This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Government Shutdown

Discussion in 'Bar' started by bryan_kilco, Oct 1, 2013.

  1. He's Dead, Jim

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    That's a fair point, but the anti-intellectualism that can crop up in some of these discussions is absurd. I'm not calling out anyone in particular.

    Right, which is precisely what the Obama administration would say, and what they did say to SCOTUS: the mere fact that you exist means, like it or not, you are a part of the healthcare market. Therefore, your participation in that market means it can be regulated through the interstate commerce clause, which is the legal and economic rationale for the ACA.

    And I agree with you on the discussion part, but then it actually needs to be a discussion. Not "This is the most ungodly, unconstitutional law ever created in world history," which is what a Republican congressman from Indiana said yesterday. Yes, it was on the Daily Show, but that is the rhetoric I hear constantly from a lot of people. It's ridiculously overblown. Is Massachusetts a godless communist hellscape? No. The Republicans should at least let the law- which is constitutional, and was passed through this country's national legislature, regardless- go into effect. If it doesn't depress costs enough, then get rid of it or modify it. I'm pretty sure Republicans will have the presidency at some point. The "ZOMG IT'S SO UNJUST" backstop was the Supreme Court, and John Roberts of all people voted to uphold the law.

    This is a nice paternalistic sentiment and I appreciate the concern, but I don't, dude. I think for myself, which is why I'm able to say, "You know what? I don't think the ACA brings down long-term costs enough, but I'm willing to wait and see if it does." Or, more controversially, "You know what? I think most of what the NSA is doing is actually okay, but I think it needs more oversight and the scope should probably be reduced." I also think Guantanamo Bay is an affront to human dignity! I have opinions that are different about different things because I'm a person and I read stuff!
     
  2. JeffTD

    JeffTD Senhor Testiculo

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    12,582
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I'm more than happy to hand things off to HD,J at this point (as he's handling you guys with much more civility than I'd be able to today); I'm sure he'll also be able to give some personal examples of how the shutdown is affecting his everyday life as he lives in DC where infrastructure runs almost entirely off of federal funding.
     
  3. egan.

    egan. daylightdies.com

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NorCal
    That's the exact opposite of a free market. That's a single payer system by way of an illegal trust. Essentially what you're talking about is letting
    for-profit insurance companies get together and negotiate as a single entity. One for-profit negotiating body and an insane risk of abuse.
    BTW, I'm not saying we can't have new ideas. I'm saying we don't have to as there is a wealth of real world examples of systems that are cheaper, with more people covered and with demonstrably better results than our own.
     
  4. He's Dead, Jim

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    ^ egan is completely correct.

    Country after country after country has shown that the most effective way to bring down costs is to use the government as a single buyer in a monopsonistic system and force companies to provide services for as cheap as the government can bargain for. That isn't a 100% perfect model, but that's literally the only reason Americans pay three and four times as much for medical care as people in other countries: the health care providers are pocketing the profits. They're businesses, so they're entitled to do that I guess, but I think it's outrageously inhumane, and I don't particularly see us benefiting from it in any way. There is the possible exception of medical device and medicine development, but that's more an intellectual property issue.

    Read this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/the-real-reason-we-pay-so-much-for-health-care.html

    Or this NYT article, which received a lot of coverage when it originally came out: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?hp&_r=0

    As an anecdote, I have a medical condition for which I needed to get a colonoscopy. I'm 23. Because my mother is a public school administrator, her health care only covers me in the northeast, where I grew up. I had to drive back to my home state from DC to get a colonoscopy, because if I had done it in DC it would have cost my parents $3,000. This is the sort of stuff that makes me feel like we're living in a third-world country when it comes to health care, and in a lot of ways, we are. That term actually does a disservice to developing countries, because they at least try to provide universal health care.
     
  5. Genius Gone Insane

    Genius Gone Insane http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,726
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Solution to most people's problems = spend more and shop at mom and pops instead of chains whenever possible. If we all do it, life will be tough for a few years but it will weed out a lot of the systematic problems we ALL face.

    Pffft!!!
     
  6. TheWinterSnow

    TheWinterSnow Den Mørke Natt

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,090
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    In my haste to write my post I miss-worded some things, my bad. What I meant to say was that an Insurance company looks into the prices of the procedures for the medical practices that insurance covers. In other words, the doctors and hospitals that are in that insurance's coverage. Set forth government regulations where a person can go to any doctor/hospital they want but if it is beyond what that person's coverage covers then they have to pay out of pocket the difference. As of now if you go out of coverage most insurances won't pay a dime.

    In this system, insurance companies aren't bargaining together, you are right that is illegal under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. What the system I mentioned would do is force expensive doctors, practices, hospitals and insurances to bring their prices down to stay competitive because no one would go to them if they had to choice to go with the same exact thing for cheaper. Again it is very important that people have the options to choose.

    Again, I do apologize for my incorrect wording.

    With that in mind I do support a single payer system and do hope that California makes the right decisions that allow us to make other decisions outside the ACA.
     
  7. StayTrue

    StayTrue Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Boulder, Colorado
    Question: Do you think we would be having a healthcare discussion had the exchanges opened prior to Oct 1? Notice how this thread is all about healthcare and not about passing a budget.....

    Our government has passed budgets in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, in which every American "philosophically" doesn't believe is 100% correct.

    This shutdown is being used as political leverage in a time where problems need to be fixed, rather than finger pointing and ideologue misdirection.
     
