|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2013 : 20:35:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
What a lying POS this President is turning out to be. |
Standard conservative politics.| No surprise to me but many of my lib/progressive friends have been in utter shock these last few weeks. Barry is not turning out to be the Messiah they all thought, and he claimed, that he was. |
He never claimed to be a messiah. He's clearly been a corporatist conservative since day one. He's proven this over and over again, not least because he signed the Heritage Foundation-based PPACA into law. Continuing the Bush abuses of power is par for the conservative course.
Frikkin' Reagan was more liberal than Obama in a lot of ways.| Barry knew no later than 2010 that as many as 90 million people would not be able to keep their coverage... |
A third of the individually insured is not a third of the entire US population, Bill.| Shoot only 6 people in the whole country signed up on the big roll out day. |
But earlier you said:| Trouble is nobody is signing up by internet, phone or snail mail. |
Which time did you lie, Bill? The time you said "nobody," or the time you said "6 people?"| Or maybe the media just can't find all these anecdotal stories that you talk about. |
I've linked to a few of the ones reported by "the media" already. I thought you "follow all sources." Apparently you're lying again.
I'll get back to your racism soon... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2013 : 21:56:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
One week before the election that will likely determine Obamacare's fate, Americans support its repeal by an even wider margin than they did in the immediate aftermath of its highly unpopular passage. |
Clearly an example of trying to deduce a trend from just the endpoints. Also, one week after the above quote was written, support for repeal had dropped to 50% (margin of merely 6%). The numbers have been consistently negative, but the margin has been all over the place. It peaked at 31% in the May 22-23, 2010, poll, and the trend has been fairly steady towards acceptance of the PPACA since then.
It's kinda funny how Rasmussen mostly dropped the issue after the 2012 elections, but they were widely seen as a referendum in favor of Obamacare.
Of course, anyone who uses "ramrodded" to describe passage of the PPACA is missing the point of our representative government. If our representatives were supposed to do nothing more than vote as directed by national opinion surveys, we wouldn't need them. We could just have nationwide voting on all matters of public policy - a strict majority rule (a "pure" democracy) which the Framers of our Constitution knew to be a bad idea.
The fact is that a majority of our elected representatives favored passage of the PPACA, and have continued to support it ever since. Claiming that that's "ramrodding" is a ridiculous denial of their function. Are you going to claim that the recent government shutdown was "ramrodded" on us, too?
Here is Rasmussen's data:Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters [on repealing the ACA]
Date Favor Oppose Margin
--------------------------------------
Nov 4 50% 44% 6%
Oct 27-28 54% 39% 15%
Oct 19-20 52% 42% 10%
Oct 13-14 52% 42% 10%
Oct 5-6 54% 39% 15%
Sep 29-30 52% 42% 10%
Sep 21-22 52% 41% 11%
Sep 15-16 53% 43% 10%
Sep 7-8 50% 44% 6%
Sep 1-2 50% 41% 9%
Aug 24-25 51% 41% 10%
Aug 18-19 52% 39% 13%
Aug 10-11 56% 38% 18%
Aug 4-5 50% 44% 6%
July 27-28 55% 39% 16%
July 20-21 52% 43% 9%
