Jump to content

Obamacare upheld


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

Also while you go on about how bad the xtians are, let me remind you that one of the greatest social revolutionaries came out of the baptist tradition in MLK JR.

 

I'd argue the hijacking of Jesus' message by the Falwells and Robertson's of the world from what was going on in the 60s and where it was coming from is a damned shame.

 

I'd argue that it was MLK Jr's baptist faith that guided him to fight for justice and I'd argue that it was the Kennedy's sence of justice born from their Catholitc roots in calls for Cathlotic social justice that was a big reason for the good changes that came about.

 

Frankly I think a taking back of Jesus' message from the religous right and put in a context of the social Justice MLK was fight for is sorely needed, I think those on the left are doing themselves a diservice to not embrace Christians and be so militant (there is that word again) against them. The things the left stand for are far more in line with the things Jesus stood for than the things the right stands for.

 

Now of course you could explore that with some thought, or you could continue along the "xtians are all like Westborough Baptist Church" meme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

See my edited post a few posts ago.

 

Further is violence not violence?

 

Assuming he actually went and did something violent, sure (I see he's been arrested for "assaulting a peace officer" but it looks like that all stemmed from various protests).  From what I can tell the atheist stuff is not why he's saying all this crazy shit, though. He seems more like your typical Teabilly anti-government kook, other than the marijuana protests. In other words, he's not advocating burning churches or anything even remotely anti-religion as far as I can determine.  The atheist thing is incidental.  He should probably leave the bong alone for a minute, though, I will grant you that much.

 

 

 

Further when I'm talking about militant, I'm talking about it as an adjective, example - "She's a militant feminist", not in the literal.

 

 

 

OK, but Christians and particularly fundamentalists have formed real, actual militias in the literal sense based on their religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Assuming he actually went and did something violent, sure (I see he's been arrested for "assaulting a peace officer" but it looks like that all stemmed from various protests).  From what I can tell the atheist stuff is not why he's saying all this crazy shit, though. He seems more like your typical Teabilly anti-government kook, other than the marijuana protests. In other words, he's not advocating burning churches or anything even remotely anti-religion as far as I can determine.  The atheist thing is incidental.  He should probably leave the bong along for a minute, though, I will grant you that much.

 

 

 

OK, but Christians and particularly fundamentalists have formed real, actual militias in the literal sense based on their religious beliefs.

 

 

We could get into the various countries that prohibited, violently, all religon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I think a taking back of Jesus' message from the religous right and put in a context of the social Justice MLK was fight for is sorely needed, I think those on the left are doing themselves a diservice to not embrace Christians and be so militant (there is that word again) against them. The things the left stand for are far more in line with the things Jesus stood for than the things the right stands for.

 

Now of course you could explore that with some thought, or you could continue along the "xtians are all like Westborough Baptist Church" meme

 

I would be all for Christians "taking back" their religion, as you put it.  I would be more in favor of leaving one's choice of religion out of the political discussion entirely, as the 1st Amendment dictates, and doing good for its own sake instead of worrying about whether, for example, JFK did good things because he was raised Catholic or because he was in a good mood from banging Marilyn Monroe.

 

You're right in that a lot of communist revolutions have involved rounding up all the priests and suppressing religion.

 

I have not seen Book of Eli, but have been meaning to.. I'll watch pretty much anything with a post-apoc theme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would be all for Christians "taking back" their religion, as you put it.  I would be more in favor of leaving one's choice of religion out of the political discussion entirely, as the 1st Amendment dictates, and doing good for its own sake instead of worrying about whether, for example, JFK did good things because he was raised Catholic or because he was in a good mood from banging Marilyn Monroe.

 

 

:lol:

 

That last line was completely predictiable, I almost decided to address it in the post, because I knew you were going to go there.

 

Man is a creature that is capeable of both good and bad. JFK is no exception. (Frankly none of us are)

 

My view is so long as the laws we make are protective of all and not selective of one group over another, I dont care where the motiviation for them comes from.

 

Also that's not what the 1st amdendment dictates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

:lol:

 

That last line was completely predictiable, I almost decided to address it in the post, because I knew you were going to go there.

 

Man is a creature that is capeable of both good and bad. JFK is no exception. (Frankly none of us are)

 

My view is so long as the laws we make are protective of all and not selective of one group over another, I dont care where the motiviation for them comes from.

 

Also that's not what the 1st amdendment dictates.

