A Path to Republican Victory in the Shutdown?

[Glen Contrarian]

I don't think others should have the right to vote on what health insurance I should get no matter how democratically it is conducted.

Democracy is a tool to help insure individual rights, it doesn't supersede individual rights.

That's another Big Lie that the Right feeds you. Under Obamacare, NO ONE is telling you what health insurance you should get - they're only telling you that you've either gotta get health insurance (and you can keep what you've presently got or go shop for another one) OR you pay a (rather small) penalty for refusing to do so...

...and the penalty is sensible even in conservative terms since EVERYONE will eventually need health care...and if you wait until then to sign on for health care because you can't otherwise afford it (which is all too often the case), then you'll be depending on the taxpayers to pay for your health care...which makes you same kind of parasite that conservatives call liberals who "depend on the system to take care of them". It is precisely this line of reasoning that the Heritage Foundation held up as why the Individual Mandate (regardless of what it was called at the time) was crucial, because EVERYONE should bear responsibility for paying towards their own health care.

 

[jmotivator]

That's another Big Lie that the Right feeds you. Under Obamacare, NO ONE is telling you what health insurance you should get - they're only telling you that you've either gotta get health insurance (and you can keep what you've presently got or go shop for another one) OR you pay a (rather small) penalty for refusing to do so...

Yes they are. The health insurance I used to get is no longer available to me because I am both too old and too young to get it. When the Federal Government dictates what minimum level of medical coverage every citizen is required to have they are not only telling you what insurance you SHOULD get they are telling your what insurance you HAVE TO GET.

You are being lied too.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

That's another Big Lie that the Right feeds you. Under Obamacare, NO ONE is telling you what health insurance you should get - they're only telling you that you've either gotta get health insurance (and you can keep what you've presently got or go shop for another one) OR you pay a (rather small) penalty for refusing to do so...

...and the penalty is sensible even in conservative terms since EVERYONE will eventually need health care...and if you wait until then to sign on for health care because you can't otherwise afford it (which is all too often the case), then you'll be depending on the taxpayers to pay for your health care...which makes you same kind of parasite that conservatives call liberals who "depend on the system to take care of them". It is precisely this line of reasoning that the Heritage Foundation held up as why the Individual Mandate (regardless of what it was called at the time) was crucial, because EVERYONE should bear responsibility for paying towards their own health care.

Actually, if your current policy does not conform to the government mandated minimum requirements, you must change to one that does...

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yes they are. The health insurance I used to get is no longer available to me because I am both too old and too young to get it. When the Federal Government dictates what minimum level of medical coverage every citizen is required to have they are not only telling you what insurance you SHOULD get they are telling your what insurance you HAVE TO GET.

You are being lied too.

Really? What health insurance did you have before? And how old are you?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Actually, if your current policy does not conform to the government mandated minimum requirements, you must change to one that does...

Never mind that in almost all cases, the minimum health care requirements are higher than any that did not previously conform to those requirements - for instance, they now have to cover most preventative measures that many plans did not cover.

 

[head of joaquin]

Problem is now he wants them to compromise, where before he wouldn't under the sequester.

Obama to Veto Any Attempt to Roll Back Automatic Cuts After Committee's Inability to Reach Debt Deal | Fox News

Obama has said he's willing to negotiate budget compromises all along. What he refuses to do is let the GOP use the debt ceiling and the government shut down as leverage to get what they couldn't get with regular legislation.

Even you realize he's right. But if negotiation is what you want, then the Democrats need to put their demands on the table -- tax hikes for the rich, military cuts, gun control, etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Which is why the GOP call for negotiations is nothing but a pretense. The nice thing is most Americans realize it.

 

[jmotivator]

Really? What health insurance did you have before? And how old are you?

Older that 30, younger than 50, and I had catastrophic coverage and a health care savings plan.

Even the catastrophic plans in ACA aren't actually catastrophic plans and cost far more than they should.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Older that 30, younger than 50, and I had catastrophic coverage and a health care savings plan.

Even the catastrophic plans in ACA aren't actually catastrophic plans and cost far more than they should.

Hm. We'll see...because my oldest son turns 30 next year, and he's got a serious preexisting condition...and I'll see how much it will cost.

 

[jmotivator]

Hm. We'll see...because my oldest son turns 30 next year, and he's got a serious preexisting condition...and I'll see how much it will cost.

Does he have a catastrophic plan now? The "catastrophic plans" under ACA really aren't catastrophic plans. They are required to cover all kinds of health maintenance crap. They are only really called "catastrophic plans" because they have a high oop deductible. Traditional catastrophic plans can have a low oop, but only pay for certain kinds of life threatening treatments, leaving doctors visits and most common drugs like antibiotics up to you to pay for... but since the health care savings plan is pre tax you get about 25% break on the cost of all of these uncovered expenses.