July 13-14 52% 42% 10%
July 7-8 53% 41% 12%
June 29-30 52% 39% 13%
June 23-24 54% 39% 15%
June 9-10 53% 39% 14%
May 26-27 55% 39% 16%
May 12 56% 37% 19%
Apr 28-29 55% 36% 19%
Apr 14-15 56% 37% 19%
Mar 31-Apr 1 54% 40% 14%
Mar 17-18 56% 39% 17%
Mar 3-4 53% 42% 11%
Feb 18-19 53% 38% 15%
Feb 4-5 54% 41% 13%
Jan 21-22 52% 41% 11%
Jan 7-8, 2012 54% 42% 12%
Dec 22 53% 39% 14%
Dec 10-11 55% 35% 20%
Nov 27 53% 40% 13%
Nov 11-12 55% 37% 18%
Oct 28-29 54% 39% 15%
Oct 14-15 54% 38% 16%
Sep 30-Oct 1 51% 39% 12%
Sep 16-17 56% 36% 20%
Sep 2-3 57% 36% 21%
Aug 27-28 57% 37% 20%
Aug 19-20 55% 38% 17%
Aug 13-14 54% 40% 14%
Aug 5-6 54% 40% 14%
July 30-31 55% 39% 16%
July 22-23 57% 36% 21%
July 16-17 54% 39% 15%
July 8-9 53% 40% 13%
July 2 53% 39% 14%
June 24-25 55% 38% 17%
June 18-19 53% 42% 11%
June 10-11 54% 35% 19%
June 4-5 54% 39% 15%
May 28-29 51% 41% 10%
May 21-22 51% 43% 8%
May 13-14 55% 38% 17%
May 7 57% 36% 21%
Apr 29-30 47% 42% 5%
Apr 23-24 53% 40% 13%
Apr 15-16 52% 41% 11%
Apr 9-10 51% 41% 10%
Apr 1-2 54% 39% 15%
Mar 26-27 58% 36% 22%
Mar 18-19 53% 42% 11%
Mar 12-13 62% 33% 29%
Mar 4-5 54% 39% 15%
Feb 26-27 53% 39% 14%
Feb 18-19 56% 40% 16%
Feb 12-13 57% 38% 19%
Feb 4-5 58% 37% 21%
Jan 29-30 58% 38% 20%
Jan 21-22 53% 43% 10%
Jan 15-16 55% 40% 15%
Jan 7-8 54% 40% 14%
Jan 2, 2011 60% 36% 24%
Dec 26 60% 38% 22%
Dec 17-18 55% 41% 14%
Dec 11-12 60% 34% 26%
Dec 5-6 56% 41% 15%
Nov 28 58% 37% 21%
Nov 19-20 57% 39% 18%
Nov 13-14 58% 37% 21%
Nov 5-6 55% 40% 15%
Oct 30-31 58% 36% 22%
Oct 22-23 53% 42% 11%
Oct 16-17 55% 40% 15%
Oct 8-9 55% 39% 16%
Oct 2-3 50% 44% 6%
Sep 24-25 57% 35% 22%
Sep 18-19 61% 33% 28%
Sep 10-11 53% 38% 15%
Sep 4-5 56% 38% 18%
Aug 27-28 58% 36% 22%
Aug 21-22 56% 40% 16%
Aug 13-14 60% 36% 24%
Aug 7-8 55% 38% 17%
Jul 30-31 59% 38% 21%
Jul 24-25 58% 37% 21%
Jul 16-17 56% 38% 18%
Jul 10-11 53% 42% 11%
Jul 1 60% 36% 24%
Jun 25-26 52% 40% 12%
Jun 19-20 55% 40% 15%
Jun 11-12 58% 36% 22%
Jun 5-6 58% 35% 23%
May 28-29 60% 36% 24%
May 22-23 63% 32% 31%
May 14-15 56% 39% 17%
May 10 56% 37% 19%
Apr 30-May 1 54% 39% 15%
Apr 24-25 58% 38% 20%
Apr 16-17 56% 41% 15%
Apr 10-11 58% 38% 20%
Apr 2-3 54% 42% 12%
Mar 27-28 54% 42% 12%
Mar 23-24 55% 42% 13%
| Becuase they have done such a good job with ACA let's give them more responsability |
Sounds like a good reason to eliminate the military. That's a much, much larger responsibility. If they can't deal with the ACA, let's make sure they keep their mitts off the national defense! Hell, Bush the Younger really screwed it up with the unprovoked assault on Iraq, so we've got good evidence that the government shouldn't be trusted with tanks and bombers. And imagine how much lower your taxes would be, Bill! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2013 : 02:39:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
According to newly released polling from Rasmussen Reports, by a margin of 15 percentage points (54 to 39 percent), likely voters now support the repeal of President Obama's centerpiece legislation. In the first three polls taken in the wake of the House's passage of Obamacare (on March 21, 2010), Rasmussen showed that likely voters then favored repeal by margins of 13 points (55 to 42 percent), 12 points (54 to 42 percent), and 12 points (54 to 42 percent).
|
You forgot quoting attributes. How much of that post was your own thoughts?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2013 : 06:42:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| That's how all insurance works, Bill. |
That is lie and you know it. Why do you wish to deceive, Dave?
