The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies

[Ernest Jones]

How's the weather up there?  What is your golfing schedule for November, December, January, February and March?? Boom!!!!!! (That's the sound of me dropping the mic) :-P

Ah crud. Have y'all seen my basement? Sigh.

[newtogolf]

Yea, Ted Cruz saw an opening and he charged head first into a brick wall.

I am still dumbfounded by the President. Honestly, how do you not check up on it. I understand he wants deniability for when it ****s up. Doesn't that just speak to a lack of leadership right there. He would rather be able to say, "I didn't know this was a problem." Than just man up and say were going to fix it. It's his nature, he only wants to claim victory for anything that makes him look good.

As much as it pains me, I have to defend Obama here.  You can't expect the President of the United States to manage the implementation of a website application.  Obama, like Bush II, Bush I, Clinton, etc have people in charge of these areas and under these key people are Project managers, software development managers, etc.

The POTUS or CEO of a Fortune 100 business should have minimal involvement in the development of a website application unless they have a background in software engineering and management.

First problem as I understand it is we outsourced the development to Canada (big mistake), second problem it's not easy to test how an application will respond with 100,000+ people trying to access it at once.  I'm sure there was some beta testing, but I've done software development long enough to know that even with the best test plans and stress testing, you can't always simulate real users and their stupidity.

[David in FL]

Well, you've got to understand lawyers. We talk in general rules, and generally, he is correct.

The general rule is stated, and then the exceptions to the Rule - but if you go into exceptions, people focus on that instead of the General Rule.

I'm an exception -- I"m certain my plan will have me going to the Exchange within a year. I think they could not drop you before the Act was fully implemented.

He said......if you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it.  Period.  Something like 600,000 people losing their current healthcare coverage in FL alone.

We non-lawyers call that lying.....

[mdl]

Well you can always get a 2nd opinion can't you? That has been done for years by many people.

Well HSA's are usually high deductible health plans. Were you pay your deductible from a savings account. I like HSA's because it forces you to SAVE money for times when you NEED it. I think that is important for Americans who tend to like to SPEND SPEND SPEND, and grow their own debt. If your 20 years old, and don't get sick for 10 years, lets say you make 50,000 a year, you can easily save 10% of your income a year. Believe me, I am in that range, and I live an easy life style and I save nearly 15-20% of my own money for retirement. But that would be 50,000 dollars by the time your 30 years old, not including interest. I think many people would take that. For HSA's, that means usually $2,000 per year in deductibles, that would last them 6.25 years if they don't continue to save.

The problem is the American mentality. They are use to, GIVE ME GIVE ME GIVE ME, instead of actually doing the logical thing and saving more than they spend. The fact that all these businesses and governments have said, "Oh, you'll be able to retire, don't worry about, we got you". It has made Americans complacent. To truly save the health care system, you need to attack it from both sides. I can agree to some sort of government involvement in extreme cases, but American's need to learn to save for their own health. I mean come on, its your own body. I understand you just can't change it now, you need a buffer for it. You really need a generation of people, my generation. Those who are healthy, get them to start saving. Then every future generation needs to start saving. This will bring in one of the most powerful forces in economics, Compound Interest. In doing so, we can seriously attack this health care issue. That an I hope future generations actually care about their health, get the Obesity under wraps.

Sure you can get a 2nd opinion, but that costs you what, another $150, $250?  And what if it's a serious thing where time matters?  You're going to spend X weeks getting 3 opinions and cost estimates with some problem that could be life-threatening, or at least cause permanent damage if not treated right away?  And then you still don't really have any way to assess those two or three opinions.  How can you weigh quality (chance of good outcome for particular diagnosis/prescription) versus estimated cost if you don't actually have any way to assess quality (assuming you're not a doctor and don't have illegal medical records of all the docs you're assessing and have done complex statistical analysis of those)?  It's a fantasy that you can get the cost containment we need from "market" forces applied to doctor-patient relations.  There are information asymmetries and power imbalances.  It's just not the same as a market for widgets or boob jobs, it CAN'T EVER BE, and it's dishonest or deluded to pretend it is.

If all you're saying is that HSA savings shouldn't be stolen at the end of each calendar year, as they currently are, I agree.  But if that's your policy proposal it doesn't really support your moralistic tone.  That's something tons of people across the political spectrum (including many you might call moochers or at least moocher sympathizers) can agree on.

I think what it gets down to is your common conservative entitlement society shtick.  You know there's no such thing as welfare in this country anymore, right?  Have you ever known anyone poor trying to get help?  The actual benefits available are essentially nothing.  No one is living large on the dole and not hoping to get off.  You have to be working to get a tiny bit of welfare, and that runs out.  Unemployment runs out after a year or so now (it was longer but is back down again now I think).  Super poor working mothers with a couple kids get something like $40-$50/week worth of help to buy food with SNAP.  That sound like living large, entitled?  The only real permanent benefit is Medicaid.  Your answer is that poor people should suck it up and save more?  Cause they have so much extra money floating around, especially now that real wages haven't increased for 30+ years?

I never get that angle.  I'm all for personal responsibility, but modern health care is a unique thing that every other society in the world has come together to deal with in a sensible collective way that doesn't require you to plan your entire life to have two down payments saved by 30, one in your HSA and one in your bank account for a house, and two retirements saved by the time you're 65, one for medical costs and one for living. That just seems like a ridiculous choice to make as a society.  Why would we want to make that choice?  It seems like taking a moralistic tone condemning others for not choosing to make things worse than they need to be.  Sucking it up and doing it the hard way is only laudable when that's the best way.  Otherwise it's just masochistic, and it makes no sense to feel righteous that others don't share your masochism.

