreatment has been ushered in by new federal regulations that "guaranteed" no cancellations and lower premiums across the board.
Obama was a fool to make those promises. I really don't buy into the fact that he believed what he was saying and that really makes him more of a liar than a fool. The wrath that he's incurred over this is well deserved but I have to admit that anyone who bought into these foolish promises must have been quite stupid in the first place, so they really have no right to bitch.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
Technically lower premiums were never stated directly - that was out of context - he was stating that the ACA OVER IT'S INITIAL TEN YEARS would slow the cost rise and that at the end of the estimated timeframe they would cost less against what they would've cost otherwise. People keep mistaking that future tense for "As soon as it starts" when if you compare it against the CBO estimates its clear that he meant over the run of the estimate. (and has been true thusfar - estimates were 8% a year without, we've been averaging about half that for the years premium adjustments were allowed thusfar)
But yes, he was foolish to promise it - I still can't believe he never clarified it to cover things like "...but your insurer still can cancel or start policies however they see fit under the existing framework" amongst other things - with his wording he had used if two insurance companies decided to change their business model and go into a different field (which seems reasonable with some of the "Let's go single payer" writing on the wall) would've sounded like a lie as well, since every policy they had would obviously be cancelled if the company no longer exists. His statement was incredibly poorly thought out rife with obvious failings unless you believe that the Federal government has super tight draconian control over every little thing insurance companies do - which hopefully no one does, since that's obviously far from the truth.
But yes, he was foolish to promise it - I still can't believe he never clarified it to cover things like "...but your insurer still can cancel or start policies however they see fit under the existing framework" amongst other things - with his wording he had used if two insurance companies decided to change their business model and go into a different field (which seems reasonable with some of the "Let's go single payer" writing on the wall) would've sounded like a lie as well, since every policy they had would obviously be cancelled if the company no longer exists. His statement was incredibly poorly thought out rife with obvious failings unless you believe that the Federal government has super tight draconian control over every little thing insurance companies do - which hopefully no one does, since that's obviously far from the truth.
Synj
Dystopian Dreamer
- 8,108
- 35,789
But that pretty much sums up why he's lost all credibility. It's fairly obvious that he said the things he said because he was trying to get re-elected and the "truth" wasn't going to cut it. So people feel duped and now they're pissed. He has further complicated the issue with his "fix" that amounts to little more than trying to salvage the 2014 election. If the employer mandate goes through in 2014, it will dwarf what's happening right now, and I think Obama could face impeachment over it.
As much as I appreciate the intentions, I just never believe it when people think that government can fix anything. Congress has a 9% approval rating and yet people are clamoring for the government to fix healthcare? It's a joke.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
Well the private market isn't going to fix healthcare, they created the debacle themselves. The only way we could "free market" our way out of it would be to take ALL the law out of health care, but that could cause all sorts of problems to return - snake oil salesmen, experimenting without consent, etc.
Realistically the question is HOW the Federalis are going to fix it - but with them being more focused on elections and keeping their jobs over doing their job the best they can... it's going to be a long, long trip there that we'll likely not see in our lifetimes.
Realistically the question is HOW the Federalis are going to fix it - but with them being more focused on elections and keeping their jobs over doing their job the best they can... it's going to be a long, long trip there that we'll likely not see in our lifetimes.
Synj
Dystopian Dreamer
- 8,108
- 35,789
Grim1
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 4,903
- 6,889
Capitalism won a long time ago. It is the strongest and best system for people as a whole, as long as it is checked by proper government oversight. The insurance system didn't need to be taken over by the government it just needed to be overseen better by the people we voted in to do that job. The reason the people we voted in did such a bad job is because there are too many clueless people like you who chose to believe their lies and vote for them, rather than hold them accountable for it.
What you need to do is grow up a little and realize that your fantasy of a perfect government that will take care of everyone from cradle to grave is an impossible dream that will never be realized because of basic human nature. And you can't change human nature.
Synj
Dystopian Dreamer
- 8,108
- 35,789
I thought the healthcare market was good but it obviously needed change. I just would have preferred the scalpel versus sledgehammer approach. Frankly, I think a better fix to healthcare would have been tort reform but that's just me.
I agree 100% that nothing is going to change as long as politicians are more interested in elections than results. Pretty sad.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,149
- 160,362
HealthCare.gov is apparently being upgraded this weekend.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9AE18L20131115
