Obamacare is upheld

[yo mama]

No. Is that your idea of a rebuttal? An anecdotal event prior to the impact of the legislation setting in?

 

Let me ask you a simple question: Do you only make extremely important decisions based uponthe immediate impact feeling good to you, or do you think through highly probable likely long term consequences that those decisions would entail?

 

Well if you're not going to cancel your insurance, and I'm not going to cancel my insurance, why are you so worried that everyone else is going to cancel theirs? I ask lots of people this question and have yet to find anyone who plans to cancel their insurance. Some people may, but I don't think it will be a statistically significant percentage of the population. Thus, this particular objection to Obamacare strikes me as speculative at best - I believe there are other objections that have far more merit. In any event, I'm - at best - luke warm in favor of Obamacare and am not here to defend it.

 

And your loaded question is anything but simple (though it is poorly worded). No - I do not "only make extremely important decisions" based upon the immediate impact feeling good to me. Yes - I think about the likelihood of various long term consequences.

 

Have you considered raising pigeons?

[Bronco Billy]

 

Have you considered raising pigeons?

 

 

:bye:

[gbpfan1231]

Well if you're not going to cancel your insurance, and I'm not going to cancel my insurance, why are you so worried that everyone else is going to cancel theirs? I ask lots of people this question and have yet to find anyone who plans to cancel their insurance. Some people may, but I don't think it will be a statistically significant percentage of the population. Thus, this particular objection to Obamacare strikes me as speculative at best - I believe there are other objections that have far more merit. In any event, I'm - at best - luke warm in favor of Obamacare and am not here to defend it.

 

And your loaded question is anything but simple (though it is poorly worded). No - I do not "only make extremely important decisions" based upon the immediate impact feeling good to me. Yes - I think about the likelihood of various long term consequences.

 

Have you considered raising pigeons?

 

I am pretty sure you and BB are decent people and have jobs and have no real reason to cancel.

 

Do you think some single dude who is 30 years old who is unemployed and paying 350/mth for insurance would not cancel it to pay the $750 fine?

 

There a lot of people who will do anything to scam the system these people will cancel insurance if it can save them $1.

 

Just read that over 8 million people are on disability - how many of these people are scamming the system - A good number and I would not put it past any of them to cancel insurance and tax advantage of the fine.

[yo mama]

I am pretty sure you and BB are decent people and have jobs and have no real reason to cancel.

 

Do you think some single dude who is 30 years old who is unemployed and paying 350/mth for insurance would not cancel it to pay the $750 fine?

 

There a lot of people who will do anything to scam the system these people will cancel insurance if it can save them $1.

 

Just read that over 8 million people are on disability - how many of these people are scamming the system - A good number and I would not put it past any of them to cancel insurance and tax advantage of the fine.

 

I hear what you are saying. And I understand that some people may cancel their insurance or try and scam the system. The core issue is really how prevelant that may be. Naked speculation that "a lot of people" might try to is an insufficient basis to blow up this law. And making an comparison to disabilty fraud - when you don't even know how prevelant that fraud is - does not make your point any more convincing.

 

Again, I think there are concrete reasons to dislike Obamacare. I just don't think conjecture about what 30 year olds might do is the most persuasive objection. Especially the unemployed variety, because those guys are likely exempt from the penalty anyways. They won't be "scamming" the system - they are the people the system is designed to help.

[gbpfan1231]

I hear what you are saying. And I understand that some people may cancel their insurance or try and scam the system. The core issue is really how prevelant that may be. Naked speculation that "a lot of people" might try to is an insufficient basis to blow up this law. And making an comparison to disabilty fraud - when you don't even know how prevelant that fraud is - does not make your point any more convincing.

 

Again, I think there are concrete reasons to dislike Obamacare. I just don't think conjecture about what 30 year olds might do is the most persuasive objection. Especially the unemployed variety, because those guys are likely exempt from the penalty anyways. They won't be "scamming" the system - they are the people the system is designed to help.

 

 

So in my example they would be exempt? Even better!!! Now I am all for it!! Yay more freebies!!!

[Ditkaless Wonders]

People should not be afraid of reading the legislation based on the scary number of pages it takes up. Legislation is written with very generous spacing and margins. It is only around 600 pages of regular text.