[cipher]

OMG this thread is still going on? @Golfingdad you are a Cali Nutjab! I am sorry that was the best I could come up with...

[Golfingdad]

OMG this thread is still going on?  @Golfingdad you are a Cali Nutjab!    I am sorry that was the best I could come up with...

Sorry, @cipher , I don't know what a nutjAb is ... but I know that @Ernest Jones is a Montreal asshat!!  He can take his universal healthcare and shove it up his snowblower.

Oh, and @saevel25 is the one to blame for reviving this badboy.  Let's get him!!!!!!!!!

[boogielicious]

Canadians are like Americans, only nicer.

[cipher]

Sorry, @cipher , I don't know what a nutjAb is  ... but I know that @Ernest Jones is a Montreal asshat!!  He can take his universal healthcare and shove it up his snowblower.

Oh, and @saevel25 is the one to blame for reviving this badboy.  Let's get him!!!!!!!!!

LOL! Nutjab, that is Bostonian. @Ernest Jones and I are going to issue a little "re-distributive change" when it comes to snow.  We are going to send some of it your way so that you are not left out this winter.

[Ernest Jones]

LOL!  :dance: Nutjab, that is Bostonian.  :-D @Ernest Jones and I are going to issue a little "re-distributive change" when it comes to snow.  We are going to send some of it your way so that you are not left out this winter.

Lol, that's right @Golfingdad , we're shipping you some northern love. You've earned it. Your kids are gonna love it, now go buy yourself a nice, sturdy shovel. :-p

[newtogolf]

Lol, that's right @Golfingdad, we're shipping you some northern love. You've earned it. Your kids are gonna love it, now go buy yourself a nice, sturdy shovel.

:-p

You guys could use some shovels, every time I've visited Canada in the winter, the roads and sidewalks were covered in snow and ice.

[Golfingdad]

Lol, that's right @Golfingdad, we're shipping you some northern love. You've earned it. Your kids are gonna love it, now go buy yourself a nice, sturdy shovel.

:-p

Hells yeah!!!  I can't wait!  Gonna go break the Sorels out of the closet right now!!

[dsc123]

Isn't the reason that some people are losing their insurance plans, that their plans don't meet the minimum Level of coverage? So yes, some will have to pay more, but this isn't a case of people with good insurance having to accept some crappier insurance,right?

[Mr. Desmond]

Isn't the reason that some people are losing their insurance plans, that their plans don't meet the minimum Level of coverage? So yes, some will have to pay more, but this isn't a case of people with good insurance having to accept some crappier insurance,right?

Apparently so.

The insurance needs to meet a certain floor level...

[David in FL]

Isn't the reason that some people are losing their insurance plans, that their plans don't meet the minimum Level of coverage? So yes, some will have to pay more, but this isn't a case of people with good insurance having to accept some crappier insurance,right?

It's a case of people forced to accept coverage that they don't need/want because the gvt has mandated it. Maternity coverage for 70 year-old women as one example..... If the previous policy did not include that, they lose the policy. Ok....I've promised to stay away from this and I will. Just keep an eye out for your healthcare cost increase after the first of the year, and remember that we were promised an average savings of $2500 per household. Again, something we non-lawyers call a lie.

[boogielicious]

I'm just curious if all the folks who don't like the ACA also have a problem with the Patriot Act and the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security.  If you want smaller government and less Big Brother, shouldn't this bother you as well?  It costs at least as much as the ACA and created the NSA mess that our allies are upset about.

This is a serious question.  I am trying to understand your point of view.  I understand the need for both and the objection to both.

[David in FL]

I'm just curious if all the folks who don't like the ACA also have a problem with the Patriot Act and the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security.  If you want smaller government and less Big Brother, shouldn't this bother you as well?  It costs at least as much as the ACA and created the NSA mess that our allies are upset about.

This is a serious question.  I am trying to understand your point of view.  I understand the need for both and the objection to both.

But an excellent diversionary attempt.....

[newtogolf]

I'm just curious if all the folks who don't like the ACA also have a problem with the Patriot Act and the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security.  If you want smaller government and less Big Brother, shouldn't this bother you as well?  It costs at least as much as the ACA and created the NSA mess that our allies are upset about.

This is a serious question.  I am trying to understand your point of view.  I understand the need for both and the objection to both.

I have a problem with ACA and what the Patriot Act and Homeland Security has turned into.  All are abuses of the Federal Government and in some form violate the principles of our Constitution under the guise of being in the best interest of the people.

Now let's stay on topic with the ACA and the lies that were told to get this bill rammed down our throats.

[Mr. Desmond]

Did y'all ever think they reason there is mandated coverage is to keep the expense of extended coverage lower for the entire population?

For example, the little old lady whose insurance must cover maternity -- this is done to get more people with that coverage so the overall expense of coverage for those who do need it is lower. It's the same thing with forcing everyone into the system, so the overall expense of extended coverage is lower. The additional problem is that if you do not have a certain "floor" level of coverage then insurance companies will not offer coverage such as maternity.

I do think we need some type of national health care plan because state by state coverage is not workable if the objective is to allow everyone to have coverage -- the "$$$ have nots", those who insurance will not cover due to pre-existing conditions, and tthose who skip out on paying ER's to pay up ... with coverage.

The HCA needs fixing ... fix it.

Just like the tax code, the system will always need simplification and fixing - it runs in cycles - the system is too complex, reform takes place, the system becomes too complex, reform takes place ... et cereal.

I don't see guys with an alternative health care plan .... they complain about the present plan. I'd rather focus on solutions, and the pure private optional and "you don't qualify" system was not working for millions of people.

Lies?  I'm not impressed with the lie told by the people who say the pre ACA system was working. It was not.