The end result is the new Catastrophic plans cost twice to three times what they did pre-ACA, and you can only get them until age 30, or after age 50 (I think) and only then if the cheapest bronze plan available exceeds 8% of your income, and the deductible is so high ($10+k) that most people on them would have to file for bankruptcy anyway if they had a catastrophic treatment.

So, essentially, all the self employed folks who make more that $44,000 (single) or $78,000 (household of 4) and are 30 or older are going to get reamed because they can't qualify for a subsidy and are being shoved onto the overpriced bullcrap on the exchanges.

In other words, the "middle class" that Obama says he really cares about are the ones getting their deuce pushed in by Obamacare.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

The problem isn't partisanship in Congress, but foolish voters that have bought into tea party knownothingism.

I firmly agree with this. The president, the congress and the senate are doing exactly what their voters have demanded. I am very active in the Republican party and I was disappointed to see the conclusion when I left the convention. The 2013 Republican Party Platform can be summed up in two words, "Obama Sucks". I have talked to many Republicans to express my disappointment with the Republican Party's decisions and they start blasting me with anti-Obama rhetoric. This is precisely the message that is being amplified by congress at this exact moment. What can you do? The voters prefer proving that Obama sucks over taking action of any kind.

I cannot blame any branch of government. Government is functioning exactly as it was intended to function. The voters just have silly priorities and those priorities are being carried out at this very moment.

vasuderatorrent

 

[Karl]

Freedom has nothing to do with outcomes. Goodbye again.

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose . . . . .



(hat tip: Janis J.)

 

[Karl]

[...] The House has passed full budgets every year. [...]

Nutcase budgets that privatize Medicare don't count. Sorry.

It would be like complaining that a man who shows up for work every day gets fired for not working. How fair is that? Pretty fair if the rest of the story is that he shows up for work naked every day.

First, nothing in my statement said anything about Privatizing Medicare. Last I checked State government isn't private sector.

Second, you simply want to make sure people in states you don't live in do things the way you want them done. In other words, you don't care what anyone else does... so long as it is universal and mandatory. But you balance that out by being open to new ideas... so long as they are yours.

First, the Ryan Budget (I'm going to presume you know what that is and where it originates and who passed it) privatizes Medicare.

Second, nice strawman. But if living in a republic is not to your liking then you should start a campaign to dissolve the Constitution. Or join the Confederacy (I mean, Tea Party :2razz. I'm sure that Balkanization of the U.S. would work out very well. . . .

 

[Karl]

[1] I don't think others should have the right to vote on what health insurance I should get no matter how democratically it is conducted.

[2] Democracy is a tool to help insure individual rights, it doesn't supersede individual rights.

1. Hyperbole makes a poor argument, bordering on intellectual dishonesty, which makes one wonder why the political right is so fond of it.

2. Democracy is government by the people. If the majority of the people deem it necessary to supersede your individual right on an issue, that is democracy in action. Just as it is your right to have a gun, it is my right to not have to pay for your medical care if you show up in the E.R. with no insurance. At the moment, because of democracy, my right is being violated. If things go as planned, my right will be restored (and the uninsured will be no longer).

 

[Karl]

[...] Traditional catastrophic plans can have a low oop, but only pay for certain kinds of life threatening treatments, leaving doctors visits and most common drugs like antibiotics up to you to pay for... [...]

Wrong. I have a "traditional catastrophic plan" ($4K deductible IIRC) with BCBS (which I can keep -- it is grandfathered)... after I pay $4K, it pays 100% including doctors visits and drugs (experimental treatment is probably not covered).

The end result is the new Catastrophic plans cost twice to three times what they did pre-ACA, and you can only get them until age 30, or after age 50 (I think)

Don't believe it. If you post up some facts with reputable links then I'll believe it. Ball in your court.

and only then if the cheapest bronze plan available exceeds 8% of your income, and the deductible is so high ($10+k) that most people on them would have to file for bankruptcy anyway if they had a catastrophic treatment.

Oops... been reading right wing media material? Not wise. The truth is that the deductible is much lower than that:

The study projects what deductibles and coinsurance would meet the requirements of a Bronze plan, presenting two alternatives: One with a deductible per individual of $4,375, with consumers paying 20% of their health care expenses once meeting the deductible. The other with a deductible of $3,475 and patient coinsurance of 40%. Under both plans, total patient out-of-pocket costs would be capped at $6,350, as required by the health reform law. Deductibles for families would be double these amounts.

Patient Cost-Sharing Under the Affordable Care Act | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

What right wing media is doing is adding the deductible ($4.4K) to the max out of pocket ($6.3K) and telling their disciples that the deductible is $10.7K. Yes, folks, they really don't think their readers/listeners will check their figures. And as we can see, they are right.