 

The difficulty with reading the legislation is that one needs to be intimately familiar with a number of other legislative Acts to which it refers to be able to understand its meaning. It is more than a little unaccessible to lay people, and though a lawyer I consider myself among the lay people when it comes to this particular subject matter.

[bpwallace49]

People should not be afraid of reading the legislation based on the scary number of pages it takes up. Legislation is written with very generous spacing and margins. It is only around 600 pages of regular text.

 

The difficulty with reading the legislation is that one needs to be intimately familiar with a number of other legislative Acts to which it refers to be able to understand its meaning. It is more than a little unaccessible to lay people, and though a lawyer I consider myself among the lay people when it comes to this particular subject matter.

 

 

It is unfortunate that legislation is now written in this form. The patriot act was very similar in that it was mainly references and footnotes versus plain text.

[Bronco Billy]

I hear what you are saying. And I understand that some people may cancel their insurance or try and scam the system. The core issue is really how prevelant that may be. Naked speculation that "a lot of people" might try to is an insufficient basis to blow up this law. And making an comparison to disabilty fraud - when you don't even know how prevelant that fraud is - does not make your point any more convincing.

 

Again, I think there are concrete reasons to dislike Obamacare. I just don't think conjecture about what 30 year olds might do is the most persuasive objection. Especially the unemployed variety, because those guys are likely exempt from the penalty anyways. They won't be "scamming" the system - they are the people the system is designed to help.

 

 

Estimates I have seen put the low end of the number of people willing to pay $750 annually rather than carry insurance at a much higher rate at 16%. Those estimates also anticipate the number rising as people figure out that they'll have the advantage of full coverage due to insurance companies not being able to deny people due to pre-existing conditions even though they opt out for the $750 per year. Why wouldn't they? There is no incentive not to. If you're 28, working at Lowe's or as a bank teller for example, have a wife and a kid, and you're given that kind of financial incentive with no risk, it makes perfect sense.

 

Now maybe you'd prefer to retreat back to your pseudointellectual games of gotcha using anecdotes instead of having a good discussion...

[yo mama]

Estimates I have seen put the low end of the number of people willing to pay $750 annually rather than carry insurance at a much higher rate at 16%. Those estimates also anticipate the number rising as people figure out that they'll have the advantage of full coverage due to insurance companies not being able to deny people due to pre-existing conditions even though they opt out for the $750 per year. Why wouldn't they? There is no incentive not to. If you're 28, working at Lowe's or as a bank teller for example, have a wife and a kid, and you're given that kind of financial incentive with no risk, it makes perfect sense.

 

Now maybe you'd prefer to retreat back to your pseudointellectual games of gotcha using anecdotes instead of having a good discussion...

 

The CBO estimates that only 1% will pay the tax/penalty. I'm not sure where you're getting 16%. Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking of the CBO's estimate that 16% of the population would be subject to the mandate, which was struck down by the supreme court.

Edited July 6, 2012 by yo mama

[Bronco Billy]

The CBO estimates that only 1% will pay the tax/penalty. I'm not sure where you're getting 16%. Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking of the CBO's estimate that 16% of the population would be subject to the mandate, which was struck down by the supreme court.

 

 

 

The CBO only creates reports upon requests, and with assumptions put forth to it by the requesting party that it does not challenge upon creating the reports - unsually congressmen. Anyone familiar with the CBO knows this to be a fact, as the CBO readily discloses this. Remember when Obamacare was going to save substantial amounts against the deficit? That's been roundly discredited and the costs of Obamacare over current costs to taxpayers are now being numbered in the hundreds of millions. You really need to find more credible sources of information.

[yo mama]

 

The CBO only creates reports upon requests, and with assumptions put forth to it by the requesting party that it does not challenge upon creating the reports - unsually congressmen. Anyone familiar with the CBO knows this to be a fact, as the CBO readily discloses this. Remember when Obamacare was going to save substantial amounts against the deficit? That's been roundly discredited and the costs of Obamacare over current costs to taxpayers are now being numbered in the hundreds of millions. You really need to find more credible sources of information.

 

Perhaps if you showed me your source for the suggestion that 16% of the population will be paying the tax/penalty I'd have a better idea of what you consider to be a credible source.