A. In private insurance entrepreneurs must present a sustainable business model to investors who then decide if they want to invest in the venture or not. With Obamacare the president holds a gun to the potential investor's heads (the American tax payer) and tells them that they will be "investing" in Obamacare whether they want to or not. |
That's utterly irrelevant to my point. And thankfully, our government isn't run like a for-profit business. That would be disastrous.| B. In private insurance if millions of dollars and years of time are wasted on a roll out as disastrous as the ACA the investors pull the plug to stop the bleeding and the company goes out of business. With Obamacare king Obama tells the "investors" more time and money will be wasted trying to fix the train wreck whether you like it or not. |
Again: our government has never been intended to turn a profit. Words like "budget," "share holder" and "investor" do not appear in the Constitution.| C. In private insurance those with the least amount of risk pay the least amount on their premiums. With Obamacare those at the highest risk will pay less in premiums to those who have the least amount of risk. This is a polar opposite. |
It's also a lie. Or do you have evidence that, say, old people will be charged less than young people, all other variables being equal?| D. If the venture proves unsustainable the private insurance entrepreneurs cannot force additional "investments" out of the investors. With Obamacare king Obama has forced new taxes on the investors to help offset the fact that Obamacare is unsustainable in and of itself. Private insurance cannot do this. For example the new medical device tax will be passed down to the investors (tax payers) in the form of higher health care costs in the name offsetting the costs of ACA. |
Again: our government has never been intended to turn a profit. But why blame Obama? Congress has the power to levy taxes, not the President.| So as you see private health care and socialized health care do not work the same. |
Again: your objections are irrelevant. The point to insurance is to spread the risk, by having the less risky offset the costs of the more risky, and the ACA does just that by mandating that healthy people buy private insurance. That's how the Democrats got the insurance lobby to go along with it: they were promised a payday.| Why is unsustainable so hard of a concept for libs/progressives to comprehend? |
How is it unsustainable? Are people going to quit having children?You think you are safe giving your private information to them whether it is over the internet, phone or mail?
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! |
You think your information is private? Bwahahahahahaha!Star Parker isn't merely a conservative, she's a bigot, too.
Supporting Ben Carson... Another anti-gay bigot. Go figure. No, saying "some of my best friends are black" has never been a good reason to think someone's not a racist. Quite the opposite, actually. |
Thanks for lying, going off on a tangent and proving my point for me all in one breath.
I never said my best friend was black. |
I never said you did. I guess we'll add analogies to evolution, insurance and global climate change as things you don't understand at all.| I said that as a while male who opposes the Obama agenda I am often called a racist by lib/progressives for no other reason. |
But I didn't call you a racist because you oppose Obama. I called you a racist because you said something racist.| I then said that pointing to black conservatives who I admire is useless in this debate because the white progressives just dismiss the black conservatives as not being real black people. |
But I didn't dismiss them as not being "real black people." I dismissed you saying that you support some black people as being irrelevant to your racism.| You respond to me by saying, and I will paraphrase here, the black conservatives I admire are bigots as well as conservatives and we all know that bigoted conservative black people do not count as real black people so you are still a racist Bill. |
Yes, your paraphrasing was a lie.| 1. The Lie. I never said I had a black best friend. I said there were plenty of blacks that I do admire, BO just is not one of them. |
Again: I never said you said that.| 2. The claim by you was that I was a racist and then in mid-stride you go off on some tangent about alleged bigotry of conservative blacks. We can have the bigoted conservative blacks talk another day but right now the topic is accusations of racism against me by you. |
Yes, and you ignored my accusations in favor of irrelevantly and bizarrely taking pride in supporting other bigots.| 3. I also said that most progressives will dismiss my admiration of conservative blacks because in their backwards bizzaro world conservative blacks are not real black people. You follow that up with this weird and deceiving response by calling the black conservatives I admire bigots (as if black conservative "bigots" are not real black people)... |
The "as if" part there is a lie.| ...and also that me claiming I have black best friends is no evidence that I am not a racist. You followed the lib/progressive playbook line by line just as I had predicted. |
That playbook is a strawman of your own invention.| Nothing I do will ever convince you to drop the unfounded accusations. |
You could start by addressing them instead of spouting irrelevancies.| All I did was imply that I disapprove of illegal immigration and you are off to the races with your racist/bigot rants. |
No, that's not "all" you did. Context matters.| No care at all to learn my thoughts on legal immigration or amnesty or if I admire conservative Latinos, which I do. |
Those are all irrelevant.| Instead of saying that you are sorry for the false accusations of racism and just acknowledging that I am not racist but rather I just disagree with all progressives... |
I didn't accuse you of racism because you "disagree with all progressives," so why would I apologize for that?| ...you say that the minorities which I admire are conservatives and so therefore you refuse to apologize for your defamation. |
Because you don't understand the accusation isn't a reason for me to apologize for it.| There is no logically dealing with a person when they stoop to these levels. |
Look in a mirror, Bill.