 

Bolded would be a better example of the First Amendment..  I still think Christianity has an enormous influence on our laws (abortion, gay marriage, etc) and my reaction amounts to "Yeah, the Bible says this or that.. So what?"  DONNNT CAAAARE.  It shouldn't have any more influence over our laws and government than any other work of fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bolded would be a better example of the First Amendment..  I still think Christianity has an enormous influence on our laws (abortion, gay marriage, etc) and my reaction amounts to "Yeah, the Bible says this or that.. So what?"  DONNNT CAAAARE.  It shouldn't have any more influence over our laws and government than any other work of fiction.

 

 

You mean like Atlas Shurgged. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever see the movie "Book of Eli"?

 

It explains a whole lot regarding my views on Christianity and how it has been and can be manipulated

why do you watch movies like that and then say people I make fun of are extreme nuts..I don't understand if you read revelation I do not believe it will end like that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do you watch movies like that and then say people I make fun of are extreme nuts..I don't understand if you read revelation I do not believe it will end like that movie.

 

 

Yes or no, have you ever seen it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes or no, have you ever seen it?

I saw the previews!! I just believe God in all His goodness would never let the world get like that until he raptures us first. we are His children and we can always pray for the world..If we were out then things could go bad! see what I am sayin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the previews!! I just believe God in all His goodness would never let the world get like that until he raptures us first. we are His children and we can always pray for the world..If we were out then things could go bad! see what I am sayin

 

 

Then dont you think it might be better to comment on something you've actually seen.

 

Wouldnt that be the same thing as saying "I read the cliff notes" version of the Bible?

 

Because having seen it, I can tell you your post is missing a key element of the movie...... it's a post apocalyptic movie. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway to bring this back to Obamacare and CA....

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/we-are-not-having-a-serious-discussion-obamacare-edition/

 

 

 

We Are Not Having A Serious Discussion, Obamacare Edition

I fairly often receive mail pleading with me to take a more even tone, to have a respectful discussion with people on the other side rather than calling them fools and knaves. And you know, I do when I can. But the truth is that on most of the big issues confronting us, there just isn’t anyone to have a serious discussion with. Ezra Klein offers a nice illustration of this point today, in his takedown of Avik Roy on Obamacare in California.

 

The thing you want to bear in mind is that Roy is widely considered a good example of a reformist conservative, not to mention a health policy wonk. So what does this reform-minded wonk have to say about Obamacare?

 

Klein tries really hard to keep his temper even; too hard, I think, because I wonder how many readers will stay with him all the way through. But to cut to the chase, Roy claims that Obamacare will cause soaring insurance rates, using a comparison that is completely fraudulent — and I say fraudulent, not wrong, because he is indeed enough of a policy wonk here to know that he is pulling a fast one.

 

So here’s the comparison Roy uses: he points out that the insurance premiums that will apparently be charged on the California exchange will be higher than the lowest rates being offered by some insurers in California right now.

 

As Klein says, this isn’t just comparing apples and oranges; it’s comparing apples with oranges you can’t even buy.

 

Right now, California has a basically unregulated individual market, in which insurers are free to reject whoever they choose, and charge whatever rates they choose. This means that a few young, healthy people with no record of prior medical problems can get cheap plans; these are, of course, precisely the people who need insurance least, and these plans are cheap not just because they’re only available to the very healthy but because they don’t provide much insurance. If you’re not healthy or wealthy enough to get by with this kind of insurance, too bad.

 

So looking at these rates tells you nothing at all about the success of a program that offers insurance to everyone, regardless of medical history, and sets fairly high minimum standards for the quality of that insurance.

 

What’s more, this isn’t some obscure issue. When people try to explain the logic of ObamaRomneyCare — certainly when I try to explain it — they often start from precisely this point, pointing out that unregulated insurance markets give the healthy and wealthy a pretty good deal but leave everyone else out in the cold, then work from that point toward the “three-legged stool” of community rating, mandates,and subsidies that supports reform. So Roy has to know that he’s making an essentially fraudulent argument — and does it anyway.

 

And Roy is about as good as you get in this stuff: his tone is even, he actually knows something. Nonetheless, he goes for the cheap, misleading shot.

I know that a lot of people wish we lived in a country where debates about things like health care policy were serious, honest discussions of debatable points. I like to hope that by the time I retire I’ll actually live in a country like that. But right now, and surely for years to come, it’s basically facts versus fraud.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ezra Klein specifically responds to that article here....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/01/the-shocking-truth-about-obamacares-rate-shock/

 

 

 

The shocking truth about Obamacare’s rate shock

By Ezra Klein, Published: June 1, 2013 at 10:00 amE-mail the writer

Imagine you went to Best Buy and found a great deal on a plasma television set. I want to be clear here: You didn’t find a great television set. This television set is actually a bit crummy. The picture is fuzzy. Consumer Reports says it breaks down a lot and it’s expensive to fix. But it’s really cheap. The price tag reads $109.