  8. JoeMeek12397

    JoeMeek12397 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Georgia
    Have none of you known someone that has or personally been affected by the ACA? My family has. Lots of places are already cutting people's hours down to part time, thus removing lots important necessitates from people's lives. Nice loophole.

    Shit is already stretched way too thin for me to buy health insurance, so I can't see a doctor and I've been sick for the past 8 years. Forcing me to buy insurance helps me gain it, when I can't afford in the first place? That's a mafia type sell if I've ever heard one, an offer I CAN'T refuse.

    Don't get me wrong, I hate republican views/actions even more, but people are being such sheep about this shit.
     
  9. XxSicRokerxX

    XxSicRokerxX Gabriel R.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
  10. Jind

    Jind Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    If this response is too personal, feel free to not answer, but your post raises a few questions. You note that things are stretched too thin for you to buy health insurance which begs the question have you looked into how much, if any of the cost would be subsidized via tax credits under the ACA?

    Second you also note that you've been sick for 8 years. Trust me I know long term illness - have had two bone marrow transplants for Acute Myelogenous Leukemia in the past 8 years, and while I'm fortunate that I had a well paying job with good insurance benefits including LTD coverage, I know that without them I'd be shit out of luck prior to the ACA since I've had a pre-existing condition since age 21 when I was diagnosed with a blood disorder that eventually morphed into the Leukemia (by the way I turned 46 this year). Had I tried to get insurance in the market prior to the ACA I'd either be outright denied coverage (most likely outcome) or have premiums so high it would be impossible to maintain.

    So - the ACA has possibly provided insurance that you would have been denied prior to it's implementation and with the ACA insurance companies can no longer charge you more for any pre-existing illness - add to that the possibility tax credits could offset much of the cost depending upon your income, it still sounds better than the prior alternative.

    As I said this is more an observation than a question so feel free to ignore it.
     
  11. StayTrue

    StayTrue Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Boulder, Colorado
    Check this to see if you qualify for the tax credit: https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/

    As mentioned this is all your personal business, but hopefully this will help
     
  12. He's Dead, Jim

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    You also don't have to buy health insurance. You can pay the tax/penalty if you really want to, and it is technically less than most health plans. And if businesses in your area are really cutting down workers to save on health care costs, the entire point of the state exchanges is to make individual plans actually affordable for people who need/want them.
     
  13. TheWinterSnow

    TheWinterSnow Den Mørke Natt

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,090
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    One the website they claim that the penalty is 1% of your income or $97(or something close) which ever comes first and you have to pay 100% of your medical expenses. So you don't get healthcare with the fee, you just have to pay the fee because you don't have healthcare. I like the wording on the site, they basically fear monger you with saying something along the lines of, most people that pay out of pocket go bankrupt. They give you an ultimatum, buy Obamacare or be financially ruined.
     
  14. JeffTD

    JeffTD Senhor Testiculo

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    12,582
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    You do realize that your taxes already go towards paying for the health care of uninsured people, right? Penalizing you for not having health insurance (AKA not being a part of the insurance pool but being able to reap the benefits of it by defaulting on bills related to health care or having to rely on gov't subsidies when you become too unhealthy to work, when a breadwinner in a family dies because his illness goes untreated, etc) is the same as penalizing someone for not having car insurance (eg you screw over other people if you hit them and don't have insurance). It's totally fair.

    If you're going to try and argue that auto insurance ≠ health insurance again, you're just dead wrong.

    Yes, you can opt out of needing auto insurance by not driving. You can also opt out of needing health insurance by not living.

    I get that it sucks to not be able to opt out of health insurance when you feel totally healthy, but every single healthy person ever is going to require healthy care at some point in their life.
     
  15. MarcusGHedwig

    MarcusGHedwig Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New York
    Can someone please explain why the ACA is motivating employers cut hours (and downgrade employees from full- to part-time) when health insurance is getting cheaper?
     
  16. He's Dead, Jim

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Because the law has an employer mandate that forces employers to provide health insurance if they employ 50 or more workers, so allegedly some businesses are cutting back employees to part-time or firing people to avoid having to pay up.

    I say allegedly for 2 reasons. First, even if they do, I think I said before a major part of the law is an attempt to make individual coverage affordable through the state exchanges. So if you're in that situation, you should ideally be able to get insurance anyway through the cheaper individual plans and the tax credits.

    Second, I've seen quite a few economic studies that claim it's nonsense, and that if any employers are actually doing this, they're isolated cases and not reflective of broad economic trends. Also, like you said, the hope is that over time, the reduction in costs relative to inflation will incentivize them not to. Costs have already been declining quite a bit, but it's hard to separate that phenomenon from the lingering effects of the recession without more data. They also just delayed the employer mandate for a year, so it's a bunch o' malarkey IMO. That said, I might be wrong. But I don't think there's conclusive proof yet.
     
  17. XxSicRokerxX

    XxSicRokerxX Gabriel R.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
  18. Genius Gone Insane

    Genius Gone Insane http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,726
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Republicans: "Meh."
     
  19. egan.

    egan. daylightdies.com

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,441
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NorCal
    Keep in mind you have guys like Papa John Schnatter promising to cut hours/pay and raise prices at conservative fundraiser at his private golf course.
     
  20. Jind

    Jind Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Like many politically/ideologically biased subjects, knee jerk reactions and first impressions based upon uninformed half truths spread to other uninformed like minded individuals tends to be the basis for automatically disliking something you have obviously not fully investigated.

    Have I covered most of the objections to the ACA put forth in this thread? ;)
     

Share This Page