[bushwacked]

The CBO only creates reports upon requests, and with assumptions put forth to it by the requesting party that it does not challenge upon creating the reports - unsually congressmen.

 

While the CBO may do analyses upon request which can contain assumptions by the requesting party, they are required by law to produce an impartial and objective cost estimate for every bill that is generated by either House of Congress. So you are wrong there (but we all know you'll man up and admit it.... )

 

You really need to find more credible sources of information.

 

 

Fail. The CBO is widely considered the gold standard (or at least the best available analyses) for investors and policy makers when it comes to budgetary forecasting. It's pretty evident that you are going to consider every source that contradicts your notion as non-credible. That's what true believers do.

Edited July 6, 2012 by bushwacked

[yo mama]

So in my example they would be exempt? Even better!!! Now I am all for it!! Yay more freebies!!!

 

I have been thoughtfully considering your point: if I understand you correctly, your concern is that people will opt to pay the penalty until they get sick, and only then will they apply for health insurance. And because they cannot be denied for preexisting conditions, the "scammer" must be afforded access to coverage at that time.

 

1. How does that help the "scammer" who gets into a car wreck (or other accident) when they are uninsured? They will not have time to apply for insurance before requiring medical care.

 

2. Perhaps sick people cannot be denied coverage, but I do not see that Obamacare requires insurance companies to charge sick people and healthy people the same premiums. So if people wait until they get sick before applying for coverage they will pay more for their insurance. Doesn't that blunt the effectiveness of their "scam?"

Edited July 6, 2012 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

I have been thoughtfully considering your point: if I understand you correctly, your concern is that people will opt to pay the penalty until they get sick, and only then will they apply for health insurance. And because they cannot be denied for preexisting conditions, the "scammer" must be afforded access to coverage at that time.

 

1. How does that help the "scammer" who gets into a car wreck (or other accident) when they are uninsured? They will not have time to apply for insurance before requiring medical care.

 

2. Perhaps sick people cannot be denied coverage, but I do not see that Obamacare requires insurance companies to charge sick people and healthy people the same premiums. So if people wait until they get sick before applying for coverage they will pay more for their insurance. Doesn't that blunt the effectiveness of their "scam?"

 

 

Wouldn't "sick" qualify as a preexisting condition? You've really got to be fishing here...

[yo mama]

Wouldn't "sick" qualify as a preexisting condition? You've really got to be fishing here...

 

I am not fishing. I also do not understand your point. Obamacare prevents denying people coverage because of preexisting conditions, which I presume would include being "sick." But I do not believe Obamacare prevents charging people different premiums based on the factors that exist at the time someone applies for their insurance. This is an incentive for rational economic actors to obtain insurance when healthy, rather than choosing to eat the penalty/tax: their premiums will be less compared to if they wait until they get sick to apply for insurance. I am merely pondering the potential effectivess of trying to "scam" the system.

[westvirginia]

I am not fishing. I also do not understand your point. Obamacare prevents denying people coverage because of preexisting conditions, which I presume would include being "sick." But I do not believe Obamacare prevents charging people different premiums based on the factors that exist at the time someone applies for their insurance. This is an incentive for rational economic actors to obtain insurance when healthy, rather than choosing to eat the penalty/tax: their premiums will be less compared to if they wait until they get sick to apply for insurance. I am merely pondering the potential effectivess of trying to "scam" the system.

 

 

Dude, as of 2014 insurance companies will not be able to charge different rates due to gender or health status.

 

http://www.barackobama.com/health-care/

Edited July 6, 2012 by westvirginia

[Bronco Billy]

While the CBO may do analyses upon request which can contain assumptions by the requesting party, they are required by law to produce an impartial and objective cost estimate for every bill that is generated by either House of Congress. So you are wrong there (but we all know you'll man up and admit it.... )

 

 

 

 

An impartial and objective estimate based upon the assumptions provided to it, which the CBO is not allowed to modify - which the CBO freely discloses and which clearly I stated earlier. I know you just love this kind of crap, but I either wish you'd read more carefully or provide documentation from the CBO that states otherwise than what I stated. And you can KMA on your cute little man-up schtick that you fall back on repeatedly.