 

tina-maze-shocked-800x525.jpg

Skier Tina Maze isn’t shocked by Obamacare premiums. At least, I don’t think she is. (Leonhard Foeger / REUTERS)

When you take it to the counter, the saleswoman tells you that the set will actually cost you $199. And count yourself lucky, she confides in a conspiratorial whisper. There are customers whom Best Buy won’t sell it to at any price. You ask her which customers those are. The ones who need the TV most, she replies.

So here’s the question: Does that television really cost $109?

 

Best Buy, of course, would never do this to you. If they say you can buy a television set for $109, you can buy it for $109. Plus, they’re handsome, and their customer service is great, and I hope they advertise in The Washington Post forevermore, amen.

 

But this is actually how the individual health-insurance market works. And understanding why is crucial to understanding a lot of what you’re going to read about health reform in the next year.

Last week, California released early information on the rates insurers intend to charge on the new insurance marketplaces — known as “exchanges” — that the state is setting up under Obamacare. They were far lower than anyone expected. Where analysts had anticipated average premiums of $400 to $500, insurers were actually charging $200 to $300. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” crowed Peter Lee, director of the state’s exchanges.

 

The Affordable Care Act’s critics saw it differently. Avik Roy, a conservative health writer at Forbes, said Lee was being “misleading” and that “Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.” Obamacare, he said, would trigger “rate shock,” the jolt people feel when they see higher rates. That doesn’t sound like a home run at all.

Who’s right? In typical columnist fashion, I’m not going to tell you just yet. But stick with me, and you’ll be able to parse the next year of confused and confusing Obamacare arguments with ease.

 

Here’s the first thing to know: We’re talking about a small fraction of the American health-care system. This isn’t about people on Medicare or Medicaid or employer-based insurance. It’s about people joining Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. That’s people who buy insurance on their own now, as well as some of the uninsured. In 2014, 7 million people, or 2.5 percent of the population, is expected to buy insurance through the exchanges. By 2023, that will rise to 24 million people, or 8 percent.

So we’re talking about a small portion of the market. Worse, we’re talking about that small portion of the market all wrong.

 

Roy got his 146 percent by heading to eHealthInsurance.com, running a search for insurance plans in California and comparing the cost of the cheapest plans to the cost of the plans being offered in the exchanges. That’s not just comparing apples to oranges. It’s comparing apples to oranges that the fruit guy may not even let you buy.

 

I ran the same search Roy did. I looked for insurance in Irvine, Calif. — my home town. The average monthly premiums of the five cheapest plans is $114. So I took the middle plan, HealthNet’s IFP PPO Value 4500. It’s got a $4,500 deductible, a $2,500 deductible for brand-name medications, huge co-pays and a little “bestseller” icon next to it. And it’s only $109 a month — if they’ll sell it to you for that price.

 

That’s the catch, and it’s a big one. Click to buy the plan and eventually you’ll have to answer pages and pages of questions about your health history. Ever had cancer? How about an ulcer? How about a headache? Do you feel sad when it rains? When it doesn’t rain? Is there a history of cardiovascular disease in your family? Have you ever known anyone who had the flu? The actual cost of the plan will depend on how you answer those questions.

 

According to HealthCare.gov, 14 percent of people who try to buy that plan are turned away outright. Another 12 percent are told they’ll have to pay more than $109. So a quarter of the people who try to buy this insurance product for $109 a month are told they can’t. Those are the people who need insurance most — they are sick, or were sick, or are likely to get sick. So, again, is $109 really the price of this plan?

 

Comparing the pre-underwriting price of this plan to those in Obamacare’s exchanges is ridiculous. The plans in Obamacare’s exchanges have to include those people. They can’t turn anyone away or jack up rates because of a history of arthritis or heart disease.

 

They also have to offer insurance that meets a certain minimum standard. Under Obamacare, for instance, the out-of-pocket limit for someone making 100 to 200 percent of the poverty line is $1,983. Under the Value 4500, you could spend up to $9,500 before the out-of-pocket limit kicked in. Obamacare also has subsidies for people making up to four times the poverty line. The poor pay next to nothing. The rich pay full freight.