Also:| Just keep right on proving my point for me. Rather than just acknowledge that your racism accusations against me are completely unfounded and without merit you go off on some tangent about how you don't like the personal beliefs of the black people I admire. Maybe these black conservatives are bigots, or maybe they are not, but it is totally irrelevant to your claim that I am a racist simply because I don't approve of illegal immigration. |
I didn't claim you're a racist "simply because [you] don't approve of illegal immigration."
Also:| It's my belief that now that the bill is passed and people can find out whats in it they will dislike it even more. |
The bill was passed over three years ago, and according to right-leaning polls, people have been disliking it less over time. And as of November 1, the "keep it and/or expand it" categories are polling at 47%, while the "repeal it and/or replace it" categories are trailing with 37%. So while the law still doesn't enjoy majority support, opposition to it may be tanking. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 10:53:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
[quote]
Also, the plans being dropped are plans that didn't meet the ACA requirements. It's my belief that this news should have been more upfront, but being underinsured is not having good health insurance. If you have a plan that meets the requirements of the ACA, you can keep that plan.
|
I don't remember this exception in the president's rhetoric :) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 11:06:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
C. In private insurance those with the least amount of risk pay the least amount on their premiums. With Obamacare those at the highest risk will pay less in premiums to those who have the least amount of risk. This is a polar opposite. |
It's also a lie. Or do you have evidence that, say, old people will be charged less than young people, all other variables being equal? |
Of course not with all variables being equal, but all variables being equal is a very special case since there's a trend of the older folks needing much more care. So the return on investment on average for each population subset would presumably be much better for older folks, even if they do pay the same for it.
Market forces would I think dictate that older folks pay more for it if not under these extra restrictions since they're getting more for their money.
I'm not even arguing the restrictions are or are not worth having, but I think their existence is mostly a social program to fund the insurance of those at greater risk. I'm not sure why liberals don't acknowledge this, unless it's merely to try to sell it better to conservatives who may oppose this rationale. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 11/04/2013 11:17:08 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 15:07:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
C. In private insurance those with the least amount of risk pay the least amount on their premiums. With Obamacare those at the highest risk will pay less in premiums to those who have the least amount of risk. This is a polar opposite. |
It's also a lie. Or do you have evidence that, say, old people will be charged less than young people, all other variables being equal? |
Of course not with all variables being equal, but all variables being equal is a very special case since there's a trend of the older folks needing much more care. So the return on investment on average for each population subset would presumably be much better for older folks, even if they do pay the same for it.
Market forces would I think dictate that older folks pay more for it if not under these extra restrictions since they're getting more for their money.
I'm not even arguing the restrictions are or are not worth having, but I think their existence is mostly a social program to fund the insurance of those at greater risk. I'm not sure why liberals don't acknowledge this, unless it's merely to try to sell it better to conservatives who may oppose this rationale. |
Read Bill's claim again. Those who will pay the least for insurance under the ACA will be those at 134% of the poverty line. That they're poor doesn't mean they're at high risk as far as insurance is concerned. Cancer doesn't give a rat's ass about your income, for example.
The restrictions you're talking about have to do with those with blatant high-risk factors, like age, not being charged more than 300% of the premiums of the lowest-risk customers. That's still, of course, nowhere close to paying less than the low-risk folks. It will undoubtedly be less than if "market forces" were left to work on their own, but market forces have been shafting the poor and old alike for decades, now. The ACA exists because market forces would leave people dying in the streets if that's all we had to regulate the system. Luckily, governments realized the truth of that long ago, and did things like pass laws saying that hospitals can't turn people away just because they couldn't pay.