[Bronco Billy]

I am not fishing. I also do not understand your point. Obamacare prevents denying people coverage because of preexisting conditions, which I presume would include being "sick." But I do not believe Obamacare prevents charging people different premiums based on the factors that exist at the time someone applies for their insurance. This is an incentive for rational economic actors to obtain insurance when healthy, rather than choosing to eat the penalty/tax: their premiums will be less compared to if they wait until they get sick to apply for insurance. I am merely pondering the potential effectivess of trying to "scam" the system.

 

 

You "do not believe"? Don't you know? Why wouldn't you want to clarify this before you start taking positions based upon your unfounded assumptions? Have you still not gone to the ACA and at least performed a search of the pdf and seen the language of the document referring to this?

Edited July 6, 2012 by Bronco Billy

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I don't care for the penalty setup either. If we as a nation decide collectively (*gasp* socialism) that promoting the general welfare includes making sure everyone gets access to quality healthcare, then the funding mechanism should have been something that everyone will have a hard time avoiding to pay. A payroll tax would not cover those who arent working. A national sales tax would though. Maybe this isn't the best primary funding idea, but it could help fund subsidies for those that need it to purchase a plan from an exchange. I almost have a bigger issue with forcing employers to cover employees than I do with the individual mandate.

[yo mama]

You "do not believe"? Don't you know? Why wouldn't you want to clarify this before you start taking positions based upon your unfounded assumptions? Have you still not gone to the ACA and at least performed a search of the pdf and seen the language of the document referring to this?

 

Have you found the support for your assertion that 16% of the people are projected to pay the penalty/tax? I know how important credibilty is to you.

[Pope Flick]

I'm curious about this: why, if companies aren't penalized for not providing health insurance - in other words if they pull their plans today there is no fine - will they suddenly up and drop insurance once a penalty for doing so is put into place? Answer: they won't since they're still competing for the best workers.

 

What a failed straw man argument.

[yo mama]

You "do not believe"? Don't you know? Why wouldn't you want to clarify this before you start taking positions based upon your unfounded assumptions? Have you still not gone to the ACA and at least performed a search of the pdf and seen the language of the document referring to this?

 

I have given thoughtful consideration to your points. Yes, I have searched the ACA - I did not see anything that would prohibit private insurers from charging higher premiums to people with prexisting conditions. That was what led to my assumptions in the first place (meaning they were not "founded"). But I agree that I could understand this law better. I am very curious to know how it works.

 

Further research revealed that part of the new law is the "Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan." If you qualify, your premiums cannot be more because of preexisting medical conditions. However, only about half the states participate in this program. And the following eligibility requirements apply in the states that do participate:

• You must be a citizen or national of the United States or reside in the U.S. legally.

• You must have been without health coverage for at least the last 6 months. If you currently have insurance coverage that doesn’t cover your medical condition or are enrolled in a state high risk pool, you are not eligible for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.

• You must have a pre-existing condition or have been denied health coverage because of your health condition

 

Therefore, it will be difficult - but not impossible - for people to try and scam the system by waiting for medical conditions to arise before applying for insurance without paying higher premiums.

 

If you have more credible sources of informaiton I would be happy to take a look at them.

[westvirginia]

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

 

Click on the next to the last block of the 2014 section and this is what comes up:

 

No Discrimination Due to Pre-Existing Conditions or Gender

 

Effective January 1, 2014

The law implements strong reforms that prohibit insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage or renew policies because of an individual’s pre-existing conditions. Also, in the individual and small group market, it eliminates the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to gender or health status.

Learn more about protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions

[yo mama]

http://www.healthcar...v/law/timeline/

 

Click on the next to the last block of the 2014 section and this is what comes up:

 

Excellent! Thank you for providing useful information.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I'm curious about this: why, if companies aren't penalized for not providing health insurance - in other words if they pull their plans today there is no fine - will they suddenly up and drop insurance once a penalty for doing so is put into place? Answer: they won't since they're still competing for the best workers.

 

What a failed straw man argument.

 

 

I tend to agree. I think an argument could be made that some figure Obamacare is going to force insurers to jack up their rates so high that employers will be forced to drop coverage and pay the penalty. I don't have any data to back up that argument as a legitimately one but that be where that argument is coming from.