 

“We as a society have never really said here’s what reasonable insurance is,” says Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s just been anything goes. For the first time they’re setting a minimum about what reasonable insurance should be.” They’re also setting a minimum about who should be able to get it, and at what cost. Now it really will work like Best Buy, where the price on the tag is the price everyone actually pays.

 

Some people will find the new rules make insurance more expensive. That’s in part because their health insurance was made cheap by turning away sick people. The new rules also won’t allow for as much discrimination based on age or gender. The flip side of that, of course, is that many will suddenly find their health insurance is much cheaper, or they will find that, for the first time, they’re not turned away when they try to buy health insurance.

 

That’s why the law is expected to insure almost 25 million people in the first decade: It makes health insurance affordable and accessible to millions who couldn’t get it before. To judge it from a baseline that leaves them out — a baseline that asks only what the wealthy and healthy will pay and ignores the benefits to the poor, the sick, the old, and women — well, that is a bit shocking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not insured through my employer, I'm covered under my wife's insurance, but I still had to attend the insurance meeting a couple of months ago. The rates went up a lot for those who do use it, and will go up more when it kicks in next year. I can't give a percentage, I don't know since I don't use it. The lady from the Insurance company said several times, "this is what we voted for". She said it was because everyone now had to pay for those who couldn't be/weren't insured before, like pre-existing conditions and poverty.

 

The ongoing costs will be largely based on the group we are in, how many claims are made, how much money they have to pay out. Essentially, if your co-worker gets cancer, your rates will go up.

 

If you don't have insurance, you get fined $600 by the government. And you still aren't covered. It's not like you pay $600 and the government pays for your health care.

 

 

 

 

Woo Hoo....

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/10/ohio-dept-of-insurance-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-health-premiums-by-88-percent/?partner=yahootix

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not insured through my employer, I'm covered under my wife's insurance, but I still had to attend the insurance meeting a couple of months ago. The rates went up a lot for those who do use it, and will go up more when it kicks in next year. I can't give a percentage, I don't know since I don't use it. The lady from the Insurance company said several times, "this is what we voted for". She said it was because everyone now had to pay for those who couldn't be/weren't insured before, like pre-existing conditions and poverty.

 

The ongoing costs will be largely based on the group we are in, how many claims are made, how much money they have to pay out. Essentially, if your co-worker gets cancer, your rates will go up.

 

If you don't have insurance, you get fined $600 by the government. And you still aren't covered. It's not like you pay $600 and the government pays for your health care.

 

 

 

 

Woo Hoo....

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/10/ohio-dept-of-insurance-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-health-premiums-by-88-percent/?partner=yahootix

 

 

bad all around for the economy..my verizion rates went up and they said because of obomacare..I really think Paul ryans way about insurance the voucher program would be so beneficial to America and keeps our freedom to choose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are in one of the most liberal states in America..Maryland..you don't see how this Obomacare takes away our freedom to choose..obomacare wants to put low income teens on birth control..No, just low income doesn't mean you are a whore! lol! it degrades society in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are in one of the most liberal states in America..Maryland..you don't see how this Obomacare takes away our freedom to choose..obomacare wants to put low income teens on birth control..No, just low income doesn't mean you are a whore! lol! it degrades society in general.

 

 

I dont live in MD, I live in VA.

 

Further when did you have the freedom to choose your insurance provider? Every company I've ever worked for has said "this is who your health insurance provider is"

 

Even further providing access to birth control is hardly putting people on it, and frankly providing access to it might just lower the number of abortions this country has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not insured through my employer, I'm covered under my wife's insurance, but I still had to attend the insurance meeting a couple of months ago. The rates went up a lot for those who do use it, and will go up more when it kicks in next year. I can't give a percentage, I don't know since I don't use it. The lady from the Insurance company said several times, "this is what we voted for". She said it was because everyone now had to pay for those who couldn't be/weren't insured before, like pre-existing conditions and poverty.

 

The ongoing costs will be largely based on the group we are in, how many claims are made, how much money they have to pay out. Essentially, if your co-worker gets cancer, your rates will go up.

 

If you don't have insurance, you get fined $600 by the government. And you still aren't covered. It's not like you pay $600 and the government pays for your health care.

 

 

 

 

Woo Hoo....

 

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/10/ohio-dept-of-insurance-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-health-premiums-by-88-percent/?partner=yahootix

 

 

 

A lot of what you experienced there was a combination of simple profiteering by the insurance company, and your wife's company trying to get a plan that meets the minimum requirements to fulfill their obligation and cost them as little as possible.

 

Just be glad you don't have a $15,000 yearly deductible.  

 

Yet... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...