In the example in bold above, the insured would pay the $4,375 deductible out of pocket, then they would pay 20% of their medical expenses after that until they had spent an additional $1,975 (= $6,350 out of pocket) at which time they would pay no more and the insurance company would have to pay 100% thereafter. This resets every year. You won't hear this on Fox. Or from Rush.

The poster's conclusion was compelling. Too bad it was built on falsehoods.

 

[jmotivator]

1. Hyperbole makes a poor argument, bordering on intellectual dishonesty, which makes one wonder why the political right is so fond of it.

It's not hyperbole. That is the nature of the ACA.

2. Democracy is government by the people. If the majority of the people deem it necessary to supersede your individual right on an issue, that is democracy in action. Just as it is your right to have a gun, it is my right to not have to pay for your medical care if you show up in the E.R. with no insurance. At the moment, because of democracy, my right is being violated. If things go as planned, my right will be restored (and the uninsured will be no longer).

You don't understand the meaning of natural rights that this country was founded on.

 

[jmotivator]

First, the Ryan Budget (I'm going to presume you know what that is and where it originates and who passed it) privatizes Medicare.

So that is one budget that you choose to rule out because.. who knows. But Reid hasn't passed ANY budget or put ANY budget up for a vote.

Second, nice strawman. But if living in a republic is not to your liking then you should start a campaign to dissolve the Constitution. Or join the Confederacy (I mean, Tea Party :2razz. I'm sure that Balkanization of the U.S. would work out very well. . . .

It's not a straw man. You support ACA which DOES tell people in every state what kind of health insurance they have to have. If you are going to support this trash at least own up to it.

 

[jmotivator]

Wrong. I have a "traditional catastrophic plan" ($4K deductible IIRC) with BCBS (which I can keep -- it is grandfathered)... after I pay $4K, it pays 100% including doctors visits and drugs (experimental treatment is probably not covered).

Choice is wonderful, isn't it? But you don't have a traditional catastrophic plan. How old are you? Over 30? You won't have that plan for long.

Don't believe it. If you post up some facts with reputable links then I'll believe it. Ball in your court.

CA insurance rates Twice what they were if you are under 30 and three times higher if you are over 30.

Oops... been reading right wing media material? Not wise. The truth is that the deductible is much lower than that:

ACA Bronze plan deductible $12,700. Whoever you are listening to is lying to you.

What right wing media is doing is adding the deductible ($4.4K) to the max out of pocket ($6.3K) and telling their disciples that the deductible is $10.7K. Yes, folks, they really don't think their readers/listeners will check their figures. And as we can see, they are right.

You really should actually read something before making uneducated statements. You are looking foolish.

In the example in bold above, the insured would pay the $4,375 deductible out of pocket, then they would pay 20% of their medical expenses after that until they had spent an additional $1,975 (= $6,350 out of pocket) at which time they would pay no more and the insurance company would have to pay 100% thereafter. This resets every year. You won't hear this on Fox. Or from Rush.

So in your world everyone is single without kids? Wise up.

The poster's conclusion was compelling. Too bad it was built on falsehoods.

Obviously not falsehoods. You just don't educate yourself before having an opinion.

 

[Smeagol]

its always the other guys fault.

If I were a diehard partisan hack, I'd blame the other party. If I were on a jury and judging as impartially and as objectively as possible, I'd hold the GOP responsible and in particular the influence the far right exercises over the GOP.

 

[Master PO]

If I were a diehard partisan hack, I'd blame the other party. If I were on a jury and judging as impartially and as objectively as possible, I'd hold the GOP responsible and in particular the influence the far right exercises over the GOP.

well I have said it several times the GOP has many factions, it not like the democratic party, It has liberals, conservatives, moderates, and even libertarians.

 

[Karl]

ACA Bronze plan deductible $12,700. Whoever you are listening to is lying to you.

Your link required subscription. The same story from the same source via another link states:

[...] a Tribune analysis shows that 21 of the 22 lowest-priced plansoffered on the Illinois health insurance exchange for Cook Countyhave annual deductibles of more than $4,000 for an individual and $8,000 for family coverage.

Affordable Care Act: High deductibles could pinch consumers - Chicago Tribune

The "lowest-priced plan" is, by process of elimination, the Bronze plan. These figures agree with the ones I posted previously for that plan ($4,375 deductible). The name of the plan with the $12,700 deductible (for two people) is not mentioned (so your claim is yet another falsehood). It appears that you have been misled by whomever you are listening to... and that you're not listening too closely.

Further in that article:

have deductibles as high as $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families, the highest levels allowed under the law.

As I pointed out previously, that is simply a lie. An effective one it seems, but a lie nonetheless.

 

[Karl]

So that is one budget that you choose to rule out because.. who knows. But Reid hasn't passed ANY budget or put ANY budget up for a vote. [...]