Health care should be a right, and as such its availability should not be driven by any market. That's why this liberal wants a fully nationalized health care system which would eliminate the need for health insurance altogether. Until we get such a system, hell yes subsidize insurance for riskier people. Nobody should have to choose between medicine and food. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 19:18:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Read Bill's claim again. Those who will pay the least for insurance under the ACA will be those at 134% of the poverty line. That they're poor doesn't mean they're at high risk as far as insurance is concerned. Cancer doesn't give a rat's ass about your income, for example. |
Other than those who don't pay for the insurance at all. I don't know how risk correlates with income, and I'm not sure how you know.
In any case, I would be willing to bet preventable disease contributes a much larger portion to the nation's medical cost than diagnoses that are independent of lifestyle. Further, I suspect healthy lifestyles have higher incidence among those with higher incomes, which may well challenge the assumption that risk is independent of income, and it's obviously not independent of age.
| The restrictions you're talking about have to do with those with blatant high-risk factors, like age, not being charged more than 300% of the premiums of the lowest-risk customers. That's still, of course, nowhere close to paying less than the low-risk folks. |
I don't agree with his claim as stated, but they're certainly paying less from an expected return on investment perspective, which I think is the more important number.
| It will undoubtedly be less than if "market forces" were left to work on their own, but market forces have been shafting the poor and old alike for decades, now. |
I'm not sure why market forces get the dreaded quotes, but I merely mean the reality is that these pockets of abnormally high ROI don't otherwise occur. Selling insurance is gambling, you can follow statistical phenomena very closely, it tends to even out the ROI. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 11/04/2013 19:20:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 22:18:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Other than those who don't pay for the insurance at all. |
They're on Medicaid, and not getting subsidized insurance.| I don't know how risk correlates with income, and I'm not sure how you know. |
I've looked for correlates, found none, and have come to the tentative conclusion that health isn't very well correlated with income.| In any case, I would be willing to bet preventable disease contributes a much larger portion to the nation's medical cost than diagnoses that are independent of lifestyle. |
Well, that's what the ACA is for, in no small part. Poor people don't see doctors or dentists except in emergent situations. Having only to come up with a co-pay will make them more likely to get check-ups and early treatment, instead of showing up in the ER near dead. Having insurance makes people less risky in general.| Further, I suspect healthy lifestyles have higher incidence among those with higher incomes, which may well challenge the assumption that risk is independent of income... |
Given the celebrities spewing anti-vax and other medical nonsense, I think it evens out. I suspect that high income people have a higher incidence of, say, measles. And B12 deficiencies from a high incidence of veganism. They'll also have a higher incidence of strains from being able to afford and use gym memberships.
And we've got evidence in hand that higher income correlates with drug abuse.| ...and it's obviously not independent of age. |
No, but that's what contradicts Bill's assertion.| I don't agree with his claim as stated, but they're certainly paying less from an expected return on investment perspective, which I think is the more important number. |
As I told Bill, I'm quite happy not running the government as if it were a for-profit business.| I'm not sure why market forces get the dreaded quotes... |
Because the free market is largely a myth, and its alleged benefits depend upon the denial of reality.| ...but I merely mean the reality is that these pockets of abnormally high ROI don't otherwise occur. Selling insurance is gambling, you can follow statistical phenomena very closely, it tends to even out the ROI. |
I think the insurance model of health care is fundamentally flawed in regards to its results in actual people. Calculating an ROI in terms of productive years gained in the elderly (for example) is an insulting and dehumanizing exercise. ROI should dictate that a person who isn't likely to be able to provide another ten years of $500/month premiums shouldn't be approved for any medical procedure that is estimated to cost $60,000 or more, regardless their value to family, friends, community, state or world. I find that idea utterly repugnant. We're lucky that we've already decided that triage based on money is unacceptable in the transplant market, but we also need to realize it isn't okay for a case of the sniffles, either. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2013 : 20:17:32 [Permalink]
|
| Welp, Ken Cuccinelli declared a few days ago that the Virginia Governor's race would be a referendum on Obamacare, and it seems that Virginians favor the PPACA, 47% to 46%. Poor Ken. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2013 : 20:38:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Given the celebrities spewing anti-vax and other medical nonsense, I think it evens out. I suspect that high income people have a higher incidence of, say, measles. And B12 deficiencies from a high incidence of veganism. They'll also have a higher incidence of strains from being able to afford and use gym memberships. |
None of these amount to any money to speak of, they're not at all prevalent (222 instances of measles in 2011, 141 of which were patients eligible for vaccines but opted out), and have to be almost entirely negligible, though perhaps drug abuse is meaningful.