The Ryan Budget, privatizing Medicare, was first passed by the House for FY 2012.

It was again passed by the House for FY 2013. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity

I'd imagine that the latest incarnation, mentioned mere days ago by the press[1], is yet another version of the same thing (a budget privatizing Medicare).

So... by my count that is three budgets, more or less, not one. Again you are in error. And likely a reason why the Senate has not take up any of those budgets (privatizing Medicare is not going to fly). Of course a budget is a mostly superfluous red herring as long as continuing resolutions are passed, but those suckling at the teat of right wing media are unaware of that.

Constitutionally, all spending bills originate in the House. Perhaps that is why one has not originated in the Senate. Of course with the current filibuster rules nothing that the Republican minority doesn't like is going to pass in the Senate anyway, so why bother?



___________________________________________________________________________________
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/us/politics/ryan-is-again-in-the-forefront-for-the-gop.html?_r=0

 

[Karl]

[...] You support ACA which DOES tell people in every state what kind of health insurance they have to have. If you are going to support this trash at least own up to it.

Your repeated unsupported claim reeks of fanaticism. The ACA doesn't tell me what kind of health insurance I have to have so again, you are in error. Seems to be a pattern . . . .

Choice is wonderful, isn't it? But you don't have a traditional catastrophic plan. How old are you? Over 30? You won't have that plan for long. [...]

So you claim psychic abilities? Interesting. Yes, I am over 30. Well over, in fact. BCBS (Blue Cross / Blue Shield) says I can keep that plan for as long as I want, and we were most definitely discussing the implementation of the ACA at that time. Next time I speak to them I will tell them that they are wrong, and to contact you here for further enlightenment :lamo

 

[Karl]

[...] Further in that article:

have deductibles as high as $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families, the highest levels allowed under the law.

As I pointed out previously, that is simply a lie. An effective one it seems, but a lie nonetheless.

I did a little digging on my state exchange (Midwest) and did find a policy with a $6,300/$12,600 deductible but it made little sense to buy that since a policy with a much lower deductible is about the same price:

The second policy is similar to what I have, except my out of pocket is $4,000 instead of $6,350. However, the premium on the policy shown is $135/mo. less than what I am paying now. So much for Obamacare raising my premium . . . . (the premiums shown do not include any subsidy).

 

[jmotivator]

Your link required subscription. The same story from the same source via another link states:

The Forbes article isn't behind a pay wall. Is that the new excuse you kids are using to avoid information you don't like?

The "lowest-priced plan" is, by process of elimination, the Bronze plan. These figures agree with the ones I posted previously for that plan ($4,375 deductible). The name of the plan with the $12,700 deductible (for two people) is not mentioned (so your claim is yet another falsehood). It appears that you have been misled by whomever you are listening to... and that you're not listening too closely.

*sigh* We can pull copays into the discussion if you want, because the plan you are trumpeting has an abysmal 40% copay AFTER the deductible is met. This is atrocious for catastrophic coverage and you would have to be an idiot to buy it.

Consider how deductible's work. In accepting the $4374 deductible you also agree to pay 40% of all your bills after that. So let's say you actually have a catastrophic illness that ended up costing $60,00 between the hospital and doctor bills.

Under the low deductible plan you pay $4375 + 40% of the remainder = $26,625 out of pocket

Under the high deductible you pay $12,700 +20% of remainder = $22,160 out of pocket


So your "low deductible" plan costs $4000+ more to cover the same catastrophic expense... AND YOU PAY MORE PER MONTH FOR THE PRIVILEDGE.

From the article:

If the 33-year-old single father wants the same level of coverage next year as what he has now with the same insurer and the same network of doctors and hospitals, his monthly premium of $233 will more than double. If he wants to keep his monthly payments in check, the Carpentersville resident is looking at an annual deductible for himself and his 7-year-old daughter of $12,700, a more than threefold increase from $3,500 today.

So what YOU are trumpeting is a "low deductible" plan that has LESS coverage than before. So you aren't arguing apples and oranges for people want to continue their current coverage. You are arguing that they can have the same deductible... only less coverage. IT's sh*t no matter which number you try to sell on.

ACA: Making it worse for everyone since 2013!

 

[Karl]

[1] The Forbes article isn't behind a pay wall. [2] Is that the new excuse you kids are using to avoid information you don't like? [...]

1. The link in question went to the Chicago Tribune, not Forbes. Here it is again, exactly as I quoted it in my prior post:

[...] ACA Bronze plan deductible $12,700. Whoever you are listening to is lying to you. [...]

2. I provided an alternate link to the same article. Is that avoidance?

I can't really see the use of explaining your own posts back to you, in addition to your own misunderstood and/or selectively read/quoted sources, so as the propaganda has been pretty well debunked at this point I will, in subsequent posts, correct a few more of your other mistakes and we'll be done. Have a nice day