Smoking and obesity, wherever they correlate, would I suspect be important to consider.
| I'm not sure why market forces get the dreaded quotes... |
Because the free market is largely a myth, and its alleged benefits depend upon the denial of reality. |
I expressed no opinion on whether evening out ROI is desirable, but I think we can find lots of empirical evidence that it occurs absent restrictions in most instances, and insurance should be particularly amenable to it.
If the claim is that ACA boosts ROI for those at greater risk, and, therefore, reduces ROI for those at lower risk, it may well be true since I certainly don't expect insurance company profits to be cut so much that we have so much found money that everyone's ROI goes up.
The rest is irrelevant to the argument since I've expressed no opinion on whether or not imposing imbalanced ROI is desirable. It's as if you're hedging with the position "even if it's true, it doesn't matter and everyone who thinks it's not worth the investment enjoys dehumanizing poor and/or old people." |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 11/05/2013 20:41:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2013 : 22:06:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dave W.
Given the celebrities spewing anti-vax and other medical nonsense, I think it evens out. I suspect that high income people have a higher incidence of, say, measles. And B12 deficiencies from a high incidence of veganism. They'll also have a higher incidence of strains from being able to afford and use gym memberships. |
None of these amount to any money to speak of, they're not at all prevalent (222 instances of measles in 2011, 141 of which were patients eligible for vaccines but opted out), and have to be almost entirely negligible... |
You're missing the forest for the trees. And negligible as compared to which health problems endemic to the poor in the US?| ...though perhaps drug abuse is meaningful. |
Since it necessarily includes "luxury" drug abuse (of anti-anxiety meds, high-end narcotics, etc), it'll be meaningful in unnecessary prescription costs, alone.| Smoking and obesity, wherever they correlate, would I suspect be important to consider. |
Smoking probably doesn't correlate with income. And neither will obesity. Rich people become obese through mere overindulgence. Poor people become obese because non-nutrative sugar is cheap and filling.| I'm not sure why market forces get the dreaded quotes... |
Because the free market is largely a myth, and its alleged benefits depend upon the denial of reality. |
I expressed no opinion on whether evening out ROI is desirable, but I think we can find lots of empirical evidence that it occurs absent restrictions in most instances, and insurance should be particularly amenable to it. |
I'm not even sure what "evening out ROI" means with regards to people's health.| If the claim is that ACA boosts ROI for those at greater risk, and, therefore, reduces ROI for those at lower risk, it may well be true since I certainly don't expect insurance company profits to be cut so much that we have so much found money that everyone's ROI goes up. |
The insurance industry has already declared that their profits will not be cut, and that added costs due to the ACA will be passed on to the customers, one way or another.| The rest is irrelevant to the argument since I've expressed no opinion on whether or not imposing imbalanced ROI is desirable. It's as if you're hedging with the position "even if it's true, it doesn't matter and everyone who thinks it's not worth the investment enjoys dehumanizing poor and/or old people." |
Even if what is true? "Enjoys" is a strawman. I don't really give a hoot about someone's intent, people who think that decisions about health care should be based on the potential monetary value of the patients are dehumanizing everyone.
You asked why liberals don't admit that the ACA was designed to subsidize the health insurance of those at higher risk. I don't know of any liberals who fail to admit that, and this liberal thinks the ACA doesn't go nearly far enough, and what we need is to subsidize the health care of everyone, regardless of risk. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2013 : 05:29:17 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I didn't claim you're a racist "simply because [you] don't approve of illegal immigration." |
So why did you? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2013 : 07:19:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Other than those who don't pay for the insurance at all. |
They're on Medicaid, and not getting subsidized insurance.| I don't know how risk correlates with income, and I'm not sure how you know. |
I've looked for correlates, found none, and have come to the tentative conclusion that health isn't very well correlated with income. |
It doesn't. But the ability to pay more is there and thats how cost sharing works. Typically 5 tiers. This is where I and the middle class get screwed.
The tiers are less than $45,000/year, $45,000-$60,000, $60,000 - $90,000, $90,000 - $150,000, and $150,000+. This year, through 24 years of dedication to my profession and hard work, I made it to tier 4.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery!
